Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1875-06-06
THE NEW JURY LAW DECLARED
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

pdilcleus Ouly wv VI ~ ~
ing been tried under the law as amend
ed, it is difficult to form "a correct
opinion concerning its practical effects
when in operation. There seems, how
ever, to be grave doubts about the wis
dom of the enactment, and Judge
Rives, of the Phoebe District Court, has
gone so far as to pronounce it uncon-
stitutional. The bill was drawn by
Judge Beatty, of the Supreme Bench,
and its whole scope and intent was to
rehder more certain the conviction Of
persons charged with crime amount
ing to capital offenses. Through the
incapacity or culpability of jurors, un-
der the old system, notorious criminals
in many cases were allowed to escape
the punishment they SO richly de-
served. 1t was to remedy this crying
evil if possible that caused the law to
find favor with Legislators. Many
doubted its wisdom, but as 1t was a
long step in the right direction, nearly
every member consented to allow the
experiment to go on the statute books.
In Phoebe, one Gleason was recently
tried under the provisions of the new
law and found guilty of murder in the
first degree. Last Wednesday was the
time set for pronouncing sentence.
The Court convened at the appointed
time, and as the matters considered are
of deep importance, we give from the
Phoebe Journal a full account of what
TRANSFERRED, as follows:
After the minutes had been read, his
Honor said he had signed the bill of
exceptions in the Gleason case. Judge
P::tzer, counsel for defendant, filed a
motion in arrest of judgment on sew
eral grounds, the principal one of
which was the illegal manner in which
the Grand Jury which indicted Gleason
for murder was drawn. The Grand
Jury Lad no legal existence and the in
dictment was void. There was no au-
thority for drawing a Grand Jury X
cept during the term in which the trial
is had. Suppose a Grand Jury was in
session and the term should lapse,
would it not dissolve the Grand Jury?
Counsel asked that the indictment be
set aside, and that the defendant be
held to answer if it appeared to the
Court proper that he should be SO
held.
The motion was overruied, and
sci for defendant excepted.
Judge Pitzer next filed a motion for
a new trial, basing his motion mainly
$500, tl,o ,tti.o aud rrftnn-
atty of the so-called jury law passed
said, virtually compelled men to COM
nit perjury, for although a mar may
have convicted an accused person in
his own mind, yet he was compelled
to swear t. try the case according to
law and evidence. Blackstone said n
jury was twelve impartial men, but
the act of the last Legislature made
twelve men, whether partly or wholly
impartial, a competent jury. The At
torney General and many OF the best
lawyers in the State with whom coun-
sci had couversed pronounced the law
iniquitous. Counsel also stated a fact
which ought to excite surprise, if not
popular Indignation, that Justice Beat
~, of our Supreme Court, drew the
bill which the last Legislature had en-
deavored to mold into law. Counsel
next referred to the fact that in the
Gleason. case the State had challenged
twelve men who said they were inn
partial, and seventeen of the thirty
six believed defendant guilty, and of
the seventeen he could challenge only
twelve. Judge Pitzer said ii a new
trial was granted it should not cost the
county one dollar. He would advise
his client to withdraw the plea of not
guilty and enter another plea.
District Attorney Goldthwaite replied
briefly. While he regarded the jury
law as not the wisest of laws, he
thought it strictly constitutional.
Judge Rives, in ruling upon the mo-
ton tor a new trial, said he had given
the matter, in all its bearings, much
thought; that in respect to the first
point made by counsel for defendant,
as ground for the motion, viz: that
Grand Jury which found the indict-
ment having been found m the latter
part of November of the August Term
Of 1874, by judge Fuller to appear at
the December Term of that year;
that he-the Judge as an attor-
ney at that time had considered the
matter with other attorneys and at the
time the challenge was first interposed,
last December, had thought it a good
one, but upon reflection since had
thought differently, and besides, in the
case Of the State VS.. Curran had decid-
ed that the point was not we'll taken,
and Judge Fuller likewise decided in
this case. In regard to the exceptions
taken in behalf of the defendant upon
his (the Judge's) rulings during
the trial, he had some grave doubts;
that he thought the rulings had in the
main been correct, but that there were
two or three upon which he entertained
very considerable doubt, and hesitated
to say that they were moi sufficient to
entitle the defendant to \ new trial.
That above the doubts he entertained
in regard to the last were his opinions
in regard to the last amendment to the
jury law; that he did not agree with
the defendants counsel in ~unhesitat-
ingly declaring it unconstitutional, nor
could he coincide in the u~nequivocal
opinion of the District Attorney in its
constitutionality; that he entertained
many AMI serious misgivings upon
that subject; that upopa first examina-