The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-11-01
Judgment affirmed.

J. T. BRIDEwELL, nc parte
Appeal from decision Of Hon. U. NJ
Young.
This case involves the constitutional right
of bail in capital cases.
CHALMERS, j., delivered the opinion of the
Court
BY the organic law of the State it is de
clared that "excessive bail shall not be re-
quired, and all persons shall, before convic.
ton, be bailable by sufficient sureties, ex.
cept for capital offenses where the proof il
evident or the presumption great. Sec. s.
Bill of Rights.
The provision makes the granting of bal
mandatory in all cases not excluded by the
exception, but not prohibit it in cases falling
within the exception. In other words, al
persons have the constitutional right to be
bailed except when the proof is positive or
the presumption great that they have been
guilty of capital offense, and even where
the proof against them Is of this character,
they may be admitted to bail within the
sound discretion of the presiding Judge, if
there be exceptional circumstances that seem
to demand it. The admission to bail, how
ever, where there is evident proof or great
presumption Of guilt of q capital offense, is
not a constitutional right, but matter rest
ing in the sound judicial discretion of the
trial Judge, who should net grant it save
under extraordinary circumstances, such as
serious and probably fatal injury to health,
or unusual aud protracted delay upon the
part of the State in bringing the prisoner to
trial.
What rule should be applied in determin-
ing whether the applicant for bail has mega
lived the existence of evident proof or great
presumption of the commission of capital
offense. and has thereby established his con-
stitutional right to be released from impris-
onment? We remark in the first place, that
the judicial officer who hears the application
is the trier of the facts and he acts upon the
conviction that the testimony leaves upon
his own mind. He must give or deny bail
accordingly as he thinks that case has
been made out which brings the prisoner
within or without the constitutional rule.
When we sit in revision of his Judgment,
We act upon the convictions made upon us
by perusal of the testimony contained in
the record, giving to the Judgment of the
inferior officer that prima .tigcie presumption
of correctness which attaches to the iudgN
diction, strengthened in this class of cases
by the fact that he has seen the witne SEES
and heard them testify under circumstances
which made it his duty to attend to their
bearing and determine their credIbilily.
What strength of proof shall be regarded as
having made guilt evident or the presump.
ton of it SO great as to bring the accused
within the constitutional exception and de-
Y1ri him of tho larYa1 fi,,bN A.,
largement upon bail 2
1t was said by the High Court of Errors
and Appeals, in Moore's case, SO Miss, 142.
and again in Bealls case, 80 Miss, 7I5, that
the Court might admit to bail ''eyen in cases
where the jury might or perhaps ought, on
the same evidence, to render verdict of
murder If by this it was meant that this
Court, or the presiding Judge on hearing of
a writ of haJeds corpus might in its discre-
ton, and under the exceptional circum-
stances alluded to above, grant bail even
though the relator had not made out case
where he was constitutionally entitled to de-
mand it, we approve the remark but if il
was meant that the applicant, in the alb ,ence
of such exceptional circumstances. can ever
be said to have established a legal right to
demand enlargement by testimony which
would make 1t the duty of a jury TO convict
him OF capital crime, we dissent from il.
A jury ought not to convict If there be a
reasonable doubt Of guilt, and therefore TO
say that the accused is eonstitutionallv en-
titled to lbail though there be no reasonable
doubt Of his guilt, is manifestly TO nulify
the provision of the Bill of Rights. which
limits the absolute right to cases where the
proof IL not evident nor the presump.ion
great IL rs.1ul1 h. Isfs.r,1E a.
ing TO these words if they do not embrace A
case where guilt has been established be-
yond all reasonable doubt.
In Streets case, 43 Miss, l, reference
was made and an extract quoted from
Ashmead penn } r. 234, in which the rulo
was announced that bail would be denied
IN all cases where Court would refuse to
set aside a verdict Of conviction of a capi>
tai crime. This rule, we think. is as plain,
ly violative Of the organic law ION the
other extreme) as the remark of the High
Court Of Errors and Appeals in the cases
above cited.
A verdict Of conviction, where no error
Of law has interviewed, will never be set
aside unless manifestly wrong, or as j.
some times said, il there be any evidence
to support it. To say that bail viii only
be granted where there is no evidence show
ing guilt or where the proof Of guilt is 30
slight upon The whole testimony that a con-
Eieti0n would be manifestly wrong. Is
plainly inconsistent with The constitutional
that II shall be granted in an
cases except where the proof Is evident or
The presumption great. The error Of the
rule il in failing b give an,
effect 10 q verdict Of conviction. or IN over.
looking The vast change il effects in the
atfitude Of the uarfV Re- Il A.. IL =.