Show im ED FAIR TRIAL L Lurt flip IZI 1 MUd Mineer I t case caseI I IS I I i YS TWO coRt 4 I urt r J 1 ig u tf 1 the tM nawt district j Jil I grant graat a S new w WI Wg trial f I I g i I alias Ah AM Majors I of f 1 police PoliN Captain wu Wil wun n f r w a few tew miles mUes Hot NUt Hotl SprIngs ie h n arrest 1 l yf IO t ile ie II p P l I e desper tiled by the posse a 4 caw to the court 1 I i 1 t M t tn grant a aI aday new MW to lr 1 ith day after fter the 11 I t 1 con v Osce OsceL L was before be o the su e h that the theL 1 court ourt rt w was af at afas L f the h lower 0 r ww I f J mr iV defendant w was as re i Ihl JuIp Juge to suffer the theIn I e laSt tug Aut h In 1 t f the Issues involved r trI to the th appel appelh ap apr h h r hV which W Ih w s appeal r days davs da daI before the t e nr Iq I ten tt n I ution when the su 1111 sui I I r i rt t c anted d a cerr r rf r f n all of appeal I a s a i tay itay ta until tn appeal second ond motion m for foras i The Tb iI i 1 Ml as hM d ui n affidavits alU da t were p hat nu t of f the jurors n i the prisoner and andi I i ran IUd did n it t have h e a fair fairi Ll i trial h as is 1 and aad taws laws 1 in in i by the futO I j Were W Biased B Ii were P Ie trout from fr Reese Re d James Boden B and an Alviras Alvirie Ivra 1 l that William Williamh Williamt 1111 t HI h I ui e qualified as ash Ii the trial had bad open o 1 h ht mr iU rs at Ut bd o i that hat the th prisoner ought Ot to toi toI l i ith ut a trial and an from fr I t 1 aU aL also of Br Otty CY another Juror I Harris jr Ir I h Harl r deserved d the 11 I a It I i was wa W shown how further of these Jurors ju If ns o thes h his hisS defendant or S tn ui I t In the th I rn n until Jul July 2 2 26 last but both bothI tn their Harris stated on n und nl nd Harr state t the hp trial that they the had I f a trl ty i hn he nor expressed any an f tv h guilt or innocence exp of the th de dehr d 4 I hr s i court ur opinion written f a v r t I H napkin l It is stated tati that the AJ i 1 f I rth in the tl th affidavits were L and therefore they thy thyI an I r l 1 n nii i rd as 5 admitted It I is isI I that I 11 1 the tb opinion r biased and purpose ho ir Irr T r were we b pur b r H f fa l e under unde oath oth r 1 11 r t a a as Jurors It I is then f I i I ut 11 bv by the coin ton that tha there thereat of or rw rs array author I at a I ary I hi h h Ii that facts ft similar to ton totis o oMs n Ms sd in this t ease case M disqualify and en enit ji r the lbs th judgment rh it lef to a new nf trial trl Jurors iW i 1 i t the mr admitted facts fac both of the th h i r nul were we in the ther r 0 n nf of the tl th appellate court curt and ul ill ha tt boen iliin both at D 1111 11 Ii n law lw w and an statutory I n is T l hut hUI ut M b their tab fahe f statements at t 1 1 t t in u i fai fal fat t were er concealed ale from fromI fr b I f hh If I revealed would woul wouldn I II I len In n um t ground nd on n which I Ir r url a h for actual and aad andus rl f J I hia ia us and which If i overn ed edi i l i 1 h 11 i It error The Th h jury jur t t r ng ngI IJ 1 I t f i In men the tl n 11 I I w i t of f any UI r ri hi I i t fair air A ml due duO du i th h I a m may iv have hav been prevented o i t of f lh Oi entin jury jUr it I li b lin t tn n nd i 1 bei baUA ause the tb Jury jr van can an act att unit unit un It The misconduct m of one O o oi 01 n i 11 ir rs rc annot an not be b eliminated and aad f in such fut eases cases the th action o ol or of f n 1 r f is I 1 a i who whole to Is i Invalid 1111 i anther 1 ther view of the th case n th thi thI 1 I I 1 nt II 1 i j I entitled to have le the th Judg 1 at lI d I and an the th ease rase remand t 1 trial the opinion v U ill il Ii be b of tf f special pal interest lat t tc tan Y an ites that under tb Us tbt UsI t in I n II the f accused