(2 of 2)
Last week as he delivered his charge to the jury, Judge Hincks noted that the defendants were "not compelled to prove their innocence." It was up to the Government to prove them guilty, and the Government had the toughest of all legal points to make—"criminal intent." It also had to prove that the picketing allegedly interfered with was in fact "peaceful." Even the Court was skeptical of Mr. Rand's announced intention of using the millwrights to dismantle his Middletown mill, observing, however: "If bluffing were illegal, I am afraid that there would be a considerable reduction in the number of Connecticut Yankees, not to mention international diplomats . . . still at large."
Judge Hincks was sternly critical of the Government's presentation as an attempt to "pollute the stream of justice." He accused the Government's attorney of trying to "smear an honest officer" in cross-examining a State police sergeant. He objected to the Government's lengthy charge that the defense had suppressed evidence without offering "a shred of support for the charge." But particularly annoying to the handsome, greying judge was the Government's plea to the jury to ignore the Court's charge. "[A judge] may fall into error," said Judge Hincks. "He may be reversed. But ignored—never." The jury did not ignore the Judge, pronounced Messrs. Rand & Bergoff not guilty. Said Mr. Rand, to whom the verdict came as a present on his 51st birthday: "This case is of vital importance to American business." Said Mr. Bergoff: "I'm glad justice has been vindicated."