Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-11-24
RECKLESS DRIVING
DEFENDANTS RULED
ENTITLED TO JURY
U. S. Supreme Court Decision
Affects All Petty Of
tense Cases.

The United States Supreme Court
today upheld the decision of the Dis
trict Court of Appeals holding that q
motorist is entitled to trial by jury for
the offense of reckless driving. The
decision involves the right of all petty
offenders to trial by jury, question
much discussed in connection with pro-
hibition enforcement.
The court emphasized in today's de-
cision that the case upon which it acted
involved not merely the offense Of ex-
ceeding the speed limit or merely with
driving reckleSsly, but that 1t included
the further charge Of an act committed
so as to endanger property and In
dividuals."
The decision goes against the District
government, which has contended in
its argument that reckless driving was
cases which could be tried by the judge
in Police Court.
Colts Case Brought Test.
The case on which the highest court
acted originated when william H. Colts
was charged with reckless driving in Po-
lice Court. Colts was denied jury trial.
following which he was convicted. He
took the case to the District Court of
Appeals, which reversed the Police
Court, holding that reckless driving Is
q crime within the meaning of the Con-
stitution and that a person charged
with that offense Is entitled to trial by
jury under the Constitution.
The corporation counsePs office
then took the matter to the United
States Supreme Court. The decision of
the highest court was read by Justice
Sutherland. -
The high tribunals decision was in
terpreted as too narrow to cover the
much discussed question Of whether
minor liquor offenseS could be tried
without jury, course suggested by
the Wickersham Law Enforcement Com
mission as a means of expediting action
and alleviating court congestion.
The case attracted Nationwide at
tention because Of the controversy in
connection with the dry laws and the
possibility of the courts handing down
a decision which would determine the
course of Congress on the commissions
proposal.
The Colt case hinged on whether
able without jury, as contended by the
District, or whether it is serious Of
Tense, for which person has the right
to a jury, as contended by counsel for
the motoriSt. The Supreme Court, in its
written opinion. said:
IAN automobile is potentially dam
gerous instrumentality, as the appalling
number of fatalities brought about
every day by its operation bear distress
ing witness. To drive such an instru-
mentality through the public streets of
a city so recklessly as to endanger
property and individuals is an act of
acterize it as a petty offense would be
to shock the general moral sense. If
the act Of the respondent described in
the information had eliminated in the
death Of human being, respondent
would have been subject to an indict-
ment for some degree Of felonious homi-
eide"
Must Be Held Grave Offense.
The court concluded its decision with
the statement that such an act proper
ly cannot be described otherwise than
as a grave offense-a crime within the
meaning of the third article of the
Constltution-and as such within the
constitutional guarantee Of trial by
jury
In the early part Of the decision the
court called attention to the details in
terms of the charge that was placed
against the defendant, and continued:
1T will be seen that the respondent
is not charged merely with the COM
paratively slight offense of exceeding
the 22-mile limit of speed, subdivision
ca. or merely with driving recklessly,
subdivision (Bl) but with the grave
offense Of having driven at the for
hidden rate of speed and recklessly,
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column %