Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1898-04-14
END OF THE KITTENRING CASE.
Jury Instructed to Return a Verdict
Of Not Guilty.
Fit. Smith Elevator

Fit. Smith Elevator
The trial of Mary A. Kettenrin.
and Richard Calhoun for the mur
der of Andrew J. Kettenring, wa
brought to close Tuesday after
noon about half past three O'Clock
by the court instructing the jury
to return verdict of not guilty
the reason for the instruction be
ing that there is no statute OF the
United States which warrants theil
conviction.
The close of the trial in the man.
ner indicated was quite sensation
al. Mrs. Kettenring had concluded
her testimony and the attorneys
for both sides announced that they
had no further testimony to pre-.
sent. All were in expectation oi
an elaborate charge, such as usu.
ally accompanies trials of such
magnitude. To the surprise oi
everybody. however, Judge Rogers
leaned forward and remarked to
Judge Reed and Mr.. f. A. You.
mans, the governments represen.
tatives:
Il think this case ought to stop
here. | think the United States
has failed to make out a case that
would authorize the court TO sub.
NIT this question TO the jury, or to
put the court 10 the trouble of pre.
pairing a set of instructions even il
he could prepare one. | do not
think the government is entitled
to a verdict at all"
At this Col. w. NJ. Cravens. of
counsel for defendants, quic KY
arose and said:
"We think were are entitled TO
one."
Judge Rogers then continued.
speaking to the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury, / want
to make this observation to you:
AT last, you are the final arbiters
OF these facts. The court has the
right to advise you about these
facts, and 1 think / ought to do so
In order that you may understand
the status of this case, and that
others may understand it also. 1t
is a singular defect, and one that
confess was not aware of N.Y.
self until l came upon the bench
something like a year ago-and
more recently than that did | make
the dlscoyery-that, under the
law OF the United States, there has
never been any such thing as an
accessory before the fact. The
congress of the United States nev-
er enacted any statute Furnishing
an accessory before the fact until
1t adopted the law of Arkansas
and transplanted them in the In
dian Territory. That took place
long subsequent to. the commission
OF this crime, and, therefore, has
no application to it whatever
Nor is there any such thing, under
the laws OF the United States, as
an accessory =Aiter the fact. An ac-
cessory befor e the fact is a person
who counse'ls, incites, moves, pro-
cures, hires. or gets another to COM
nit Grim e. Ii the evidence in
ms case would warrant a convic-
Ilon unc .er a law of that kind, and
II ther e was any law of such
nature in force in the courts OF the
Unit ID States, this defendant,
Mar 2 A. Kettenring, is not indicted
or it. She is not indicted as an
ie cessory = that is, she is not
yharged with hiring, employing,
inciting or procuring a person to
commit the crime, but she is in
dicted for the commi ssion Of the
crime itself, and person can not
be convicted as a conspirator for
the commission of an offense unless
it is proven in the case that she, or
he, as the case may be, has done
some overt act in the way of exc
cutting the conspiracy tending to
promote the commission of the
crime. Now, it would not
make any difference how small a
thing was done, if there was any
proof at all to show that, in the
commission of the crime, or in the
carrying out of the alleged conspi- |
racy, she had done anything; but,
as you will see at once. there is
not a scrap of proof in this case to
show that, if there was conspira-
cy. she did anything towards the
execution of it. / admit there is
some testimony here from which |
inferences might he drawn that she
may have melted it. That depends
upon what sort of inferences you
may draw from the proof. The
facts might or might not warrant
the jury in drawing such an infer
ence, depending upon the way
they would view the matter in the
light of all the circumstances. But
there is not anything to show that
she ever left the house of her broth
er, Shellenberger, the night it is
alleged the deceased was killed, or
that she did anything towards the
commission of the offense by way !
of promoting the conspiracy-not
an act, of which | have any knowl-
edge, and have carefully weighed
this testimony from beginning TO
end, over and over again. Now,
in the absence of that it is utterly
for verdict to stand if
it were rendered, and even if you
differ from the court, and the court
were to permit you to render ver-
dict, he would be compelled to set
it aside; or, if he was so far regard
less of his duty as not to set it
aside, the appellate court would
undoubtedly reverse the case.
Tho annalata court would NOT nor