DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970 | 1970-12-31 Iowa City Press-Citizen Article: ""Plea Rejected, Mass Trial Will Be Held as Scheduled"" Page 1

Transcribe
Translate

University of Iowa anti-war protests, 1970

1970-12-31 Iowa City Press-Citizen Article: ""Plea Rejected, Mass Trial Will Be Held as Scheduled"" Page 1

P. C    1 (of 2)
12/31/70

Plea Rjected, Mass Trial
Will Be Held as Scheduled
By MARK F. ROHNER
Of the Press-Citizen
A mass trial of 210 persons arrested in last spring's campus demonstration will be held as planned Monday, Police Judge Joseph Thornton decided in rulings made this morning.
Thornton overruled three defense motions, found moot a fourth and sustained a city motion.
Defense motions overruled asked for separate trials of the 210, challenged signatures on informations filed against the defendants and called "unconstitutional for vagueness and over breadth" a city ordinance on disorderly conduct the defendants are accused of violating.
The city motion sought to amend the informations by detailing the disorderly conduct charges. The fourth defense motion on which Thornton made no ruling asked for a "bill of particulars" on the charges. Thornton said that motion was moot in view of the city motion.
At a hearing on the motions Wednesday morning, defense lawyers Joseph Johnston and J. Newman Toomey argued that the mass trial would "work an undue and unnecessary burden on defendants" by making it difficult to prepare a defense for each of the 210 accused.
They also challenged the informations filed against the 210, claiming "the defendants cannot reasonably be expected to prepare a defense when they have not been informed of the specific acts alleged to have been committed" and said that the informations are unreliable because some were not signed by eyewitnesses.
City Atty. Jay Honohan, in the motion sustained today, sought to amend the original informations, which accused each defendant of "conducting self in a disorderly manner," to read "conducting self in an offensive manner by continuing to congregate with a large group of persons at a time when congregations of large groups of persons could and had provoked breaches of the peace and said defendants refused to leave the area of the Pentacrest . . . all at approximately 2 a.m."
Tht amendment, Honohan

TRIAL Turn to Page 2A

Saving...

P. C 1 (of 2) 12/31/70 Plea Rjected, Mass Trial Will Be Held as Scheduled By MARK F. ROHNER Of the Press-Citizen A mass trial of 210 persons arrested in last spring's campus demonstration will be held as planned Monday, Police Judge Joseph Thornton decided in rulings made this morning. Thornton overruled three defense motions, found moot a fourth and sustained a city motion. Defense motions overruled asked for separate trials of the 210, challenged signatures on informations filed against the defendants and called "unconstitutional for vagueness and over breadth" a city ordinance on disorderly conduct the defendants are accused of violating. The city motion sought to amend the informations by detailing the disorderly conduct charges. The fourth defense motion on which Thornton made no ruling asked for a "bill of particulars" on the charges. Thornton said that motion was moot in view of the city motion. At a hearing on the motions Wednesday morning, defense lawyers Joseph Johnston and J. Newman Toomey argued that the mass trial would "work an undue and unnecessary burden on defendants" by making it difficult to prepare a defense for each of the 210 accused. They also challenged the informations filed against the 210, claiming "the defendants cannot reasonably be expected to prepare a defense when they have not been informed of the specific acts alleged to have been committed" and said that the informations are unreliable because some were not signed by eyewitnesses. City Atty. Jay Honohan, in the motion sustained today, sought to amend the original informations, which accused each defendant of "conducting self in a disorderly manner," to read "conducting self in an offensive manner by continuing to congregate with a large group of persons at a time when congregations of large groups of persons could and had provoked breaches of the peace and said defendants refused to leave the area of the Pentacrest . . . all at approximately 2 a.m." Tht amendment, Honohan TRIAL Turn to Page 2A