Evening star., 1924-07-31

! might parallel the present case could
be read until doomsday' without
progress.
Mr.. Marshall insisted that the State
did not object to presentation of
alieniSts' testimony as such.
Insanity n Defense.
The State does not object to alien
lists testimony If the proceedings are
at the correct stage for reception OF
such testimony" he explained. "Un-
der the law insanity is a defense, and
unless it is so offered alienist testi-
mony is not admissible.
Here we have on the court rec
ords a confession, meaning the high
est order of conviction. a plea of
guilty"
Analysing the present situation, he
said that the mental disease testi-
mony which the defense was offer
ing was the foundation of legal in
sanity. Legal insanity decides re-
sponsibility for crime he said
First. then. they plead guilty, ac-
knowledged guilty responsibility,
then offer in mitigation of punish
ment testimony which tends to re-
move that responsibility
Que.tion for jury.
He emphasized again that the ques-
| ton Of sanity is one for a jury to
determine.
Under the offer of testimony made
by counsel" continued Mr.. Marshall,
and accepting it a its face value, the
estimate by the defense that some
thing less than insanity will be
shown, we find that courts have re-
jected evidence of weak mindedness
where the defendant is not idiotic,
lunatic or insane"
Not in Illinois," interjected Walter
| Bachrach of defense counsel.
You think not?" responded Mr.. Mar
shall Well, we don't agree with
you"
Mr.. Marshall read further citations
in support of his contention that de
pravity of character and abandoned
habits are not evidence of insanity.
neither is the commission of an un-
natural and atrociouS crime.
Well, if such depravity is not an
evidence of insanity. then is it not
proper for a court 70 consider 1t mere
ly as mitigation of punishment" ask
ed Judge Caver!y. Mr. Grove jumped
into the argument, saying 1t was nit
igation of crime, perhaps. but not
punishment.
That is all, your honor" said Mr..
Darrow. 1t is competent to deter
mine the effect upon the mind of the
defendant and that is all"
Possible Mitigation.
rs there any mitigation in the
world?" Mr.. Darrow asked Mr.. Grove.
Yes" replied the prosecutor. pro-
ceedng to explain that if a man
aH nn NJ a
affair there would be mitigation.
That's all bosh." said Mr. Darrow.
That is talking about the unwritten
law. and there is nothing % II here"
reading from the Alabama. law NIr.
Marshall reached IAN irresistible i'm
pulse is not a defense" The defense
muttered from its seats that the same
did not apply in Illinois, and the pros
ecution and defense disputed as TO
whether Mr.. Marshall had been asked
by the de.ense to read from the ILL.,
nois records a case in which it had
been held that "depravity of charac-
ter and abandoned habits" do not con-
Stitute insanity.
IF the defense tried to show a de-
praved act how are you going to
prove it?' asked Mr.. Grove OF the
court: Are they going to prove it
duce some one to say saw a de-
praved act committed? That would
be hearsay and incompetent"
Messrs. Bachrach and Darrow asked
| Mr.. Grove at the same time if, when
he occupied the position now held by
Judge Cayerly, he had not heard ex-
pert testimony in the case of Thomas
| Fitzgerald. who attacked and mur-
| dered Janet Wilkinson
Denies Precedent.
81 Cid not the prosecutor replied
with determination.
! fense attorneys.
Il remember" Mr.. Grove said. that
one alienist testified about perversity
and also l remember that Fitzgerald
| was found guilty of tirst-degree mur-
/ Yes. but you sentenced him." re-
| torted Mr.. Darrow.
Everybody laughed, but only for a
moment.
Proceed with your argument"
Judge Caverly instructed the State.
Court Calls Recess.
Mr.. Marshall read for few moments
and then the court declared a recess
for Eve. and only five. minutes"
| After the recess photographers who
had pressed forward in the interesting
minutes Just preceding the interval
were rebuked by a bailir at the in
stance of Judge Caverly. Wouldn't
you like to get up here?" the bailiff
said, pointing to space at the judges
! immediate right
Dr.. White. who all the time had
| been on the witness stand, moved
| down to the floor after the recess,
hndlng 1t somewhat more comfort
| able there than it had been in the
| high backed. straight chair in the
| witness box he had occupied all of
! yesterday as well as today He had
| been in the chair hours and IS min
| utes.
Mr.. Marshall took his argument
/ into the realm of Irresistible i'm
pulse" holding that 1t was not rec
| ognized in law as an excuse for crime.
II such impulse was given as an evil
dence OF mental disease" he argued,
IT became moral insanity" which
| was not recognized as an indepen-
dent mental state.
| Judge Caverly had him repeat legal
quotations of that point.
| Mental disease, functionals in ma
ture. were placed in the same cate
srgument. @ ge Re read IN M5 Pennsyiyania maySnars
decision in support of this point.
Mr.. Marshall emphasized the case of
People VS.. Finley, SO Michigan, 4s3.
-. Every one who is non-compos men
who INDUCES that convenient form of
insanity which lasts just long enough
to permit commission Of a crime is
Just as responsible as drunken man.
The law has no theories on insanity.
It holds responsible every one who is
He also cited from People VS. Nc
Carty, lis California, 255. the follow.
ing:
In law there Is no distinction be-
| tween moral insanity and mental de-
rangenaent as an excuse for crime"
Cites English Case.
Mr.. Marshall went to England for