The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1901-03-25
REASONS FOR
B0TKIN TRIAL

Attorney General Herbert Ii. War,
has received a letter from Attorney Gen
eral Tiery l.. Ford, of California, il
which are set forth the reasons TO
granting new trial in the celebrate,
| Mrs. Cordelia Botkin case. In view o
the great public interest in the matter
and to correct any erroneous impression
the relatives of the murdered women
Mrs. John u. Dunning and Mrs. Deane
may have regarding the official conduct OF
those charged with the prosecution OF
the case, Mr.. Ward has given the letter
for publication. 1t follows:
State Of California,
Office of Attorney General,
San Francisco, March 16, 1901.
Hon. Herbert II. Ward, Attorney Gen.
eral, Dover, Delaware:
Dear Sir:-When l assumed my pres.
cnt Office in the early art of January,
1899, found several murder cases pend
ing on appeal in the Supreme Court of
this State, among which was the case of
People VS.. Botkin, with which, as
sumo, you are somewhat familiar.
Among the eases which | thus found
pending on appeal was one entitled Peo-
pie VS.. Hoff, murder case, wherein the
court below had instructed the jury at
considerable length in respect to circum-
stantal evidence. The instruction thus
given in the Hoff case was given in
identical language in the Botkin case and
also in another celebrated murder case
known AS the Brandes case, all of which,
as | have suggested, were pending on APP
peal when ! assumed my present office.
All of these cases depended upon cir
cumstantial evidence and in each of them
conviction was obtained in the trial
court from which the appeals in ques-
ton were taken. The Hoff case was
first reached by the Supreme Court, the
Judgment in which was reversed and the
case renanded for a new trial because
Of the giving Of the instruction upon
circumstantial evidence above referred
to. This instruction had been previously
given in murder cases in this State and
trial courts were accustomed to give
it in all cases involving circumstantial
evidence. Knowing that if the Hoff case
was reversed, the Brandcs and Botkin
cases would, of necessity, be reversed
also, | petitioned the court for a rchear-
ing in the llof case, which was granted
me. | thercupOn reargued the case or
ally before the Supreme Court and filed
written briefs therein. The court fin
ally adhered to its earlier ruling by a
vote Of four to three, our court consist
ing of seven justices, four of whom sus-
tanned the earlier ruling of the court,
while three of them disscntcd and fol-
lowed the rules which ! had presented |
III my argument. 1t thus became appar-
mt that the BOikin case as well as the
l'randcs case must go back for new
rial. In the Rrandes case there being
10 question of jurisdiction, the Judgment
vas at once reversed upon the authority
If the lloif case and the case remandcd
or Il new trial. In the Botliin case,
loWcvcr, it was contended by counsel
or appellant that the State of California
lnd no jurisdiction to try the case. This
! combattcd and upon this
'olnt alone was the case submitted in
he Supreme Court, which tribunal on
ay before yesterday rendered its deci-
ION III favor of the jurisdiction of the
State of California and thercupon re-