In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 Servant of the Court Sheriffs were routinely called upon to cooperate with many public officials. One of the closest associations was with the personnel of the court system. Like most tasks of the sheriffs, service to the bar of justice presented many difficulties. Since the lawmen performed many duties in the field while the court personnel remained in town, the latter often failed to comprehend the problems that arose in the service of warrants and subpoenas in the hinterland. The sheriffs' duties also preceded court sessions by several weeks and then continued through the sittings. In addition to the presiding judges, there were clerks, public prosecutors, and lawyers as well as crowds of spectators at each sitting. During especially tense trials, the sheriffs were constrained to keepthe peace inside the courtroom. The county sheriff maintained an ancient and noble association with the courts. In the justice system, one could hardly exist without the other. The Kearny Code of 1846 laid upon the sheriff the duty of serving the process of court and also directed the lawman to "attend upon such courts during their sittings." The Revised Statutes of Arizona were more specific, adding that the sheriff should "call the parties and witnesses, and all other persons bound to appear at the court, and make proclamation at the opening and adjournment . . . ." These few words hardly captured the many and sometimes dangerous duties that the sheriffs performedduring court sessions.1 While the sheriff served the courts the year round, these duties peaked during the spring and fall sessions. Preparations began well in advance of opening day. In early Arizona and New Mexico, sheriffs participated in the selection of jury panels for the territorial side 89 9O / Servant of the Court of district court and then served the venires (writs issued by the judge ordering a lawman to summon a panel). The United States marshal, the federal counterpart to the county lawman, performed the same duty on the United States side of district court. Many persons complained about involvement of the sheriff in jury summoning , which could open the way for corruption of the jury system. In the 1880s, both territories excluded the sheriff from this process and established jury commissions that included the district judge and prominent citizens. The sheriffs continued to play a part injury selection in a roundabout way. If they failed to deliver summonses to all the prospective jurors, the size of the panel was inadequate. The presiding judge then had to draw upon hangers-on around the courthouse. The sheriffs sometimes had the duty of drawing the names of the prospective jurors after the jury commission prepared the list. These lawmen were so conspicuous during the work of the jury commission that the public continued to imagine (erroneously ) that the sheriffs still selected the jurors. Leonard Alverson, whom a jury in Las Cruces convicted of mail robbery in 1898, accused Sheriff Pat Garrett of manipulating the panel and packing it with "professional jurymen" who loitered around the courthouse.2 The clerk of the district court also played an important part in the preparations for each court session. He served as a point of contact for the sheriff. When the jury list and the subpoenas for witnesses were readied, the clerk handed them to the sheriff for delivery. Upon successful completion of this job, the sheriff wrote a "return" (description of his official action) on each document. The lawman returned it to the clerk, who recorded the sheriff's action, filed the paper, and noted the fee expenses for such service. The sheriff also stored physical evidence, such as weapons, in the clerk's vault.3 The failure of the clerk to perform his duties promptly could adversely affect the sheriff. When Judge Perry Brocchus called for a special session of district court in Taos, New Mexico, in May 1855, the order caught Clerk Elias Clark by surprise. Clark delayed the issue of a writ of venirefacias (specialcall for jurors) to Sheriff Ezra N. DePew until the day court was to open. The clerk presented the lawman with a hastily compiled list of jurors and suggested that they antedate the venire so that it would conform to law. Such a proposal contradicted all formal practice and was probably illegal. Judge Brocchus accused Clark of "gross and inexcusable neglect" and of attempting to lure the sheriff into a criminal act. This issue became a momentary cause celebre. The participants wrote explanations to the Santa Fe Weekly Gazette. Sheriff DePew...

Share