The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-10-12
PERRET10'S FATE IN DOUBT
Jury Had Not Agreed Upon a ver.
dict at Midnight.
1T RETIRED At THREE O'CLOCK
Closing Argument to the Jury by District
Attorney Joncs-Judge Archbaid's
Charsc-Expiaincd What Consti.=
.u,cd Degrees Of Murder.

Judge Archbald's charge to the jury
| in the Perretto murder case was fin-
| ished at 3O5 yesterday afternoon. IL
occupied an hour and 10 minutes. The
fate OF Pasquela Perretto was placed in
| the hands of the jury, and the twelve
| men, good and true, We're marshaled
| TO their room in charge of Tipstars
sutto and Keller. Up to midnight they
had not agreed upon a verdict.
District Attorney Jones opened his
argument for the commonwealth at
$50 in the morning. He went care
fully over the evidence and reviewed
II logically to the minds OF the jury.
They had heard. he said, the defend
ant tried for the murder of Michael
Demarko The trial judge is one of the
fairest that could be found In this state.
and every opportunity was given that
n fair. honest and free trial should be
given to Perretto. Mr.. Jones scoffed
the idea OF conspiracy to convict the
defendant: such a thing. he said. had
existence only in the minds of the de-
fendant's counsel.
As 10 tho Inv Of S,if.Defcucc.
The law OF self defense could not
have any weight. Mr.. Jones said. In this
case. for 1t had been shown that Per-
retto left the scene of the quarrel 20
arm himself and came back armed.
This the law does not allow. n per-
son must not return to "A fight. and III
he does the plea of self-defense Is no
justiiicat!on. The motive Perretto
could have for the murder and how he
could have formed a prsmeditated in
tent to kill was presented very clearly.
Perretto vas not intoxicated. SO that
his mind was befoggled: he was sober
and responsible for his actions. He
saw his cousin. Peter Perretto. in the
midst of free fight. being set upon
by John Corello and Michael Rich. and
he went upstairs and armed himself
There had been no ter irony on either
side 70 show that peu,srkN. the mur-
dered man. was engaged n the fight.
1t was 1.55 before Judge Archibald
began his charge to the jury. What
the Jury must consider he said, first
Of all was. did PasQuelo Perretto kill
Michael Demarko? II the defendant
had in his possession such weapons, q
revolver and stiletto. when he came
downstairs and Demarko was seen to
fall Immediately after Perretto ap-
preached the doorstep. where Demarko
was standing. II would be a hard mat
ter not to conclude and infer that the
defendant did the killing. Immediate
ly after Demarko fell, Perretto at
tempted to escape.
Said Perrcto did Not no killing.
The defense had consistently main
tained throughout the trial that Per-
retto did not do the killing at all: and
Judge Archibald touched lightly On the
matter of self-defense, and advised the
jury not to spend too fine theory on
that branch of the case. The charge
OF the court was directed mostly TO
making clear to the jury the grades of
murder Malice is the distinguishing
criterion of murder in the first degree.
The law regards the infirmitles of hui
man nature and certain conditions of
the mind constitute a palllation of the
crime. SO as to reduce the degree.
II the act were done in the heat "f
passion on the sudden impulse of the
moment. that would go far to discredit
the assumption that the murder wcs
deliberate and premeditated. Yet.
Judge Archibald said, it would be diff
hcult for person to use such
weapon as the one that killed Michael
Demarko and aim 1t with such deadly
purpose at a vital point, inflicting cer-
tain death, without having a specific
intent to kill. The time and opportun-
ity seem scanty for the formation OF
premeditated design to commit first
degree murder. The six law points
submitted by the defendant counsel
were affirmed.