Show W WAS WAS S GOOD ENOUGH NOuGH REASON i Ae Accused Used M s 's Lawyer Asse Asserted ed His Clients Client's Innocence So What Was There for Jury to Do The following The The- following story either shows extreme Ignorance on the the- part of a l Juror or It shows hat n a wonderful charm chunn some lawyers awyers exercise on a Jury said said- saida a n former marshal of a n southern Indiana city A murder was was wass committed and ond It was WM not long before we had the man who we were were sure had committed the deed But ha he had money and he retained retained retained re re- the best lawyers lawers The two law lawyers we will call calt White and Black because be be- because be because cause White and Black are not their ren real names The jur Jury was made up largely of or men mel who tl tilled tl the e soil soli They were of the honest hottest sort White and Black especially s White so pre pre- presented seated their clients client's case telling how he could not j such n a horrible deed using their han handkerchiefs occasionally in the telling that the jurors were carried carried car car- ried red away and ot voted for acquittal Later Luter 1 I n net met t one oae of the Jurors and andI I said to m h Jones why did you ou vote ote to ro n adult acquit ull the prisoner T The le evl- evl lence denCe ed i clearly that he be was guilty t I No Nosir e sir that man was inS not guilty said What makes make'S you o tl think so sol solI i 1 countered Why because because- beca lse Mr Ir White said said he he wasn't l' l concluded ConcludE Jarles S |