The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1903-10-29
SUPREME COURT OPINION
In Granting New Trial to DR.. J. w. Crofford the
Opinion is one of Vast Importance to the Legal
Profession--O One Of the Abest Opinions
Ever Written by Judge.

| Cne evidence and the evidence alone,
!unintluenced by public clamor or pre-
conceived opinions, is absolutely essen
tlal to the proper administration of
justice. To put man upon trial before
jurors who already believe him guilty
no matter how upright such jurors may
be, nor how sincere their purpose not
to allow their prejudices any influence
upon their verdict-is to expose the
| accused to a hazard wholly inconsist-
| ent with the just and humane theory
| upon which our criminal procedure is
founded. 1t is readily conceivable that
| an opinion OF defendants guilt may
be so qualified in the jurors mind as
not to be sufficient grounds for chal-
lenge. For instance juror who says
that If the statements he has heard or
read be true, then in his Judgment the
subject to challenge.
State VS.. George, 81 Iowa 6S2.
State VS.. Ostrander, Is Iowa 451.
Trimble VS.. State G. CIR. 4O4.
State VS.. Safer, s Iowa 400.
In such case the opinion of guilt is
based upon the hypothesis that certain
facts exist, but the truth of the hypo-
thesis itself is a matter upon which the
jurors mind is still open and llndeter
mined.
Where however the Juror dis
covers that he has become convinced
of the truth of the alleged evidence and
therefrom has reached satisfactory
conclusion of the guilt Of the accused a
very different situation is presented.
He may be man of fair intelligence
and pure purpose, sincerely intending
to give the accused fair trial, but
what certainty is there that he can do
it? 1t may be too much to say that no
man can so far divorce himself from his
settled belief in a defendants guilt
as to weigh and consider conflicting
testimony and draw conclusions there
from with the same unbiased mind and
Judgment which he would employ in a
case concerning which he has never
| formed an opinion-but such happily
constituted persons, are, to say the
| least, very rare. The man and the
juror are one and the theory of a dual
existence in one personality of a biased
man and an impartial juror has not been
so fully demonstrated that we may safe
| ly act upon it in the administration of
justice. A person accused of crime
should bear no greater burden than is
created by the evidence produced
against him on the trial, and the juror
I! who passes upon that evidence should
come to it's consideration unhampered
and unembarrased by any formed con-
yictions as to the vital fact or facts in
CONTROVERSY. In so far as the accus ed
must address himself to the removal of
unfavorable opinions imported into the
| jury box from any other source than the
sworn testimony, to that extent he is
denied the fair trial which the law guar
antees him. A crime of the character
charged in this case becomes at once a
matter of general and earnest discus
sion in the neighborhood in which it is
committed. Theories of the guilt or
innocence of suspected persons, sup
| ported by facts, circumstances, rumors
and conjectures are common topics of
conversation and it is scarcely conceiy-
able that one who has lived in such
atmosphere can avoid a mental condi-
ton which precludes him being fair
/ Juror. This we think was the case with
the juror Fisher. He lived in the same
township with the girl alleged to have
been murdered. He had heard the cir
cumstances discussed; he had discussed
| them himself; had not only read sub
stantialy all the testimony against the
defendant but believed it to be true:
and made up his mind. He candidly
said he was not unprecedented and be-
lieved the truth of what he had heard.
1t is true that upon a somewhat per-
sistent cross examination the Juror eX-
pressed belief in his ability to render
an impartial verdict, but however hon
est and sincere this estimate of his
mental condition we think the circum-
stances as stated by him make its cor
rectness so doubtful that the challenge
to his competency should have been
! sustained.
IL. AS already stated the alleged
criminal abortion resulting iii Miss
Stones death occurred in January, 1901 /.
That young woman was pregnant from q
date not earlier than the preceding
October or November and that this CON
Gition was the result OF an intimacy
with Hammond and that he was active
in advising and assisting her in bring
ing about miscarriage. is sufficiently
indicated by the testimony. The
theory of the state is that in pursuance
of this unlawful purpose Hammond en-
tered into a conspiracy with appellant
who, being a physician, administered
the treatment by which premature
| uellNcfy was produced. mere Is no
evidence that Hammond and appellant
ever met or had communication or deal
ings with each other prior to January
u, 1901. On that date, which was about
ten days before Miss Stone entered APP
pellant's sanitarium, it is shown by one
or two witnesses that Hammond visited
the place and had 4 private Interview
with appellant. Other evidence tends to
show that Hammond was again at the
sanitarium while Miss Stone was an
inmate there. These facts with other
circumstances relating to the subse-
quent acts and statements of appellant
We're sufficient we think to make a
prima facia case of collision between
said parties dating from their first
proven interview and iustifying the adj
mission in evidence OF the subsequent
acts, writings and statements of Ham
mond, done or made in pursuance of
the common unlawful purpose. In sup
port OF the indictment the state intro
duced in evidence over appellants OBJ
1 i.N@@x L.. 4