The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1912-10-26

Court Of Appeals. The Appellate d.
vision Of the Supreme Court has no
jurisdiction in reviewing capital cases
and appeals go straight from the trial
court to the highest OF the State courts
Steps Necessary to Appeal.
First Of all It Is necessary for the de-
fence TO condense the record of the
trial. Then the District Attorney Is
served with this condensation. which Is
the proposed case on appeal. Within
ten days the District Attorney must
serve on the defence his amendments
20 the proposed appeal. Then the pro-
posed case and amendments are sub
mitted to Justice Goff for allowances
and disallowances.
After this the entire record in the
case is submitted to Justice Goff and
the case Is ordered filed. Within thirty
days the whole case must be printed
and three copies served on the District
Attorney and sixteen copies sent to the
Court of Appeals The case Is then on
file in the Court Of Appeals. Usually
the preparation Of briefs requires from
two To three months The District At
torney gets three copies of the printed
brief of the defence and sixteen copies
go to the appeals court The District
Attorney Is allowed five days talthough
the time may be extended) In which to
serve his brief-three copies to the de-
fence, sixteen for tho court. The de-
fence Is allowed ten days In which to
serve a reply brief.
The next step Is placing the case on
the calendar Of the court. A capital
case is entitled to preference. Notices
of argument are the next STEP a notice
of sixteen days being necessary. POSI-
hly Il will require thirty days more for
the court to get to the case. and by
that time from six to eight months Will
have elapsed. In reviewing capital
cases the Court Of Appeals judges the
evidence aa well as the law.
II this programme Is followed Lieut..
Becker will have to wait in Sing Sing
pretty close to year before he finds
out whether or not he must die.
Eleven points on which the appeal
will be based were emphasized by Mr..
Mcintyre yesterday They have to do
with the rulings OF the court, the evil
dence and the charge to the jury. The
defence will ask for a new trial on
these grounds mainly:
vallon and Schepps was not corroborated
by credible evidence. since IL was sup
ported only by the testimony of two felons,
Hauen and I.uban.
That the court should not have allowed
20 he put in evidence the conversations
held between Rose. Webber. vallon and
Schepps after the consummation OF the
conspiracy ,the murder itself.
Error CHARGED Against Court.
That Justice Goff refused to charge that
before the jury could convict they would
have TO he satisfied that one or all OF the
cunmen indicted committed the murder.
That the court allowed to get In evidence
the meetings between Becker and Rose at
Roses house and at restaurants. and that
such meetings were only suspicious circum-
stances and not sufficient corroboration.
That the court refused to charge that
Schepps was an accomplice although there
was ample testimony to that effect and
although the law bearing on Schepps's
actions before the murder was clear.
That the court reviewed the peoples
case only and excluded from his charge q
review Of the testimony Of the DEFENDANT
witnesses.
That the court was In error IN charging
that the jury need not consider evidence
that Rose and Webber were hostile TO Rosen
thai and had threatened his life. and tina,
the court had charged that this was nc
defence for Becker.
That there were important discrepancies
between the confession Rose wrote out fol
the District Attorney and the story he tolc
on the witness stand.
That Becker was unable to get a fail
trial because public clamor and hysteris
had affected the jurors and had made 4
impossible for them to render an unbiased
verdict
That Juror No ~ tMr. Haas, was forced
on the defence because of the fact that thu
defence had exhausted all OF its peremptor,
challenges. and had to accept the twelfth
man.
That the stipulations OF immunity granted
unlawfully by the District Attorney t'
Rose, Webber. vallon and Schepps wer'
sufficient motive for false testimony agains
Becker. and that the stipulations in the cas-
of Webber, Vallon and Schepps had no
been approved by the court.
Mr.. Mcintyre said that he receives
yesterday more than fifty letters fror
able lawyers OF his acquaintance VIII
assured him that there were ampl
grounds for appeal and that he had
fine case for such action.
Won't Discuss size Of Fee.
There was one feature Of tho Becke
case that the chief counsel would no
discuss. That was the size Of his fe<
The story widely circulated was tina
Mr.. Mcintyre had been paid 100000 an
Mr.. Hart $1,000. and that Mr.. White
side and Mr.. Stryker. the Junior coun
sci. had taken compensation in expe
rience and advertising that come to a
lawyers In great criminal case. NJ
Mcintyre said that II would not b
ethical for him to talk about the size c
the fee, but that II was less than mos
people supposed, as was Hart's. As 10
Stryker and Whitesde. they got moth
ing but expense money. perhaps 5000.
1.-THE money" said Mr.. McIntyr,
twas not there. The sums that Becke
actually had in savings bank
amounted to $4,000. This cash wa
used UP and It became necessary fc
Mrs. Becker to put a mortgage on he
own property. The cash in bank wa
not Becker's, but money that his viii
had inherited or saved"
Mr.. Mcintyre was asked II the. .trii
had cost Becker s25,000 He replied ths
the figure was excessive, but he d.
clined to approximate what It reall
was The expenses had been heav!
what with the Hot Springs commission