The Press: After Flemington

From Jan. 2 to Feb. 13, 1935, the State of New Jersey was engaged at Flemington in trying Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr. Concessionnaires sold to the 60,000 daily sightseers 10¢ replicas of the kidnap ladder, reporters adjourned to Nellie’s Tap Room, after filing a million words daily, to sing a parody of the German Schnitzel-bank song about the ransom note and the baby’s sleeping garment, and Edward J. Reilly took the defense with small chance of pay because “it’s a criminal lawyer’s dream of a case.” To millions of decent U. S. citizens the Flemington trial seemed more like a nightmare, and fortnight ago, after long study, a committee of 18 leading U. S. editors, publishers and lawyers agreed that it was “the most spectacular and depressing example of improper publicity and professional misconduct ever presented to the people of the United States. . . .”

In January 1936 Lawyer Newton Diehl Baker was appointed by the American Bar Association chairman of a committee of lawyers to meet with a committee of editors (under Stuart Perry of the Adrian, Mich. Telegram) and a committee of publishers (under Paul Bellamy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer) to “agree upon standards of publicity of judicial proceedings and methods of obtaining an observance of them. . . .” The 18 members met twice, communicated often. Groundwork for the final report, considered at the A. B. A. convention at Kansas City this week, was a report which the A. B. A.’s Special Committee on Publicity in Criminal Trials prepared (but never released) as a result of political complications ensuing from the Hauptmann trial. The half-dozen recommendations which formed the nub of this week’s report, therefore, while studiously avoiding any direct reference to the doings at Flemington, evoked strong recollections of that amazing case as point by point the committee implied a well-known horrible example for each reform proposed:

At Flemington, Sheriff John H. Curtiss packed newsmen into the stuffy courtroom like cordwood, accepting “donations” of $5 and $10 for seats.

Recommendation in this week’s report to the A. B. A.: “That attendance in the court room during the progress of a criminal trial be limited to the seating capacity of the room.”

At Flemington, officials of high and low degree paid off social and political obligations by obtaining courtroom passes for the curious.

Recommendation: “That the process of subpoena or any other process of the court should never be used to secure preferential admission of any person or spectator; that such abuse of process be punished as contempt.”

At Flemington, defense and prosecution rehearsed each night for the benefit of the press. Detailed previews of the trial’s every legal move were on every U. S. newspaper front page the next morning before court convened.

Recommendation: “That broadcasting of arguments, giving out of argumentative press bulletins, and every other form of argument or discussion addressed to the public by lawyers in the case during the progress of the litigation be definitely forbidden.”

At Flemington, defense counsel lost no time announcing that it would appeal on 16 points including Judge Thomas Whitaker Trenchard’s “misleading” charge to the jury.

Recommendation: “That public criticism of the court or jury by lawyers in the case during the progress of the litigation be not tolerated.”

The Flemington jurors received $300-a-week vaudeville offers after the trial.

Recommendation: “That featuring in vaudeville of jurors or other court officers, either during or after the trial, be forbidden. . . .”

At Flemington court attendants winked while a camera was concealed in the gallery to take newsreels.

Recommendation: “That the use of cameras in the courtroom should be only with the knowledge and approval of the trial judge and the consent of counsel for the accused in criminal cases and of counsel for both parties in civil cases.”

This recommendation regarding picture-taking provided the one discordant note in the committee’s report. After the report was printed, says a stapled addendum, “a divergence of recollection” arose on this topic. No surprise to newspapermen was this divergence when Managing Editor Harvey Deuell of the New York News was revealed as an active participant in the discussions. The News alternately practices and impugns every bravura trick of modern tabloid journalism and would suffer greatly unless the picture strictures were eased. Other members of the newspaper committees also thought the original recommendation an “excessively drastic restriction.” Accordingly the amended report would require only the approval of the trial judge.

No judge ever won wider approval for conducting a trial with dignity and fairness than solemn, paternal Judge Trenchard. The A. B. A. committee report does not imply otherwise, is more concerned with the antics which go on outside the courtroom and beyond the judge’s normal jurisdiction. To keep trials decent outside as well as inside, the report concludes: “This committee is clear that if local bar associations would resolutely enforce the obvious and known requirements of the code of professional ethics upon the lawyers who are subject to the disciplinary actions of the Bar, a very substantial part of the most glaring evils of improper publicity would be overcome.”