The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1923-05-11
The law and the Constitution

the defendant il indicted for II
capital Offensc. where, upOn
conviction. he may he put to
death. No higher duty can
rest upon n court than to safe
guard to every citizen of our
land this right to IA fair trial by
Jury. which belongs alike TO
every citizen of our republic,
regardless of his station In life,
or whether he he n good man
or bad man; he is entitled,
when he comes into the court,
to fair trial.
The courts. under our law.
gentlemen, are the tribunals
authorized to administer JUS
tice, and il you don't give
man fair trial when he il
brought into court, how can
you know whether he is guilty
or not guilty. And If the courts
of our country are powerless TO
see that every defendant who
comes to trial in criminal
ease. gets n fair trial. then The
courts are not what the Inv in
tended them to he. And am
one of the judges that does not
admit at all, in the least. that
suN ~ VUNNt'sN''N w ~ y
and to give man n fair trial.
The question, gentlemen. in
this proceedings, is not 50 much
question of the liberty or
freedom of the press as it is
question of the supremacy of
the law I'm this country. The
courts are established by the
people of this country. under
the laws that they make. No
creature OF our government,
whether 1t be nm individual,
newspaper or n corporation. is
greater than the republic it.
self, and when newspaper
can. by its publications. so In
fluence a community. or in par
ticuIar Il jury, SO that ii is i'm
possible or improbable that n
particular defendant-a bad
criminal. you might call him
ran get n fair trial, then I say
That instrument, that agency,
that can do those things with
nut being restrained. Is more
powerful than our courts and
our laws and our republic.
1 have no disposition to try
to punish these gentlemen II
they would show the proper at
tituhc. and not undertake to
defy the courts md the law by
saying they had done nothing
more than they had right to
do. under the claim or Euise OF
the freedom of the press. Why,
in this particular case you have
this man VERIFY indicted in
three eases in this court; one
for murder, another for fIOg-
cling Doctor Bowling, and An
other for kidnapping n negro by
the name of Daniels. This
paper had mentioned all those
facts several times before the
trial, and yet. did so again
after the reporter, Mr.. Robin
son, had been cautioned b.
Judge Fort, my brother ON the
bench, not to do that thing
again. He told him he had al
ready postponed this ease ON
account of his publication, by
The Post. for that reason. he
cause of its having been done:
and cautioned him not 10 do 1t
ngaiD. And this young man I
talked to myself about il, and
he was very uneasy for fear the
Judge was going to pat him In
Jail. And yet, when the ease
comes nh again for trial, the
piper is published again with
even n mere inflammatnry and
preiutiicial article against
Yerli. thnn the one that Judge
Fort passed on, and the paper
containing IL circulated in the
court rGum at the time we were
nb0ut 20 select n jury in the
case.
Is the court pOwerless to stop
such things as that: One of You
gentlemen referred TO the fnct
that tac court could stop a noise
On the outside which interfered
with the proceedings of the
court, that comes in through
the window. Cannot the court
also stop ANYTHING that walks
Ia through the door and dis
tMrbs the progress or proceed
ings in court: Can't they do
tfat. and Just as much so.
whether it he a newspaper or
II person:
IL matters not how many
times u defendant is In court
charged with crime, how
many indictments may he pend
ing against him at the same
time. he has the right under
the law to a separate trial in
each ease, and each ease should
he tried on its Individual mcr-
Its, without reference to the
other eases against him. And
II reference mould he made to
the other eases pending against
him, ii could have no other ef-
feet than to prejudice the
minds of the jury selected TO
try him; and the supreme
court. on appeal, would not
hesitate to reverse the case.
under those circrmstaEccs, and
remand il. IL a conviction were
had, for "a new trial.
Had VERIFY been put to trial
the other day when his case
was called before me, md had
the prosecuting attorney of
this court gotten up and read
his indictment to the Jury,
charging him with the murder
Of n young man up here ON she
Mount rinsOn road, and then
said Gentlemen of the jury, he
IN not only charged with this
murder but we have got an In
dictment pending here in court
against him, charging him with
flOgginE Doctor Bowling, and
we have got another Indictment
against him for kidnapping the
negro Daniel why, that
statement couldn't he anything
else hut prejudiciai 10 the in
terests and rights of the de-
PENDANT, VERIFY, who was ON
trial in the murder case. How
could the jury give him IA fair
trial, and what would the court
do under those circumstances.
were he, an officer of this
court, the prosecuting attOr-
ney. to undertake to do n thing
Df that kindf What would the
presiding judge do under those
circumstances: lie would inn
mediately declare n mistrial In
the case, and he would canton
the states attorney, the prose-
cutting attorney, not 10 he
guilty any more of any such
prejudicfal and unfair conduct
toward any defendant in this
court. Then when the VERIFY
case comes up again for trial,
suppose the prosecuting nttOr-
ney, after reading the fndict-
ment again in the murder case,
to the jury. were 10 repeat
what he Ind said before 10 the
Jury about the fiOEEinE eases
and the kidnapping cases also
being against VERIFY. what
would fair Judge do under
those circuInstanceSs He not
only would promptly grant an
other mistrinI. hut he would go
Il .r.1.