◆ SpookStack

commented, | a on it. ‘He. said the Supreme Court has ruled. that. when. CG 92-677 STEFANOWICZ attacked WARD's prosecutor, JOHN. STAMOS, for failure to bring in “even one disinterested witness out of the 150 witnesses: who might’ have substantiated: the state's evidence, He referred to the audience at the performance and said that if even one of them had testified for the. state, he would have found the dancers guilty. "Phat would be a ridiculous situation," WARD’ "These people were patrons of an exhibition of _. obscenity and perversion. And we are to use such witnesses? When we bring in witnesses, we vouch for their credibility." SWANSON said that discounting testimony of — policemen on the ground that they are not disinterested would set up e Situation in which "the only believable 03% witness then would be one who was indifferent to morality or to the enforcement of the law." _ Lee He added, “It seems strange indeed that the testimony of persons who paid to watch what police: found=: . to be an illegal and indecent performance should be preferred to that of the officers themselves, whose only motive | appeared to have been performing their duty." SWANSON asserted that the patrons. could:hardly: be described as "disinterested" because they had"paid™ ~~ money to watch the performance. He also said that the _. defense failed to bring in a single one of thel50 patrons to refute the police accusations of lewdness .., Judge STEFANOWICZ replied last night that SWANSON | had not been in court during the trial and” suggested that SWANSON study the transcript. of the case. before. commenting .. conflicting testimony creates a reasonable doubt the ‘court’ has no choice but to find the defendants ‘not ‘guilty J