Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1897-10-28

In response to command from Judge Tut
bill, Foreman Heichhold arose in his place
and announced as his positive belief that
mo verdict could be reached. The judge
ilEwogated the jurymen individually and
leach positively declared that no influence
G argument could change his opinion.
The attorneys for both sides agreed that
The jury he discharged and it was done.
Thus ended the first trial Of what must
be regarded as one of the most remarka-
BE criminal cases of the century. The
tlal was in progress nearly nine weeks
and cost the State Of Illinois over $751;
&wO. OF the disagreement it can frankly
De said That the division in the jury fair
represents the division Of opinion in the
great world outside the jury box, where
every fact and incident Of the trial has
Geeh followed with engrossing scrutiny.
II Is probable that poll of all those who
nave given intelligent consideration to
Ae testimony and the law as laid down
the court would present a division Of
'Afee to one in favor Of a conviction. The
proportion Of those who believe in the
prisoner guilt is probably much greater.
Dut belIef'ln guilt and convicting a pris-
Vner on clrcumStantial evidence such as
1at produced for the State in this case
e'e two very different things.
Ready for a New Trial.
Gates Attorney Deneen said he would
press for another trial, but when he did
not Know. He said it would be on the
sane theory lis the one finished was pros
,'G'~. The vat theory, the boiling OF The
wa! Of MS Wife in crude potash, and
$sa,n the convincing part Of the evidence
'. 'ae helnouS murder would be the rings.
II was the .rings that fortified the ma
."'H IL the jury in its demand for the
V"'icl'on of Luetgert. Attorneys Vim
.S0' and Phalcn said they were ready for
IN .ne new trial whenever it might be held
9u'! sad they would present far strong
0e'eNSe than before. Luetgert said
s sS NaS ANXIOUS for another trial and con-
rIeHt II would be ended in his acauittal.
~. 'I"feeu the failure Of securing a YER
s'' l@t would eXonerate him from the
"''W charge to the fact that Juror
,s n~~ was accepted. The next time, he
S Soss1'S' lie viii take the stand in his own
W. t.'D>e' with or without the consent Of
H.: counsel. Judge Tuthill said that he
'~e'H It would be impossible to select
eov u'aIt'eh jury in Cook County on ac-
S Csan' OF the publicity given to the pro-
ssu'.ss of the trial just ended. It is
a. s' ts possible that Luetgert may new
be tried again.
,ba ivy. seFt SAID he was not surprised that
don, Jury disagreed and that he was conf
fan. 40 verdict would be made twenty
snrn, Houfs before. He was not taken by
ho53 ',S When he heard Foreman Heich-
naSo "unounce that no verdict had been
keitSo." and none was likely to follow.
erarT was 1t surprise to him when
,hins t u IN the jury box said the same
Juiss. n response to the questions Of
cbjectionn0 shllL as he polled the jury. No
6e in.r was made to the discharge Of
ripSon.! Ike Tuthill asked Attorneys
psed ~ and Phalen what they were dis
he dc; 70 DO and they said it seemed as if
Ting ;S Na.ese of the jury was the only
Vas t ibuSuned by the situation. Luetgert
Judge I T.t asked the same question by
b1ers1 u'hill and he agreed with his at
:" States Attorney Dsneen said