Vengeance Is Mine: The Scandalous Love Triangle That Triggered the Boyce-Sneed Feud

Epilogue

243 A. Snatching Victory from the Jaws of Defeat Spin-Doctoring, Dirty Tricks, and Whatever Else It Takes WHEN AT THE END of Sneed’s second Fort Worth murder trial the jury shot back a “not guilty” verdict without even bothering to deliberate, much less to read the court’s jury instructions, Judge Swayne was flabbergasted—stunned is perhaps a better word. Both Judge Swayne’s words and his actions during and after the trial clearly demonstrated that he had no doubt—reasonable or otherwise—that John Beal Sneed had intentionally killed Colonel Boyce without any legal justification. How, he puzzled, could the jury have gotten it so wrong? Better question was, how did the defense manage to snatch victory from the jaws of a seemingly certain defeat? How did McLean and company manage to lay the sins of the son at the feet of the father and then convince the jury that it was somehow necessary to slay Colonel Boyce in order to “protect the home” of the killer? And they did all of that despite the efforts of Judge Swayne during the second trial to rein in the excesses of the McLean team. Admittedly the judge was not entirely successful at that, but then what mortal judge could have totally repressed the combined aggression and forcefulness of McLean, Johnson, Scott, and John Beal Sneed himself—particularly when the prosecution lawyers did so little to assist him? Besides the judge’s helpful efforts, the prosecution had some ammunition that it didn’t have during the first trial. Sneed’s Amarillo neighbor, Ernest Thompson, testified he heard a very incriminating remark Sneed made shortly before the killing: he heard E P I L O G U E 244 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E Sneed grumble, “I ought to kill the old ___________” (referring to Colonel Boyce). Then too, there was the fiasco of a key defense witness, W. A. Weaver, who imploded right in front of the jury. The defense had offered Weaver as an eyewitness to the killing of Colonel Boyce, and Weaver proceeded to give a very defense-friendly eyewitness account of the killing of Colonel Boyce—one carefully crafted to echo Beal Sneed’s version. Trouble was, the prosecution demonstrated beyond doubt that Weaver was a liar and a fraud by proving that he wasn’t even at or near the scene when the fatal shots were fired. Also, Judge Swayne reversed his ruling from the first trial and allowed the prosecution to read to the jury the prior testimony of the late Ed Throckmorton giving his account of the killing— eyewitness testimony that depicted Sneed as a vengeful killer. In addition, at the time of the second trial Al Boyce was dead, thus depriving the defense of a potent jury argument it drove home before: send Sneed to prison and you will guarantee that Lena will marry that villainous Al Boyce, leaving poor, helpless Lena unprotected , and, worse yet, ensuring that Al Boyce would corrupt those defenseless little children. Finally, at the end of the trial Judge Swayne gave the jury a “blockbuster” jury charge that he believed would force the jurors to return a “guilty” verdict. Judge Swayne and the prosecution lawyers felt confident of victory this time. But, as it turned out, the game wasn’t even close. It was a complete rout for the defense. The jury apparently ignored not only Judge Swayne’s instructions but also all that extra ammunition that the prosecution believed would be so persuasive. It is clear that Judge Swayne as well as the state’s attorneys were puzzled by the jury’s verdict. Yet the real puzzle is why they were puzzled by that outcome. It should have been obvious to any seasoned trial attorney that the prosecution was a lost cause even before the first witness took the stand at the second trial. The answers and comments given by prospective jurors during the jury selection process made it abundantly clear that almost—to a man—they had already boarded Bill McLean’s “protecting the home” express even before that train ever pulled out of the station. Epilogue 245 Again, why? What happened? It can be summed up in four words: the prosecution got outlawyered . Perhaps lulled into overconfidence in the belief that it had an airtight case, the prosecution was more comatose than combative...