Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-03-25
L4UTENSCRLAGER.
His Application for New Trial Denied
The Decision In Full.

His Application for a New Trial Denied
The Decision In Full
The Lautenschlager case came up in the
district court yesterday for decision on the
motion for new trial. The argument was
heard Wednesday. as reported in Thursdays
GLOBE, before the whole bench, Judges
Wilkin, Brill and Simons.
THE DECISION
was delivered by Judge Wilkin, the other
judges concurring, as follows:
In the case of the State against Lautenschla-
ger the court have deiberated upon the motion
for new trial and have came to the conclusion
which l shall briefly announce. 1t is not my
intention to deliver any elaborate opinion, the
the case although an important one is not of a
character to require such.
Lautenschlager was convicted at the March
term of this court, 1875, and is now undergo
ing the sentence in the State prison at Still
water. Sometime after his conviction a
motion was made for a new trial upon the
ground of newly discovered evidence. That mo-
ton was heard by the judges before whom the
defendant was tried. Upon the application
certain affdavits were produced in connection
with the testimony which was taken upon the
trial. The court after elaboration denied the
motion. The defendant claims to have sub
sequently discovered another witness who can
therefore makes a second motion for a new
trial. Upon this motion he produces the atfi-
davit of the witness referred to. together with
the affidavits that were read u con the former
motion, and also what purports to be the testl-
mony taken upon the trial.
SO far as the affidavits are concerned which
were read upon the former application, they
have already been considered and acted upon
by the court. The court have passed upon the
question of their application, and it therefore
Nl~nol of1
ants case by the new affidavit presented here
is so strengthened as to justify the court in
granting him new trial.
1t is now more than four years since this de-
PENDANT convicted. We are asked after
Ghis length of time to bring him from the
State prison after he has had full, fair and
impartial trial, and to put him again
upon his trial before jury. Under these cir
cumstances it is certainly proper that there
should be at least something to show the credi-
biEty of the witness whose testimony is relied
upon IN the obtaining of a new trial; some
thing by way of confederation, if it is posi-
BILE, of the statements which he makes. Now,
we are to look at this thing as If this man were
making the same statements before the jury
under the same circumstances which are con-
tanned in this affidavit. The rule is we'll I'M
derstood that in order to justify a new trial
tie evidence must be material and of such a
character to raise the inference that if it had
been produced upon the trial it might have
changed the result In this affidavit the wit
ness testifes that on the LIST of November,
1874, he heard conversation between Lick
and his wife, which he undertakes to detail in
the precise words. He seems to have been
passing along, a stranger in town, and casually
to have heard these words, and they were
never called to his attention again,
TO his remembrance, as he states, until he dis
covered in 1877 an old newspaper giving an
account of the Lick trial. He states that he
doesn't know either Lick Lautenschlager.
He undertakes to locate the residence of both
without stating how he is enabled to do so.
He undertakes after this length of time to fix
the exact position in which he stood opposite
Lautenschlager's house when he heard this.
He undertakes to give the exact words. It APP
pears, moreover, that he has been a wanderer.
Furthermore, there is nothing to corroborate
any of the statements that he has made. There
is nothing to corroborate his statement that he
was here ut that time in st. Paul. nothing to
corrohorate his statement Of his having men-
toned these matters to the deputy warden of
the State prison; nothing to corroborate his
statement that he had business with
the son of the proprietor of the United States
hotel. In addition to that it is conceded fact
that he himself has been in the State prison.
1t appears to us under these circumstances that
there is not enough in this affidavit to bring
the case of the defendant within the rule in
reference to the granting of new trials for new
ly discovered evidence. We think upon this
statement that must consider it in that
light, and have therefore felt 1t our duty to
deny the motion.
Thus again Lautenschlager is denied new
trial; and the probability that his life SEN
tence for the murder of Mrs. Lick will be
spun out during his mortal existence.