The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-02-13

up until they arrive at a Vef-
dict, and some juries have re-
manned out as long as u
hours.
If the verdict is reached in this
middle of the night Justice Trench
ard has the right to say he will not
receive it until the regular time for
opening of court, at 10 a. m. of the
following day.
The first indication that de-
cision has been made will be when
the jurymen send a bailiff to the
Judge, and Justice Trenchard-now
remaining in his chambers-comes
out to sit on the bench.
Gust Light Lunch"
Gust make it light lunch" the
justice told the sheriff, sandwiches
or something like that-enough to
hold them together"
Prosecuting officials were openly
jubilant over the charge delivered to
the jury by Justice Trenchard. They
regarded it as favorable to the
states theories that Hauptmann
constructed the kidnap ladder and
used it to commit the burglary
involved in the abduction Of
Charles A. Lindbergh Jr.
The defense, on the other hand.
raised objections to almost every
paragraph in the charge, in order
to lay grounds for an appeal.
Pope Is Incensed
Frederick A. Pope, in particular,
was incensed over certain of Justics
Trenchard's rulings. He argued that
the state had failed to prove the
kidnapping was accomplished in the
manner it charges. that Haupt-
mann was in the nursery, or that
felony-burglary- been COM
mitted.
While the jury elaborated, the
court was emptied of all spectators.
Newspaper correspondents wers
permitted to remain in the room,
Justice Trenchard, in his charge
to the jury, advised them they
could return one of three verdicts.
They are:
l. Guilty as charged in the indict-
ment.
2. Guilty with a recommendation
for life Imprisonment.
3. Acquittal.
Defense Attacks Charge
The iurv left the court room al
1920 indianapolis time) while
counsel for both sides went into a
conference at the judges bench.
In the course of his charge, JUS
tice Trenchard had ruled:
l. That if Hauptmann entered the
Lindbergh nursery by opening the
window, it was burglary, and that
the resultant death of the child was
first degree murder.
2. That it was possible to recon-
mend life Imprisonment, if Haupt-
mann is found guilty, but that the
recommendation must be part Of
the verdict"
3. That if there is any reasonable
doubt on any important point impli-
eating Hauptmann in the crime, the
verdict must be acquittal
The justice cautioned the jury to
pay particular attention to the
testimony Of Dr. John F. (Japsie)
Condor regarding the ransom ne
gotiations, and pointed out that his
evidence was corroborated by sew
eral other persons whose credibility
has not been questioned"
He also called attention to the
testimony of Amandus Hochmuth TO
the effect that he saw Hauptmann
on March, 1882, near the Lindbergh
home with a ladder in his car, and
asked sis it not possible he could
have remembered the incident be-
cause the child was kidnapped that
night"
He mentioned the fact that sew
eral Of the defense witnesses had
been convicted of crime, and said
that fact should be given consider
alton in determining their credi-
bility.
Regarding Hauptmann's own
testimony, he said the jury should
disregard the fact that he was an
interested party in the case. but that
it should also consider his credi.
Turn to Page Three