Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1918-07-17
A Few Remarks About the Lesley Mobiles Case

80 sho,i the fact that defendant had not gone
ON the witness stand and testified IN his own be-
half This Was mentioned as nearly as this juror
could recolect. N was remarked by juror y
,,,,.d.r ,by the defendant was not the stand?'
10 thi. remark Mr. Brawner, as recollect, replied.
III h. not necessary; they usually don ~ they
Iont have 20 unless they want tor something
to that effect This is about the substance OF the
matter as shown by the bin Of exception and which
was uncoutradicted The court oycrruled the mo-
tior Tor Now trial on this and other grounds brought
forward We are Of opinion that this Is such a com
nept and ausion 10 the failure OF the defendant to
testify as requires reversal OF the judgment
GENERAL DISCUSSION.
Some NJ these jurors who testified with reference
10 matters considered on the motion for new trial
of this case we're called 10 the stand az the IN
stance OF the defendant and others al the instance
of the state. have herein quoted testimony given
by a Of the jurors that testified Seven out OF the
twelve jurors who sat upon the case testified upon
the hearing Of the motion for new trial and the
other five could have been called to the stand II
either the prosecuting attorney or the defendants
Attorneys had desired their testimony
Alter hearing these jurors narrate the various
discussions which occurred while they were DELHI
cratur upon their verdict. the writer and the other
two district judges who participated IN hearing the
motion for new trial, recognized readily that a
new trial was demanded under the law and the
two visiting judges. oppressed their joint con
Clu-iuu, al follows.
I'm this case Hon Hugh l. Umphres Judge OF
the tiU duNltldl llNlliA OF l'AdHf mas I'Nufhltu
o. 90 sit with him IN the hearing Of motion for
o. now trial and al his request We have done 30.
llo has granted the motion for new trial We
hty, heard the grounds stated IN the motion, the
evidence introduced boy both the state and Deten-
daut. and argument oi counsel. and We concur In
90, opinion OF Judge Umphres thai a motion for
q new trial should be granted.
There were four grounds assigned In the motion
for new trial and there was testimony supporting
each contention, the first being that the defendant
had been guilty OF other offenses OF this kind
which was testified 10 by jurors, and that same
discussed Boo the jury room; also the reputation
ol the defendant discussed In the jury room:
ALSO the failure OF the defendant to testify In his
own behalf q witness was discussed In t.e Jury
room. and fourth. discussion had by the jury
oi former trial OF the defendant at Canyon City
and The result Of that trial discussed
All OF these matters occurred after the Jury had
retired 10 the jury room and the decisions Of tina
Court OF Criminal Appeals of this State have uni
'oraly reversed and rcmandcd cases In which
On" misconduct Of the jury. after retiring To their
jury room. had been proven. and the courts at
tonion called thereto. and II Is our opinion that
had the motion for new trial been overruled the
cas-" would have been reversed by the Court OF
criminal Appeals on any one OF these four assign
ment.
our statute provides that any District Judge may
t1ll ON any other District Judge to sit with him
INA judge Jmphros having made this request and
W having heard the testimony and the grounds for
We motion Tor now trial, We make this statement
g. To why new trial should be granted
judge o, the als Judicial District Of Tesag.
u. G. JOINER
Judge ol the 6ith Judicial District of Te1asr
u occurs To me that the unanimous opinion NJ
Three District Judges ought of itself Ia no worth
tomething 10 thinking men and women Each of
these Judges IS constantly required i'm the course
q" ms duties TO pass on motions for new trials In
criminal cases and ought 10 know pretty well when
he" trial Is required But YOU do not have 10 ac-
c'pi thai on faith for in this article have placed
me actual record. Constitution Statutes and do
'isl'i' before you so that any citizen though he ar
Ah' De not lawyer. Just so he or she Is a con
''''n'l'us' open minded seeker Of the truth NAV
verify tp his or her own satisfaction thai n nos,
lrlal was imperative in this Mobiles case regardless
any question OF guilt
NOW. perhaps YOU will be- Interested in knowing
''' reason the law requires new trial whore cir
auH'i'nc's exist such arose In the Mobiles case
lh' reason is simple and plain and will commend
i'a'i To- amy person OF fairness
Won viii recall the Constitution says that man
shall Dee tried by an impartial jury and shall be
confronted with the witnesses against him When
the jury BOO this Mobiles case retired 10 consider
OF ihoir verdict. they we're cosctcd IN complete
privacy and secrecy Neither the defendant nor his
counsel worc present during these deliberations No
ono was present except the members OF the Jury
Ih jury all agreed on the question Of guilt within
@ short time but had come to . hitch on the ques-
uon of punishment and were FAR apart on the term
%, years This situation DE- shown IN the testimony
N'i'I = dNlH'f HUffflN ne was asked
questions and made answers as follows.
% What talk did Mr. Barnes make?
Well the statement that / have just told
You. hc took the stand that II the hoy was given
Tow years and would go on aud serve Il posi-.
bf o. would make man out OF him
. s. few years how many years7
believe hc suggested five
q Five years. be- was low mani
$50. voted the same as he ala
You voted tho same A. he did,
lf no. voted that Way
Two ballots for five years.
There was three ballots for five wears
Ibi- condition BE- also referred % boy several other
jurors m their testimony The Juror John Young
testified. well. % was we-sume-there was a
tc wof them voted for two years and I voted for
sixty five and another fellow voted for fifty and
Nr Dixon made the remark that We ought 10 agree
on Tho term Of years and finally We did agree on
thHt and agreed to put the sentence high
enough so that h. couldn't get bail"
VI Dixon stated ou bis examination. Well /
have been trying 90 think about that but can't re-
oai Just what was said about u referring 10 the
Canyon triab. % was talked aud mentioned In
some connection with the amount OF years This
however after O. vote 20 guilty had been ar
rived a. We was separated quite a little BIT a. 10
th' term OF years and 30 on
III" juror Tom Barnes was asked this question.
Vow Mr. Barnes. when was the fact Of tho do
PENDANTS failure Co testify mentioned" and he
answered. 1T during the-n vas afor tbe