Great Falls weekly tribune., 1896-02-14
CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT
Argument ,.nd ,}rief Of f. j. O'Brien' s
Attorneys, Leslie 4 Down.
ing.
Fifty-Five Errors Alleged-The Burg
ess Case Cited-lmpOrtant
Points.

Montana vs.. Edward j. O'Brien. who
was convicted of manslaughter at the
last term of the district court and sem
fenced to Imprisonment in the peniten-
tiary for 10 years, the maximum penalty,
have appealed the case to the supreme
court.
1t will be remembered that O'Brien,
on the 18th of last August, shot and
killed, at O O'Briens cabin, about Il miles
southeast of the city, Frank Bixby. The
defense was self defense
In the brief and argument of Leslie &
Downing, they allege that 80 errors were
committed by the court in the trial of
the cause.
One of these allegations of error is
that the court erred in refusing to per
NIT defendant to subpoena more than six
witnesses, unless he divulged to the
court the nature of his defense, and the
attorneys argue that the request that
the defense be divulged was without
precedent and the refusal to permit
O'Brien to subpoena witnesses denied
his constitutional rights.
At the trial there was produced what
purported to be fac simlle of the shack
in which the shooting occurred but
which was found to be an incorrect at
tempted reproduction. All the courts
rulings upon motions and questions re-
iating to this building are alleged to
have been erroneous, il being argued
"a silent witness" prejudical to the de-
fendant,
The court refused to permit witness,
Thomas q, Carter, to testify whether or
not the knife with which it was claimed
that Bixby attacked O'Brien had been
moved between few minutes after the
shooting and the inquest the next day;
whether or not the wound in BiXbys
back corresponded with bloody smear
on the back of the chair in which he
had been sitting, and whether or not it
would have been possible for the bullets
to take the course which the state
claimed they took These are assigned
as errors The court also refused to
pe. LIZ Cai t9i =" 'S9Viy "AELu7i Vi Aot
uetenudAt anu -hlhhie warner or
" brlen' were i1puteu husband ana "lle,
WHICH l5 dS712h5u DE- error
1t - "Ht- t-'" tddI tne GouIt efftu
every tIl4e ~ Su9lalLed an opJectlon 10
olIet % PROOF uld.' .'e ny ueicAuaht'
" DiLtA ttS1l.lOA! aI tHr coroner
ihques, "ts eNtremeI! pfcIudiclaI TO
himself and the defense objected to its
oelLT 'ntIoCu uct": me coufi S fuiihS
IN 'ie matter, "hIch IL SHOWN IN lhe lol-
LOWING Is assigned as error, the argu-
hleht DtIh@'
ant IL REGARD 70 ms evidence pelore the
coroner Jury, Uhuer the clrcumstances
IN Wh4ch II was extracted from MN, was
extremely preludlciaI 10 the defense
and was permitted ny the court over
every possIhie obJe:tloh OF the defend
Ant' ana persisted Ia ana continued un-
I'll an lhe !AischIe1 was accomplished,
ana atter the worst impressions concern
ing the same were lelt upon the mlnd
OF the jury lhe court attempted 10 with
ora" the same from the jury by IN
strucuon' lhere is no question but
what the statements made by the de-
lendaht' Huch as tAey were, were not
voluntary were made under duress,
without counsel without being advise d
as to LIs rights, and without opportun-
!ty afforded MN to consult with an at
torney. ms matter however, was, after
the evidence was introduced, thoroughly
examined INTO by the court and he, at
the Gohciusioh OF all the testimony, de-
Glded that the statements made by the
defendant before IT. lhe coroner Jury were
not voluntary. Inc effect that this eyl-
oence hau upon the jury could not be
"isnura"I;
Weary an quesllons asked Minnie war
hel " brlen oy the state were opJected 10
sno the oVerruilng OF these obJections is
assigneo as error, pelng contenoeo
!nat tney we're not lmpeacnlng ques-