◆ SpookStack

Pot en mbes Basen ee ge 1. whemepshe weeks brace * 4 i 7 whee ; t if if “in the narae Of the District At-( torney in and for the Southern District of- Massachusetts, and -the Medical Examiner in and) for-Dukes Courity, Mass., and sets forth that an inquest will convene on Sept. 3, 1969, in Dukes County, Mass., inquiring into the: facts surrounding the Boyile’s: -rujings ‘and actions by the Supreme Court, was based on two points. One was that Kennedy was being deprived of his Constitutional rights by the refusal of Judge Boyle to allow him, at an inquest, the safe- guards granted to lawyers and Clients at a criminal proceeding. “The other was that massive pre- Anquest publicity had caused ir- Temediable -harm.to the. senator. though Reardon reported death of Mary Jo Kopechne. . “This certainly suggests that rather than a civil nature, “In view of this, one is. con- the inquiry here (on the au- topsy petition) is of a criminal a ‘criminal investigation was ‘a right created by Taw said there is no“ law that gives . . a Pennsylvania court the ‘au- : thority to order one -in these -circumstances: . . 20 7 Brominski cited several prece- . dents, which he said clearly es, tablished the inherent ‘ powers of the courts. to “consider and determine the -issues inv olved fhereiti,” and-he added: . E “It is -equally’ clear that a. court in the exercise of its.dis- cretion is not reluctant to grant “the issues to the full bench: of the court for a rulin, it is not expected that a° hearing - can be held by the seven justices un- -til_next month; since the Court -does not begin its fall session until, Oct. 6. ° ‘[Brominski’s decision, been awaited for several days, . Since“lawyers representing Mr. and. Mrs. Joseph Kopechne of Berkeley Heights, N.J., asked him to dismiss Dinis’ petition for the autopsy.- > Brominski walked into’ his. ‘courttom at 11 am, and hand- ed, copies -of his nine-page rul-]. ing to a waitin horde of news- men, saying: ~ “entlemen, I have cop! es of the -decision. I prefer not to have questions. on the ramifica- tions -of the decision ‘or any- thing else,” On the first Kopechne claim, that. his court did not have au- thority in the case, Brominski ruled: -- ‘While the petition for an ‘exhumation and autopsy does ‘hot name a criminal defendant, 0. ven had. ' } pute, the cause: 6f dé strained to conclude that as be~ tween the -Criminal, Equity, . and Ohphans’ Court Divisions of the Court of Common Pleas: of Luzerne’ County, the Crim- inal Division’ is the most ap- propriate ‘Division to resolve the isues, herein.” ~ ‘On’ the second * Kopechne claim, that the petition collateral attack on Dr. and that-a legal’ determination | made"'in‘one state, MAssacliu- “setts; * dannot | be’ collaterally attacked in another, Broimin- ski declared:- ..¢ - “The: ‘petition .-does- not ‘dis- ath'as de: términed- by. Dr. “Donald Mills: Thus, this court does not. kno‘¥ at thig*time: thé intention .of the- Massachusetts authorities in this regard, or what: ‘proofs | will, be offered at the” hearing. ’ we ” “Accordingly, this’ court -can-- not speculate as to a possible collateral aifack on Dr, Mills’ determination, and. therefore it cannot be- considered vat this timez.” - ‘right. to gonduct an autopsy in | i “Mins | fe district attorriey had set ‘forth that Mary Jo was buried in | an exhumation and autopsy in & proper case; but it cannot iniclligently exercise its: dis.” cretion until it ‘has before’ it facts of record.” Only on the fourth claim aid he sustain the position of 3 Mary Jo’s family. He noted that in Dinig’ petition forthe autopsy ‘Larksville, that’ ari inqtiest ‘into. cr death, was pending, and its: purpose’ "NaS" ‘ to. * ‘determine “whether or not there..is: any; . ‘V sufficient reason to beliévé the’ sudden death of Mary Jo. Ko~ pechné may have resulted from ‘the act of negligence. of a person or persons ot ‘her> than the- cag ' wee -. standing: céased,””- He noted, too, that Dinis main- “tainéd”™ -an . Jaiitopsy * *would “be ‘nedded: “in order -that the-cir- ‘cumstances of ‘death be ‘clearly established and the: doubt .and |. suspicion “surrounditig the: death. -be resolved.” “-.° “| Ga: péhding inquest: in: another The‘ third claim’ by. he Ko: ate“that a crime. has! pechne lawycrs..was ‘that the :been committed, it is brought! jurisdiction does not:afford- this court. the opportunity of weigh- ing the right of.the parents to ~have their daughter’s corps re-, é amain ‘undisturbed as against'the.| - ee aa AT ane BON ee public interest. in. thet adminis: jration” OF Justice.’ ” Brominsii said 22, ree ote “The ‘Kopeches may, have no ‘in -the inquest,. bit; most certainly can exercise thier right to be heard at the céedings,” he declared. exhumation ‘and autopsy pro- He found fault with the claim, | ‘made. before him last week by Asst.’ Dist, Atty: Armand Fer-| ‘nandes, -Jt.,.who {§ Dinis’ chief} ‘aide, that: “tha fact_that an ine! quest ig being held ‘is Sufficient fact alone to jus tify the autopsy.” ve oe “There: ‘vas “Brominski. said, at L t thnead “of inconsistency” ‘in ‘that: rédsoning, in that it would {deny him’ the’ exercise of his -diseretion‘as-a judge. on - Whether to -grant permission for. the autopsy. - Further, he declared, Dinis thad asked in his petition that Mary Jo’s parents be notified that hé was seeking an autopsy. é x “If it is seriously argued that an autopsy automatically eFesults when an inquest is con- fducted, what useful purpose “has it served to give. notice to - the Kopechnes,” the judge asked. set ait be a vain‘act, . Or. in’ ‘fact. tan amoun fo no-