Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1912-01-17
VERDICT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS.
So Say Jurors IN Long Case--New
Trial Refused.

Greenwood, Jan. 6.-One of the
most dramatic situations ever wit
messed in the court room here was
developed this afternoon in the
course of argument for new trial
for George w. Long, convicted of
manslaughter early Tuesday morn
ing, having been on trial for two
days for the shooting of Luther p.
Mullinax at Troy some time ago.
The sensation in the motion for
new trial lay in the fact that one Of
the jurors, M. f. Sanders, Of Green
wood, made an affidavit as to the
manner in which the verdict was ar
rived at, and why. That he was sup
ported in this affidavit by two other
jurors was not known when r. b.
Grier started to read the affidavit,
and as soon as he reached the point
in the affidavit that Mr.. Sanders had
been a juror in the case and held
convictions that the verdict was not
what he believed 1t should be, Judge
Sease, with flushed face, asked Mr..
Grier to stop reading.
He said that he had polled the
jury when the verdict was read, and
that every man had answered that it
was his verdict, and that court could
not allow anything to come before 1t
relating to what had transpired in the
jury room.
Mr.. Grier asked for permission to
explain the nature Of his position, and
why it was necessary to make this
preliminary statement. Upon this be-
ing done, and after further argument
along this line by G. G. Feathersto tone
for the defense, Judge Scase permit
ted the reading Of the affidavit.
The Other AfIidavits.
The other jurors making an aflida-
Wit similar to Mr.. Sanders were G..
| NJ. Anderson, Of Ninety-SiX, and A. j.
| Langley. Of Greenwood. This afda-
Wit, in substance, stated that after
several ballots the jury finally de-
cided among themselves that they
would continue to ballot until two
| thirds Of them should agree on ver-
dict and that when this was done the
verdict of the two-thirds should be
| the verdict of all.
Under this arrangement finally
two-thirds voted for manslaughter,
and SO this became the verdict Of the
whole jury. Just previous to the last
vote the jury stood seven for acquit-
tai and five for manslaughter, but the
next vote was eight for manslaughter
and four for acquittal.
The attorneys for the defense ar
gued long and earnestly that it was
not a constitutional verdict, after
having made an able argument as to
why the judge should consider the
affidavit After their argument So
licitor Cooper opposed the granting
Of new trial on the ground that 1t
was against public policy to contra
vene the verdict on the ground pro-
posed. The foreman Of the jury, J.
NJ. Townsend, was sworn and made
a statement to the court. He told
Of the ballots and how the rule was
adopted. He said he had all stand
up and agree afterwards that it was
the unanimous verdict.
The defense contended that this
agreement bound only to the agree
ment that two-thirds should rule and
that the two-thirds rule is not recog-
niZed in the State, though strenuous
efforts have been made to have it
adopted. Solicitor Cooper in conclu-
sion said that he must continue to
oppose granting a new trial.
New Trial Refused.
Judge Sease concurred in this, and
in refusing the motion said with
warmth that he hoped he would
never have to pass upon such a ques-
ton again while he was on the
bench He went on to say, that,
though jurors might fec conscience
stricken, public policy dem lded the
Jury room be held secret and sacred,
and that after the statement Of the
foreman Of the jury he felt that the
verdict should stand. Tho jurors
could not stultify themselves. Hav-
ing Mr.. Long placed in the dock, and
after listening to pea Of leniency,
Judge Seaso pronounced sentence
upon him, this sentence being three
years and six mouths on the public