1
COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF THE PEACE, City and County of New York, Part V.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
-against-
ALLEN BRADFORD. Before:
HON. THOMAS C. T. CRAIN, J., And a Special Jury.
New York, January 14th, 1616.
The Defendant is indicted for murder in the first degree. Indictment filed November 24, 1915.
Appearances:
For the People: ALLEN G. WELLMAN, ESQ., Assistant District Attorney. For Defendant: SAMUEL KOENIG, ESQ.,
(By Frank Aranow, Esq., of Counsel), and PHILIP M. THORNE, ESQ.
MR. ARANOW: Your Honor, Mr. Koenig, I understand, is in Albany, and I think we better have the defendant consent to my appointment as counsel, and I will endeavor to do the work.
THE COURT: Possibly it is better for the record that Mr. Hoenig should appear by you. MR. ARANOW: I think so.
THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, what is the usual practice? Mr. WELLMAN: Where counsel are assigned, I take
it would be better to have it that way.
2
THE COURT: It seems so to me.
MR. ARANOW: I have been in two other cases and done likewise, and the Court required the defendant to rise and state that he was satisfied with me acting in behalf of Mr. Koenig, and I think it would be better in this
case too.
THE COURT: I think I will let that course be followed.
THE COURT: (Addressing the defendant) I may say to you, Allen Brandford, that Mr. Aranow, of Mr. Koenig's office is here in court. He, Mr. Koenig, was one of two assigned counsel, as I understand it---Mr. Thorne and Mr. Samuel Koenig. Mr. Thorne is personally in court. Are you satisfied that Mr. Koenig should appear in the person of Mr. Aranow for you?
THE DEFENDANT: (Rising) Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Allen Bradford, if you desire to challenge an individual juror, you must do so before he is sworn. Do you waive the further giving of this notice?
MR. ARANOW: Yes, sir.
3
IRWIN H. KAUFMAN, a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows: THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, if agreeable to you will you make a statement to be heard by the panel?
MR. WELLMAN: The defendant's name is Allen Bradford. He is charged and placed on trial for the killingl of his wife, Isabella Brandford, at 143 West 71st street, on November 23rd, 1915. I am making this statement so that you may answer questions that will be put to you when you sit in the witness chair and are interrogated, as to whether or not you have heard or read of the case.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Kaufman, what is your business?
A Sales manager.
Q In what concern?
A J. Beggs Company.
Q What is the nature of their business?
A Machinery; hardware specialties.
Q Do you recall having read or heard of this case?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A None whatever.
Q You have lived in New York for some time, I take it?
A Yes, sir, about ten years.
Q Where is your residence?
A 601 West 113th street.
Q Have you ever had experience as a juror in civil or criminal cases?
A Criminal.
Q Criminal cases?
A Yes.
4
Q On this special panel, I suppose?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you entertain any prejudice against the race of which this defendant is one?
A No, sir.
Q Do you feel that you would be able to set aside any sympathy that might be present in your mind during the case?
A I could.
Q You would be able, in other words, to decide this case on the evidence, unswayed by sympathy or prejudice or any outside consideration?
A I could.
Q And if the evidence convinced you to your satisfaction as a reasonable man that the defendant took the life of Isabella Bradford, deliberately and willfully, would you hesitate to convict him of murder in the first
degree?
A I would not.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A I could not think of any.
Q Are you acquainted with Mr. Aranow who represents the defendant?
A Never met him.
Q Or Mr. Thorne who sits with him?
A No.
Q Or with anybody in the enclosure here?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Do you know my friend Mr. Wellman?
A Never, except seeing him around the court rooms.
5
Q How long have you been on this panel?
A About three years.
Q Have you served on a homicide case before this?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say you have lived in New York for a period of ten years?
A Approximately.
Q Where had you lived before that?
A 67 St. Nicholas avenue.
Q That is in New York?
A Oh, I beg your pardon, Boston, Mass.
Q How long had you lived in Boston?
A About twenty-two years.
Q Are you married?
A No, sir.
Q You say you have no prejudice against a man by reason of his race or color?
A None whatever.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defence.
LOUIS P. McCORD, (125 West 106th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. McCord, will you state what your business is?
A Clerk.
THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, in interrogating the juror, if it is agreeable to you, you might mention the names of those whom you expect to call as witnesses,.
Q Clerk I what concern?
A In the Public Service Gas Company of New Jersey.
6
Q Have you heard or read of this case?
A Not to my knowledge or memory.
Q Have you any prejudice or conscientious scruples against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q Have you sat as a juror before in civil or criminal cases?
A In a criminal case.
Q Where do you live?
A 125 West 106th street.
Q Are you married?
A Yes, sir.
Q If the evidence in this case convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed willful, deliberate murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A No, sir.
Q Are you acquainted with anyone inside the enclosure here?
A No, sir.
Q I am going to read to you a list of the witnesses who may be behalf of the People.
THE COURT: I think the gentlemen of the panel had better listen to this list of names to save repetition.
MR. WELLLMAN: (Reading:) Mrs. Josephine Hisler of 143 West 71st street, Elias Prince of 71st street, Max H. Zepper, lives in 8th street, Officer Carl W. Kotschau, of the 28th Precinct, Detective Joseph Leonoard of the Fourth Branch Detective Bureaqu, Detective Partick Geary, Fourth Branch, Thomas Foster,
7
Lives in 134th street, Dr. Otto H. Schultze, the medical examiner, medical assistant in the District
Attorney's office who performed the autopsy in the case. I think that is all.
Q Now, do you know any of the people whose names I have read?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How long have you lived within New York City?
A About twenty-five or twenty-six years.
Q Where did you live before that?
A St. Louis, Missouri.
Q How long had you lived in St. Louis?
A Seventeen or eighteen years.
Q That is, practically all your younger years?
A My life.
Q How long have you served on this panel?
A About two years my name has been on it.
Q Have you served on a homicide case before?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: I Object to that question; I suppose that is going to be asked and I may as well make an objection now.
THE COURT: I think I will allow that question.
A No.
Q Would the fact that an indictment had been found against this defendant raise any presumption in your mind as to this man's innocence or guilt?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know that this indictment is merely a written accusation
8
Against him?
A Yes.
Q The man stands innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and you know that to be so?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does this defendant stand before you now innocent or guilty of the crime charged?
A Neither. I mean he is entirely innocent until proven guilty.
Q You see, the purpose of these questions is to find out, for we want to get open minded persons who will try this case without any prejudice or bias, in order to carry out the purposes of justice, and we want to get the people open minded without any prejudice whatsoever, and I want you to search your own heard and mind and answer this question, whether or not you have any prejudice or even any bias or any leaning for against the defendant by reason of his color?
A None whatever.
Q Absolute on that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you married?
A Yes, sir.
Q You have a family?
A No, sir.
Q May I ask how long you are married?
A Nine years.
Q But if it developed on the trial that this man who is the defendant, was married, and lived aside from his wife for a period of several years, would that of itself raise such a prejudice as you would not be able to properly weigh the other testimony?
A No.
Q You have not read any account in the newspapers about this?
A Not to my memory.
9
Q And I believe the papers appeared on the day before Thanksgiving; I want you to recall it to your mind, about some shooting having been done in Doctor Armstrong's office on West 71st street?
A I don't recall.
MR. WELLMAN: Isn't it Dr. Waxman?
Q Yes, Dr. Waxman's office?
A No.
Q Do you know in a criminal action, who is the judge of the facts in the case?
A The jury.
Q And you are willing to take the law from the court and follow that implicitly?
A From the Court, yes.
Q And if the Court instructed you as to the law in a particular instance, and the Court's instruction were such that it conflicted with your idea of right and wrong, who would you follow?
A I could follow the law, the instruction.
Q As laid down by the Court?
A Yes.
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q No one whatsoever?
A None whatever.
Q Is there any reason that you know of in your own mind why you cannot go in there and try this case upon the merits and the evidence as adduced by the witnesses, impartially between this defendant and the People of the State of New York?
A None whatever.
Q And you will render a verdict according to your oath, and according to the law as given to you by the Court?
A Yes.
10
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Excused by the People.
CHARLES KRIKOWA, (403 East 73rd street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Krikowa, what is your business?
A Trucking and express business.
Q At what address?
A 403 East 73rd.
Q Now, that is in the very neighborhood?
A It is East.
Q Have you read of this case?
A No.
Q You don't know anything about it?
A I can't recall that case.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q Have you ever sat in a criminal case as juror?
A Yes.
Q You know then in a general way the duties of a juror in criminal cases, and the rights of the defendant?
A I do.
Q Have you any prejudice against the race to which this defendant belongs?
A No.
Q Would you be able to give him a fair trial, unswayed by any prejudice?
A I would.
Q Would you allow yourself to be swayed by sympathy for him in the plight in which he finds himself?
A No.
Q If the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant perpetrated willful land deliberate murder,
11
will you say so in your verdict?
A I would.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair and proper juror for both sides in this case?
A I do not.
Q Are you acquainted with anybody whose name I have mentioned? Read?
A No.
Q Or with anybody inside the enclosure here?
A I do not remember nobody.
Q Are you a married man?
A I am. I am a widower now.
Q You have lived, I take it, for some time in New York?
A I am a native.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How long have you been on the panel, sir?
A Twelve years on the special panel.
Q Have you ever served on a homicide case before this?
A Oh, yes.
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No.
Q Any of the persons that Mr. Wellman before mentioned and called off?
A No.
Q Mr. Wellman mentioned the name of Dr. Schultze before as an assistant to the District Attorney; would you give Dr. Schultze any greater credence than you would any other witness?
A I would not.
12
Q The mere fact that he is an assistant to the District Attorney would not give him greater credibility in your minds than any other witness?
A No.
Q Does this defendant stand before you now innocent or guilty of the crime? MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to in the form in which it is now asked.
THE COURT: I think I will sustain the objection; I know what you mean.
Q Would you require any evidence at the present time to prove the man's innocence? MR. ARANOW: I will withdraw that.
BY THE COURT:
Q You understand that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution, and that that burden requires that it
should be established from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, before you can lawfully find him guilty, and that he is presumed to be innocent?
A I understand that. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Have you any prejudice or bias in your mind against this defendant by reason of his color?
A No.
Q None whatsoever?
A No.
Q How long are you a widower?
A It is just six months now.
MR. ARANOW: Challenge by the defence.
13
EDWARD G. DAVIS, (516 West 143rd street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you a married man, Mr. Davis?
A Yes.
Q Lived in New York for some time?
A About fourteen years.
Q How long have you been on the special panel?
A About ten years.
Q What is your business?
A Electrical engineer.
Q What address?
A 165 Broadway.
Q Is that your own business?
A No, I am employed by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company.
Q You have been with them for some time?
A Since 1902.
Q Do you recall having read anything about this case in the papers?
A I do not.
Q Do you entertain any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q Or any conscientious scruple against it?
A No.
Q You have heard the charge made against this defendant, haven't you?
A Yes.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed willful and premeditated murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No.
Q Do you feel that you would be free from prejudice against him on account of his race?
A I have no prejudice against a
14
colored man. I have had some experience as an employer of colored men.
Q Has your experience left you with any unpleasant feeling toward the race?
A No, not unpleasant.
Q Do you feel toward them, so far as giving them a fair trial is concerned, the same as you do toward one of your own color?
A I do.
Q There is nothing in your experience with the race to which the defendant belongs that would prevent you for one instant from giving him a fair trial, is there?
A No.
