The record-union., 1896-09-21

was known at that time among the Off
GERS as what we call 'macques. He was
ilv1ng with woman without any visi-
Die means of support
Biack told Talbot about his troubles In
san francisco and pulled out of his
Pocket slips Of paper that he had taken
from newspapers of this diamond rob-
bery that took place in San Francisco
and told him that Edwards had been
sent up and that he got out of it"
And again, Gentlemen of the jury,
after we have shown you these facts and
SHOWN you the character of this defend
ant-the business he has been engaged
Inland We will show to you, as | said,
that his identification is complete by
these two witnesses who saw him upon
that OCCASION
The District Attorney knew that he
could not be permitted to prove any or
these charges against the defendant.
Manifestly. therefore, it was in viola
ton of the defendants rights to make
The statements to the jury. 1t is too
pam for dispute that they were well
calculated to infiame the minds of the
Jurors with prejudice against the de-
fendant which no charge of the court
upon the subject of their duty to disre-
gard such statements would be potent
enough to entirely remove or overcome.
The District Attorney in another very
important matter invaded the defend
ants right
In his opening address he plainly
brought before the jury the question of
the defendants being a witness in his
own behalf. and in effect invited, or it
may be said challenged, him to take the
witness stand, and in advance warned
the jury to be on their guard against
his 'shrewdness.'
He spoke of defendant as "a man as
you Will observe if placed on the witness
stand, you will observe from his conduct
in the courtroom, man of a good deal
Of shrewdness.''
In his closing address to the jury the
District Attorney more than once, in
manner of language so pointed and
direct as to leave no room for misunder-
standing, called the attention of the
Jury to the fact that defendant did not
| avail himself of his right to be a wit
ness and to explain or deny certain in
culpatOry facts claimed to have been
proved against him. Twice the court
was compelled to interfere and stop
| such invasions of the defendants S
in this regard was obeyed the error was
scarcely acknowledged. as the District
attorney argued that he was justified
in his course as a legitimate reply to the
argument of defendants attorney. The
| jury, in view of all they had heard stat
ed in regard to the defendants charac-
| ter, and his other alleged offenses
against morality and law. than the one
he was charged with in this case were
| left with the impression, as was quite
apparent to any close observer Of the
trial, that the District Attorney was un-
| fairly dealt with by the court by the
restrictions placed upon his argument.
The court endeavored in its final
charge to the jury to repair all these
errors, and especially reminded the jury
of the defendants right, that no un-
favorable inference should be drawn
against him because of his not taking
the stand as a witness in his own be-
| half. Yet am satisfied that the matters
referred to did have the effect to create
a bias in the minds of the jury to the
prejudice of the defendant.
1t is ordered that the verdict be set
aside and new trial granted.
A. p. CATLIN,
Superior Judge.