Rensselaer Republican, Volume 26, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 October 1893 — A New Trial for Plummer. [ARTICLE]

A New Trial for Plummer.

On Wednesday of last week the Supreme Court handed down a decision giving Jackson Plummer a new trial. He is the man who shot Marshal Dorn, of Kentland, a year or two ago, and was afterwards confined in the eounty jail of Rensselaer for a long 'time. He was tried, by change of venue, in Benton county, and given a long term in the penitentiary. The decision is about equivalent to a release for Plummer, as it will be nearly impossible to* again convict him under the law, as the decision lays it down. Besides its local interest from the previous knowledge our people have of the case, the decision possesses great general interest, as defining the powers and duties of peace officers, and the right of self defense. The following is the text of the decision: “(1) A peace officer, such as town marshal, is not authorized to arrest for misdemeanors without a warrant, unless the offense is committed in his presence or sight (2) Even where making an arrest for a misdemeanor committed in his presence or sight, if such officer is not resisted and uses more force than necessary he is a trespasser from the beginning, and may be lawfully resisted. (3) The law of self-defense applies as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as it does to a private individual who uses such force and violence. So, where one has appeared on the streets of a town with a revolver in his hand which he threatens to use, and afterwards starts home with it in his hand, and the marshal follows him, and without informing him that he intends to arrest him, merely calls on him to put up his revolver, and then, upon his refusal, slips up behind him and strikes him with a mace and then shoots at him, the force used by such marshal is unlawful and may be resisted by such person to the taking of the life of his assailant. (4) A defendant is not required to prove defenses of self-defense and insanity beyond a reasonable doubt.