DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-12-23 Iowa City Press-Citizen Article: ""Honohan Hits Mass Trial Delay Plea""

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-12-23 Iowa City Press-Citizen Article: ""Honohan Hits Mass Trial Delay Plea""

12/23/70 
P-C

2A—Iowa City Press-Citien—W

Honohan Hits
Mass Trial 
Delay Plea
City Atty. Jay Honohan issued a statement this morning criticizing claims made in a defense motion to delay the mass trial of 212 persons charged with disorderly conduct in demonstrations at the University of Iowa last May.
Police Judge Joseph Thornton overruled the motion Monday.
Defense lawyers Joseph Johnston and J. Newman Toomey had asked that the trial—set last week for Jan. 4—be delayed until early February to give the defense time to prepare its case.
"They (the defense) have had since May 8, 1970, almost eight months which appears to be ample time" to prepare a case, Honohan said in his statement.
Johnston and Toomey claimed that because they did not know until the trial date was set whether the cases would be dismissed, "it has been impractical for defense attorneys to seriously prepare a defense."
Honohan said he was "amazed that they did not know until last week these cases were not to be dismissed and were to be tried.
"I know of n o one in the city administration who has ever said anything except that these cases are to be tried...This seems clear enough to me."
Honohan also rebutted the defense lawyers' claim that the city had failed to provide the defense with a "fact sheet" of evidence the city has against the defendants. Honohan had promised such a "fact sheet" to the defense in November.
However, the city attorney said, "the so-called act sheet was part of a two-way agreement. The defense attorneys were going to work towards a consolidation (of the trials) and I would help with the fact sheet.
"They didn't appear to do anything so I felt no need to show them my case. Their motion is novel in that they can't prepare for trial until I tell them my case."
Honohan also commented on discussion raised by the seven-month delay in setting the disorderly conduct cases for trial.
"As to the delay, Judge Neely (former Police Judge Marion R. Neely) did not want to set the trials for the summer because he knew complaint would be made that students (who make up much of the list of defendants ) were not here," Honohan said.
"Judge Thornton took over in September and in less than two weeks Judge Thornton and I were discussing the setting of these cases for trial. The first week in October I wrote several of the defense attorneys about getting these cases tried. I got very little response," he said.
"On November 18 the judge held a pre-trial conference with most of the defense attorneys about the trial. They were to report  back. We heard nothing and finally the judge set the cases for trial to dispose of these cases," the city attorney said.
"These cases," Honohan continued, "involve important considerations for both the community and th e defendants including constitutional points and arguments and it is in everyone's interest that they be disposed of. The defendants should want them disposed of. They have a right to a speedy trial and I wish the defense would join with the judge and the city in granting them a trial on the merits and their day in court."

Saving...

12/23/70 P-C 2A—Iowa City Press-Citien—W Honohan Hits Mass Trial Delay Plea City Atty. Jay Honohan issued a statement this morning criticizing claims made in a defense motion to delay the mass trial of 212 persons charged with disorderly conduct in demonstrations at the University of Iowa last May. Police Judge Joseph Thornton overruled the motion Monday. Defense lawyers Joseph Johnston and J. Newman Toomey had asked that the trial—set last week for Jan. 4—be delayed until early February to give the defense time to prepare its case. "They (the defense) have had since May 8, 1970, almost eight months which appears to be ample time" to prepare a case, Honohan said in his statement. Johnston and Toomey claimed that because they did not know until the trial date was set whether the cases would be dismissed, "it has been impractical for defense attorneys to seriously prepare a defense." Honohan said he was "amazed that they did not know until last week these cases were not to be dismissed and were to be tried. "I know of n o one in the city administration who has ever said anything except that these cases are to be tried...This seems clear enough to me." Honohan also rebutted the defense lawyers' claim that the city had failed to provide the defense with a "fact sheet" of evidence the city has against the defendants. Honohan had promised such a "fact sheet" to the defense in November. However, the city attorney said, "the so-called act sheet was part of a two-way agreement. The defense attorneys were going to work towards a consolidation (of the trials) and I would help with the fact sheet. "They didn't appear to do anything so I felt no need to show them my case. Their motion is novel in that they can't prepare for trial until I tell them my case." Honohan also commented on discussion raised by the seven-month delay in setting the disorderly conduct cases for trial. "As to the delay, Judge Neely (former Police Judge Marion R. Neely) did not want to set the trials for the summer because he knew complaint would be made that students (who make up much of the list of defendants ) were not here," Honohan said. "Judge Thornton took over in September and in less than two weeks Judge Thornton and I were discussing the setting of these cases for trial. The first week in October I wrote several of the defense attorneys about getting these cases tried. I got very little response," he said. "On November 18 the judge held a pre-trial conference with most of the defense attorneys about the trial. They were to report back. We heard nothing and finally the judge set the cases for trial to dispose of these cases," the city attorney said. "These cases," Honohan continued, "involve important considerations for both the community and th e defendants including constitutional points and arguments and it is in everyone's interest that they be disposed of. The defendants should want them disposed of. They have a right to a speedy trial and I wish the defense would join with the judge and the city in granting them a trial on the merits and their day in court."