Attorney’s opinion (1990’s). Patsy is the sister of Betty and Juanita is their aunt.

Betty and Juanita:

Here are the opinions on great-grandfather Spangler's trials. You will see he was tried twice and convicted twice by a jury. Both these convictions were reversed on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals and the case was sent back to be tried again.

Some words from the layman lawyer: If you're wondering about the fact "a man can't be tried twice for the same crime" let me explain. In a criminal case, had Allen Spangler been found not guilty by a jury, that would have been the end of it. The State has no right of appeal. (In a civil case (car accident, etc) both sides have a right of appeal). However, in a criminal case, the accused (defendant) has a right of appeal as long as he can keep winning, right up to the United States Supreme Court. If Allen Spangler had been tried a dozen times and found guilty by a jury, he still would have had the right to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The court "erred" is simply a lawyer's term for the Court did wrong.

Bill of exceptions: AS (Allen Spangler) obviously had some fine lawyers. Your bill of exception is what your appeal is based on and it must be protected during the actual trial. For instance, the other side says something or wants to admit some evidence, your lawyer objects and is overruled by the judge. Your lawyer says "Please note our exception". This must be done the very moment it occurs, or it cannot be used in appealing (if you lose). Every good trial lawyer knows there is always a possibility of losing, and is on his toes every minute to make sure he takes care of his rights on appeal. (enough of that).

On page 326 of the first appeal, HENDERSON J. is the Judge on the Court of Criminal Appeals who wrote the opinion. He is not personally interested or a part of the trial. He (and the other judges) are only allowed to read the papers (briefs) presented to them. They cannot call in witnesses, etc. All they can do is affirm (say the jury was right) or reverse and remand (send back for a new trial for any number of reasons) using materials presented to them by both sides.

On page 330, the first trial is reversed and remanded, sending it back to Be re-tried. (I haven't had time to digest these opinions, but it appears to me it was sent back because the jury was not correctly charged, in the higher court's opinion).

Page 314 is an opinion after the second conviction by a jury. On Page 315, you will see that Spangler lost this appeal ("Held, that a verdict of murder in the second degree was justified." On page 321, we have the motion for rehearing. This is the next step is you lose on the first go round, which Spangler did in the second appeal. This is not necessary if you win like he did in the first appeal. Again, we have the same Judge writing the opinion. On page 322, after the motion for rehearing, we have the same results as the first time, the case is sent back to Henrietta to be tried again.

Motions for rehearing (which are standard procedure for appellants) are very rarely granted. We get long lists ever/week of cases, saying nothing but So and so v. So and So, Motion for Rehearing Denied. They just usually stick with what they said the first, time. If there was any exchanging of money, I would say it went on somewhere between the ruling set down on October 17, 1900 (when Spangler's conviction was upheld) and March 13, 1901, when the motion for rehearing was granted and Spangler won this time and the case was sent back for a new trial.

This left great-grandpa with a charge of murder still pending, and another trial hanging over his head. As to why he was never tried for a third time, we can only guess. One of the associates in my offices who is fresh out of the District Attorney's office says that if he got a conviction twice and lost in the Appeals Court twice he wouldn't bother to try him again, unless he thought he was a menace to the world at large, dangerous in every way, and a thoroughly potential menace. But that is neither here nor there.

I may have confused you, but I hope you can make a little more sense out of these from what I have said. If you have any questions, let me know. But remember, that I know nothing but what is in these opinions, nor did the judges. I am guessing that the transcript of the actual trials is very lengthy with lots of relevant and even more irrelevant things in it. These opinions present that both the State and Spangler's lawyers felt to be important, (take that back). The briefs both sides presented did that. The opinions reflect what the Judges of the Appellate Court though to be important as to matters of law.

If you want me to dig any deeper, I'll see about the price of transcripts, etc.

Patsy