|
Post by Michael on Mar 21, 2015 19:15:58 GMT -5
There was an original list of 150 Pettit Jurors drawn to create the panel from which the State and Defense were to select 12 Jurors. The NJSP investigated each and every person on that list which was then submitted to the Prosecution so they could make the best and most favorable choices. Of the selections, (2) were rated as "Very Good," (7) were rated as "Good," and (3) were rated as "Fair." Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2015 7:18:20 GMT -5
The investigations into the potential Jurors is quite interesting. The first step was to find out if they were ever arrested then a Report would be drawn up: The next step would be the field investigations, however, the methods were a little different then we'd expect: Attachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2015 7:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2015 8:15:40 GMT -5
There was an original list of 150 Pettit Jurors drawn to create the panel from which the State and Defense were to select 12 Jurors. The NJSP investigated each and every person on that list which was then submitted to the Prosecution so they could make the best and most favorable choices. Of the selections, (2) were rated as "Very Good," (7) were rated as "Good," and (3) were rated as "Fair." This is an interesting topic. Some questions: 1) Due to the NJSP investigations of the potential jurors, did the prosecution create a short list from the 150 that they would like to see on the jury? I believe 10 jurors were selected on the first day of jury selection. 2) Could you attach the above ratings to the names of the final jurors selected? 3) I believe it was Liscom Case who had heart problems. Did the prosecution know this when they selected him? 4) Why were no alternate jurors selected for this case? Did both the prosecution and the Defense agree on no alternates? 5) Were any of the NJSP investigation reports on possible jurors shared with the Defense team or did they do any investigating themselves? 6) Did Lloyd Fisher know any of the other jurors selected besides Voorhees? 7) Did a potential juror's position on the death penalty influence their selection or rejection as a trial juror in this case?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2015 14:02:13 GMT -5
1) Due to the NJSP investigations of the potential jurors, did the prosecution create a short list from the 150 that they would like to see on the jury? I believe 10 jurors were selected on the first day of jury selection. I want to be careful in answering this but I don't believe they did. They put together summaries based upon the investigations and meetings where they had rated the prospective Jurors. Then once the examinations began, it appeared the State favored those rated "fair" & up as long as they weren't against the Death Penalty but also depending upon how they responded to the questioning. For example, the first person called was Lulu Johnson. The State had her rated as "Good" but she wavered under questioning about the Death Penalty so the State wound up using a peremptory challenge to get rid of her. (10) Jurors were selected day 1, and originally only (48) names had been drawn. However, the process went quicker then they anticipated (it was "predicted" it would take at least a week to select them) and more names were drawn totaling (54) for the 1st day before recess. Only (7) more were examined on the 2nd day before they had their (12) members selected. 2) Could you attach the above ratings to the names of the final jurors selected? Very Good: Elmer Smith, and Liscomb Case. Fair: Verna Snyder, May Brelsford, and Rosie Pill. I think they were originally going to take a peremptory challenge to get rid of Pill, however, I am reasonably certain they chose to keep her because she wasn't against the Death Penalty, and it very much seemed that Fisher was agitating her during his questioning. 3) I believe it was Liscom Case who had heart problems. Did the prosecution know this when they selected him? It's not in the Summary, and he wasn't asked about a health problem from either side. Other prospective Jurors were either asked or brought up health issues. I know I have a newspaper article about his health and I'm quite sure this would answer your question beyond all doubt but I haven't found it yet. 4) Why were no alternate jurors selected for this case? Did both the prosecution and the Defense agree on no alternates? I've got something on this however, yet again, I haven't been able to find it. 5) Were any of the NJSP investigation reports on possible jurors shared with the Defense team or did they do any investigating themselves? No, and I think it would have been cause for a mis-trail if their methods became known to the Defense. 6) Did Lloyd Fisher know any of the other jurors selected besides Voorhees? Can I ask what your source is concering Fisher knowing Voorhees? In his own words: Many of them I knew personally, others not so well. There was scarcely anyone on the jury panel with whom I wasn't at least slightly acquainted.He definitely knew Ethel Stockton, Elmer Smith, Brelesford, and Walton. 7) Did a potential juror's position on the death penalty influence their selection or rejection as a trial juror in this case? Yes, see above.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 22, 2015 16:16:35 GMT -5
