The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1912-06-26
History of Decisions.

/ contrary
History of Decisions.
Going into the other decisions 0
q the court of criminal appeals, We
find that this case was first revers-
ed and remanded for new trial or
r April ~, 1905. Judge Henderson
2 wrote the opinion and Judge Brooks
t dissented. In fact divided court
will be found almost throughout the
history of the case. The point was
made by the defense that the man
ner of selecting the jury had not
given the usual number of venire-
men and talesmen from which to
choose. Note that 1t was not charged
that the man didn't get fair trial
or that Jurors who were prejudtced
were selected. The point was clearly
a technicality 1t was shown that ii
! the law had been followed to the
letter the attorneys would have had
a larger number of men from which
to select a jury and that the law
intended that they should have this
larger number. Judge Brooks held |
that the error of the trial court was
certainly harmless error, but he
stood alone and the case weat back |
for another trial
On May 8, 1906. the case was
again reversed. This time Judge
Davidson wrote the opinion and |
again Judge Brooks dissented |
Trd1a noyidco,, boId 4ba+ +bo trio
court had made an error in its
statutory charge with reference to
how the testimony OF an aecompiice
should be regarded by the jury, He
also held that the issue as to wheth-
er or not Mrs. Aronoff had shot her
, own husband by mistake should
e (have been submitted by the Judge
d in his charge to the jury. Again
the case was sent back for anothe
D. trial
o The next time 1T was reversed b.
. the court of criminal appeals wa!
, on May Is, 1907. This time, how.
ever. Judge Brooks wrote the orig
inal opinion and affirmed the case.
When a rehearing was asked Judge
/ Brooks was absent and Judge Dav-
idson wrote an opinion reversing
/ and remanding the case. He again
called attention to the charge of the
trial judge to the jury He pointed
out specifically that the judge in
charging the jury on the worth of
Testimony Of an accomplice said
/ that testimony Of the accomplice
must tend to connect with other
testimony that tends to show the
guilt Of the defendant. Judge David
/ son didn't like that word tend. =
/ He said the testimony must not
only tend but it must positively
show the guilt of the defendant
and must positively connect with
other testimony He said that to
use the word tend substituted
suspicion of the guilt for the guilt
itself, and the case was sent back
for another trial This was not all
that Judge Davidson called atten-
ton to. but it was the point which
he considered the most important,
o.
On June %, 1909, the case OF
{ BurreH Oates was again reversed
t and remanded by the court Of Grim
, inal appeals, Again Judge Brooks
= wrote the opinion and affirmed tht
r. case. The dissents We're based OF
, queer grounds this time. When tn,
IA motion for rehearing came alon;
Il Judge Davidson called attention t.
o the fact that the jury had discussed
d the Holly Vann case and ha'
e seemed to consider the verdict i
Be- that case as bearing upon the Bur
lie rel Oates case. Vann, who was tn
n white accomplice of Burrell Oate'
ID had been tried and convicted an
rt given death penalty. Some of til
jurors were determined that moth
b. ing less should be given Burre
n Oates. Judge Davidson cited a lon
le line Of opinions to show that thi
S. constituted reversible error an
le that the case should be sent bach
H. Judge Ramsey also disagreed wit
le fudge Brooks about affirming tn
case, but for another reason.
,e seems that when the case had bee
iried the last time, w. w helms
H. who had prosecuted it the first time
Al was district Judge Therefore, h
le could not be the Judge on this CASE
IS Governor Campbell asked the al
sy torney generals department wha
ne to do about it and the attorne
Sc general answered TO appoint a sps