Salt Lake Tribune | 1917-03-24 | Page 20 | Action by Pardon Board is Martins' Only Hope

ACTION BY PARDON BOARD IS MARTIN'S ONLY HOPE Supreme Court Holds That Conviction and Sentence Sen-tence of Alleged Blackmailer Was Within Legal Rights. JOSEPH HENRY MARTIN, the alleged al-leged Ogdeu blackmailer who terrorized ter-rorized wealthy families of the Junction City for weeks during 10 I, must spend his life in the state prison iinlesa he can convince the state board of pardons that he should be released re-leased before death ends his sentence. Such is tho decision of the supreme court in an opinion handed down yesterday. yes-terday. Martin is serving a life sentence sen-tence on a charge of robbery alleged to have been committed on October 28, 1911. when he is said to have entered the home of sabolle Wallin, in Ogden. and to have robbed her of a diamond ring valued at $100. Martin, it is alleged, threatened the Eccles and other wealthy families of Ogden with death and destruction in Black Hand letters demanding money. After a reign of terror for weeks, the offlcers being unable to get tho Black Hand artist, a decoy bag of money was set for him and in the night there was a clash between the alleged Black Hander and Detective Dave Edwards in which Edwards was shot in the leg and the Black Hander was wounded with a charge of buckshot. Later Martin, Mar-tin, suffering from gnnshot wounds, was captured near Morgan. Martin Twice Convicted. Martin was tried first for assault upon Detective. Edwards and sentenced to three years in the state prison. Later he was tried on the charge of robbing Mrs. Wallin and convicted. The court, in passing sentence, having tried the former case and seen all the evidence relating to Black Hand letters and the threats, referred to tho prisoner's threats upon othex lives, and invoking the extreme penalty for robbery, imposed im-posed a sentence of life imprisonment. Through his attorneys, Martin appealed ap-pealed to the supreme court, alleging that the trial court erred in three particulars par-ticulars first, that it admitted testi- j monv pertaining to conversations; second," sec-ond," that it admitted testimony pertaining pertain-ing to identity that was not proper and that the court in passing sentence took into consideration and reviewed circumstances cir-cumstances and conditions brought forth in a trial for another offense, and that these circumstances were I taken as a basis for determining the penalty imposed upon the prisoner, in violation of the law. Objections, Not Sustained. The supreme court passes over the first objection as groundless with little lit-tle comment, and in relation to the second ground for reversal the court holds that it is not well taken. This ground was based upon a contention by defendant that the court erred in considering con-sidering letters presented in connection connec-tion with the first trial as evidence in the second trial for another offense. The court holds that the letters were merely submitted as tending to prove the identity of the man guilty of. the I second crime, and not as evidence of the commission of the crime by the defendant. de-fendant. It is hold by the court that the use of the letters, merely as tending tend-ing to prove the identity of the accused, ac-cused, was proper. Jt was ou the action of the court in reviewing alleged threats against life and property and actions of the defendant, defend-ant, as brought out iu the first trial, when passiug sentence upon the pris-onor pris-onor for the second offense, that greatest great-est stress was laid by the defendant in his appeal for reversal of the action of the district court. It is claimed that the court violated the statutes in taking tak-ing into consideration acts in connection connec-tion with another case, when determining determin-ing the sentence to be imposed in a subsequent case. The supreme court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice J. K.'Frick, holds that the court did not err in its action. It is held that the court, having hav-ing tried the first case and being familiar fa-miliar with the conditions developed by it, naturally had in mind these conditions condi-tions and probably was influenced by them. But, the supreme court holds, that whether or not this wag the case, it is not a matter for review by the supreme court, because bad the court said nothing about the former case, but gone. ahead and passed sentence, it might have been influenced by the former for-mer developments and said nothiog about them. The fact that the court referred, in passing sentence, to these former developments furnishes no ground for reversal of action and offers nothing for the supreme tribunal to review.