Evening star., 1962-12-03
Objection Noted


It Is necessary to reply to
your November II editorial,
TOO Many Defendants?" I
can quite understand the
writer of the editorial relied
strictly on hearsay. We like to
feel that in a judicial proceed
ing the judge conducts him
self In Q manner conducive to
due process of law. BY and
large our judges in the
United States District Court
for the District Of Columbia
conduct themselves properly
- only on q few occasions
IN years past have judges
acted otherwise. Therefore,
the exception proves the rule.
Your editorial said:
Fifteen years ago one of
the longest. costliest, ghast-
heSt trials in American Judi
cial annals shuddered to q
close here. It was the mass
sedition case that had begun
3ia years earlier against 80
defendants charged with
conspiring to undermine
armed forces morale and set
up q Nail regime In this
country. When 1t began
(April II, 1s44), wartime
fervor was at a peak; every
man was q vigilante for the
cause; defendants Of every
stripe were rounded UP far
sand wide.
ut was not long before
Judge Edward C. Eicher
found he was presiding over
O Roman carnival Of ranting
defense lawyers, storming
defendants and relentless
prosecutors. This went on
for nearly eight months, dur
ing which time one defend
ant died, three others won
severances Then on
November 80, an exhausted
Judge Eicher died In his
sleep. 1t was the first peace
this conscientious jurtst,
hdving leaned oUer backward
to uphold the highest Judi
cidl standards. had known
since the trial began" (Ital-
les supplied0
The writer Of this letter
has firsthand knowledge Of
this case. He was in the
case day by day and was ex-
PEELED from the case because
he filed a petition for i'm
peachment against the pre-
siding Judge with the
Speaker of the House Of
Representatives,. Although
this took place some distance
from the Court House, never
theless he was expelled from
the case.
In the first place there
was no basis for the indict-
ment. These defendants,
some Of them misguided but
many Of them highly intelli-
gent, did two things. They
opposed the foreign policy Of
the administration and the
evidence brought out In some
instances anti-Jewish, anti
Catholic and anti Negro
literature had been dissemi-
mated. OF course we do not
prosecute people for publish
ing or disseminating anti
Jewish, anti-Catholic and
anti-Negro literature. Our
whole history supports the
theory that these intem-
perate outbursts from time
to time soon spend them
selves. II Is clearly no basis
for q criminal indictment.
We do not indict people for
opposing the foreign policy
OF an administration In
power. That is exactly what
was done In this case.
Regardless OF the above. II
will not be disputed that when
the trial got under way the
trial Judge refused TO have
the prosecuting witnesses
identified. He permitted only
10 challenges for 30 defend
ants-one-third of q chal-
lenge each. He refused 10 ex-
clude the prosecuting witness
ses from the room. In some
cases he restricted cross-ex-
animation 10 two minutes for
each defendant. and the most
flagrant Of all abuses oc-
CURED when he permitted
the prosecuting officers TO
visit his chambers each
morning from $3.50 till 10. He
would then 20 on the bench
q few minutes after 10 and
he would permit these same
prosecuting officials TO come
10 his chambers at the con-
clusion OF the Trial day
pm.-and remain In his
chambers until $3.50 pm, and
he coached the prosecuting
officials that under no cir
cumstances were they 10 re-
veal 10 any defendant or de-
Nas.Aasa saNat lz......f ...t..N ....