The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-25
Especially reported for the Daily Exchanged
TRIAL OF DANIEL {. SICKLES,
FOR THE
MURDER OFPHILIP BARTON KEW
EIGHTEENTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF CO
LUMBIA-JUDGE THOS. II. CRAWFORD.
PRESIDING.
WASHINGTON, April %, 1859.

PRESIDING.
WASHINGTON, April %, 1859.
Whether owing to the tempestuous condition o
the weather, or whether it be an indication tha
the interest in this pro:racted trial is subsiding
the pressure for admittance into the Court room i
by no means so great as on the previous day.
The general impression yesterday seemed to b,
that the trial would be concluded to-day, but it il
now thought that the argument on the instruc
tons Will DO so spun out, as to prevent that con
summation.
Ex Senator Brodhead who was attached as or
absent witness, is in Court in the custody of tn,
| Marshals officers.
Col. VIM. Schouler, of Boston, is also in atten
dance, having been telegraphed by the prosecution
| to come as witness.
The Judge was in Court somewhat earlier thar
usual, but the District Attorney did not arrive til
half past ten.
Previous to his arrival Mr. Carlisle notified the
Judge that Mr.. Brodhead was in Court and ex,
planned the cause of his not being here before.
He was subp9naed on the 7th of April to attend or
the 4th, and on the 4th he received a letter from
the Deputy Marshal requiring his attendance here
the same day. The explanation being satisfactory
the attachment was discharged
Richard Brodhead, examined by Mr.. Carlisle
am acquainted with Mr.. Sickles, though not int
mately; saw him the day of the homcide: was
| walking out and met my friend Haldemar of Harris
burg, and we walked together; we called at Judge
Blacks to see him. and were shown to the back par
|
Mr. Sickles came in; after shaking hands with him
introduced him to Mr.. Haldemar, who is editor o
Democratic paper at Harrisburg; few word:
| passed between Mr.. Sickles and Mr. Haldemar or
the subject of Pennsylvania politics; but very few
which one commenced the conversation | cannot
tell; called Mr. Sickles' attention to some mud on
his boots, and remarked that he was unfortunate in
| crossing the street; he said he was and would take
it off, and he stepped out to do so; Mr.. HaldemaT
| observed after he left the room
Mr.. Brady.-No, leave that out
| Witness. He returned in a very short time bui
had scarcely taken his seat when | heard footsteps
on the stairs; he Immediately and stepped out
| as II to meet the person, who thought was Judge
| Black; he was out some time; in a minute or two
Judge Black came in very much excited; asked
| him what was the matter
| Mr.. Brady. Asked who?
Witness.-Judge Black.
Mr.. Brady.-Was Mr.. Sickles present?
Witness.-No.
Mr.. Brady.-Then say nothing about it,
| Witness.-Mr. Sickles was out some time: where
ne was do not know; after while he came into
the back parlor from the front parlor; Mr. Halde.
mar and myself stepped up to him, Mr. Haldemar
acting as spokesman; seeing that he was without
friends Mr.. Haldemar rendered him our services to
| go with him to the magistrates; he thanked u.s.
asked him if it was bailable offence; he said be
did not know, but that if all the facts were known
it would be; he then added, ''For God knows
would be justified 81 cond not help it, which
was the precise expression he used | cannot now
remember; by this time Mr.. Gillette came in and
think Mr.. Butterworth also; some one asked wheth-
er Mr. Key was dead Mr.. Butterworth answered
| 'l es;" do not know who rsked that; Mr. Sickles
then uttered something about there being Gone
wretch less in the world" and seemed considerably
excited; the carriage having been sent for and his
New \ ork friends having arrived Mr. Sickles left
Judge Blacks, and Mr.. Hademar and myself re-
maned; that is the last saw of Mr.. Sckles; | be-
leve have stated all the facts that now occur to
my mind.
Mr. Carlisle to Mr. Brady.-He is YOUR witness.
| gentlemen.
Mr. Brady have nothing to ask, Sir.
Inc witness made an explanation to the Judge OF
his non attendance in obedience to the subpoena and
the Judge declared it satisfactory.
Mr. Haldemar, the other witness attached not
| being in attendance, the District Attorney de-
cared the testimony closed on the part of the Uni
| ted States.
Mr. Brady Our testimony is closed.
| The Judge.-You closed on both sides
| Mr. Brady.-Yes.'
| Mr. Carlise.-I would state that the District At
torney left the room, shortly after the adjournment
of the Court, and your Honor knows his residence
Is in Georgetown. | there had no opportunity OF
conterring with him. At latehour last night after
ten o'clock, received copy of the points on which
the defence mean to rely, not in the nature of in
structions but in the form of law.
The JUDGE will give time to the District At
| torney to examine them.
Some minutes were passed in the examination bv
Mr.. Ould and Mr. Carlisle of the instructions prayed
| bv the defence during which interval Mr. SicEIeo,
counsel conferred together and with the prisoner
| Mr. Carlisle proceeded to read the instructions
which the prosecution would ask the Court to give
| the jury.
