In November of 1957, sixty-three men met in the home of one Joseph Barbara in the village of Apalachin, New York; the conclave, raided by the State police, was widely assumed to have been a gangland convention. Almost two years later, twenty of these men were tried in a United States District Court on a charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice. In the course of the trial, the prosecution was unable even to tell what had transpired at the Apalachin meeting. But the public obviously wanted to see the defendants in jail; the jury returned a verdict of guilty and Judge Irving Kaufman imposed the maximum sentences.

Now a Federal Court of Appeals has re-examined the case and has wisely decided to reverse the convictions. Much as society may want to put known criminals behind bars, the evidence in the Apalachin case plainly did not warrant conviction on the admittedly trumped-up count of conspiracy. The Appeals Court decision is a welcome indication that the judiciary is still ready to reassert the rule of law over the public's desire to "get" a group of people it regards as undesirable.

If the authorities cannot prove their case against the Apalachin group on the basis of its real crimes, it is better to let nineteen guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man. The Court of Appeals has shown both wisdom and courage in restating the principle that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The law protects the criminal as well as the citizen--and it must continue to do so, even if some clever gangsters must go free in the process.