The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-01-30
How the Jury Stood.

When the jury went out Friday morning it
took a vote on the question of conspiracy. It
stood 10 to 2 but in short time the two came
over, and this being settled the questions as to
the guilt of Coy. Bernhamer and Matter were
taken up that relating to the latter being the
first considered One time the vote was equally
divided. aud remained so for some time. until
those favoring acquittal were reinforced by two
or three others. Dropping Matter tie jurors
took up Coys case on FRIDAY evening anc
Several ballots taken with
the same result until yesterday morning. Coy
was dropped and opinions were tested on Bern
hamer, who started out with eight to convict and
four to acquit. After while those who eeiieved
him guilty had one of the four to come over to
them. The balioting did not vary from this
until In the afternoon. when a change occurred.
+ Juror Gardener says it came about through a
comparison and to avoid staying over night.
The last act of the jury before announcing that
it had agreed upon verdict was to enter into
agreement that nothing should be said about
the secrets of the jury room. The Democratic
members were especially anxious that nothing
should be said about how they voted.
Those who talked secured pledges from
the reporters that their names should not
be used. wv must have baloted one hundred
times" said one of tho jurors. land we gradual
ly came together for conviction. The first bal
lot stood for conviction of all the defendants
and two for acquittai. There was practically
ing. at 4 o'clock, whom those favoring
conviction of all the defendants offered to
vote LOT the aCQuittdl OF m8ttler IL tuoSo WHO
were standing out for acquittal of all would vote
for the conviction of Gov and Bernhamer.
Those who had ali along opposed the conviction
Of Tor time horn to h ,Ss ' f
two hours they agreed to the proposition. and
the result was the unanimous vote for convic-
ton. 1t was in one sense a compromise verdict.
Gardener, of Bremen, Marshal county, was the
most difficult to bring over for conviction.
Were the Democrats who voted for convic-
ton from the beginning anxious to see the three
convicted"
They we're, and if it had not been for them I
doubt if those favoring acquittal could have
been induced to vote for conviction. The Demo-
Gratis who favored conviction from the
beginning were the most earnest men
the jury, and from the beginning
they argued that politics should not enter into
quittal felr that the trial for the purpose OF
making political capital for the Republicans
and based all their argument on that assertion
rather than the evidence we heard"
Another said that the attempt of the defense
to give the political aspect had much
to do with conviction as any other one thing.
ter show for acauittal." said he. 'f so much pol
itics had not been introduced in the case. All
the Democratic jurors, who voted for conviction
from the beginning, felt that the introduction of
politics was for the purpose of attracting their
attention from the crime committed"
The jurors wasted time while locked in
their room. They slept little or mono Friday
night they say, but oallotsd twice hour
during the entire night In all nearly one hun
dred ballots We're taken, although the exact
number is not known, as no record was kept
even to how the vote stood on all the ballots
The defendants attorneys claim that the tele-
gram to Messick, stating that his mother
dead, was used to bring two Democrats,
Gardener and Peters, who held out to the
last, Bunger having left them before
on the same account. Some of the
jurors say that the Judges charge
had cleared away all their doubts. although
Mr.. Kern's speech had made strong impression
some OF the Democrats.
The jurors who could go homo on the late
trains did So but several of them had to remain
until this morning.