Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1905-02-03
HAVE THEY NOT RLuHpEReD2

1t is not often we criticise the action
of counsel in the conduct of their
cases, but we cannot refrain from
saying a word with reference to the
celebrated McCue murder case.
In the first place We think they
blun1ered when they allowed the
amount of their fee to become publicly
known. The fee was too large to be
paid by an innocent man.
Again. They allowed the case to be
tried without any theory tending to
show the innocense of the accused-re-
lying apparently on the weakness OF
the prosecution, rather than his limo
cenee.
Again. They failed to disclose even
the semblance of any other guilty
agent. This was doubtless their mis-.
fortune and not their fault But the
public was led to believe that some
evidence on this point would be forth
coming from the nature of the Plea,
even if such theory. were sustained
only by the evidence of the accused.
Again. They failed to enter the plea
of insanity-one whether proven or
not, would have presented something
upon which to hang hope, and found
theory.
Again. They, failed to put the &C.
cused on the witness stand. Now Il
may be arg ued that the law does not
permit his failure, to testify to be
treated as an evidence OF guilt. This
ought to be so when apart from his
failure to testify there was not prima
facie case made oue. The jury were
the judges as 10 the prima facie case
and if they believed such a case had
been establish ed then the failure of SO
intelligent a man as the accused to
take the STAND in his own behalf could
not be overlooA ed, and this made the
prima facie case absolute.
Again. Their petition to the Su
preme Court for an appeal in the first
instance, was unfortunate in express
sion, and poorly calculated to reap the
best results. 1t was more q satire
than a legal document. Apart from
themselves the opinion had been al
most universal that their client had
had nearly every doubt. solved in bis
favor. The reading of newspapers was
the only question that seemed to per
pick lawyers or laymen. and when II
was manifest that the court had in
structed the jury that whilst they
could read the newspapers as to 0thel
matters they must not do 30 as to any
thing touching the trial, the doubt
was practically solved when the jury
men stated that they had obeyed th'
instructions of the court.
But the counsel could not stop wher'
most ordinary people would have quit
We are always pleased to see the mos
vigorous efforts possible made b.
counsel in behalf of clients. But Their
Is q time in all such matters when fui
Their resistance proves useless, If not i
fact suicidal. 1t was SO in this case
Not content with being informed tina
there was no error in the proceeding
of the court which rendered the verdict
they filed second petition in whic
they called the Supreme Court sharpl
to task because, among other thingl
they in effect said it must have decit
ed the case before it could have rea
the record. In other words told th
court its work had been badly done.
y. This wrung from the Supreme Coul
a written opinion, thing seldol
:, given by that court when an appeal
denied, and that opinion which is e.
austive, and very able, has cut tt
ground entirely from under the
client, and added the unanimous verdit
, of that high tribunal to the gener'
verdict of guilt, and. In addition he
spread upon the printed records
that court an opinion which wou
not otherwise have appeared ther
making a record which will stand
. confront and humiliate every relati,
u. and friend of the accused, so long I
the opinions of the highest court
this Commonwealth are. referred to
authority, or remain on the shelves
law libaries-an opinion which
Virginia at least. will be quoted
l. every criminal trial likely to con
). before our courts for many generation