The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-01-09
THE MOOSE MAY WAIT.
ecution OF Friedrich Likely to Be
Long Deferred.

Aecution OF Friedrich Likely to Be
Long Deferred.
The EXECUTION Of Albert Friedrich, twice con-
victed OF the murder OF julius scherbring,
when was fixed for January IA, il apt to be long
aeierfeo When notice of appeal from the
Judgment OF the superior court In the second
.Ilai was given by the attorneys of the con-
oemned man it acted as q stay of the execution
Until the supreme court shall pass on the case
Even though this tribunal should refuse to re-
verse the decision of the lower court, the day of
friedrich's hanging promises to be put off for
much longer period, as his lawyers have an
nounced that, If necessary, they will carry the
case TO the supreme court of the United States
on question of constitutional law.
lyier d Tyler, the attorneys who have been
making desperate fight in Friedrich's behalf.
have completed their brief to be submitted to
the supreme court 1t viii be sent on to olym-
pia at once, and after its fling the prosecuting
attorney win be given thirty days in which to
answer. It Ia quite probable that he will do SO
In much less time, as he 10 anxious to have the
case brought 70 an end. This being so, hear
Ing may be had this month. One OF the strong
ess points advanced in the brief is the plea of
former jeopardy, incurred by Friedrich in his
nrst trial 1t Is on this question that the fight
viii be carried, IL need be- 10 the highest court
in the land. The confidence OF the appellants
IN their position is expressed in the following
extract from the brief:
The judgment in this case must be reversed.
because the defendant has once been convicted
On the same charge and has been once in jeop-
ardy. The facts are as follows: An Indictment
was found against this defendant in July, 1887,
charging him with the crime of murder. Upon
this Indictment he was tried and convicted the
same year, and thereupon the defendant ap-
peaied TO the supreme court OF the state. On
May IA, lo9l, the supreme court reversed the
judgment of conviction and sent the case pack
ior q new trial, upon the ground that errors in
pnFrl tnIf tad hxyt haf rfs
the beginning OF the opinion the supreme court
expressly says: "The indictment was sufficient
60 chsrge the defendant with the crimo OF MUIR
der in the first degree"
What was then done? Did the state proceed
70 try the defendant upon the indictment which
had been iudieially declared to be sufficient and
which decision became the law of the case?
Not at all. The prosecuting attorney goes be-
fore the grand jury, witnesses are examined and
new indictment is found against the defend
ant upon the same charge of murder, and upon
this second indictment the defendant is ar
raigned, pleads, 10 tried, convicted and again ap
peas to this court The first indictment is not
dismissed and still remains in full force and
effect A plea of former conviction is inter-
posed by the defendant and overruled by the
court All these facts appear OF record.
simple, and we contend that no case can be
found in the books, where a conviction has been
obtained on good aud sufficient indictment
and the judgment reversed on other legal
grounds, that a defendant has ever been tried
for the same offense upon a new and different
indictment. An entirely new prosecution for
the same offense was begun and prosecuted
against this defendant; from beginning to end
the proceedings were dc moro, and the case thus
falls within all the constitutional, statutory and
common law provisions upon this subject, Of
once in jeopardy and former conviction or &C.
Quittal.
The constitution and the code OF the state of
Washington are quoted and numerous citations
given in support of the position taken in the
brief.
number of exceptions are noted in the brief
to the action of the court in allowing the evil
dence OF certain witnesses to go TO the jury; in
the refusal of the court to give certain instruc-
tions requested by the defendants attorueys)
upon the law of circumstantial evidence and
upon other points.
In q concluding argument on the facts of the
casethe allegation Is made that the verdict was
not warranted by and was contrary to the evil
dence. The hypothesis of suicide is advanced
as being better borne out by the evidence than
any other theory tending to prove the defend.
ants guilt and a plausible statement OF the con-
ditions surrounding the crime 10 given IN sup
port of the theory of self-murder.