Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/711

 The Disagreeing jury Foiled to Disagree of the prisoner's guilt and determined on

seemed certain.

conviction. The next

more he could do. day,

after

considerable

diﬂiculty, a new jury was impaneled, and the second trial proceeded part

of two days with a re-hash of the ﬁrst. It was a continuation of the organized contest of sixty-five million people

against a lone friendless vagabond, in dicted burglar, with only Jim Johnson, lawyer, standing in the breach, retainer less and at his own expense, upholding the federal Constitution and honor of the profession. Jim Johnson again made his desperate

plea that while the testimony indicated the probable guilt of the vagabond, yet he consistently may not be guilty, and

is there not a reasonable doubt of guilt? Is Amos Vagabond not entitled to the beneﬁt of his chance of innocence? A second time the case was given to

the jury, after the brilliant and high minded government attorney had made

his closing argument, and after the convinced court had again made its argument in the charge. Again the jury reported a hopeless disagreement. They were admonished for their pertinacious obstinacy and sent

back for further deliberation. This was late Friday afternoon.

But Jim Johnson had now gratuitously given ten laborious days to the prepara tion and trial of this case. He had an

677

There was nothing

So Jim Johnson went away with a consciousness of a duty well performed without hope of reward. The next morning the jury again came

in and substantially the following oc curred :— “Gentlemen," said the Court, "have you agreed upon a verdict?"

"We have not," reported the foreman of the jury; “but we have agreed to disagree, and cannot get together." "Now,

gentlemen,"

proceeded

the

Court, "this case has been on trial for a

full week at great expense and great inconvenience to many of us.

There is

really nothing to disagree about here. The defendant has had two fair and impartial trials, has been ably defended, and the matter should be concluded.

The evidence is most clear and conclusive. "The Court can see no ground for any reasonable doubt and wishes to end the matter. The defendant has already been in jail about six months awaiting trial. If this jury disagrees, he will most certainly be held for trial again. It will be about six months until the

next jury term of court, so he will be kept in jail that much longer anyway, whether he is then found guilty or not. “On the other hand, if you should agree on this case now and ﬁnd the

defendant guilty, the Court will sentence him for only six months in the House

important engagement out of town and must leave that evening, unless it was imperative that he stay. He was

of Detention. It is for you to determine now what is best for the prisoner under

assured by both judge and District

the circumstances.

Attorney that he could do nothing further for his client, and could honor ably leave.

tion and trust you may agree."

There could be no retrial at this term. The District Attorney agreed with him that it was probable that the defendant would later be discharged and not again tried, in case of disagreement again, which

“I send you back for further delibera There was nothing Harold Brown as government attorney could say in the premises, whatever he may have thought. And lawyer Jim Johnson was a hun dred miles away! Under the circumstances,

naturally