Montour American. (Danville, Pa.) 1866-1920, 1906-09-27
SECOND TRIAL OF
PETER DIETRICH
Continued from First PageI

where l aimed at.
At 10 30 O'Clock the Commonwealth
rested. Mr.. Ikeler explained that the
witnesses on the Commonwealth side
embraced all the eye witnesses of the
shooting and that the testimony had
been very fully presented. In view of
this and the fact that the defendant
was in such nervous and highly
wrought condition at the time OF the
shooting as to be hardly a competent
witness the defense had resolved to
offer no testimony in the case.
1t was then 1925 O'Clock and the
court after consulting with the attor-
neys, i'll order that the addresses to
the jury might follow each other,
without any interruption, decided to
adjourn court and reconvenc at
O'Clock instead of at ,. the usual after
noon hour.
After court convened at l O'Clock
Hon. Ii. NJ Hinckley for the Com
monwealth went to the jury. The adj
dress. which lasted nearly an hour and
half, covered the ground in It's en-
tiretv and ranked with the most etlcc-
tive efforts of Mr. HinCklcy's life. He
declared that the evidence clearly
showed malice and motive that when
Dietrich brought out the revolver he
intended to use it and that the theory
of accident in the premises was not
| tenable He claimed that the pistol
did not 90 off accidentally, rs before
it could be discharged it was ncccs-
sary to draw the hammer back TO full
position which in itself showed that
Dietrich intended to shoot. He en-
phasized this point very strongly. He
quoted the evidence fully to show that
Dietrich not only when he made
damaging admissions, bot also when
he did the shooting was perfectly ra-
tional and knew what he was about.
! He held that all the evidence justified
verdict of murder in the first de-
gree.
At , :45 Hon. Fred Ikeler went to
the jury for the defense. Mr.. lkeler's
address was likewise a very able and
eloquent effort. In beginning, he paid
a fine tribute to the ability, eloquence
and persuasive powers of Mr.. Hinck-
ley. in this case, lie said, he was not
afraid of the evidence, but he admit
ed Inc was "afraid of Judge Hinck-
lev. " He dwclt upon the distinctions
to be made in the killing of a human
being and he said we have advanced
beyond the old Mosaic principle Of an
eve for an eye,a tooth for a tooth. lie
defined murder as when man in the
blackuess of his heart, with malice
aforethOught and with set detcrml-
nation lies III wait for a human being
to take his life and denied that any
of the elements are present in Diet
rich's case He held that there was no
murder in any of its degrees nor even
manslaughtcr in the case on trial. He
held that Dietrich was on the verge Of
delirium tremcnS and reviewed the
evidence dwelling upon his excited
state to show that he was wholly IRA
tional both when ne did the shooting
and when he made the admissions IN
iail Mr. Ikelcr held that if Dietrich
is guilty at all he is guilty only of in
voluntary manslaughter, which IN his
case would imply careless and reck-
less use of a weapon. He denounced
the Indictment, which prcmlts only
murder in one of its degrees or volun-
tarv manslaughter. Many in the audi
ence were moved to tears while Mir.
keller with the wonderful eloqucnce
at his command drew graphic and
pathetic picture to show how the prl-
soner has suffered in his varied expert
ences since'the tragedy and that he
has already been punished sufficiently
for the slight degree .inLwhich he may
be guilty. EsMr Ikeler spoke for an
hour and halt.
= Judge Evans Immediately followed
with his charge to the jury. lie cN
planned the law applicable to the case
very fully and his charge was very
favorably commented on. Judge Evans
defined murder in the first degree, mur'
der in the second degree and voluntary
manslaughtcr. To constitute murder
in the first degree the killing must be
with malice, which means any attempt
to kill or do any great bodily harm. II
must be shown that the attempt tC
take life was wilful and deliberate
) following previously formed intent
/ In second degree murderfclonious hom
y eide is committed, but without any
deliberate attempt TO take life. Man
slaughter is a still lesser degree where
there is unlawful and feIonious kill
n ing of another without malice express
/ ed or implied Should the jury be il
c doubt whether the defendant IS guilty
( of murder in the first or the SECOND
/ degree he is to have the benefit Of tha
: doubt and the verdict must be the low
er of the two degrees.
, Intoxication is no excuse for murde
. in the first degree. IntoXicatlon, how
q ever, may becloud the mind, preclud
{ ing malice and design, bringing tn
crime in some cases down to sccOnC
q degree murder. When a person. how
ever, becomes intoxicated for the pur
pose Of committing murder and TIN
! killing of another follows it is murde
I in the first degree. If the jury believe
7 that the defendant was intoNicatc'
{. when he killed Jones it is for them t
i determine whether he was intoXicatet
J. to the extent that he could not form
j design or plan deliberately to comml
the act. If he was not so deeply IN
!, toxicated, then his intoXication mus
- 20 for naught.