3) I believe it was Liscom Case who had heart problems. Did the prosecution know this when they selected him? I found the article and what it says is that Case "confessed" his problems were pre-existing once they flared up during the trial. Despite Jim Fisher's book claiming Case told Trenchard, it looks like he's misinterpreted what Whipple wrote in his book about him. Hard to know because there's no footnote (!!??) Waller appears to have done the same thing. During Case's examination, there isn't one word mentioned about his health, yet, many of the others who had issues, or even family members who had health problems - were brought up (or out) during questioning. Everything Lloyd Fisher said about the Jury is in my possession and he makes no mention of anyone having known Case had a pre-existing heart ailment prior to being selected. So unless there's another source someone can find then it looks like yet another mistake coming from the Fisher book. 4) Why were no alternate jurors selected for this case? Did both the prosecution and the Defense agree on no alternates? njlegallib.rutgers.edu/statutes/1895/gsnj.2.1846.pdfThe only reason I hesitate is something Trenchard said to those who weren't selected. It made me think something else was going on there but I suppose there couldn't have been or there would have been alternates.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 9:01:28 GMT -5
6) Did Lloyd Fisher know any of the other jurors selected besides Voorhees? Can I ask what your source is concering Fisher knowing Voorhees? In his own words: Many of them I knew personally, others not so well. There was scarcely anyone on the jury panel with whom I wasn't at least slightly acquainted.He definitely knew Ethel Stockton, Elmer Smith, Brelesford, and Walton. My source for Fisher knowing Voorhees is the investigative report written by Trooper Sawyer that you posted. In that report Sawyer writes that Johnathan Voorhees is one of the jurymen who is on the panel drawn for the Hauptmann Trial. The man who served on the jury is George Voorhees. I suspected that Trooper Sawyer may have made an error by calling George, Johnathan. In this same report, Sawyer says Mr. Voorhees is very friendly with Floyd Fisher of Flemington and also several member of the NJSP. Like the name Johnathan, I thought that Sawyer was actually referring to Lloyd Fisher of Flemington and just made a mistake with the name. Please let me know what you think. About those investigative reports; To me they look like fishing expeditions concerning possible trial witnesses in the Hauptmann case. Is the prosecution evaluating the usefulness of certain witnesses by finding out what potential jurors thought about witnesses in advance? Voorhees is clear about his belief that Millard Whited is a known liar and what he says cannot be trusted. Are these investigative reports more about witness potential than about juror qualifications??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 9:25:46 GMT -5
4) Why were no alternate jurors selected for this case? Did both the prosecution and the Defense agree on no alternates? njlegallib.rutgers.edu/statutes/1895/gsnj.2.1846.pdfThe only reason I hesitate is something Trenchard said to those who weren't selected. It made me think something else was going on there but I suppose there couldn't have been or there would have been alternates. So I read through most of the information provided by the link you gave in your post. There is nothing there that I read that requires alternate juors to be chosen for a trial. So this would be optional. Perhaps it was not a standard thing in the trial process in the 1930's to use alternate jurors. You would think in a case of this magnitude that they would not have wanted to risk the possibility of needing to retry the case if one of the 12 selected jurors became ill or actually died while proceedings were ongoing. What did Trenchard say that is making you hesitate concerning alternate jurors being selected? I know that Liscom Case was the first Hauptmann juror to die. How long did he actually live after the trial concluded? I believe Philip Hockenberry was the second juror to die. He was hit by a train in 1936.
|
|
jack7
Major
Der Führer
Posts: 1,920
|
Post by jack7 on Mar 23, 2015 9:37:32 GMT -5
In a capital case can a trial by judge give the sentence of death?
