Show THE ROBINSON MURDEfl I Called up Dismissed and the Indictments i The Defendants Object and Ask For Trial Akj At 2 oclock yesterday afternoon the parties indicted for the murder of Dr Robinson appeared before Judge Hunter and demanded trial The defendants were represented by Messrs Tilford Hagan and by Judge Dusenberry District Attorney YlnZi r appearing for the prosccu ion mr aDZle arose ana mOTe that the case be dismissed as ho had not sufficient proof to warrant 0 trial or which would justify the expectation of a cpnvictloa fxpectatO Jndgc Tilford resisted tha motiou He read the following affidavit on the matter Jj the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the Territory of Utah Sal Lake County The People of the United Stole in the Territory of Utah Indictment for murder the first degree SALT LAKE oUT UTAH TEEBITOEY J 83 Adam M Paul being first duly sworn deposes and says I am one of the defendants in the above entitled action That the indictment in said action as appears by the records of said court was I found by the grand jury of said court on the 3d day August 1877 That in the month of September next thereafter I surrendered myself into the custody of the United States Marshal of Utah and was admitted to bail on said charge on the 27th of that month That the amount of said bail was fixed at 10 fe a 0 which I was fortunately able to I hfa fhal T Ihnn annH t lr U U v vu e Dilford Hagan attorneys at law t undertake my defence and secured their services That through my said attorneys I applied to the Third District Court for trial and frequently urged upon said curt to grant me the privilege and i benefit of I trial That 1 have been resent at every term of the said district court from the date of my bail up to this time and have asked for a trial and tred it by every mode known to the law That I havo made frequent application Sumner Howard Into United States district attorney for Utah and was assure and promised by him that I should hi > HrrrtiryneH and tried incf na soon as the codefendants Jointly i indicted with me had been arrested That the Unit States government so I was informed in-formed by > ai3 Howard desired and intended in-tended t tJ tIlls defendants Jointly flifiS two of tho Gflfend nls Sa this cae to wit Howard Spencer ftsd Daniel eegmller wizen saId indlataicnt Segmilr aver Del ul indbCt was found fa Eurppo That I caused word to be sent to said Spencer u6c Sccmillurand urged upon them t rotarn at the earliest practicable reur surrender themselves for tria That at i the last September term of this c urt I requested my said counsel Messrs Tilford Hagan to have my case brought in fur triil eis al the defendants had then voluntarily surrendered themselves and Were ready for trial That I prepared for trial at sad September term and had my witnesses on hand That in anticipation anticipa-tion of a trial on the 9th of the present month on which day the case has been set for trial by order of this court I have caused a subpoena to be issued and served the same on a number of witnesses resident is i Knit TViko flnnnt HJiot T have telegraphed and written to four other witneses who reside ome in Weber County and others in the southern part pf this territory and t secure their attendance have paid and advanced t them money necessary to defray thor traveling eipsnaps That said witnesses are now in attendance and were after their arrival in Salt Lake City duly subpocned That 1 have incurred heavy costs in preparing for this trial I have a complete defense to said indictment in-dictment and am wholly innocent of any participation directly or indirectly personally or otherwise in the murder of the person mentioned in said indictment Tnat in consequence of the fact of conseuenct said indictment having been found and remaining untried I have suffered injury to my character and incurred reproach and suspicion among many worthy persons per-sons living in this community that I am most anxious to have the opportunity through the medium of a trial to vindicate vindi-cate my character and eslablih my innocence That humbly and respectfully peti tion this honorable court to afford me such opportunity That I am informed by my counsel and verily believe that the Constitution of the United States guarantees t the accused the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury and that I earnestly appeal to the court not to withhold with-hold from me this right That to permit the district attorney to dismiss without trial the indictment now pending would inflict on me and my children a deep and irreparable injury and oa their behalf as well as my own I urge and entreat this court to have mid indictment tried ADAJC M PAUL Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day February 1SSO S H LEWIS Notary Public He then argued that the case had been deferred from time to time and that an order had been entered upon the court minutes at tho last term of court agreed to by the attorneys on both sides atting this case for trial on the Eecoad Monday in the Febru ary termIo day The only reason advanced by the prosecutor for the dismissal was that ho was not prepared pre-pared Thia murder was committed eleven long years ago and the indct mnnf rraa thAi AnfnatS 1R77 rlnrinrr which time f1A1 the prosecution had Iminr every I opportunity for the securing of testimony testi-mony and now came into court and i stated they had not gufficent to secure se-cure a conviction lf ss urance was given that they ever anticipated beiaK any feiitsr nnra for trig thn they MS now Th dumiasal aT3 O accord the coastftijtional rights to tbs defendants who were entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial im-partial jury and it was an outrage on the legal and constitutional rights of the defendants to prevent them from having a fair trial Ho