Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1880-08-05
JUDGE JULES DECISION IN THE scHRo-
DER CASE.

The decision of Judge Yuie in the
Schroeder case, which we published IN full
Yesterday, must be regarded as an unu-
sually lucid and cogent argument. The
question to be decided by the Court was
whether the defendant should be admitted
to bail under the charge preferred against
him. The law provides that defendants
can only be admitted TO bail in such cases
when the evidence Of guilt is not strong,
nor the presumption great The Judge
proceeds to analyze the case very delber-
ately, promising that the question OF the
puilt or innocence of the defendant resolves
itself into these considerations a. Did
the defendant kill DR.. Lefevre? o. Was
the killing of DIR. Lefevre done in self
defense? ~ Was the defendant in that
sane condition of mind at the time the
fatal shot was fired that the law will hold
him responsible for his acts? He then
examines each of these propositions, and
concludes by answering them all affirma-
lively. basing his deductions upon the
evidence, and supporting them by numer-
Gus citations from the authorities. The
theory of the defense that the defendant
was non compos mentis the Court finds it.
self compelled to reject, the testimony
showing an intelligent coordination
of means to ends in his conduct
incompatible with the hypothesis of
insanity. The Judge observes with
truth that the defense of insanity
has been much strained and abused, y
and of this the criminal records of the
last twenty years afford only too strong
confirmation. 1t not infrequently occurs
that counsel, in their efforts to create as
many loopholes of escape for their clients
as possible, embarrass their cause by urg-
ing at the same time arguments which are
mutually destructive. In the present
case this error appears to have been COM
mitted, it having been claimed, first, that
the defendant was not responsible for his
homicidal act, because insane, and second,
that he was justified in killing DR.. Lefevre
because the latter had wronged him. The
Court punctures this second plea very
effectually by pointing out, first, that the
law recognizes no such justification for
homicide as is here set up; and second.
that no sufficient proof has been adduced
of the commission of any such wrong by
DR.. Lefevre. On this the Court says
"The killing being admitted, it is claimed
"that there was such provocation
Offered and such wrong suffered by the
defendant as to warrant the defendant
sin taking human life to avenge
"the wrong. This argument was urged
with such force that l am compelled to
"notice it. The only evideRce before me
''tending to show that The deceased had
wronged the defendant, is that given BY the
"detendant." OF course the Court cannot
tell what a jury might think of such evil
dence, but it is very certain that Judge
who is lawyer can only regard it as
utterly inconclusive. 1t is possible, per-
haps probable, that in trial before jury
other evidence may be adduced in support
OF the position of the defendant, but the
examining magistrate had only to deal
with the testimony produced before him.
self, and that testimony has not estab-
lished even strong presumption of the
guilt of DR.. Lefevre The observations of
the Court on the plea of justification are
particularly opportune, for the disposition
of counsel to take for granted the exist
ance of higher law" in these cases
assuredlY needs to be checked.