The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-05-25
The Jersey City Murder Trial.

The Jersey City Murder Trial.
At the close OF the testimony in the case
| OF COVERT BENNETT and JENNIE SMITH, who
have been on trial in Jersey City during the
past two weeks, charged with the murder
Of RICHARD ii. SMITH, the husband OF
| JENNIE, there was general expectation that
the prisoners would escape conviction on
the ground that, though the probabilities
were strongly in favor Of their guilt, yet
there existed n reasonable doubt, to the
benefit Of which they were entitled.
We do not think the expectation of their
| acquittal was at all strengthened, however
| by the arguments OF the learned counsel for
the defence. There was n seeming lack Of
confidence, on the part Of these distin-
| guished gentlemen, In the cause OF their
clients, which pcrvaded their addresses to
the jury. They made little impression
toward satisfying the Indifferent mind OF
the innocence OF the prisoners.
Then came the forcible. scholarly closing
argument for the State by Attorncy-G General
STocKToN-a gentleman who has discharged
the high and often semi judicial duties OF
| his office at once with a zeal and ability and
a spirit OF fairness which have already won
for him an envioble distinction.
This was followed by the charge Of Judge
KNAPP TO the jury, which, though pro-
nounced entirely fair, was so strongly
against the prisoners as to leave little hope
for them.
After three hours OF elaboration the jury
returned into court with n verdict OF guilty
OF murder in the first degree against both
the prisoners.
A new trial may possibly be obtained.
Evidence was offered tending TO show a
more bitter hatred toward the murdered
| man by one OF his own brothers than was
| entertained for him by either OF the prison
ers. This was excluded by the Court, with
| the remark that the case OF that brother
| could not then be tried. That was very true;
but we think the evidence was wrongly ex-
| cludcd, because IL was requisite 10 the fair
and full defence OF the accused. 1t certainly
went a great way toward their conviction to
| show that thoy had an unlawful love for each
| othor and an aversion TO the murdered man.
| IL was this evidence that established a mo-
| tive ON their part to commit the murder,
| This undoubtedly had great weight with the
| jury In producing their conviction. Such
| proof OF n strong motive on their part was
| left 20 produce its fun and telling effect
against them in the absence of all evidence
that another person had an equal or a
| stronger motive. Its effect would have been
diminished by evidence of an equally pow
| erful motive-the existence Of more in
tense hatred-on the part Of another person
who might conveniently have committed
the murder. OF course the other per-
| son could not have been convicted
| on this trial; but evidence that he probably
| committed the murder would have tended to
acquit the accused. We do not assume that
this could have been proved; but such evil
dence was offered, and, strictly we hold that
it should have been admitted.
The course OF the Court in allowing the
jury to dispense, in order that the jurors
might attend divine service the Sunday that
| interviewed in the trial, was, in our judg-
mcnt, OF doubtful proprcty; although II
may be held TO have been strictly legal The
accused, most especially in trial for
life, have n right to an unbiased jury
The law takes every precaution TO secure
such jury. trial cannot be begun
with one man on the jury known TO be
prejudiced by external influences. Now
what difference does IL make whether the
influence. derived from some source other
than the legal evidence In the case,
be received before the trial Is begun or
while the trial is progressing We highly
approve Of people going to church. At the
same time there Is hardly any place where
juror is more likely to hear something to
influence his mind during the trial of n cap
ital case II tho case has attracted great
attention popular preachers are very apt TO
point their remarks with some reference
to it. In point OF fact, one Of our
well-known preachers on the very
Sunday in question delivered an elaborate
and carefully prepared discourse on the
treatment OF the criminal classes. And
orthodox clergymen pretty generally go for
hanging
Formerly jurles were not allowed TO adj
journ at ALL even to eat a meal or TO sleep,
after a capital case had been given in charge
to them, until they had agreed on their
verdict; and it was only after full discussion,
and against grave doubts, that this rule
was first broken in upon. The old custom
was just about as much too strict as the
practice we now condemn Is too lax.
At the same time we do not think il likely
that the result would have been different II
the rejected evidence had been admitted,
and the jury had not been allowed to sepa-
rate The circumstantial evidence was
stfOhB against llo parties, ana inc lelIef OF
BENNETT to Mrs, SNITH-though obtained
by discreditablo means-hardly admitted of
an explanation reconciablo with his in
nocence. His attempt to prove an alibi was
a failure; and his confessions on tho wit
noss-stand, although he denied his guilt of
the murder, were terribly damaging both TO
himself and to Mrs. SMITH.
The general remark is that II it had not
been for the letters and the messages sent
by the prisoners in jail they could never
} have been convicted. While this may be
true, 1t is important TO go back a step
further, and reflect that II the murder had
never been committed, all tho letters and
: messages in the world could not have con-
vlcted them.
} Assuming the verdict TO be correct and