The Minneapolis journal., 1903-12-18
LEGAL DELAYS
AID LYNCHINGS
Supreme Court So States in Passing
on Owatonna Murder
Case.
The Nelson Brothers Motion for a
New Trial Is De-
MED.
Unless the State Board of Pardons
Intervenes, They Must
Hang.

Charles and Henry Nelson, the
OWatonna brothers, under sentence of
death for the murder of Henry I<rier,
April 13, were denied a new trial to-
day by the supreme court. Unless
their sentence is commuted by the
state board Of pardons, the governor
must soon fix a day for the execution.
The necessary sixty days following the
sentence have already elapsed.
The decision in the case has some
sensational features. 1t is written by.
Judge Brown, Judges Collins and
Lovely concurring. Judge Lewis dis.
sents, Chief Justice Start taking no
part on account of illness.
! Judge Brown discusses the general
proposition of new trials. He says
they have been granted with too
! much liberality. The technical rights
of accused, persons have been up
held and magnified in cases where
guilt has been overwhelmingly
| shown, so as to result in public dis
| content and bring the administration
of the criminal laws into disrespect.
! This condition. says Judge
| Brown, "has caused peaceful and law
l. . abiding citizens to become lawless and
| to join in the barbarous method of
| Furnishing crime by a resort to the
I! court Of Judge Lynch.
! Remedies have been suggested,
| dIuoi1S OtllSlS lllcC lIS IlSHL VI dp-
peal be taken away in such cases,
but it is believed that the only ap-
propriate way to quiet the public mind
| in this respect, and restore confidence
i nthe ability of the courts to admin
| lister justice, not only to the criminal,
| but to society and the state as we'll.
| and to overcome the tendency to re-
sort to lynch law, is a prompt and
speedy trial, conviction of the guilty,
|
ment, unaccompanied by the long de-
| lays usually incident to the adminis-
| tration of criminal laws, and unac-
! companied, too, by refined and subtle
| technicalities. New trials should be
/ granted only where the substantial
| rights of the accused have been so
violated as to make it reasonably clear
that a fair trial was not had. In all
cases removed to the highest court
/ for review, the evidence, when re-
| turned OH. the appeal. should first be
| looked to for the purpose of :deter-
mining the guilt sor innocence of de-
fendant. If there be no doubt of his
guilt, alleged errors, not affecting his
I Substantial CONSTITUTIONAL ~ lights.
should be brushed aside, and, in their
1 place substituted the almighty force
4 and power of truth: The conviction
4 of an innocent person is far too re-
!. mote probability to justify an APP
plication Of the technical rule of law
so necessary in olden times, when per-
sons were not surrounded by the same
constitutional and statutory safe
guards as at the present day.
The Dissenting Opinion.
l Judge Lewis, in his dissenting opin.
ion, says: =
'I do not accept the Introductory
: declarations of the opinion as an ex.
7 preston of my views upon the EN-.
forcement of the criminal law by the
courts of this state. [ am not aware
of any such abuse of the judicial func
ton as to call for any such express
:. sions from this court" He believes
l a new trial should have been granted
on the newly discovered evidence
which he believes throws a reason
able doubt on the guilt of the ac
cused, when taken with the contra
l l dictory confessions Of Sutton and thu
, girls who were the star witnesses.