naked use court to reason 1 sumcieni grounds had been advanced against the defendants being allowed a trial Judge yanZile etad that this waste was-te first tine ha litd ever heard of I such a motion as be had made being opposed it was a novel proceeding When a prosecutor comes into court and moves the dimissnl of a case because be-cause he has not sufficient testimony to warrant S trial and that motion is resisted by the defendants i argued t him that there was something some-thing behind that an attempt was being made to forever bar the possibility of their hint triEd for thn nflpnRn Mr Tll ford > c eaya there is no reason to believe there will ever be anymore testimony I than we now have admitting this to be so it argues that these defend ants will never ba tried for the offense for which they are now indicted but i the case be forced to trial now it would be equivalent to preventing thee defendants from ever being tried on this oflcnse Courts should never be closed against crime He did tot say they were innocent nor that they were guilty without proof I n n th t p UU LuaC n v u ardly cowardly I boy murder ever committed in this territory and that i laying a great dealwhich hat been committed with such secrecy that the perpetrators could never bOa ferretted oat The grand jury had returned an indictment which presumes pre-sumes thai fcoJy had pnma facie evidence evi-dence of the guilt of the parlies indicted in-dicted fo come here and insist on a trial was to insist oa a farce and net could offer a trial m the prosecution no testimony Tbe defendants were vindicated by the order dismissing thecae I the-cae while the desire to force a trial I was simply to place 1 bar against any future action Suppose that in the course of time absolute proof of the guilt of these parties should come t light and they had been acquitted the law would bo powerless to reach them He knew powere3 i trial was bad an acquittal was inevitable and it was therefore his duty to dismiss tbe case and he did se Judge Tilford said ho It demanded the right to reply t the opening of the prosecution He bad told Judge VanZile when the fatter notified him that he intended to make a motion to dismiss that he would resist the motion mo-tion the defendants had come herewith here-with their witnesses a distance of 300 or 400 miles had been put t great expense and now expected and were entitled to a trial The reason given for the motion for dismissal was that he had no tealimony and because of the bare possibility I do not gay nrobabiiitv but cojaibilitv of fpstt nony being obtained tome time in i he future tnat would warrant the trial of these parties the moton for a trial now was to bo opposed He read tbe names of the witnesses on whose testi test mony tte grand jury had found the indictment and showed that they could all be obtained and were in this city excepting Sam Sirrine and he could be obtained i desired The I district attorney had given no reason why he had not called on these witnesses for testimony I might SHU ma that the grand Jury had not sufficient testimony to warrant the finding of tho indictments but would not do so as be presumed it was the result of f candid investiga lion The dismissal was not a vind ition of the defendants as tbo law l tifthe land gave every man the right ton speedy trial by a jury of his peers ti ie constitution granted them such right and he wanted to know if a dismissal 1 gave them these rights 3fiorti were being made to get Congress Con-gress to pass new and stringent lawson laws-on the ground that the laws here were not enforced and it would be well for our courts r rise above social prejudices preju-dices and for this case to be tried that it might be sent abrcad that the laws were enforced hero as elsewhere He I wanted all to rise above prejudice and not to hold oil a trial because 01 contingences and possibilities I the district attorney would name any day during this term or at the first of next term when the case could ba tried the defendants would prefer lo I 1 nan ituuci luau Uitvu a UJimISIU Though Mr VanZilo could not seethe see-the right ef the defendants lo demand de-mand Would a trial he truslid the court Juja VaoZilu raid perhaps his brother knew mae about the case than he dd and desired a trial now for fear of future consequences He wanted 1 dismissal and cited cases where parties had gone for years without with-out trial and evidence conclusive of the guilt of the parties would then come up and if such should happen to prove the case iu this instance ho could not justify himself i he should consent to a trial at a time when ho knew ho could not convict and thus forever bar acton against the parties He referred ta the witnesses wit-nesses cited by Judge Tiiford and stated that he wa net confined to the witnesses before a grand jury they might make out a prima face case I which however wculd not ttisd before a prut jury Does he know I ra3 get Sirnn Judge TiifordI do VanZile know I cannot I have tried The posecution In failed to obtain testimony t warrant a trial and it has not been idle Ho therefore there-fore opposed the attempt to obtain a trial and insisted on the dismissal Judge Hunter said i was the duty of the court to dispense justice re gardloia of prejudice or social relations which were known to be inharmonious here The court was advised of this moat dastardly murder by common rumor and the strenuous efforts of the prosecution satisfied him that therE may be evideuce found aaainat the defendants at I future time and there should be some protect pro-tect on for tho public against violators of the law running at freedom I the indictment was dismissed the parties par-ties would hao only to run the risk of future evidence proving their guilt He therefore granted the district attorneys at-torneys motion for a dismissal |