Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-10-29
PuRLIC SENTIMENT.

PUBLIC SENTIMENT.
1T Is not an easy matter, when public
sentiment Is running high and demands
the execution OF a defendant, to get
man to come forward and make an af-
fdavlt favorable to defendant" sad
Mr.. Stewart.
"What justification have you for stat
ing that public sentiment demands an
execution" asked Justice Bartch, DO
you mean to inslnuate that this court
would be influenced by public preju-
dice2" further asked the Justice
mo. sir; that certainly is not my in
tention at all" said the attorney. the
court misunderstood my argument. ]
stated that public prejudice prevented.
us from securing the affidavit Of MIR.
Young. When | state that public pre-
judlce is high In this case only state
what Is within the knowledge of every
one I'm this room. That prejudice has
prevented the defense from securing
evidence In his favor. and the history
of this case viii show that the attor-
neys for defendant have used only
honorable means for securing evidence
and their record In that respect Is abb
solutely clear
YOUNG'S PART.
when the jurors visited the prem
ises, Mr. Young took them into the
house Of Peter Mortensen and into the
cellar and showed them the wall upon
which he thought the Jars We're placed
which contained the money, as testified
to at the trial. He then showed
them the settee In the parlor upon
which he thought Peter Mortensen and
Mr.. Hay sat, MIR. Young did not know
that that was the settee and he asked
q hat
one and she said yes. The court did
not Instruct Royal Il. Young TO point
out those things, he merely instructed
him to point out Peter Mortensen's
house.
PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS.
There Is no question that those
statements were prejudicial to the
rights of defendant. Every word ut
tered by Mr.. Young had It's effect upon
the minds of the jurors. j submitted
TO Mr.. Young the affidavit of Mr.. Rock
and ] asked him II the facts contained
therein were true and he replied that
they We're substantially correct. This
is set out in my affidavit, which is not
contradlcted The state practically ad-
mltted at the time the jury visited the
premises, that u wrong was committed,
because II offered in open court to
have the jury visit the premises again
so that defendant and his attorneys
might accompany It, | submit In my
brief authorities which hold that 1t is
error for Jurors to make any comments
whatever about the case while viewing
the premises. The state has not de-
MED any OF the facts set forth in our
afiIdayts, showing that the jurors COM
mented upon the case, not only among
themselves but with Mr.. Young, the
sworn officer OF the court. The only
conclusion | can reach liz that the state
could not deny those facts,
WHAT JURORS MIGHT TELL.
II wish 1t were possible for every
one of those Jurors to take the witness
stand and clear this matter up. IL that
were done then Peter Mortensen could
say that he had a fair and impartial
trial but as long as q suspicion rests
upon the action of the jurors no one
can say that he has had n Just trial.
| believe that the brief In this case
will show that there was prejudicial
error In the conduct OF the jury, and If
the matter has not been properly
brought before this court II Is because
of prejudice against the defendant
which has locked the hands OF his at
torneys and prevented them from Sc
curing thes facts, except by hearsayl
"REASONABLE DOUBT"
I'm submitting this case, | say that
the record In this case does not show
that Peter Mortensen is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt and / ask what
harm can be done In giving him a
new trial? No one viii be harmed by
It, he Is out there in prison and the
state cannot be harmed and l plead
with this court To grant him n new
trial TO which he is entitled according
to the records IN this easel
COURT MEETS NOV. 7,
AT the conclusion OF Mr.. Stewards ar
gument. the court took the case under
advsement and then adjourned until
Nov. T.