Ford Detectives Meddling with Case, Prejudice Jury, Sapiro’s Counsel Charges

(Jewish Daily Bulletin)

A second motion for mistrial on the ground of alleged misconduct of a juror will be made by Henry Ford’s counsel in the $1,000,000 libel suit against him by Aaron Sapiro, it became known today. The motion will be made next Thursday morning, Stewart Hanley of Ford counsel told Judge Fred M. Raymond in requesting a continuance until then because of the illness of Senator James A. Reed, chief of Ford counsel.

Hanley did not state his reason for the mistrial motion in open court, but later said : “We will move for a mistrial on the grounds of misconduct of a juror.”

It was understood that one of the six women on the jury was called into Judge Raymond’s office last night and questioned about reports of an investigation made by detectives for the Ford organization.

William Henry Gallagher, chief of counsel for Sapiro, in an address to the court, assailed the Ford counsel and charged that Ford detectives were meddling with the case in an effort to prejudice the jury.

Gallagher referred to “fear of the collapse of the Ford case,” asserted that Ford detectives had lined the corridors of the Federal building since the inception of the trial and frequently had been seen in conference with jurors, and stated also that twice Judge Raymond had received members of Ford counsel in his private chambers while Sapiro’s counsel was excluded.

Mrs. William Hoffman, the eleventh juror to be chosen, was brought before Judge Raymond last night by George H. Beamer, Deputy United States Marshal, acting as chief officer of the court during the trial. She was interrogated by the Judge for forty-five minutes upon reports made to him by Ford counsel, who in turn had them from Ford detectives.

In explaining his refusal to agree to some other of Ford counsel continuing with the cross-examination of Sapiro, which Senator Reed had conducted fourteen days, Gallagher said to the court:

“We do not want the defense to have any pretense or claim that they were injured in the defense of this case through the untimely illness of Senator Reed. We prefer to have the case stand over until the man in charge of the matter may himself be upon the ground so there will be no alibi or excuse for the collapse of the defense just because the man in charge could not carry on.”

C. B. Longley, head of legal counsel for the Ford Motor Company, objected strenuously to Gallagher’s reference to “collapse of the defense,” and the jury was hurriedly dismissed for continuation of the argument.

Longley contended for striking the objectionable phrase from the record and Gallagher said:

“Perhaps the defense cannot collapse, when it never has been maintained, so I may be wrong in that respect.”

“Now if the Court please, as your Honor has no doubt been aware, as everybody else has been aware, since this case has been in progress, the intelligence department of the Ford Motor Company has been very greatly represented in the court room and the corridors of this building,” resumed Gallagher. “They have had a large number of their representatives circulating not merely among the spectators but among the jury, and instances have been reported to us where these men were talking with the jury, whether to learn the jury’s attitude or to influence the jury’s attitude we don’t know; but we do feel that it is the duty of the court to instruct the counsel for defendants that they instruct all of their detectives to scrupulously refrain from contact with these jurors, either for the purpose of demanding their state of mind or influencing their state of mind, in conversations with them. That is a matter that is nothing short of contempt of court.”

Judge Raymond denied any misconduct on the court’s part. As regards Gallagher’s charge that Ford detectives were meddling with the case in an effort to influence the jurors, Judge Raymond said:

“Should the slightest information come to the court of any conversation with the jury, that any one has attempted to converse with a juror upon any subject connected with the trial, and should any juror come to the court with any information that tends in that direction the court will take very prompt action.”