Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1922-11-29


our higher court, new trial
\ must be granted 10 the defend
Il ant.
The motion is sustained and
new trial granted.
Mr.. Fairfield of the Dubuque
Times-Journal reviewed the attor-
neys arguments in che following
impartial yfnanuer
Mr. Murphy occupied the entire morn
ing Thursday, presenting his argu-
ment and he took the floor again at
| O'Clock when the afternoon session
4 opened Ii was then believed that he
would continue arguing throughout the
afternoon. He had voluminous docu-
mentS, charts, and transcripts Of the tes-
1 timony OF the trial last spring before
him, and referred 10 them continually.
His plea before the court was followed
with rapt attention BY the large assem-
| blagc OF interested citizens of this and
the Frantvillc committee,
! Hits Elmn'S Testimony
! The opening argument OF Mr. Murphy
! iaid stress ON the claims of the de-
! fensc that 1t was physically impossible
! for Elmer Van Brockln, the states star
witness, and himself al one time 4 Sus-
/ pcct in the case. to see knecSkern IN tOc
! doorway of the cabin where Charles and
/ Irene Van Brochin were murdered,
/ from the point AT which he says he was
! standing when he testified he saw the
! defendant there.
Mr. Murphy declared tllat measure
ments have been made on the ground at
I tL .g ia. y.,.i,,,a ti,a4 chpyvpI the
/ impoSSibility Of person standing a FL
! mcr Van BrocSlin testified he was stand
( ing seeing the cabin door from that
| point.
| The attorney for Knecskeru also at
| tackled the action of the jury that con
! victcd Kncesllcrn III getting rulers and
making measurements on chart OF the
murder scene during its deliberations.
| He declared that the jury exceeded its
rights in doing this.
! In his argument to Judge III. +.
Taylor County Attorney J. A. Nelson, in
| a mastery talk, scored the affidavit of
| Mrs. Rachel Rice. stcpmother OF the
! slain Irene Van Brocklin, who recently
I gazed into KneeSkernS eyes and eX-
pressed the opinion that he IS not a
murderer.
Mr. Nelson charged that Mrs Rice
was in Decorah at the time KnecSkern
was on trial, that she was planted"
there by the defense, and that she could
! have been summoned as witness at
! that time if the defense so desired.
Circumstantial evidence convicted
! Kneeskern, Mr. Nelson said, and he was
vigorous in defending il, explaining that
! few murders are actually Witnessed, and
that circumstantial evidence plays a
leading part IN. almost eysrY murder
! Judge Taylor's action in permitting
shot found near the Van Brocklin cabin
/ by the state to be entered in the states
J chain OF evidence was defended by Mr..
/ Nelson. who sCoffcd at the claim made
/ by the defense, that no shot could be
( found there on December q, 1921,
seventeen days after the e~murder of both
| irene and Charles Van Brocklin, al
| though the state found shot months later.
/ TIE defense did not dig up the ground.
/ Mr.. Nelson stated, and added that the
/ ground was so hard at that time it would
have been difficult to dig into it with
out proper tools.
( Replying to the charge Of d. d. Muir
! phy chief counsel for the defense, that
! the jurors selected 70 hear the testimony
were convinced that Knecskern was
guilty before the testimony was heard,
/ Mr.. Nelson stated that Mr. Murphy him
self quizzed each and every man before
! he was accepted as a juror, intimating-
&. that Mr. Murphy should have voiced his
objections at that time, if he had any to
voice. The jprorS, he said, were all
! drawn and sworn in according to law.
| Attorney Frank Sayrc, assisting in the
prosecution. scored the af6davits Of Mel
son J. Duff and Ward w Duff, father
and son. who have been called in rs new
! witnesses by the defense. In their al
| fidavit they state they met knceskern out
hunting i'll the woods near the Van
! Rrockln cabin at about the time the Van
! Hrocklins were shot down in their cabin.
! These men, Mr.. Sayre said could
have testified for the defense at Knee
skern'S trial. He said they had full
! knowledge Of the course of the trial, and
if they had had the interests of an innO-
cent man at heart they would surely have
! made themselves known and heart at
that time, lie gave it as his opinion that
their aifIdavits were not worth any con-
sidcration whatsoever.
Another affidavit attached by the
state was that Of Harry Swcnson.
County Attorney Nelson stated that
Swenson originally said he saw Elmer
Van Brocklin, one time held as a suspect
in the case. with something in his left
hand near the Van Brocklin cabin. This
Something" was supposed to have been
- gun. Later he said he did not sec any
thing in lIImcr's hand In his affidavit
he again charges that Elmer was carry
jng Something
Judge G. n. lIouck made the closing
! argument to Judge Taylor in behalf ei
the prosecution. Tie opened with the
statement that if there is evidence suf-
hcient to support thiS verdict of guilty
which is not conciusivCly overcome by
evidence for the defense, the verdict
should stand.
He then took up one subject after an
other raised by the defense in connection
with its efforts TO Sccure a new trial
! Regarding the propricty of admitting
as evidence IN the ease the shot found
at the murder scene three months after
tie crime. hc Contcuded that the finding
of il at this remote date might effect the
weight 70 be given this testimony, but
that il couldn't effect its admissability
This question OF weight 10 be given the
evidence. hc declared, was for the jury
! 10 decide, and not the court.