If so, and I'm guessing it's so, have you ever heard from attorneys or their defendants that they might have a better chance avoiding the death penalty by going trial by judge because the judge would be solely responsible for the penalty. This of course would probably only apply to someone who was not guilty, and/or thought they might be able to reverse the verdict.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 23, 2015 19:46:01 GMT -5
My source for Fisher knowing Voorhees is the investigative report written by Trooper Sawyer that you posted. In that report Sawyer writes that Johnathan Voorhees is one of the jurymen who is on the panel drawn for the Hauptmann Trial. The man who served on the jury is George Voorhees. I suspected that Trooper Sawyer may have made an error by calling George, Johnathan. In this same report, Sawyer says Mr. Voorhees is very friendly with Floyd Fisher of Flemington and also several member of the NJSP. Like the name Johnathan, I thought that Sawyer was actually referring to Lloyd Fisher of Flemington and just made a mistake with the name. Since Voorhees was a common name in the county, my original thought was that he was just another person among the 150. However, since your post I went back to those names and his is not on there. This can't be George Voorhees because he was 50 with (4) children and living in Clinton. So I can only assume it's either a mix-up of some kind or perhaps he's on a list beyond the original 150. About those investigative reports; To me they look like fishing expeditions concerning possible trial witnesses in the Hauptmann case. Is the prosecution evaluating the usefulness of certain witnesses by finding out what potential jurors thought about witnesses in advance? Voorhees is clear about his belief that Millard Whited is a known liar and what he says cannot be trusted. Are these investigative reports more about witness potential than about juror qualifications?? This "investigations" have nothing to do with witnesses and everything to do with the potential Jurors. Of course we see the Troopers rating Voorhees as "good" but there's no doubt the Prosecution would never pick a guy who didn't believe Whited. So it's an important fact to be included in the report. I am certainly not an Attorney, and even those who practice today might be lacking in knowledge concerning the different rules which governed those back in the 1930s... However, I am quite certain a Cop couldn't "pretend" to be investigating something imaginary for the purposes of interrogating a potential Juror. I don't see a problem looking up their criminal history, but I do see a major problem with examining them proxy, for the State, before their appearance in Court. I also have a major issue with what I consider them tampering with these people and/or having an Informant do the same, or do the questioning - under their direction. I am sure there are some apologists out there who will try to shrug it off or claim it is somehow an acceptable act in some way but for me that would defy common sense. So I read through most of the information provided by the link you gave in your post. There is nothing there that I read that requires alternate jurors to be chosen for a trial. So this would be optional. Perhaps it was not a standard thing in the trial process in the 1930's to use alternate jurors. You would think in a case of this magnitude that they would not have wanted to risk the possibility of needing to retry the case if one of the 12 selected jurors became ill or actually died while proceedings were ongoing. I don't know if it was even an option, but without taking a class on the subject, from that era, I would hesitate to answer either you or Jack concerning these points of law. I don't believe there were alternates in the Hall-Mills trial, and I've been searching for an article written by Alexander Ormsby called "Alternate Juror" where he supposedly argued for Alternate Jurors specifically because of Case falling ill in Flemington. But I haven't found it yet so it's hard for me to make that exact claim. What did Trenchard say that is making you hesitate concerning alternate jurors being selected? I desire to address a word to the jurors who have been in attendence here, who have not been chosen on this panel. The court officials tell me that there is no reason why they should not be excused until some later date to be set by the court officials, and notice will be given to the jurors, so they may go. They will return when they are notified. I know that Liscom Case was the first Hauptmann juror to die. How long did he actually live after the trial concluded? I believe Philip Hockenberry was the second juror to die. He was hit by a train in 1936. I am pretty sure (give or take a day) Case died December 29, 1935, Hockenberry May 8, 1936, and Pill January 21, 1941.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 8:12:16 GMT -5
