The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-05-27

trial jury if he had formed or express
ed an opinion either as to the guilt
or innocence Of the defendant 1t
was at once manifest that this would
exclude from service on said jury a
large number of the most intelligent
citizens of Wake county, who could
readily have qualified themselves as
jurors within the rule laid down by
the Supreme Court in such cases, and,
would practically allow jury of de-
PENDANTS selection.
2. That on the first day of said trial,
this affiant upon interposing an OBJ
lection which as counsel he thought
he had a right to do, the language of
the presiding judge was so harsh and
SO like that Of an autocratic teacher
rebuking q diSorderly pupil, that af-
faint was deeply irritated, was made
at once to feel the difference between
the right of an attorney for the prose-
cution and Of one for the defense, in
respect to the unjust exercise of the
power of a presiding Judge.
3. Upon the hearing of the applica-
ton Of the defendant for bail, before
Judge Justice at July Term, of Wake
Superior Court, it became manifest
to counsel for the prosecution that
the defense would undertake to make
out a case OF self-defense and that this
theory would be supported by the tes-
timony of one Hocutt and citizen of
Wake county, and one Bernard
Schmitz, a resident OF Baltimore, Md.
Upon receiving notice that the defend
ant would proceed to take dispositions
in Baltimore, Md. to be read by de-
PENDANT at this trial, this affi2nt went
to Baltimore to be present at the talk
ing Of said dispositions and cross-ex-
anime the witnesses there offered, and
also secured witnesses to attend the
trial at Raleigh in October to testify
as to the character of said Schmitz.
Upon the trial before Judge PEBBLES,
this afiiant cross-examined the said
Schmitz and from the impression
made of him in his own city upon this
afiant, such examination was conduct
ed with a view to discovering to the
jury the true character of the witness
upon whose testimony they would be
asked by the defendant to rely. No
comment was made by the presiding
judge at the time upon the manner of
af1iantS conducting said examination,
but on the following day when his as
sociate, Hon. II. e. Norris, was cross
examining the witness Hocutt, the
Judge not only rebuked Mr. Norris,
but went out Of his way to include in
his criticisms this atlantis examination
OF the witness SchmitZ on the previous
day, and this, Notwithstanding the
fact that 2ffiant had procured the at
tendance of witnesses to contradict
the said Schmit us to his good charac-
ter, and also had three reputable wit
nesses from Southern Pines to show
the statements made by the said
SchmitZ at Southern Pines, three days
after the homicide as to what he
saw, which statements fatty CONTRA
dicted those made by the witness upon
the trial
4. After the State had introduced its
testimony which, uncontradicted, es-
taDlished a case of murder, the de-
PENDANT introduced testimony tending
to prove self-defense and in support
OF their theory, contended that it was
the first shot fred while deceased was
on the pavement which, struck and
killed him. The State in rebuttal Of
fered to show by medical testimony
that the second shot struck and killed
deceased while he was in the street
retreating from defendant, and this
the Judge would not allow, although
the State had caused the attendance
of prominent medical experts from
Norfolk, Va, Charlotte, n. c., Win
n-Salem, N. c., and Washington,
n c.. by whom they expected to fully
establish their theory.
5. After the testimony was all in.
the Judge upon his own motion, an
nounced that he would rule that the
defense were entitled to the opening
and conclusion in the argument to
the jury. The prosecution quietly
protested against the injustice Of this,
although his rule, they believed, was
without precedent in the practice in
criminal cases under similar circum
stances in the State.
g. Several times during the argu-
ment of the case, counsel for the
prosecution We're interrupted by the
Judge. When this affiant was pro-
ceeding in the opening argument for
the prosecution to present the law, as
we'll as the facts applicable thereto /
upon which the State relied for a /
conviction, the Judge interrupted him |
to ask: What law is that you are I
citing?" Counsel replied asking him |
to take down the authorities cited, I
and when the Judge came to charge
the jury. after going out OF his way
to say that counsel who first addressed |
them for the prosecution, (Mr. Wood
ard). had cited law for what reason
he could not see, which had no appii-
cation. and then proceeded after
wards in his charge. to give the iden
teal language in the citation made
by counsel. This will more fully APP