Q And do you feel that you would be able to decide the case solely on the evidence, without any outside considerations or feelings whatsoever?
A Yes.
Q You have not any doubt in your mind that you will be able to do that?
A No.
Q Have you sat as a juror in civil and criminal cases before?
A In a criminal case once.
Q Was that why you were a member of the special panel?
A Yes, about three years ago.
Q You know then the duties of a juror and the rights of a defendant in a criminal case?
A Yes.
Q Do you know, or are you acquainted with anyone whose name has been read in connection with the case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know anyone inside of the enclosure here?
A No.
Q Do you know Mr. Samuel Koenig, the Republican County
15
Chairman who was assigned by the Court to defend this defendant?
A I know him by reputation.
Q Only by reputation?
A Yes.
Q You know well of him, of course. Y Do you know of any reason whatsoever, Mr. Davis, why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A I would be a fair juror, but I have just recovered from an attack of the grippe and my business would suffer if I served; that is the only reason.
MR. WELLMAN: I understand that the case will not cover very much time, do you think, Mr. Aranow? MR. ARANOW: I think at least three days.
A (Continuing.) I am pretty busy and I have charge of the electric construction of the new subway system, and
I have got just about all I can do in business.
Q Will it be a source of inconvenience to you at this particular time to have to serve?
A It would, yes.
MR. ARANOW: I consent to excuse him. If agreeable to both sides I will excuse the juror by consent. MR. WELLMAN: Agreeable to us.
THE COURT: He is excused by consent.
L. STEWART GATTER, (27 West 11th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Gatter, will you state what your business is?
16
Civil engineer.
Q What concern are you connected with?
A Otis Elevator Company.
Q Have you been with them for some time?
A Four years.
Q May I ask how old you are?
A Twenty-six.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror before?
A No, sir.
Q Neither civil or criminal cases?
A No, sir.
Q How long have you been a member of this special panel. Is this the first time you have been summoned?
A This is the first time.
Q Have you ever searched your mind to see whether you have any conscientious opinion touching the death penalty, which would make it difficult or impossible for you to render a verdict of guilty where the penalty
is death?
A I have.
Q And do you find that you are free from any such scruples?
A I am.
Q Have you heard of this case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you heard of this case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know anybody connected with it whose name has been read?
A No, sir.
Q You don't know counsel on either side?
A No sir.
Q Are you married?
A No, sir.
Q Where do you reside?
A 27 West 11th street.
Q If the evidence in this case satisfies you as a reasonable man, that is, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed willful, deliberate murder, will you hesitate to say
17
so in your verdict?
A You will have to repeat that question.
Q If the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the man who is accused here committed willful and deliberate murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No, sir.
Q Will you allow yourself to be swayed by sympathy?
A No, sir.
Q Or by prejudice, if you have any?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the race to which he belongs?
A No, sir.
Q You would be able to give him a fair trial; you are sure of that in your mind?
A Yes.
Q And you would be able to give the State a fair trial?
A Yes.
Q You understand that, that the prosecution, the State, must prove its case against this defendant to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes, sir.
Q Before you can find this man guilty?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that unless they establish that burden you must acquit the defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q But if they carry that burden successfully, and convince you that he committed deliberate murder, you will find him guilty of deliberate murder?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: You may examine.
18
BY MR. THORNE:
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A About two years.
Q Where did you live before you came to New York?
A Yonkers, New Burg and several other places.
Q Any other places in and around New York?
A Princeton, New Jersey and Philadelphia, in and around New York.
Q How long had you lived at Princeton, New Jersey?
A Four years.
Q Do you know anyone connected with the District Attorney's staff?
A No, sir.
Q Are you acquainted in any way with anyone who has been named as an assistant by the District Attorney?
A I am not.
Q Have you any prejudice against the defendant because of his race or color?
A No, sir, I have not.
Q Have you any particular prejudice against the defendant at the present time for any particular reason?
A None whatever.
Q Would you be prejudiced against a man if it should come out in the evidence that he was a drinking man?
A I would not.
Q Why did you hesitate to answer that question?
A I didn't understand it.
Q Is there any doubt in your mind?
A I didn't understand it.
Q Is there any doubt in your mind?
A I didn't understand it.
Q Would you be biased in any way against the defendant if it shoud be proven or if it should appear that he had been separated from his wife for some time?
A None whatever.
Q I think you said you had never sat on a jury before?
19
A That is correct.
Q Do you understand that in sitting upon the jury in a homicide case or in any case, that you must follow the
Court's instructions?
A Yes, sir.
Q And if it should happen that your opinion might not coincide in a way with the opinion of the Court or the instructions of the Court, that you would nevertheless follow the instructions of the Court?
A I would.
Q Would the fact that the defendant had been indicted by the Grand Jury bias you in any way, or influence your opinion as to the innocence or guilty of the defendant?
A I would not.
Q When you left Princeton New Jersey, where did you go?
A I went to work with the Otis Elevator Company.
Q You lived right in the city of Princeton?
A In the town of Princeton.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Did you go to Princeton?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q You attended Princeton University?
A Yes, sir.
MR. THORNE: Excused by the defence.
FRANK P. BRENT, Jr., (308 West 71st street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
20
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Brent?
A I am an accountant.
Q Public accountant?
A No, I am with the American Locomotive Company at 30 Church street.
Q How old are you?
A Thirty-one.
Q How long have you been with them as an accountant?
A Eight years.
Q Have you lived in New York for some time?
A Four years and nine months.
Q And before you came to New York where was your home?
A Richmond, Virginia.
Q Have you ever been called as a juror before?
A No, in no case.
Q Never in a civil or criminal case?
A No, no case at all.
Q Do you know what the rights of the defendant are in a criminal case?
A I think so.
Q Do you know that he has a right to have the charge against him proven beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find him guilty?
A I do.
Q And that he is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is shown up to that standard?
A Yes.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q Now have you any prejudice against the race?
A I would not say that I had prejudice against the race. I have had a great deal of experience with them in the south and I do not look upon them in the same manner as I do upon a white man.
21
Q Well, do you look upon them in the same manner so far as giving them a fair trial is concerned?
A Oh, yes.
Q Now, that is the main thing, of course. It may be that a man who is placed on trial may be of an inferior
caste and you might not look upon hi, no reasonable man might look upon him quite the same as other people, but would you be able to, are you satisfied, to give him a fair trial, just the same as if he were a white
man?
A Yes.
Q And you would do that, do you understand?
A Yes.
Q If you were chosen as a juror?
A Yes.
Q Have you any doubt about that?
A None.
Q You have not any prejudice, as I understand it, so far as sitting as a juror is concerned?
A I have not.
BY THE COURT:
Q If you acted as a juror in this case would you be entirely out of your mind the circumstance that he is not a white man, and try him entirely apart form that circumstance?
A I would.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Do you know of any reason at all why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A I would like to say this. My mother is at the present time quite ill and physicians are debating whether or not to operate upon her. She is now in Richmond, Virginia under the care of a surgeon and she is liable to have to undergo a serious operation at most any time.
MR. WELLMAN: I think we ought to consent to excuse him. MR. ARANOW: We will consent to that.
THE COURT: Excused by consent.
22
FRANK A. WRIGHT, (126 East 34th street) a talesman, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Your business, Mr. Wright?
A Architect.
Q Now, have you read of this case?
A No, sir.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where do you reside?
A 126 East 34th street.
Q Where is your studio or place of business?
A 110 East 23rd.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q If you are satisfied to a moral certainty by the evidence that the man accused committed willful and deliberate murder, will you hesitate to so find in your verdict?
A No.
Q Have you had experience as a juror in civil or criminal cases?
A In civil.
Q Never in a criminal case before?
A Never.
Q You are quite sure that you have no penalty against the death penalty?
A Yes.
Q Are you acquainted with anybody whose name has been read in connection with the case?
A No.
Q Do you know Mr. Samuel Koenig, the Republican County Chairman?
A No; I know his brother.
Q Morris Koenig?
A Yes.
Q He is a magistrate?
A He was a District Attornoey.
Q Yes, that is the man.
A Yes.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a proper juror and fair to both sides in this case?
A No.
23
Q Would you let yourself be swayed by sympathy or prejudice or any outside consideration in reaching your verdict?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
Q You would not let yourself be sympathetic to the extent of being swayed from your duty?
A No.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A About six years.
Q Where did you live before you came to New York?
A About six years.
Q Where did you live before you came to New York?
A In New Jersey, Summit and Orange.
Q How long did you live there?
A About twenty years in South Orange and ten years in Summit.
Q You said you were a married man?
A Yes.
Q How long have you been married?
A Thirty-two years.
Q Do you know anyone who is connected with the District Attorney's staff?
A No.
Q Mr. Koenig that you have referred to?
A I know District Attorney O'Malley.
Q The fact that you know them would not influence you in any way in determining this case?
A No.
Q You are positive that you have no prejudice against the colored race?
A Yes.
Q Do you know of any reason at all why you could not give this defendant a fair and impartial trial, do you know any reason at all?
A The only reason I know is that I have a very important business engagement in Montreal on Monday, which means
24
a lot of money to me. That is the the only reason I know.
THE COURT: I may say to both of you gentlemen that this juror came to me a day or two ago and mentioned the fact that he would sustain a very serious pecuniary loss if he were not allowed to keep that appointment. I
said to him he would have the opportunity of making that statement to you. MR. ARANOW: The defendant consents to excuse him.
MR. WELLMAN: I consent to excuse him, although I am very sorry to lose him. THE COURT: Excused by consent.
FREDERICK HIRSCH, (500 West Broadway) a talesman, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Hirsch, what is your business, please?
A I am not in business at the present time.
Q Have you been retired long?
A About three years.
Q What did you use to do?
A Well, I was in the cigar business.
Q Here in New York City?
A Yes, sir.
Q In the cigar business?
A Yes, sir.
Q Retail or wholesale?
A Retail.
Q At what place?
A 146 Spring street, Manhattan.
Q You had a store there, did you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you a married man?
A No, sir.
Q Have you lived in New York all your life?
A Yes, sir.
25
Q Have you sat as a juror before?
A Yes, sir.
Q In civil and criminal cases both?
A Both.
Q Did you ever hear of this case?
A I can't recall it.
Q Do you know Mr. Koenig, Samuel Koenig, the Republican County Chairman?
A No, I am not acquainted with him.
Q Do you know anybody inside the enclosure here connected with this case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know anybody whose name was read a few minutes ago?
A No, sir; I don't know any of those people.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q You are quite sure that if the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that this man committed wilful, deliberate murder, that you would find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A Yes, sir.
Q You would not let your sympathy sway you?
A No, sir.
Q Or change your verdict to a lower degree?
A No, sir.
Q Would you allow yourself to be affected by any prejudice that might arise during the case?
A I don't think so.
Q You don't think so; you have sat as a juror before; I think perhaps you can tell us more positively whether you would let prejudice have anything to do with your verdict in this case.
A No, it would not.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A I have not.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A No, I have no reason whatever
26
at present.
Q Is there anything more you want to say about that? You see, we want to know just the state of your mind. It is only fair you should let us know frankly.
A Well, at times you know, I am called away at night. That would be the only inconvenience that would probably affect me.
Q You mean during the case?
A Yes, at the present time.
Q You do what at nights?
A I have some work to do at night and that would probably interfere a little bit. MR. WELLMAN: I don't think we would keep you here at night.
THE COURT: It is not at all likely that we will sit later than 5 o'clock.
A Well, that would not interfere, then.
Q Then there is nothing in your mind at all. You feel you would be a fair juror to both sides?
