"A lot of things went on in the courtroom during Jack Ruby's trial that shouldn't have," Mark DeWolfe Howe '28, professor of Law, said yesterday.

"The case was probably so badly tried that it is unlikely there was no reversible error," Howe continued. Such an error would be grounds for a retrial.

He said that it is very difficult to fix the responsibility for these errors. There is no reason to suppose that holding the trial in Dallas affected the verdict. But in his opinion, both Judge Joe B. Brown, who tried the case, and Melvin M. Belli, Ruby's chief counsel, "conducted themselves badly."

Belli's Outburst Contemptuous

Howe felt that Belli's violent emotional outburst after the verdict of guilty was delivered was contemptuous. Arthur F. Sutherland, Bussey Professor of Law, however, indicated that such a reaction is not extraordinary in a capital case, where the lawyer becomes deeply involved, emotionally in his client's fate.

Howe also criticized Brown, for conducting the trial poorly. As an example, he cited the nation-wide telecast of the jury's delivery of the verdict as "unfortunate" and said such televising should be prohibited.

Sutherland Criticizes Televising

Sutherland agreed, saying that "the administration of justice is a solemn matter. The intrusion of the spectacle element denigrates the process, and when there is sensationalism the administration of justice suffers."

"With so many errors," Howe contended, "the trial cannot be described as fair." Although this had nothing to do with whether Ruby was guilty, Howe said that it created the possibility of the decision being reversed upon appeal.

He doubted, however, that the death penalty imposed on Ruby would contribute to the likelihood of a reversal, as some observers have suggested. Nevertheless, both he and Sutherland suggested that in a capital case the court does "inspect the evidence more closely."