Case ID: howell-np_1/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wayne Circuit
    
    THE PEOPLE vs. CHARLES R. FORD.
    
      Argument to Jury — The Juror's Oath.
    
    This trial, which took place late in the fall of 1883, was deeply interesting, and almost dramatic. The defendant (who has recently mysteriously disappeared at Monroe, it being claimed by some that he is dead, but by others that he is alive,) several times during the trial, used such language as to call forth the rebuke of the Court, (Jennison, J., presiding.)
    The prosecution was ably managed by James Caplis> prosecuting attorney, and Geo. F. Robinson, his assistant.
    The defense was in charge of two of as able lawyers • as practice in the State, Col. Sylvester Earned and J. W. Donovan, the latter making the closing argument for the defense, which is here given. It contains many passages that bring home to a jury their individual duty in dealing with evidence, and to mind a trial that was intensely bitter throughout, with a great many facts and prejudices to add'to the original charge of false pretences, practiced against two poor ignorant German farmers, clients of lawyer Charles R. Ford, then of Wyandotte. Ford had lately been seriously handled in a case to disbar him, (he was subsequently disbarred), where 140 witnesses were sworn, and, with a farmer jury, much feeling was created.
    It was generally believed that nothing could save the defendant from a ten years’ term of imprisonment.
    The result will appear in its proper order.
    The substance of one of the most effective speeches in the case is as follows:
    
      J. W. DONOVAN’S ARGUMENT TO THE JURY.
    Gentlemen oe the Jury :
    When I closed my opening in this case two weeks ago, yon must have said — if you were fair-minded and impartial men — and such I believe you to be, gentlemen, for I would not think you capable of taking the oath you did without this impartial feeling — you must have said in your hearts, all of you: “ If that is true, Ford can’t be guilty.”
    Very beautiful and impressive is the juror’s oath: “You, and each of you, do solemnly swear that you will well and truly try the issues in this case according-to the law and the evidence, so help you Godor, as in the Ohio and Kentucky form, still more impressive, “As you shall answer unto God hereafter.”
    On taking this oath you are under a double tie of fairness that no prejudice or outside pressure should overcome or disturb for an instant. And I take it that none of you are hard-hearted enoughl to wilfully wish to torture any one not guilty on the evidence, for the sake of pleasing his enemies.
    In all cases of this nature certain principles are known in law at the outset. They are older than the judges, older than the oldest juryman, and have been and will be law long after we are all laid in our final resting places.
    One of these principles is: it devolves upon the people to prove guilt to a moral certainty, but the defendant need not prove his innocence. If a reasonable doubt remains in any branch of -the case, he must be acquitted; not this defendant only, but it is the law of all cases of this nature.
    
    Again, it is safe to err on the side of mercy, if you err at all, and much better that you make no mistakes which involve so many years of the life and liberty of a citizen.
    And while we admit that the story told by the two Germans is in the main truthful, we deny that it shows the guilt of G. R. Ford as charged in the information.
    To begin with, to convict Charles R. Ford of this offense, you must in the main story rely on the testimony of Moses H. Clement, -whom we impeached as guilty of so many offenses that he lost all recollection of their number! Not only have we proven him a bad and dangerous witness, but a man of mean malice, of dangerous practices and deep-seated revenge for the greater part of his unworthy career in this county. I promised to impeach this man Clement, and we did impeach him by his crookedness, by his story of many crimes, by his neighbors, and by the very best men of Wyandotte, including Mayor Evans. Evans said his reputation is bad. Peat would not believe him on oath. Jackson said, very bad. Baxter said, he is a very bad man. Jones: I would hate to believe him alone. Robinson said his character for truth is mixed, and Pardo said: he admitted to me that he belonged to a gang of five land swindlers. He admitted to you, gentlemen, on his. own examination, five offenses against law and decency that lie was guilty of — embezzlement, beating his little girl, beating his brother-in-law, drawing a revolver on a woman, perjury, and stealing a goose. These show dishonesty, cowardice, for £ £ he who lays his hand in anger on a woman is a wretch whom ’twere base flattery to call a coward.” Not only is this man impeached by these facts, but by the story of two separate witnesses.
    The story of Clement is that he colluded with Ford to put up a tax title case on Polzen and Urbane, and make a fee out of it in court or settlement. That Ford drew a declaration and gave it to Clement, and he finally relented and confessed his shame, which resulted in this case of false pretenses against Ford that we are now trying.
    I dwell upon this man’s story for the reason that if true, Ford is guilty, and if false, he is the victim of that man’s malice, and a man who could carry malice against his brother could do it against Ford. For it has crept out here that Ford collected $27 for Clement, and paid it over, and soon after Clement called with a woman and demanded it over again, or “he would make trouble.”
    Here is the beginning of this law suit: Clement went to Ford’s with Mrs. Kinger. He admits he did. He demanded money. He admits he did. He threat•ened trouble. He admits he did. He started for Col. Lamed to bring suit. He had no retainer, and went to Mr. Robison, the prosecuting attorney, and the ball was started. All this is admitted. While at Ford’s that morning, Jan. 16th, he took an ink copy in Ford’s writing — an office copy.
    