I am certainly not an Attorney, and even those who practice today might be lacking in knowledge concerning the different rules which governed those back in the 1930s... However, I am quite certain a Cop couldn't "pretend" to be investigating something imaginary for the purposes of interrogating a potential Juror. I don't see a problem looking up their criminal history, but I do see a major problem with examining them proxy, for the State, before their appearance in Court. I also have a major issue with what I consider them tampering with these people and/or having an Informant do the same, or do the questioning - under their direction. I am sure there are some apologists out there who will try to shrug it off or claim it is somehow an acceptable act in some way but for me that would defy common sense. I am no attorney either but when I read those reports you posted, these officers are eavesdropping on conversations and in backrooms listening and Trooper Genz even asks the proprietor to engage in conversation with, again, Johnathan Voorhees, so he can listen to responses. To me this seems to rise above checking potential jurors backgrounds for probable cause to eliminate them as a possible juror. After all this police field work, this information goes on to Large and Backes for review and summarizing. And I see that another attorney named McMahon is also cosulted for 'help' with jury selection. If this isn't a prosecution trying to pick the most favorable jurors to be used to try their case, then I don't know what is!! Just my opinion. By the way, I was denied access to that link you posted in the thread about Large and Backes. It said my credentials are not good enough to view it. Can you briefly tell me what the link is about?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2015 16:42:22 GMT -5
I found the Ormsby article. It answers the question but I have another source that I think says it better: The American Bar Association recommendation concerning the impaneling of extra or alternate jurors would seem fitted for just such a case as the one under consideration. This provision is embodied in Section 285 of the American Law institute Model Code of Criminal Procedure, which has the following preamble: "Whenever in the opinion of the court the trial is likely to be a protracted one ..." Certainly this could never fit a trial more perfectly then it would have in the Hauptmann case. Yet New Jersey has no such law. Some of the jurors were sick during the trial. In the very last days there was one juror stricken with an illness that might easily have become serious enough to cause that juror to be removed. (Sanders, Paul H. Scientific AND Procedural Aspects of the Hauptmann Trial, 21 A.B.A J. 178 1935) Sorry the link isn't working for you. It is a picture of McMahon from the NY Daily News Archives hosted on Getty Images.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 24, 2015 22:19:07 GMT -5
To Michael, amy35, and All:
(1) Seems as if NJ State Police were tampering with prospective jurors. Any prospective juror who knew he or she was under investigation by the police before the trial would generally be inclined to be inclined to side with the prosecution if seated on the jury, fearing adverse consequences if he/she did anything to stand in the way of a conviction. Call it intimidation.
(2) Obviously, as in so many aspects of the trial, the state took advantage of its overwhelming edge in financial resources here. The defense had no way to fund any kind of background investigations on prospective jurors.
(3) Defense was very much remiss in not presenting a change of venue motion, to request perhaps to move the trial to Mercer County, where the child's body was found. If you notice, the jury ultimately selected had NO professionals, business people, or even skilled tradesmen, occupations generally associated with a higher intelligence and a higher socioeconomic position. The demographic profile of the jurors selected was probably representative of the rural and small town population of the county. A higher socioeconomic juror or jurors would be (statistically) more likely to pick up on the serious flaws in the prosecution's case and hang the jury on the murder charge.
