know that this is true, but we know there was co-operation, the department and the attorney joined in placing a spy in the cell next to Sacco's, and the prosecution admitted the fact in court.
Now as to Madeiros: A criminal with a bad record, true, and under sentence of death. But the government relied in part on one of his confessions to convict him of a murder. His evidence was accepted against himself when his own life was at stake. His evidence now is offered in behalf of two other men whose lives also are at stake. We submit that Madeiros should be placed on the stand in open court, facing a jury and a judge, and subjected to examination and cross-examination. He may be lying, but the criterion here is not what a judge may think about it but what a jury might think about it. The question is—Would the new evidence be a real factor with a jury in reaching a decision?
We submit that doubt is cast on the verdict of the jury by the important affidavit made after the trial by Capt. C. H. Proctor of the state police. On the stand, testifying as an expert, his evidence was understood by the jury and the judge to be that the fatal bullet issued from Sacco's pistol. Careful examination of the record discloses curious facts. Capt. Proctor did not here reply to direct questions. His affidavit states what the record implies, that a device was fixed up in advance for dodging direct answer to a direct question. His replies were understood to mean that he believed the bullet came from that weapon. He allowed that impression to go abroad. But his affidavit contradicts that testimony. Now when the supreme court dealt with that point it expressed no opinion as to whether or not an "ambiguous answer" had been arranged to "obtain a conviction." The court ruled only that the trial judge had decided that no such pre-arrangement had been made, and that the supreme court could not "as matter of law" set aside the ruling of the trial judge.
For these and other reasons we hope that the resources of our laws will prove adequate to obtain a new trial. Let it be
