The Churchill county standard. (Fallon, Nev.) 1908-1920, 1917-07-04
Decision on Application for Suspen-
sion of Sentence as to Guy
Mitchell

sion of Sentence as to Guy
Mitchell
In the Eighth Judicial District
Court of the State of Nevada in and
for the County of Churchill.
The State of Nevada, Plaintiff, vs..
Guy Mitchell and William Swift. De-
PENDANTS.
/ have decided to file written de-
cision in this matter which although
rather lengthy. will show how I
view this important subject and my
reasons for the conclusion reached.
II seems that this much considera-
tion Is due both to the prosecution
and to the defendant.
| have considered this matter very
carefully and seriously not only DUR
ing the several days occupied during
the course of the trial, but also with
reference to all the matters SO ably
and we'll presented by counsel for
defendant since that time. Certainly
this is a difficult, or rather, trying
and unpleasant responsibility to ex-
ercise. AS previously stated, 1t is a
responsibility from which ] would
much prefer to be excused.
OF course there are cases where
sentence should be suspended, in
other words where the Court
should interfere with the usual
course and by so doing step in and
prevent the execution of the judg
ment and sentence. The question
now before us is as to whether this
is such a case? Does the history of
the case and the facts and circum-
stances in connection with 1t justify
such interference upon the part of
the Court?
Evidently such a power should
not be exercised unless there is some
particular reason for doing so, which
reason should stand out clearly,
otherwise such an arbitrary use of
power should not be exercised
Therefore with the idea in mind of
looking for this reason, let us sum
up the situation:
First-The defendant was charged
with and convicted of a serious
crime, a felony, more particularly
known as grand larceny.
Second-There can be no question
at all as to the guilt of the defend
ant. The jury has unanimously said
so by their verdict. The defendant
himself has not personally even at
tempted to deny it, and after care
/ full consideration of the evidence |
cannot understand my self how the
jury could come to any other conelu-
sion than that which they did and
/ If all verdicts were as nearly correct
as this one in following the law and
the evidence there would be much
less reflection upon our jury system.
Third--The last petition that has
been filed, has been signed by every
member of the jury in which they
state that their first recommendation
j for clemency was made under
misapprehension and that they now
wish to withdraw any and all pre-
vious recommendations made by
them. This of course leaves a plain
unconditional verdict of Guilty as
charged"
Fourth-While the second trial of
William Swift resulted in disagree
ment of the jury, 1t did to my mind
establish more than ever il possible,
the guilt of Mitchell and Sapulyeda.
Fifth-There is also some show
ing to the effect that defendant is
not only guilty of this crime, but also
other and similar ones, and that this
one of which he stands convicted. is
only one of a series of such crimes,
we'll organized and planned.
Sixth-The defendant has shown.
no consideration whatever to the
state in the way of helping to clarity
matters, or to save this county any
portion of the great expense incurred
either in the prosecution of this case
or OF the ones so closely connected
with II.
Keeping all these things In view,
am unable to find that particular
reason, or indeed any reason at all
why sentence should be suspended,
and clearly II under all these cir
cumstances 1t should be suspended
in this case, then logically 1t should
be done in all cases, and such prec-
edent once established, would lead
us to a very dangerous and ridicu-
lous condition. Clearly we must
protect and respect the property in
terests, lives. and rights of our citi-
zens and If not, then organized gov
ernment is failure and has no ex-
auoa FOR ayictapna