The morning call., 1893-12-19
REMARKS FROM THE BENCH
Judge Wallace Speaks His Mind
Freely.
O'NEIL WAS GUILTY OF MURDER.
Absurd That One Who Committed
Such Deed Should Get Off With
Few Years in Prison.

Martin ONeil was sentenced by Judge
Wallace yesterday to ten years imprison-
ment for the killing of Mrs. Kate Critics.
The occasion afforded Judge Wallace an
opportunity to express his views upon the
present system OF criminal pr cedure.
Wearied and disgusteG by numerous futile
attempts to see that each offender receives
an amount of punishment prOportionate to
his crime. the Judge in addressing O'Neil
yesterday. and using the case at bar for an
example, commented strongly upon the
manner in which the hands of justice were
tied by the constitution as ii at present
stands. He also took occasion to remark
that in his opinion the verdict of man.
slaughter was hardly borne out by evil
dence az the trial, in that such evidence
pointed, at least, to a verdict of murder in
the second degree.
The prisoner sat quietly in the court
room, apparently unconcerned, but betray-
ing by the restless twitching OF his hands
that he feared the ordeal before him. His
wife sat beside him as before and sought
by her loving presence to do what she could
to help him bear his fate.
AS soon as Judge Wallace had taken his
seat the case was called and ONeil ordered
to stand up. Judge Wallace then laid
spectacles, and proceeded as follows:
Martin O'NeiI; you were accused of
the murder of Kate Critics; to this accusa-
tiOn when read to you here you pleaded
not guilty; upon trial, and after an elabo-
rate and able defense, the jury found you
guilty of the crime OF maDslaughter; have
you any legal cause to show why judgment
should not be passed upon you upon the
verdict"
Carroll Cook, on behalf of the prisoner.
called attention to the fact that his client
was drunk at the time and oblivious to
what was going on. He insisted that the
punishment should be light.
Judge Wallace then resumed: "The
necessary import of the verdict Is that you
did in fact fel0niously take the life of the
deceased woman, and by the disgusting
ana brutal means shown IN the evidence;
you were, therefore, plainly guilty of mur-
der, that you were drunk when you die
the act afforded no defense as against the
charge of murder In the second degree.
and as the entire jury appear to have been
satisfied that you committed the act
charged, you should at least have bee n
convicted of that offeDse-lhe offense of
murder in the second degree; il is under
stood that some eleven of the gentlemen of
the jury were OF that opinion, too. Among
the twelve, hnwever. oGe was found who.
while he, like the Others, was convinced
that you feloniously took the life OF the
woman, nevertheless refused to concur
in a verdict of murder, and SO the others
of The jury were forced either to adopt the
views of their one dissenting associate or
find no verdict at all.
sit is provided by the constitution that
in civil cases three-fourths of tie jury may
render a verdict. but in Grimm al cases ab-
sOlute unanimity is still required hy our
law. The conspicuous failure of substan-
tiai justice which has thus resulted in your
case may possibly suggest to thoughtful
men the advisability of changing the con-
sttutlon, SO as to permit a number of
jurors less than the whole to render a ver-
diet in criminal as we'll as in civil cases.
The verdict here, as already observed, is
verdict Of manslaughter; the extreme
measure OF punishment mentioned IN our
statute for that offanse is imprison-
ment in the State Prison for term not
exceeding ten years in duration. And
then. under the law of this State, even
judged against you, the term Of your actual
i'm mprsOnment is subject to material re-
ductlon, Tor sentence OF ten years i'm
prisonment formally imposed here will
probably turn out by mere operation OF
statutory law to be an Imprisonment of
no more than six years and six months in
actual duration, to say nothing of the in
lerDositlol of the executive auth ority to
still further reduce the term or to pardon
the offense outright. For wantonly and
felonlouSly taking the life OF defenslesS
woman six years and six months impris-
menti In fact, the system of criminal ad-
ministration at this time established by
our constitution and laws would appear
wholly inadequate to deal properly with
crimes such as yours.
1.-THE jury having found you guilty of
the crime of manslaughter, the sentence
of the court is that you be imprisoned in
the State Prison for a term of ten years."
The unhappy mans wife on hearing the
sentence burst into tears, while O'Neil sat
with his hands closed together and his
eyes bent on the ground, while his mind
dou ubt!ess travelled back through circum-
stances and events in the past which,
through his own fault alone. led to the
utter ruin and desolation of mis- home. He
was quickly led from the room and the
court proceeded with the regular business
of the day.