◆ SpookStack

i Abn , (GLongie)“Zwilman on charges of| . ion began today| before Federal Judge Reynier J.| Wortenidyke Jr. . The court announced that be} _ Case the case was expected to} “take several weeks, and “because! this is the season of colds,’ he| had decided to take the unusua! step of choosing four alternate, jurors in addition to regular 12, The four alternates would serve in the event any regular jurors became ill or were otherwise dis- qualified. ‘willman, prohibition era figure who has been active in many fields since those days, is accused of evading payment of $46,100 in taxes for 1947. and .1948. He lives at 50 Beverly Rad. West Orange. ssp. | Whena i p.m recess was called Mak for lunch, = je defense and the government each had used two {peremptory challenges. The de- e is entitled to 10, and the Prosecution to six. . x Excused for Opinions x | Several prospective jurors were __ {excused by the court when they me. Said they had formed prejudicial Ea opinions about the case. One man was dismissed after he told the court that he had formed “a opinion” after seeing Zwill- man on television, testifyng be- Yore the Kefauver Senate Crime Investigating Committee, Before the calling and exami- , Ration of jurors, Judge Worten- 3 dyke denied several motions made by Morris Shilensky of New Pie hind 1a gaoociated with John : 0 Amboy in Shilensky as the court to direct the prosecution before the trial started to represent that testim expe! s : ns other than Zwillman will connected with the defendant his income. He specifically referred to any money spent by “ithe defendant's wife, Mrs. Mary “qZwillman, and per father, Eugene lendels, who lives in the Swill an household. Wortendyke said he could uot mit himself in advance to any neral he would first to hear testimony and anv (Continued Prog Puse) objections made against ny part In response to a question by the court concerning direct or}, circumstantial evidence of ex-|) penditures, U.S, Attorney Ray- mond Del Tufo Jr. seid he would adduce all evidence af ex- penditures the government has as’ wing been :nade by Zwillman, members his" family- and others. He said the prosecetion will have to connect itures| by others with the defendaat nr; those expenditures will fall. Del Tufo also said the govertr] ment's order of proof “cannot be dictated by the defense.” Dismissal Refused Other defense motions denied by the court were for a dismirsal; of the indictment, an inspection] of grand jury testimony of wit- nesses to appear in the trial and grand ji d jury indicted Zwillman. In ment of pretrial motions, court had ruled against motions of a similar character. Shilensky argued that Zwillman| was indicted on bis own testimony, # ‘The government’s charges are based on an investigation begun! June 10, 1952, by John J. O'Hara, special agent, and John G. Cas-| sidy, revenue agent, both of the Internal Revenue Service. They reportedly heve inter- viewed more than 1,000 persons. ‘More than 300 witnesses were ex- amined by the grand jury in a| Rine-week probe which ended) with Zwillman’s indictment May 26, 1954. Prosecution of the charges is being handled by Del Tufo and. Asst. U.S. Attys. Wilfred W. Hol- lander and Pierre"? @arven. 474, etiminating Hed defense Is expected to many lege) points concerning the} vernment’s evidence, which willl time-consuming, afd to call a mumbér of witnesses in Zwill- man's behalf. ¥ ‘The panel from which the jury) and probably two alternate: jApieked began service last week. ‘The Zwillman trial Js the first! ||¢riminal ..8e in which the jugors ire being examined for duty, The defense is allowed 10 challenges, the prosecution six. ' “In a net worth-expenditure case, ia taxpayer's returns are used dy jthe prosecution in respect to gross and net incomes reported, to- ductions, and compared with ghat te government says his L worth was at the beginning and end of the year. This is deter- mined by the government through’ testimony on expenditures, sav- ings, loans, earnings, dividends, profits and losses, or lack of them, as made by the taxpgyer lor by somebody else in his bel Indictment i The indictment bas two counts. iH gether with exemptions and: de-| One charges that Zwillman and his wife, in a joint return, shquld jorted a net income of, $50,033 for 1947 and should have paid a tax of $24,133, instead of; reporting & net income of $10,785 and paying a tax of $2,115. The other. alleges that Zwillman’s joint return for 1948 should have’ shown a net income of §70,965 and a tax of $28,493 instead of a net income of $20,547 and a tax lof $4,411. in an amended bil! of parti- jculars, the government has repre- sented to the defense that Zwill- man’s net worth was $574,268 on Dec. 31, 1848, and Jan. 1, 1947; tee oe re reat. and jan. 1, , and $528,966 on Dec. 1, 1048. . The prosecution also proposes prove that . Zwillman’s net was in Dec. 31, hs BA K EVENING NES ark, New Jersey Page in BMITTED BY THE ‘4k FIELD DIVISION