The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1884-01-24

for murderers, that when one is con-
victed there is general acceptance by
| the Courts that something has gone
wrong, and that there must be some
where an error in the procedure. And
most always they find it. The scent
of setter dog is not more acute than
that of higher Court for an error in
trial which has resulted in the con-
viction of murderer for the capital
degree Of this crime. As a matter of
course such verdict requires a new
trial. This may be another years de-
lay. The law-abiding public sees this,
and regards the Courts as a juggle.
| The brutal classes see that the law
makes the murderer its dearest object,
and that in all this proceeding he be-
comes kind of hero.
A brute who deliberately bought a
butcher knife, and lay i'll wait for his
wife on the street at the market place.
and then stabbed her to death, has
been tried for the third time, and the
third time convicted of murder in the
first degree. Two verdicts were set
aside by the Supreme Court on error.
If the third is not set aside, he will
have to be sentenced to be hung some
time or other This event is so unu-
sual that the lawyer and judicial mind
can not come up to it. The public
has ceased to have any expectation
that the Courts will hang murderers,
and therefore the hanging of this one
is made to appear exceptional and un-
just.
The points Of law upon which two
verdicts have been set aside will give
an idea of the refnements OF the ju-
dietary, and of the labyrinth through
which prosecution for capital
crime has to travel; and will also
show that it is almost incredible that
the Supreme Court will not find an
error in the third trial, by which to
prevent so exceptional an event as the
laws hanging of an unquestioned
murderer.
In the first trial the defense chal-
lenged a juror for cause, the cause be-
ing that he said he formed an opinion
from reading the testimony at the
Coroner's inquest. As ne said he
could give verdict according to the
evidence now presented, the Court did
not sustain the challenge for cause
The defense then challenged him per-
emptorily.
The defense in capital cases has the
privilege Of twenty-three peremptory
challenges. It's point of error was
that it had to use one of its perempto-
ries to exclude this juror, who should
have been excluded for cause, and
thereby it lacked one Of the whole
twenty-three which it should have
had to challenge jurors without cause.
The Supreme Court held that the
Court erred in not sustaining the
challenge for cause, and upon this it
set aside the verdict, and ordered "a
new trial, for a reason which in sub
stance is that a disqualified person
was excluded from the jury. The
ends Of justice and Of a fair trial and
true verdict are lost in such net.
At the second trial the prosecution
asked that the witnesses on both sides
be excluded from Courtroom while
each was testifying. The Court asked
for lists Of the witnesses. The Prose
cutor gave the list Of those for the
State. The defense said they could
not then give a list of theirs, but
would see that the Courts order was
obeyed on their side. The act of the
murder was proved by number of
witnesses, and was not seriously de-
MED by the defense.
One woman who heard the brute
threaten that he would kill the wife,
and who saw it done, was reputed to
have some flaw in her moral reputa-
ton in sexual things. What she tes-
titled to, the prosecution proved by
several other witnesses, but the de-
fense brought in a number Of persons
to testify that they would not believe
her under oath. Among the rest was
a policeman, whom the prosecutor
had observed sitting in the Court
room while others were testifying on
this point, and he objected to him for
this reason.
The Court ruled that he might not
testify on this point, in which he had
heard the other witnesses, but might
testify in other things. The defense
had brought up something like doz-
en- persons to swear the thing which
they required this man to swear, and
all that impeachment Of the witness
es' credulity could do had been
done; but they excepted to the exclu-
sion Of the testimony of this person
on that point, and took their excep-
ton to the Supreme Court.
The exclusion did not affect the i'm
peachment of the witness, for that
was made out, and did not affect the
defense in the slightest degree, nor
raise any question Of the justice of the
verdict. The Courts ruling was i'll
accordance with the ruling Of the Su-
preme Court in a former case in this
county, in which it held that in such
situation the Court might exercise
its discretion as to allowing the wit
ness to testify. But it now found
that this did not quite cover the point
of the Courts discretion to exclude
the witness, and therefore it set aside
the verdict and ordered retrial.
In all this the question Of justice Is
the one thing wholly eliminated from
the proceeding. Its whole aim is to
find crack through which the mur-
derer can escape. Trials Of murderers
when at last they come, are not re-
garded as final unless they acquit
Re-trials are a threshing Of old straw
The community finds that all the laws
for its protection are made impotent
by the Courts. The trade Of the Grim
inal lawyer grows to be the principal
feature in the judiciary, and an i'm
portant factor in politics. The bru-
tai classes see that when they have
committed the highest crimes they be-
come the dearest objects Of the laws
| nrntactinrn and th at the narsnnal GO e.