Evening star., 1935-10-10
Guilty, as Found.


New Jersey as jury at the trial OF
Richard Bruno Hauptmann for the
kidnap murder of the child OF Colonel
Charles Lindbergh, rendered verdict
February 13 last finding him guilty OF
that crime, after trial of six weeks.
This verdict was almost unanimously
approved as justified and correct by the
American public, which was aroused over
the case as in very few instances Of
crime in the history of the country.
Yesterday thirteen judges. sitting as
Court of Errors and Appeals for the
State of New Jersey, unanimously
affirmed that verdict and approved the
proceedings by which it had been
reached. This finding, too, is universally
approved by the public, which remains
as keenly interested as ever in the de-
termination of the case.
1t has been in no spirit of vengeance
for the kidnaper- murderer that this con-
Germ in the proceedings of both the trial
jury and the appellate court have been
followed with such intense interest.
Rather has the anxiety of the people
been for the vindication of the law, the
demonstration of the efficiency of JUS
tice. In so many cases in the past has
justice been defeated through the chicane
of counsel, the rigid technicality of
courts, the incompetence or venality of
jurors and the protraction of proceedings
to the point of the exhaustion of evi-
dence that there was fear lest in this
instance the history, of failure would be
repeated. And it was recognized that
the Hauptmann case was more than the
trial of one man for dastardly crime,
but that it was the trial of the law itself
and the law enforcement processes.
The case against the defendant in
this instance was almost wholly circum-
stantial. He was accused by clues lead
ing directly to his identity, provided
that they perfectly united into fabric
of demonstration. That they did so
match was the judgment of the jury
and of the appellate court, which yes
terday declared that "the verdict is not
only not contrary to the weight of the
evidence, but one to which the evidence
ineScapably led" Apart from the public
concern for the vindication of the law
and the prestige of its processes, the
case was dramatic demonstration of
the infallibility of circumstantial evi-
derce, which must remain, in large
percentage of cases, as the surest means
of law enforcement in punishment and
in the prevention of crime.
There now remain three possible
courses for the defense. One is an
appeal to the State Court of Pardons,
which may commute the sentence to life
imprisonment. Another is motion for
a new trial on the strength of newly
discovered evidence. A third is an appeal
to the United States Supreme Court on
constitutional grounds. None of these
is likely to be effective. While it is
possible that clemency may be extended
to mitigate the sentence it is altogether
improbable that such action will be
taken, in the absence Of any mitigating
circumstances or conditions The sug-
gestion of new evidence justifying a
complete reopening of the case rests,
it is apparent, upon hope rather than
fact. The way is not assuredly open
to the highest court, which has heretofore
granted writs permitting such appeals in
the rarest instances, and only upon
grounds which do not appear in this case.
AS long as Hauptmann maintains his
denial of guilt or implication in this
crime there will be some who believe
him innocent and his condemnation a
grievouS error of the law. Assuming that
he is guilty, as twelve jurors have de-
clared and as thirteen judges have now
affirmed, there can under the law of
the State in which the crime was COM
mitted be no other penalty than his
death.