Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1859-05-10
The Suppressed Evidence in abe sIeIkIes

The 8uPPreSB0u ENlosoGe IA tAe SIeAISS
Case.
It will be remembered that the District At
torney and the lawyers of Mr.. Sickles held
consultation with Judge Crawford, in allow
tone, about certain testimony, and that upon its
being declared inadmissable, the case of the
United States was closed. The Baltimore E1-
change thus states the circumstances, and the
nature of the suppressed testimony:
The evidence was not rendered publicly, in
consequence of the following proposition made
to Messrs Carlisle and Ould by the Hon. Rev
erdy johnson:
"Ifyon and the District Attorney still think
it proper to offer the evidence we talked OF,
permit me to suggest this
THAT you put the offer in writing, show 1t
to any one OF the counsel for the defense, and
that the Attorney and that counsel take it to
the Judge, and take his opinion as TO its legall-
ty, and II he decides against its validity, that
no public offer be made or the fact mahe known
during the trial.
GAS the United States cannot, suppose, take
an exception, they would lose no right by this
course"
This proposal, together with the three follow.
ing statements, prepared by the prosecution,
were handed to the court, which decided that
the proof rendered was inadmissable
1--WE now offer evidence, the particulars OF
which We will state, ifrequircd, touching the
prisoners marital relations at and Immediately
preceding the homicide, and extending back TO
period antecedent to the alleged adultery pc
tween the deceased and the prisoners wife, for
the purpose of showing that the prisoner set no
value upon his wifes affections, and attached
no sanctity to the marriage relation; and this Is
offered to rebut the defense of insanity, caused
by the alleged adultery of his wife.
"Ehat the accused reached Barnum's Hotel,
in the city of Baltimore, on the evening otthe
9th of January last, where and when he enga'
gcd room; that he left said hotel at or about
o'clock on the following Sunday morning,
and proceeded to the Philadelphia depot, and
was at said depot on the arrival of the PhllAdel'
phia train of cars; that then and there he met
woman, other than his wife, whose name, un-
| less insisted on by the defense, shall not be
| divulged, whom he carried to said hotel and
kept there until Monday morning, and with
whom then and there he had adulte' Gus inter
course; and further, that at different times dn.
ring his married life the accused committed
other acts Of adultery.
1.-The court having already permitted the
defense to offer evidence of the communication
to the accused of certain alleged acts of adul'
terry between the deceased and Mrs. Sickles, on
the ground that such evidence might tend to
prove the insanity of the accused, the testimony
now proposed to be offered. is properly rebut'
ting evidence. Ia
"Frst-Becausc its tendency, if not its ne
ceSsa-y effect, is to exclude any such conclusion
as has been insisted on by the defense.
observation-disclosures such evidence, though
consistent with state of anger or revenge upon
the part of the accused, is inconsistent with a
state of insanity.
"Or, in other words, that such evidence tends
to rebut any presumption of insanity arising
| from the nature of the communications made to
the accused, relative to the adulterous inter.
course between his wife and the deceased"
| 1t is understood, that if this testimony had
been admitted, it would have been followed up
| by other evidence from New York, bearing
upon the same points, and showing the utterly
abandoned and dissolute life and habits OF
Sickles.
We also learn that tho aspect of the case
might have been still further affected had the
characters of some of the witnesses for the
defense been made known to the Jury-that of
one Of them in particular, ian intimate friend
of Mr.. Sickles,) being VIGOROUSLY worse than
disreputabe. The record of his conviction and
sentence to the penitentiary for publishing
obscene and disgusting papers, was, we believe,
in possession of the counsel for the prosecu-
ton.
We give the above matter simply because it
is not less than NIL that has gone before it, part
of this now famous case.
1t is due to the proprietors of Barnum's Ilo-
tel to say that upon the discovery of the fact
alleged to have transpired at that establishment,
proper measures had been taken to put stop to
further proceedings OF tire sort, and that had
another attempt been made it would have been
prevented, and the parties dismissed the house.