Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1892-02-17
GOES TO THE COURT.
THE ARGUMENTS CONCLUDED IN THE GAR
RISON CASE.
4 Large Audience Present Yesisrday-Ths Closing
Address Of Col. Arnet Mr.. Howard
Dsfnss His Position.

The attorneys in the Garrison case
did not make their appearance yester-
day morning until about 10 o'clock, al
though the Judge and the prisoner were
present long before that time. Captain
Dovener did not make his appearance
until about an hour latter. Colonel Ar
nett asked for few minutes in which
to review a part Of DR.. Garrison's testi-
mony. The colonel then proceeded,
with the permission Of the Court:
~ want to refer TO the testimony of Geo.
W. Robinson. That whole investigation
had no bearing on the case at the time.
The examination Of Mr.. Beans will
indicate that the letter received by DR..
Garrison had no effect upon his (Garri-
son's) mind. The labored EFFORT
made on the part of the State was to show
that DR.. Baird did not write that letter. The
object Of introducing the testimony OF Geo.
Robinson was to prove that DR.. Baird did
not write the letter. But that conversation
withRobinsOn took place IN March and
that with Mr.. Beans IN January. l don' I
think there is reason TO think that DE-
Garrison had any cause 10 believe anything
t.
Here the Colonel read from DR.. Gar
rison's testimony, TO show that DR.. Car
rison had no reason TO know anything
but DR.. Baird wrote the letter. The
Colonel then said:
THE testimony of Robinson was not ad-
missioe The conversation between DR..
Garrison and Mr. Beans took place in Jan
uary. The investigation by the postoftice
authorities occurred in March, and IS
therefore inadmissiole II the postofhce
authorities could prove that il was not Dr..
Baird's letter, then that testimony could be
brought before the jury. The matter OF
the homicide is totally different matter
from the authorship Of that letter. DR..
Garrison was told by Geo. w. Robinson
that the poStOtice authorities mad lnHesti-
gated the matter and found that DR.. Baird
was not the author Of the letter. This was
after the conversation with Mr.. Beans. The
State cannot introduce evidence which the
defendant already admits. lfDr. Garrison
is not allowed to testify as TO that matter,
then certainly RobinsOn's testimony in re-
buttal is inaumissi0le.
"Noy TO the question Of fact, upon which
we ask your Honor 10 set aside the YER
dict Misconduct Of juror maybe before
or after the swearing OF the panel. IL II
occur after the Juror is sworn ii must i'm
ply iujury-the presumption is injury. If
the misconduct precedeS the swearing OF
the Juror, then the injury must be estao-
hshed 1t has always Deen held so.'
The Colonel then rehearsed a number
Of Virginia cases in support OF his
claim.
The defense must prove injury if the
misconduct of the Juror took place before
1T hn;p orrn m GRNnnnrt
after being sworn. the presumption is that
the defendant has been injured, and the
burden of proof lies upon the State. In
selecting and swearing the jury, as soon as
the Juror is under the control OF the Court,
If he be guilty of misconduct, then the pre-
sumption is that the prisoner has sustained
injury. Now, does not the Court have con-
troll Of juror as soon as he is sworn on his
voir der. Certainly
A discussion followed on whether or
not misconduct at the time of the juror
being sworn on his voir dire examination,
DC injury presumptlve to the defendant.
Col. Arnett went on: snow, Your
Honor, as soon as q Juror is elected, he is
under the protection Of the Court. In the
case OF the Juror, Ballard, he was set aside
on some objection, after the Court had
said re was a good juror. The defendant
is not compelled toeXerciSe that eXtraOrdin-
airy vigilence in respect TO the jurors after
the Jurors have been elected, because they
are under the Courts protection.
There is a line of demarCation between
the diligence of the defendant and the time
the Court takes charge of the jurors. The
only question is whether the Court takes
charge Of the juror after he is sworn or at
the time Of his voir dire examination"
Capt. Dovener said that the defence
did not claim that the misconduct OF
Juror Robinson took place after he was
sworn. The burden of proof, therefore,
lies with the defense. Col. Arnett con-
tinUed:
Suppose the Juror, Robinson, had made
violent expressions against the defendant
after being sworn. Your Honor would
then hold that his mind was poisoned and
prejudiced against this defendant. Now,
is there any evidence Of misconduct after
the Jury had been sworn. Tolbert tells
YOU on the 25th day OF May he met Robin
son on the street, and Robinson said,
there's where he shot DR.. Baird and the
- ought TO have been hung Now, no
one can attack the veracity Of this man
Tolbert Now, about the conversation
Robinson had with Bates land Bates is
man of high standing in his own COM
murity) Bates said that Robinson did
express his opinion about Garrison"
Col. Aruett then dwelt at great
length upon the circumstances con-
nected with Juror Robinson. Court
here adjourned until 1870, it then being
1915.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Col. Arnett resumed his address at
about quarter of two o'clock, turning
his attention TO. the evidence of Rich
mond, Bates and others in the matter OF
the allegations against Juror Joseph W.
Robinson. and insisted that Mr.. and
Mrs. Bates and Dolph Tolbert