During the appeal process, oral arguments were presented to the Mississippi
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the Mathis verdict. The following
document is an argument from the appellee, the prosecution, explaining
why the conviction should be upheld
"Appellent assigns for error the action of the trial court
in admitting the confession made by defendant to the witness, George
Jackson, on the same night, but after the murder was committed, on
the ground that it was not voluntary. This assignment is wholly untenable.
The only pretense if inducement is that the witness, George Jackson,
to whom defendant had gone as a confidential friend, when asked by
defendant: "Can you do anything for me, or will you?" answered: "I
will always do what I can for a friend." This witness was simply a
private person and had no connection in any way with the prosecution
of the case, and no one knew better than defendant the inability of
witness to render him any service at all. This point is clearly decided
against the defendant in this state in the case of Jones v. State,
58 Miss., 349, where it is held that the question of the voluntary
character of the confession to any person not in authority is a mixed
question of law and fact to be determined by the court, from all the
circumstances, whether or not the inducement offered was sufficient
to overcome the mind of the prisoner. It is idle to contend that this
confession was induced or affected in the slightest way by any such
sonsideration. 6 AM. & Eng. Enc. Law(2d ed.), 548, and autorities
cited.
The letter to Shell Vines, written by defendant while in jail,
detailing his plans of defeating justice and setting out what his
own testimony would be and what he wanted his friend, Vines, to swear,
was most relevant and was unmistakably identified, and therefore made
perfectly competent. It was amply proved to have been written by defendant.
It would almost have been impossible for any one else to have written
it. He practically proves it himself by his own testimony, which is
delivered in remarkable accordance therewith. The record does not
show that the letter to defendant's wife, Cordie Matthis, was ever
admitted in evidence.
The omission of the words "or the want of evidence" in instruction
No. 4, for the state, is not error in this case. There is no want
or lack of evidence in this case, no chasm is to be jumped to connect
this defendant with the murder, about which the jury could have any
possible doubt; and therefore the omission of these words could not
have had any possible effect in the verdict. How different this from
the case of Knight v. State, 74 Miss., 140, where the lack
of evidence to connect defendant with the crime was the most prominent
feature in the case to be considered by the jury, and this court reversed
that case because the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
In the case of Hale v. State, 72 Miss., 150, the court reversed
on other grounds and simply add in the last sentence of the opinion
that the instruction without these words was objectionable. There
may be cases in which it would be material, but certainly not in this
one. Hemingway v. State, 68 Miss., 371, was affirmed, with
an instruction for the state to the effect that "if the evidence raises
no reasonable doubt of innocence, the jury should convict."
The state witness, Orlandus Lester, was especially corroborated
in this case by four striking facts and circumstances which leave
no doubt as to the correctness of the verdict:
1. The letter of the defendant to Shell Vines, attempting to
suborn evidence to save him from the consequences of his guilt.
2. Defendant's own testimony in complete accordance with that
set out in his letter to Vines.
3. Defendant's confession to George Jackson on the night of,
but just after, the murders.
4. The place where the crime was committed and the motive as
expressed to witness, Vines; and also his effort to get witness, Vines,
to swear that he stayed at King Vine's house on the night of the murder.
We therefore respectfully submit that there is no error in the record
calling for a reversal, and the verdict of the jury is manifestly
right and should be affirmed."
