The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-01-30

effect each time, as the jury upon each
OCCASION, OF COURSE, I'D nor Fr7Uw TX
actly what the former evidence had
been. Frank Fowler, a deputy sheriff
and star witness for the Common
wealth, said that Sidna Allen turned
as he started out and shot back at the
Judge. A Mr.. Lindsay, a juror, even
went so far as to say that Sidna Allen
went up on the steps leading to the
judges bench and shot him. There
are no bullet marks, however, to war
rant these statements. Several of the
Jurors were struck inside the court
room. No one knows by whom. 1t
is strange that more of them were not
struck by the fusillade of bullets fred
/ directly over them by eight or nine
officers; strange that none of them
was struck on the outside IL the wild
stories of the Aliens shooting point
blank at them within a few feet as
they ran out of the courtroom were
true.
AS to the claim that Sidna and
Floyd were shooting at the jurors on
the outside. an attorney OF Pulaski,
Mr.. Fl. c. Gilmer, perhaps the coolest
and therefore the most credible wit
ness in the case, was standing at a
window overlooking the court green,
and saw the entire transaction on the
outside from the time the people nrst
began to come out until the Aliens LETT
the green, and he saw nothing or the
kind. There was pistol duel between
Goad and the Aliens. began by Goad,
but he saw none of the shooting at
Jurors represented by the wild talk OF
some Commonwealth witnesses.
Finally 1t has been contended by
petition of Floyd Allen for clemency
that the court of appeals has twice
n
had decided that the verdicts are
right. Ever lawyer knows that the
court of appeals frequently affirms
judgments which are extremely harsh
and work irreparable hardship on one
party Or the other, where jury mas
SO decided In fact. the books are
fun of cases where the court in de-
livering their opinions say that had
they been on the jury they would
have decided the case differently
Their only power is to examine the
cold record and see whether error or
law has been committed in instruct
ing the Jury or In other legal pro-
eedure.
They caunot look for errors of fact
or perjured testimony that has been
shown IN be perjured since the term
of court closed. They cannot take
into account prejudice and public eX-
trials They cannot take into account
the fact that this boy was really tried
three times for the same thing. so
long as the charges are technicaaly
different. They cannot take into &C
count the fact that when Floyd and
Claude were tried. Carroll county was
so demoralized and terrified that the
evidence could not be gotten, and that
as coon as II was gotten and brought
{rtN4 a ahfAIneG
On the trials.
These matters are all for the gov
ernor to consider on petition for
clemency. In short, so much OF the
ANTICIPATED red tape of the middle
ages cliHgs to our Virginia practice
that though a jury find defendant
guilty of murder and he be sentenced
to death and after the term of the
court has ended it be found that he
was convicted on the plainest mis-
take. so that everybody concerned in
the trial have not the slightest doubt
that a perfectly innocent man has
been convicted. the court cannot order
a now trial There lis no redress for
him, except 10 appeal TO the COVER
nor fer a pardon, or communication.
There Ia no Way to compel the COVER
nor to PARDON him. and IL for any rea-
son the governor chose not to do go.
such person would be put to death.
Mr. Byrd end Mr. Smith In the last
petition presented to the court at
.er1pted To get our court to adopt the
rule followed in some State supreme
courts and the United States court to
reopen n case even though II has been
tried and the term ended. The court,
however, said:
but we are not here to pass upon
the procedure in other Jurisdictions,
he case before us must be deter
mined 10y the laws of this State, and
by the long ar d unbroken course of
procedure in the courts of this Com
mGnwcalth II is admitted in the Pc
tition that there IL no case TO be
found IN the records OF the courts of
this Commonwealth in which any such
procedure has been recognized or act
ed upon"
In short. the court of appeals only
decided that upon the record as pre-
scented 70 them. they have no right to
interfere, under the Virginia Law.
The foregoing is written by request.
and consented to do So feeling that
Justice L. clients who have had so
much that is untrue written and said
about them. at this time, when they
are applying to the governor for
communication, demanded that | should
do SO.
II Is intended as a criticism of no
one. except that incidental criticism.
Of those who were responsible for this
h5fTIETg afTHsr. tfTar~ naturally rrsrfftS
fro 4 a statement of the facts.
Respectfully,
r. II WILLIS
(From the Roanoke Times of De-
u