Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1907-11-08
JUDGE M'FTE'S FINDINGS
AND SENTENCE OF AI4ARID

the court.
AS the court said on yesterday the
court Is proceeding in this case strictly
i'm accordance with the law as laid
down In the case of the United States
against Carroll, 147 Federal Reporter.
In that case, the defendant was dis
charged because he attempted To get
an outside party to influence a juror;
he did not approach the juror himself
and this outside party said the juror
was hard-headed fellow. and he
didn't think s-could do anything with
him or something to that effect, and
so far as the evidence shows, the juror
was never reached at all in any In
telligent way. and the court held that
there was no obstruction OF justice,
because of a scarriage-bccause 1t
miscarried: they did not reach the
Juror, and accomplish any purpose by
IL. i'm the way of obstructing justice,
and at the same time, the court san-
nounced that If the party had actu-
ally attempted to get a Juror-infiu-
cnce a iurOr-and get him to vote for
or against an Observation-Disclosures
his conduct in other rWOrds--whether IL
was accomplished or not, 1t would be
a contempt Of court, If the matter
came in contact with the juror.
Now. this Information here, OF
Hersch-as the court called attention
legation in il: il sets up that certain
words were said to him by Alarid, and
that he meant so and 80 by these
words. and then II begins new para
grsph-after stating what he under
stood by these wOrds-it begins new
sentence. making another speclllc
charge. and that is, that he attempted
to persuade and induce jurors ana m
duenco their conduct In the premises
In regard to their duties either not TO
vote for. or return an Indictment
do not remember the exact language
used but that clause Is in the intor-
nation In this case.
Now. that clause becomes very per
tinent in view Of the testimony that
Is here Introduced this morning: upon
the introduction Of this testimony. Up
70 the Introduction Of this testimony
this morning. the matters tesifled 70
prior to that time had Deeh Piet,t
thoroughly denied by all the Wiz
nesses who testified on yesterday.
This testimony on this morning s en-
tifeIv different: il is undenied, practl-
cally. by the parties involNed, nj.
Atarid and Mr.. Griego neither OF them
take the stand to deny it. consequently
il stands for what IL is worth.
Now. here are four witnesses. an OF
them grand jurors. who served WITH
Mr. Griego on that jury. they testify
10 the fact that they were members o.
the grand jury on the nineteenth OF
October. and that on that day MI.
Aiarid and Mr. Griego called upon an
of them. both of them togetnef' IN
an four cases. or In the presence OF
these four jurors, each Of them sMears
that each Of these two men We're mere
and the first two swear that Alarld dld
the talking. and offered them A'V hot
20 indict him. the first witness -
Mt ~ fndirt him. he says that quite
n,sltiveiv. the second witness says the
same. but he says more than that: ne
saws that the indictment related %
the one in regard 20 the lands ~ can
Juan county. thus connecting u 81
rectly with this indictment thst Wa
then pending before the grand JpIs-
The last two witnesses seem =" DC
more Intelligent men. TINS Ha9t "''