DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, January-April 1971 | 1971-01-06 Daily Iowan Article: """"Toomey: 210 Trial Hinges on Jan. 11 Hearing""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, January-April 1971

1971-01-06 Daily Iowan Article: """"Toomey: 210 Trial Hinges on Jan. 11 Hearing""

DI  1/6/71
Legal Maneuvering By Defense Attorneys—
Toomey: 210 Trial Hinges 
on Jan. 11 Hearing
By Debbie Romine
DI Assoc. City-University Editor
  The delayed trial of 210 people arrested on disorderly conduct charges here last May can take one of several new directions, depending heavily upon the outcome of a Jan. 11 hearing, defense attorney J. Newman Toomey said Tuesday.
  The hearing is to be held before a district court judge, presumably Judge Ansel Chapman, who earlier overruled the Iowa City Police Court in issuing a continuance for half the defendants and who originally scheduled the hearing.
  At the hearing, the judge is to consider whether he will grant a writ of certiorari, which would authorize a review of pretrial proceedings. If the judge determines it proper to issue the writ, another hearing on the merits of the writ itself must be scheduled, according to Toomey.

  Legal Defense attorneys Toomey and Joseph Johnston, who represent about half of the 210 defendants, have asked for the judicial review of Iowa City Police Court Judge Joseph Thornton's denial of four defense motions and a bid to have the city's disorderly conduct ordinance, under which all defendants are charged, to be declared unconstitutional.
  On Dec. 21, Thornton overruled a defense motion asking for a continuance of the trials on the  grounds that the attorneys did not have a complete description of the city's charges and that they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense without that information and without most of their clients, who had left the city during the holidays.
  The mass trial was scheduled for Monday but was postponed indefinitely when requests for continuance were granted to Johnston and Toomey's clients and then to any of the defendants requesting it. No defendants requested a Monday trial.
  On Dec. 29, defense attorneys filed three motions, one asking for a bill of particulars outling specific charge leveled by the city, and another charging that information forms submitted as evidence for the prosecution were not signed by eyewitnesses to the May arrests.
  In response, City Attorney Jay Honohan amended the original informations, which charged the defendants with "conducting self in a disorderly manner" to "conducting self in an offensive manner by continuing to congregate with a large group of persons at a time when large groups of persons could and had provoked breaches of the peace. . ." Honohan said he found no precedent for information forms having to be signed by eyewitnesses.
  Another motion on the same day requested separate trials for the defendants on the grounds that the evidence was not shown to be the same in all cases - a point which Honohan said the defense had not proven.
  In another legal maneuver, defense attorneys challenged the constitutionality of the city's disorderly conduct ordinance, claiming that the ordinance is "unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth."
  All three motions and the charge of unconstitutionality were overruled.
  If the writ is granted Jan. 11, the subsequent hearing will probably focus on the issues of constitutionality and the plea for severance of the cases, Toomey said.
  If the city's ordinance is ruled unconstitutional, all cases will be dismissed. If the ordinance is found constitutional, the defendants will be tried separately or in mass by the police court.
  There, Thornton could dismiss the cases on motion after hearing the city's evidence; by issuing a "not guilty" verdict; or upon request from the prosecuting attorney, Toomey said.
  But, if the defendants are tried and found guilty, an appeal to district court for "trial de novo" - a completely new trial disregarding the police court proceedings - will be in order for the 210, he said. From there, appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court or to a federal court could be possible.
  Fifteen defendants arrested with the 210 have been severed from the group and are to be tried individually at as yet unscheduled times.

Saving...

DI 1/6/71 Legal Maneuvering By Defense Attorneys— Toomey: 210 Trial Hinges on Jan. 11 Hearing By Debbie Romine DI Assoc. City-University Editor The delayed trial of 210 people arrested on disorderly conduct charges here last May can take one of several new directions, depending heavily upon the outcome of a Jan. 11 hearing, defense attorney J. Newman Toomey said Tuesday. The hearing is to be held before a district court judge, presumably Judge Ansel Chapman, who earlier overruled the Iowa City Police Court in issuing a continuance for half the defendants and who originally scheduled the hearing. At the hearing, the judge is to consider whether he will grant a writ of certiorari, which would authorize a review of pretrial proceedings. If the judge determines it proper to issue the writ, another hearing on the merits of the writ itself must be scheduled, according to Toomey. Legal Defense attorneys Toomey and Joseph Johnston, who represent about half of the 210 defendants, have asked for the judicial review of Iowa City Police Court Judge Joseph Thornton's denial of four defense motions and a bid to have the city's disorderly conduct ordinance, under which all defendants are charged, to be declared unconstitutional. On Dec. 21, Thornton overruled a defense motion asking for a continuance of the trials on the grounds that the attorneys did not have a complete description of the city's charges and that they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense without that information and without most of their clients, who had left the city during the holidays. The mass trial was scheduled for Monday but was postponed indefinitely when requests for continuance were granted to Johnston and Toomey's clients and then to any of the defendants requesting it. No defendants requested a Monday trial. On Dec. 29, defense attorneys filed three motions, one asking for a bill of particulars outling specific charge leveled by the city, and another charging that information forms submitted as evidence for the prosecution were not signed by eyewitnesses to the May arrests. In response, City Attorney Jay Honohan amended the original informations, which charged the defendants with "conducting self in a disorderly manner" to "conducting self in an offensive manner by continuing to congregate with a large group of persons at a time when large groups of persons could and had provoked breaches of the peace. . ." Honohan said he found no precedent for information forms having to be signed by eyewitnesses. Another motion on the same day requested separate trials for the defendants on the grounds that the evidence was not shown to be the same in all cases - a point which Honohan said the defense had not proven. In another legal maneuver, defense attorneys challenged the constitutionality of the city's disorderly conduct ordinance, claiming that the ordinance is "unconstitutional for vagueness and overbreadth." All three motions and the charge of unconstitutionality were overruled. If the writ is granted Jan. 11, the subsequent hearing will probably focus on the issues of constitutionality and the plea for severance of the cases, Toomey said. If the city's ordinance is ruled unconstitutional, all cases will be dismissed. If the ordinance is found constitutional, the defendants will be tried separately or in mass by the police court. There, Thornton could dismiss the cases on motion after hearing the city's evidence; by issuing a "not guilty" verdict; or upon request from the prosecuting attorney, Toomey said. But, if the defendants are tried and found guilty, an appeal to district court for "trial de novo" - a completely new trial disregarding the police court proceedings - will be in order for the 210, he said. From there, appeals to the Iowa Supreme Court or to a federal court could be possible. Fifteen defendants arrested with the 210 have been severed from the group and are to be tried individually at as yet unscheduled times.