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

various improper remarks cropped out Mind you
the Jury had not received a word OF evidence from
the witness stand relative first TO the Canyon
trial. or second. other supposed ofcnses by Leslie
Nohles or, third his reputation In the community
ana the jury were sworn To try the case solely Nv
what they heard under oath from the witness
stand. Inmnd.u al OF this obligation, the jury. or
some OF them. volunteered remarks about all these
matters which we're not In evidence. The defendant
ana his counsel not there 10 defend against
these statements made IN the jury room or 10 cross
examine the parties that introducing these
matters before the rest OF the jury. Such damaging
testimony against accused In his absence Is
plain violation OF the Constitution which says
defendant shall be confronted with witnesses
against him so that he may have the opportunity
To cross examine them and rebut their testimony
These considerations alone would be sufficient to
require new trial but there is still another aspect
OF the matter equally important the fore
gong You will recall the Constitution says man
snail be tried by an impartial jury and in the Dis
trict Court that means by twelve impartial men
Eleven men or any number less than twelve can
not return verdict. One prejudiced juror will
Vitiate verdict. In the OF Washburn vs. State
20 southwestern us our Supreme Court in such
matters says The juror Pope was preiudced
against defendant. and his mind so fixed TO
defendants guilt, and the verdict is SO tainted
thereby. that We do not feel It should be permitted
To stand In connection with the discussion in the
jury room Of the defendants reputation Tom
Barnes says one juror stated that the boys repua
ton was enough to break his damn neck Thus
we see that some Juror who had not heard word
ot evidence from the stand about reputation never
theless cherished this very bitter feeling toward
the defendant and even went so far as TO urge %
upon the other jurors aud / ask YOU In the name
OF common doccncy aud fairness. was this man a
iair and impartial Juror This juror clearly must
have had that feeling towards Mobiles when ne quail
iiiod on the jury and declared that ne had no
hias or prejudice against the boy and ! submit
that Il Is insult 10 intelligence 10 contend that
That Juror was capable OF impartial verdict
Prejudice and fair Judgment are inconsistent Bad
reputation may be- rcprehcnsihlc hut Il Is not a
crime for which men can be- tried and convicted
Leslie Mobiles was being tried for specific alleged
crime and not for had reputation aud furthermore
let me again repeat there had boon mo- evidence
whatever about reputation, SO mouilestly remarks
on that subject were entirely improper
We'll" some one will say chow did the jurors
discussion Of Mobiles reputation and other supposed
offenses and the Canyon verdict .oiudice the de
fcndant?' The answer o. simple These remarks.
or the most of them. occurred when the jury were
Tar apart on the penalty, and the plain tendency oi
such discussions and probable elfc. was to cause
the low men, perhaps uuconsci0usly TO agree on
higher term Of Imprisonment than they other
wise would have done
On top OF all these discussions about the defend
ants reputation and other alleged offenses and
the Canyon trial, an aud each OF which were i'm
proper there was the further mis- onduct consist
.ng OF remarks and illusions 90 The defendant =
failure 10 testify In the case This was plainly
Improper under the statute and decisions / have
quoted and alone sufficient 10 require a new
trial, and when all of these different varieties OF
misconduct In the jury room are considered aud II
IL realized what remarkable and unusual volume
of improper discussion took place. % is plain be
yond any doubt that new trial was the only
course that could he justified under the law.
will repeat that believe most of my readers
purpose 10 be- law abiding citizens and n SO You
will not adopt the inconsistent attitude of con
demning ono violation of law and approving OF con
doning another The State of Texas publishes a
printed volume which contains an our criminal
avs wherein may be found an the statutes and
constitutional provisions / have cited Now. this
Same volume which defines and dcuounCcs rape
also says that new trial shall be- granted whore
the jury engage IN such improper discussions ss
occurred IN the Mobiles case. Now, put the ques-
tions straight up 90 YOU, Arc you against viola
iions of the statute defining rape but In favor OF
violations Of the statute defining when new trials
shall be- granted II $50. your justification Be- I'M
comprehensive 10 me because % s just as certainly
violation Of law for court 10 deny new trial
where conscious that 10 should be- granted as % ls
for the defendant 90 commit rape and n is hard
No say which act would br the moro reprehonsihlD
n Leslie Mobiles is guilty be- committed hcnout
crime but that is excuse cau.c FOR the State
vi Texas or its agency the District Court TO re-
'ialiate by violating the law requiring @ fair and
impartial trial. Thos, extremists who would hay,
had the motion Tor new trial denied whether or not
would have defeated their own ends II would
have been 10 the defendants advantage had IA.
motion been denied for then be- could have taken q
loisurely appeal with am absolute certainty Of re-
Ucrsal and thereby granting the advantage of q
delay Of from six months 20 year before tho case
would De- reversed aud sent back for q now trial
Thus those who complain loudesi without reck
ouing consequence, and who profess 90 wish
speedy enforcement OF law would have injured th,
very cause thpN ospuuee hy causing long use
loss and unnecessary delay and expense. a. DO o.
this sensoloes DELAY has been avoided and the cas-.
Is ON trial at Clarendon at this very time. O
COURSE new trials ought 90 be- granted or denied
solely ON on.doration OF right. and that was how
this one was granted and uo upright Judge vii
ever entertain any other motive. bat say OF thos,