A Yes. I would say yes, sir.
Q That was the only thing you had I your mind?
A That is all.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. THORNE:
Q Are you married?
A No, sir.
Q You said you lived in New York all your life?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you be prejudiced in your opinion as against the defendant if it should be shown that he was a drinking man?
A No, not at all. I would simply go under the instruction of
27
the Court and on the evidence.
Q You feel no antipathy toward him because of that fact?
A No.
Q Would the fact that he has not been living with his wife, or had not been living with his wife for a short time prior to the killing, influence you in any way?
A No, sir.
THE COURT: I do not think that question is one that ought to be put.
MR. WELIMAN: I did not hear the question or I would have objected to it. THE COURT: I think that question is objectionable.
Q Would the fact that the Grand Jury has indicted the defendant influence your opinion in any way as to his guilt?
A Neither one way or the other.
Q And you are certain you can abide wholly and solely by the instruction of the Court?
A Exactly.
Q Have you ever been married?
A No, sir.
Q If it should develop during the trial, if the evidence should bear out the fact that the defendant acted wholly and solely by the impulse of the moment, would that influence your opinion. Would you still find that the defendant would be guilty of murder in the first degree?
MR. WELLMAN: That would depend on the instructions of the Court. THE COURT: I think that is an objectionable question.
Q You would, however, follow the instructions given you by
28
the Court?
A Exactly.
Q And you would not let your opinion in the matter override the instructions that might be given you by the
Court?
A No, sir.
Q Is there any reason at all that you know of why you cannot give this defendant a fair and impartial trial?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q How many times have you sat as a juror in criminal cases?
A Homicide cases?
A Yes.
A I have served on one case.
Q One homicide case?
A Yes, sir.
Q And how many criminal cases?
A Quite a great many.
Q Covering all the years you have been in New York?
A Yes, the last thirty years.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Excused by the People.
AUGUST EGERER, (35 West 82nd street) a talesman, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Egerer?
A Manufacturer of fancy knit goods.
Q Where is your place of business?
A 352 Fourth avenue.
Q What is the name of the concern?
A F. Augstein & Co.
Q Have you sat as a juror before?
A Never.
29
Q In civil or criminal cases?
A Never.
Q Have you ever read of this case?
A I have not.
Q Have you say prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair juror in this case?
A No.
Q Are you acquainted with Mr. Koenig?
A I am not.
Q Or his brother?
A No.
Q Or Mr. Aranow who sits inside the enclosure?
A No.
Q Or with anyone whose name has been read I connection with the case?
A No.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q How long?
A Five years.
Q Have you lived in New York for any length of time?
A Nine years.
Q Where did you live before that?
A Europe, Austria.
Q Do you know anyone associate with the District Attorney's office?
A I do not.
Q You don't remember having heard anything about his case before you came to this court?
A I do not.
Q Do you have any prejudice in your mind against this defendant by reason of his color or race?
A I have not.
Q He would receive the same consideration at your hands as a White man would?
A Yes.
Q Would the fact that this man had been indicted raise any
30
Prejudice against the defendant?
A No, it would not.
Q You know an indictment is merely an informal complaint against a man?
A Yes.
Q You would follow the evidence?
A I would.
Q And you would judge according to the facts?
A Yes.
Q And take the instructions of the Court as to the law?
A Yes.
Q And follow the Court's instructions even though your own conflicted with it?
A Yes.
Q And you did not agree with the Judge, is that right?
A Yes.
Q But if it developed on the trial that this man drank, would that raise any prejudice in your mind against him?
A No.
Q Or that he had been married and lived away from his wife?
A No.
Q Is there any reason that you know why you could not serve on this jury open minded and render a fair and impartial verdict? Any reason whatsoever in your mind?
A No.
Q You understand the asking of these questions is to find out; we want to get open minded men to go into this box with absolutely no prejudice, and to judge fairly, because the object of justice is to do fairness to
both; is that your opinion?
A That is my opinion.
Q And you are ready to do that?
A I am.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Excused by the people.
31
GEORGE L. BETTS, (101 West 93rd street) a talesman, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Betts?
A I am employed with the Western Electric Company.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q Where do you reside?
A 101 West 93rd street.
Q Where is your place of business?
A 463 West street.
Q You have been in this city for some years, have you?
A Yes, about twenty-two years.
Q Have you read of this case that you recall?
A I do not recall.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror before in civil or criminal cases?
A Yes, off and on.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that the man accused committed willful, deliberate murder, would you find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A I would.
Q Would you allow yourself to be swayed by sympathy for the defendant?
A No, sir.
Q Or have sympathy for the one who is killed?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against the race to which the defendant belongs?
A No, sir.
Q Can we say then that you would be a fair juror to both
32 sides?
A I would be.
Q You know of no reason why you would not be?
A I do not.
Q Do you know anyone connected with the same whose name has been read or whom you see in court?
A I do not know anyone here. I know no one in the court room.
Q Do you know Mr. Samuel Koenig, the Republican County Chairman?
A No, sir.
Q Who was assigned by the Court to defend this man?
A No.
MR. WELLMAN: You may examine. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Where did you live before you came to New York?
A Brooklyn and Greenwich, Connecticut.
Q You lived there practically all your life?
A Yes.
Q How long?
A Twenty-two years.
Q You have a family?
A No.
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q You don't know anyone that had been read off by Mr. Wellman as being a witness, or will be a witness?
A I never heard of them.
Q If it developed during the course of the trial that this defendant was a drinking man or a man who drank, would that prejudice you against him?
A It would not.
Q Or that, being a married man he lived away from his wife for several years, would that prejudice you against him?
A No, sir.
33
Q Have you served in a homicide case before this?
A No.
In an incompleted case that was taken away from the jury.
Q Do you know of any reason why you cannot serve on this jury and render a fair and impartial verdict according to the evidence as adduced?
A No.
Q And the instructions of the Court as to the law?
A I do not.
Q You would follow the Court then, thought you did not agree with him on certain questions of law?
A I would.
Q And you would yourself judge the testimony of he witnesses?
A I would.
Q And deal fairly between both sides?
A I could.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR. ARANOW: Acceptable to the defendant.
Whereupon Mr. George L. Betts, having first been duly sworn as a juror, takes his place as juror No. 1 in the box.
MORTIMER J. JACKSON, (253 West 102nd street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you married?
A I am.
Q What is your business?
A I am a real estate broker.
Q At what address?
A Same, 253 West 102nd street.
Q Do you recall having read of this case which happened
34
not very far from your neighborhood?
A Not at all.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror before?
A Yes.
Q In criminal cases and civil both?
A Criminal cases; no civil cases.
Q How long have you been a member of the special panel?
A About three years.
Q Every sat in a homicide case before?
A No.
Q Do you know Mr. Samuel Koenig?
A By reputation only.
Q Do you know Mr. Aranow?
A No.
Q Or his office?
A No, sir.
Q Or anyone inside the enclosure here?
A No, sir.
Q You know no one whose name has been read, I take it?
Q No.
Q Have you lived all your life in New York?
A Yes.
Q Born here?
A Born here.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfied your mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed willful, deliberate murder, would you hesitate to find guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No, sir.
Q Would you yourself be swayed by sympathy either for the defendant or for the wife whom he is charged with killing?
A Absolutely not.
Q Have you any prejudice against the race to which he belongs?
A No, sir.
35
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A None whatever.
Q Will you tell me your aga?
A I am thirty-one.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How long have you been married?
A Six months.
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or any of the name mentioned by Mr. Wellman, who will be witnesses at this trial?
A None.
Q Have you any prejudice against the defendant by reason of his race or color?
A Absolutely none.
Q None whatever?
A No.
Q You never had only experience with anyone of his race or color as to bring any prejudice in your mind?
A No.
Q Have you ever had occasion to weigh that matter in your mind?
A I have employed people of his race.
Q But you never had any occasion to weigh their credibility or their trustworthiness as to raise a prejudice?
A No.
Q Or bias in one way or another, and you will try him as fairly as you would try a white man?
A Yes.
Q And give him the same consideration?
A Yes.
Q Just the same degree of fairness?
A Yes.
Q If it developed during the trial that this defendant was a drinking man, would that prejudice you in any way against him?
A It would not.
36
Or that he, being a married man, but living away from his wife, would that prejudice you?
A No.
Q So as to destroy your impartial view of things?
A It would not.
Q Did I understand you to say that you have served on a homicide case before?
A No, I have not served on a homicide case, but on criminal cases.
Q You know he is innocent until he is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes.
Q And that burden rests upon the prosecution?
A Yes.
Q To proven this man guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that the jury is the judge of the facts in the case?
A I do.
Q And you have to follow the Court's instruction as to the law?
A Strictly.
Q And apply the facts to the law as given by the Court?
A Yes.
Q And you will consider all of the facts adduced in the witness chair here?
A Certainly.
Q All of them?
A Yes.
Q Circumstances, environment, and everything?
A Yes, everything.
Q In rendering your verdict?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you would endeavor to find a verdict which is fair and impartial between the People of the State of New
York and
37
this defendant?
A Yes, certainly.
Q You would give no greater credence to testimony given by an assistant to the District Attorney just because he happens to be a public official?
A Certainly not.
MR. ARNOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR. ARANOW: Acceptable.
Whereupon Mortimer J. Jackson is duly sworn as a juror and take his place as Juror No. 2 in the box.
GEORGE E. DOW, (535 West 142nd street) a talesman, being duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Your business?
A Your Honor, I have been sick.
THE COURT: Tell everything you have to say, unless it is confidential.
THE WITNESS: I have been sick with the grippe and at this present time I am not feeling first rate. I would like to be excused.
THE COURT: The gentleman is not well.
THE COURT: (Addressing the witness.) You feel you are not well enough to serve? MR. ARANOW: Defendant consents to excuse him.
MR. DOW: At this present time I think I have rheumatism in the arm. The grippe settled in the shoulder, I
think, and I have not slept anything in three nights.
38
MR. WELLMAN: I do not think we ought to keep the gentleman. THE COURT: Excused by consent.
RUFUS C. ELDRIDGE, (435 West 119th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q What is your business?
A Real estate.
Q At what address?
A Same address.
Q You are acquainted with that neighborhood, then, I take it? Down as far as 71st street?
A I have lived there three or four years.
Q Have you lived in New York for some time?
A About ten years.
Q Where was your home before that?
A Canada.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No.
Q If the evidence in this case satisfies your mind beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed willful, deliberate murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No.
Q Will you let your mind be swayed by sympathy from a just and proper verdict in the case?
A No.
Q I mean to ask you by that whether you will let sympathy sway your mind to such an extent that you would not find the
39
Defendant guilty perhaps of murder in the first degree, although you felt satisfied that he committed willful, deliberate murder, which is murder in the first degree?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question as not proper in form. THE COURT: I think the question is allowable.
MR. ARANOW: Objection withdrawn.
Q I would not.
Q Do you feel any prejudice against the race to which the defendant belongs?
A No.
Q We can say that prejudice and sympathy will be set aside by you if you sit as a juror in this case?
A Yes.
Q And you will decide the case on the evidence alone, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Do you know anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No.
Q Are you acquainted with counsel on either side sitting inside the enclosure here?
A No.
Q Do you know Samuel Koenig?
A Only by reputation.
Q Do you know of any reason, Mr. Eldridge, why you would not be a proper juror in this case?
A I do not.
Q I did not as you if you had ever had an experience as a juror before?
A Not in criminal cases.
Q Only in civil cases?
A Yes.
