The record-union., 1893-10-25

ment for life. All this clearly manlfests
the tender sensibilities OF our people to-
ward the unfortunate. The presiding
Judge has better opportunity than any
one to weigh the evidence and to know
whether injustice has been done IN any
form. He is also clothed with power and
OF his own volition to set a verdict aside
and order new trial. The District At
torney at times may be overzealous for
conviction, but my experience in pardon
cases is that, as rule, they do not hesi-
tate, when called upon by me, to speak
frankly and without prejudice upon the
facts in the case.
When the condemned has had fair
and impartial trial, and when no new ev-
idence is discovered which, had it been
presented to the jury, might have
changed its verdict, it is clearly against
the spirit of the law for the Governor to
interfere and reverse the decision of the
jury and the judgment of the court. Not
being present at the trial, the Governor
has not the opportunity of hearing the
witnesses while on the stand and knows
nothing of the facts, except as embodied
in the stenographic report and such eX
parte evidence as may be presented to
him by those interested on either side.
1t seems clear that such power, ii vested
in any one, should have been vested in
the Supreme Court, it being the highest
judicial tribunal in the State. If, how
ever, the Governor is convinced that the
jury was mistaken and that injustice has
been done the accused, he should not hes
itate TO correct the wrong, but he should
| have fairly good reasons for this belief.
l was impressed with the fairness of
the presiding Judge towards the accused,
and that, too, throughout the entire trial
His charge to the jury was all that the
most sympathetic could ask and his rul-
! ings were correct and have been sus-
tanned by the Supreme Court Of the State.
can discover no undue zeal for convic-
ton on the part of the District Attorney.
and the accused was certainly earnestly
and intelligently defended.
am aware of the fact that in many
! such cases it is urged that If the defense
| had had such and such great criminal
| lawyers 10 defend him the verdict might
| have been different. 1t is also fair to as
sumo that had the State equally as emf
nent counsel the result would not have
been changed. No attorney can change
the facts in a case. Though he may dis
color, belittle and eXaggerate them i'll the
minds Of the jury, yet the facts must al
ways remain the same. In this case. as it
seems to me, it would require an exceed
ingly aStute attorney TO explain away this
appalling homicide under the admitted
circumstances surrounding 1t. Had the
presiding Judge, the jury or the District
| Attorney @ Y pressed an opinion in favor of
Executive clemency it would have had
great weight. Evidently none of them
| have felt warranted in so doing. | have
| inquired into the standing of each MEM
her of the jury. They certainly stand
well in the community in which they
| live. In fact, all concede it to have been
a good jury. Not one of them has eX-
pressed to me the belief that the verdict
rendered was an unjust one.
Thus it will be seen that the Judge, the
jury and the District Attorney, constitut-
! ing the court that tried the case, still be-
| lieve the verdict was just, and although it
has been almost three years since the
trial OF this case, it is evident that they
| have not changed their minds. Can |, in
view Of all these facts and under my otli-
cial oath, set their best judgment aside I?
1t is urged by many friends of the con-
demned that, owing to the numerous
| homicides in Fresno County, public
sentiment demanded a victim, and that
! poor DIR. Vincent must serve as such.
| That the court. the jury and the county
| officials were so lntimidated on account
| of public clamor that they dare not act
according to their convictions. OF this
do not know, but l do know that the
record disclOses nothing of the kind. DR..
! Vincent took the life of an innocent, de-
fenseless woman, his wife and the mother
of his only child, and, to all appearances,
in most cruel and heartless manner. He
| is either entirely innocent or is guilty of
the highest crime known to the law. Did
[ believe him innocent it would be my
duty to grant him complete pardon.
do not believe him innocent, and find
little or nothing outside of the facts pre-
sented to the jury to raise even reason
able doubt of his guilt. While my SYM
pathies naturally go out to him in his un-
fortunate condition, must decline to in
terfere with the verdict of the jury and
the judgment of the court. Yours very
truly, Ii. II. MARKHAM, Governor.