The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-22
KOCH FREE AGAIN:
TRIAL NO. 3 JULY 6
Alleged Slayer of DR.. Gebhardt Is
Admitted to Bail by Judge
Gray.
Special to The journal.

Special to The journal.
Mankato, Mimi, May 22.-Dr. George
R. Koch, twice tried for the murder
of4Dr. Louis A. 3Gebhardt, was given
his freedom again this morning.
The application to admit the pris-
oner to bail was granted by Judge
Gray despite the protests Of General
The amount Is $4,000 and the bonds
men are F.. G.. Koch, the defendant s
father; W. E. Koch, his brother, and
Charles Wagner, J. H. Eckstein, DR..
L., A. Fritsche and Henry Frenzel, all
Of New Ulm.
The bond was approved and the de-
PENDANT instructed to appear in court
on the first day Of the general term in
June, which will be the first Tuesday
in that month. The third trial will be-
gin July 6, at the windup Of the calen-
DR.. Koch was in excellent spirits
when released. He returned to New
Ulm Immediately and will resume his
practice of dentistry.
Based Upon Affidavit.
The application for release on bail
was based upon the records Of the two
trials and upon affidavits of two ply
sicians as to the effect Of Imprisonment
defendant. These affdavits were made
by DR.. J.. l.. Schoch and DR.. D. B,
Weiser, both Of New Ulm, and were.
in effect, that continued Incarceration
would be injurious to him.
A. E. Clark Of Mankato moved fol
the release Of DR.. Koch on bail, con.
tending that if there is a well-founded
doubt Of the guilt Of a defendant, and
if the proof is not indubitable, he
should be admitted to bail. He cited
many supreme court decisions and con
tended that DR.. Koch had never shown
a disposition to attempt to escape. q
Ch1lds Opposes.
General Childs, opposing the motion
for the state, said that, as he read
the constitution and statutes, he was
impressed by the fact that it was the
policy Of the people Of this and al
other states not to allow a person at
large where it is known that he Is
"0ur constitution he said, "hat
two provisions. First where the proof
is evident, and, second, where the pre-
sumption is great. Where the proof
is evident, bail will be refused every
time. The policy Of the law is that
where a mar is guilty of committing
a deliberate murder, it is not safe t.
allow him to run at large, and he Is
refused bail for this reason, and not
trial. TIE discretion Of the court tc
grant bail ends where the proof il
clear or the presumption great
General Childs cited many cases II
point. and contended that in the pres
ent matter the proof was strong ant
the presumption of guilt almost over
whelming. The whole matter, he said
resolved itself into a question what thu
court itself thought about the evidence
He himself thought that a strong pre-
sumption Of guilt had been raised, AMI
If the court so believed it matterec
not if there had been one or two mis-
trials.
Ruling by the Court.
In making his decision Judge era,
said that the provision Of law abou-
the presumption of guilt being grea'
was intended to cover cases where NJ
evidence has yet been taken, and h
| did not think this particular feature
confronted the court in this case.
"The thing to be considered h,
said, twas whether the proof was evi
dent. Would the court have allowed
the verdict to stand had the jury re
turned a verdict of guilty9 This is
crucial test established by many courts
but it seems improper to pass upon thi
now. I prefer to consider the histor,
of the case, written and unwritten, il
determining the application.
SIN border-line cases like this,
think it best to err on the side of tn,
defendant. In view of the fact that tw,
juries have disagreed and that Their,
was general consideration of the case
I will allow the defendant to Civ