Q You know the difference in the rights of the defendant in a criminal case, don't you?
A I think so.
40
Q That he is entitled to have his guilt proven, not as in a civil case by a preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes.
Q To your satisfaction?
A Yes.
Q Sitting as a reasonable man?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How long have you been on the special panel?
A About two years.
Q Do you know Dr. Waxman in 71st street?
A No.
Q Or anyone associated with him?
A No.
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No.
Q Or in the Police Department of the City of New York?
A No.
Q If it developed during the course of the trial that this defendant was a man who drinks alcohol, or accoholic beverages, would be prejudiced against him by reason of that fact?
Q I would not.
Q Or that being a married man, he had lived away from his wife for a short time, would that prejudice you against him?
A No.
Q Do you know that in a criminal case the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, presumed to be innocent?
A Yes.
41
Q And that presumption continues until the gentlemen of the jury agree in their room that he is guilty or otherwise?
A I do.
Q That presumption continues right through the trial?
A Yes.
Q The fact that this man has been indicted, would that raise any presumption in your mind as to his innocence or guilty?
A No, it would not.
Q Do you know that an indictment is merely a formal accusation?
A I do, yes.
Q How long have you been married?
A About twenty-five years.
Q You have always lived around New York?
A No, about ten years, I think.
Q Where did you live before that?
A Canada.
Q Have you any prejudice against this defendant by reason of his race or color?
A No.
Q Have you had any experience with anyone of his race or color which would tend towards a prejudice of any kind?
A No.
Q At any time in your life?
A No, sir.
Q You will treat him with the same degree of fairness as you would treat a white man?
A Yes.
Q With the same consideration?
A Yes.
Q You would give no credence to the testimony of an Assistant District Attorney by reason of the fact, merely, that he was an Assistant District Attorney?
A I would not.
Q Your mind is absolutely open at present to receive testimony,
42
you have no opinion one way or the other?
A No, I have not.
Q You are willing to go in this jury box and decide upon the facts as adduced on the witness stand?
A Yes.
Q And the law as given to you by the Court?
A Yes.
Q And you would follow this implicitly?
A I would.
Q Do you know of any reason whatsoever that you cannot go into this jury box and render a fair and impartial verdict between the People of the State of New York and this defendant Bradford?
A I do not.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR. ARANOW: Acceptable.
Whereupon Rufus C. Eldridge is duly sworn as a juror and takes his place as Juror No. 3 in the box.
CYRUS G. SIMPSON, (203 West 131st street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Simpson?
A Salesman at Vantine's, Fifty avenue and 39th street, oriental goods.
Q Have you been in their employ for a great many years?
A Ten years.
Q Where do you live?
A 203 West 131st street.
Q Are you a married man?
A Oh, yes.
43
Q Have you heard of this case before?
A Not before I came into the court, to my recollection.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q Have you sat as a juror in civil or criminal cases before?
A Yes, sir.
Q In both?
A
A In both.
Q Do you know anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with this case?
A No, sir.
Q Anyone inside the enclosure here?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know Mr. Koenig, Mr. Samuel Koenig, the Republican County Chairman?
A No, sir.
Q Who was assigned by the Court to defend this man?
A No, I don't know him.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in this case?
A No reason, except it will take my time away from business.
Q That would be true, of course, of any talesman.
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you feel ready to listen with all your attention to the evidence, if you are chose as a juror?
A Yes.
Q Your mind would not be on your business, would it?
A No, my attention would be here.
Q Would you allow yourself to be swayed from what was a proper verdict under the law and the facts, by sympathy?
A No, sir.
Q Or by prejudice, do you have any?
A No, sir.
44
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A I have not.
Q Do you know of any reason at all why you would not be a proper juror, fair to both sides in this case?
A No reason except what I mentioned, which is not a good reason, I understand.
Q You have probably noticed that the talesmen have been thinned out considerably.
THE COURT: We shall be constrained very possibly to inconvenience some gentlemen owing to the small number of talesmen present.
Q I do not want you to take it that it is my fault.
THE COURT: It is not the fault of counsel on either side. MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q Are you married?
A Yes.
Q How long have you been married?
A Twenty-five years.
Q You say you live at 203 West 131st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you lived there, Mr. Simpson?
A A little over four years.
Q Were you acquainted with a man named John G. Taylor?
A No , sir.
Q Were you at any time acquainted with an organization that he formed in that section of Harlem where you live?
A No, sir.
Q Are you a property owner in the district around 131st street?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored people by reason
45
of any observations you might have had in your immediate vicinity?
A No, sir. We had a colored maid for nine years.
Q You will give this defendant a fair and impartial trial, according to the evidence as presented to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q If you did not serve as a juror, you would feel very much relieved? MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to.
THE COURT: I think I will sustain that objection. MR. WELLMAN: That is putting it up to me, I think. MR. THORNE: Excused.
WILLIAM J. MANNION, (263 West 153rd street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLLMAN:
Q What is your business?
A Woolen business.
Q Woolens?
A Yes.
Q Where?
A 407 Broadway.
Q What is the name of the concern?
A Mannion Brothers.
Q Is that your own business?
A Yes, sir.
Q You have been there for some years, have you?
A I have been around the neighborhood for the past twelve years.
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Twelve years, a little over twelve.
Q Before that where was your home?
A I used to be traveling previous to that.
46
Q Also in the woolen business?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you sat as a juror before in civil or criminal cases?
A I sat in civil cases.
Q Have you ever heard of this case?
A No, never.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No. Against the death penalty?
Q Do you believe in capital punishment?
A I do.
Q Do you know anyone whose name has been read in connection with the case who are to be witnesses?
A No.
Q Do you know the lawyers on either side?
A No.
Q You are not acquainted with Mr. Samuel Koenig?
A No, sir.
Q Do you entertain any prejudice against the colored race?
A No, none whatever.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror to both sides in this case?
A No.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. THORNE:
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Twelve years; a little over twelve years.
Q How long have you been married?
A About three years: a little over two.
Q Before you came to New York, where did you live?
A I used to travel selling woolens.
Q Traveling salesman?
A Yes.
Q Where was your residence?
A I have no permanent home
47
previous to that.
Q What parts of the country have you traveled through as traveling salesman?
A In the South and West.
Q How much time do you think you have spent traveling through the South as a salesman?
A May be seven or eight years.
Q Have you any prejudice or do you have any prejudice against this man because of his race or color?
A No.
Q Would the fact that the deceased was a woman affect your opinion in any way, or influence you in any way?
A No.
Q Would the fact that the defendant was a drinking man influence you in any way?
A No.
Q Or that he was living apart from his wife at the time of this accident?
A No.
Q And you are positive that you know of no reason why you could not give this defendant a fair and impartial trial?
A I know of no reason whatever.
Q In your travels through the South, Mr. Mannion, have you met with any experience with the colored people that influenced you in any way?
A No, none at all.
MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory. MR. THORNE: Satisfactory.
Whereupon William J. Mannion is duly sworn as a juror and takes his place as Juror No. 4th in the jury box.
48
GUS A. WIECHMANN, (216 West 104th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
Q Your business, please, Mr. Wiechmann?
A I am record clerk of the United Electric Light and Power Company.
Q You have been that for some time?
A About twelve years.
Q Have you read or heard of this case that you recall?
A No.
Q Do you entertain any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know anyone who name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No, none.
Q Have you had experience as a juror before?
A No; this is the first time.
Q How long have you been a member of the special panel?
A I have just been called on this panel.
BY THE COURT:
Q You mean you never served as a juror in any case?
A Never served in any.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that this man Allen Brandford committed willful and deliberate murder, would you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No.
Q Would you allow you mind to be swayed by sympathy or
49 prejudice?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A None whatever.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A No, I don't know of any.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No one.
Q Or in the Police Department of the City of New York?
A No.
Q Do you know Dr. Waxman of West 71st street?
A No, sir.
Q Or anyone associated with his household?
A No.
Q Do you know the difference between the proof in a civil case and a criminal case; do you know that in a civil case the plaintiff is required to prove his case by a preponderance of evidence, but in a criminal case the People, who are the plaintiff, must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, that is, defendant gets the benefit of it?
A That is the way I understand.
Q And the way the Court instructs you on the law, you will follow that without any hesitation?
A Yes.
Q You know the charge against this man is murder in the first degree?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever in your life had any experience with any man
50
of his color or race as to even have the slightest feeling of antipathy or bias against him?
A No, none whatever.
Q Would the fact that the deceased, or the person who was killed, was a woman, so prejudice you as to not measure the testimony with the same open mindedness that you would if it had been a man. Do you understand my question?
A I don't quite get the point.
Q In this case the person shot was a woman; now, would the fact that that person being a woman, would that prejudice you against the defendant more than it would if the deceased were a man?
A I don't think so.
Q In other words, a man or woman, you would try them all alike?
A Just alike.
Q Or the fact that this defendant had lived away from his wife for any particular time, would that prejudice you against him?
A No.
Q Or that he had taken alcoholic beverages at any time?
A No, I don't think so.
Q The reason I ask you is because some people are prejudiced against some people that drink, and it may be proved that this man did drink at some time., and we want open minded jurors.
A I understand that.
Q You have no prejudice whatever?
A None whatever.
Q Mr. Wellman said that a certain assistant to the District Attorney would take the stand--- MR. WELLMAN: Well, the medical assistant, the medical
51 examiner.
Q Well, the medical assistant to the District Attorney will take the stand; would you give any greater
credence to him than you would you would ordinarily give an ordinary person, simply because he happens to be an official?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Would you give a policeman any greater credence because he happens to be an official of the City of New
York, or occupying a position in the Police Department?
A That is according to his testimony. I would have to judge that.
Q Would you, just because he has brass buttons on, give him any greater belief than you would a civilian?
A No, I don't think so, although they are pretty honest.
Q Would you weigh everything carefully and analyze his testimony the same as you would mine?
A Yes, I certainly would.
Q Do you know of any reason whatsoever why you cannot try this case fairly and impartially between this defendant Bradford, and the People of the State of New York?
A No.
Q And render a verdict according to your conscience and your oath and according to the law given by his Honor the Court?
A I know of no reason.
Q Absolutely none?
A None.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory.
MR. ARANOW: Satisfactory.
Whereupon Gus A. Wiechmann is duly sworn as a juror and
52
takes his place as Juror No. 5 in the jury box.
HENRY W. OLMSTED (563 West 113th street), talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, please, Mr. Olmsted?
A Manufacturer of mechanical tools,light machinery.
Q Where is your place of business?
A Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey.
Q Where do you live?
A 536 West 113th street.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you heard of this case?
A No, sir.
Q What is the name of the firm that you are connected with?
Q I own the business myself; if is my own private business.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A None.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you to a moral certainty that this man committed willful and deliberate murder, would you find him guilty of that crime?
A Yes.
Q You would not let sympathy or prejudice have anything to do you your verdict?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against the race?
A No.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A None.
Q Or the lawyers on either side?
A No.
Q Do you know Mr. Koenig?
A No.
53
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Nine years.
Q And before that?
A Hackensack, New Jersey.
Q You will be a fair juror to both sides, and you know of no reason why you should not be?
A That is right.
Q Have you had experience as a juror before?
A Only in civil cases.
Q You now in a criminal case that a defendant's guilt must be shown to your satisfaction as a reasonable man?
A Yes.
Q Before you can convict him?
A Yes.
Q Not merely by preponderance of the evidence, but to a moral certainty?
A Yes.
Q Beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Did you live in any other places besides the States of New York and New Jersey?
