The Evening critic., 1882-04-25
SCOVILLE,S LETTER
To the Court i'm Bauc Announcing
His Withdrawal From the Guiteau
Casc-EuIl Text of the Document.

To the Court i'm Bauc Announcing
His Withdrawal From the Guiteau
Casc-EulI Text of the Document.
THE CRITIC yesterday published the open
ing and closing portions of Mr.. scovillos let.
ter TO the Judges OF the. Supreme Court OF tho
District OF Columbia announcing his with
drawal from the Guiteau case. Judge Cart
ter, It will be remembered, declined to give
out the other portions Of the letter because it
contained arguments addressed to the case
which should properly come out in the hear
ing. That was the reason It was not given to
the public or paraded In the newspapers. THE
CRITIC is, however, now able to give the text
of the letter, including the argument
TO ne HonordJ!e ne justices Of he Saprene
Court QT The. District OF Columbia, Sttttng In
General Itfm Of The dpru Term, 1882.
desire, II Your Honors please, to withdraw
my appearance as counsel for defendant, In
case of the United States VS.. Charles ]. Gull
teau. In so doing, upon the eve Of the argu-
ment of the appeal, 1t is proper that show
to the Court the grounds OF such action.
With my conviction as to the mental infrm-
tiles OF the prisoner, and his consequent irre-
sponsiblility, 1have endured, and would suffer
yet longer, his ingratitude and abuse, were
able to give further time and services to his
defense. The imperative cause OF withdrawal
is my inability, without absolute ruin to my
family and myself, to give further time to this
cause, away from home.
1t Is some satisfaction, however, in leaving
the case at this STAGE to know that the record is
NNulpltlt, anu llluI tne Appellate Court can re-
view tho proceedings and rulings Of the court
below, with absolute certainty as TO what trans
pired. trust Your Honors will excuse few
crude suggestions, without citation of authori-
ties, that occur TO my mind, upon the errors
assigned, In taking leave OF tho case, and
which are offered by me rather as dnicus curig
than as an advocate. believe, also, that the
learned counsel for the prosecution will not
object to the slight lrregularity of thus pre-
senting TO the court out OF order perhaps,
some views of the case, If thereby they will
hear the last OF me.
Crude Suggestions Upon the Errors
Assigned.
First-The learned judge who presided at
the trial, permitted other ofrenscs and mis-
which he was indicted, to be proved against
him, under the Issue or insanity; the ground
therefore, as stated by the District Attorney
(page 901 Of the record) being, to show ''that
what the defense called insanity, is nothing
more than devilish depravity." And again on
page $50 he says, 81 want TO show the kind of
sociate counsel, the learned, deliberate, and
experienced Judge Porter, ''to determine
whether he was a rational rogue, or whether
he was a rogue and Irresponsible" page
$40 of record.) The practice of thus proving
other offenses was justified by the Court, as
shown at bottom of page 81 of the bill of ex-
raised by tho second, third, fourth, fifth,
sixth, eighth and seventeenth exceptions.
The serious nature of the error Will appear
when the proofs are followed out In detail
Second-In admitting the testimony OF Mrs
Dunmire, the divorced wife OF the prisoner, as
TO her conclusion upon the question Of his
tldential associations of married life, as shown
by tho eleventh exception.
Third-1 cannot but regard the twentieth,
tions to the testimony of medical ex-
perts as well taken, on the ground that
the opinions thus given by them trenched
witnesses were therein permitted to give their
opinions as to the degree of credit to be given
to other witnesses and as to the weight of evil
dence.
What the Defendant Was En-
Fourth-Without doubt the defendant was
entitled TO have several of the Instructions
drawn on his behalf given to the jury, as
asked; and especially 80, since the legal prin-
ciples therein contained were not clearly and
positively announced in the instructions given
by the Court. Thus, of the third instruction
asked, wherein 1t is stated that "insanity
constitutes q defense, If the act would not
have been done by the accused but for the
INSANITY" Also, in the thirteenth instruction
the Court was asked to direct the jury to ind
the accused not guilty upon such of the counts
In the Indictment as alleged the death of the
President to have occurred In the District of
Columbia; which request was denied, The
jury, by their verdict, found the defendant
"guilty as indicted" One ground urged for
setting aside the verdict was by reason of its
uncertainty in this respect.
Fifth-In the charge of the learned Judge to
the jury, the idea was prominently held out
that, IL the prisoner knew what he was doing,
and that IL was wrong, then he was resp onsi-
BILE. This doctrine was stated SO prominently
and so often, both by counsel for the prosecu-
tion and by the court, and the qualifications
were so kept in the background, that there can
be no doubt the jury took 1t as complete
twelfth, thirteenth, twenty third, twenty,
fourth, twenty-fifth, thirty-fourth, thirty fifth
and thtrty-sixth exceptions to the charge.)
This was error, when not qualified by the
further propositions that, If the prisoner so
looked upon the act that, in his view, IL was
right or If he was impeled by an impulse he
he would not be responsible.
Other Errors.
Sixth-There can be no doubt, 1 think, that
the Court erred In charging the Jury that an
insane delusion must be one which q person
had not reasoned himself into; for the evil
| dence shows, and observation teaches, that
such delusions are often the result of pro-
cess of reasoning, though faulty.
Seventh-The Court assumed to state to the
| jury the evidence upon material points, and
| said II was all the evidence on those points,
which was an error, as the record will show.
Inc Judges charge, the part excepted to
| directed the jury, substantially, that they
himse sn , ve eyidence % 1i 'he detendant
only persons TO determine the weight OF evil
dence. and II was their province to thus pass
| upon the testimony OF the defendant himself
| the same as upon that of any other witness.
Ninth-The objection made to that portion
| OF the charge shown in the thirtleth exception,
| seems 10 be well taken. Therein the Court sug
| gests one form OF manifestation OF an insane
| delusion as to inspiration, which might occur
| the evidence nowhere showing that such q de
| lusion ever existed in the mind OF any person
| This was supplemented by the remark of the
| Court TO the Jury, "rhe question for you to con
| presents anything analogous to this" There
| is not necessarily, any analogy between In
sane delusion. They are produced by no rule
| and are amonnble TO no law.
| Tenth-lt is believed that the defendant was
| entitled TO have Court charge the Jury as show
In the forty-first exception, namely, that the
| opinions OF experts upon the question of SAINT,
| OF the prisoner on the I'd of July, 1881, mus
| rest wholly upon assumed fact stated In by
| pothetical questions, and which assumed fact,
| the Jury must believe to be true, TO entitle the
| testimony to credence.
| Eleventh-It Is also thought that the Cour
erred in refusing to charge the jury as asked
in the forty-second exception, namely, that
the main fact was as 10 the sanity OF the pris
oner on the I'd of July, 1881, and that tn,
only evidence Of such fact FOR the Jury to con
slider was the testimony or the prisoner him
self, his words and acts at the time and tn,
| testimony OF experts In answer TO hypotheti
cal questions. II is submitted with all defer
ence that the foregoing is a correct legal prop
| osltion under The evidence in this case, an,
should have been so given TO the jury.
| IWehth-AnOther error which cannot be
| corrected by the Court In Banc, and for whlcl
| new trial must be awarded, consists In fix
ing the day of the execution OF tho sentenc
| within The term OF the court next after 1ude
| ment was pronounced. The statute is, I'm sui
| stance, that In n capital case, uDon reuuest q