displayed unusual self-control and forbearance. There were lengthy and repetitious objections by fourteen defense counsel during the trial, and at its conclusion, in support of their motions, they assigned 941 reasons and 221 additional reasons incorporated by reference. In the record of 6,500 pages we find no justification for the criticisms by defendants of the conduct of the trial judge. It is our conclusion that defendants had a fair and impartial trial, and that there was no violation of due process of law.'
With this appraisal of Judge Kreider's conduct of the trial, I am in complete accord. The complexity of the issues, the number of defendants and their attorneys, and the time consumed, obviously made this a most difficult case to try. I cannot see how it would be humanly possible for any judge under the circumstances of this case to more nearly approximate assuring a fair and impartial trial to all parties concerned, namely, the Commonwealth, nine defendants and the nineteen attorneys. I feel that this reason is completely without merit.
Two oral arguments were heard by this Court in this matter, the first on a motion for a restraining order preventing petitioner's commitment to prison (Civil Action No. 7156) and the second on the instant petition. The Court was furnished a complete transcript of the trial of the case, including the examination of the prospective jurors on their voir dire. The transcript covered approximately 7,000 pages. Counsel for petitioner and for the Commonwealth were requested by the Court to indicate such portions of the testimony as they felt had a bearing on this petition, and this was all read. The entire testimony covering the examination of the prospective jurors was read. The opinions of the trial court and all of the appellate opinions were read.
This is a habeas corpus proceeding, -- it is not an appeal. Our concern here is whether in his trial resulting in his conviction and the judgment and commitment thereon he was denied the due process of law and the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. My conclusion is that he was not.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus will be denied.