Forest City – Forest City has but three veterans of the Civil war. They propose to unite with their comrades at Uniondale. Also The steam sawmill of Johns & Cole, of Forest City, at Whites Valley, turns out over 10,000 ft. of lumber daily and teams are busy hauling to Forest City.

Susquehanna – Mother M. Camilla (born Elizabeth Maloney), whose death was recorded last week, was a native of Susquehanna county and was born Nov. 10, 1852.

She entered the order of the Sister Servants of the Immaculate Hearts of Mary in young womanhood and taught in the parochial schools in Reading, Philadelphia and Chester. When Mother M. De Chantal died eight years ago Sister Camilla was appointed her successor at Villa Maria, West Chester. Miss Eleanor Donnelly, the gifted poetess of Philadelphia, eulogized the quiet nun in verse. Among those who officiated were Archbishop Pendergast, Monsignor Cavanaugh and Monsignor Trainor. Burial was in St. Agnes cemetery, West Chester.

Birchardville – F. E. Brearly and family have moved to Gilett, Bradford county, where Mr. Brearly associated with his brother, also a former Susquehanna county man, are building a creamery, which they will open this spring.

Brooklyn – The post office was moved to L. S. Ely’s store last week. Also The sale of the stock of goods of the late S. B. Eldridge began on Friday thru Monday. Workmen are now engaged in renovating the interior of the store building, which will be occupied about March 15 by Wade Barnes. He plans to put in an ice cream parlor during the heated season. Mrs. Eldridge will have her Millinery parlors in her residence next door.

South Montrose – Mr. Rodney has purchased the Robinson house, has built a barber shop and put in pool tables and will be ready for business in a few days.

Montrose – Bluebirds were seen the first of the week, and Monday evening a flock of geese, flying low, made a great racket with their honkings as they passed over the town. This morning the mercury was down to zero.

Tunkhannock – Miss Retta Lott, aged 70 years, who had been a housekeeper at the home of S. H. Jenkins for many years, was struck by a freight engine that was backing up. She failed to see the approaching locomotive, which struck her in the back, throwing her down and rendering her unconscious. She has since been confined to her bed in almost helpless condition. She was a former resident of Auburn township.

Lenox – The grange hall came near burning down the evening of Feb. 22nd, the lamps being turned too high. The flames caught the paper festoons. It wasn’t long in traveling over the hall but with the timely assistance of help at hand very little damage was done.

Choconut Valley – The ice hose of the Choconut Valley creamery was filled with ice, which they took from the Choconut Valley Creek. The lake from which they usually got ice was not considered safe to go on. The McCahill brothers have also filled their ice house.

Gelatt – Mrs. Addie Gelatt was well pleased Friday when the W. C. T. U. met, tied and bound two comfortables for her, and after a bountiful dinner held their regular meeting.

New Milford – H. L. Lewis, the famous wood chopper and poet, recently cut six cords of wood for Eugene Whitney in one day. He claims to be the champion wood chopper of Susquehanna County.

Susquehanna County Formed 103 Years Ago Today--(continued). Braintrim, now Auburn, was organized in 1799. Rush, “the mother of townships,” which once embraced nearly half the present limits of the county, then extended from its present Southern boundary, northward along the east line of Bradford Co., a little over 18 miles to the New York State line, and eastward 8 miles, embracing besides its present limits, all of Middletown and Choconut—with Apolacon since taken from the latter, and the Western parts of Jessup and Forest Lake. Rush was organized in 1801. Clifford, organized in 1806, embraced besides its present limits, Gibson and Herrick, and the southern part of Ararat. Bridgewater, organized in 1806, embraced besides its present limits, all of Brooklyn, Lathrop, Springville, Dimock and Silver Lake, the eastern parts of Jessup and Forest Lake, and the southern part of Franklin. New Milford was organized in 1807. Harford, organized in 1808, was for many years known as Nine Partners. Harmony, organized in 1809, embraced besides its present limits, Oakland, Jackson, Thompson and the northern part of Ararat. The county now contains 27 townships and 13 boroughs, with a population of 37,746 in 1900 and 40,042 in 1910. [The 2010 census recorded the population as 43,356].

