Springville – Stuart Riley, who has conducted a thriving mercantile business here for many years, has disposed of the business and will be succeeded by H. B. & C. W. Lee, the new firm to be known as Lee Bros., and we bespeak for the new proprietors the same success that this store has enjoyed so long. Mr. H. B. Lee has been the head clerk with Mr. Riley for several years, and Mr. C. W. Lee has also been the head clerk for R. L. Avery’s store for a long time, and with the experience of both, not only with the business, but enjoying a wide acquaintanceship with the trading public, they should expand business of this already prosperous store. And in East Lynn, Fred Pierson, of Auburn, teaches toe school here. Eva States, who has taught here for a number of years, now teaches in the Springville high school.

Fair Hill, Jessup Twp. – The Harvest Home dinner, to have been held Saturday, has been postponed on account of a funeral.

Harford Fair Notes – It rained before and after. There were about 2000 tickets sold. The exhibits were good considering the weather. The society, by cutting all possible expenses will be able to pay premiums in full. There was no plowing match. John Sheldon won first in egg race and his sister, Julia, second. Judge Chas. Walker, of New Milford, thought T. J. Gillespie’s baby was the handsomest and Earl Clinton’s next. The Boys Brigade was fine and enjoyed by all. Susquehanna should be proud of these boys.

Jackson Twp. – School notes of Maple Ridge School for month ending Sept. 6th, 1912: Ruth Hall, Esther Quick, Nellie Hall, Earl Hall, Raymond Wilcox and Jay Decker were present every day during the month. Lloyd Blaisdell was absent only one day, and that on account of sickness. Those having a monthly examination of 95% or more were: Lloyd Blaisdell and Nellie Hall. Those whose marks were 90% or more were: Esther Quick, Ruth Hall, Raymond Wilcox and Jay Decker.

Shannon Hill, Auburn Twp. – The Bullard school house, which has been closed for four or five years, was sold at public sale on Saturday last and was purchased by Lewis Bunnell for $57. At Fowler Hill, James Hugboom and Bruce Swisher had a general mix-up while coming from the creamery the other morning. The horse got frightened at an auto, throwing them out, breaking the harness and wagon and cutting Mr. Hugboom’s head and jarring both considerably. And, in West Auburn, Our school has an enrollment of 38 pupils, all taught by one teacher, Miss Ella Crawford.

Montrose – Auctioneer Cox held up a bettered fiddle. “What am I offered for this antique violin,” he inquired. “Look it over. See the blurred finger marks of remorseless time. Note the stain of the hurrying years. To the merry notes of this fine instrument the brocaded dames of fair France may have danced the minuet in glittering Versailles. Perhaps the virgins walked to its stirring rhythm in the feasts of Lupercalia. Ha! It bears an abrasion, perhaps a touch of fire. Why, this may be the identical fiddle on which Nero played when Rome burned!” “Seventy-five cents!” said a red-nosed man in the front row. “It’s yours!” cried the eloquent auctioneer.

Hallstead – On Friday night someone entered the home of Mr. and Mrs. Chas. Chamberlin and stole $35 from a drawer in the writing desk. The family heard some one unlock the front door and come in, but they thought Mr. Chamberlin had come home and thought nothing of it and only found out they had been robbed after the burglar had gone. There is no clew.

Herrick Centre – Jerry Kishpaugh is improving the looks of the McAvoy lot which he recently purchased by moving the barn further back from the road and they are also papering the house and preparing to reside there a little later.

Glenwood, Lenox Twp. – Our small pox scare turned out to be nothing serious and the school on the hill opened up again Monday, it being closed only a few days.

Brooklyn – Norman Aldrich, son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Aldrich, aged about 2+ years, met a tragic death on Oct. 1st. Mrs. Aldrich, who lives on F. B. Jewett’s farm, had procured some kindling wood to start a fire and had kerosene oil in a quart fruit can to help kindle the fire. She set the can on the stove and left the room for a few moments; in her absence the little boy got the can and drank part of its contents. Dr. Oliver Williams was phoned for and reached the home in a short time, but medical skill was unable to save the life of the child.

Clifford – About 40 lady friends of Mrs. H. Felts gave her a genuine surprise last Saturday, and as a memento left $5 in cash in which to purchase an umbrella.

Susquehanna – Miss Margaret Mulqueen, while visiting friends in Binghamton last week, met with a serious accident. While cleaning a stove at the home where she was visiting, the gasoline she was using for the purpose exploded. Her face, neck and arms were badly burned. She was taken to the Binghamton Hospital for treatment.

Gibson – C. H. VanGorder is finishing his new store inside as fast as possible. It will be opened as a general store Nov. 1 by Burr Wilder.

