Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1902-04-18
INDICTMENT
Decision of Judge Grace in Case
Against Prosecutor SorreIIs

". h. Sorrells. made i'll circuit court
last summer alleging that one Of the
indictments returned against him by
the grand jury was not found Gy
twelve of the grand jurors, and offer
ing to prove this by afiidayits OF mem
bers of the grand Jury, was decided
this morning
Judge Grace delivered an opinion
denying the motion, and the cases
against Mr.. Sorrclls will now be SCI
for trial on the criminal docket this
term Of court Judge Graces opinion
was as follows:
On the 9th day Of May, 190l, the
grand jury of Jefferson county pre-
scented and filed in open court two
Indictments against the defendant,
Walter &. Sofrells, charging him with
the offonses Of malfeasance in o1IiCt
and offering to accept a bribe, respect
lively. No other indictments were then
presented, but these two. and, at the
same time, the foreman presented and
read aloud in the presence of all the
grand jurors their final report, SO
much Of which as relates to the pres
ent proceeding being as follows:
ITO the Hon A. b. Grace, Judge Of
the Eleventh Judicial District: We,
your grand jury, beg leave to submit
our final report of the proceedings Of
said grand jury as follows:
s. & * 4 * s. x ::
I'VE request that Prosecuting At
torney W. B. Sorrells be given as
speedy trial as is consistent with the
ends Of justice, and, if possible, at
this term Of court
To one of these indictments the de-
fendant has filed demurrer, alleging
that it does not state facts sufficient
to constitute legal crime. To the
other ne has filed a special plea or
notion alleging that it was not found
by twelve Of the grand jury and of
.fering to prove this fact by the af-
davits of members OF the grand jury
which returned the bill. The question
now before the court is on this motion.
Can such proof be received?
In Lows case, 4 Greenleaf, tMaine)
459, it was held that such proof might
be received to show how many grand
jurors (but not which ones) voted for
and against a bill and the reasoning
of MI. Justice Watson in that case is
very persuasive. Yet even he admits
that Ito permit an inquiry Of this sort
might open the door to great abuses;
afford opportunity to tamper with the
jury. and lessen the respect due to the
forms and solemnities of judicial pro-
Iceedines.'
But the weight of authority. both
English and American, seems to be de-
cidedly against the ruling in Low S
case.
In Rex VS. Marsh, 6 Ad & FL. 23G,
this question was presented and the
learned Judges refused to receive an
affidavit of the foreman, showing that
a majority Of the grand jury did not
vote for the bill. upon the ground that
they could not act upon what trans
pired in the grand jury room.
To the same effect is the case of
State VS.. Baker, 20 Mo, 33S, where it
is held that such a practice is against
public policy and the positive provis-
ions Of the law requiring proceedings
of grand juries to be kept secret; and
would expose grand jur1es not only ~
intimidation but to corruption, by per-
sons accused Of crime; and also be-
cause the statutes Of the state (Mis-
SourD declare in express terms that
mo grand juror shall be obliged or
allowed to declare in what manner he,
or any other member of the grand
jury, voted The court say: "By our
law, when the grand jurors, by their
foreman, in the presence of the body,
return an Indictment into court as a
true bill, it then becomes a part of the
records of the court. and it should not
be subjected to the attacks of parol
proof by the members of the very
body who, in the presence of their
foreman. stood by in silence and saw
him present it to the court. Incalcui
able mischief must result to the pub
| lie at large from such a course of pro
ceeding."
So, in State VS.. Oxford, 80 Texas,
428, the same rule was adopted and
for the same reasons of public policy.
| Another strong and well-considere1
decision to the same effect is that of
the supreme court of Iowa, in State
VS.. Gibbs, 80 Iowa, 318. ~
/ =. s.. 1T