The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-05-28
mr.. Camsbc!Y5 Laceeb eonelaAel. J

| The Eecnd petition propoced to be eaabli,l,-
ed and relied upon, to wit, that the Judge did,
IN the trial or Fries for treafon, by delivering
an opinion in writing or the law ariiog in the
cafe, before council was permitted to be heard
IN his defence, efeetuaily deprive the deeen-
dant Of any benefit from Hle aiIitance of coun-
fe'. is in part deduction from the preceding
petition ard fipporied Ivy it. The fact oftbe
Judge delivering an opn,on in writing, in this
cafe, againff the defendant, previous to per-
uniting ccunsel to be heard in his defence, is
admitted hv-t'e jrtl9e in his aHfiver, and is al.
70 eaahli'ri beyond doubt by the evidenc c
of MefIrs. Lewis, Dallas, Tghman, and indeed
ofa'' the witneIes on the fubjett. No differ
ence exits in the evidence of the different wit
neiira With regard to the written opinion being
delivered before the cau(e was heard. The
ftaterlent briefly is, that after the court met.
the jury were called and many of them an
twered and appeared the priioncr war (Mr.
Lewis beieves) in court the counfs aligned
the Drfoner, bad not all got to the bar when
the Judge handed down, or threw on the clerk
table, fcvera papers, each containing the opi
Mon of the court on the law that was to de-
eide the defendants fate: one OF ;heIe copies
the Judge iad, was to be given to the council
f'r tire defendant: one TO the attorney for the
United States, and one to he delivered to the
>
the gentlemen about The bar began to COPY
theft papers Mr.. Lewis, one Of the council
FOR tie defendant, refuied TO receive or read it
declaring his hand ilould never be tainted by
reading preiudged opinion in any cafe, but
especially in 4 capital one. The papers were
fubieet to public infection; the urylnen then
might, AID probably did, read the opinion.
! hus The formal opinion of the court on the
law, being made known to the Jury before the
Il 4 r
the defendant, and render an Impartial! epuui
ry into his cafe next TO impoflible. The COIN
Tel had no hopes of changing an opinion thus
dshherately and formally made up, and famp-
sd with the foemnity of a written fentence ::
the Judge by deciding the law itemed TO have
decided the facts alto, as he NUT have affirmed
them as proved, in order TO found his oninion
upon them aud indeed the anfwer ftates that
no doubts ex'fted with regard to the facts, or
evidence IN the cafe on either eide the Jury
would, therefore, confder fuch opinion as a
deciiion OF the whole cafe, and would be pre-
pared, 10 far as they could be Influenced by the
lndec, to pronounce the defendant guilty.. be-
fore they beard the caufe examined, or even a
.iyliah!e OF the evidence. In cafe thus Gtua
ted, how could the defendant be faid 70 enioy
the bcrelt of the afiiAance of council. when
the whole cafe was decided before counfeI ,v,e
permitted to he heard and no ground left for
them to occupy. This mode of proc eedinq.
ADOPTED by hejudge, was, therefore, direa
violation of the constitutional right fecured to
the defendant, Of having the afiifauce of coun-
tcI IN all criminal PROHIBITIONS for it cannot
be pretended that to hear counGrl after tbe
cauie was fubfantially decided, would he com.
plying with the true intent and meaning of the
iconitituiion for this would render the provi-
hon totally futile aGd ufele{s, and wonld h.
lca't u'dted only TO deceive unfortunate defen-
;ddntS, who might place reliance upon if. TIL.
Ijndge, in delivering this opinion, Introduced =
mode of proceeding new and before unknown
IN our JurifPrudence; and contrary TO the
known and efablii!;ed ufages and practice of
me courts IN cur country all the legal cha
racters that have been examined as witne Gas nm
both Tides, and mon of the witneiles to this ar
ticle were legal characters, prove the fsa. that
no iuch practice ever did exit in this country
not one folitary cafe can be adduced OF a f;mi.
lar proceeding by judge, either in this com.
try or in that from which we have taken mop
.ot our laws and ufages. The writers ON the
laws OF England afford no infance ofthis kind .
and IT was lett for Judge Chafe to introduce
THIS extraordinary and before uRheard of mode
OF administering unice
Bat tits Unified on, by the Judge in his an.
liver, that the opinion was correct one. a.
to the law Of treaf3n, fupported by former de-
making it known, at the time and in the manner
ne d,d; that it could not miflead the iurv. bu.
wonld guard them againft being impofed upon
by the ingenuity of covnfel. Though this rea-
ioning may appear planlibe at frf view, it
VIII he found, upon examination, TO be falacious.
tending TO eit1hlilh a dangerous doctrine. that
would in principle 20 the whole length of iu(.
tihng aiudce, for difpenfing with the interven-
tion ola jury altogether in trials for crimes.
y a judge may give a foIemn opinion againft a
defendant in a criminal cafe, without permit
ting council to be heard in his behalf, when
the party is entitled Of right TO the afTiaance
OF council, and then iuftify flich condud hv
ii'ew'ng that the opinion itfef was correct, and
rnufS have been delivered by him in fome fage
OF the trial why may he not pats fentence of
execution upon criminal without the yerdit1
or intcryc nt!on of jury And, when char
ged with this conduct as unconstitutional ard
illegal, iuitify himfelf by niewing that the fen.
tence he paiied was correct one, that the facts
in the cafe were notorious ard admitted on an
hands; that the law was clear and had been eC-
tabiiEed BY former dcciiions that could not be
ilaken and that, therefore, the intervention
OF jury could be of no Eervice to the defendant.
as they muil ndhim guilty &that as he would
have to declare the fame fentence he had pro-
nounced f; after their verdiSt lhould have been
; rendered, It could do no harm to. pronounce il