The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-10-18
STILL INSISTS ON
CRIMINAL ASSAULT.
Robbins Says This Charge
Should Be Made Against
Bernard Green.
HOLDS JESSUP is MISTAKEN
HE HAS IMAGINED HIMSELF TO
BE TWELVE MEN, WHEN HE is,
AT MOST, BUT ONE, SAYS ROB-
BINS.

In regard to the case of Bernard
Green. who Saturday last committed an
assault on Hazel Harris. the three-year-
old daughter OF Mr.. and Mrs, Charles
Harris, Attorney John F. Robbins Is
still Of the opinion that Green should
be charged with criminal assault. not
withstanding the statement made by
Prosecutor Jessup Thursday that in his
opinion Green is only guilty Of assault
and battery.
II vii! be remembered that Mr.. Rob-
bins, last Monday, VIXEN Green was ar
riiGned in the circuit court expressed
his opinion to reporters that Green
was guilty Of criminal assault instead
OF assault and battery as charged by
the prosecutor. Mr. JesSup overheard
Mr.. Robbins. and on investigating the
statute referred TO by Mr.. Robbins, de
ci0ed not to prosecute the assault and
battery charge against Green until he
haG fully decided as to whether the ne
gro, could under the statute cited by
Mr.. Robbins be charged with criminal
assault. When Mr.. Jessup announced
his decision to the court Henry U.
Johnson, attorney for the defendant.
charged Mr. Robbins with "butting
in" and the prosecutor with bad faith.
Thursday Mr.. Jessup announced that
he had fully decided to prosecute Green
for assault and battery, as he had ct
first determined to do
Mr.. Robbins was shown Prosecutor
Jessup's statement in regard to the
charge to be filed against Green and
asked to make a statement. He de-
clined to do so at first, but finally
gave out the following:
Robbins Statement.
Il expressed my opinion freely on
this question in the court room a short
time ago, to the reporters. At that
time I did not know he case was
pending in the circuit court, neither
did l know what attorney was employ
ed in the defense of the case. l soon
learned as you will remember I
have no disposition to meddle in this
case. | suppose. however, that any
man has a right to express his opinion
on a question of law, and to fairly crit
icize the action of public officer. /
do not impugn the motives of the pros
ecutor, l simply arraign his Judgment.
1T is a somewhat novel situation to
see the states attorney on the verge
of nervous prostration through fear
that justice may be meted out to a
guilty man. He will not deceive any
one by parading a conscience that
seems to be better than the laws of his
country. If he could only calm his
agitated breast long enough to give his
mental activities a working chance, he
might be led out of the fog and error.
by the clear light of reason. and obey
the law. He will never solve the ques-
ton, that SO distresses and perplexes
him. through the aid of this wakeful
and vigilant moral faculty that has so
clearly led him astray. The case of
Green is a plain one. He committed
an assault and battery upon a female
child. under fourteen years of age. by
unlawfully touching her person in an
indecent manner. Was this the only
crime of which he was guilty? This
depends upon his intent and purpose at
the time he siezed hold of the child.
Was it merely to spank her? If so he
is only guilty Of assault and battery.
Was 1t to commit crime upon her per
son? If so he is guilty of a felony.
What his intent and purpose was is
simple question of fact to be deter
mined by a jury from the evidence of
the acts done by him. II these acts
were Of such nature as to afford no
evidence whatever of the guilty intent.
the jury. being composed of men equal
ly as intelligent and honest as the pros
ecutor. would not convict him of a fell
ony. If the violent presumption of
the prosecutor is to be INDUCED. that a
Wayne county jury would disregard
cir oaths and the law. and convict
without evidence, any lawyer knows
that in such case the trial court would
be bound to set aside the verdict. But
ii the acts done did afford some evil
dence. however slight. of the guilty
intent, then the jury would have the
lawful right to find the guilty intent
from this evidence and convict of the
felony. Does the prosecutor mean to
tell this community that there was alb
no evidence of this guilty in
tent? He knows better And he
very we'll knows. or might know, if he
would read the law. THAT it is not his
province to pass upon the weight and
of this evidence. That is
for the jury. He has imagined him.
self to be twelve men, where he is, at
most, but one