The herald., 1895-11-02
CONVICTED

Theodore Durrant has passed the frs,
stage in the most conspicuous crimina
court proceeding in the history of the Pa
ciic coast-he has been convicted of MUIR
der in the first degree.
We say he has passed the first stage be-
cause undoubtedly his late trial will prove
but one part of the long and tedious
struggle that he is making for the life that,
because of its peril, is more precious
than ever. There is no doubt that after
the customary request OF the trial court
for a new trial, which request will be pre-
sumably denied. under tho circum-
stances, an appeal for the nullifcation of
the verdict Will be taken to the suprem e
court of the state.
Aggregatlng the time the highest court
will take before rendering a decision, and
II the latter be unfavorable to the appel
liant, the additional period consumed in
the consideration OF applications for re-
hearing, the chances are good for several
years elapsing before Durrant suffers the
psnalty of his alleged crimes, if he suffers
1t al all.
While it is probable that with ma
joTity of the people who have followed
become so strong that the verdict of con-
viction seems rational, and according to
expectations, there are many who will
be surprised. These latter, while not
expecting an acquittal, did look for
disagreement OF the jury.
1t must be admitted that the convic-
tion rests solely on circumstantia
evidence. not particle of positive or
direct evidence having been offered. hence
the expectation that sense of reason
BILE doubt might take possession of the
minds of few of the jurors and result in
chung jury.
While some of the testimony adduced
by the prosecution was terribly suggest
i've of Durrant's Identification with the
destruction of Blanche Lamont, were
it not so strong in the aggregate as to
completely Offset few elements in the
case, that might well be productive OF
doubt in the mind OF a conscientious and
intelligent juror, there were at least
three things that would seem essential IN
securing conviction dependent on cir
cumstantiai evidence, that the prosecu-
ton did not do; it did not maintain the
integrity OF the testimony of Oppenhei-
mer, the pawnbroker, with whom 1t is al
legged Durrant attempted to pawn Miss
Lamont's ring it did not successfully I'M
peach the roll Gail of the medical college.
which showed thar Durrant was present
1T the lecture at the time he was alleged
to be with Blanche Lamont, and 1t did
not show up any tenuencies of Durrants
previous career that would reasonably es-
tabish the presumption that he would
:. = ~.
been declared guilty OF.
The two most incrimlnatlng circum- /!
stances in the evidence against Durrant |
were the alleged offering by him OF Miss |
Lannon'S ring at the pawnshop, and his |
alleged entrance OF Emanuel church &C. /,
companed by the girl Just previous to |
the time the prosecution claims she was |
murdered.
The pawnbroKer testimony was |
thrown somewhat IN doubt both By the /
i'm probability of a man of Durrant's ap. |
parent intelligence trying to dispose of |
the ring of girl he had murdered, and |
by the introduction Of witness having !
some resemblance to Durrant, and who |
testified to trying to pawn a ring on the
same day. but at different tin.e than
been made. The proposition that Dur
rant entered the church with Miss La.
mont at the time stated rests on the testi-
mony of an aged Lady of excellent char
acter, hut of course liable TO the defects
Of mind and vision that come with age.
and who, by the way, SAID nothing of
what she saw until some months after
The murder was discovered.
Against this lady's testimony was the
mute put apparently unimpeachaDle roll
call on when Durrant was marked as
being present in college at the very time
he was supposed TO be entering the
church with his victim.
This roll call was the keystone of Dur
rants defense. for by it he expected TO
grove an abb. And in candor it must
be admitted that the prosecution failed
20 deprive the roll call OF the qualities
the defense claimed for it. While tie
prosecution asserted that it was inaccu-
rate, the district attorney could not prove
that such was the case. And while the
professor and the fellow students of Dur
rant could not testify 10 remembering
purrant as being present at tnea lecture
as indicated by the roll call, they would
not swear that he was not present, and
they seemed to place ample reliance Oh
she roll call.
With tia most essential points Of the
prosecution thus com batted ana i'm
paired, there might have been plenty of
room for reasonable doubt TO devotion.
That outside of these instances and the
excellent character proven for the de-
PENDANT, the defense was Disappointing
is true alsv, and it is likely that it was
made WEAKER than it would have been
otherwise by the counsel for the defend
ant promising so much and producing
com paratively 40 little.
If, indeed, Dufrant id commit the