A That is all.
Q Are you married?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long?
A Twelve years.
Q Have you a family?
A No.
Q Have you had any experience in your life with any person of the colored race as to bring any bias or prejudice to your mind against him?
A None whatever.
Q You would treat him the same as you would treat me or any other white person?
A Yes.
Q Fairly?
A Sure.
Q And decide according to the evidence?
A Yes, sir.
54
Q You know that in a criminal case, the same as in a civil case, the jury is the judge of the facts?
A Yes.
Q You know that?
A Yes.
Q And the Court will instruct you as to the law?
A Yes.
Q You know that?
A Yes.
Q But even if you disagree with the Court as to the law you will still follow the Court?
A You mean the charge?
A Supposing the Court instructs you as to the law in a certain thing, and according to your own opinion that does not seem equitable, would you still follow the Court?
A Well, according to the evidence. BY THE COURT:
Q You would apply the law as given by the Court to the evidence?
A Yes, that is what I mean.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You would apply the law to the evidence, and the evidence to the law and render your verdict accordingly?
A Yes.
Q You are not prejudiced in any way for or against the defendant?
A None whatever.
Q You are not biased in any way?
A No.
Q The fact that the deceased happened to be a woman would not so offend your sense of gallantry as to be prejudiced against this defendant?
A No.
Q Or that this man partook of alcoholic beverages, would that prejudice you against him?
A No.
Q You would not give greater credence or belief to a pliceman's
55
testimony than to ordinary citizen's?
A No.
Q You would scrutinize his testimony as carefully as any other person's?
A Yes.
Q And look for motives and intent on his part?
A Yes.
Q And you would do the same with the Assistant District Attorney?
A Certainly.
Q And you would exercise your best judgment as you would in your own business?
A Yes.
Q And render a fair and impartial verdict?
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR. ARANOW: Acceptable.
(Wjereupon Henry W. Olmsted is duly sworn as a juror, and takes his place in the jury box as Juror No. 6.) JOSEPH B. WARNER, a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
THE COURT: I think we will take a recess now. Gentlemen you are admonished not to converse among your selves on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion thereon until the same is submitted
to you. We will take a recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon the court takes a recess until 2 o'clock.)
56
AFTER RECESS.
(Talesman Joseph B. Warner, having said he was subject to heart spells, and was in very bad shape, was excused by consent.)
GEORGE W. DORLAN (320 West 22nd street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Dorlan?
A I am not in any business at the present time, except I have an office for collection. I am out of business.
Q What was your business?
A I was in the wholesale liquor business forty-five years.
Q You lived in New York a number of years?
A Fifty-two years.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall having read of this case in the newspapers?
A I do not recall it.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty, against capital punishment?
A No, sir. I would change the law if I had the power, though.
Q What?
A I would say to you that I would change the law if I had the power; not for any conscientious scruples---policy.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfied you beyond a reasonable
57
Doubt that the defendant Bradford committed willful, deliberate murder, would you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A I would not.
Q Would you allow you mind to be swayed by sympathy or prejudice or any matters that are foreign to the issues here?
A No.
Q You would decide the case, would you, on the evidence alone?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A None at all.
Q Are you acquainted with any one whose name has been read here in connection with the case?
A No, not that I know of.
Q Or whom you see in the court room?
A Not that I know of.
Q Do you know Mr. Koenig, who is assigned to try this case by the Court, Mr. Samuel Koenig?
A Not that I know of.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror, fair to both sides in this case?
A No, only I don't want to be.
Q You do not want to sit?
A I do not want to sit, that is all.
Q But it is nothing beyond the feeling that any might have , shrink from a disagreeable duty?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's office of the Country of New York?
A Not that I
58
know of. There have been changes, and I may, but not that I am aware of.
Q Or any one in the police department of the City of New York?
A Oh, know men in the police department, many of them.
Q Intimately?
A Just acquaintances, that is all; I know some of the inspectors and captains.
Q Do you think your acquaintance with the members of the police department of the City of New York would lead you to any bias in their behalf?
A Oh, no not at all.
Q Have you served on criminal juries before?
A Oh, yes.
Q On any homicide case?
A Yes, sir, several.
Q You have no prejudice against the defendant by reason of his race, do I understand that?
A Not the least.
Q You have never had any experience with any one of his race such as to call for any prejudice or bias or any antipathy, even though slight?
A Only as an employer, and then always pleasant relations.
Q The fact that the deceased, or the person shot, happened to be a woman, would that prejudice you against the defendant?
A No, sir.
Q You have heard my questions this morning to the other jurors as to where a man imbibes alcoholic beverages;
would that create a prejudice in your mind?
A Not in the least.
Q Or the defendant being a married man and living away from his wife, would that raise any real prejudice against him in
59
your mind?
A No prejudice, no, sir.
Q Would you give any greater credence or belief to an assistant district attorney than you would to an ordinary civilian?
A No.
Q Or to a police officer, than you would to an ordinary civilian?
A No, sir.
Q Would you go into the testimony of all the witnesses, and scrutinize their testimony carefully, and separate that which is credible and that which is not?
A I would.
Q Would you scrutinize the motives, if any, and sift out the testimony yourself?
A I would.
Q And would you render a verdict according to the evidence, considering everything?
A I certainly would.
Q And the instructions given by the Court, would you follow at all times?
A Yes, sir.
Q Implicitly?
A Surely.
Q And you do not know at this time of any reason what soever why you cannot go into this box and sit as a juror in this important case and render a fair verdict between the defendant and the Peopole of the State of New York on the evidence, and on the evidence alone, impartially, fairly to this man and the State, and follow the instructions of the Court at all times; you will do so upon your oath, and under the instructions of the Court?
A I would, sir.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR. ARANOW: Acceptable. (Sworn as Juror No. 7.)
60
ALLEN V. BUCHANAN (2615 Eighth avenue), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN;
Q Mr. Buchanan, what is your business?
A Salesman.
Q What concern?
A Brewster & Company, automobiles.
Q How old are you?
A Twenty-eight.
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A All my life.
Q Where do you live?
A 2615 Eighth avenue.
Q What street?
A 140th street.
Q Are you married?
A No, sir, widower.
Q Have you had any experience as a juror?
A Civil.
Q Not in criminal cases?
A No, sir.
Q How long have you been on the special panel?
A Since last month.
Q Have you been summoned before this?
A No, sir.
Q Do you remember having heard of this case, or read of it in the newspapers?
A No, sir.
Q The defendant is charged with murder in the first degree, do you know that?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is, the wilful, deliberate killing of another without justification. Now, if the evidence in the case satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed that crime, will you find him guilty of that crime?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, sir.
Q You are quite sure you would not let your mind through any
61
sentimental reasons, be swayed from the verdict which was justified by the facts and the law?
A Quite sure.
Q And do you feel that your mind would not be swayed by sympathy or by prejudice?
A I do.
Q And you would find your verdict on the evidence and the evidence alone?
A I would.
Q You have no prejudice have you, against the colored race?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case in any way?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be fair juror to the defendant and the State in this case?
A None.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Have you lived anywheres near around 134th street and Lenox avenue, in that neighborhood?
A 140th street for eight years, with a lapse of three years.
Q Did you ever hear of that Taylor Organization?
A No, sir.
Q Never heard of it?
A No, sir.
Q Do you or your people own property in that locality?
A No, sir.
Q You are not married?
A Not now. I am a widower, I said.
Q How long were you married?
A Three years.
Q Did you have a family?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's
62 office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the Police Department?
A No, sir.
Q Have you served on a homicide case before?
A No, sir.
Q Have you served on a criminal jury before?
A No.
Q This is your first criminal jury?
A Yes.
Q Do you know that the burden of proof rests upon the People, the prosecution, to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that the defendant is innocent until the jury find him guilty?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he remains innocent until that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know that you are the judge of the facts in the case?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that the Court will instruct you as to the law?
A Yes.
Q And that you are to apply the facts to the law as given to you by the Court?
A Yes.
Q And find accordingly?
A I do.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
THEODORE C. WALLACE, (411 West End Avenue), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Wallace?
A Sheet metal; steel.
Q What concern are you connected with?
A Berger Manufacturing Company.
63
Q Where is that?
A 154 Eleventh avenue.
Q Have you been long with them?
A About two years.
Q And before that?
A With the Wheeling Corrugating Company, similar line.
Q You have been for a number of years in that line of business?
A Yes.
Q What is the nature of your employment with that concern?
A Salesman.
Q Are you a married man?
A No.
Q What street do you live on?
A West End avenue, corner of 80th street.
Q Do you recall having read of this case in the newspapers?
A No.
Q Nor of having heard of it before today?
A No.
Q Have you sat as a juror before in civil or criminal cases?
A Yes.
Q In both?
A No, in civil.
Q Only in civil cases. You understand that in a criminal case the defendant is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been shown to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, do you not?
A Yes.
Q You know that he is charged with murder in its first degree?
A Yes.
Q The punishment for which is death? Have you any prejudice against that punishment?
A No.
64
Q You would hesitate, I take it, before sending any man to his death, and you would want to be very well satisfied that he was guilty of the crime charged?
A Yes.
Q But once you were satisfied that he did commit the act charged in the indictment against him, would you hesitate through sympathy or any other outside circumstance?
A No.
Q In convicting him of that crime?
A No.
Q And of no lesser crime?
A No.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a proper juror for both sides in this case?
A No.
Q How old are you?
A Fort y-one.
Q You are not acquainted with Mr. Koenig, Mr. Samuel Koenig?
A No.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q Are you married, Mr. Wallace?
A No.
Q You are not married. How long did you live in New York, did you say?
A About ten years.
Q Where did you live before you lived in New York?
A New Jersey.
Q How long did you live there?
A About twenty years.
Q Would the fact that the defendant drank intoxicating liquors affect your opinion in the matter.
A No.
Q Would the fact that a woman was killed affect your opinion
65
In the matter?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice whatsoever against the---or would you be prejudiced or be biased in any way towards the defendant because of his race or color?
A No.
Q Have you at any time ever had any experience with any member of his race that would prejudice you in passing upon this case?
A No.
MR. THORNE: Excused by the defendant.
FRANK H. ANDREWS, (417 West 120th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Andrews?
A New York Central Railroad, in a clerical capacity.
Q You have been with that road for some time?
A Twenty-seven years.
Q And you have lived in New York, I take it, all that time?
A New York State all my life.
Q Do you remember having read anything about this case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you remember having heard anything about this case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you sat as a juror in civil or criminal cases?
A Both.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A None.
Q If the evidence satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed willful, deliberate murder, will
66
You say so in your verdict?
A If I was so satisfied, yes, sir.
Q Will you let your mind be swayed from that verdict by sympathy, or any outside consideration?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A Not the slightest.
Q Are you acquainted with anyone whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case, either as counsel or witness?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A None whatever.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the police department of the City of New York?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever served on a homicide case before?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against this defendant, by reason of his color or race?
A None whatever, sir.
Q And have you ever had any experience with any one of his color or race that would prejudice you or in any way influence you or in any way affect your open mindedness, candidness and general fairness for this defendant?
A No, sir.
Q None whatsoever?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know that you are the sole judge of the facts, that is, if you are chosen as a juror here, the jury is the sole judge of the facts?
A The facts, yes, sir.
Q And you know that you are to follow the Court's instructions
67
As to the law?
A Yes, sir.
Q And would you judge the facts as you would judge your everyday business in every day life?
A Yes, sir.
Q And would you judge them as you would judge your own concerns, and your own facts, and your own acts?