The first settlements in the county were made in 1787, in the territory now known as Great Bend and Brooklyn townships. Ozias Strong, formerly of Lee, Mass., was the first known settler in Great Bend and Adam Miller, a Protestant Irishman, was one of the first settlers in Brooklyn. His son, Wm. Miller, was the first child born in the county, in Dec. 1789. The first road was built in 1789, at the mouth of Cascade Creek in Great Bend township. In 1791 a road was made from the Delaware river to Great Bend, which was later followed by the Newburgh turnpike. This was the first turnpike in the county. It was begun in 1806 and finished in 1811. Its length from Cochecton to Great Bend was 50 miles. This was among the first of the great highways constructed. A few years later the Milford and Owego turnpike was constructed.

The first tavern was kept by Horatio Strong in 1796. His building was only a log house. The next year it was purchased by Oliver Trowbridge, who built a framed addition. An upper room, which was used by a Masonic lodge, was papered. This was the first papered room in the county. This building was located within the present limits of Great Bend borough.

Dr. Forbes, one of the first physicians in the county, was in Great Bend n 1791—to be continued. [This brief history was written by J. B. Stephens, Montrose, in 1913. Miss Emily C. Blackman in 1873, wrote a lengthy history and R. M. Stocker followed her with his history in 1887. Reprints of both are available at the Susquehanna County Historical Society].

Strange things can happen at trial – and strange things can lead to problems for the finality of the proceeding if an appellate court decides that the problems undermined the integrity of the entire judicial process. Sometimes, in the heat of a trial, questions (or arguments) do not come out exactly the way the attorney intended (or even remotely considered). It can be a painful experience for an attorney to read the transcript of a trial that he or she litigated as it requires a significant ability to stomach your own idiocy. It is also a necessary and important learning exercise for any aspiring litigator.

In particular, prosecutors are held to a very high standard of conduct in the manner in which they present the government’s case. Prosecutors cannot engage in conduct that would be aimed at inflaming any prejudice that may exist in the hearts of the jurors. Prosecutors must focus their questioning and arguments on the facts – not on speculation arising from some bias or prejudice that may blind the jurors’ eyes to the pursuit of a fair and impartial decision.

Most recently, the Supreme Court denied a request to review a drug conviction, but Justice Sotomayer took the extraordinary step of attaching a “statement” to the denied of the case in which she attacked a single question a federal prosecutor made in the midst of the courtroom battlefield. In the case, Bongani Calhoun was convicted of a drug trafficking offense in which he claimed that he was just an innocent bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the proverbial wrong time. Calhoun was present in a hotel room with several others individuals together with a large bag of money, and a large quantity of drugs. Undercover DEA agents actually discussed the drug deal with Calhoun prior to making the arrests, but Calhoun contended that they spoke to him in Spanish and he did not know what they were saying. Calhoun was also found to be lawfully carrying a concealed firearm when the drug bust occurred.

During the trial, Calhoun took the stand to profess his innocence to the jury in an attempt to convince them that he had simply been along for the ride and did not know what his friends were doing. Calhoun gave some conflicting testimony about his whereabouts – and the federal prosecutor began to press him for further details. Calhoun suggested that he did not want to be in the hotel room where the bust went down – and the prosecutor smelled blood in the water and went in for the kill. Calhoun could not explain why he did not want to be in the hotel room. If he did, he would have conceded that he knew there was a drug transaction about to take place and thereby admit his involvement in the conspiracy. Frustrated by Calhoun’s evasiveness, the prosecutor went for the kill with one final question: “You’ve got African-Americans, you’ve got Hispanics, you’ve got a bag full of money. Does that tell you – a light bulb doesn’t go off in your head and say, This is a drug deal?”

Justice Sotomayor wanted to make certain that the denial of review by the Supreme Court did not suggest that the prosecutor’s question was acceptable. Justice Sotomayor criticized this prosecutor’s question as follows: “By suggesting that race should play a role in establishing a defendant’s criminal intent, the prosecutor here tapped a deep and sorry vein of racial prejudice that has run through the history of criminal justice in our Nation. . . . Such conduct diminishes the dignity of our criminal justice system and undermines respect for the rule of law. We expect the Government to seek justice, not to fan the flames of fear and prejudice.” She concluded her “statement” by stating that she hoped “never to see a case like this again.”

As I said earlier, strange things happen in the midst of a trial – but prosecutors need to pay particular attention to how they ask their questions and frame their arguments. In this case, the prosecutor plainly crossed a line – he asked a question that had strong racial undertones and lacked any rational explanation except for one that rested on racial stereotypes. The question was not planned – it was likely a product of the frustration of dealing with a disingenuous witness. In this case, the offending remark was too isolated and the other evidence too strong to support a reversal. It was, however, enough to earn this particular prosecutor a strong, judicial verbal lashing – and hopefully the prosecutor will learn from this experience.

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/.