"This is the most flagrant miscarrage of justice I have ever seen in my court," Judge R. Hunt Parker Tells Jury, 1933

Editorial from the Aug. 11, 1933, issue of The Landmark, Statesville, N.C.

A Jury Denounced

It is good to know that judges have the courage to expose the flagrant miscarriages of justice frequently made by juries. A 15-year-old boy was on trial in Hertford county Superior court for manslaughter. He was charged with driving his truck into a filling station and killing a man. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Judge R. Hunt Parker turned to the jury and said:

“Gentlemen, I am sorely disappointed at your verdict. This is the most flagrant miscarriage of justice I have ever seen in my court. The evidence in this case was plain, unmistakable and uncontradicted, that the boy was driving his truck contrary to law, that he left the highway and struck this man and caused his death; and yet you have said this boy is not guilty. Gentlemen, you are discharged.”

Two days before, in the same court, a negro was convicted of manslaughter. He was driving a motor vehicle that struck and killed a man. There was conflict of evidence in the negro’s case as to the speed of the truck and the position of the man who was killed.

No evidence was offered in behalf of the white boy. Four witnesses testified that he was violating the traffic laws when his truck left the highway and struck and killed a man standing in a filling station. Evidently the boy was freed because of his youth and because he is white. That was not the province of the jury, of course. It is the business of the jury to return a verdict according to the evidence. It is for the court to extend consideration, if any is to be extended. Too many juries return verdicts based on sympathy or prejudice. Then the negro was called for sentence, Judge Parker said:

“I have had before me this week two cases of manslaughter growing out of killings by truck; one a negro, the other a white boy, and perhaps of the two the boy is guiltier. The boy is free at the hands of the jury, and it now becomes my duty to sentence this negro.”

The natural reaction in view of the flagrant miscarriage of justice in a similar case would be to give the negro light punishment. He could have been sentenced to a few months in jail. But it is no excuse for one guilty person that another escapes. So the sentence for the negro was three to five years at hard labor, which is reasonable and just. The rebuke to the Hertford county jury will be remembered and it is improbable that another jury in the county will soon again deliberately disregard the evidence and the law because they have allowed sympathy or racial feeling to becloud their sense of right. That jury, it may be assumed, well knew that it had no right morally or legally to declare guiltless one who was unquestionably guilty under the evidence.