The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-14
TRIAL OF DANIEL E. SICKLES,
FOR THE
MURDER ROFPHILIPBARTO KEW
NINTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL COURT OF TIE DISTRICT OF co
LUMBA-JUDGE THOS. H. CRAWFORD,
PRESIDING.
WASHINGTON, April l3, 1853

|
Mr. Carlisle proceeded to argue against the ad
instability of the reception of the confession O
Mrs Sickes as evidence in this case. Since the ar
guments yesterday the Judge had undoubtedl,
consulted his pillow, and perhaps, also, his law
DOCKS. In that case, any further argument nigh
be superiuous and vain; but he regarded it as hi
! duty to urge few considerations in addition I,
| those presented yesterday. This was a very i'm
portant question, unless public Justice was to be
come mere sham. There did not seem to be :
perfect concord in the arguments of the defence a
| to the purpose for which it was intended to be
| used The one who offered it (Mr Brady) pro
posed it for one purposes and the one who succeeded
! him Mr. Graham) offered it for another and a
totally different purpose. Mr. Brady offered it
IN order to show the status of the prisoners mind
| when the act was committed. Mr. Graham how
ever, when replying to the argument of the prose
cutlon, argued that the fact appealed to was one
competent to be introduced as showing the 'sirre-
presslble Impulse under which the prisoner acted
and which led him forward to the consummation of
his purpose.
He was not content with that but claimed tb at
@ the TACT IN question was fact, proper with other
facts, to show the irresistible impulse under which
the prisoner moved forward to the consummation
OF the scene-a fact to be appealed as connected
with that solemn and dignified procession of the
prisoner, if may call it, which the learned
counsel has imagined, in which he proceeded undar
the inspiration of Heaven ITSELF to execute the
Judgment of Heaven. Now, think, bearing this
In mind, your Honor will see tie Importance of
considering this evidence in respect to the particu
lar purpose for which it is admissible. The learn
ed counsel, in the argument to which am at
present addressing myself particularly, (Mr.
Grah!am') thought that this fact was ad-
missible as leading to show something short of
insanity in respect to the status of the prisoners
mind; and he told your Honor that the rules of ev1
dence had of ate been greatly relaxed His argne-
ment' thought, appealed to your Honor to relax
them still urher for the law progress seems to be
the law OF the law in the apprehension of the coun-
sci. he thought there some analogy between
!he oIer OF this evidence and the offer Of evidence
In certain cases to prove that the prisoner was in
state of drunkenness; and he referred us upon this
subject to section in Sd Greenleaf, and also to
case which occurred in the Court of Appeals of the
State of New York. Evidence cf the fact of drum
kenness has long been admitted for the purpose of
lnquirng into the existence or non-existence of nm
intent, which intent is irreconcilable with drum
kenness The learned counsel argued his point and
set up his analogy by the aid of one of those
charming hgures OF speech which are so perfectly
at his command, and said that as YOU miobt
prove that the prisoner in given case auafed fhe
intoxicating bowl-that is, drank houor-so Won
might prove that in this the prisoner drained
TO the dregs the igurave cup, filled with all the
bitterness of which human nature is suscentible-
ny, sir, this is rhetoric admirable as such but is
II argument OF question of law? Suppose il to be
conceded that 1T would be competent for the pris-
oher 10 show that he had drank of real cup of in
toxlcatlng liquor, could you prove that this fioura
tive cup was rendered to him and that he drank il
suppose not. To concede for the sake of orru
ment, the supposed analogy, it makes directly
against the argument as understand il; for in the
cases cited, and in all the cases that have eyer
seen or heard Of the question was not whether the
person had drank liquor enough to make him
drunk, put whether in point of fact he was
drunk, either from little drinking or much drink
ing. Now, his colleague, while he has adhered
strictly to the professional language in which be
presented his proposition to the Court in speaking of
the status OF the prisoners mind, has indicated,
hat
the SUBJECT OF insanity. He has not given us on
that point any figure of speech of his own, but he
Ii mas given us one of your Honor; and think your
.ionor Will see that, useful these figures are in
lhe forum. they are susceptible of misappIication
when coming from the bench. Your Honor in n
particular case spoke of the prisoners mind as he
ing unhinged; that is supposed to describe a some
tna1 @ modih9d state OF insanity did not under
'ther expression which has been used by
my Judge, is meant to express-not that
mere must have been excited passion, not
grlet or both together only,
giving loose to all the passions incident to the hn
nan frame-but unsoundness of mind-insanitv Az
o ITS various forms and shapes as to the extent to
y men 1t may be made to shelter the prisoner from
he consequences OF his act, this is not the time for
ne TO speak OF 1T but as to all the grounds distinct
y taken, and all the suggestions inadyertantlv
nade as to the purpose for which this evidence NAV
'e offered, submit that they all come down, and
no iiust M come down to the test of law, and be re-
ave not heard either of my learned brothers ON
ne other side, certainly have not heard the senior
ounse, at any time say to this Court or iury that
lie prisoner was insane at the time of the com,nis
ion of this act. The state of his mind tbn condi
ION OF his feelings, the Irresistible pressure"-to
luote again from Mr.. Graham-the irresistible i'm
'uise under which he moved forward. to the con-
ummatlon OF the scene-these thinps have baon
a1d but | submit that before this evidence can ha
to be offered in this Court it must be
poh tnG uistlhct oiler to prove that the prisoner
,aS, at the time OF the commission of the act insane
hen 1t comes to that and legal and competent nroof
offered upon that point, we shall be prenared to
meet it. i " W
Mr.. c. held that it was not competent To nrovo
he tact OF insanity in any degree by the aid of this
Vldence; first, from the nature of the instruman+
nd, secondly, that it did not 90 to prove the av;st
nee OF insanity. The instrument purports to he a
'rmal, written, deliberate and particular state
ient, drawn up by the wife, eighteen hours before
he fact OF the homicide, in the presence of tho bus
and, concluding with species of attestinp cIause
e'errlhS 10 TWO witnesses who subscribed the ma {
er as witnesses, and embodying in il the state
lents usually made upon the Interrogation of conn
Il when it is offered to be proven in court of ;ny
ce that confession had been made namely, that T
was made without any fear or hope of reward.