A Precisely.
Q And would you analyze the acts of every witness in that respect, and apply them as you would to yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you give any greater credence to any person or testimony if it were given by a District Attorney, or
Assistant District Attorney, than you would give an ordinary citizen?
A Not the slightest.
Q Nor a police officer?
A No difference.
Q Would you give them the same scrutiny that you would apply in your ordinary business every-day affairs?
A Just the same.
Q And you are ready and open-minded to go into this jury box and render a fair and impartial verdict as between this defendant and the State of New York?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you know of no reason why you could not do it?
A Not the slightest.
MR. ARANOW: Satifactory to the defendat. MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory.
(Sworn as Juror No. 8.)
HUGH McDOUGAL, (138 East 48th Street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire, as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business?
A I am in the motive power department
68
of the New York Railways Company.
Q How long have you been with them?
A About three years.
Q How old are you?
A Thirty-nine.
Q Have you sat as a juror in civil or criminal cases before?
A I have.
Q In both?
A In criminal cases.
Q How long have you been a member of the Special Panel?
A For about three or four years.
Q Are you a married man?
A I am.
Q Have you ever read or heard of this case?
A I have not.
Q You know the defendant is charged with murder in the first degree, the punishment for which is death, do you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of that crime, will you hesitate to convict him of that crime?
A I will not.
Q You will not let your mind be swayed by sympathy, or any outside considerations, so that you would, though feeling satisfied he was guilty of deliberate, willful murder, find him guilty of a lesser degree of crime?
A If I felt so satisfied.
Q I mean, you would not let sympathy induce you to lower your verdict from what you thought was the just and proper verdict in the case?
A I would not.
MR. ARANOW: If your Honor please, I object to the question, though answered, because it is rather argumentative, rather than a question, and on the further ground that it is improper inform. I believe the proper question
69
would be, "Would you follow the instructions of the Court and apply the Court's instructions to the facts?" THE COURT: No, he is being interrogated as to what effect, if any, sympathy would have upon his mind.
Q Now, have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A I have not.
Q Do you feel that you would be able to give this defendant a fair trial?
A I do.
Q And that you would be able to give the State a fair trial?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know of any one whose name has been mentioned in connec-*** with the case?
A No one.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in the case?
A I do not.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Twenty-four years.
Q Are you married?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you been married?
A About four years.
Q And you are sure that you would have no prejudice against this defendant because of his race or color?
A Not the slightest.
Q You have never at any time had any experience with any one of the colored race that would influence your feeling in this matter at all, have you?
A None whatever, no.
Q The fact that the defendant occasionally indulged in intoxicating liquors, would that affect your opinion?
A No, sir.
70
Q Or the fact that the deceased was a woman, would that affect your judgment in the matter?
A No, sir.
Q And you are sure and positive that you can give the defendant a fair and impartial trial?
A I feel sure of it.
Q And render your verdict according to the evidence?
A Yes, sir.
MR. THORNE: Excused by the defense.
J. HENRY WESTON, (524 Riverside Drive), a talesman being first duly sworn is examined on the voir dire, as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Weston?
A I am treasurer of a corporation, the Mortgage Bond Company, 55 Liberty street.
Q Have you heard of this case before to-day?
A I have not, except in court.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A No, I am strongly in favor of it.
Q You believe that where a man is proven guilty of deliberate, willful murder that the law is just in its punishment?
A I do.
Q If you are convinced that this man committed wilful, deliberate murder, will you allow yourself to be swayed from finding that verdict, through sympathy or any other outside consideration?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
71
Q You have not any doubt in your mind that you would be able to give this man a fair trial, just as if he were a white man?
A No, sir.
Q You have not any doubt of that?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with this caes?
A No.
Q You are not acquainted with Mr. Samuel Koenig?
A No, sir.
Q The Republican County Chairman. Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror to both sides
I in this case?
A I cannot think of any. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Are you married, sir?
A I am.
Q Have you a family?
A I have.
Q When Mr. Wellman asked you whether you had nay prejudice against the defendant, you said you were greatly in favor, is that my understanding?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: No, capital punishment. MR. ARANOW: The death penalty, was it? THE WITNESS: Death penalty, yes, sir.
Q But you do not greatly favor it unless the evidence satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt, do you?
A It must be proved, but I believe if a man has committed murder he should die for it.
Q And how long have you served on this panel?
A Why, I have been on this panel, called about a year ago, I think.
Q Have you served on any homicide case before?
A I have not.
72
Served on any homicide case; criminal case.
Q You served on a criminal case? Yes, sir.
Q Do you know any one associated with the Police Department of the City of New York?
A No, sir.
Q Or the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Are you related in any way to Dr. Weston, of the Coroner's office?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against a man who partakes of alcoholic beverages?
A No.
Q Clearly no, or---
A No, I wouldn't---I would want it to be brought out in the evidence whether he was drunk when he committed the murder.
Q Suppose we say that the man did take alcoholic beverages frequently, what would you say about that?
A Do you believe a man should or should not?
A No, I do not believe he should use liquor to excess.
Q And if the man did use liquor to excess, would you be naturally prejudiced against him?
A I would want, as I say, to know whether he was drunk at the time he committed the murder.
Q I am not speaking of that at all.
A Oh.
Q I am just merely am asking you whether you have any prejudice against a man who partakes of alcoholic beverages, a man who drinks even to excess on some occasions?
A To excess, yes.
Q And you would not give a man's testimony any great credibility if you found that to be the fact, you would be prejudiced
73
against him, an you would require some testimony to disprove that prejudice?
A To that extent, yes.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully challenge for cause. THE COURT: Read that examination.
(The examination is read.)
THE COURT: The questions, with all due respect, seem to be so inaccurate, and the answers so lacking in clearness and precision, that I shall not hold that the challenge, as now on the record, is well taken; I do not see that it really means anything.
MR. ARANOW: The defendant challenges peremptorily.
WALTER R. SHAW, (720 West 180th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn is examined on the voir dire, as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q How old are you, Mr. Shaw?
A Thirty-two.
Q What is your business?
A Insurance.
Q Life, or fire, or what?
A Liability---casualty insurance.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A About fifteen years.
Q Before that where was your home?
A Pittsburgh.
Q Have you heard of this case before today?
A No.
Q Have you sat as a juror ever before?
A No, sir.
Q You have never had any experience in civil or criminal
74
Cases?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know in a general way the rights of a defendant in a criminal case, and the rules governing criminal cases?
A Yes.
Q Now, the charge against the defendant is that he killed his wife, deliberately and willfully, which is murder in its first degree, the punishment for which is death. If the evidence in the case satisfies your mind beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of that crime, will you say so in your verdict?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you let sympathy or prejudice or any outside considerations affect your mind in reaching your verdict?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A None, whatever.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No, sir.
Q So far as you know are we right I saying that you know of no reason why you would not be a proper juror in this case?
A I do not.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q Would your opinion be influenced one way or the other, if it were shown that the defendant drank intoxicating liquors?
A No, sir.
Q Even to excess?
A No, sir.
Q Would the fact that the deceased was woman affect your opinion?
A No, sir.
Q You have never had any experience with any one of the colored race in your life that would affect your opinion in the case?
75
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you could not give a fair and impartial trial to this defendant?
A No.
Q Are you married?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long are you married?
A Ten years.
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A About fifteen years.
Q Where did you live before coming to New York?
A Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Q Would the fact that some of the witnesses that might testify for the People might be officers of the District Attorney's office, staff, or police officers of the City of New York, influence you as to your opinion in the matter?
A No, sir.
Q Would you weigh their testimony to the same extent that you would the testimony of the defendant, or any one else?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you would take into consideration their motives and their actions on the stand the same as any other witness?
A I would.
MR. THORNE: Acceptable to the defense. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
(Sworn as Juror No. 9.)
ISAAC R. THOMAS, (601 West 149th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire, as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Thomas, what is your business?
A Engraving, printing.
Q Where?
A 310 East 23rd street.
76
Q What kind of work?
A Color; color engraving---process engraving, rather.
Q Yes. For what trade?
A For anybody that wants it.
Q Advertisemnets?
A Yes.
Q All kinds of things like that?
A Yes.
Q Is it your own business?
A Partly.
Q And you lived for some years in New York, I suppose?
A About ten years, yes.
Q Before that where did you live?
A In Virginia.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No, I have not.
Q You know that this man is charged with murder in the first degree, do you not?
A Yes.
Q The punishment for which is death?
A Yes.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you beyond a reason able doubt that he committed willful, deliberate murder, which is murder in the first degree, will you find him guilty of that crime?
A I will.
Q You will not let your mind be swayed from that verdict from sympathy?
A No.
Q Are you acquainted with counsel on either side?
A No.
Q Have you ever met Mr. Koenig, the Republican County Chairman of New York County?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A I do not.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
77
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How long did you live in Virginia, Mr. Thomas?
A About twenty-five years.
Q Did you have colored help in your home down there?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you lived in New York for now long? Ten years?
A About ten years, yes.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the Police Department of the City of New York?
A No, sir.
Q You have not heard of this case?
A No, I have not.
Q Excepting in the court here?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Thomas, I want you to search your own mind hard and find out, if you can---you understand I want to get people who will just honestly tell me things, and Mr. Wellman is doing the same, and sometimes it is not
a very easy thing or a person to search their minds, and I want you to do it seriously, and please tell me if there is any reason why you could not serve on this jury?
A I do not know of any, no, sir.
Q Would you give this defendant the same consideration that you would a member of your own family?
A I think so.
Q
A member of your own household?
A It is pretty hard to say, that is pretty close.
Q White or black, it would not make any difference?
MR. WELLAMN: His own household? Naturally a man--- THE COURT: I do not think that is the question.
78
BY THE COURT:
Q Would you treat him the same as you would any other person, with whom you had any acquaintance whatsoever?
A I would, yes.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Have you ever in your life had any experiences with any member of his color of race that would lead you to any partiality or any bias, or away you towards or against the defendant?
MR. WELLMAN: Do you mean partiality?
MR. ARANOW: Impartiality or partiality, either one way or the other.
A No, I never had any trouble with them.
NR, ARABIW: Excused by the defende.
SOLOMON BLOCK, (180 West 82nd street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Block, you are an old resident of New York, aren't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And where has your residence been all these years?
A Well, it has been in 136th street, between Seventh and Eighth avenue, and now I live in 180 West 82nd street.
Q You are a property owner there, aren't you?
A At one time.
Q Are you in business at the present time?
A I am in real estate business.
Q Up in that neighborhood?
A Well, up in Brook avenue, Bronx.
Q Now, I take it you have not heard of this case, have you?
A No. sir.
79
Q You have sat as a juror, many times, haven't you?
A I have.
Q In civil and criminal cases both?
A I have never in criminal cases; I have been in civil cases.
Q Now, have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A I have not.
Q If the evidence satisfies, you that the accused committed willful, deliberate murder, will you find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A Yes, according to the evidence.
Q You will not let sympathy affect your verdict in any way?
A No, sir.
Q Are you sure about that?
A I am.
Q Are you acquainted with any one whose name has been mentioned as a witness, or as counsel in the case?
A Yes, sir.
Q Mr. Koenig?
A Mr. Samuel Koenig.
Q You know him quite well, don't you?
A Yes, sir, I knew him when he was a boy.
Q You know me, don't you?
A I think I know you too.
Q Well, then, the honors would be equally divided?
A Equally divided.
Q That would not make any difference at all, would it?
A No, but I also know one of the officers.
