The evening tribune. (Pawtucket, R.I.) 189?-190?, 1897-01-21
OF jury.
Bram's Counsel Presents Argument
For New Trial.
Alleged Irregularities Of the
Jurymen.


Cotter and French, for Mate Thomas
NJ. Bran, convicted of murder began
their fight for a new trial. Opposed to
them were United States District At
torney Hoar and his assistants.
A number of the jurors who had tried
the case were present. Among them were
the foreman. Rinaldo A. Jack, oliver j.
Briggs, Warren w. Blake and A. c.
Ford.
Judges Colt and Webb having taken
their seats on the bench, the case was
opened by District Attorney Hoar, who
made a motion affecting the conduct of
the hearing. He stated that there were
two motions-one for a new trial, with an
amendment, and a second for an arrest
of Judgment He wanted them not mere
ly heard separately, but wanted the
first motion divided.
Mr.. French objected, saying that ne
thought the motion ought to be heard as
a whole. He was supported in this by
the court.
legged in the motion for new trial, as
follows: 44
First-Because the verdict is against
Second-Because the Interruptions,
statements of fact. and opinions. and
examinations of witnesses by one men,
ber of the court during the trial were
partial, argumentative and unduly
prejudicial to the defendant in so much
that the defendant has been deprived Of
a fair trial and because incompetent and
prejudicial matter introduced by one
of lxa v,xx IA
statements, and characteriZations of the
defendant and his testimony, and of the
closing argument in his behalf, forced
the defendants counsel to protest in the
presence of the jury and thereby placed
themselves i'm the attitude of antagoniz-
ing the opinion of the court, in respect
to question of guilt or innocence of the
defendant. and because the withdrawal
of such matter. statements, opinions
and characterizations (where they were
withdrawn) could not, and did not, re-
move the unwarrantable influence and
prejudice thereby injected into the minds
of the jurors.
Third-Because the closing argument
OF the United States attorney was i'm
proper in tone, language and manner,
and because it's tendency was, and its
effect must have been, to unduly excite
the passions of the jury, and to arouse
In them a feeling of hatred and contempt
for and prejudice against the defendant,
as well as by reason of its said tone.
language and manner, as by unjustif1a-
ble inferences and deductions from the
testimony, and by innuendoes from as
sumptions of fact not in evidence; and,
further, because he argued on evidence
excluded by the court.
Fourth-Because it appears that the
jury misapprehended and misapplied
the instructions Of the court, given them
on the morning Of Saturday, Jan. 2, 1897,
when the jury came into court for fur
ther instructions, insomuch as they be-
lieved. or certain of them believed, that
they were then instructed that they
must Of necessity agree that the minor.
ity must Of necessity conform to the
opinion Of the majority, and that Il
would not be lawful for them to disagree
unless they unanimously concurred in
disagreeing.
Fifth-Because it appears that certain
of the jurors had prejudiced the defend
ant.
Sixth-Because of the misconduct of
certain of the jurors through the trial
Seventh-Because of the misconduct of
certain of the jurors after the case had
been given to the jury.
Eighth-Because a certain person, or
persons, in the service Of the United
States, were permitted to, and did, i'm
properly communicate and intermeddle
with certain of the jurors during the
progress Of the trial.
Mr. Ormsby of counsel for the defense
then read the specifications in the testi-
mony as to Judge Webb interposing and
questioning the witnesses.
At this point there was long discus
sion between the lawyers and the court,
during which Judge Webb stated that he
would personally take the responsibility
of all he had said from the bench.
District Attorney Hoar said he had
caused subpoenas to issue for the wit
nesses named by counsel for the defense,
and he believed most of them were in
court then, so he did not think there
was any good ground for delay because
of the necessity for the presence Of wit
nesses.
Mr.. French read number Of authori-
ties bearing on cases which he contend
ed were similar to the one under discus
sion, and which, he argued, bore out his
contention.
District Attorney Hoar replied, and
said IL the defense were to be permitted
to attempt to upset the verdict on mere
affidavits, where there would be no op-
portunity permitted to counsel for the
government to ss-examine the wit
nesses, II would be a travesty on justice.
The court decided to follow the ruling
of the court in the case cited by Mr..
French-Maddox VS.. the United States
I'm relation to the form Of admitting the
affidavits as evidence. The affidavits
would be admitted.
The court ruled that objections could
be made as affidavits were read.
Mr.. Ormsby then read the affidavit OF
James ]. Conncll of Cambridge. This
said that Connell knew oliver ]. Briggs
FOR some years, and that about Dec. 5,
1896. Briggs said there isn't the least
doubt that things are looking bad for
Bran. and believe he Is guilty"
The affidavit Of Sylvanus @. Coffin of
HYDE Park stated that he had conversed
with Abel c. Ford. another Juror in the
Rram trial, on Sunday. Jan. 10, when
Ford stated that he had said before be-
ing empaneled in the trial that Bran
~..ukt t.,l l,o hung