Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Claudia Jones — Part 1
Page 52
52 / 115
NY 100-81752
On December 19, 1952, Judge DIMOCK denied defendants!
motions for @ judgement of acquittal, for further investigation
of the jurors, and for a mistrial.
On Januery 5, 1953, Judge DIMOCK denied a hearing on
defendants! offer of proof on the issue of clear and present
danger. dudge DIMOCK also denied a hearing requested by
defendants on the issue of the unconstitutionality of the Smith
act.
Defendants' summations to the jury were begun on
January 5, 1953 and were completed on January 13, 1953.
ihe Government's summation was made by Special
Assistant to the United States attorney DAVID L. MARKS on
Januery 13 through January 15, 1953.
On January 14, 1953, dudre DINOCK denied defendants!
motion for mistrial on the ground of inflammatory references
in the Government's summation with respect to current events
in the Soviet Union, Defense Counsel meTuev.k having claimed that
MARKS had identified defendants with rewspaper reports of alleged
anti-Semitism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Judge
DIMOCK also denied defendants' motion for a mistrial on the
grounds that the Government summation mis-stated the record
when Special Assistant to the United States Attorney MARKS said
that defendant CHARNEY'S militery record did not disclose his
true employment, listing him only as an “organizer,”
On January 15, 1953, Judge DIMOCK charged the jury
and defendants filed objection to the charge. The case was
submitted to the jury on January 15, 1953, which deliberated
until January 21, 1953, 7m which date a verdict of guilty as
charged was returned against all defendants. All defendants
were remanded to the custody of the United States marshal.
7.
ty
oe
% time
On January 30, 1953, Judge DIMOCK denied defendants!
motions for an order arresting judgment on the ground that the
indictment was deficient, and for a judgment of acquittal or,
in the alternative, for an order granting a new trial.
aie
er a
=~ 34 -
Re rr ge a SE A Re a
Reveal the original PDF page, then click a word to highlight the OCR text.
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic