The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-10-09

In lining the negro, Judge Ed ward Mascolo warnedh i'm to heed policemen's orders in the future. not proper impeachement of other testimony.
 "16. Objection to Kelly testimony as a conclusion held ill-founded. Motion to strike out Mash testi- mony on the following day, after the witness had returned to Ohio, held too late.
 "17. The ladder was properly ad- mitted in evidence.
 "1s. Verdict not against weight of evidence.
 "19. No legal error arose from (a) presence of dead child's father in court; (b) or of "other promin- ent persons not connected with the case" Co or from demonstrations of laughter or applause by specta- tors, rebuked by the court, (O or from the movements of messengers and clerks, (e) or from press re- ports and radio breakfasts, par- ticularly in the absence of objection during the trial.
 "20. The arrangements for care and sequestration of the jury were reasonably adequate.
 "21. It was no error (a). to let the jury use . magnifying glass, or (b) to furnish them food under the direction of the court, or Co to ad- wise them in the evening that the judge was going home for the night at a stated hour."
 May Delay Execution
 Washington, Oct. 9-(UP)-Deci- sion of the New Jersey court of errors and appeals upholding con- viction of Bruno Richard Haupt- mann leaves only the United States supreme court open as judicial avenue by which he might escape execution.
 If his attorneys appeal to the court, they have 90 days under the courts rule to file an application for a review.
 Even though filed before the scheduled date of his execution, proceedings of the supreme court would not automatically halt im- position of the death penalty. He would have to appeal to the New Jersey courts or to the supreme court for a stay of execution.
 In cases where the supreme court has been asked to review capital cases, 1t has been customary for state officials to postpone execu- ton.
 Events In Trial
 Hauptmann was found guilty of murder, first degree-without mercy recommendation, making death sem tence mandatory-by a jury in Remington on February 13, 1885, after one of the most sensational trials in modern history.
 He was sentenced to die in the electric chair at Trenton State Prison during the week of March 19, 1895, but on February 19, State Chancellor Luther A. Campbell granted 8 writ of error for review of the conviction, automatically staying sentence. Meantime, Justice Trenchard after hearing Haupt- mann's "pauper's plea" ordered the state to bear the costs of printing trail records for the appeal.
 The appeal was argued June 20 before the court of errors and ap- peals, composed of 13 judges, in- cluding five lay mempers, two of whom were not lawyers.
 Lawyers In Case.
 Hauptr1ann's case was set forth by c. Lloyd Fisher, Egbert Rose- crans and Frederick A. Pope. Ed ward J. Reilly, who led the defense at Remington did not participate in the appeal. He had been dis charged some months before by Mrs Hauptmann who charged he had sought a $25, ,000 fee which she con- sidered exorbitant.
 David T. Wilentz, attorney gen. eral and the fiery little prosecutor who won the conviction against Hauptnann, defended the verdict and the conduct of the case.
 Hauptmann's appeal was based upon IS contentious, all intended to show he was deprived of fair and impartial trial and unfairly convicted. Chief among these points was:
 That prosecution by the attorney general rather than the local prose- cutor unduly influenced the jury.
 That the state changed its theory of how the crime was committed during the trial, thereby describing 8 crime different from that set forth in the indictment.
 That Justice Trenchard made a fair verdict impossible by the tone and nature of his charge.
 That the testimony of Col. Lind bergh had been given undue weight because of his position. His pre- sence in the court room "unduly and unfairly influenced the jury"
 Wilentz Denied It All. Wilentz denied that Hauptmann had had an unfair trial. He in- sisted that all the state needed to prove was that Hauptmann had broken into and entered the Lind bergh home at Hopewell the night of the Kidnapping with intent to commit felony. The attorney gen. eral said evidence on this score had been overwhelming but that there was in his opinion no greater proof of guilt than Hauptmann's own demeanor on the witness stand.
 The court then took the case, list ed as No. 99 on the calendar, under 1 
 During his nearly nine months in the Trenton death house while a. waiting Soutcome of his appeal, occupied himself by ] writing his autobiography.