Q Which one is that?
A Mr. -- what is his name---
Q Kotschau?
A Yes.
Q Now, after these questions and answers that you and I have been making to each other, do you know any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A I have
80
No reason, but I know the attorneys and the officer, so I would like to be excused.
Q You do not want to sit, do you?
MR. WELLMAN: I consent to excuse Mr. Block. MR. ARANOW: I consent to it.
(Excused by consent.)
JOSEPH F. NOUNNAN, Jr., (617 West 143rd street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Nounnan?
A Salesman.
Q What concern?
A A. B. Dick Company.
Q What do you they deal in?
A Mimeographs.
Q How old are you?
A Twenty-two.
Q You must be the youngest member of the Special Panel. Have you ever sat as a juror?
A No.
Q Are you single?
A I am.
Q Have you lived in New York all your life?
A No, sir.
Q Where have you lived?
A I have lived here for fifteen years.
Q Yes?
A San Francisco, I came from.
Q You know in a criminal case the State must prove the guilt of a defendant before you can convict him, beyond a reasonable doubt, to you satisfaction as a reasonable man; you know that, don't you?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that the presumption of innocence, which clothes him at
81
the start of the trial envelopes him till the last word is spoken in court, and you take up your deliberations, and that spoken in court, and take up your deliberations, and that cloak of innocence is
perhaps taken from him by your conviction that his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and then it no longer surrounds him, and you are entitled to find him guilty---have I made myself plain?
A Yes, sir.
Q You know this defendant is charge with a capital offense?
A I do.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A I have not.
Q Do you think you would be swayed by any sympathy, perhaps, for the youth of the defendant?
A No, sir. Did you say for the youth of the defendant?
Q Yes.
A No.
Q Or by sympathy at all in the case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
Q And if the evidence satisfies you up to this standard that I spoke of, so that it convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed wilful, deliberate murder, will you find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A I will, yes, sir.
Q And are you acquainted with any one who is connected with this case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why would not be a fair juror to both sides?
A No, I do not.
82
Q You are quite sure that the fact of the extreme penalty would not deter you from finding a verdict of first degree murder?
A No.
Q If you are convinced by the facts that that is the crime the defendant is guilty of---you are quite sure of that?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do I understand that this is the first jury you have ever served on?
A I have been called for two or three juries.
Q I mean, you have never served on a jury?
A I never served, no, sir.
Q You never served on a jury?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
J. ROBERT CONNAUGHTON, (A talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Connaughton?
A Insurance business.
Q What line of insurance?
A Life insurance, Equitable Life, 120 Broadway.
Q How old are you?
A Twenty-nine years.
Q How long have you been connected with the Equitable?
A About nine years.
Q You have not heard of this case, have you, before today?
A No, sir.
83
Q Do you know the nature of the charge?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you stand ready to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, if the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed willful, deliberate murder?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would the fact of the extreme penalty make it impossible for you to render that verdict?
A No, sir.
Q Would you be sympathetic to the extent of lowering your verdict from what was the proper nad right verdict in the case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
Q Are you quite sure on that subject?
A Yes, sir.
Q You feel perfectly sure you could give this man a fair trial?
Q I do.
Q I want you to do that. You feel you could give the State a fair trial, do you?
A I do.
Q And do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A No, sir.
Q Are you married?
A No, sir.
Q Where do you live?
A 208 West 148th street.
Q Do you know any one connected with the case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror before?
A In civil cases.
Q Never in a criminal case?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: No challenge for cause. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's
84
Office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the Police Department of the City of New York?
A Yes, sir.
Q Any member of your family?
A No, sir.
Q Intimately?
A Well, friendly.
Q Intimately?
A Intimately, yes, sir.
Q So much so that you would be biased in favor of policemen?
A No, sir.
Q You mean, just a friendly, casual acquaintance with some policeman, which has no effect upon your mind at all?
A Yes, sir.
Q You would give no greater credence to a member of the District Attorney's staff, would you, than you would to an ordinary layman?
A No, sir.
Q Or a policeman?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know that in all cases the jury are the judge of the facts in the case?
A Yes, sir.
Q You must take the ruling of the law from the Court and apply them to the facts?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you would scrutinize those facts and scrutinize the testimony to find the truth?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you take everything into consideration---environment?
A Yes, sir.
Q Everything, just as you would an ordinary, every-day business affair in your own life?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you been in New York City?
A Always.
Q When Mr. Wellman questioned you before as to your prejudice against the colored race, you hesitated a moment only; is there
85
Q *** any reason why you hesitate there?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
EDWARDS OCHS (173 West 81st street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Ochs?
A In the glow business.
Q Have you been in that business for a long time in New York?
A Ten years.
Q Where is your place of business?
A 25 Union Square.
Q Are you a manufacturer or retailer?
A We are importers.
Q Have you sat as a juror in criminal or civil cases?
A I have.
Q In both?
A No criminal.
Q In criminal cases only. On the Sepcial Panel, I take it?
A Special panel.
Q Are you a married man, sir?
A No.
Q Have you read or heard of this case?
A I have not.
Q The defendant is charged with the gravest crime known to our law, punishable by death. Now, if the evidence convinces you to a moral certainty that he is guilty of that crime, would you say so by your verdict?
A Yes, sir.
Q You will not let sympathy, or prejudice, or any outside matters have anything to do with your verdict?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A I have not.
Q Do you believe in capital punishment?
A I do.
86
Q Do you know anyone connected with the case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you met Mr. Koenig?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in this case?
A No, sir.
Q Fair to both sides?
A No, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Supposed you were convinced beyond a moral certainty, but not beyond a reasonable doubt, where would your verdict be?
MR. WELLMAN: No---I think they are one and the same.
THE COURT: I think they are equivalent phrases; moral certainty means the same thing. To a moral certainty means the same degree of proof as beyond a reasonable doubt.
MR. ARANOW: I submit, if your Honor pleases, that while the phrases may be the same a man may feel morally certain about things, yet he may entertain a reasonable doubt as to part of it, not all of it.
THE COURT: Unless you have authority to the contrary I should hold that they are precisely equivalent phrases.
MR. ARANOW: The reason I am putting this question is that---I know the interpretation of moral certainty and reasonable doubt has been held to be precisely the same---but the question is whether a salesman understands it so.
THE COURT: Well, when you answered the questions as put by Mr. Wellman in which he used the phrase moral certainty, did you understand he meant by that the same thing as beyond
87
a reasonable doubt?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
Q You are not married, sir?
A No.
Q Where do you live?
A 173 West 81st street.
Q Have you had any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
Q Any experience with any one of that race, to bring prejudice to you?
A No.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No.
Q Or the police department?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
ROBERT DUNSTON, (523 West 156th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Dunston, will you state what your business is?
A District Superintendent of the Dictaphone Company.
Q You have lived for some time in New York?
A Four years.
Q And before that where?
A Why, I have been in and out of New York for the last twenty-five years.
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you had experience as a juror?
A I have served both in criminal and civil cases.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you to a moral certainty that the defendant committed willful, deliberate murder,
88
will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No, sir.
Q Will you let sympathy hold any part in your verdict?
A No.
Q Or prejudice?
A Well, I am not inclined to think very well of a married man who is not living with his wife, and is inclined to drink to excess.
Q And if he is on trial for his life, would that fact that your mention have any effect on your mind?
A It would leave an impression on my mind that he would be the kind of man that would be inclined to do that kind of thing.
Q
A man who would drink and quarrel with his wife would be a man capable of such an act as is chargeable in this indictment?
A That is my impression.
Q I see. Well, would you start in the jury box with a prejudice against this defendant?
A I would be inclined to, yes.
Q So that you would he inclined to, yes.
Q So that you would be different from all these other men here, you would start out with a prejudice against him, which the other men would not have?
A Not against this individual, but as a class.
Q That is what I mean; when you hear the evidence you have a right to draw certain conclusions from it, every man has, and he is required to as an intelligent man, but do you feel that you would draw such conclusions if the evidence that has been hinted at was shown, that you could not give the man a fair trial?
A Why, I would have a prejudice against that class of persons.
89
MR. WELLMAN: I consent that the juror be excused. THE COURT: Excused, Mr. Juror.
JAMES G. BATEMAN, (416 West 118th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the vior dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Bateman?
A I am with the National Tube Company, manufacturers of steel pipe, with office at 30 Church street.
Q You have lived for some time in New York?
A Yes, I have lived here twenty years.
Q Are you a married man?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against the colored race?
A No.
Q Do you know what this man is charged with?
A Yes.
Q If the evidence satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime charged, will you convict him of that crime?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever heard of the case?
A No.
Q Or of any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with it?
A No.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a proper juror to sit in this case?
A No, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Have you ever lived outside of the State of New York?
A Yes.
90
Sir, my home is in Maryland. I was born there.
Q How long have you lived in New York State?
A Twenty years.
Q And you are not married?
A No.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the police department of the City of New York?
A No.
Q How old were you when you left Maryland?
A Well, I was eighteen; I am thirty-eight now.
Q The fact that the person shot was a woman, would that cause you to have any prejudice against this defendant?
A No.
Q Or that this woman happened to be his wife?
A No.
Q You have heard me asking the prior talesman as to whether they would have any prejudice against a man by reason of the fact that he partook of intoxicating liquors?
A If a man takes an occasional drink it is all right.
Q But also the fact that he had been living away from his wife, would that have any reason in your mind for prejudice?
MR. WELLLMAN: That is objected to.
Q Would you have any prejudice by reason of that fact?
A No.
MR. WELLMAN: I object to the question.
THE COURT: Well, prejudice means whether you would prejudge the case because of that circumstance.
MR. WELLMAN: I have no objection I view of your Honor's definition. The question is, "Would you prejudge the case because you knew the man had lived apart from his wife?"
91
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
LEO T. LEVY (110 Morningside Drive) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you a married man, Mr. Levy?
A I am.
Q What is your business?
A Importer of electric light carbons.
Q Do you know a lawyer named Leo Levy?
A No, sir.
Q Have you heard of this case?
A No, sir.
Q Have you had experience as a juror?
A Served before.
Q Is criminal cases?
A I have.
Q As well as civil?
A I have.
Q How old a man are you?
A Thirty-nine.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, but I would, if the crime was premeditated, it would affect my verdict, if you ask me that; as regards strictly speaking, no.
Q Now, see if I express what you mean---
THE COURT: Pardon me moment. Read that, Mr. Stenographer. (Question and answer read.)
THE COURT: The answer is not plain.
Q This is what I want to know. Mr. Levy: If you are convinced by the evidence that the defendant committed deliberate, willful murder, that is premeditated murder, which is murder in its first degree, and calls for
the extreme penalty, will you find him
92
Guilty of that crime?
A Yes.
Q Then, what you meant a moment ago was this: That you had a shrinking, or would have a shrinking from condemning a man to death in any case?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question, if your Honor pleases.
Q No, I did not say that, sir.
BY THE COURT:
Q Suppose you tell us yourself what you meant by what you just said?
A I mean, sir, that if the crime---for instance, if the defendant here was under the influence of liquor, I would not consider him guilty of murder in the first degree; I would think he was not responsible at the time he committed the crime, and would not convict him for murder in the first degree.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Now, Mr. Levy, just along that very line of thought---if he was so drunk that he could not premeditate the crime you would say that he was not guilty of premeditated murder?
A Yes, I would not convict him of murder in the first degree.
Q Now, let us see if this would change it: suppose you made us your mind that he premeditated this crime.
A Yes.
