Evening star., 1935-10-10

OF Bruno Richard Hauptmdnn from
his conviction OF the murder OF
Charles A. Lindbergh, ir, written
bv Justice Charles w. Parker, fol-
loiUs::
The plaintiff in error was indicted
for murder by the grand jury OF
Hunterdon County, was tried in that
county and convicted of murder in
the first degree without recommenda-
ton Of life Imprisonment, and brings
this writ o. error.
The victim of the alleged murder
was Charles A. Lindbergh, jr.. child
less than years old, on March l, 1882,
the date laid in the indictment. On
that evening, according to the testi-
mony, the child was put to bed about
8 O'Clock and was left asleep in the
house of his parents at East AmWell
in the county of Hunterdon. About
10 o'clock, when the nurse returned
to the room, the child was missing,
and indications detailed in the evl-
dence pointed to kidnapping.
On the window sill was letter tes-
titled to be in the handwriting of the
defendant demanding $4,000 ransom
and signifying that later instructions
as to method of payment would be
Forthcoming. This led to negotiations,
in the course of which a number OF
other notes were received, and on the
evening of April DR.. Condor, an
agent of Col. Lindbergh, the father,
met a man who, as the State claimed
and he testified, was the defendant, at
cemetery in the bronx.
Sleeping Garment
Important Clue.
The money was paid in bills capa-
Bile of later identification, the parents
having already received as proof that
the kidnaper had the child, a little
sleeping suit which the child had on
at the time of the kidnapping, and
which figured as an important piece
of evidence.
The baby himself was never re-
turned. and, as shown to the Satisfac-
tion of the jury by the evidence, had
long been dead. His mutilated and
decomposed body was accidentally
discovered on May II in a shallow
grave several miles away in the ad-
joining county of Mercer. The State
claimed. and evidence supported the
claim, that the autopsy disclosed the
baby had suffered three violent frac-
lures of the skull and that death was
instantaneous.
AS a result of investigations con-
tinued over many months, the de-
tective and prosecuting authorities
procured the arrest of the defendant,
a resident Of the Bronx, on charge
of murder. He resisted eXtradition,
but was ultimately surrendered by the
New York State authorities. The
present indictment was returned on
October 8. 1884. and the trial began
January 2, 1885, and continued until
February l3, 1885. on which day de-
fendant was found guilty as above
stated and sentenced to suffer the
death penalty.
Argument on the writ of error was
deferred until June 20 at the special
request of counsel for the plaintiff in
error, and to afford them time to pro-
cure the printing of the 10-volume
state of the case.
1t is not necessary at this point to
go into extended discussion of the
evidence. Certain special features of
1t will be considered in connection
with the several points made for re-
versal and particularly in connection
with weight of evidence. 1t is proper
to note, however, as a matter of COM
mon knowledge. the existence Of great
popular excitement before and
throughout the trial, and of a crowded
court room at all stages of the case.
The case is brought up both on bill
of exceptions and on certificate Of
the entire record of proceedings at
the criminal procedure act, c. S. 1868.
The assignments of error are arranged
in groups A to r, inclusive. The
causes for reversal under the addi-
tional statutory review run similarly
from A to v. They are not identical
throughout
No Question Raised
OF Baby's Identity.
The fundamental inquiry, in the
language of the cited statute, is
whether defendant on the trial SUI
fered manifest wrong and injury,
either in the admission or rejection
of testimony or in the charge of the
court, or in the denial of any matter
by the court which was a matter of
discretion provided. no judg-
ment shall be reversed for any
error except such as shall or
may have prejudiced the defendant in
maintaining his defense upon the
merits"
As to the corpus delicti, little or no
question was raised. The identity of
the dead child was expressly admitted.
The question, whether an indictment
would be in Hunterdon was vigorously
argued. Apart from this, the main
contest was over the question whether
defendant was the guilty man. the
State claiming that he was, and he
Claiming the contrary, that he was
never at the place of the crime, knew
nothing about it and had nothing to
do with it.
Certain questions of law were argued
below and again in this court. The
brief for plaintiff in error. which was
followed at the argument, presented
the case under 16 points, grouping
assignments of error and causes for
reversal where they are cognate. And
these points will be considered in the
order appearing on the brief.
Point l is that "the summation Of
the attorney general violated the legal
and constitutional rights of the de-
fendant."
As may be surmised, the summation
On both sides was lengthy. That by Mr..
Reilly of the New York bar, for the de-
fense, covers 100 pages of the printed
case. That by the attorney general,
i35 pages. From this latter counsel
for plaintiff in error have extracted a
number of passages, which, as they
claim, amounted to illegal and uncon-
ct; Oh ~ tho rinl,tc and