Evening star., 1954-10-22
Not Guilty


jury stood up in District criminal
court two days ago and announced that
Police Lieutenant H. H. Carper and Detec-
tive Sergeant william L. Taylor were not
guilty Of accepting bribes from dope ped
dlers How, in the face of the evidence, or
rather what the layman thinks Of as evi-
dence, did this come about?
There Is no purpose here to quarrel
with the verdict on the evidence that was
put before the jurors. Nor is there any
reason to suppose that the reported att
tempts to tamper with the jury had any
influence. The jurors simply did not believe
the largely uncorroborated testimony of a
string of prosecution witnesses s-dope ped
dlers, prostitutes and confessed liars being
among them Although the defendants
both police of1cers-e1ected not to take the
stand in their own defense (the law con-
fers upon them the right to remain silent
In the face Of accusation) the jury pre-
sumably concluded that at least reason
able doubt as to their guilt had been raised
by the testimony of character witnesses
and similar defense evidence. At any rate.
it was not even necessary for these men to
take the witness chair and deny, under
oath, that they had accepted thousands of
dollars in bribes to protect the lowest form
Of criminal life-dope peddlers.
If this were the whole story, there
would be nothing more to say. But it is
not quite the end Back in the spring Of
1852 much the same evidence was being
put before Senate committee Investigate
ing crime in the District. But there were
some very important differences, especially
In Lieutenant Carper's case.
Before that committee, as in the GRIM
inal trial, dope peddlers swore that Lieu
tenant Carper had been paid thousands of
dollars for protection. Mr.. Carper on that oc-
casion did not remain silent. He denied that
he had taken any bribes. But the commit
tee counsel proved that in 1948 and in
part of 1949 the police officer deposited
$4,145 in his private checking account in
an Arlington bank. The time corresponded
roughly with the period in which the prin-
cipal witness against Lieutenant Carper said
he paid cash bribes. In 1948, Lieutenant Car
per made 13 deposits ranging in amount
from $100 to $500 and totalling $2,735-all in
cash. After much hemming and having
he finally told the committee: "I have no
idea where it (the cash) came FROM" In
the first nine months of 1949 there were
seven cash deposits totaling $1,410. This
was not money derived from his police
salary, for all of his pay checks from Janu-
ary /, 1947, to October 1, 1851, with three
exceptions, were deposited in his wife's
account. It did not come from any other
revealed source of income. And Lieutenant
Carper, If he has any explanation of the
source of these cash deposits almost equal
ling his police salary, has yet to come for
ward and make the disclosure publicly,
under oath.
Getting back to the criminal trial, this
is the sort of thing which, to the layman,
seems like pretty damaging evidence. It
might tend to corroborate the testimony
Of the dope peddler that he paid out cash
bribes to Mr.. Carper. Why is It, then, that
the prosecuting attorney did not offer the
bank records and the Carper testimony
before the Senate committee in evidence
at the District Court trial?
The answer, briefly stated, is that this
evidence probably is not admissible in a
criminal case. There is law-the So
called immunity statute-which says that
testimony given by a witness before a con-
gressional committee cannot be used
against him in criminal proceeding,
except In a prosecution for perjury. But,
IL may be asked, now does this apply to
the bank deposits? Why could not those
bank records be put before the jury?
The answer is found in line of appel
late decisions coming to head in the
reversal by the United States Court Of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia Of the
recent gambling conviction of Charles E.
Nelson. The prosecutor in the Carper case
was afraid that the Court of Appeals, under
the law as announced in the Nelson deci-
sion, would reverse conviction Of the
police officer, assuming that conviction
might have been obtained on the basis of
the corroborative evidence of the bank
records.
The Nelson decision is a disputed one.
A majority of the appellate judges did not
rely on the immunity statute, but held
that the Senate committee investigating
the Nelson case obtained gambling rec
ords from Nelson by what amounted to
an unconstitutional search and Seizure.
This was sharply disputed by dissenting
Judge Barrett Prettyman. He said that
tive ought not to spin out search and
seizure where none exists LII fact" And he
quoted from an opinion In another case by
the late Supreme Court Justice Jackson,
II