The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-03-05
"TURNING STATES EVIDENCE"
Attorney General Lyon Contends That
The Evidence Of an AccOmplice
Should Not be Discredtcd by a
Judge.


it Is unsafe to convict on the uncorro-
borated testimony Of an accomplish
has been put up to the supreme Court
for final decision by Attorney Cen
eral Lyon in his argument in the case
Of the state against John Sowen. Viii
liam Gardner and NJ. Truesdale.
The defendants We're indicted for
housebreaking and larceny in the day
time and were tried before q jury and
found guilty. They were sentenced by
Judge Klugh, and an appeal was talk
en- TO the supreme Court. The attor-
ney general says: "Considerable space
has been devoted TO so much of the
circuit judges charge as sets forth the
law Of this state to be that it is un-
safe to convict on the uncorroborated
testimony of an aCcOmplice, for the
reason that it is deemed to be highly
important to the public that this court
shall declare whether there be such a
rule and whether such practice is per-
missble under our constitutional pro-
vision forbidding a circuit judge to
charge upon the facts"
\ final ruling as to the testimony
of an accOmplice being commented
upon by a circuit judge in his charge
to jury Will prove highly interest
ing on account of the recent dispen-
sary graft trials, for it was generally
reported that the jury acquitted J. S
Farnum because J. 3. Wyle turned
States evidence.
The following is a part of the fifth
exception in the argument Of the at
torney general
Another point raised by appellants
Is found in the motion for new trial.
That the jury did not regard his hon
or's charge that they should give the
defendants the benefit Of any reason
able doubt, but concluded that the de-
PENDANTS were guilty, not upon the
States evidence. and were seeking for
some rule of law which would allow
them to disregard that testimony, not
withstanding the fact they believed it
to be true. Upon this point the circuit
judge charged them properly, in so
far as he said that they might con-
Vict on the uncorroborated testimony
Of an accomplice: that it was wholly
a matter with the jury as to whether
they would believe the accomplice or
not. But as we have undertaken to
show herinbefOre, it is submitted that
his honor, the presiding judge, went
beyond the rule of law in favor of the
defendants and contrary to the con-
when he charged the jury in addition
that human experience has found
that the testimony OF a man who saws
that he is the accOmplice Of somebody
else in crime, that is, that he is a con-
fessed criminal, is not testimony Of
the highest credibility, bcause it
comes from n person cOnfessing that
he is guilty Of committing a crime.
and only needs the judgment of the
law that he is 4 felon to debar him
from giving testimony. The testimony
of person Of that sort must come
Worthiness of the party who maks it
to credence to belief and in also
further charging the jury that it is
not safe thing for juries to convic.
on the unsupported testimony of an
accompllcc.
The attorney general, bearing di
rectIy on the testimony Of the accom-.
plice, Amos Clark, says:
The third exception complains
that the confession of Amos Clark,
one Of the accomplices, was used as
evidence against the other accomplices
who were on trial. IN examination of
the record will show that this cx-
ception is not well founded, for the
reason that Amos Clar5 was duly
sworn as q witness ana testified at
The trial his knowledge OF the facts
and circumstances attending the COM
mission Of the crime. The fact that
Clark has made confession could in
NJ wise affect the competency of his
testimony given in open court. His
testimony was q statement o. his per
Sona knowledge. and not confess
Ion. SO evidence OF his confession
WAS offered. The ruling OF the cir
cult Nd2e as to CIark's testimony is
clear and explicit ana there is nothing
IN it Of which defendants may COM