A Judge Ate Candy While a Man's Life Hung on the Verdict
The state supreme court overturns a Jefferson County murder conviction after Judge Sachs reads newspapers and passes sweets on the bench — and delivers a rebuke that is the longest opinion of the term.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The supreme court reversed the decision of Judge Sachs in the case of Coella, the Jefferson county murderer. A new trial was granted on the ground of various errors and misconduct of the court, in that while the defendant was testifying, Judge Sachs amused himself by reading newspapers, conversing pleasantly with witnesses, passing and eating candy, the effect of which was to convey to the jury his opinion of the guilt of the prisoner. For this action the supreme court severely criticises him, and says:
"The solemnity of a trial upon which hangs the life of a human being, wherein it is to be determined whether such life shall be taken as a just penalty to satisfy the demands of justice outraged, if so found, can scarcely be approached in any other proceeding over which human beings have control. There is a constitutional provision prohibiting judges from commenting upon matters of fact to the jury. To allow a judge to so demean himself as to convey such information by his conduct would be more dangerous and subversive of justice than actual comment. It is to be hoped that the occasion will not arise again."
The opinion was lengthier than any rendered this term, and was by Judge Scott. Judge Hoyt concurs in the result, but dissents from some of the propositions advanced.
“To allow a judge to so demean himself as to convey such information by his conduct would be more dangerous and subversive of justice than actual comment.”
A capital conviction was thrown out not because of what the jury heard but because of what the judge's body language and candy dish told them — an early, blunt statement that a courtroom's atmosphere is part of due process. Washington still litigates the line between a judge's demeanour and a fair trial, and the standard set here still reads like a modern appellate brief.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.