Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-02-04
GUITEAU SENTENCED
TO BE HANGED JUNE SOth.
SOLEMN SCENES IN COURT
EXCITEMENT OF THE PRISONER.
JUDGE Cox's IMPRESSIVE REMARKS ON OVER.
RULING THE MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL AND IN PASSING SENTENCE,

The Criminal Court room was only comfortably
| filled when Judge Cox came in this morning. All
OF the counsel in the Guiteau case except Mr. Por-
ter, were present Gu!teau was brought into court
as soon as 1t was raped to order. Nearly all OF
the jurymen were present.
Mr. Scoville, rising, said since the court ad-
1ourned last evening he had been informed that
Batlff Curtis, who made an affidavit was not pres
ent with the jury when it was alleged that the
newspaper was found. His place was then held by
man named Shryock, whom, Mr.. Scoville had
been Informed, had said he would have to leave
town Ii this matter about the newspaper came
out.
Mr.. Corkhill said this case could not be further
delayed, and after some discussion. Judge Cox
proceeded to give his opinion On the pending
motions.
Judge COx's Decision OverruIing the
Motion for a New Trial.
Judge Cox said this was a motion for new
trial There were but two grounds which it was
necessary for him to consider. The first ground
alleged in substance was that certain newspaper
matter. calculated to prejudice the jury, had been
found in the possession of the jury. Undoubtedly,
II any undue influence had prevailed with the
Jury, 1t would form good ground for new trial
ordinarily, the fact of a newspaper coming to the
attention OF the jury might form sufficient ground
for reversing a verdict.
The legal intendment is in favor OF the verdict,
ana no verdict ought to be set aside, especially
after 1t had been reached after long and careful
TRIAL, without very clear and satisfactory reason
There was, he said, some remarks applicable to
thlS case in the People agt. Gathney, 1st Sheldon
New York. Judge Cox read this decision, holding
@ mat a new trial should not be granted for every
slight 1rregularity, where 1t was not held that the
verdict had been influenced by such irregularity.
AS TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SNYDER
The first testimony relied upon in support of this
motion, was the affidavit OF Snyder. 1t was In
the power Judge Cox said, of anybody to place
newspaper in the rooms OF the absent jurors He
did not mean to express any opinion as to
snyder's completely in anything of the kind II
was obvious that a prisoner could alw ays
ursr tasea tns S0e5 a tSs Of qee
W.. Guiteau that certain signatures were in
the handwriting OF certain persons. 1t was some
what surprising at first to lind the averment that
the afhant tJohn w. Guiteau) was acquainted
with the handwriting of these Jurors. The infer
ence was that such Acquaintance was required by
obtaining the autographs Of these jurors. 1t may
making the affidavit. and itwaS matter OF grave
doubt If a knowledge acquired that way would
qualify one to testify as TO handwriting.
He quoted authorities to the effect that knOwl-
edge acquired for the express purpose OF giving an
opinion was Incompetent On these grounds he
SAID 1t was subject Of considerable doubt
whether the knowledge OF Mr. Guiteau was COM
petent, and lt Was obvious that the knowledge was
acquired with a certain bias. Therefore he
potency or doubtful weight
THE ALLEGED D JURORS SIGNATURES
He had not given careful criticism to the sigma
lures, but had noticed that the letter II in Mr.
Brigbts name was written In two distinct ways
ana the name OF Heinne was spelled two ways,
and both We're wrong Mr.. Guiteau's affidavit
was opposed by those OF the four whose names
appeared Oh the paper, while the unanimous tes-
timony OF all the Jurors and bailiTs Was tnat
tnere was no newspaper In the jury room. Still he
could conceive that these Jurors were honestly mis-
taken; that this half sheet OF newspaper a month
Old, was lying in the baiiliS' roon though it was
very hard to believe such TO be tie fact Ia the face
OF their sworn statements Suppose such state
OF things Gid exist. The only effect would be to
raise suspicion or inference that the contents OF
the paper were brought to the attention the Jury
rlat. Thas was an inference that could be repelIed
Ihere was no conflict OF testimony to the effect
that the paper had not been read Even ii it were
tale thIt this paper was in the room of this bail
1f, and also true that it not read by the Jurors
It's presence there ought not to have any effect on
the jury.
1t was the unanimous testimony OF all of them
Vhat Chey had not reno a newspaper While there
NO REASON TO SUSPECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE
JURORS.
There was, therefore, no room for mistrusting
lie jury and he had not the slightest reason for
sllspecting the Integrity OF. the jurors He could
not see that anything was presented that threw a
suspicion upon the conduct OF the jury.
RULING AGAINST THE PROPOSED COMMISSION TO TAKE
TESTIMONY.
In reference to the proposal to appoint a COM
mission to take testimony, he said that would be
contrary TO the practice OF common law courts
Such questions were always tried by affidavit, and
in summary manner. Ii he felt that he had dis
eretiOn In the matter, he doubted whether there
was any suggestion under oath that would form
grounds; for the exercise Of such power. The only
suggestion was that there were witnesses who
might be found. In fact, it amounted to asking
the court 10 send out rowing or fishing cOmmis-
sion. lie did not think, Ii he had the power there
was anything to justify him in sending out such a
commission The statement Jnat outside parties
on
information and belief. Such statement to have
weight should be made on personal knowledge
Another suggestion was that the jurors and others
should oe crosS-exaniDed. He had never heard
yet OF juror being compelled TO testify as to al
thing that called for an inquisiton into the con
duct OF the jury.
AS TO THE ALLEGED NEW EVIDENCE
Another ground alleged was the discovery OF
new evidence The evidence In question was that
of two individuals, who would testify to supposed
insane conduct OF the prisoner In Lafayette square
The defence had already introduced evidence as to
the appearance, manner and conduct of the pris-
oner, covering the period from March down to the
assasslnation: The evidence now proposed to be
onered was OF The same character, and was essen
TALLY cumulative evidence. The question arose as
to whether such evidence would have changed the
this evidence was so slight and inconcluslve that
1t would have had no Influence upon the verdict.
In IN ADDITION to that, Bragdon's affidavit showed
that Mr. Scoville would be disappointed in refer
ence to this testimony Another averment was
that the defendant expected to prove utterances
by one OF the expert witnesses, made since the
trial, In contradiction of his testimony. 1t was a
rule that newly-diSe Overed evidence tending to
impeach a witness did not furnish ground for
granting new trial
COMPELLED TO OvERRULR THE NOTION FOR A NEW
TRIAL.
The Judge. in conclusion, saiGhe had considered,
he thought, all the grounds, and he was compelled
to overrule the motion for new trial
The district attorney rising, said: Your honor,
1t becomes my duty now to move"
Mr. ScOville's Desire.
some moment, please said MT. Scoville, rising
Mr. Scoville said he desired to file the additional
motion he had mentioned yesterday, SO as to have
the record show it. He understood that it was
overruled He would like before the court passes
Judgment to rule upon his motion yesterday to ex-
pnnse certain portions O. tine afiidayits.
Judge Cox said he had already ruled that so
much OF Mr. Wards affidavit that did not go to
lmpeach Dis credbility should be suppressed. He
ala not think the ayermfnts made by the jurors
were inlpertinent
MIR. ScOyilsc's Motion fn Arres. OF Ju1g-
mcnt OyerTszIed.
Mr. Seovilie then filed molten In arrest OF ju lg-
ment, handing the paper to the clerk, which the
court entered as overTuled.