The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1909-04-20
HUNTER CASE GOES
TO HIGHER COURT.
Laurens Mans Appeal Granted BY
Federal Tribunal-U. S. Supreme
Court Assumes Jurisdiction.

news anu COURIER.
Washington, April l5.-An inter-
esting development in the case Of the
State of South Carolina VS. G. Wash
Hunter, convicted Of the murder of
Ebert F. Copeland, Of Laurens Coua-
ty, at the Court Of General Sessions
for Greenwood County, February "a,
1908, has arisen in that the Supreme
Court of the United States has as
sumed jurisdiction Of the case upon
appeal from the decision Of the Su-
preme Court Of the State Of South
Carolina. Following a mistrial in
this case in Laurens County it was
changed to Greenwood County, where
Hunter was found guilty and SEN
fenced to eight years in the Penlten-
tiary. The case was appealed to the
State Supreme Court, and in an opin-
ion rendered by Justice Woods the
Supreme Court confirmed the action
Of the Circuit Court.
His local counsel in the State was
C. L. Blease, of Newberry, and Rich
ey & Richey, of Laurens, and at this
juncture John G. Capers, of this city,
was employed to look into the pos
sible Federal questions involved,
which would open a way for an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court Of the
United States. A stay Of remittitur
was first obtained, and then an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court Of the
United States was perfected, a writ
of error granted by Chief Justice
Pope Of the State Supreme Court,
and upon the showing made the Su-
preme Court of the United States has
now taken jurisdiction Of the case on
appeal.
Among the Federal questions rails
ed it is claimed that Hunter was de-
MED his right Of trial by jury in the
county and in the district wherein
the alleged crime was committed, and
also because he was required to ans
wer to a capital and thus an infam-
Gus crime without a prior present.
ment or Indictment of the grand jury,
guaranteed him by Articles 5 and 6 Of
the amendment to the Constitution;
and that the Supreme Court Of the
State in sustaining the rulings the
trial Court practically forced Hunter
to testify. against himself, and in
other ways he was denied the equal
:protection Of the laws and rights
guaranteed to and claimed by him
under the thirteenth and fourteenth
amendments to the Constitution OF
the United State.
Some questions of difference seem
to exist as to whether or not the grand
jury was in evidence upon his trial.
In any event, in defending the action
of the trial Court before the Supreme
Court, it is said, the solicitor urged
that even were this true, Hunter had
lost his right to so plead; because that
question was not raised at the time
of his trial in the lower Court, and
that position was sustained by the
Supreme Court Of the State in an
opinion said to be contrary to the at
titude of the Court upon the same
subject for the past thirty years.
1t is presumed that the case Will
be argued in the Supreme Court dur
inc in the coming fall, and consider
able interest is manifested in view OF
the rather unusual questions raised
and in the assuming of jurisdiction
by the Supreme Court Of the United
States Supreme Court in view OF the
provisions of the Federal Constltn-
ton in such cases.