The San Francisco call., 1899-01-24
Mrs. Botkin Asks for
a New Trial.
MANY GROUNDS SET FORTH
THE JURY AND COURT ALIKE
WERE IN ERROR.
The Matter of Jurisdiction Is Touch
ed Upon and 1t Is Alleged
That New Evidence Has
Been Discovered.

Mrs Cordelia Botkin, stocal, as usual,
her ewes half closed, her lips pale and
compressed, sat before Judge Cook yes
terday morning while her counsel plead
ed with the court to grant her a new
trial, to give her another chance 10
prove that she Il what she pretendS 10
bean outraged woman, prosecuted py
her enemies, not murdereSs destitute
of feeling or conscience. Her case was
called before Judge Cook at the opening
of the morning session.
Attorney Knight Immediately moved Tor
a new trial, and handed bill or eXcep-
tions to the judgment of the court 20
the clerk, which was ordered submitted.
After the matter of the bill of eXcep-
tions had been formally accepted, Knight
stated to the court that he wished more
time in which to prepare and file affidav-
its in support of his motion for new
trial. Would the court grant stay OF
proceedings until Saturday? asked Mr.
knight At this point District Attorney
Murphy arose and inquired how long IL
would take to put the affidavits in shape
for presentment. Judge Cook ended the
debate by granting the motion 1or
stay, and the incident was closed. In
care of her sister, Mrs. Dora Brown, ana
in charge of a Deputy Sheriff, Mrs. Bot
kin tripped from the courtroom TO return
to her cneerless cell in the Branch County
Jail.
Summarized, the grounds upon which
the defense seeks a new trial are these:
The verdict Is contrary to law
The verdict is contrary TO the evidence.
The court misdirected the jury as to matters
of law.
The Jury received and considered evidence out
Of court other than and not resulting from
view of the premises.
The jury was guilty of misconduct. by which
a fair and impartial consideration OF the case
was prevented.
The verdict was decided by means other than
faIr accIo 1ir1io he nj a
the jurors
The court erred in the decision of questions
of law arising during the trial of the case.
New evidence has been discovered by the de-
fendant material to the case, and which could
not with reasonable diligence. have been dis
covered and produced at the trial.
The court has no jurisdiction or power to try
the defendant for the crime charged in the in
dictment or to render judgment upon the YER
dict.
The evidence proved and established that the
defendant did not commit the crime of murder
or kill Mrs Elizabeth Dunning nor did the
defendant have any part in such alleged crime.
The crime committed in the State of
Delaware and not in the State of California,
and the defendant was deprived of her right of
trial by jury of the State county or dis
committed.
There is no law of the State. of California |
under which the crime of murder committed |
out of the State of California is made a crime |
within the State of California.
The indictment of the defendant in vio-
lation of article g. section of the Constitution
of the United States. which provides that the
trial Of all crimes shall be by jury, and that
such trial shall be held in the State where the
crimes shall have been committed"
For the alleged crime of murder and killing
by means of poison in the State of Delaware
the defendant could not be tried or convicted
except by an impartial jury of the State of
Delaware.
Wherefore the defendant asks the court to set
aside the verdict of guilty of murder heretofore
rendered against her, to grant her trial
of said criminal charge in order that the in
dictment be dismissed and she released from
custody.
The document bears the signature of
the prisoner, and bears date of January
%, 1899. Whether or not it will result
in a new trial and the ultimate freeing
of the condemned murderess rests with
Judge Cook. Pending his decision. the
fair prisoner will remain in her cell and
hope for the best.