Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-06-07
THE LANGSTON VERDICT.
An Explanation by One Of the Jurors
What the Jury Regarded as the Piv.
DIAL Point in the CaSe-Whcre the
Prosecution Failed.

To the Editor of THE EVENING STAR:
There seems to be no little diversity Of opin-
ion regarding the propriety of bringing in a YER
dict of not guilty VIRTUALLY justifabe homicide)
by the jury in the Langston trial. Likewise no
little criticism, principally derogatory to the
honesty integrity and good sense of the Jury
men. has been and is now being INDUCED in,
Most persons who speak thusly of the urymen
and the verdict did not hear the testimony, the
prayers OF the defense, nor the charge of the
court. or, at best, but little of them, and are.
therefore. not capable OF judging correctly or
justly of the merits OF the case as presented to
the jury; and those who heard or read in the
daily papers the evidence are not fully Justified
In coming to a definite and fixed conclusion of
the guilt or innocence of Langston based there
upon. There was one element in the case fully
and well developed for the defense and supported
by the prayers of the defendant, which in turn was
reinforced by the charge to the jury by the
court. That element was the we'll defined good
character and reputation set up by the defense
and maintained by their testimony, unimpeached
and nnbroken by the prosecution. 1t was with
in { he reach of the prosecution to have broken
down this good character set up by the defense
1t should have been done, and had it been done
in all probability there would have been q con-
viction at least of manslaughter.
The establishment of such good character and
bytestimOny on behalfOf the prosecution worked
wonders in the jury box. The position of the
prosecution on this one point struck the most
of the jurymen go forcibly that it went a
great way towards making up verdict of
acquittal. 1t may have seemed to the prosecu-
tiOn matter Of very little significance, but in
the eyes and hearts Of some of the jurymen it
assumed such proportions as to be the pivotal
point upon which the case turned. And this
was a position well and sOundly taken, too. for
Sup no of nd
ers Of the defense touching the same, that it
was in fact the very point In the case upon
which the decision turned For 1t was espe-
cially the prayer Of the defense and so charged
idiosyncrasies of character set up by defense,
so as to say whether defendant being of this
peculiar lambllke disposition was not reasonably
Of the opinion that he was in danger OF losing
life or receiving great bodily injury at the
hands of Williams and the crowd which was
said to have pressed forward when Williams
went towards the defendant, Williams and the
crowd taking defendant to be white man. It
was expressly ruled that the jury should not
draw conclusions from having mentally put
conclusions from putting Langston himself in
the position he was said to have been, possessed
as he was, of the said timid, lamblke disposition
and decide whether LangstOn was reasonably Of
the belief (being of the aforesaid lamblike dispo
sti0n) when he fred the shots, that he was in
danger Of life or great bodily injury. Had this
character and disposition. as set up by the de-
tense, and of necessity accepted by the jury
been broken-and it easily might have been ac-
cording to authentic and reliable sources OF in
formation-I reiterate that Langston would at
least have been convicted of manslaughter or
the jury been hung up until discharged by the
court. Most people forget, or are ignorant Of
the fact that the jury is sworn to render a YER
dict according to the evidence as presented to
1t. and which ever side sets up the stronger case
of course secures the favorable verdict Whether
it, in reality, be right or wrong-yet
it is the verdict according to the evidence
brought before the men sitting as jury.