People v. Mull
| Decision Date | 04 June 1901 |
| Citation | 167 N.Y. 247,60 N.E. 629 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MULL. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Rensselaer county.
Archie Mull was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.
Jeremiah K. Long and George J. McDonnell, for appellant.
W. O. Howard, for the People.
We have carefully examined this record and the exceptions. The evidence we think is ample to sustain the verdict, and the exceptions, other than those taken in behalf of the defendant to portions of the closing address to the jury made by the district attorney, do not, we think, require a reversal. The question presented by these exceptions is whether the district attorney by his remarks to the jury did not intimidate them, or coerce them, through threats and an appeal to their fears, into finding a verdict against the defendant, or at least make it a matter of reasonable doubt whether he did not, and thus make it reasonable doubtful whether the defendant has had a fair trial, or has been fairly convicted by the jury. In considering the remarks of the district attorney to which exceptions were taken, it is proper to state that it appeared upon the trial that the defendant had been brought to trial before a jury at a trial term in Rensselaer county the previous month upon the same indictment, and that the jury had disagreed and been discharged. Upon this trial, after the jury had been impaneled and sworn, and some testimony on the part of the people had been received, the counsel for the defendant and the district attorny privately conferred together respecting ‘rumors that attempts had been made on the part of some person or persons to approach and bribe jurors' on the persent panel. They then conferred with the presiding judge, and he advised that what they had said to him privately they should say publicly. The district attorney then publicly asked the court that, in giving the jury the usual caution, he should request that, if any one should approach any of them concerning this case, to report it to the court. The district attorney added: The counsel for the defendant joined in the request, and stated that no such thing had been done on the part of the defense, so far as he knew. Further remarks were made by the respective counsel to the effect that the jurors, if any such attempt should be made, should report it to the court. The court thereupon so instructed the jury, adding some appropriate remarks, and closing by telling them that what had been said was not evidence in the case, and should in no way affect the final verdict. Nothing further was said about the matter in the presence of the jury, unless the following closing remarks of the district attorney had reference to it: ‘Why, this does not seem to me to be the trial of Archie Mull. He has been tried and convicted in the minds of everybody who has heard this testimony. No other person has been accused or suspected, directly or indirectly, of the commission of this atrocious crime. There is no doubt of his guilt. Not one of the men who sit before me in those chairs has a doubt, either reasonable or unreasonable, as to who committed this atrocious, fiendish crime. A failure by you, gentlemen, to convict this man of this crime which has been so clearly proven against him cannot fail to excite widespread comment and indignation among the whole body of citizens of this county. Of course, it is always the hope of a man accused of murder in the first degree to find one juryman to stick out and bring about a disagreement, to save his life. I know that. I know that is the only hope of this accused. But if there is a man before [among] you who will be so callous to public opinion and to the respect of his fellow citizens, who would be so forgetful and reckless of his oath, so negligent and heedless of the welfare of his family, as to say that Archie Mull did not commit this crime, then I am deceived. Now, I have made considerable and extensive inquiry, carefully, at a considerable expense, from a great number of your neighbors, concerning each one of you that sits there. You probably observed that I had a little history here of each one of you. I know a good deal more about you than you think I do, concerning your habits and your characteristics, and your reputation in the community in which you live. And this is concerning every man who sits in these chairs. I could not let any other person sit. It has been reported to me that you are very decent, square, upright, honest men. And if there is a man that sits in those chairs that is willing to brand himself with suspicion by saying that Archie Mull did not commit this crime, my judgment of his character is not at all correct. It seems strange, in a community, that three hundred men should be called to come here, from all the various departments of domestic and business life, to pass upon the guilt or innocence of this man, were it not in this county, where there seems to be a growing sentiment on the part of jurors to be lax in the enforcement of the law. Were it not for that fact, a jury could be secured from the ordinary panel, and try this plain and simple case; but when it reaches a point that another list from this county must also be exhausted to convict a man of crime so atrocious, so wicked, so wanton, so unparalleled, and so unheard-of in all the history of crime as this, where there is no defense, it is strange. And in this case there is no doubt. You are not asked to rely on circumstantial evidence, but it is one where an eyewitness comes and carefully tells you who committed the horrible and cruel killing. It is no wonder that your neighbors have concluded that the integrity and decency of this panel of jurors, instead of Archie Mull, is on trial here today. Don't let it be said, don't let it be said, I beseech you, that twelve honest men cannot be found within the borders of Rensselaer county. Don't let it be said of you that, from all the integrity and virtue and respectability of this great county, twelve men cannot be gotten together who will do justice. A failure to convict in this case, where there is no defense and where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Pendell
...of evidence protect the criminally accused from prejudice (see People v. Wolf, 183 N.Y. 464, 479, 76 N.E. 592 [1906] ; People v. Mull, 167 N.Y. 247, 253–254, 60 N.E. 629 [1901] ) and safeguard the overall "integrity of the truth-finding process" ( People v. Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d at 460, 438 N.......
-
People v. Buchalter
...that such diffuse departures from legitimate argument may have unduly prejudiced the jury against the defendants. See People v. Mull, 167 N.Y. 247, 60 N.E. 629;State v. Clark, 114 Minn. 342, 131 N.W. 369. (9) Numerous exceptions to the charge of the trial judge are pressed upon us. For inst......
-
State v. Santello
...... obviate prejudicial effect. In others, the injurious effect. is such that it cannot be neutralized by instructions to. disregard. People v. Mull, 167 N.Y. 247, 255, 60. N.E. 629, 632, cited in L.R.A. 1918D, p. 35. It is the duty. of the appellate court to weigh the probable effect of ......
-
People v. Watson
...solely on the improper remarks of the prosecuting officer and the failure of the trial judge to do his duty in reference thereto. People v. Mull, 167 N. Y. 247 ;People v. Fielding, 158 N. Y. 542 [53 N. E. 497,46 L. R. A. 641, 70 Am. St. Rep. 495]. A fair trial is a legal trial, or one condu......