ac shall have hv th thin I I Hl in m a ai I 1 cases It t Ii tui IiI r 1 ui I that section a IK lX of thi thimi I 0 mi n tl 1 procedure under un r tee ter tees I Uns la s is il still sti in force t and andI in t I fl appeal app might m bt be b taker taken takena a r lie 1 t nt affecting the sub tal talili ili rIIs s f the IhO th defendant 1 i h did not discover MOer d 1 s m in regard to the violation of oft H t rights to a fair trial 10 I In I Jury until long lone after Wh of f leath ib had been passed Ion I in stat if the tbt supreme sup courts in 11 Ii motion under oJ a S the only way in to which he be heK 1 K PC li for fur the th wrong wrung and andi lid I i e verily made Judg jud lId I ff Ht d his substantial I h lIt t nl had hed a right to make n I bm also aiM iso had the right to tom tor i 1 fr r m iii the th refusing to set Bet Beti j and grant a new i Hip sted m in the argument h rl 1 of f pardons to Is the f only i f Ial ir n grant the tb defendant any aay t hilI t in ro ph to this th the opinion t if that hat hedy bod should upon aI ti HOIm the sentence of I jam 1 Im nt for fo life Ufe or r it i I I rm still the fart fact would I 1 I t Mich if In Inri n ni ri 1111 U i I ht h tm la x violation ion of his hill pal i 0 F and aad If he nd lien fheo i n he be would escape 1 fr l a crim Cri of which a ai aI 1111 1111 j iI 11 jury might t find J I him Opinions of Judges i 1 1 K with uk the oMer oMerI bief l I t I f aan RUStled h In made b by the re Ord Ordo I rt nt did not have a fair o I of f th the Pressed bias of o r who aho ho were tre allowed an ed 11 que question ion of his guilt It I r rtin a nae doubt aa as r f the hf 1 h court urt under see mec It I r I statutes to toI I f dod and grant a new ae H the th 11 delay lalay in m I presenting p t bemuse ha 0 of the serious o ending t din the Ute execution 11 r y r under the facts fatu trained to give rie Jd the theof nt of that and andr nl m in the order C r C n trial 7 I Judgment Justice t I follows to The aGI 11 J I t the deft defendant is Ia I j t that thi tt two of f the Juror ted I I 1 I Ilm n tad had II lI I d I expressed nn Un a at i r n to the pets I tarS v ere re prejudiced h of bias bl in I I n 0 4 e of his bl I ul has failed to tott h tt t or that in ine he K 1 rise of reason rea on onh h anti I could have hae as 1 t ti I att atai Ih I I th ii rd now befi 1 1 that tm the trial I tei tJ S t re a fair tJI ant i i e I as ft i bV hr b law lawI I t this bet being a ai i tf toI I l i th d tb Penalty is to toll i I or ni In the Judgment at f 1 I a nw Uial II Expects Q J ll I f r r s fi firs r t h F t rd t I of the I h t the ther r k Wh n news flews to fl at ati ahr Y a Herald re i laId f Ht t a tr to f n i or rr i h t tr P 1 0 i the balaDE dit court t hung u appeared Iron from bi bithe hio fare face the dor d l of C his cell OP and he was th permitted to ateo out and talk with wun with sat st t his bla w r He smiled cUon as he discussed d his hs not flot bmg eing granted graUt rf 1 l was Val a w ow tr trial a he said saIdi answer to W J I a ctet It U because bt no I 1 e Q ea c it tt Iti refuse to grant tab fah tribunal could those thoM aB one ones oneil lit In ue the face of i the furors wOO who hy hr two wo of f fw me and who admitted they ther I w had bad to expressed e an aa OPt pinion as u to my uty l I the triaL before pUt guilt Jo Do YOU vou to IN be acquitted the thet i iI I time he was d asked I next nest I t the reply If 11 I Ift A fair triaL was I II 4 sentiment I w was OU public TIM The verdict would have ve been a had been un It if the Jury and nd the t people peo FH Jd his bitt attorney Thomas ThOl Tho Me Be would ask f for ora as change ot of venue whew when court convened to In City and take the dM case calle to some place p pre here re public sentiment t is leSS leas pr pre pra than thail there |