The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-12-09
FAULTY RECORD
 KILLS ANOTHER BILL IF SOL0NS Fort Knocks Out The Jefferson County Jury Law In Rey- holds Case RE YNOLD DS GETS NEW TRIAL
 FOR KILLING OF M'LEAN Judge Fort After Making Trip to Montgomery to Examine Records
 Declares the Law Is uncon- stitutlonal.

down by Judge William E. Fort yester-
 day on the ground that the present jury
 law is unconstitutional because of the
 manner in which it is entered upon tho
 journal of the legislature. Two trials have already been given
 Reynolds, the first one resulting in a
 nistrial, three of the jurors declining to convict on an insanity plea. In the last trial there were 8 great many argu- ments over the admission of evidence but all of these were settled. The case was carefully handled and Judge Fort stated that the plea of unconstitutional ity of an act under which the trial was proceeding was practically the only ground upon which the new hearing would have been granted The defect in the law was emphasized during ths trial
 Apparent careIessness. The defect In the law was caused by the apparent carelessness in which the minutes of the legislature were recorded. a similar incident to which occurred In the King Greater Birmingham act, which was declared unconstitutional The jour
 
 up by Judge Dan Greene and adopted by the legislature In February, 1907, to have been referred to the local legislation committee. then to have been considered and returned by the judiciary committee. It is said that 1t was really referred to the judiciary committee but in entering 1t the wording local legislation was used instead of judiciary" It is required under the constitution
 
 journals of the legislature and Judge Forts decision is based on the fact that bill must be returned by the commit tee to which 1t is referred and must so show on the journal.
 Allen & Bell and J. McK. Long are the attorneys for Reynolds and their contention grew out of the careful study ing of the legislature journals. In order to make sure on the point Judge Fort paid visit to Montgomery last week and examined the journals himself New Law In Effect Soon. This jury law will be superseded oS the first of the year, when the new general l law adopted by the recent special ses- sion Of the legislature goes into effect. The new trial will be under that rul- ing.
 In the new trial Reynolds will again face death, as the verdict and sentence of the former trial will not be considered in it.
 Another case which may possibly be affected by this decision Is the William Bailey case, in which Bailey received a sentence of 25 years for an unusually serious offense. The maximum sentence he could have received was 9 years. Plea for a rehearing on the same point of unconstitutionality is before the su- preme court.
 Other cases wherein the defendant has already been sentenced and Is serving out the sentence it Is believed will not be affected by this decision. Statement By Allen. Judge B. M. Allen, member of tho firm of Allen & Bell, who raised the point against the Jefferson county jury law, when asked for a statement as to the effect of the decision on other cases, said last night:
 .'Of course, the only cases in which we are directly interested are those of our clients Reynolds and Bailey. I am in- clined to think however that any case tried within F months under the invalid fury law and now pending before the supreme court will be sent back. It would make no difference whether this particular point was raised or not by the attorneys making the appeal The su- preme court would naturally have to send them back since the unconstitutionality of the jury law has been determined. "As to cases tried where no appeal was taken, they would probably not be affected If defendant has been sen- tenced and the sentence executed there would be no way to go behind this ac- tion."
 Judge Forts decision reads as fol-. lows.
 Courts Opinion. The state of Alabama vs. W. P. Rey- holds, defendant. In the criminal court of Jefferson county, Alabama Judgment of the court on defendants motion for new trial.
 The court has carefully considered the grounds of this motion and has reviewed all available authorities. On the regular trial of this case, coun- sel for the defendant presented motion 1 to quash the venire of petit jurors for the week, and assigned many grounds in support thereof. Neither in said motion | to quash, nor in any other way during the trial of this cause, did defendant point out specially nor argue to the court that the ' law for organizing and empaneling juries , for the trial of capital cases in Jefferson county was unconstitutional on Haccount l of errors appearing on the journal of the house Of representatlves; there was only a general allegation that the law was un- l constitutional, without pointing out any | particular ground thereof The first ref erence by defendant to errors in the jour- nal in the house of representatives was made after defendant had been tried and convicted of murder in the second de- !, gree the alleged errors in the journal be- | ing urged by the defendant for the first | time on motion for . new trial and in ar- rest of judgment
 Would Have Been No Trial. Had counsel at the time of the trial l pointed out to the court that the journal of the house of representatives was de- l fective there would have been no trial of this case until the question had been 1 fully investigated by the court. The mo- 1 ton for a new trial and for arrest of | judgment now points out that the act 1 approved February 26. 1907. entitled, An ] act to provide for and regulate the draw. l ing, summoning and empaneling of juries l in capital cases in Jefferson county" 1 was referred hy the house of repreyeuta- tives to the committee on local legisa~ | tion of tho house and was reported to l the house by different committee, l namely. the committee on judiciary of the house.
 It then becomes the duty of this court