The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1892-07-21
JORDAN TURNED loose.
He is Once More a Free Man,
Released by Judge Rhea.
The Opinion in Full that So Startled
the People,

The Bristol Courier publishes Judge
Rhea's opinion of the Jordan case as
follows.
In this case a number of exceptions
are made and relied on by the defend
ant in his motion for new trial, rela-
tive to the admission of certain testi-
mony, to furnishing the jury with a
code, and to the argument before the
jury by the attorneys representing the
commonwealth.
/ am of the opinion that there is no
merit In any of these exceptions, un-
less it can be found in the argument
of the attorneys representing the
State.
The court undertook, during the
trial, to exclude from the consideration
OF the jury, by instruction and other
wise, what it conceived was improper,
and what might tend to unjustly af-
feet the prisoners rights.
Besides being an unpleasant duty, it
is very difficult for the court, during
an argument, unless the same isplain
ly wrong, to draw the line of distinc-
ton, and interfere with an attorney in
what he conceives to be proper ar
gument, for we presume that an at
torney representing the State, espe
cially in an issue involving the life OF
liberty of citizen, would not do that
citizen an intentional injustice.
Such an attorney, whether repre-
senting the commonwealth, or EN-
ployed to assist in the prosecution
should be very guarded in his remarks
and should make no statement to the
jury that is not strictly in pursuance
of the law and evidence, for it is no
the intention of the State to convic
any innocent nan, but rather to have
no innocent man convicted.
| am aware that in heated discus
sion an attorney often INDUCES in Ian
guage which upon reflection he would
not make, yet it is undoubtedly tn
duty OF the court to interfere, howeve
unpleasant it may be, when such re
marks are warranted neither by tht
law nor the evidence, and are likel,
10 result in an injustice to the priso
ner.
Without commenting further upol
the exception OF the defendant, or eN
pressing an opinion upon the same
for we deem it unnecessary, in on
view of the case, we now pass to tht
question which has claimed the mos
serious consideration, and that il
Were the jury warranted under tn
law and the evidence in convictfn
the prisoner of murder in the secon
degree?
To answer this question it will b
necessary to some extent to reyie'
the evidence, and in doing SO, we wi
for the present, exclude from consiC
Grafton all the testimony Of Mrs, Az
ans and the defendant in regard t
what occurred at the time of the XII
ing, they being the only two eye.wi
nesses to the tragedy, for it would /
unreasonable to suppose that the jur
believed their testimony, and yet ioun
the defendant guilty. We will con
ment upon this further, but now e.
Guiding the same, how did the cas-
stand?
We find a man killed by a pist
shot, at about two o'clock in the nigl
in the hall Of his wife's home, with /
arms upon his person. We find |
the prisoners own confession that |
fired the fatal shot. We find the cor
monwealth claiming to have esta
iished motive for the crime by re
sons Of illicit relations between Il
wife of the deceased and the defen
ant. We find the defendant aroul
on that night with deadly weapt
Some time previous, while explainjl
why he had the same in his possessio
he stated that the deceased was je'
Gus of him, and that if the deceas
interfered with him he would sho
him, and again declared that if {
ceased interiered with him he wou
shoot his damned heart out.
1t is true that the defendant deni
these statements, but if the jury {
not believe that portion oihis eyiden