The Washburn leader. [volume] (Washburn, McLean County, N.D.) 1890-1986, 1913-07-18
Juror Answers
Leader Charge

Leader Charge
Explains Why a Verdict Of
"Not Guilty" Was Given in
the Anderson Trial
Garrison, N. D.
july 18th 1913.
Editor Leaders
In your issue of July, 4th un-
der the heading, "Has Someone
Blundered?' you made the state
ment, "The jury is not wholly to
blame for a verdict Of this kind, T"
and as the writer was member Of
the jury in the Anderson case, if
you will give us the space in
your paper we will endeavor to
give you a little information which
it seems you do not have relative
to the testimony in this case,
and we might say that
your name appeared on the infor-
nation as one Of the witnesses,
yet for some unaccountable rea-
son to the members. Of the jury
you did not appear as a witness
to give your testimony. The jury
certainly expected that you and
others whose names appeared on
the information would give us
the benefit of your knowledge of
the facts and circumstances sur
rounding this crime that we could
better Judge Of the guilt or inno-
cence Of the defendant, Anderson,
and we were as much surprised
when you and other reliable citi-
zens did not appear as witness
ses as We are at your criticism,
when you say, that the jury is
not wholly to blame for such
verdict, - And now in all fair
ness let us ask you a question
and trust you will answer it
through your paper in the next
issue; "Why did you and Aug. E.
johnson not appear before the
jury as witnesses in the trial, as
it was shown that you were the
persons whom it is said was on
the grounds. and first accused
Anderson Of the murder Of Funk
You may have some good reasons
and in all fairness we ask you
to answer this before you say
that "the jury was not wholly to
blame for such verdict Of this
kind" Were you present to
hear the testimony Of the wit
nesses on behalf Of the State
and the argument Of counsel so
that you could be able to say
what judgment the jury should
pronounce on the case made out
by the State? ii not, permit us
to give you little that the
jury had to deal with in this case
and we believe that you are fair
minded enough to concede that
under all the circumstances the
jury could have brought in no
other contentious verdict under
the oath they took to well and
truly try the issue between the
state and the defendant.
There appeared on the informa-
ton some seventy or more names
of citizens Of Washburn and vici-
nifty who were to testify in this
case, your name among others,
and not to exceed thirty Of them
were called. First to testify to
one fact and then recalled to
testify to another fact and SO on
that it was almost impossible to
keep run Of the witness and what
he testified to, which deprived
the juror of the benefit Of each
witness's story Of the events to
which he testified and got their
proper connection with the mat
ter in issue and on which the
jury was to pass judgment. Grant
ed that it may be a logical way
in which to proceed in the trial
of a suit, but in our judgment a
mighty unsatisfactory way in
which to try a case involving so
many witnesses and so many cir
cumstances as this case did.
Now let us ask you the first
question we have in mind: Is the
jury wholly to blame for the
method Of procedure in this