The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-10

Into his s0Ssn Cs HanGn was nsOed TO wc
wore escaped ] the lip. Of tSs prisoner concerning
this murder; We can only imagine how Dunn re-
csres, clare 81 fearing that he was ssspected Began TO
counsel with his fellow prisoner how to protect hlp
self, and thus By an absolutely volunt,ry act di.
person in custody cannot make
trapped into making it. That the first proposition
cannot be legally maintained 10 evident for the
Supreme Court has decided the question. In Com
monweath VS. Mosler, Barr. 266 the point arose
and was expressly adjudcated when the objection
custody; in Howser VS.. the Commonwealth, p.
+. s., sS2, the Court decided that the conversa-
ions Of prisoners among themselves about "ponts'
wealth was entitled 80 say before the jury" and
again, saws the Court "the crediblty OF this wit
American and English decisions might be cited to
the same point, for In fact, we can not remember,
the so1ndpess of this prnc,pe Vas m' the prsoneS
entrapped into making this confession?
Apart from the facts as developed in this case, to
which we shall hereafter refer, 1t is principle, set
ted over and over again, ihas though it is neces-
sary TO the admissbility OF confession,
made that iq, without the appliances Of hope
or fear from persons having authority, yet t will
tion practlsed on the prisoner or false representa-
ton made to him for that purpose, provided there is
no reason to suppose that the inducement held out
was calculated to produce an untrue confession,
which is the main point to be considered" Green
leaf, section 22e and numerous cases cited by him.
Bennett and Heard, In the Leading Grim. Ca, ed.
Of 1862 vol 2d, p $40, ct seq, in learned and
haustive note review the numerous cases I'm which
confessions have been received. Alb sec. fv the pro-
position is stated that ''a confession is admissible
although 1t is ELECTED in answer to question which
assumes the prisoners guilt, or is obtained by ard
ce and deception Case after case is cited to sustain
the legal proposition, and but one holds another
doctrine, land that was decided it s said, without
reference to the adjudged cases.
In ReeuB hep., D. l4Z, clteu Dy the prisoners
counsel, the aduissbtty OF confe ssion 'ree from
any threat Of severity or promise Of favor even the
Henderson vs.. Adams ct al, Gushing, 61O; State
vs. Walker, "a Verm. Rep, 3O2; State vs.. York 81
counsel, all maintain the same doctrine. The
courts have, acting upon the principle that there
was no reason to suppose that an nducement held
out was calculated to produce an untrue confession,
which is the test, admitted confessions not
induced by spiritual exhortations, or by promise
OF secrecy, confirmed by m oath, or by promise OF
Criminal charge under investigator. When ali this
is remembered what shall or can be said against the
act of this court? When it declared this confession
legally competent with full proof not only that
hope was held out, threat made, or inducement Of
fered, but that the prisoner even if placed by the
'e' for " purpose, SH pSG held his Dn peacs Ge5 for
two weeks and then voluntarily of his own free
will made this confession. To have rejected it
would have been to have declared that the voice OF
nature should be silenced when either a tortured
conscience sought relief In words, or depraved
with bad man to discover in what way diaboli-
cal crime should forever go unwhpt of justice.
Sd. v g notice the seventh reason assigned and
which relates to the admission Of David Mcvey, as
witness, simply to say that 1t was not pressed at
the argument and could not be successfully.
witness for the prisoner had testified that she
saw man carrying child a'ong and across a GER
m snT aed WAS hV tSe men
prove that he did not see any such mau and child,
although he was with the prisoners witness at the
time she testified she saw the child and man. Clearly
this evidence was properly admitted, and the Court
did not then fall into error.
4th. The first three reasons assigned upon the
record in support Of this motion may be considered
together they assert that the verdict ought not to
stand, because it was a., against the law tue weight
reasons why we should agree with the remarks OF
the learned Judge who decided Vaughn ct al. VS..
the evidence OF confess ions at best is the weakest
and least to be relied upon OF any known in law to
fesson IN this case case was was ' Of an eXtraord ext @
| nary nature and OF vital Importance
ton, extending over many hours, gone over the
| whole OF the material evidence ia this cause. In
This labor the judges who tried the cause have been
most materially assisted by our learned colleagues
the President OF the Court, Judge Allison, and oul
| brother Judge Paxson. Our brother Finletter wa;
| not then member OF the Court. Step by step have
we looked at each item of corroboration OF the con
| fession TO be found in the commonwealth testi
mony, having determined that without such corro
boration the evidence OF Dunn was not entitled t,
weight. In addition TO this we have looked into the
! alleged contradiction between the testimony O
Caroline Dinglacker, before the Coroner, and Ii
Court andany corroboration OF her testimony here
| by other Witnesses, and we have endeavored t,
satisfy ourselves or the real strength of the com
| monwealth's case from all the evidence produced
| by the District-Attorney.
| With equal care have we examined the testlmon,
upon each point Of defense produced by the prisoner
and we have been very careful TO look into the evi
dence upon the question OF time, with special refer
| ence TO the precise period when Hanlon went idt
| his house. We have remembered that in the charg
of the court to the jury explanations most explicit
| the nature OF confessions were given; that, TO ties
its TRUTH the jury instructed not to be satsne
with the confession until each fact intended cor
roborative proof should be established by competen
| evidence and should be consistent with every othe
such fact proved and with the main fact to be proved
to wit the truth of the confession. We know that tn
testimony IN the causewas mpartally laid before tn
| jury, and that throughout the trial every doubt
full question was solved in favor OF the prisoner
while to the charge Of the Court no exception Wa
After such an examination of all that took plac
throughout the trial. we are unanimously constra le
to say that the Court did not err in point OF law
| that We are satisfied with the verdict
This motion is therefore overruled.
Hanlon's speech.
Mr.. Sheppard took the Indictment In mis- hand an
addressed the Court, reetting the finding OF the bill
the trial and verdict the motion for new trial, an
the opinion upon IT, and then said, sit now devolve
upon me-, as representing the Commonwealth I
OF pennsylvania upon the verdict OF guilty OF murdt
By the direction OF the Court, Mr.. Cation, til
clerk, said to the prisoner:-"John Hanlon have yo
anything TO say why sentence OF death should NO
be pronounced upon you ?"
Hanlon, rising and nourishing his hand in dra
matte manner, said FL have, and with the priv
A Bible being passed him 10y Mr.. Brewster, Hal
Ion proceeded :-"By this book will now introdue
to your lordships what have to say and show 20
what has been done and prove how my life has bee
George smith! How did he aud Howard Perkll
treat me! How was beset by these men, who trie
TO draw me into trap On the 9th OF Janual
George Smith came into my cell, and what did
| | | | a