The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-12-29
TRIAL REVIEWED.
Ii Has Been a Long and Bitterly Con-
tested One.

Viewed from a strictly legal standpoint
the prosecution was an excellent one. 1t
was arrayed against the mighty factor. pub
lie opinion, which is almost Irresistible and
which proved TO be so in this case. This
public opinion gathered around the defend
ant the more strongly because she was
woman, and the prosecution realized that
they had this to overcome. Then they had
able counsel with which to cope. They also
realized this. The work of the counsel for
the State was arduous and tedious There
were hundreds of incidents insignificant in
themselves. which had TO be brought before
the jury in their proper sequence to be of
any avail, and this was small task.
The defense in the case was able and mas
terly. Few persons, not attorneys realize the
almost lmitless amount of arduous work
that devolves upon the attorneys in such
a case William Brown and Henry Spaan,
who SO ably defended the poor girl against
her accusers. realized the extent of their
task, and with a firm conviction in their
own minds of their clients innocence, set
about earnestly but conscientiously. to es-
tablish her innocence before the jury. All
the ability OF able counsel was thrown into
the work The girl had intrlsted TO them
her life and they appreciated the terrible
trust, IL was terrible trust. A human
life depended upon their faithfulness to their
duties. Could they then be other than faith
full? That they were not the whole course
of the trial has shown and the end has
truly crowned the work. What fee could
equal the satisfaction that comes from the
knowledge of a sacred duty faithfully per-
formed? And what is more sacred than the
relation OF attorney and client in such
case? The client must repose in the attorney
all the confidence of a confessor. and the
attorney must hold the confidence as
sacred No one save these two ever knows
hat N at - cfia
secret thoughts and actions.
In criminal prosecutions 1t usually de-
wolves upon the State 70 search out the
to go before a jury and ask for conviction.
In this case the State was assisted by
koesterS and his relatives, the Ohleyers.
From the evidence introduced during the
three weeks trial ii would seem that sew
eral other persons, with unknown motive,
became very active in searching for evil
dence that would Jnilitate against the ac-
cused. These persons invariably failed to
find the least thing that might favor the
poor girl. For months all the neighbor-
hood OF KOesterS'S home entertained one
another with bits of information, the most
the tongues Of the gossips wag freely for
several weeks or months and it may be
depended upon that a mass OF eliminating
evidence will be at hand If the person &C
cuSed be woman, and II will take
shrewd lawyer indeed to trace the gossip to
it's fountainhead. The counsel for the de-
tense realized the enOrmity or their task,
and set about it with full understanding. 1t
is too often the case that an attorney neg
lects apparently unimportant trifies for
matters of seeming great magnitude only
to learn when 1t is too late that the trifieS
were really the piVotS upon which the en-
tire case turned. The counsel for the de-
tense realized this at the very outStart or
their preparation for the defense and never
lost sight of 1t throughout the entire time.
No bit of evidence however trivial 1t might
seem, was dropped until 1t was sounded TO
When the trial began, now nearly four
weeks ago, the prosecution had had several
months in which to prepare their evidence
for the jury. Every act, every word that
the accused had done or uttered for nearly
a year previous had been noted and she
was to be called upon for an explanation.
While the defense knew the probable theory
upon which the prosecution would proceed,
they were in darkness as to a great deal
Of the evidence which they would be called
upon to meet, and were compelled to meet
1t after it ad been told by the witnesses
from the stand. In this they succeeded ad-
mirably. The States witnesses when
called to the stand upon the exami-
nauon-in-chief would givGs evidence that APP
Then they were turned over to Mr. Spaan
for cross-examination, and under his
sklful quiSzing the whole facts soon stood
forth in the most natural light in the world.
1t is often the case that a part Of a trans
action may, look very suspicious WI, when 1.-The the
full attorney is the one who, knowing be-
forehand what the. whole of the transac.
ton will disclose. brings out the whole II
it is favorable but passes 1t over IL un-
favorable. Whether Mr.. Span knew. in
every instance, what the evidence of a wit
ness upon croSs-examination would disclose
or not, he was very adroit in his examina-
ton, and the witness usually became i'm
pressed with the idea that the attorney
knew fully as much about the facts being
testified 10 as did he Cthe witness). The
adroitnesS of Mr. sSpaan in his cross-eX-
animation was displayed in more ways than
one. During the entire time of the trial
ne never made the mistake of losing his
temper because the answer to question
attorney set about in another. way to get
one that did, and he generally succeeded
before he dropped the witness. He attempt
ed no brow-beating of witnesses, and treat
ed them 50 kindly that out of a sort of
reciprocal feeling the witness seemingly
Mr.. Snasn desired The one admission CON-
found that he had explained in the most
natural way all the circumstances which
he had. in very dramatic way. before
alluded to as almost conclusive proof of
the guilt Of the accused.
All through the trial this was noticeable.
There is but one way to successfully cross
examine q witness. and that Is for the
cross examining attorney to continually
keep his wits about him and never lose his
temper. This might seem an easy task,
but to one who has observed the manner
of witnesses upon the stand it is apparent
that it is often very trying task. az:
Span guarded himself very closely, and 1t
was seldom that he let his temper override
one of the most arduous tasks accom-
plished was the examination in chief Of
the defendant by Mr.. Spaan. This he did
without notes. and kept the defendant upon
the stand an entire day. All the questions
were asked from memory, and the facts
brought out were proof that memory did
not fail him.
The most notable feature Of the defense,
however, was the crOSS-eXarnination OF me
medical experts introduced by the State by
Mr.. Span. He had prepared himself for this
by reading carefully WOrmley and Taylor
on poisons and two accepted authorities on
ANALYTICAL chemistry. When the time came
for the croSs-eXamination OF the experts
Mr.. Span, the lawyer, showed htmseIt to
chemist. He puzzled the experts at times
with the promptness with which he asked
questions and the SuCcinct manner in which
ne framed them. The cross-examinati ton of
the experts could not have been accom-
piished with any degree Of intelligence with
iner as to whether answers were truly given
or not and this could only be had by study.
How well this study was maze by Mr..
Spaan was demonstrated by his question
ing The work in the court ROOM in
criminal case, is ordinarily about one-half
the work of the attorney. The other half.
which is by far the most trying Is done
i'm the cuiet Of the Office in
the still hours of the night after the tire
some work of the day in the court room.
held nightly consultations, which often
lasted till midnight. During these consul
tations the evidence that had been brought
out during the day was thoroughly cam
vassed and considered in all its lights.
The plan Of campaign for the ensuing day
evidence before them. The drafting of in
structiOns to the jury was another task
not easy to perform. This involved a care
full searching of authorities to be sure of