The record-union., 1896-09-21
AN UNJUST CRITICISM.
The WaChhOrSt Diamond Robbery and
Judge Catlin.
Ee Was Not to Blame for the Escape
of the Criminal-The Facts
in the Case.

Our evening contemporary, the "Bee'
mas used the occasion OF the recent
robbery of Wachhorst's store or dla-
nond jewelry to charge by direct state
ment and insinuationS that Judge Cat
lin is blameworthy Tor the escaps Of
one of the criminals in the first robbery
OF Wachhorst-s store something over
two years ago.
This is so divergent from the facts
that common justice demands that cor
rection be made 1t is charged that
Judge Catlin released the thief Black
on straw or insufficient bonds, and that
new trial was granted the criminal
without sufficient cause or reason. The
records of the court have been exam
ined and the law and these directly
contradict these aspersionS upon the
Judge.
The Black case, the case of the first
robbery was before the Superior Court
in July and August, 1884, and was then
thoroughly familiar to the public, all
the facts being then we'll understood.
The action of the court did not at that
time evoke any unfavorable criticism
of the Judge though there were those
who were seeking for cause to criticize
him.
Is
to bail pending a new trial on straw
bonds, or bonds that were not good.
If So il appears that that was no
affair of Judge Catlin's, and a matter
over which he had no control. The
bond was given in the city of San
Francisco, by sureties residing there.
1t was approved there by the presiding
Judge of the Superior Court of that
.1If, yI-hn ind yrh inn
posed upon if anybody was.
Judge Catlin granted Black a new
trial, not upon "grotesque" grounds,
but upon legal grounds alone, as is
shown by his opinion in the case 1t
is safe to say that if he had not done
SO he would have been reversed by the
Supreme Court. At any rate, if the
District Attorney had thought the order
for a new trial was erroneous he would
have tested the question by an appeal
to the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Judge, which is
given below in full is a satisfactory
answer to all criticisms upon it and
upon him in the case, and shows that
the new trial was not granted as the
bee" charges, because the verdictWas
contrary to the evidence nor because
of newly discovered evidence"
Superior Court, Sacramento County,
California-The People VS.. J. H. Black
The motion for a new trial in this
case is made upon the following
grounds:
First-That the verdict is contrary to
the evidence.
Second-UpOn newly discovered evil
dence material to the defendant and
which could not with reasonable dill
gence have been discovered and pro-
duced at the trial.
Thrd-Certain alleged misconduct of
the District Attorney in the conduct Of
the trial. by reason of which the minds
If the jurors were biased to such a de-
Iree that the defendant did not have a
fair trial
have carefully considered these sew
cral grounds, and have arrived at the
conclusion that a new trial should be
granted.
1t will not be necessary to state my
view of the evidence adduced at the
trial, or that shown by the affidavits to
be newly discovered-perhaps it would
lie improper to do so in view of the new
trial to be had-further than to say that
upon a consideration of all three of the
grounds for the motion / think the ends
OF justice and the right to fair trial are
hest subserved by granting the motion.
The third ground, however, calls for
some remarks
The Supreme Court of this State has
in many cases reversed judgments of
conviction because the District Attor
ncy exceeded his duty by taking un-
fair advantage Of the accused in his ad-
dress to the jury and in other cases has
often admonished public prosecutors Of
their duty in this regard.
The following are some Of the cases
which may be profitably consulted upon
what constitutes fair trial in respect
To this duty upon the part Of prosecut-
ing officers: People VS.. Mitchell, 62 Cal
Ali: People VS. Lee Chuck, IS Cal. 800;
People vs. Bowers, 20 Cal 415; People
VS.. All Len, 90 Cal. 2S2; People vs.. De-
Vine, o. Cal 231; People VS.. Wells 100
Cal 459; People vs.. Mullings, So Cal
13S
An examination of these cases, in
every one Of which the judgment was
reversed on account of unfair conduct
of the District Attorney, will show that
the conduct complained of was less OBJ
1eotionable. certainly not more objec-
tjonable. than that complained of in
this case.
In his opening address to the jury the
District Attorney said
I'VE will show you that Black had
been living in Sacramento City for a
number of months; he was not en-
gagged in any particular business; in
fact. he had no business while he was
here except to live in the vicinity of l.
street with a woman by the name of
Nellie Mace during that period of time"
And again, I'm fact, Black had vari-
Gus aliases, not only by the name of
Black. but other different names"
And again, BLACK and Edwards re-
mained together in San Francisco and
were finally arrested together down
there on q charge similar to this of go
:nc in a store and throwing pepper in a
jewelers. face and securing some prop
erty They were arrested; Edwards was
convicted and sent to the State Prison;
BLACK escaped
And again, I'VE will further show
that Black remained away from Sacra-
1nento some time until he got through
his trouble I'm San Francisco; that he
came again to Sacramento, / think the
following fair week. We viii show to
YOU officer Talbot had known him
quite n while and had met him in his
official capacity as he meets any other
of these men who hang around town,
especially that portion of the town. de
----------------