Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1886-06-02
The McMeen Murder Case.

hast week, a synopsis of the reasons filed
may, II, 1886, why new trial should be
granted, was published in these columns. In
this weeks issue We publish thirteen addi
'lonai reasons that acMeen's lawyers filed
May Is, 1886. They are as follows.
LIST That, A. K. Markle, one of the iu-
rors In the case, was not competent or quaI.
ined to act as juror, he being at present a
pensioner on the United States Governmen;
Tor an injury to his head occasioned by the
iaiiing of some bricks from O chimney,
which injury, according to certificate of a
physician, has effected his mind.
End. That, said juror, had formed and ex-
pressed an opinion as to the guilt of the
defendant before he was empanelled as a
juror in the case.
Srd. That, said juror, before the evidence
was all in said to his fellow jurors, s.My yer.
dict is here" accompanying the words
with the act Of striking his breast, and fur
ther saying that his verdict would be gull
ty.
4th. That, after the jury had retired to
make up their verdict, and had taken bal
lot which resulted liz a vote of seven for ac-
quittal and five for conviction, the said, A.
h. Markle, became sullen, withdrew from
among his fellow jurors and refused to eat
his supper when it was brought to the room,
declaring, that he would not eat with men
who would vote as his fellow jurors had
voted.
5th. That, finally, when the voting had
reached eight to four in favor of convic-
ton, the juror above named and one or two
others assured the four who held for acauit-
tai, that it was in evidence that defendant
had said to one Of the witnesses for the
Commonwealth that ho was on fis way to
Miifiintown to buy medicine for bis wife and
baby, and that Nancy McMeen had SAID on
the day before her death, that on the next
day she was going to take dose Of quinine,
that the jurors for acquit tai declared they
bad not heard this evidence, and that then
A. X. Markle and Charles Farleman had per-
suaded them that it was not heard because
they were either deaf or because they had
sat on the back row of seats, that at last be-
ing convinced that it was SO in evidence
and had escaped their hearing, they yielded
and voted for conviction, which, otherwise
they would not have done.
9th. That, on the first day of the trial be-
fore the jury was sworn, but after it was se-
locted, certain members of the Jury were
permitted TO go out of the Court Room, that
one, Thadeus Switzer, within the hearing o f
the Jurors aforesaid, expressed himself in
loud, strong language as to his belief in the
prisoners guilt and that he ought to be
hung.
Ith. That, since the trial a number of
witnesses have been found who saw Mrs.
Moist burn the papers, as she tes stifed, thu s
to a certain extent, corroborating the testi-
mony of Mrs. A. J. Moist, which was so Vi
tally important to the defendant.
Sth. That, the sullen, unreaso nable con-
duct of one OF the jurors, Markle. exerted
an intimidating influence on the minds of
other jurors, inducing them to reach ver-
diet which is not at all warranted by the
testimony OF the case.
9th. The Court erred in that, at any time
IT permitting the jury TO separate, thus af-
fording it an opportunity to be reached by
the prejudice and excitement which prevail
ed among the outside people.
10Th A conviction which has been search
ed, not only by purely circ1mstantial evil
dence, but also, by presuming that, which
ought TO be proren as an evidentiary fact, is
an illegal and unwarrsnted conviction, which
ought not to stand. In such a case We be-
lieye the Court ought not to hesitate in
promptly granting new trial. Where a
case Is purely circumstantill, sll the circum
stances, at least should be proven, none of
them should be presumed.
lIth. In capital case where there exists
from the evidence not only a reasonable
doubt of guilt, but, also, strong probabil-
ity of innocence, a new trial can do no harm
whereas, a refusal of new trial may do
untold harm.
18th. In a capital case, unless convic-
ton has been reached By the clearest and
most convincing kind of evidence, new
trial should always be granted.
18th. Under the evidence in this case
there ought not to have been q conviction.