Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 25.pdf/27

 18

The Green Bag

April 18. On April 24, District Attor ney Attwill said the cases would be tried at the session then sitting at Salem. The defendants pleaded not guilty to the indictments May 17, be fore Judge Brown at Salem, and the case was continued until May 20. This delay in finding an indictment and in setting an early date for trial after indictment is not unusual under our leisurely system of procedure, but the defendants might have had their . trial last May had they desired it, instead of making their long detention in jail the basis of socialistic propaganda. On May 20 before Judge McLaughlin, who relieved Judge Brown, Attorney John P. S. Mahoney of Lawrence, for the defendants, argued for a continu ance. He said he had not had sufficient time to prepare the case as the indict ments were not returned until late in April, and that his associate counsel was in a hospital. As the indictments had been returned a whole month pre viously, it seems hardly conceivable that he had not had time to familiarize himself with the case. District Attorney Attwill said that he was constantly in receipt of letters from socialistic organizations asking for a speedy trial, and said he was willing to proceed at once. He requested that, should the cases be continued, they go over to September, as he did not care to try them in hot weather. He said that he was willing to go on at once, but if the defense wanted more time he was willing to grant it. The court then allowed the continuance. The postpone ment of the cases until the fall was thus the defendants' own doing. They could have had the trial in May. On Sept. 9, at a conference held by the court, District Attorney Attwill and counsel for the defendants, Sept. 30 was set for the opening of the trial.

A week before the opening of the trial, the defendants asked for a bill of par ticulars, the motion being vigorously opposed by the District Attorney, who said they had had a transcript of the evidence last April and should not have delayed the demand for the bill. Judge Quinn of the Superior Court ordered the bill of particulars furnished to the defense. The evils of delay in empaneling a jury are not often seen in a worse light than in this trial. Five days were con sumed in the selection of the jury, two venires of 350 talesmen each being found necessary. The state and the three defendants availed themselves of most of their peremptory challanges, 66 on each side, but a larger number of tales men were excused because of their opinions. Notwithstanding the extent to which public opinion was aroused, the selection of twelve impartial men should have been less difficult. It cost the county $6,000 to secure a jury. The difficulty of getting a jury re sulted in a delay of two weeks after the third day, before the second lot of veniremen were examined, and on Oct. 9 the defendants, complaining that only four jurors had been secured, urged that they be admitted to bail. The releasing of the defendants in capital cases on bail is a matter of discretion with the trial justice. On Oct. 10 the court re fused bail. On Oct. 15 the panel was completed. The taking of evidence in the trial at Salem began on Oct. 16, and lasted until Nov. 19. The state called no fewer than eighty-seven witnesses, resting its case on Nov. 2. Final arguments to the jury began Nov. 19, after Ettor had been given considerable time to present his own evidence on the witness stand. On Saturday, the 23d, Ettor and Giovannitti both delivered impassioned pleas to