and made statements as to how the several votes of the body resulted. Evidence or instructions having the effect of completely neutralizing irrelevant or unimportant matters thus published are either omitted or so subordinated that a misleading picture is presented. The case is therefore, not presented to the reading public as it is to the judge and to the jury, and where a decision or verdict is rendered contrary to what readers might reasonably expect, to some extent the confidence of the public in the judicial process must be impaired.

A serious result of the practices referred to follows where they tend to destroy the presumption of innocence, which is one of the fundamental principles of our criminal law. Frequently, out of the atmosphere created by the newspapers a contrary presumption emerges. Thus, the intimate personal life of a person charged with crime is exposed to view, his foibles, or worse failings, are elaborately set forth in readable form. Misleading headlines make a lasting impression, particularly upon hasty or illiterate readers. Photographic reproductions are published of the accused, of the instruments with which the supposed crime was committed, and of the locus in quo, so drawn as to show argumentatively how the crime probably was committed. Such things are presented with far more persuasiveness than could be produced by actual evidence after it had been subjected to the process of cross-examination. In notable cases, by this method of newspaper exploitation, an accused has been subjected to grievous wrong; and even if he is ultimately acquitted, he is not exempted from having his entire after life clouded with a suspicion of guilt.

The press agitation which followed the recent death

of Mrs. Gertie Emily Webb affords a striking illustration. It started with a strong suggestion that Mrs. Webb had been poisoned by her husband, based chiefly on conjectural statements said to have been made by a physician and interested relatives. The trend of the headlines and the text of the news articles were calculated to create an atmosphere of guilt, though evidence, legal or otherwise, was absent. Many intelligent readers were led to entertain a strong suspicion that Webb was guilty, and with many the suspicion has undoubtedly survived his exoneration. Some of the headlines indicate the character of the text of the news articles.

On October 14, 1923, a New York Evening Post headline stated: "Strange Plot Near Exposure in Webb Case." From the New York American the following selections are pertinent: October 5th: "Married Webb to Get Escort." October 6th: "Swears on Ten Bibles That He Never Uttered a Suggestion That She Make a Will." "Nurse Swears She Overheard Man Named by Dying Patient." "Meyer Promises Startling New Facts for Grand Jury." "Plot Revealed as Webb Jury Plan Report." "Jurors Believe Inside Facts Should Be Included in Their Summing Up." On October 12th the New York American published a headline: "Webb Mystery Near Solution, Arrest Close." On October 15th, the headlines were: "Hidden Motive in Webb Mystery Near Light. Development of Immense Importance May Come Today." On October 20th: "Sensation Promised in Report."

The Grand Jury deliberated from October 2nd to October 19th, and reported that Mrs. Webb died of natural causes and that there was no evidence of foul

play. They concluded their statement with the following finding:

"We therefore deem it our duty to say emphatically that all of these accusations are without the slightest foundation and we fully and completely exonerate Mr. Webb."

If thousands of perfectly honest-minded people still believe that Webb poisoned his wife, they can hardly retain as much respect for the processes of our law as they had before.

Another case where the press created before the trial an impression of guilt of the accused was the Ward case. Under a heading on June 1, 1922, "Tardy Action Started," the American said:

The tardy move was made by the authorities fifteen days after Peter's bullet-pierced body was found near the Kensico reservoir. * * It was a search that would have been made immediately after he surrendered if the slayer were the man without financial, social or political standing."

There followed a long description of the car containing police inspectors, their appearance, and how they stepped out of the car.

Throughout the trial Ward was referred to as a rich man. He was described as "The Tanned Sphinx." "Great Ward Killing Mystery," as a headline, was alternately used with "Wife Weeps in Court." Other headlines were "Shot Unarmed Man and Lied About the Gun," "To Let Slayer Keep Secret of Blackmail," "State Is Sure Ward Owned Both Pistols. Confident Testimony Will Prove Contention," "Ward Calmly Confronts Kin of His Victim," "To Hear of 'Love

Nest!,' "The Great Ward Killing Mystery will only be solved when the debonair Walter S. Ward arises in a court room and says, 'I killed Clarence Peters.'" It was stated that Ward produced his wife at the trial, making her undergo a terrific ordeal, while he blithely played cards with his jailer. The trial resulted in Ward's acquittal on September 28, 1923.

One of the newspapers from which I have quoted employed well-known authors, and their flights of rhetoric and imagination, while inviting to readers, were far from presenting a correct picture or aiding in the administration of justice.

Another case illustrating the point I am now making was the notable Frank case in Georgia. The New York papers especially expended great sums in their reports. The atmosphere created a widespread impression that there had been a gross miscarriage of justice in the Georgia court, although its decision was sustained by the state appellate court and was not interfered with by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Another instance of trial by newspaper was the case of Nan Patterson, where a daily newspaper was guilty of the gross indecency of having the wives of the trial jurors interviewed in order to get their opinion as to the guilt or the innocence of the accused.

The recent Stokes divorce case illustrates the manner in which sensational trials in civil cases are frequently reported. The reports justified the inference that there was an effort to create an atmosphere unfavorable to one side of the controversy. A morning newspaper employed for the case a woman noted for her skill in writing up stories and a well-known novelist and playwright. Mrs. Stokes was referred to as "This Titian

haired little woman with the eyes as soft and gentle as the wings of a dove"; or "the beautiful little lady sighs for her babies"; or "this little woman with her honor at stake"; "I fight only for my babies,' says Mrs. Stokes." At the same time her husband was referred to as "Old Cove," and any evidence in his favor was not fairly stated. If the report of the conduct of trial counsel on both sides was correctly reported, it did not reflect creditably upon our method of conducting trials. But by bringing this picture into too bold relief, it was given undue weight. After one of the newspapers had exploited extraneous and immaterial circumstances, inadmissible as evidence, and had done much to create an atmosphere unfavorable to one side, one was hardly prepared to read in its columns that "The published accounts illustrate the absurd notion we have of what is euphemistically term 'justice'"; and that the trial was not "a patient, careful, temperate and sincere effort to discover the facts; such an effort might have been called justice. *It might be interesting to note the way in which a scientist tries to discover facts in his laboratory, or an engineer at his bridge building, or, indeed, anybody else who wants to know the simple truth and not lick somebody else, and the way in which the legal profession tries to arrive at these facts. The AngloSaxon mind does not seem to be able to conceive of anything in law, or politics or in religion except in terms of the Prize Ring."

While we may sympathize with the just criticism of some of our rules of evidence, the implication that the newspaper in question aided in "a patient, careful, temperate and sincere effort to discover the facts" is amusing.