Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-06-20
Hauptnann
Continued From First Page.)

four-will follow the hearing, while
the IA members of the court study
the 10-volume record of the Fleming
ton trial. A decision, either sustain
ing the conviction or ordering a new
trial, was not expected until Septem-
Der or october.
The high court, to avoid such
crowds as focked to the Pennington
trial, laid drastic limitation on at
tendance. When the so seats avail
able we're taken, the doors were
locked.
varying Theories" Emphasized.
The Hauptmann brief laid its heaW-
est emphasis on the charge that the
State had wrongfully used varying
theories in the trial as to how the
kidnapped child met death. The burden
of States evidence, it said, was that
the child had been killed when he was
dropped from the kidnaper's buckling
ladder. Despite this, the brief con-
tended, WilentZ, summing up for the
State, espoused an entirely different
theory that Hauptmaan had killed
the child before removing him from
his crib.
A week-old opinion of the court
granting a new trial to a Newark
colored man was cited in support Of
this contention. Although the court
did not rule on the point in that
decision, it observed in its opinion that
it was unfair to inject new theory
in a murder trial after the case had
proceeded on a different theory be-
cause it deprived the defendant Of his
right to cross-examination on the new
theory.
The brief further contended that
the alleged varying death theories adj
vanced by the prosecution contravened
Hauptmanns constitutional rights to
q fair trial. In this contention was
seen the possible basis of an appeal
to the United States Supreme Court
in event of an unfavorable decision.
The brief also commended that the
admission of the kidnap ladder in
evidence was improper and that Col.
Charles A. Lindbergh's daily presence
in the court influenced the jury I'M
fairly.
HOchmuth's Testimony Attacked.
1t attacked the testimony of Anan-
dus Hochmuth, octogenarian who tes-
titled he saw Hauptmann near the
Lindbergh estate, and attacked the
credibility Of Willard Whited and
Charles B. Rossiter, who also placed
Hauptmann in the vicinity.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas w.
Trenchard, presiding judge, was at
tackled in the brief on the grounds
that he impaired a free verdict and
impressed upon the jury his conclu-
sions as to the evidence and imposed
upon the defendant an unauthorized
rule as to reasonable doubt" The
brief charged likewise that he failed
to charge the rule as to the weight of
handwriting testimony, and ignored
a number of request charges offered
by the defense.
The brief attacked the expert value
Of Arthur Koehler's wood testimony,
and the value of Lindbergh's identif1-
cation of Hauptmann's voice. It
charged DR.. John F. Condor, ransom
payment intermediary, did not testify
truthfully and fairly, and that the
testimony of John Perrone, Bronx taxi
driver; Al Reich, Condon's bodyguard,
and other State witnesses was con-
fused.
State Answers Charges.
The answering brief of the State
said the evidence proved conclusive
ly" that Hauptmann was guilty of the
murder, dismissed lightly the import
of the varying theories as to the cause
Of death, called Hauptmann's inter-
probation of the attorney generals
summation "unwarranted."
The State brief also replied point by
point to the II issues raised in the
defense brief. It defended the at
torney generals characterizations of
Hauptmann as "cold-blooded muir
derer" and public enemy No. Of
this world" as proper comments on
the character of man who would
commit such crime"
Pointing to the testimony Of the
handwriting experts and Koehler as
'unchaken and uncontradicted," the
State continued:
1.-THE testimony Of DR.. John r. Con-
don is of like effect. He described
clearly and accurately his meetings
with the plaintiff -in-error (Haupt-
MANN, payment Of the ransom money
and his identification was positive and
emphatic.
Col. Lfndbergh's identification Of
Hauptmann's voice was not contra
dicted, the brief added, and was "a
positive and direct identification which
stands unchallenged. Failure Of
the defense to cross-examine the avi-
otny On this Y0if1t WAS oSionificant +"