[These instructions are the same as published in
the ErchGnge of Saturday, with the following ad
diion. They were prepared by the District At
torney, and are said to be uerbatim the same a.
given by Judge Crawford in the case of Day:
If the jury believe from the evidence that the de-
| ceased was killed by the prisoner, by means of a
leaden bullet, discharged from pistol, such killing
| implies malice in law, and is murder.
That the burthen of rebutting the presumption
OF malice by showing circumstances of alienation
excuse or Justification rests the prisoner and ii
is incumbent on him to make out such crcumstan.
ces to the satisfaction of the jury unless they arise
out of the evidence produced against him.
That every person is presumed to be of sound
mind until the contrary is proved, and the burden
of rebutting this presumption rests on the prisoner
with the addition of the following:
If the jury believe from the evidence that the de.
ceased, previous to the day of his DEATH had adul
ferrous intercourse with the wife of the prisoner;
and further that the deceased, on the dav of his
death, shortly before the prisoner left his house
made signals, inviting to further act or acts OF
adultery, which said signals, or portion of them
were seen by the prisoner, and that influenced by
such provocation the prisoner took the life of the
deceased, such provocaton does not Justify the act
or reduce such killing from murder to manslaugh-
| ter
Mr.. Brady said that counsel on both side. had
conferred privately to the course which this dis
cussion would take. The prosecution would open
closing speech the privilege would be given to the
| defence to respond.
Mr.. Brady then proceeded to read the instruc
tlons asked by the defence, follows
FiTst-There is presumption of malice in this case
any proof allevation justification arise
Of the evidence for the prosecution State ag johnson
| 5rd Jones, 2G6; Mcdaniel agt. State S. and NJ 40l
Days case, Pamphlet)
Second-The existence of malice is not presumablt
in this if on any rational theory with all
the evidence, the homocde either justiable excu
sable, or an act of mansaughter Same cases as above
cited; United States agt. Minge, Curtis, &c. R. !
Commonwealth agt. York, Bennett and Heard;
Leading Criminal Cases, 505.)
Third-If on the whole evidence presented by thu
prosecution there is any rational hypothesis cons ten
with the conclusion that the homocide ustiable
excusable, the defendant cannot be onvicted
FOurth.-f the jury believe that Sckes when the hom
cide occurred iuended to Kill Key he (Sickles) canno
be convicted of manslaughter.
F3-It is for the jury to determine under all the cir
cumstances of the whether the act charged upor
Sckes is murder or justfabe homicide. Ryans case,
Wheeler's Cr. Cases, 54
latter in criminal intercourse with the wife of thu
former Sickes cannot be convicted of either murder
manslaughter.
Serenth.-If from the whole evidence the jury beev
that Sickle committed the act but at the time of don.
50 was under the influence Of diseased mind, and
really unconscious that he committing crime, h
1snot in law guilty of murder" Days Case Pamphlet
page9
EighhIf the jury believe that from any predisposnt
cause Sickles mind was impaired and at the time Of kill
ing Key he became mentally incapable of govern
ing himself Key as the debaucher Of hi
wife, the time of his committing said act was b.
reason of such cause unconscious that he committing
crime as to said Key, he is not guilty of any oenc
whatever. Days Case Pamphlet, page IT.
Ninh-lt is for the jury to say what the state
sickes mind to capacity to decide upon the criminal
ty Of the particular act in question 1.-THE homicide) til
moment it occurred, and what the condition of tn
parties respectively either to scufle to bein.
armed not at the same moment These open ques
tions for the jury, any other questions MAJ
arise consideration of the evidence, the whole
which is to be taken into view by the jury-Jarboe'
Case, Pamphlet, p. 20.
Tenth-The law does not require that the insanit
which absolves from crime should exist for denit
period but only that exist at the moment when the
occurred with which the accused stands charged.
EtUenth-lf the jury have any doubts to the case
either in reference to the homicide the question
ty, Sickies should be acquitted.
Mr.. Carlisle stated that the grounds which h
thought the instructions askedby the prosecutio
should be granted, and those asked by the defense
or some of them, should be rejected.
The first point made by the prosecution, that
the homicide wilful and intentional, and in
duced by the belief of the prisoner that the de
ceased had criminal Intercourse with the prisoner
wife, nevertheless it murder; if the jury beiev
that no violence or assault offered by tn
deceased at the moment of the homicide, that wa
presented alphabetically on the whole evidence i
the of wilful and intentional killing, withou
; provocaton in law.
1t also presented the proposition that a previou
seduction of, or adultery with the prisoners wife
is no provocation in law, even if the jury believe il
, but the instruction further proceeds to guard tn
jury against the conviction of the prisoner if b
were insane at the time of the killing.
, He did not know that he ought to consume tn
valuable time of the Court in discussing the fir:
. proposition, namely, that previous adultery i
not provocation in law. The case of aduter
as leading to homicide, wherever it is referred