April, 1905
State of Mississippi vs. James “Jim” Whitt
Case #1773
Judge – J.B. Boothe
Prosecution – W.A. Roane
After the members of the mob were granted a change of venue and the court dates set for later in the year, the spring term of the Tate County circuit court continued with the second trial of James “Jim” Whitt.
On April 24, 1905, the case began with virtually the same witnesses from the first trial. Henry Wilson was the first to take the stand for the state. District Attorney W.A. Roane once again began by asking Wilson to tell the story of the fight between Buster and Jim. Then, Roane proceeded to get Wilson to describe the shooting. Wilson’s stories had not changed from the first trial. However, the cross-examination from the defense became heated. Mr. East, Whitt’s attorney, was relentless in his attacks on the integrity of not only Henry Wilson, but Buster Thomason. Questions ranged from – whether Buster had a gun on him at all times; to whether the group including Wilson was extremely drunk the day of the shooting. East continued with the accusations that Wilson had been apart of a plot to kill Whitt after the fight between Whitt and Buster. Wilson was asked whether he took a gun off of Buster after the shooting….and much more. It was obvious that the defense wanted to discredit Henry Wilson by this particular line of questioning…at the very least plant seed of doubt in the minds of the jury.
Mrs. Belle Brown repeated the same story as before. Interestingly, Belle said in her testimony this go around that her first thought when she saw the shooting was that the victim, Buster might be her brother, Norman. The exchange between Belle and S.W. Jones, one of the defense attorneys is priceless to me. It just so happens that Belle Brown was my husband’s great-grandmother and proved herself to be quite feisty. When asked about her brother Norman, Belle said “he’s in jail“. The questioning continued by the attorney asking why Norman was in jail and she responded that “he was awaiting trial then Belle blurted out “Does that concern this case any?”
This frustrated response from Belle prompted Roane to object and Judge Boothe said, “I can’t think of nothing in the world you could ask about her brother that would be material to this case. It’s totally immaterial where he is.”
After Judge Boothe’s statement, Roane withdrew his objection and Mr. Jones told Belle to answer his question.
Belle said, “I haven’t heard any question, yet.”
“Is your brother indicted for killing J.M. Poag?”
She answered, “he’s supposed to be. I don’t know anything about it.”
Norman Clayton, Belle Brown’s brother, was actually part of the mob that killed Sheriff Poag and was in jail awaiting his trial.
The defense’s case was centered around discrediting the state’s witnesses and Buster Thomason. They called several witnesses to attest to Buster Thomason’s propensity for violence with several stating that Buster had a bad reputation for truth and veracity. In fact, another witness stated that the reason behind the killing was a woman.
In addition, Wat Luckett, the witness that was allegedly not been present at the 1904 trial and the reason that the supreme court granted a new trial, testified to witnessing the shooting. He said that Henry Wilson and Charlie Rochelle were riding ahead of Buster and could not have seen the actual shots fired.
The biggest surprise of this trial was the testimony of Jim Whitt. His story changed… especially about his wife. In the previous trial, he said they got along splendidly; this time around he said his marriage was tolerable. Whitt painted a completely different picture of his wife and Buster Thomason. Even testifying that the reason he went to Alabama in the fall of 1902 was because of Buster being too intimate with his wife. Whitt went on to tell that he advised his wife to be careful of Buster.
When asked why he never mentioned his suspicions about his wife and Buster, Whitt answered it was “simply because of the love I had for my wife and children. I thought I would rather be hung than let the jury know the truth“. Whitt insisted that he did not want to kill Buster, but feared for his life.
The Sunday before Christmas day, Whitt recited a different exchange between himself and Buster. As mentioned in the 1904 trial, Buster made remarks about Ms. Kizer and other women on the road including Whitt’s wife. However, Whitt added that on that particular night, he left the room and upon returning he saw that Buster had kissed his wife. Whitt never said anything because Buster left. The next time he saw Buster was the morning of Christmas eve at Mr. Scroggins’ home. Whitt said that when Buster arrived at Scroggins’ house that fateful morning, Buster told him that he had seen his wife that morning and “she looked better than she ever did“. That specific remark was what made Whitt mad and he confronted Buster.
After describing the fight that occurred Christmas eve morning, Whitt discussed shooting Buster. At this trial, Whitt gave a different account of meeting Buster in the road. He said that Buster stopped and said, “Whitt, we had some trouble this morning and now would be a good time to settle it. One or the other of us must die“. After this apparent threat, Buster allegedly put his hand in his pocket as if to grab his pistol. According to his testimony, it seemed that Buster could not get the pistol out on account of his overcoat. As a result, Whitt shot Buster before he could shoot him. Jim Whitt insisted that Buster was facing him when he fired the second shot and thought he was coming towards him.
Whitt ended his testimony by describing how he told his family that he had shot Buster and was going to turn himself in because it was justifiable. Jim Whitt truly believed that Buster Thomason was going to kill him.
The state called several rebuttal witnesses to discredit Wat Luckett. Nevertheless, Watt Luckett’s testimony apparently did not influence the jury. According to the May 12, 1905 edition of the Senatobia Democrat, Friday morning about 11:00, the jury announced they had reached a verdict. When the 12 men filed into the courthouse a stillness followed that is characteristic of a solemn occasion. His Honor asked the foreman, if the jury had reached a verdict. The foreman announced in the affirmative and read: “We the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment and fix his sentence at imprisonment for life in the state penitentiary.” The jury was then discharged and the second trial of State of Mississippi against Jim Whitt closed.
