|
166 / THE ALGER HISS TRIAL
potshots at them. That's the Communist party line." It was improper that during the closing statement he told the jury that he "had noticed some common typing errors" that they might look at, too. The jury can only consider evidence introduced in the court. The prosecutor's observations had not been given in evidence. There was no chance for the defense to answer these charges.
The third motion questioned the authenticity of the Woodstock typewriter; the defense believed the typewriter was a crucial factor in the conviction of Hiss.
Defense Motion No* 3
The verdict was based in large part on the fact that the Hiss typewriter had been used to type the documents. But newly discovered evidence strongly suggested that this typewriter was a carefully constructed substitute, which could only have been made for the deliberate purpose of falsely incriminating Alger Hiss.
The defense produced two affidavits to show that the Woodstock typewriter might not have been Hiss's machine.
Marty K. Tytell, a typewriter engineer, without ever seeing the Woodstock, worked from the sample
|