(4) Is there any transcript of the jury selection proceedings for the Hauptmann trial (voir dire) available? Seems as if the Defense (was it Reilly, Fisher, or both?) might have done a bad job with this as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 16:33:17 GMT -5
1) Seems as if NJ State Police were tampering with prospective jurors. Any prospective juror who knew he or she was under investigation by the police before the trial would generally be inclined to be inclined to side with the prosecution if seated on the jury, fearing adverse consequences if he/she did anything to stand in the way of a conviction. Call it intimidation. (2) Obviously, as in so many aspects of the trial, the state took advantage of its overwhelming edge in financial resources here. The defense had no way to fund any kind of background investigations on prospective jurors. (3) Defense was very much remiss in not presenting a change of venue motion, to request perhaps to move the trial to Mercer County, where the child's body was found. If you notice, the jury ultimately selected had NO professionals, business people, or even skilled tradesmen, occupations generally associated with a higher intelligence and a higher socioeconomic position. The demographic profile of the jurors selected was probably representative of the rural and small town population of the county. A higher socioeconomic juror or jurors would be (statistically) more likely to pick up on the serious flaws in the prosecution's case and hang the jury on the murder charge. (4) Is there any transcript of the jury selection proceedings for the Hauptmann trial (voir dire) available? Seems as if the Defense (was it Reilly, Fisher, or both?) might have done a bad job with this as well. About your points: 1) I have not considered an intimidation aspect. I am not really inclined to that thought. 2) I agree with you on this. The defense was at a terrible disadvantage financially both for juror investigations and for the trial itself. 3) This change of venue for the trial was talked about on another thread. Do you really think that having the trial in Mercer County would have changed the outcome for Hauptmann? 4) Good question. I don't have an answer for you about a transcript but maybe Michael could answer this. I would think that Fisher did the best he could with what knowledge he had about the individuals he knew who were on the juror panel for this trial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 16:53:09 GMT -5
I found the Ormsby article. It answers the question but I have another source that I think says it better: The American Bar Association recommendation concerning the impaneling of extra or alternate jurors would seem fitted for just such a case as the one under consideration. This provision is embodied in Section 285 of the American Law institute Model Code of Criminal Procedure, which has the following preamble: "Whenever in the opinion of the court the trial is likely to be a protracted one ..." Certainly this could never fit a trial more perfectly then it would have in the Hauptmann case. Yet New Jersey has no such law. Some of the jurors were sick during the trial. In the very last days there was one juror stricken with an illness that might easily have become serious enough to cause that juror to be removed. (Sanders, Paul H. Scientific AND Procedural Aspects of the Hauptmann Trial, 21 A.B.A J. 178 1935) Thanks for the excerpt from the Paul Sanders article. It certainly addressed the wisdom of having alternate jurors for criminal trials. I can't help but wonder how Trenchard would have proceeded had one of the jurors become ill and unable to continue to serve. With nothing 'on the books', would he have tried to replace the ill juror? Would he have decided on a retrial with a new jury? He must have thought about this too since he no doubt heard about the health concerns surrounding Liscom Case during the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2015 17:41:00 GMT -5
(4) Is there any transcript of the jury selection proceedings for the Hauptmann trial (voir dire) available? Seems as if the Defense (was it Reilly, Fisher, or both?) might have done a bad job with this as well. Yes, this is available at the New Jersey State Library. Thanks for the excerpt from the Paul Sanders article. It certainly addressed the wisdom of having alternate jurors for criminal trials. I can't help but wonder how Trenchard would have proceeded had one of the jurors become ill and unable to continue to serve. With nothing 'on the books', would he have tried to replace the ill juror? Would he have decided on a retrial with a new jury? He must have thought about this too since he no doubt heard about the health concerns surrounding Liscom Case during the trial. They would have no choice but to declare a mis-trial.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2015 18:29:29 GMT -5
Local History: Bridgeton judge presided Lindbergh Kidnapping Trial
Doug Fuhrmann, The Daily Journal 12:52 p.m. EDT March 28, 2015
"If executions were put off every time some nut made a last-minute confession, the business of the state would never be carried out," Trenchard reportedly said.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 28, 2015 18:41:58 GMT -5
From Trenchard's file at the NJSP Archives:
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Mar 28, 2015 22:22:28 GMT -5
From Trenchard's file at the NJSP Archives: Kains had it right. "Now, do you believe THAT?" Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2015 8:03:36 GMT -5
Kains had it right. "Now, do you believe THAT?" Shameful. I posted the two letters to give examples of both positions. The Court's Charge in this case is hugely important - in more ways then one. I think the Judge does us a favor when he summarizes the State's "facts" for the Jury. Read through what he says, then when considering them apply the following: And when the case against the defendant is made up wholly of a chain of circumstances, and there is reasonable doubt as to any fact, the existence of which is essential to establish guilt, the defendant should be acquitted. (p. 4512-3) This exact same sentence, given by the exact same Judge, is what acquitted William Henry Wyckoff during the infamous Wycoff Murder Trial in 1916. Does not the Judge seem to imply Hochmuth's testimony is both required and believed?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 9:28:55 GMT -5
Can you comment on why Judge Robbins did not hear this case? He was the sitting Judge in the Flemington Courthouse. Did he die or retire? Why was it necessary to have Judge Trenchard hear this case?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 10:08:57 GMT -5
I wanted to mention that it seems to me that Judge Trenchard's use of Hochmuth's testimony as the basis for the admittance of the ladder into evidence was not right. I say this because the use of that testimony makes it fact and therefore should not be doubted. Isn't it up to the jury to decide what is true or what is doubtable? It is their job to decide these things themselves. I think Judge Trenchard's use of the Hochmuth testimony infringes on what weight the jury should give to Hochmuth's testimony.
