Post by bookrefuge on Oct 21, 2011 21:25:51 GMT -5
Quoting the trial transcript of the examination of Hochmuth by Wilentz:
Q. And the man that you saw looking out of that automobile glaring at you in the manner that you say, is he in this room?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is he?
A. Alongside of the trooper there (pointing his finger).
(At this point the lights in the courtroom went out.)
Mr. Wilentz: Is there any reason for extinguishing the lights?
Q. Well, at any rate, would you mind stepping down, please, and showing us?
(The witness came down from the stand and advanced in the direction where the defendant Hauptmann was sitting.)
Mr. Wilentz: Will you please put your hand on his shoulder?
The Witness: Right there (touching the defendant with his hand).
Mr. Wilentz: May we have on the record, "Indicating Bruno Richard Hauptmann"?
Now my question is this. Isn’t it quite a coincidence that the lights went out just when Hochmuth—who was growing blind from cataracts—was asked to identify Hauptmann, and remained out during his testimony and cross-examination? It was obviously not routine courtroom procedure—Wilentz is acting surprised by it. Is it just possible that the prosecution pre-arranged it, so that if Hochmuth muffed the identification, physically stumbled, or otherwise gave away his poor vision, it could be blamed on dim lighting in the courtroom?
The prosecution, which had spent time with Hochmuth, presumably realized by now just how bad his vision was. Hochmuth had been declared “partially blind” in 1932—the year of the kidnapping—and had the defense known this information, discrediting the witness to the jury would have been a slam-dunk.
The lights going out may be a minor point; but if Wilentz did prearrange it, it does comment unfavorably on his methods.
Of course, I suppose if it was prearranged, it could have also backfired by ACCENTUATING Hochmuth’s visual deficits. So one could argue that it might have favored the defense instead.
Nevertheless, I find it too much of a coincidence that the lights went out at the exact moment Hochmuth was asked to identify Hauptmann.
Incidentally, even if Hochmuth’s vision were perfect, I find it questionable that someone could positively ID a person he saw only for a few moments two and a half years earlier. I can still remember the faces I of people I worked with years ago, but those are people I worked with every day. If you asked me if I could remember the face of a cashier at a store I visited just once, two years ago, the answer would be “no.”
Certainly, if a single-time encounter was highly traumatic, that might be different. Once, years ago, I was driving, and another driver was in road rage—I turned off the road just to get away from him. I can still sort of generally visualize his face. But if you asked me if I could POSITIVELY identify him in a courtroom today, I would have to say “no.”
Now I realize, of course, that there are people with better memories than mine—in fact, there are cases in the news of rare people with extraordinary photographic memories. But I certainly don’t get that feeling about the states’s witnesses that placed Hauptmann in New Jersey. To me, to remember a face you saw briefly, and identify the man “beyond a reasonable doubt” two years later, that’s a stretch--and with his life at stake, probably criminal.
Q. And the man that you saw looking out of that automobile glaring at you in the manner that you say, is he in this room?
A. Yes.
Q. Where is he?
A. Alongside of the trooper there (pointing his finger).
(At this point the lights in the courtroom went out.)
Mr. Wilentz: Is there any reason for extinguishing the lights?
Q. Well, at any rate, would you mind stepping down, please, and showing us?
(The witness came down from the stand and advanced in the direction where the defendant Hauptmann was sitting.)
Mr. Wilentz: Will you please put your hand on his shoulder?
The Witness: Right there (touching the defendant with his hand).
Mr. Wilentz: May we have on the record, "Indicating Bruno Richard Hauptmann"?
Now my question is this. Isn’t it quite a coincidence that the lights went out just when Hochmuth—who was growing blind from cataracts—was asked to identify Hauptmann, and remained out during his testimony and cross-examination? It was obviously not routine courtroom procedure—Wilentz is acting surprised by it. Is it just possible that the prosecution pre-arranged it, so that if Hochmuth muffed the identification, physically stumbled, or otherwise gave away his poor vision, it could be blamed on dim lighting in the courtroom?
The prosecution, which had spent time with Hochmuth, presumably realized by now just how bad his vision was. Hochmuth had been declared “partially blind” in 1932—the year of the kidnapping—and had the defense known this information, discrediting the witness to the jury would have been a slam-dunk.
The lights going out may be a minor point; but if Wilentz did prearrange it, it does comment unfavorably on his methods.
Of course, I suppose if it was prearranged, it could have also backfired by ACCENTUATING Hochmuth’s visual deficits. So one could argue that it might have favored the defense instead.
Nevertheless, I find it too much of a coincidence that the lights went out at the exact moment Hochmuth was asked to identify Hauptmann.
Incidentally, even if Hochmuth’s vision were perfect, I find it questionable that someone could positively ID a person he saw only for a few moments two and a half years earlier. I can still remember the faces I of people I worked with years ago, but those are people I worked with every day. If you asked me if I could remember the face of a cashier at a store I visited just once, two years ago, the answer would be “no.”
Certainly, if a single-time encounter was highly traumatic, that might be different. Once, years ago, I was driving, and another driver was in road rage—I turned off the road just to get away from him. I can still sort of generally visualize his face. But if you asked me if I could POSITIVELY identify him in a courtroom today, I would have to say “no.”
Now I realize, of course, that there are people with better memories than mine—in fact, there are cases in the news of rare people with extraordinary photographic memories. But I certainly don’t get that feeling about the states’s witnesses that placed Hauptmann in New Jersey. To me, to remember a face you saw briefly, and identify the man “beyond a reasonable doubt” two years later, that’s a stretch--and with his life at stake, probably criminal.