Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1963-06-06
Kardy Case


I have read with real con-
Germ, the stories in the press
concerning the unfortunate sit
uation in which Leonard
Hardy, Montgomery County's
fine States Attorney, has been
involved recently in connection
with a divorce action pending
in the District of Columbia.
This concern is based on a
number Of things, including
what I consider to be unfair
and slanted reporting (both in
The Sentinel and in The Wash
ington Post) but primarily
with what / am firmly con-
WINGED, Is unfair editorializing
In The Sentinel.
The editorial In your last
issue states, as a definite con-
clusion g.. conflict of interest
situations exist in the office
of the States Attorney. :"
You go on to say that the wife
in this case charged the man
with assault and battery and
that the States Attorney has
an obligation g. to prosecute
the man so long as the charge
remained on the book" You
further point out that" he
accepted as a private client the
wife who was trying to win a
divorce"
On this state of facts you
then discuss the dangers Of
mixing civil and criminal mat
tiers, and, incredibly, make the
statement that dismissal of
the assault and battery charges
could have been done properly
by the wife who brought it. It
would be unconscionable for a
prosecutor to do this or offer
to do it to aid his client"
Why didn't you bother to
find out that it was THE WIFE
who did In fact dismiss the
charges? Surely you knew that
the States Attorneys duty as
a prosecutor was to prosecute
the husband If the complain
ing witness-who swore out
the warrant-wanted the hus-
band prosecuted? What, then,
did "the prosecutor =. do :.
or offer to do to aid his
private client?" Where, then,
was the conflict of interest"
which you found to exist?
/ feel that you are also seri-
ously in error in your conclu-
sion as to what the DC. Judge
found" as to Mr.. Hardy. Leon
ard Hardy was not on trial in
the District of Columbia, and
the gratuitous comments of the
judge there were not findings
of fact" as to something Mr..
Hardy had or had not done. II
a reputable and responsible
member of the Bar of Mont
gomery County is to be found
guilty of the charges so intern
perately made, let 1t be done
by a competent tribunal after
all the facts are in, and the
defendant" has an opportu-
nifty to present his defense.
1t i'll becomes such a cham
pion of civil rights as The
Sentinel to be the one to con-
Wet on hearsay evidence with
out regard to the known or as
certainable facts, and without
hearing from the other party
involved. This you have APP
parently done, as evidenced by
your failure to ascertain who.
in fact. dismissed the charges
in question, as well as your
apparent unwillingness to I'M
derstand the true position of
the parties in such a case as
was involved.
AS to the matter of the re-
porting of the incident, 1t
seems to me that it would have
been appropriate for both The
Sentinel and The Washington
Post to mention, along with
Mr.. Kardy's possible punish
ment," the facts that the re-
marks Of a judge are "privi-
legged" under the laws of libel
and SANDER, and that the judge
in question has been reversed
on appeal in at least two recent
cases because of demonstrated
bias and prejudice in the con.
duct of the trial before him.
These are facts which could
have been ascertained and GER
tnlrnl.r nhnaila hnMA had na.,nA