I have not read the Appellate Court Decisions so I don't know if this was challenged by Rosecrans. I know there was a challenge to the charge to the jury as given by Judge Trenchard.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 29, 2015 13:48:26 GMT -5
Can you comment on why Judge Robbins did not hear this case? He was the sitting Judge in the Flemington Courthouse. Did he die or retire? Why was it necessary to have Judge Trenchard hear this case? I think Mark does it best on page 135 of his book: Their Fifteen Minutes. I'd also like to throw in there that Judge Shay also sat with Robbins and Trenchard during during the Grand Jury proceedings in December. Robbins was the Common Pleas Judge and Shay was the Circuit Court Judge. (***I don't know how it happened Amy but it looks like I hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button next to it. I totally screwed up your post in answering this question - I am really sorry and trying to recover it but if I am unable I hope that you can edit it back to it's previous state.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2015 21:24:31 GMT -5
I think Mark does it best on page 135 of his book: Their Fifteen Minutes. I'd also like to throw in there that Judge Shay also sat with Robbins and Trenchard during during the Grand Jury proceedings in December. Robbins was the Common Pleas Judge and Shay was the Circuit Court Judge. Thanks for referring me to Mark's wonderful book. He does explain it clearly. He explains how the justices of the State Supreme Court were each assigned one of the nine judicial districts/circuits. He then goes on to explain that the districts covered the 21 counties of the state and the justice presided over the circuit courts of each county he was assigned in his district which included the Orphans Court, the Court of Quarter Session, and the higher criminal court which was the Court of Oyer and Terminer. This last court had jurisdiction over all criminals cases. It was customary for the justice of the Supreme Court to preside over that court except in counties having a population of 300,000 or more. So Justice Trenchard presiding was over the Hauptmann case was correct. In a previous post, I mentioned the use of Hochmuth's testimony by Judge Trenchard for admitting the ladder into evidence. Mr. Pope had been very successful in arguing against the ladder being admitted. When Wilentz recalled Bornmann to the stand to address some of Pope's objections to the ladder, Mr. Pope found himself, once again, making the same objections about chain of custody and the condition of the ladder, how many different people handled it, how many places it was sent. Mr. Pope then mentioned that there was no connection made between this ladder and the defendant. Trenchard responded to Pope by asking him if he was overlooking the testimony of an old gentleman to the effect that on March 1st this gentleman saw the defendant in the possession of this ladder. Pope countered that he wasn't overlooking it. The testimony of the old gentleman did not say it was this ladder he saw. He testified only to seeing a ladder, not this ladder. Here is Hochmuth's testimony about the ladder. Direct examination by Mr. Wilentz. Trial Transcript page 448. They are discussing the car Hochmuth saw turning the corner: Q (Wilentz) - And when it made the turn into the lane, did it proceed or did it stop? A (Hochmuth) - It stopped as it got in the ditch.
