The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-11-06

PREVIOUS JEOPARDY

z4s5 v Hsn&18HlfT NOGkO WI
RAISE TINS.
ROANOKE. VA. Nov. 5.---Following
y y an abstract of the bills Of excep-
items incorporated in the record of
the case Of Claude Allen and sent to
Judge Buchanan. who Ia now going
Over the matter:
The first blu Of exceptions offered.
4 NO. !, Ii what IL known In law as a
plea Of s'artfois acquit.- or formal ac-
duittal. This bill sets forth the fact
that on his first trial, for the killing
of Judge Thornton l. Massie. the in
dtctment charged conspiracy to kill
Foster, Goad, Webb and Massie
The court Instructed the jury that
II they believed there was q conspirA-
rs. then they should and Claude AL
len guilty OF murder In the first de.
gree There was no theory Of the
case under which the jury could have
believed the defendant to be a party
!. TO . conspiracy and found any other
verdict than murder In the first de,
gree. As a matter OF fact. the jury
found a verdict OF murder In the
second degree. and gave the dcfen-
iants fifteen years in the peniten-
4 tfary.
When Claude Allen came to be tried
On the indictment for killing Foster.
the same conspiracy was charged in
this indictment, namely. that there
wHs a conspiracy to kill Foster, Mas
Me, webb and Coad.
The defendant claimed that this
question OF conspiracy had been
passed upon by the former jury. who
had decided that no such conspiracy
existed. or that Claude Allen vas not
q party to 1t, II 1t did exist He fur
Their claimed that this being one and
the same transaction, and that all
of the shots being fired at the Same
time, Il made no difference whether
one man or flve had been killed, that
n was al one crime, IL q crime at all
Tbs trial court. however, did not take
this view. aud refused to permit the
plea to be flied. which is the subject
cf the, first and second bills of ex-
ecAntfaiaA-
Indictments Not Consolidated.
The third bin OF exceptions was az
to the refusal OF the trial court to
require the Commonwealth to con-
solidafe all of the prosecutions against
tho defendant and try them all to-
gefher.
~ The pien OF tho defense was that
sA4SG commonwealth SHOULD ue IE-
uHirsd to consolidate these tndict-
nsents and try them as different counts
ut the sanie indictment. The court
however. overruled this motion to per-
NIT the Commonwealth to try Claude
Allen separately on each OF the in
dirtments, which resulted In permit
ting the Commonwealth to try him
I'VE times II they saw fit
The fourth and NTH bills Of excep-
tons relate to the action OF the trial
court in putting men on the jury who
aid that they had formed or expressed
nEanions In regard to this case. The
Fourth bili OF exceptions sets forth the
TACT that certain Jurors were put on
who stated that they had expressed
their opinions and were doubtful AZ
TO whether they could lay aside these
opinions and give the defendant a fair
trial bnt stated that they would fol-
low the instructions Of the court and
consider the defendant innocent until
proven guilty.
Jurors Had Expressed Opinions.
In the fifth bill or exceptions, 1t ia
set forth that three or four jurors
stated that they had made an express
"a opinion which they still had with
them. The defendants counsel asked
each one OF these men whether the
opinion was that the defendant was
guilty or whether he was Innocent. Tbs
court refused to permit the Juror to
answer these questions, because the
5unprs stated that notwithstanding
their opinions they could give both the
defendant and the Commonwealth q
fair trial.
The defendant. however. argued, as
set forth in thfs bill of exceptions, No.
8. that he ought TO be permitted TO find
ont from the Juror what his opinion
wax. 70 that he would know In strik-
ing the jury. What liz meant by that
n the defendant has the right to strike
M four men from the sixteen empan-
eicd, without giving any reason there
for. The court, however. overruled
defendAnt's counsel in this and would
rot let him ask the juror whether his
guilty or innocent
Ellis Of exceptions. Nos & and Z, re-
late practically to the same questions
Dexter Gcad's Act Reviewed.
Bill No. sets forth the instruc-
items OF the court. The defendant
claimed that the theories OF these in
xtrnctions we're not Of the law, and
especially the one which told the jury
that II Floyd Allen had refused to
ssbay the court, then the officers had q
rskM to shoot him I'm efder to force
A4ktA& w 0sSy tts@ C1HkNt VIZ au HADJt. ~
he had refused to obey the court, then
he had no right OF self-defense. and
that his son, Claude Allen, had no
right to assist him.
There were also theories from In
ftr1lctlons offered by the defendant ana
Axclnded by the court and particu-
Larry one that aaked the court to in
struct the jury that II Dexter Goad APP
pretended trouble. as testified to by
A0Ad. then he should have sworn out
Il peace warrant, and had the parties
from whom He unprecedented trouble
placed t4naeF q 5sesaEe bond: ma that
AZ MRS. not the proper course for Goad
Ia eorpe into court with two pistols
conceaIed on his person. instead OF
4AEllng some officer that he apprehend-
"a trouble. The court refused this
ItznxTction as set forth in bill or ex-
pttoma No. g.
nm cf exceptions No. " as Ia
40 admissibiiity OF the opinion Of
4IoN6s witness. az Is No. IL.
6tfI NJ exceptions No. 10 sets forth
a&o xne4 that In the trial OF Claude
All6n, the Commonwealth Was permit
m ~ introduce In evidence various
~ cfnanste that had been found
q 1k Hidna Allen. Barnett Allen ana
evd Alien growing out Of q trial
N. 9amaeis. deputy sheriff.
49, various indictments against
~ Rewards and Gidna Allen.
3M4 ont ~ sOnas trouble they had