Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1934-09-27
Hauptmann and the Law,

Hauptmann and the Law.
Indictment in New York of Bruno
Richard Hsuptmann for extortion as
sures, at least, his trial In that State
for the lesser of the crimes of which
he is suspected. The circumstantial
evidence-possession of the identical
money given to him as ransom for the
kidnapped child, without reasonable ex-
PLANTATION of it's source-establiShes suf-
ficient presumption Of guilt to war
rant the belief that, if tried on that
charge, he would be convicted, with
maximum penalty Of twenty years
Imprisonment. The major interest,
however. lies in the possibility of es-
tablishment of his connection with the
kidnapping and Staying Of the hostage
That crime was committed in New
Jersey, and an indictment on such a
charge must be brought in the State
of New Jersey. John Doe" indict-
ments have been brought on the
murder charge, but none on that of
kidnapping.
In this connection 1t is pointed out
that the New Jersey laws contain q
provision of limitation to this effect:
mo person shall be prosecuted for any
offense not punishable by death unless
an indictment shall be found within
two years of the time the offense was
committed" The kidnapping occurred
little more than two and a half
years ago, and the child died shortly
afterward. The penalty for kidnapping
in New Jersey under the law then in
force is imprisonment only. though
the death penalty is provided for first
degree murder, with deliberate intent
to kill. There is, however a provision
in the law of limitation which
states that nothing herein contained
shall extend to any person fleeing
from justice" and an older law stipu-
lates that "a person who commits a
crime within the State and shall with
draw from such Jurisdiction without
waiting to abide the consequences Of
his act must be regarded as a fugitive
from the State whose law has been
infringed."
If Hauptmann was the kidnaper he
may be regarded as a fugitive, and
therefore by Interpretation subject to
the penalty for that crime, despite the
statute OF limitations. If he slew the
child he is subject to indictment, trial,
conviction and punishment by death
in New Jersey regardless of the
statute, which runs only to ofIenSes
not punishable by death.
A minor error in the indictment just
found in New York has been brought
to attention, in the misspelling Of the
name of the victim and his parents,
the final n" being omitted. Such
mistakes have in the past caused fail
ures of justice, through the invalida-
ton OF indictments. In this case the
error is easily correctible, as attention
has been Immediately called to it. 1t
illustrates the need Of exceptional care
in the preparation of legal documents,
which are the basis of proceedings
and must be letter perfect in every re-
spect to meet the technical require
ments Of the law.
The circumstantial case against
Hauptmann as the extortioner, and by
presumption the kidnaper, includes
identification of his handwriting with
that used in the ransom demand
notes. In that field there is always
room for disputstion and denial, but
coupled with the undeniable possession
of the actual money delivered into his
hands this factor becomes of almost
positive character. Were there no
such link as that Of the money, the
identity of which is established, hand
writing evidence might be question
able 1t would seem, therefore, that
the search for the kidnaper and pre-
Sumably the slayer of the child has at
last ended, with assurance OF the ex-
tremest penalty the law permits, de-
spite the division of Jurisdictions and
the statute of limitations.
Other groups that are working hard