Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1905-12-01
LEGAL HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The Various steps Of Procedure from the
Beginning Until the United States SUI
preme Courts Final Decision.


She was indicted at the June term, 1908,
Bennington county court for the murder
OF her husband and was tried at the
December term, 1903, of that court and
convicted of murder in the first degree
NO exceptions were taken by her coun-
sci to the supreme court of Vermont
No further steps were taken in her be
half until the legislature met in October
1904, when a bill was introduced by Repre-
sentative Archibald of Manchester. who
had been her counsel in county court to
commute her sentence to life imprison-
ment. There was much debate over this
measure and finally in the last week of
the session 1t was defeated by a majority
of about 40. She was under sentence of
death to be executed February 8, 1906
Two days before that, on February l.
Governor Bell gave hearing at Mont
pelier to parties interested in her behalf,
who asked that a reprieve be granted by
the governor for sufficient length of time
to enable her counsel to present petition
to the supreme court or Vermont for a
new trial, on the ground of newly dis
covered evidence, which, It was claimed,
tended to show she was insane when the
crime was committed Several affidavits
were presented to Governor Bell and upon
considering the matter he, on the next
day, February 2, granted a reprieve for
four months, or until June 2, 1905, a suffi-
Client time to enable a petition to be pre-
scented and heard by the supreme court
of Vermont.
Atfidavits were taken by her counsel
during the winter and spring, and petit
ton was filed with Chief Judge Rowell
and Judge Munson on April 20. On May 3
the hearing was had on the petition before
the judges named at Montpelier, and the
petition ordered filed in court and ordered
to be heard at the May term of the SUI
preme court. 1t was heard on May 10.
being fully argued in her behalf and in
behalf of the state. On May 30 the SUI
preme court handed down its decision de-
nying the petition. Her counsel imme-
diately applied to Chief Judge Rowell for
writ of error to take the case to the
supreme court of the United States
Judge Rowell refused to sign the writ of
error on the ground that no Federal ques-
ton was involved Her counsel then ask
ed the governor to further reprieve her
for sufficient length of time to enable
them to present a writ Of error to a JUS
tice of the supreme court of the United
States, which was the only way left for
her to secure a writ of error. The gov
ernor acceded to their request again and
reprieved her until June %. simply for the
purpose of enabling her to secure what
ever legal rights she had.
On June IL her counsel, Hon. F. NJ. But
Ter of Rutland, presented to Justice Peck
ham of the supreme court of the United
States a petition for a writ of error. JUS
tice Peckham refused to sign the writ on
the ground that there was no Federal
question involved Then. on June 10, her
counsel brought petition to Judge Wheeler
of the United States district court for a
writ of habeas corpus charging that she
was being held illegally and that the pro-
ceedings against her were unconstitu-
tional. Judge Wheeler issued the writ
and heard it at Brattleboro June q, and
the next morning June % decided against
her. dismissing the writ and remanding
her to state custody. Her counsel imme-
diately asked for an appeal to the SUI
preme court of the United States. Attor-
ney- General Fits opposed this motion and
asked that the appeal be not allowed I'M
| til he could secure from Governor Bell a
| further reprieVe to fix the date for eXecu-
| ton after the case could be disposed of by
| the supreme court OF the United States.
| Judge Wheeler granted this request and
| the attorney general procured the reprieve
! from Gov. Bell on the afternoon of June
%. and notified Judge Wheeler at once.
| Thereupon the appeal was allowed The
| case was advanced for early hearing by
| the supreme court of the United States
and was heard on November 6 and de-
clded November q, adversely to Mrs.
| Rogers.
A Bit Of Interesting History.
An interesting feature of these legal
proceedings is the novel manner in which
| have been made, and here comes in an in
| teresting bit of history. Previous to 1910
| there was no provision of law as to how
| long a time must elapse after conviction
| before sentence of death should be exc
| cuted In that year judge of the county
| court in Orleans county sentenced a man.
who was convicted of murder in the first
degree in county court, to be hanged, and
| fixed the date of execution at a time be-
fore the case could be heard on exceptions
| in the supreme court. This created a
| great Juror in the state, especially among
| the legal fraternity, and the result was
| that the Legislature of 1912 passed a law
; which has ever since been in force, that
mo person sentenced to suffer the punish
| ment of death shall be executed previous
| to the first day of January next after the
close of the session of the general assem-
| bly,, next following such sentence" SO
| since then 1t has been impossible for an
| execution to take place until after a ses-
sion of the legislature has interviewed.
1t will be noted that the statute applies
to all sentences in capital cases and is not
limited to the sentence in the first in
| stance. Until 1870 the sessions of the leg
islature were held annually, so the delay
| was never very long on account of this
statute. But since the biennial sessions
| were established, II frequently happens
| that in the first instance the sentence of
death is for date long subsequent to the
1
viction in county court. Then If after 1t
has gone over one session of the legisla-
ture and If the Legislature has not COM
| muted and the proceedings are brought
| in any court which result in stay of
| execution by the court there must neces-
/ sarily be a new sentence. That new sem
| tence has TO take effect following the next
session of the legislature with the result
| that whenever there is stay of execu-
ton by order of court, making 1t neces-
sary that the prisoner be re-sentenced,
| the date of execution finally comes sew
| eral years subsequent to the commission
of the crime
The result of this has been that by the
| time the second session of the legislature
has come around the crime is forgotten
and the general public interest TO have
| the law enforced has become weakened,
while the personal interest of the pris-
| oner and his friends Is strong enough to
secure Communication. All this has been
| avoided in the Rogers case for the rea-
son that, acting under the advice of the
attorney general, the governor has pro-
| vided for delay by way of a reprieve, the
reprieve fixing a day for the execution,
| and thereby the necessity of stay OF
execution has been avoided and the conse-
quent delay has been obviated.
The Federal statute provides that pend
| ing a case of habeas corpus or pending
an appeal thereon, any act against the
| prisoner by the state authority is void.
1 g. Nil