Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1922-11-29
KNEESKERN CASE
CONTINUED from first page)

DcCdnSc tlcN represented INhGI v dil
Brocklin when the latter had a prclimin-
airy hearing as a suspect in connection
with the murder OF Charles and irene
Nan Hockln
SAYS Construction Ended
We were only EmrerS counsel IN q
preliminary hearing hg declared, and
With that ended. our connection with FL
mer Nan Brockhu ceased II he had
been indicted, ur should he b. indicted
for this crime. he'd be tree TO secure any
attorney he might choose. and Mr. Sayrc
and myself would BE- Tree to do as We
might Cho0sg about representing INN II
hc wanted MS 10 do 81. OF course, Il
wouldn't BE- pr1per tor rs 70 appear tor
cause rrat would ia bcJrayug cou3-
deuccS
Regarding the objection Of the defense
go the court 5 Instruction regarding mo
tive 20 the jury Mr. Houcil read a Cir
tation showing thar the supreme court
had ruled tha1 ,jmilar instruction IN
another case was 81 statement as favor
able as II could BE- made
on DggyFs Of UHvaty
The next point taken up for the prose-
cution BY Judge tLOuck vas the claim
that the verdict oI murder On the nrst
degree was not justified He referred 70
the testimony Of Fischer. and said L
positively showed intent ON the part Of
-hc defendant. lle asserted that the de-
Tense admits that murder was done, and
thai tire only thing lett for the jury %
decide was the identification oi the
murderg
odd Fischer said nc tried to keep
Frank from going to the cabin, the
speaker said, and kneeskcrn told him
he was going ii he came back alive or
not. Why was he determined to go, and
why did he take a shotgun2 The roads
were bad, and he had TO get an automo-
bile fol the trip
On the subject of alleged misconduct
On the part OF the jury or the bailiff in
charge OF the jury Judge Houck assert
ed that 10 make this carry any weight
ahe defense must show that the alleged
misconduct was prejudicial to the defend
ant lie SAID that the defenSe's claim
that one OF the jurors has expressed an
opinion regarding the case, and even said
II was decided opinion, can have no
weight unless il is proved that the opin-
ION was fixed, deliberate and determined
constituting bias against the defendant
4tacks "Ncar E5TdcHcc."
How much OF their so-called new
evidence can be admitted in case OF a
new trial?" Judge Houck asked in
launching his conclusion, which was an
attack on the contents OF the affdavits
OF the defense To- show alleged newly dis
covered evidence to support the motion
for a new trial.
III it is hcarSay, cumulative, or
tending only To impeach some OF the
states witness, ii cannot be basis for
a new trial. he asserted He then con-
1irued with an attempt to show that the
sc-cgllcd newly discovered evidence IS
e@rTr -. Sss,.st A>,-~-s-----... <---~- -,
Sc referred 10 Waukou persons who
say they were told by Moore that Elmer
Van Brocllin described how irene Van
Brocklin died the Inference being that he
learned this from Elmer. lie asked the
court where such evidence would land III
i trial. lie hi Swenson's affidavit by
saying Swcnsun was a witness in Knee
skcrn's trial and the defense had an OPP
portunity in court 10 bring out ali he
knew OF the case lie said that anything
Swcnsou might now attempt 10 offer
cannot be claimed to- be newly discovered
evidence.
Flaws Hsthcr Of IrfHr
That disposcs OF all the af6davits c&.
cCpt those Of the DuiIs and Mrs Rice,
he declared The Duhs' afiidayits de.
clare they saw Knecskcrn hunting at tn,
time the murder is alleged to have oc
cured Mr.. lIouck declared one Of thl
Duffs is now ont OF the jurisdiction o.
she court, and the other stands COnyiCtCC
OF a felony, 50 that any testimony the!
might have to offer would be of doubtful
worth to the defense.
The ai6davits of Mrs Rachel Rice
mother OF the deceased Irene Van Brock
lin, were scored as unworthy Of consider
ation for setting aside q jury's verde
fCT two reasons by Judge uouck II,
said she "hraZenly presents to this cour
a showing OF Illicit communication, a
least, between herself, a married woman
and an unmarried man ..
The other reason he advanced To- suS
tam contention was that the defense ".
III touch with Mrs Rice III curing tn
first trial, and that l. We lacking il
diligence before the trra, and a, the fim
OF The trial in gytt.ug az. .nu...y ..
ruay have 70 offer.
He closed his argument with a state
mgnt that the defense has nothing at TIN
time to support its contention that a ney
rial should be- granted to the defendant
" Hart FlIrs States Case.
J Attorney William ). Hart next too