Miller v. State

³⁸⁰ Adkins, J., delivered the opinion, of the' Court. Walter E. Miller and ITarry T. Norris-, the appellants, were tried by a jury and convicted of robbery on March 6th, 1919. Ota. the following day one of the counsel for traversers in a conversation was told by one of the jurors that during the progress of the trial he had gotten outside of the courtroom information about the bad record of Norris. On March 8th, 1919, a motion for a new trial was filed and also a-motion in arrest of judgment, and among other reasons assigned was misconduct of the jury.

This motion was heard by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City'April 30, 1919, all the jurors who sat in the case-having been summoned as witnesses, and nine of them examined; another called to testify was returned non est. One of them, John G-. Vineup; testified that Mir. Armstrong, one of the city detectives-, told him outside of the court room during the progress of the trial that Norris had a pretty bad record.

After the trial was over Armstrong told him more, but not during the trial. The conversation took place in the Court corridor. Armstrong was an old friend. No other member' of the jury was present.

Don’t remember having told any of the other jurors about it, but might have done so-. Armstrong was a witness in the case, diaries T. Baetjer testified that something was said in the jury room about Norris having a bad record, but this had no effect upon witness. Lewis M. Lambert heard one of the jurymen remark casually on the street that Norris had a bad record. Did not remember having heard it mentioned in the jury room.

It made no impression on him; thinks Diegelman was the juror who mentioned it on the street. Valentine J. Diegelman testified that the first he heard of Norris’ bad record was after the trial. Didn’t tell Lambert during the trial because he didn’t know it then; did not hear it mentioned in the jury room. Lambert later stated that Diegelman’s recollection was correct.

Harry A. Echle heard nothing about the bad record until after the jury had reached their verdict in the jury room. ³⁸¹ They had hardly readied the jury room before there was a unanimous decisión of guilty. There was not a single objection. The jury could have returned to the Court room in three minutes if some of the jurors had not wished to smoke; and in the course of snfoking and standing around the room somebody said, ”1 hear ISTorris has a had record.” That had no influence whatever because we had decided the men were guilty immediately. The other jurors who testified either did not hear of the bad record at all or not until after the verdict was agreed upon.

The Supreme Bench refused both the motion for a new trial and the motion in arrest of judgment by a vote of seven of the judges, including Judge Hbuisdeb, who was the presiding judge at the trial of the case. Three of the judges filed a dissenting opinion. The fact that a dissenting opinion was filed only emphasizes the serious and careful consideration given to the application by the Supreme Bench. On May 8th, traversers were sentenced, and order of appeal filed.

On May 26 th, time for filing hill of exceptions was extended until and including