Because of this notorious case, the audience in the courtroom was large each day. The attorneys on both sides presented their prospective cases in a thorough and impressive way. However, the defense was not satisfied and promptly filed a appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court again. The Senatobia Democrat reported this extraordinary decision to appeal the case – “this will be the second time that the Whitt case will appear before the high court of the State, and if it is reversed Whitt will be tried the third time for killing Buster Thomason, on the 24th of December, 1903.”
On February 6, 1906, the Supreme Court listened to arguments concerning the case of James “Jim” Whitt vs. the State of Mississippi.
According to the eBook – Cases Argued and Decided in the Mississippi Supreme Court Volume 87, W.J. East presented the following argument for the appellant: “The remarks of the district attorney were in direct violation of law. It was the duty of the jury to try appellant on the evidence. The statement that he had been convicted before, and that the sentence was reversed on the merest technicality… was a calculated way to sway the jury. The reversal was not a matter with which they had anything to do, and such language should not have been used.” The assistant attorney-general only offered in rebuttal that “the remarks of the district attorney…ought not to cause a reversal of the judgment now appealed from.”
Judge Calhoun delivered the opinion of the court:
The district attorney, in his closing argument to the jury, said: “Every lawyer who deserves the name lawyer knows that the case was reversed by the supreme court on the merest technicality.” Defendant objected at once to these remarks. Thereupon the district attorney turned to defendant’s attorney and said loudly: “Yes, I said it. Write it out and sign my name to it. This case, gentlemen of the jury, was reversed on account of the absence of Wat Luckett, when the record shows by affidavits on file with the record that Wat Luckett was here at the trial.” This, also, was objected to, but the court remained silent, did not sustain the objection, and exception was taken.
…The trial ceased to be fair when these words, seasonably objected to, were used without correction. Juries have no concern with the action of this court. The previous reversal of this case so far from being technical, was the very crux of an impartial trial…”
The April 6, 1906 edition of the Star Ledger – Kosciusko, Mississippi reported and explained the Supreme Court’s decision, “Because of an unfortunate remark made by the district attorney in his appeal to the jury, the Supreme Court has again reversed the famous Jim Whitt murder case, appellant having been twice convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of Buster Thomason…This case has attained unusual celebrity on account of the fact that it was in an attempt to save Whitt from the hands of an infuriated mob that Sheriff J.M. Poag lost his life, being shot down by members of the mob. Justice Calhoun read the decision of the court reversing the sentence for the second time, and chiefly because of the fact that the district attorney, addressing the jury, declared that the former reversal by the Supreme Court was purely on a technicality and did not involve the facts of the case; that the witness who was alleged to have been absent and whose testimony was declared to be essential to the defendant’s case, was in the courtroom throughout the trial. Justice Calhoun said that when remarks of this character were unfair and impartial; that juries have nothing to do with the decisions of the Supreme Court are the grounds on which such decisions are rendered.
James “Jim” Whitt was granted yet another new trial in 1906.
Please stay tuned for more drama!
Next post – The Final Trial of James Whitt
Because Jim Whitt appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court, I was able to obtain copies of the transcripts from both the 1904 and 1905 trials from the Mississippi Archives. Having the actual transcripts provided an insight to this complex case that I could not get from a simple newspaper article. Obviously, the allegations on both sides are open for interpretation. I have tried not to form an opinion on the guilt or innocence of James Whitt. However, I do have a difficult time believing his assertion about his wife and Buster Thomason for the following reasons:
If you recall in the 1904 trial, J.J. Morris, Whitt’s father-in-law briefly mentioned that Louisa had found out that Whitt had a living wife in Alabama. It is not hard to believe that Louisa might have heard about Whitt’s first wife, Bell Hunter Whitt because the couple had moved to Alabama for a short time in 1902. When I began to research the possibility of Whitt having another wife, I found that James Whitt had indeed married Bell Hunter in Lincoln County, Tennessee on March 5, 1888. I am not sure when exactly James Whitt moved to Mississippi. However, I know that he left Bell and three small children in 1895. In the 1900 census, Bell is listed as a widow living in Alabama with her brother’s family and three children – Jessie, Charlie, and Eddie.
James Whitt married Louisa Morris in 1898 when she was 16 years old. He was most likely 30 years old at that time. The couple had 3 children together before he was arrested.
I have to speculate that Louisa found out about Whitt’s first wife sometime after moving to Alabama. I have a copy of a summons filed in Alabama dated November 1902 – Bell Whitt vs James Whitt. In addition, I have the divorce decree dated February 3, 1903.
Upon seeking a divorce, Bell Whitt filed a deposition with the Chancery Clerk in Madison County, Alabama. In these documents, Bell asserts that James Whitt abandoned her and their 3 small children. I wonder if Louisa found the summons and heard rumors while in Alabama – away from her family and friends. If so, it leaves little doubt as to why she wanted to return home. Whitt testified that his wife wanted to come home and the couple had only been back in Mississippi a couple of weeks before the shooting. I also have wondered if…Louisa had spoken to her childhood friend, Buster Thomason about this issue and that is what Whitt was so upset about…I am certainly only speculating and sharing my thoughts. What do you think?