Show i 00 THE SAVING TECHNICALITY TECHNICALITY I T James Gillespie of Indiana probably f i j owes his life lire to a technicality Glues pie was tried and convicted of tho the thoI thed d I atrocious crime erime of murdering his own t sister sisto The Tb other r day da th tb the supreme court ourt of Indiana without in any way wa war I I r passing upon the condemned ce mans n guilt or innocence In ee handed down an opinion pinon discharging l Gillespie from cus custody custody tody lody and ared forbidding any an future pro s in Ills his ls wise ease ca e He is as free to today today day as any an man r nn who was ws s never i charged with a crime i The story is interesting After months spent in working up evidence J against Gillespie he lie was placed on trial 0 j A Jury was wag secured with considerable difficulty difficult but before a single witness was AS examined It was s learned that one of or the jurors juror was a relative by b mar marriage marI marriage I of or the tho defendant The entire jury juo was wae at once ORce discharged and ADd a new ne jury i secured The second ascent jury jun promptly 1 found Gillespie guilty guilt There does not j seem Mem tc have lve been a great groat deal of or doubt on this point though the evi evl evidence dence was vas nfl all circumstantial I i t Gillespies lawyers promptly set up h the plea that the defendants life was wasp t p twice placed in jeopardy First when the first jury was sworn and w when hen he was actually tried Tho The su supreme suI I 11 preme court has just held bela that the i point was ras well wen taken It is difficult for forthe forthe i I J 1 i the lay Ja mind to follow Collow tho the reasoning fI by b which the decision was reached but butt 4 t it must mut be sound law la because b use we arc arcI I 4 told tol there here have bave been many other do doi dot i 11 t f t along the same line Une that In Intact fact tact a mans life Is In Jeopardy the mo moment meat ment a Jury is 15 sworn to try tr him himo o The truth Is no matter how the law lawyers lawyers I 1 may twist it that lIfe Ufa g w was as not in danger from front that first jury ju 1 That jury Jut never had bad a chance to pass 1 upon his guilt or his Innocence It was j discharged before it had any an opportunity F I to do 10 so If it had returned a verdict against agal st him and after that it verdict it had bad been boen found that one of ot the Jurors was Ineligible there would I j t have hwo been an infringement of ot the thc de defendants deI deI I I i rights and he le would woula have hae i been entitled to a new ne trial at t least I THe other side of ot the argument seems beyond tho the pale of reason ronson t The law to prevent the placing of a ai aI L I i t I defendants life or liberty Ubert in Jea J I i porth for tor the tho same offense Is taken ii from roni the constitution of the United J States Generally speaking it Is a at t 1 il wise provision for it prevents the per persecution peri i fe ot innocent people But It was as asi i n j never neer designed dc to cover oer cases such as asi i 1 w I for to stretch It so Is to tomake toI tomake I make It a mockery |