The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1911-01-24
IS THE judy SYSTEM A FAILURE?

I FiS u ld4 III 1Ol dclt last hSth, III y
most monumental mockery of just &c
yet recorded in the courts of Georgia,
A little more than two years ago,
The high sheriff OF Wayne county, ac
| .ompanied cy his son, both armed
ike western desperadoes, walked int9
he place of business Of a quiet, m
ssuming druggist and emptied i, g
'ontenfs Of four revolyers into or "a
is carcass. Town gossip led to r4c
CLING, and, according TO report, &c
! 1niv oTense Of Smith, the druggist,
:onsisted IN protesting against the cir
! cgrlstion Of scandalous reports ~
| fecting TIE reputation and good name
Of a woman.
At this distance, far removed from
| the scene and the atmosphere of he
occurrence, IL is difficult to analy2o
| the issues involved. The woman may
Smith may have teen guilty of gross
intrusion into the affairs of other pao-
i pie wnen he sought to defend her; ne
may have fired upon the Lyons fist
all that and more may still be true
1ut from the facts that are undisput
ed, we cannot see how jury, sworn
o find the truth and uphold the laW,
could have found them, father and
sen euiltless Of crime.
When he was killed, Smith wae
clone in his place of business. MGn"
shots were fired. The sheriff's 3ol
-, 1nad IF
buck-shot. pert of which erazed MS
scalp and perforated his Dat One
witness. a reliable man, who was
near, gave testimony indicating that
the druggist fired first But the fact
that an officer of the law, sunreasoii-
his son WI o was also a walking ar
senal.' went TO the drug store with
out having any special reason for go
ing there-outside that of making
trouble-was not disputed. And the
testimony indicated that Smith had
received such warning that not only
justified him in firing upon his two
assailants, but such as would have
classed him as a fool if he had not |
done so.
The further fact that the residents |
Of the community, people who knew
all the men and were familiar with
all the facts, were so incensed over
what appeared to be an atrocious
and unprovoked murder that the two
accused men had to be hurried away |
to a city Jail to save them from sum
mary vengeance is worthy of consid-
Grafton. And the good and noble |
women of the community were so
convinced that Smith had died a
to the cause of virtuous wom-
anhood, that they contributed the
means for erecting a monument to
his memory.
And furthermore, when the two men
were arraigned for trial among their
in the county which one OF
them had sworn to serve. they were
found guilty promptly. Had not the
supreme court reversed the verdict
con some technical error in the pro-
ceedings, for the evidence could not
be considered by that tribunaD theyi
would have been forced to pay we
penalty for the alleged crime Ihey
from appearing before
those who knew them for another
trial. and sought and gained CHANGE
of venue. In another county, the jury
deadlocked on the question OF guilt;
and the third attempt in still another
county, more than two years after
the crime-time enough for the
treacherous memory of witnesses to
play havoc with the available EVIL
dence-bhey are acquitted.
In this day when the crying need is
for more jury trials, when it is ~
cumbent on all leaders of public SEN
timent to encourage submission OF all
to the formalities of law. it would
not be becoming to criticlse the
court or the jury, no matter how ap'
parent their errors may be.
But such results may make one
wonder if our whole system of Grim
mat court procedure is not failure.
Think of thes multitudinous advan-
tages the defendants in the above
case possessed. In the first place
they were able virtually to select
their own jury--due to the predomi-
mating number of strikes allowed the
defense. Then they were able to ap-
peal from the verdict Of the first jury
not as to the facts but as to the
technicalities. and on the latter they
obtained a reversal. Then, the far
reaching and mostly senseless tests,
applied to jurors enabled them rir-
tually to select their own place for
the second trial; and when that re-
suited in q mistrial, to select still
third. And when the third jury
drought in verdict of acquittal they
60 forever free, regardless of tech
meal errors which may have benefit
ed them.
In the above, the most important
Illustration is omitted. 1t lies in the
two years and more of time required
to bring the case to a close. Had the
verdict been one of guilt at least an-
other year would have been added TO
the period.
Something is wrong with the whole