ms soemn deed OF renunciation of marital rights
~ ms rs complete confession by way of answer to
III for dlvorce-ths instrument was offered to ba =
iven in evidence. He objected to it. because If was
le work OF the prisoners wife done in his pre- G
:nce evidently to be inferred, at his instance or
lrectly under his control. Nobody could dispute
ie general rule, that a husband and wife were in
pmpetent to be witnesses; the one either for ow a
!ainst me other, in anv case civil or criminal to
men either OF them is a party. He understood n
+; Ufaham to suppose that The age of progress
AZ among other things modified that rule He
fought the rule of law conceded with his theory /
husband and wife, which he gave us in his open \
e speech, namely: that the wife is as it were the
roperty OF the husband, and that this rule of evi-
nee IS species of regulation of the property of
e husband for his benefit and which he nav r
awe. That was not So The rule was as imper-
I've against her testiping in favor of the husband
against him. The books full of such cases. i
VT. y. mere quoted several authorities.) This was
u an oler to bring the wife into Court az Wit I
IS; but 1T was an offer to bring in her written "
ciarations What was the general rule in res d
ct I" that? 1t was, first, that declarations are an
ierlor sort of evidence to sworn testimony in v
'urt, and only ought to be admitted under special il
fcumstances; and second, that wherever the tes
nnny OF witness is inadmssible, the declarations
that witness are also inadmissble. To this rule
ere were exceptions, as in the of the diving O
claratlons OF wife, to show that her husband has
1raered her. But these were always received a
Tn great caution and only when it was manifest Il
at the witness spoke under the immediate appre K
hsion OF sudden death, and the declarations were t.
teNed under the assumption that the witness was ii
ad and could not be produced on the trial These q
oPosltlohs however, were elementary that some W
oogy was necessary for celebrating them ON this t,
casion. ~
Now if this evidence was not sougbt to ha os,, v "
as going to make up the defence of insanity. al
lat business had it here? Was it not link in NJ
chaln OF evidence by which they proposed to "
Ike out that defence of insanity? If it was not G,
what principle was it claimed to be received in n
ldence? lfit was, he would submit that, upop h
principle ofpnblic policy and the well settled w
nciple OF law, the wife could not be permitted to W
attribute one grain of sand towards the building W
OF any defence for her husband. If there was al
case, or any dicum, to the effect that the wife in
id any degree contribute evidence of this sort D;
1er by her sworn testimony in Court or by her 10
clarations out of Court to make out defence for h,
husband, be should like to see it. No such had M
en offered. d.
hr. Graham desired to submit four authorities Il,
ifng upon this very point. which would be found re
!st CarrIngton and Payne, 621; 9Th East 1873: ar
inner, 402; and Sth Watts, 355 m
Nr Carlisle said that case could be found wi
ere-the husband being on trial-the declara- ST.
ms OF the wife were admitted in evidence. If to
evidence was material to the defence of the ac- NJ
sed, by all the rules it could not be received tn
he Court then took a short recess nv
ir carlisle resumed.-Decsions have not been sa
oiini none OF those cases cited touch the pre- ch
point OF this case. They ale civil cases IRE in
red to the suit of Hewett against the Pronretors NJ
Browns Hotel, in the Circuit Court here a few ne
ms ago. A trunk was lost, and the Court would wi
allow the wife to testify as to its contents. / an
hateVer may be the law elsewhere, that is the tn
here. 'NN' 40 'No D; D.
1r; Magruder said there was an obvious distipc wi
between that case and the present JUDGE w;
rrlck dissented in that case also. m,
dr. Carlisle resumed.-It is also said this was te,
e OF the res gestP this sort of drag-net to dir
e IN what could not be introduced in any other wa
y. lie took up the case in Greenleaf aud com alb