Martinsburg journal. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1920-1977, 1922-08-28
DEFENSE ANNOUNCES
ITS READINESS FOR
WALT ALIENS TRIAL
Follows Week OF Delay In
Charles Town.
BY GILBERT c. MckOWN

of material witnesses for the de-
Tense, who were finally brought
here at the states expense under
a peremptory order from the court,
the treason case against Walter
Allen, arising from the march OF
armed miners a year ago in Logan
county was finally begun this
morning. Most of the morning scs-
sion was given over to examination
of potential jurors, a total OF six
being examined before the noon re-
cess. The indications were that the
entire day would be required to
complete the jury.
The defense announced when the
session was called this morning
that most Of the witnesses wanted
for the trial and subjected to the
peremptory order were in court;
and while there We're a number of
other witnesses needed, the de-
fensc would not ask further delay,
depending upon other peremptory
orders later il the ordinary process
SEES did not produce these witness
ses The defense then announced
itself ready for trial, the state hav-
ing announced itself ready prev;-
ously; and the clerk was thereupon
directed to draw a jury list.
Require Bill OF Particulars
The state was reminded this
morning that an affidavit filed dur
ing the Blizzard case on April %
called upon the state to furnish a
bill Of particulars for the case of
each one of the treason defendants.
The state said at first that it did
not recall any such demands but
the reading of the record showed
the call to have been made and the
court this morning directed the
state to furnish the bill of partic-
ulars, as was done in the Blizzard
case, to the defense, and the state
promised to have it ready tomor-
row morning
Allen was not arraigned this
morning. he having pleaded mot
guilty" with the twenty odd other
treason defendants arraigned in
court on April 25th at the opening
of the Bliz2<.d case which was the
first of the miner trials
Picking Jury Slow Work
The selection OF the jury for the
Allen case proved to be a tedious
process. On the examination of the
panel John L. Burns. OF
farmer, was eliminated
because he said he did not believe
he would give the defendant
fair trial Charles j. Derr, OF Mob
ler's Cross Roads, a farmer, was
questioned pointedly as to his at
titude towards the inhiction OF cap
ital punishment but was passed as
satisfactory on the courts examin-
alton.
Before the examination began
the court announced that the pan
ell contained only nineteen men, in
stead of twenty, explaining that
one man, S. L. Jordan, had been
excused until the noon train arriv
ed. This action or the court in ex-
the panel with one juror
was made the basis of an
objection by the defense and writ
ten into the record.
The panel members were examin
I'd separately after the court ha6
finished Early in the examination
t became evident that the defense
n particular was trying to ascer-
ain whether the jurors had formed
opinions regarding the Blizzard
,ase, but the court ruled that
IN opinion regarding the Blizzard
,ase would not be sufficient to dis,
Iualify a venireman. The court re-
minded the panel that they must be
governed by evidence and the law
n the Allen case alone and also
made it plain that a conviction OF
Allen would follow only after the
state had established conclusiveiy
or the jury two distinct PROPOSE
ions: first, the formation of a rea-
enable conspiracy in the gathering
which first assembled in Kanawha
county; and second, the commission
f an overt act by the defendant in
logan county as part of the exc
ution Of this reasonable conspir-
cy, this overt act to be testified
0 by two different witnesses. Nei
her one of these propositions must
all down to secure a conviction ana
he court and counsel both examn-
d the veniremen very closely as to
heir comprehension of the sltua-
ion. The court said the Blizzard
ase was in no sense the test OF the
of juror for this case.
that if that were so, it
ould be impossible to get jury
ecause there is probably nos a
otential juror in Jefferson coun.
Y with intelligence enough to be a
lror WHO has not formed an opin-
IN regarding one or more of the
revious miner cases and discl sseG
ne case. The question at present
he court said. was whether