Q (Wilentz) - Did it get into the ditch? A (Hochmuth) - Not yet; but it stopped there, and he pulled the ladder over to him.
Q (Wilentz) - You say that he stopped as he got into the ditch in making the turn? A (Hochmuth) - Into the ditch.
Q (Wilentz) - How long did it - did the car stop at all for any period of time? A (Hochmuth) - Well, I should say about quarter of a minute, or something like that.
Q (Wilentz) - A quarter of a minute? A (Hochmuth) - Yes.
Q (Wilentz) - Yes sir. All right, sir. Now you said just now something about a ladder. Was there a ladder in the car? A (Hochmuth) - I saw something, some of the ladder.I think that Pope's point about Hochmuth not identifying the ladder as being the one Wilentz wants to use as evidence is a valid point. Perhaps Trenchard did not recall what Hochmuth actually said in his testimony. A man in a car with "something, some of a ladder" hardly seems like a positive identification of the kidnap ladder.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2015 6:53:56 GMT -5
I think that Pope's point about Hochmuth not identifying the ladder as being the one Wilentz wants to use as evidence is a valid point. Perhaps Trenchard did not recall what Hochmuth actually said in his testimony. A man in a car with "something, some of a ladder" hardly seems like a positive identification of the kidnap ladder. This exact point was in the Appeal Amy and I agree with you. Here it is and I will follow up with the Court's Decision in the next post. I do have the State's Response but it's on Legal Paper so it would be very near impossible to scan...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2015 7:07:22 GMT -5
Here's what Trenchard had to say about this in his charge to the Jury ( p 4511) This testimony, if true, is highly significant. Do you think that there is any reason, upon the whole, to doubt the truth of the old man's testimony? May he not have well and easily remembered the circumstance, in view of the fact that that very night the child was carried away? Imagine you're in Court facing this charge when someone blatantly lies about seeing you then the Judge backs him up in this way? Is there any reason to doubt him? There's so many I've lost count. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/23lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/130
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 10:32:11 GMT -5
I think that Pope's point about Hochmuth not identifying the ladder as being the one Wilentz wants to use as evidence is a valid point. Perhaps Trenchard did not recall what Hochmuth actually said in his testimony. A man in a car with "something, some of a ladder" hardly seems like a positive identification of the kidnap ladder. This exact point was in the Appeal Amy and I agree with you. Here it is and I will follow up with the Court's Decision in the next post. I do have the State's Response but it's on Legal Paper so it would be very near impossible to scan... I think the appeal claim by the defense on improper admittance of the ladder is excellent. There was a break in the chain of custody that should have been required by the court to have addressed, All their (defense) arguments in that appeal on the ladder are valid ones. During the trial Wilentz has Bornmann make a few brief statements about a few points of contention and that is good enough in the eyes of Judge Trenchard and so he felt "constrained to admit the ladder in evidence and it will be admitted." End of story. Of course, Mr. Pope asked for an exception which was granted. Unbelievably, we see the same type of thing occur with the chisel being admitted into evidence. (Trial Transcript pg.1942) With Bornmann on the stand testifying the chisel was found near the ladder, Wilentz moves to have the chisel admitted as evidence. Pope objects to the introduction of the chisel because "there isn't any evidence to show that it was in any way connected with the alleged crime, nor is there any evidence to show that it was ever in the possession of this defendant. Therefore, we think it is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial." Once again, Pope is making a compelling objection concerning this chisel. So what happens; we have Wilentz counter Pope's objection with, "The proof up to this time, may I indicate, your Honor, with reference to the chisel is as follows: that the chisel was found near the ladder." Not surprisingly we have Judge Trenchard's response: "Mr. Attorney General, I am satisfied that it is entitled to go in in evidence and unless you desire to argue, it will be admitted." Of course Wilentz has no argument. Pope asks for an exception which is granted. With all due respect to Judge Trenchard, how come being near the ladder is good enough? Why is the level of proof, showing this chisel was used in some way in carrying out this crime, so low as to be nonexistant? Why was it not necessary to show that the chisel was possessed by this defendant; perhaps with fingerprints or maybe his initials on this tool? Something?? Why isn't the court asking for real proof that this chisel had any kind of role in the crime before admitting it? Ultimately, it seems whatever the prosecution wants, it gets, no matter how well objected to it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 10:58:16 GMT -5
