The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-05-01
TO PRISON HE GOES
Corrupt Juror Armstrong Gets an
Eighteen Months Sentence.
He Takes the Courts Verdict Coolly and
Expresses Qualification at the Ex-
emption from Hard Labor.
REMARKS OF JUDGE BAKER
Stannard Sent to the Grand Jury
on the Conspiracy Charge.
FrancisA. Coffin Tells of the Trap Set
for the Two Men-The Other
Witnesses.
REMARKS OF JUDGE BAKER

10 hang the jury for consideration of
$500 in the cases against the Collins and
Reed. He was sentenced merely to imprfs-
onment without hard labor. He took the
judgment calmly He evidently contem-
plated a penitentiary sentence, as the only
defense attempted was one of previous
good character. Although plea of not
guilty was entered, he tacitly pleaded gull
ty, and Mr.. Duncan, in his statement at
the conclusion Of the evidence, admitted
that Armstrong was not making any de-
NAL of the accusations, but asked leniency
on account Of his wife and child and former
good character. The court room was
crowded all day long. The auditors crowd
ed close up about the tables occupied by
the attorneys and reporters in their eager
ness to catch every word that was said by
the witnesses who knew OF the transac-
tions. Especial interest was shown in the
testimony of F. A. Coffin. He talked in a
clear but well-moduiated voice, and was
easily heard. His statement was concise.
When the court convened for the after
noon session. Charles Pierson. of Bedford.
was called to the stand by the defense, and
testified to the good character of Arm
strong. When Pierson left the stand Mr.
Duncan said the defendant had no further
witnesses to introduce.
1--WE have none" said Mr.. Kern.
Proceed with the argument" said Judge
Baker
Mr.. Kern-We do not care to argue the
case.
Mr.. Duncan then arose, and Ia calm, de-
hberate manner began to make a state
ment to the court. He said he recognized
that this was a case that came entirely
under the control of the court, and rested
solely with him to say whether or not II
had been proven. 1.-The defendant does not
dispute any of the evidence II is not his
desire TO attempt to account for his actions
by affidavit. Indeed, he is unable to ac-
count TO himself for what he has done.
The character witnesses he has brought
up from his home have testified to his
good character previous TO this time Mr.
Kern has shown by his cross-examinations
that the defendant had some business re-
verses There has been no attempt TO show
that he Was ever before accused of crime
What is to be done is entirely in the dis
cretion of the court. There is another case
against the defendant which he will be
calIed to answer later. 1 don't know
whether this will enter into the considera-
ton of the court or not 1t is not the first
time man has been tempted and has done
honor and trust in your fairness and JUS
tice.
JUDGE BAKER BEGINS.
Judge Baker then said he had dictated
to the stenographer some points on this
case which he would read. He then spoke
as follows:
by Section 725 of the United States Re-
Vised Statutes the power of the federal
courts to punish for contempts is limited
EirSt rhn f,,fc
behavior of any person or persons in the
presence of sthe court or so near thereto
as TO oOStruct the adminiStratio ton of JUS
tice; second, misbehavior of any officer
OF the court in his official transactions; and
third. disobedience or resistance of any
officer, party, juror, witness or other
person to any lawful writ or process, order
rule, decree or command of the courts
1T is not necessary here to discuss the
question whether in the absence of the ex-
press order of the court to refrain from
conversing with any one regarding the
case juror could be punished for such con-
duct. 1t would seem, however, that such
violation of duty might be reached under
the first class of cases; that is, misbehavior
OF a person so near to the presence of
the court as to obstruct the administration
of justice therein. The statute does not
define how near the court the misbehavior
must be nor the character of such misbe-
havior, and L think ii might be fairly con-
strued to apply to any misbehavior of a
juror in his capacity as such wherever
committed. since such misbehavior neces-
sariy tends TO obstruct the adminstra tion
of justice. Otherwise is would be impossi-
bic for the federal courts TO punish a juror
bribe, since there is no statute of the
United States making the receipt or an
agreement TO receive bribe by a juror
a crime. The act in question was passed
for the purpose of preventing the courts
from interfering with newspaper comments
upon trials. 1t seems to me il could not
have been the intention of Congress to
take away from the courts the common
law power to punish jurors for bribery,
corruption or other misconduct. Upon this
point, however, L express no opinion as
1t is admitted in open court that
there was an order given covering the
case in question by the court, and the only
question is whether the defendant has dis
obeyed and has been guilty of entering
into a corrupt bargain TO sell his vote as
a Juror thereby preventing verdict OF
guilty in the case and thus not only OBJ
structing, but defeating, the ends of justice.
In this case the defendant has entered
of having entered into a corrupt arrange
ment TO sell his vote and verdict in favor
of the defendant in t, the Gas case upon trial.
has been submitted TO the court on oral
proofs"
"The only defense that has been attempt
ed has been 10 show that he has borne
good character heretofore. for honesty
titled 10 consideration in the trial of any
one charged with crime. especially when i
gy on nfsat te nap 1f Of mf5,Ve fb Govern I'm
ment is so full. so complete. that / fee
constrained to say that evidence of gooC
character should have proper place in
rebuttal of the direct evidence Of miscon
duct on the part OF this juror. So far as tbs
evidence in this case goes, this juror ha6
come TO an understanding with Frank
Stannard that the vote of this defendan
was I'm the open market for SALE The ties
timony shows that in the first communjca
ton that took place between Stannard anC
the person they assumed was desirous o
becoming purchaser, there was such pos
itiye information and knowledge on the par
of Stannard as to leave doubt that tn
bargain had been struck, AMI that they be
lieved that opportunities were offered b.
the case to make a large sum of money OF
the vote and verdict of this jury. 1t is no
improper, the court should say, that whel
the courts attention was first drawn 4
the matter IL was incre6ulous. while coun
sci who were present seemed 10 be thor
oughly convinced that the juror had al
ready become corrupted.
1T seemed TO rue incredible that in thi
| country. in this State any man could b
found who was far oblivious OF his dut,
as a citizen-so far regardless OF his dut,
and the obligations placed upon him as
/ juror as 10 entertain even the thought o
departing from his. oathbound duty by y
| much as q hairs breadth for any persona
! consideration that -Snight be offered him