Jasper County Democrat, Volume 8, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 March 1906 — NEW TRIAL IS ASKED [ARTICLE]

NEW TRIAL IS ASKED

Sherrick’s Attorneys Begin the Second Stage of His Fight Against Prison. TWO REASONS ARE PRESENTED Prejudiced Juror and the Prosecution's Alleged Ijapse Little Girl’s Prayer Answered. Indianapolis, March 23. Attorneys for David Sherrick. former auditor of state, convicted in the criminal court a few days ago of tiie embezzlement of $120,000 of state funds, have filed their motion fdr a new trial with Special Judge James McCullough, and argument on the motion was heard later. Supporting the motion are affidavits made by three persons, all of whom declare that Louis Held, one of the member*, of the jury which convicted Sherrick. expressed the opinion before be was chosen as a juryman that Sherrick was guilty of embezzlement and ought to go to state’s prison. Another Reason la Urged.

The motion attempts also to show that. Prosecutor C. P. Benedict blundered during ids argument to the jury by referring to the fact that the defense did not place Sherrick on the stand in his own behalf. This objection raises a fine point of law in that it is a holding of the supreme court of Indiana that when a defendant is not placed on the stand during his trial the prosecution has no right to refer to the fact in its argument of the case unless counsel for the defendant does so first What the Prosecutor Said. The statement made by Prosecutor Benedict objected to in the motion for a new trial is as follows: “In the absence of any evidence from the defense his [Sherrick’s] counsel would not be justified, in good faith, in making the contention that he is not guilty.” Prosecutor Benedict says he did not refer to the fact that the defendant was not placed on the witness stand when he made this statement, or that, if he did, he did so in sucli a manner that it can not lie objected to with any success.