The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-11-14
MURDERER CECILIA SAVED.
supreme Court Scores Judge Sachs fo
Reading Newspaper During the Trial.

supreme Court Scores Judge Saehs for
Reading Newspaper During the Trial.
OLYMPIA, Nov. 13-[special 1.-The supreme
court today, in a lengthy opinion by Judge
scott, reversed the judgment of the jefferson
county superior court in the case of Dominica
Coeiia, who was convicted of murder in the
hrst degree. The opinion contains severe re-
Duke to Judge Sachs for his misconduct during
the trial On this branch of the case the court
says, in part:
II appears by certain afidayits contained in
the record that while the defendant was on the
reading newspaper, and that while defend
ants attorney was trying to impeacn the testi-
mony OF the witness for the prosecution
the Judge Familiarity eonversed with
said witness: that at various times pleasant
smiles passed between them, and that they all
passed one TO the other candy, which was
eaten While said witness testimony was being
assaiied. These afidavits are not contradicted
or explained in any way, nor was the imputa-
tioii that the affair was calculated to create an
impression in the minds of the Jury unfayorable
to the defendant disputed. As it is made to ap-
pear to us the proceedings amounted to some
thing more than undignifed conduct on the
part OF the judge The soiemnity of a
the life Of a human being can scarcely be ap-
preached in any other proceeding over which
human beings have control Certainly, any
man connected herewith and filling an i'm
portant position, must realize the awful respon-
sibiiity resting upon him and rise to the dignity
OF the situation. The reading OF a newspaper
Dy the judge at the sole particular time while
the defendant was upon the stand testifying-
anu IL does not appear that he read it at any
other time while the trial was in progress
would lead the jury, always quick to receive
any impression from the judge, as well from
his acts and manner from what he may say,
to think that the testimony being offered was
untrushful or unimportant and unworthy of
their consideration.
Referring to the course of the Judge towards
the witness whose testimony the defendant
sought to impeach, the court says:
The marked conduct of the Judge towards
this witness at the time must have made q de-
cided Impression upon the jury. 1t was sub
stantially saying to them that the judge be-
Heved in this man and indorsed his testimony.
The court further says:
We have q constitutional provision prohibit
ing judge from commenting on matters of
fact to the jury. 1t was intended to prevent the
judge from conveying to the jury mis- opinion
upon the facts. in order that these matters
might be left to the exclusive province of the
jury. To allow a judge to demean himself as to
convey such information by his conduct would
be more dangerous end subversive of Justice
than actual comments, because ordinarily it
would be much more difficult to get at or show
iorth upon the record in case of an appeal. It
1s to bs hoped that such an occasion will not
often arise.
The court holds that the confession of defend
ant was properly admitted, but decides that it
was an error to overrule the challenge to Juror
bigss, "ho nao employed the murdered man and
expressed bias. 1t is also held that the defend
ant should have been permitted to testify as to
threats of deceased reported to him before the
crime, and that the judge should have defined
"malice" and "premeditation' in his instruc-
tions. number of other errors are noted. The
opinion is signed by all the judges except Judge
Hoyt, who concurs in the result
THE murder, for which Dominica Cecilia was
tried in the superior court at Port Townsend,
July 8, 1890, Cecilia cut John Delitis, Port
Townsend grocer, into shreds with a razor, and
aftefward confessed to the deed, claiming that
but afterwards stated that the killing was dons
in the heat OF passion during dispute between
himself and his employer about wages. He was
sentenced to death. His attorney, John Fair
field, OF Seattle, made a motion for q new trial,
which was denied, and the case was then ap-
peaied to the supreme court E. E. Moody ar
gued the case for the state