Evening star., 1935-02-14
Guilty!

Guilty!
After trial lasting six weeks Bruno
Richard Hauptmann has been con-
victed of the murder of the child Of
Charles Lindbergh and sentenced to
death. With that verdict, rendered
last night after deliberation for more
than eleven hours, the jury at Flem-
ington undoubtedly met the expecta-
ton of a majority of the people, who
have been following the case with
anxious intentness throughout. There
was no question as to the guilt Of the
accused in the minds of the twelve
men and women who sat in judgment.
They promptly voted unanimously for
conviction, three holding to the alter
native of life imprisonment but finally
agreeing with the majority that the
evidence justified the extreme penalty.
This case has held the attention Of
the country as have few others in
history. The brutality of the crime,
the prominence Of the parents of the
child who was stolen for ransom and
slain in the course Of the kidnapping,
the long search for the perpetrator of
the outrage, his final capture through
his possession of the ransom money,
the spectacular trial, all made for the
arousal Of interest which was more
than that usually felt in crime and
in the proceedings of the law toward
the punishment Of its perpetrator.
This interest, was heightened by the
prevalence of a feeling of fear regard
ing the abomination of the stealing of
human beings for ransom, which has
of late become veritable criminal in
dustry in America.
Hauptmann's case was exceptional
IN that he was not a member of a
gang. He had no criminal record in
this country. There was nothing to
direct attention to him until he was
caught through the passing of one of
the ransom notes. Even then there
was question as to his identity as the
stealer and slayer of the child. He
was accused first in New York of ex-
tortion, then the State of New Jersey
charged him with murder and he was
sent to that State for trial. His de-
fense was denial, buttressed by an
alibi. His counsel went further, how
ever, and set up the contention that
the crime had been committed by
others, three Of those thus charged
being dead. In SO doing it assumed q
burden of proof which usually rests
upon the prosecution. Failure to
establish the alibi beyond reasonable
doubt and failure to shift the onus of
the crime upon others left the case in
the hands of the jury in such man
ner as to permit no other verdict than
that which was given last night.
An appeal will of course be taken.
The counsel for the defense has noted
many exceptions, particularly to the
judges charge to the jury, which to
the unbiased person seemed to be
decidedly fair and just. While the
date for the execution under the law
is set for day next month, there is
strong probability that it will be de-
layed pending the hearing of the ap-
peal. There will be much public i'm
patience with this protraction Of the
case, but it is unavoidable in the pres
ent state of judicial procedure. The
convicted man has a right to the
fullest review of his trial and con-
demnation, and that his counsel will
take the utmost advantage of that
right is assured.
The conviction of Hauptmann does
not undo the wrong he has done. He
is now to pay the extreme penalty for
his crime, unless his conviction is set
aside. His peculiar temperament is
such as to cause the belief that he will
not confess his guilt. But of that guilt
there can now be no doubt. when
twelve men and women have, in the
light Of all the testimony, direct and
circumstantial, declared that he is
the man who stole the child, caused
its death and then took ransom money
for its return to its parents, thus mag
nifying his guilt to a degree rarely, if
ever, reached in the records of crime.