The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-06-30
JURY TRIALS.


Frank Minsch. charged with killing his
brother, Edward A Minsch, is murder in
the second degree 1t seems TO as 8 just
verdict. There was no evidence. while
both brothers were armed. that they in
tended to kill each other. for as deputy
United States marshals they had right
to carry arms. There is proof that the
dead brother in his violent alteration
with his dlssipated brother used
harsh language but ITS extravaganza
indicates no serious designs TO do his
SLAYER bodily harm. 1t was just such
language Is an angry man Of rude antece-
dents would use to . deputy. brother or no
brother. who had disgraced his position by
public display of his inebriety. The fact
that. the dead man was a corpse before he
could fire his revolver. which he had in
stsnctively grasped when he saw that his
brother had shown his pistol, shows that
he did not seriously mean anything by his
angry rsproaches to his murderer.
The ordinary relations of the two broth
ers were not such as to imply that either
one premeditated the death of the other.
Frank Minsch, had he not been drinking
heavily in public for several days, would
not have excited the ire of his brother,
and had he no: been 'whisky-mad" or
morose, he would not have pulled his
gun" and killed his brother. The jury
acted fairly in the matter: they did not
allow themselves to be prejudiced by the
fact that the prisoner had killed his
brother, they simply decided the case on
slayer had not beel brothers. They de-
ciied that the prisoner did not kill his
brother with generalization and therefore
was not guilty of murder in the
first degree; they decided that he
did not kill him in self-defense, out did
kill him in fit of rage consequent upon
long drinking and excited by the bitter
reproaches of his brother; they decided
that his disspated habits were no excuse,
for the law fairly says moroseness or lack
of self-control consequent upon long
drinking shall not excuse man from
punishment for crime. On the evidence
the jury did not believe that the prisoner
therefore was not guilty of murder in the
fret degree; they did not believe that he
killed him in self-defense, and so they
fairly convicted him of murder ia the sec
ond degree.
Under all the circumstances it seems to
Us the jury took just view of the whole
affair and that their verdict was in ac-
cordar CO with the law and the facts. Had
there been any proof of previous bad
blood" between the brothers, or had not
Frank Minseh been reused to anger by his
brothers naturally bitter reproaches the
Jury would have been fully justified in
finding verdict Of murder in the first de-
gree. The case differed widely from that of
the murder of Dave by Murphy, FOX there
had been no alteration between Dave and
Murphy. who deliberately shot Dave dead
in cold blood. Murphy deserved TO have
been convicted of murder in the first de-
gree. but the verdict of murder In the
second degree in the case of Frank Minseh
seems 10 US under all the circumstances a
| fair and Jus, conclusion.
| The verdicis Of jaries are sometimes un-
satisfactory. but so high legal authorities
/ as Judges Dillon and Miller hold that III
| judges viii do their full duty Jurors will
| do theirs. " Ex-Judge Dillon. Of the United
| States district court. says that he has tried
/ literally thousands OF cases with jurors
/ aud the instances are few in which he had
+ cause 20 he dissatisfied with their YER
/ diets. when acting under the guidance
! Of capable Judge their verdicts are almost
/ always right" The late Mr.. Justice Nil
Ter. Of the supreme court not long before
his death said;
An experience Of twenty-five years on
| the beach. and an observation during that
/ time % cases which come from all the
/ courts Of the United States to the supreme
/ court for review. as vel s. Of cases tried
! before me 81 niSi pr1us, have satisfied me
/ that, when the principles above stated are
faithfully applied ~ the court In q Jury
/ trial. and the Jury j. fair one, then, as a
/ method OF ascertstning the truth In regard
1 to disputed questions OF fact. Jury Is IN
/ the main IS valuable an equal number
/ Of jadges would be, o. any less number
( And must say taAt IN my experience. In
she conference room Of the supreme court
/ 81 the United States, which consists Of
1 nine Judges / have been surprised 10 fiud
/ hos readily those judges come 10 an
/ agreement up0Ss questions uf aaw, and how
/ oflea they disagree IN regard 90 qaessio
[ Of fact which apparently are as clear as
| fhe iax. have noticed thus So often IA
| am willing 10 give she benefit Of mr. Oh
sersatioa ca this snhlecs 70 the pahlic. that
/ judges are not prs-emibensly lifted over
/ other men 81 good Judgment in business
4 AFFAIR." % decide upon mere questions Of
4 disputed facL
Ex-Jadgs Dillon attributes the short
eosniags Of ieries in civil eases TO the fac,
that judges have bsea deprived in many
OF TIE states 81 some Of ths powers neoes-
sSry 20 secure true verdict. and noa on y
1 these bat ssses here, they faa 90 use tie
! power of corressine the mistakes OF iaries
/ by an adequate s1srclss Of The rsghs 10
4 r-aat new tr4als IN ssrfe az the stnsn.-