Here's what Trenchard had to say about this in his charge to the Jury ( p 4511) This testimony, if true, is highly significant. Do you think that there is any reason, upon the whole, to doubt the truth of the old man's testimony? May he not have well and easily remembered the circumstance, in view of the fact that that very night the child was carried away? Imagine you're in Court facing this charge when someone blatantly lies about seeing you then the Judge backs him up in this way? Is there any reason to doubt him? There's so many I've lost count. lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/23lindberghkidnap.proboards.com/attachment/download/130I so have to read Trenchard's charge to the jury in its entirety. He is clearly trying to eliminate reasonable doubt about Hochmuth' testimony, and bias the jury in favor of it as completely truthful. This is so improper!!! Judges are not supposed to do that! The Court of Errors and Appeals claiming that the defense's argument about the ladder being attached to Hauptmann is "without substance." is shameful. Hochmuth never identified the kidnap ladder as the ladder that was in the car he saw. In fact, he never identified the car he saw as Hauptmann's car. Hochmuth testified he saw a "dirty green car." Hauptmann's car was dark blue. Hochmuth testified that the man he saw had a "red face" and "glaring eyes". That is all he could say about the man. That is clearly not a worthy description. How does that identify Hauptmann as the man driving the dirty green car? I think there is plenty of substance there. Certainly for the jurors to have reasonable doubt about Hochmuth's identification of Hauptmann. It should have been more than enough for the Court of Errors and Appeals also.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Mar 30, 2015 17:59:19 GMT -5
The Court of Errors and Appeals claiming that the defense's argument about the ladder being attached to Hauptmann is "without substance." is shameful. Hochmuth never identified the kidnap ladder as the ladder that was in the car he saw. In fact, he never identified the car he saw as Hauptmann's car. Hochmuth testified he saw a "dirty green car." Hauptmann's car was dark blue. Hochmuth testified that the man he saw had a "red face" and "glaring eyes". That is all he could say about the man. That is clearly not a worthy description. How does that identify Hauptmann as the man driving the dirty green car? I think there is plenty of substance there. Certainly for the jurors to have reasonable doubt about Hochmuth's identification of Hauptmann. It should have been more than enough for the Court of Errors and Appeals also. I certainly agree and this is only about 1%. While it definitely doesn't mean his hands were "unclean," I think we've all come to expect that a "Fair Trial" means just that. Here is something else I wanted to post while it's in front of me written by Lloyd Fisher: One of the things that stood out in this case was the apparent unwillingness of the State to produce anything which they had in their possession which wold have in any way tended to assist the defense. They resisted every effort made by the defense to procure additional information as to the nature of the charges against Hauptmann, and they refused steadfastly to render any assistance whatever in aiding the defense to view exhibits, to enter the Lindbergh property, or to enter the house formerly occupied by Hauptmann.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Mar 31, 2015 10:21:38 GMT -5
To All:
I see that the matter of Hochmuth's testimony is brought up on this thread. I can't help but wonder why on earth the Defense was not suspicious about Hochmuth's very poor vision and did not bring up the issue on cross examination. I know they never saw the medical report on Hochmuth until after the trial, but couldn't they have seen Hochmuth in person at the trial having difficulty in finding himself around as he was walking around the courtroom and to the witness stand? Add that to his age, and it should have triggered a logical reaction from the defense, especially in the situation here where Hochmuth was testifying only to what he purportedly saw and his testimony was so critical to the prosecution's case.
|
|