A quote from the newspaper summed it up: "…Vidal was accused of shooting Davy three times with a .22 caliber rifle after an argument over dirty dishes."
How did a quarrel about who did the washing up end in a fatality and a three-day trial? The Redwood City Tribune article from Oct. 19, 1939, spelled it out.
Jorge Q. Vidal, 43, was a picker at a "Coastside pea pickers' camp" on June 6, 1939, and got into an argument with his boss, Luther Davy, about whose turn it was to wash the dishes after a meal for the camp workers. Not liking how the disagreement went, Vidal went out and got his rifle and fired three shots into Davy, killing him. There was no question or suspense about the shooter's identity; Vidal was arrested and went to trial less than six months later.
The trial appeared in Judge Maxwell McNutt's courtroom and featured a jury of five men and seven women. They found Vidal guilty of murder in the first degree and recommended life imprisonment after 2 1/4 hours of deliberation. At first, they couldn't reach a unanimous decision, with five jurors wanting a death sentence.
During the trial, the courtroom was surprised by a tantrum of the defense lawyer, who loudly proclaimed: "…(the) deputy district attorney has asked you to take the life of the accused in return for a quarrel. Someone should fashion for him from silver the chain of a hangman's noose and should present it to him as a constant reminder that he is the great protector of the people!"
The district attorney expressed surprise at the personal attack and then focused on the crime itself: "Never have I heard of such a cold-blooded ruthless slaying." He urged the jury to press for the death penalty.
But it was up to the judge to determine the sentence. The Tribune reported on Oct. 23 that McNutt sentenced Vidal to life imprisonment. On hearing this, the defense attorney tried to get the verdict changed based on a possible lesser conviction of manslaughter or 2nd-degree murder. McNutt denied this; his original sentence stood, and Vidal was taken away.
Could this identical situation happen again? It's entirely possible due to the fact that in 2019 an official document stated that 121 acres of land in our county are still devoted to pea farming!