      This is the story of an enemy — of one impeached— of one on whom hangs this anxious prosecution.
    I dwell upon this, for a chain is no stronger than its weakest link.
      
       If this link, Clement, breaks, the case fails. If this centre column falls, the building crumbles. If Clement’s story is untruthful, then Ford must be acquitted, for the corner stone of this prosecution is Moses H. Clement, with neither mortar nor props to support and sustain his showing.
    Our theory is: That Ford got this declaration from Polzen. He got it from Urban on the farm. John Fraser handed it to him. Clement handed it to him. James Fraser copied the original from Clement’s pencil writing in the city hall, and Ford never saw it till it came in the ordinary business way to his office. I don’t guess at this theory. We proved it by the two farmer boys — the Fraser boys — one who wrote it at Clement’s request, one who served it for Clement’s money, both swear to it, both are unimpeached and both earnest and truthful! They tell the story of sense and reason. They are sustained by other evidence.
    Now, if Ford received the declaration (which was the paper to start this suit, on which he got $25, claimed to be by false pretenses,) honestly, then he is not guilty! Then he earned his fee; for he went to Monroe and Ann Arbor, both on this business. John G. Hawley saw him at Ann Arbor, and Auxman saw him at Monroe. These two trips would richly earn the $25 — all the money actually paid out by these farmers.
    Ford was a business man and well engaged. He needed no crime to make his business. He was overworked at home. Why squander costs of trip to Monroe and Ann Arbor ? He examined Polzen’s title, and wrote a postal card to “call on business.” No crime in the card surely. It is openly done. He got the building insured. No crime in that. And finally he gives in his bill and they settle, and the farmers go home. They remain satisfied till Clement gets angry on his blackmail-double-payment $27 matter. Then the claim is reopened. Clement goes to Eobison, who is no friend of Ford’s, and he goes to Essex to see the Fraser boys. He says: ‘ ‘ Did you make that paper for Ford?” “No!” If you will come and swear you did — after thinking it over — I’ll pay your time and expenses. And then, because he refused to so swear, and because I called them farmer boys, as they are, Mr. Eobison wants to know if it is a marsh farm they own in Essex ? As if a marsh farm could not be worked by farmer boys! Then when he testified to the truth — when by law they should have sworn him for the people — when they knew they were suppressing honest testimony in the interest of revenge, they order" or try to put him into custody, and a scene occurs in this court room that was a disgrace to this prosecution!
    
    
      Look at the moral of this case. The law says Fraser should have been put upon the stand for the people-He would have cleared Ford, for he swears he made the paper for Clement; but they persecute him, and uphold the blackmailer, Clement. No man is safe when such can swear away his liberty. Deprived of his liberty, not by due process of law, but by the voice of his sworn and dangerous enemy. It will not be done, gentlemen.
    Day after day through this long and tedious trial, I have told our client, Charles R. Ford: Go home to rest and come early, and no harm shall come to you from this investigation. Day after day has the prosecution clamored for his conviction. And it is for this reason, and because there is bitterness, that I ask you to be mindful of your oath, that I mentioned at the ■opening.
    Imprisonment to Ford means death. He is not robust. Long imprisonment to any man is death. Hugo well says: ‘ ‘The man that came out of that prison was not the one that went in. Wrinkled and worn and old and shattered in nerves, and ruined in his life, what had he left worth living for?” And he adds: “The law gives no remedy for a wrongful imprisonment. It takes the bread from his children, but offers no return.”
    But you will make no such mistake. You are the judges of the law and facts. After all are done, you decide it, you determine the right and wrong.
    I have told you that imprisonment is death. It is 
      worse than death. I have seen death in cruel forms— death on the plains without care — death of a bright, ambitious boy by small pox, where no one could move him, and no one but a half-breed Indian to attend him— but it was not dishonor. The case I speak of was Charlie Crouch, in New Mexico. The case I now urge is Charles R. Ford, of Wyandotte. Take him and convict on the impeached testimony of a villain, or acquit him. I would put your hand in his and say, lead him to liberty.
    But of all facts that I would write upon your hearts and engrave upon your bones — remember your oath and the principles that declare all men innocent till proven guilty by evidence that you would act upon in matters of your own intimate family relations. You have each solemnly sworn to give a true verdict under the law and evidence, and not to satisfy the prejudice of this defendant’s enemies.
    Trouble comes in a mysterious way to us all. This is a day of peril to Ford’s family. It may some day be a trial of your relations.
    See to it that the influence of your verdict shall not lower the standard of law and liberty, but let it condemn the punishment of all men on the evidence of impeached witnesses — for without the evidence of such he is surely not guilty.
    
    (Jury so found.)
    
      
      There were many civeumstances besides Clement’s -story pointing strongly to guilt. One was the declaration, dated Jan. 16th, in Ford’s writing, and only explained by the statement of a couple of children that it came from Ford’s waste basket, and was his office copy, made after Polzen brought the original. Besides this, neither Ford nor his wife could stand cross-examination safely, and were not sworn to explain matters.