Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1897-01-26
Supreme Court Sends 1t Back
for Re-trial.
JUDGE COOLEY'S CHARGETHE CAUSE
In His Charge to the Jury, Judge Cooley
Made an Error" Says the Su-
preme Court, and Thus In1u-
enced the Jury--Digest of
Courts Opinion.

Quite stir was caused last Wednes-
day, when the news reached Decorah
that the Supreme Court had reversed
the case of the state of Iowa VS.. John
H. Cater. The case is one in which
unusual interest was manifested by the
citizens Of the county, and this decision
will send the case back for re-trial. 1t
is more than probable that change of
venue will be requested and granted,
as is customary in such cases.
The circumstances surrounding the
case are too well known to demand
more than brief mention. The de-
fendant, John H. Cater, was charged
with the murder of George Wemett.
He was tried, found guilty, and sem
fenced to imprisonment in the state
penitentiary for life. The appellant
took many exceptions to the ruling of
the lower court, the chef one being to
the instructions to the jury, which
latter the Supreme Court sustained,
and reversed the decision of the lower
court. The opinion of the Supreme
Court arrived Saturday, and as it is
lengthy document abstracts from the
principal points only are made as
follows:
"The jury was told that the drawing of
pistol shows premeditation, the cooking OF it,
leveling it at particular vital spot, shows de-
.,t.s
is used in connection with the following in
structions it was about equivalent to telling
the jury that the defendant did the drawing,
cooking and leveling of the pistol, the dis
charge from which killed Wemett 1t cannot
be said that its effect was simply to illustrate
a certain legal principle, no matter what the
court may have intended, for it is not any pis-
tol which the court is speaking of, but the pis-
tol, presumably meaning the weapon the dis
charge from which caused Wemett's death.
And the Court told the jury that the eoncfu-
sion is irresistible that under the law and the
undisputed facts in this case the killing of
George Wemett was an act possessing all the
elements of murder in the first degree, as de-
fined by our statute. 1t was murder in the
first degree. 1t is nothing less 1t is true that
in another instruction the law touching We
still in the instructions under consideration
the court steps in and relieves the jury from
the duty which the law casts upon them OF de-
termning from the evidence the guilt or inno-
cence of the defendant, and the degree of
crime, if any, of which he is guilty, and
broadly and in the most positive language
tells the jury that Wemett was murdered. The
jury must have been impressed with the con-
viction from the reading of this instruction
that under the direction of the court it was
their duty to find the defendant guilty of muir
der in the first degree. 1t is so sweeping as to
leave nothing for their consideration save the
mere formal matter of returning verdict OF
guilty of murder in the first degree and liking
the punishment therefore. Under our law and
system of procedure the trial Judge has no
right to weigh the evidence for the jury and
direct them as to what they shall find from the
facts in evidence. A clearer case of usurpa-
ton of the province of the jury will hardly be
found. If trial judges may thus abrogate to
themselves the duties of jurymen there would
be little use of having jury and the life and
liberty ofthe citizen would be in the keeping
| of one man.
This is an important case to the state and to
| the defendant From our investigation of the
record we are thoroughly satisfied that the de-
| fendant did not have the air and impartial
| trial which the law guarantees to all persons
charged with the commission of a crime. For
the reasons given the judgement below is
rerersed."