ULid. 4. m. Nov 2%, 5b

\

THE SUN, ]

 

Testimony Ends fi Dope Trial
Of Ogden; Verd Verdict Delayed

Dr. Frank N. Ogden was de-
scribed last night by a State
prosecutor as having aided dope
addicts. to satisfy their cravings
and by defense counsel as having
dealt with them as a “medical
problem,” prescribing narcotics
to keep the addicts at a normal-
axistence level.

These conflicting views of Dr.
Ogden’s. actions were given in
anal arguments at the trial of the
61-- year - old. Fire Department
physician. He is accused of pre-
seribing narcotics in bad faith
and not in the course of profes-
sional practice.

At the conclusion of more than
three hours of argument, Judge
Joseph L. Carter announced that
the wanted to deliberate on a
verdict because of the importance
of the case to the defendant, the
community and, possibly, to the

medical profession. He said a
written opinion would be handed
down within two weeks.

Evidence Cited

John C. Weiss, assistant State’s
attorney, argued that the de-
fendant had helped addicts ob;
tain narcotics unlawfully: by pre-
scribing regular does of dope
without giving the patients physi-
cal examinations.

Mr. Weiss also cited the large
number of postdated prescriptions
and prescriptions on which true
addresses were not given.

He said this evidence clearly

 

shows a violation of the Maryland
Uniform Narcotics Law, patterned

 

after statutes in nearly every
state.

Finally, the prosecutor - re-
ferred to the defendant’s action
in prescribing, at the request of
an, addict, for a patient he did
not see, examine or know.

In reply, G. C. A. Anderson
and Edward A. Smith, defense
counsel, said the case narrows
down to one. of credibility of wit-
nesses and becomes a factual
problem, not a legal one, for the
Court.

-“Enviable Reputation”

They pointed out that on the
State’s side of the case were dope
addicts who are “admittedly emo-
tionally disturbed persons,” in-
dividuals who must be considered
untruthful and. unreliable.

On the other side ‘of the case,
they continued, there was the
testimony of Dr. Ogden,- who be-
fore his indictment enjoyed an
“enviable reputation,” and the
testimony of 13 medical experts
and 26 character witnesses.

The two defense attorneys de-
clared it was difficult to see how
the court could accept the testi-
mony of the addicts against that
of the defendant and: his wit-
nesses.

Great emphasis was placed by
the lawyers on the quality of the
character testimony. They noted
that leaders of the community
had spoken in behalf of Dr. Og-
den and also that in the ‘opinion
of the medical experts Dr. Ogden
had acted in good faith when he
Me. for the addicts as he

i