Fickert replied that he was ready to proceed with the matter. To this Judge Lawlor reiterated that the Court was not going to permit the District Attorney to proceed in the absence of a witness, who, according to the District Attorney’s own statement, was material.[464]
Nor did the earnest plea of attorneys for the defense for dismissal move Judge Lawlor. In the absence of the material witness, Gallagher, he continued the case, on the Court’s own motion, until April 25.[465]
On that date, Calhoun’s attorneys moved for dismissal of all the indictments pending against their client upon the ground that his trial had been postponed and continued for more than sixty days without his consent and over his objection and exception.
Fickert submitted the motion, fortifying it with a statement that he did not believe that the District Attorney’s office would be justified in asking continuance until Gallagher’s return.
Judge Lawlor postponed determination of the motion until July 14.[466] His ruling was announced on August 3.
Judge Lawlor went exhaustively into the situation presented.[467] He pointed out that a material and indispensable witness was absent from the State; he stated that the Court was called upon to intervene “because the District Attorney has at practically every turn followed the lead of these defendants”; he held that through the influence of unusual agencies, so far as the graft cases were concerned, the law had broken down, and that the crimes charged are of the most serious nature, “because such criminal activity tends to sap the very foundations of government”; he insisted that before the indictments should be finally disposed of every reasonable effort should be made to get at the truth of the situation.
“The disposition of grave charges other than on their merits,” he concluded, “is not to be encouraged and should not be allowed, except in the face of a strict legal necessity.” He continued the cases until August 29.
Stanley Moore, one of Calhoun’s attorneys, when Judge Lawlor had concluded, demanded that he be permitted to reply. This demand was refused.
There followed one of the most extraordinary scenes ever recorded of a court of justice. The defendant’s attorneys, the District Attorney, and even the prisoner at bar, openly and contemptuously defied the Judge on the bench.
Stanley Moore charged him with “doing politics from the bench that you stultify in your occupancy.” A. A. Moore, another of Calhoun’s lawyers, accused him of being “a partisan, a bitter partisan, and doing dirty politics.”