Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1918-07-17

DO stated that according 10 his recollection Mr
DIXON aas the ono who made such statement.
lu ID. lidorins This point. II Is important 10 re-
member that there vas not particle Of evidence
ntrDdH "a before Che jury during the trial OF the
case Rih reference 90 any purported prior offcnses
OF "a similar kind By The defendant.
NoV inc question s. did this conduct Of the jury
require that new trial be- granted under the
statute we have mentioned. which directs and COM
utnds new trial where the jury receives other
evidence after retiring 90 deliberate The question
D. au. Ncred By our supreme Court OF Criminal
lew in the of Terry rs State. 3S southwestern
fopurDr. 9. $50. whore DO Is said AS part OF
ths motion for f. now trial In this case. appellant
raised ne question OF the misconduct OF the jury.
that o.. it is alleged that said misconduct OF the
Jury consisted 100 their hearing other evidence In
tho case after their retirement to-wit. the state
uut ol one Jack Farmer that he knew the defend
amt and had known him 10 steal calves and
butcher them and scl them 10 the negroes for Is
Hrs quarter. and that This statement was made
900 rho presence oi the jury before thoy had agreed
il"n q verdict This allegation D. supported by the
aiiIda. its oI Two OF the jurors. and Is not con-
trovcu'd j. BIS not shown by said affidayits or
Dhofu i.0. Iutt said statement oi the Juror Jack
FHrm u, the jury room influenced the jury. or
amy one oi said jurors boo arriving a. a verdict In
tho case ot Mitchell vs. State TEX Or App 30
vs. $50, boz constituting that part OF sub. division 7
OF our statute authorizing new trials whore the
jury have heard other testimony after their retire
ment d. Uas held that new trial was mandatory
While iho statement made here by the juror Farmer
would not have been admissible evidence. vet
% went directly 90 the character OF appellant and
upon th, very pput iu issue. that Is. he was m
th, habit Ot stealing calves the charge here be-
iuE the theft of calf And its effect could not
have been otherwise than 10 prejudice him before
the jury ani boo our opinion u such case, % IS not
uer. .sIrf that The affidavit go further and show
prejudice. whore the obvious effect g. 10 create
such prciudie" ON account of the misconduct
of 'ho jury n receiving other testimony after their
fIf. .f.f u. .ts.I. cod
routndcd DO
lr the Leslie Mobiles case the defendant was
charged with rape. and during tho discussion IN
tu' jury room their statement was made by some
juror that DO he wac mot guilty of this rape he was
guilty OF other OF similar onenscs IN the Terry
c. we have Just mentioned. the defendant was
charged with calf thou. and In the deliberations
ono ut tho jurors stated that tho defendant had
been guilty OFF other similar thctts The parallel
l"'"ecn the Terry case and the Mobiles IS per
feet The Supreme Court said that Terry was en-
irI'd 90 new trial ON account OF such miscon-
duct aud 81 follows inevitably that Mobiles must
hove been entitled to a new trial Tor the same
reason.
Ri EHEN'E 10 DEFENDANTS FAILURE To
TESTIFY
Another contention which the defendant urged
ai The hearing ON the motion for new trial was
t.7i thc jury Boz their retirement discussed the de-
fond. nt. failure Co testify
I pom ibis point the Juror \ v Joiner tosti-
nod ta follows. well some one said that he was
% Some 90 this evidence wasn't so they would
hove pu' Ices ON the stand 10 contradict H." and
V'ted further that tins remark was mado In the
presence OF tho jury Later hp was asked. .yV,u
what was said then boz bringing 10 up the next time
q juror brought Do up. what did hc says and h,
replied. 'Noll, 10 seemed 10 was on his mind some
way That Oh" defendant should have been placed
ou tho stand
Tom Barnes. another Juror was sakcd this 0uos-
iion. Mr. Barnes. did you hear mentioned In
the jury room the fact that the defendant didn't
testify and De- answered. There was sometbinr
Nild about that and tho foreman referred to M.
ohnrrD and read that portion of the charge bv
winch 'h" judge said that We shouldn't that IN
shouldn't ho considered What did they say about
q %. near iH YOU can remember" aud hc rspliad
d"n know. other than the question was asked
why h' dldn testify iu his own behalf or some
lhlhE i1 mat effect. we'll as / remember VOL
a' Well as remember they said that his TESTIMONY,
wouldn't help him any" And later ON the District
Attorney asked Mr. Barnes This question. wow
pr iiin'. when was the fact of tho defendant.
itlur. io testify mention" and hr answered. .lt
Wa during in' % was after tho vote was taken
'Ii'i '''rh votes was taken aud trying TO arrive
az mo penalty"
Nr John Young another juror. wa paced ON
the .''nd and asked questions and mad, answer.
20 ur Young was there ANYTHING said I'm u..
lnN room with reference, 90 the defendant failur.
20 tcsuy2
"a WH, Q bcIio,o made that remark myself
Sou believe YOU made that remark your
.aIi
"a Nos. q Amt sure but I believe did
20 What was the remark M NouuCE
"a Well Co.. when what s-hs-name Jouos-
fhi man fhIs Jones that lives out here by s'
Francis a. brought the matter up and ] said.
Well %" should have testified him or"
Ar Horny o. Nru.rh another Juror was asked.
tr Nrusrh . viii ask YOU to state whether or
nH' 100 tho jury room during the dclihrrauou.
thor. wa. ANS statement made with reference t1
thr defendant hilur" tu testify Boo his own o..
haU That YOU heard" and h. said 'Not Boz tf.
crowd. I ih'uk heard one fellow saying that L.
wonders why they didn't get the boy up on tho
-fHuI
Nru.. 90" %. our Code ~ Criminal Proroiur.
provide" Auy Defendant IN q criminal action
fh'H nH permitted to testify in MS own behalf
theron iu' f1, failure OF any defendant to .1
i'i.' 8hlII uof ho taken as O. circumstance against
nm nor shall the sa4e be- alluded 90 or com
m.ni'I un Hf counsel in the ciuso"
'Hr supreme Court n Criminal Jurisdiction
hold 'H1' cod. prohibition against any comment ON
iH" '."Ir. n. defendant tn testify aI.o anrii,.
v TOO iurf hat you may boz sure that this d.
true refer OBJ what the court says in Walling Us
state i,N ~. Reporter. ga which vas quite
sih'..if nu THIS feature 90 the Mobiles case and
ffIFN Poo court Au0f IIIf Of, .v..rt....