Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1927-08-20

mond, Va, Times-Dispatch gives ut
terance to the best deliyerance that
we have read upon that subject,
when in it's issue. OF the 18th in
slant it says:
If the public mind is not confused
as to the immediate status OF the
Sacco- Vanzetti case, it is because the
public mind is long OF memory and
keen of perception. From inquiries
received by The Times-Dispatch, and
no doubt by cthcr newspapers. it APP
pears that the impression is general
that the hearing Of bills of excep-
tions by the full bench of the Su-
preme Court of Massachusetts, indi-
Gates that Sacco and Vanzetti will
have new trial. Perhaps they will,
but the fact that Justice Sanderson
referred the whole matter to all the
justices, sitting zen banque," does
not necessarily indicate that new
trial will be granted.
Beginning only with developments
of the last few months the procedure
in the case has been that Judge
Thayer, the trial judge, was asked to
set his former sentence-and the
verdict preceding the sentence
aside on the ground that he had dis
played prejudice against the accused
men, and on other grounds. Judge
Thayer refused to grant this mo-
ton. Incidentally, in Virginia
thanks be!-a judge who had been
charged with prejudice would almost
certainly have declined to sit. Still,
Judge Thayer stood his ground and
refused the motion. So far as the
trial court was concerned, then, the
case was ended.
Then counsel for Sacco and Van
zetti appealed to Justice Sanderson,
of the Supreme Court Of Massachu-
sets, to grant writ of error. That,
if it had been granted, would have
meant that Justice Sanderson con-
sidered there was enough probable
ity of error in the lower court to
warrant the Supreme Court in say
ing to the lower court, in effect:
Eve are not sure about this thing;
We'll hear it ourselves" Justice San
derson refused to grant this writ of
error. The result was the case was
where it had been all along.
Under the law of Virginia, any
judge of the Supreme Court of APP
peals may grant a writ of error
that is, a certificate saying the case
ought to be heard by the appellate
court. Under the practice of our
Court of Appeals, three judges of
the five must join in refusing writ
of error. Anyhow, counsel for Sac
CO and Vanzetti filed another plead
ing, whatever it is called, before
Justice Sanderson in which it was
alleged that ne had been in error in
refusing a writ of error. Justice
Sanderson might have insisted that
he was in error, or he might have
admitted that he was in error. In
the latter case, the course of the
lower court, Judge Thayer's, would
have been certified to the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, for such ac-
ton as might be within its juris-
diction.
But, presumably because of the
Importance of the case, Justice San
derson was unwilling to pass on the
charge that he had been in error
when he refused to grant writ of
error to the accused men. And he
submitted the justice and propriety
of his own ruling to the full bench
of the Supreme Court of Massachu-
sets. If the full bench sustains his
opinion, the case will end. If it re-
verses him, it will mean, not neces-
sarily that there will be a new trial
for Sacco and Vanzetti, but that the
Supreme Court of Massachusetts, will
decide whether there will or will not
be new trial. Just at this mo-
ment, then, the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts, is considering whether
it will sustain the decision of JUS
tice Sanderson or give ear to the
plea of counsel for Sacco and Van
zetti.