The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1907-03-18
kNEESHAW HIGH N
PRAISES Of {, R,
S|NKLER
Attorney Who Defended Otto
Weberg Did the Best Posi-
BILE Says Judge.
HE THANKED THE JURY
For Verdict Found-Not in
Favor of Capital Punish
ment For Murder.

When the jury in the case of the
State of North Dakota vs.. Otto We
berg returned its verdict of guilty of
murder in the first degree, with the
recommendation that the guilty man
be sentenced to life imprisonment,
Judge Kneeshaw said:
CAS- presiding judge in this case on
behalf of myself and the people of this
great county desire to thank you for
the honest and conscientious manner
in which you have performed your
duty. feel that the verdict in this
case is just and righteous one. Per-
sonally, l am not in favor of capital
punishment and that in cases of this
Kind, even If the man is insane, there
should be some place provided to
which he could be sent, but in this
case the facts conclusively show. in
my mind, that he was just as sane as
any one of us at the time. He may
have taken little whiskey in order
to nerve him up t. commit this hor-
hible deed and therefore thank you
in that you have been thu means of
administering justice. have no in
terest in this case other than seeing
that justice is administered between
man and man.
The defendant has come into this
court and has had every protection
thrown around him; witnesses have
been furnished at the expense of the
county and think that can say this,
that he has been as we'll defended in
as able manner as though he had
any counsel in the union. l believe
that the argument made by Mr.. Sink
Ter in this case was as fine and grand
an argument as could have been made
by any person in the United States in
as much as he had practically nothing
upon which to base it.
"As the state did not introduce ex-
pert evidence as matter of fact there
was no necessity of introducing any
under the facts in this case. AS a
matter of fact expert testimony
doesn't amount to anything as it is
based upon hypothetical question
and their opinion, in my mind, has
not the weight of one who has the
opportunity of observing person
and being acquainted with his habits
and actions.
"The court wishes to say that he
thanks you from the bottom of his
heart for the appreciation and the
kind remarks that have been present.
ed to me by the jury. l can only say
that endeavor only to do my duty,
showing no Partially to either side.
The court takes the responsibility o.
deciding the law and the jury is re-
sponsible for the facts, and in this
case you have performed your duty
we'll and truly and desire to again
thank YOU"
The defendant was asked if he has
any legal cause to show why SEN
tence should not be pronounced and
said:
otto Weberg, the states attorney
has filed an information in this case
charging you with the commission of
the crime of murder in the first i.e-
gree and to that information you en-
tered a plea Of not guilty. After
trial of many days by jury OF your
peers and after having had one of the
most able of defenses that have ever
heard in case of this kind in any
court during my entire experience you
have been found guilty.
You have been convicted of enc
of the most heinous of crimes in the
taking of of fine young girl. You
have come into court and claimed that
you were insane and have set that up
as defense; you have i,een ably de-
Tended; the jury of your peers has
found you guilty and liked the pun
ishment for the rest of your natural
life at hard labor in the state peni-
Tertiary"
Then followed the customary SEN
tence.