Ainey, Springville Twp. – James Bunnell, of Dimock, was here last Monday on his way to Nicholson, where he is moving buildings to make way for the Northern Electric road.

News Brief: “A No. 1” the famous railroad tramp who has visited this newspaper at several times is dead, having been ground under the wheels of a railroad train in Houston, Texas. “A No. 1” was last in Montrose about 5 years ago. He was known to the editors of the entire country. A dispatch from Houston says: “A No. 1” the king of hoboes, is dead. Slipping from the rods of a passenger train on the Louisville & Nashville Railroad, the man who boasted that he had traveled more miles and paid less fares than any traveler of his generation, was caught by the trucks of the heavy coach and literally ground to death. “A No. 1” was a puzzle, even to the men with whom he had roamed to all parts of the world. He told no one his name, his birthplace or of his family. He was merely “A No. 1” the king of tramps. From Maine to California his name is painted or carved on box cars, water tanks, railroad sheds, in fact, everywhere “A No. 1” could find space he wrote his name in big letters, and two arrows, pointing in the direction the hobo king was traveling at the time he “signed up.”

I recently had a meeting with a 12-year old rape victim and her family and a common topic came up during the discussion – whether the victim had to testify at the preliminary hearing and the trial. The answer to that question is simple: the child has to testify in order for the case to proceed – unless there is some agreement worked out whereby the defendant waives his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser. Understandably, the prospect of testifying causes victims substantial emotional distress, anxiety, fear and trauma. And this case was no exception – the victim was very distraught while her family provided support and encouragement. The family also expressed anger at a criminal justice system that would force a young child to recount the sexual abuse she endured and then have every aspect of that testimony picked apart by a trained and skilled advocate.

In that situation, a constitutional discussion about the importance of the confrontation clause contained within the Sixth Amendment does little to relieve the pain, frustration and anger of the victim and her family. Still, I do my best to explain that there are constitutional limitations on prosecutions that force the prosecution to put children on the stand. It was not always that way – when I first started out as a prosecutor over 13 years ago, we had the ability to prosecute child abuse cases without putting the child on the stand. Back then, we used a statute called the Tender Years statute that allowed the Judge to examine the child in camera, outside the presence of the defendant, to assure that the child was reliable and to make a determination as to whether the child would endure emotional distress if forced to testify. In those hearings, the counselor would be called as a witness to explain to the Court the traumatic impact that testifying would cause the child – and the Court could rule that the child did not have to testify at a preliminary hearing or trial. In the child’s place, the police officer, social worker, counselor, and medical personnel testified as to what the child has indicated happened – and that testimony would be considered substantive evidence, i.e., it took the place of the child’s testimony.

About a decade ago, the United States Supreme Court effectively put an end to that kind of testimony when it stated unequivocally that defendants have a right to confront their accusers in court under the Sixth Amendment, i.e., the right to cross-examine their accusers. If third parties appear to testify to what the accuser has alleged, the defense attorney does not have the ability to question the accuser. The Supreme Court has made some exceptions that still allow third parties to appear and testify in limit circumstances as to what the victim told them, but generally victims still have to testify – and that simply means that prosecutors have to work hard to get the victims ready for testifying and counselors have to prepare the victims for what could result from confronting the accused in court.

The new line of United States Supreme Court cases dealing with the Sixth Amendment and the right to confrontation are causing a ripple in the criminal justice system beyond simply the question of whether victims have to testify. Most recently, the United States Supreme Court considered the extent to which the confrontation clause impacted on forensic testing, i.e., DNA analysis. In Williams v. Illinois, the prosecution had a DNA match to the defendant from a rape kit that had been performed on the victim. The DNA match was the result not of a direct investigation, but it occurred because the defendant had been convicted of another crime that required him to submit a DNA sample. Because the initial DNA tests had been entered into the state DNA databank system by an accredited laboratory, the prosecution never called the initial technician that performed the rape kit tests; instead, the prosecution had the technician who performed the most recent tests that matched the defendant’s DNA to the samples from the rape case that was in the state system.

The United States Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, but the court was splintered in many directions without any real dispositive opinion except to say that the conviction was upheld. This decision did not break down in typical ideological grounds. For instance, Justice Scalia joined Justices Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, in concluding that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated by the failure to call the initial forensic technicians at trial. The other five justices came up with differing reasons to find that the conviction should be upheld, but there was no real majority opinion. At this point, prosecutors are taking Williams as a warning - you need to get the witnesses into court or risk a conviction being overturned.

Please submit any questions, concerns, or comments to Susquehanna County District Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 218, Montrose, Pennsylvania 18801 or at our website www.SusquehannaCounty-DA.org or discuss this and all articles at http://dadesk.blogspot.com/.