Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-01

have contained a statement aDout tlle ue-
PENDANTS being armed and of the warnings
they had given Bywaters.
There is no such thing as an insane I'M
pulse in a sound mind" argued Mr.. Keith.
1T must be shown that there is diseased
mind and that the provocations acting upon
such a mind produce condition Whch
makes a man irresponsible. Here we have
deliberate shooting; a fixed and formed
purpose. and the only escape seems to be
emotional insanity. This trouble did not
come upon the defendants suddenly ana
overwhelm them Their reason was not de-
throned. Philip Strother told the jury he
knew he was shooting, and how can IL De
said that he was insane?'
"-They were cool End deliberate he add
ed, land the state claims they are guilty
of murder
Counsel read several legal opinions IN
support of his contention.
Answer by Defendants Attorney.
Attorney John l.. Lee answered the COM
monwealth's attorney, claiming that the
lengthy hypothetical question contained a
true recital of the facts. There could be
no question that they were armed and that
they had armed themselves at the start for
the purpose of killing. That was to have
been done when they learned that their
sister had been seduced and debauched.
Instead of executing that intention.
said counsel, they were dissuaded from
their purpose by the supplications of the
offender and the pitiful prayers of their
sister,"
Counsel went on to explain how the de-
PENDANTS had brought about the marriage
and argued that the idea of shooting was
then abandoned. 1t was then the effort
of Bywaters was made to desert his wife
which brought about the sudden impulse.
Mr.. Lee said he was not prepared to say
that some slight changes might be made
when the question is carefully gone over
by the court. Several authorities were
cited. and counsel referred to the cele-
brated case of Daniel Sickles in Washing
ton, in which, he said, there was no expert
insanity evidence given, but the court let
the question be determined by the jury.
1.-The law of insanity" he said, has
undergone some radical and very wise
changes during recent years. Insane
asylums are filled with people who know
the difference between right and wrong
but they are unable to resist the doing of
the wrong
Attorney John l.. Jeffries argued that the
defense was entitled to the opinion of the
expert. He thought the question asked was
based upon the facts as they were told upon
the witness stand. Counsel wanted to know
where the commonwealth attorney had
learned that it was necessary to show that
conditions had to work upon a diseased
mind in order to produce emotional insanity.
From the books said Attorney Keith.
And, said Mr.. Jeffries, II want to show
by this expert that what is contained in the
books is wrong
There is limit to every mans mental
power argued Mr.. Jeffries. None of us
is endowed with infinite power, our Creator
having reserved that unto himself"
1haw Case Cited.
Mr.. Moore again addressed the court upon
the question of admitting the testimony of
the expert witness, citing authorities and
referring to the decision of the court in the
Thaw case. He said that some of the states
have statutes bearing upon the subject, but
in Virginia there is no compelling statute,
nor is there anything to give the court
power to take away from the defendants the
right to enter into the fullest ventilation of
the question raised.
Capt. Micajah Woods, assistant prosecu-
tor, said to the court that he thought the
statement upon which hypothetical Ques-
ton is asked should contain all the facts.
He argued that several of the important and
vital points had been omitted.
And he said, 'if the question is TO be
permitted at all, the additional facts should
be embodied"
Capt. Woods proceeded to state the facts
which had been proved, as he understood
them, and Mr.. Lee interrupted him to say
that the defense denied that the testimony
he quoted had been given.
II don't say that l have used the exact
language of the testimony said Capt.
Woods, but 1 have stated the substance"
Judge Harrison said he thought that
should the question be admitted each side
might frame it's own statement of facts
One Right Conceded.
Capt Woods went into long recital of
the testimony from the states side of the
case, and said he would concede the right
of counsel for the defendants to argue to
the jury that the exciting circumstances
should be taken in mitigation Of the pun
ishment.
When Capt. Woods referred to the count
in the Sickles case and the charge 1t involved,
Mr. Moore asked: Are you willing to have
the court deliver that charge in this
case? II you are. with the addition Of the
courts instructions. we will accept It,"
II will answer that question when It is
reached" answered Capt. Woods. Counsel
said he thoughtful the defense has the right
to have the alienist characterize the homi-
eide, they also have the right to ask him
to say IL he thinks their clients are guilty
or not guilty of fnanslaughter or !nyolun-
tary manslaughter He thought the cues
ton at Issue could be determined by any
sane man in Virginia, as well as by the
most learned expert in the world
1T is for the jury with their knowledge
of the facts and their knowledge of the
human heart, he said. ITO pass upon the
question of guilt and punishment
Mr.. Moore said he would willingly with
draw the witness IL the question OF tenn
porary insanity Is to be left to the Jury.
But he said, I'm afraid it will be a
case of come into the parlor said the spider
to the fly; that when It comes to the cues
ton of instructions the state will urge that
nothing has been shown upon the question
at ISSUE"
In conclusion he argued that the question
is a proper one, and that unless it Is per-
mitted, the twelve honest citizens of yir-
ginia win not be able to find the verdict
that they ought to find.
Capt. Woods again objected to the admis
sion of the testimony. saying no evidence
Continued on Twelfth Page)