, 1872-11-28
NEW TRIALS.

70 the Editor Of The Chicago Tribune:
SIR: had intended to write an answer T.
your article in Saturdays issue, " La" o
New Trials, " but Mr. Reeds letter some"ha
amputates my reply. A1r. Rood might, however
have satisfied your points still more by cltinl
tho rulings Of our Supreme Court as to erro,s II
cases Cnot capitaD which are not merely fecnnl
cal.
As fair precedent, allow mo to cite the cast
OF Leach rs. The People, SO H., P. o1i' IL WHICH
substantial errors were conuitteo N she AnAtru'
tions. Leach WAS indicted for murder, ana was
convicted Of manslaughter, ana sen
fenced to/1o years !mpflsonmen1. Line
Court x.s. Several objections aro
made<f 20 the manner IN WHICH Inc cou11 ols-
posed OF the instructions On behalf OF the pros
ecution and Of the accused. line lnetructlons
were quite rolunn:nous, and that q Court, in dis
posing Of them in the hurry Of a trial. should
commit some errors is not remarkable. Some
g1sen By tho Court o1ght not to hare been given,
ana some refused sl,,uld have been given; but,
u ~ Tie important legal propositions bearing
On the facts proved, We think full Justice was
none the prisoner. The Instructions given on
9e hao any right to demand; and no
Court Is justified in reversing a iudgnent
=, on me 7choe record, it appears Justice has
9een done, and there appears no substantial mis-
direction OF the Court by which the prisoners
rights we're injuriously affected. On reading
ne instructions, ne think, as whole, they
aelr5 stated the laE and deprived the prisoner
Thus you viii perceive that it is popular
error to suppose that the Supreme Court will
reverse case for every possible error, without
regard to the merits OF the case; and wour
statement, That it, out Of several hundred ex-
one single exception well taken, the case is re-
yersed, u is equally erroneous.
In the came article, you continue
For instance, in the Of Rafferty, and Perfect
the Supreme Court found, errors, that the Court
proof Of the intoxicaton Of the prisoner But it might
be true in many cases thaa Court would perceive that
Ohrstendom Should hsyo failed to convict lie nTsouer
the evidence that had it been proved that the
prisoner intoxicated 1t would not have changed
ally introduced.
This reasoning is equally at fault. Under the
present law, the jury finds the perdict and fires
the penalty. Thus, while the Supreme Court
County % would have found nc The % same verdictas to
the guilt Of Rafferty, and Perfect as jury in
Cook County, yet they cannot say that Jury in
Lake County would pronounce death,-for ltisin
the Of the jury to g5adn4ae
been heard by the Court and jury, it would not
have changed the nature Of Rafferty's guilt, but
it might hare produced different punishment.
The rule in capital cases, that the prisoner
stands upon all his rights, should not be shaken
By any experimental Legislation brought about
b7 heated discussion; and have attempted to
prove to you that, in cases not capital, the 6u-
IRENE Court may overlook errors, il none Of the
Substantial rights allowed By the law aud guar
notice with pleasure your statement IN to- |
days TR1Buen, tlat 'sTke Supreme Court could |
do 10 lees than reverse the decision in the |
RaBezty 'casa." Tha Dress can do much to cor ]