Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1897-12-07
MIR. Mccormick compIimented.

Hon. Marshall Mccormick, who
is employed as one of the counsel to
defend Col. Eastman, now being
tried at Parsons, w. Va, upon a
charge of killing Mr.. Thompson,
found fault with the manner in
which Jurors were being selected to
try this case. The Cumberland
Times, in its report of the case, sum-
marizes as follows Mr.. McCormick's
objections to the manner of procur
ing jury:
Thursdays proceedings were OPP
ened by lively and vigorous tilt
between the opposing counsel. the
fight being conducted by Mr. Nc
Cormick, of the counsel for defense,
and Messrs. Howard and Davis, for
the State. The fight was precipita.
ted by Mr.. Mccormick who entered
his protest against the latitude al
lowed the State in the examination
of Jurors on their "voir dire" His
position, which was stated at length,
was that the purpose of the State
should be to secure fair and i'm
partial jury in case like this. not
the crucial, critical and rigid cross
examination of every witness who
was suspected by the State of being
friendly to Eastman or even knew
him, rather indicated purpose to
select for the jury those hostile to
him and to discard upon frivolous
grounds those supposed to be friend
ly in spirit to him.
He declared that this should not
assume the shape of prosecution un
Til the prosecuting officers became
satisfied from the evidence that the
accused was guilty and that until
this point had been reached the
counsel for the State were as much
Eastham's counsel as those employ
ed to defend him. He deprecated
forcibly and most vigorously the
! feeling, mot to say venom" with
which the counsel for the State We're
conducting the prosecution of the
accused. He insisted that there
should be some more orderly way
adopted for the examination Of the
jurors. His speech was strong and
effective.
He was replied to by Messrs. Da-
Wis and Howard. The former agreed
with Mr.. McCormick's position as
to the duties of the counsel for the
State toward the prisoner and de-
clared that the action of counsel for
the State was in the interest of the
prisoner and was taken only to Sc
cure fair jury, but Howard com
batted the position both of Mr.. Me
Cormick and Mr.. Davis.
Mccormick replied that the pro
lection of counsel was one thing and
their acts quite another, and that he
must judge them by what they did
rather than by what they said, but
at the same time he said he would
accept Mr.. Davis declarations OF
fairness if be would live up to them,
aud until he changed his ways he
should have to judge the tree by its
fruit, which up to that time had
borne no fruit of that fragant sweet
ness so handsomely described by Mr..
Davis.
The result was that McCormick
carried his point and the Judge laid
down the rule that after he had ex-
amined the jurors, he would turn
them over to the counsel on both
sides, either of whom might examine
them and it made no difference which
began the examinations the other side
might take it up and conclude it.
This was regarded IS a victory for
the defense, and the preliminary fight
leading up to it, was the first of any
consequence, but was spirited ana
well conducted on both sides.
Mccormick speech was highly
complimented by many, and he is
! being looked on a lawyer of ability
and fairness. He fights fair and
demands fairness all around.