Q Decided to commit it, went out and bought a gun to commit it with , and then went and got drunk and committed it; would you find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A In that case I would, yes.
M.R ARANOW: I object to the question, if your Honor
93 please.
THE COURT: Let it stand. Let the answer stand. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No.
Q Do you know Mr. Koenig?
A No.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a proper juror in a case of this kind?
A No.
Q You start out without any prejudices on either side?
A I would go according to the testimony, that is all.
Q And you want to give both sides a fair trial?
A Certainly.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know anyone associated with the District Attorney's office, Mr. Levy?
A No, sir.
Q Or any one in the Police Department?
A No, sir.
Q You have lived all your life here?
A Yes, born in New York.
Q And you would not give any greater credence to an Assistant District attorney, or a policeman, than you would give to another human being, another civilian?
A No.
Q You have no prejudice against a person who occasionally takes a drink?
A No, certainly not.
Q And if the man happens to be a married man and is living away from his wife, would that prejudice your mind so that you
94
Could not fairly try the case?
A No.
Q Would you take everything into consideration---the circumstances?
A Absolutely.
Q Environment, and everything, and then apply the law as given to you by the Court?
A Certainly.
Q If it was with premeditation you would find it so?
A Yes.
Q And if it was without premeditation, as a judge of the facts, you are, you would find it so?
A Absolutely.
Q You would find according to your best convictions, is that my understanding of it?
A Yes.
Q And you do not know of any reason why you cannot go into this jury box and serve as an impartial juror, judging everything, and following the instructions of the Court?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Excused by the People.
HENRY HANDY, (240 West 104th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLLMAN:
Q Mr. Handy, what is your business, please?
A I am with the American Real Estate company.
Q Have you been a resident of New York City for some years?
A Well, I was engaged in business in another city for a number of years, but outside of that I have always lived in New York.
Q This is your home?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you heard of this case, read of it in the newspapers?
A No, sir.
95
Q Have you any feeling of prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, sir.
Q Do you feel that if the evidence satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of wilful, premeditated murder, that you would be able to bring in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree?
A Yes.
Q Would you be swayed by sympathy or any outside considerations?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the man's race?
A No.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror before?
A Yes, sir.
Q You know the nature of a juror's duties, then, I take it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know any reason why you cannot be a fair juror, a proper juror for both sides in this case?
A I do not know of any.
BY MR. THORNE:
Q You are married, did you say, Mr. Handy?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long?
A Twenty-five years.
Q Where was it you said you were engaged in business outside of New York? I did not hear.
A Yes, I was outside of New York, for a number of years.
Q Well, whereabouts?
A Philadelphia.
Q Philadelphia?
A Yes.
Q Just engaged in business in Philadelphia?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you acquainted with any member of the District Attorney's staff?
A No, sir.
96
Q Would the fact that a member of the District Attorney's staff, or a police officer, gave testimony on the stand, influence you to give more credence to his story than any one else's?
A I would not think so, no.
Q You would give his testimony same consideration that you would give any other person's testimony, would you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you sure that you have never had any experience in your lifetime with any one connected with the race with which the defendant is identified that would influence your opinion in this matter?
A I do not know of any.
Q The fact that the defendant occasionally took intoxicating liquors, even to exces, would that affect your opinion in the matter?
A I do not think so.
Q Or the fact that he was living apart from his wife at the time of the murder, that affect your opinion?
A I think not.
Q Or the fact that it was his wife that was killed, would that affect your opinion?
A No, sir.
MR. THORNE: Excused by the defense.
CHARLES A. WILSON (414 St. Nicholas avenue), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Wilson, what is your business?
A Fire insurance.
97
Q What is the firm with which you are connected?
A Willard S. Brown & Company.
Q Have you heard of this case?
A Only since I came here.
Q Have you sat as a juror before?
A Yes, sir.
Q Civil and criminal cases?
A No, just criminal.
Q Just criminal. Since you have been on the special panel?
A Yes, sir.
Q How old a man are you?
A Thirty-four.
Q Are you married?
A No, sir.
Q Where do you live?
A 414 St. Nicholas avenue.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, sir.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you of the defendant's guilt, to a moral certainty of willful, deliberate murder, will you say so in your verdict?
A Yes, sir.
Q You will not let yourself be swayed by sympathy for this man in his plight?
A No, sir.
Q Nor by any prejudice; have you any prejudice against his race?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in this case?
A Not that I know of.
Q You are not acquainted with any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Are you a married man, sir?
A No, sir.
Q Have you lived in New York all your live?
A No, about eight years.
98
Q Where did you live before?
A Pittsburgh.
Q Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania?
A Yes, Pennsylvania.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the police department?
A No, sir.
Q You have no prejudice against the colored race, in general?
A No.
Q Or against this defendant?
A No.
Q Have you ever heard anything about his case at all?
A Not until I came here.
Q Would you give any greater credence to an Assistant to the District Attorney than you would to an ordinary individual?
A No.
Q Or a police officer?
A No.
Q Would you scrutinize their testimony just the same as you would any other testimony?
A Absolutely.
Q And try to find the truth wherever it is?
A That is the idea.
Q May I ask how old you are please?
A Thirty-four.
Q You have no prejudice against the defendant by reason of the fact the person shot happened to be a woman, or that it may be proved that he took alcoholic beverages at times.
A No.
Q Or that being a married man he did not live with his wife for a period?
A No, that would make no difference.
Q In other words, your mind is absolutely open?
A Absolutely, yes, sir.
99
Q To receive what testimony will be given, and you will analyze, scrutinize that testimony to the best your ability in the same manner you would analyze a thing of great interest and importance to yourself?
A Yes, sir.
Q You would be the judge of the facts?
A Yes, sir.
Q And apply instructions of the Court as given to you to those facts?
A Yes, sir.
Q And would find your verdict accordingly, is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. MR. WELLMAN: Acceptable.
MR, ARANOW: ACCEPTABLE. (Sworn as Juror No. 10.)
CHARLES C. BECK, (316 East 50th street), a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Beck, what is your business?
A I am connected with Swift & Company, wholesale packers.
Q How long have you been with them?
A Why, I have started this week with them. I was formerly employed with them ten years.
Q How old are you?
A Forty-three.
Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Eleven years.
Q And before that?
A I lived in Bridgeport two years.
Q Connecticut? Yes.
Q Are you a married man?
A No, sir.
100
Q Do you know the nature of the charge against this defendant?
A Yes, sir, what I have heard in court.
Q Have you any prejudice against the penalty prescribed by law for murder I the first degree?
A No, sir.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfied you to a moral certainty that this defendant committed that crime, will you say so in your verdict?
A I will, sir.
Q You will not let sympathy sway you from that verdict to a lower one?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against the defendant's race?
A None whatever.
Q Did you ever hear of the case?
A No, sir.
Q Or of any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with it?
A No, sir.
Q You are not acquainted with Mr. Koenig?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a proper juror for both sides in this case?
A I do not.
Q Have you never had experience as a juror?
A No, sir.
Q You have never been summoned before?
A I have been summoned last June, but I have not served.
Q You understand the duties of a juror?
A Absolutely.
Q You have heard them discussed in court here today, I suppose?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you quite sure in your mind that if you are convinced by the evidence that the defendant is guilty of murder I the first degree that you would find him guilty of that crime?
A I would.
101
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know an one associated with the District Attorney's office?
A No, sir.
Q Or the police department?
A Oh, I have some acquaintances in the police department.
Q Well, would those acquaintances cause you to give any greater credibility to police testimony?
A No, not at all.
Q Or to testimony of an assistant to the District Attorney?
A No, sir.
Q Would you have any prejudice against a man who was married and did not live with his wife?
A No, sir.
Q Or a man who occasionally drank?
A No, sir.
Q You know that the defendant is accused of a very serious crime?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the law throws the cloak of innocence about him until the jury finds him guilty?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the burden is upon the prosecution to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you willing to go into this jury box and serve there as a juror in this case and take consideration in
all of the testimony, and render a fair and impartial verdict between the people of the State of New York and this defendant, and apply the facts that you hear here, apply them to the law as given to you by the Court, and render such a verdict?
A Yes, sir.
MLR ARANOW: No challenge for cause. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is the nature of your employment with Swift & Company?
102
A Why, I have been various things, salesman, I have been shipping clerk, and at the present time I am weight-master.
Q Weighing-master?
A Yes, sir, weigh-master; weighing cattle.
Q Before you worked for them were you in the same line of business?
A I was in with a friend of mine, in the salted nuts business.
Q Where?
A On 13th street, West 13th street.
Q What was the name of that business?
A Acme Nut Meat Company.
Q How long have you been a member of this special panel?
A Since last June.
Q And in all these years you have never sat as a juror in New York County?
A No, sir.
Q How have you escaped it?
A I do not know, I am sure.
Q Have you ever done military duty?
A I did, Connecticut.
MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory. MR. ARANOW: Satisfactory. (Sworn as juror No. 11.)
HERBERT R. BLACKFORD, (2419 Seventh avenue) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Blackford?
A Manufacturing confectioner, specialties.
Q Have you been at that same address for some time?
A Why,
103
I have been in that address over a year.
Q Where is your place of business?
A 145th street, No. 315.
Q Is it your own place?
A My own place, yes, sir.
Q Aare you a retailer?
A No, sir. Wholesale.
Q Have you read of this case of heard of it before you came into court today?
A Well, I do not recall it; I may have, but I do not recall it.
Q If you did ready anything in the papers, would it leave any impression on your mind that would make start out on the trial in this case any different from a man who had not read it?
A No, sir, it would not.
Q You understand the nature of the charge against this man, murder in its first degree?
A I do.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, sir.
Q If the evidence convinces you to a moral certainty that the defendant is guilty of deliberate, premeditated murder, would you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No, I would not.
Q Would you drop your verdict on account of sympathy, although you felt convinced that he was guilty of that crime?
A No, sir.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A I have not.
Q Have you sat as a juror before?
A I have.
Q In a criminal case?
A And civil, both.
Q In a homicide case?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides, Mr. Blackford?
A I do not.
104
Q Are you acquainted with any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with this case?
A No, sir.
Q You do not know Mr. Koenig, do you?
A well, I know of him.
Q We all know of him.
A Yes.
Q He was assigned by the Court to defend this man, and he may take part in the trial; that is why I aksed the question?
Q Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: No Challenge for cause. MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
JOHN THOMPSON, (Hotel Biltmore) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Thompson?
A I am a civil engineer by profession ad engaged in manufacturing.
Q Have you heard of this case before today?
A In a casual way.
Q From reading from the newspapers?
A No, I met Mr. Follette about a week or so ago, one of the assistant District Attorneys, and I spoke to him about it, that is, he called on me socially, in my office.
Q You had at that time received a summons as a juror in the case, I take it?
A I it was on my desk, and he handed me his new card, and I put it on the notice, and I asked him if he knew anything about it.
105
Q Was there anything aside from that casual mention of the case that brought it to your mind before today?
A No, sir. I did not know anything about it.
Q Was there anything said at that time which created any impression on your mind as to the guilt or innocence of this defendant?
A No, sir.
Q Mr. Follette has been appointed, and is now again in the District Attorney's office; but would your acquaintance with him---is that merely an acquaintance?
A I knew him very intimately; he has been my attorney.
Q Yes. He is not connected with this case however, I may say?
A Well, I asked him if he was connected with it, and he simply said no.
Q That I did not need to ask you. It would make no difference at all to you, would it, in this case?
A No, not the slightest.
Q Is there anything you know of that would make any difference to your mind in this case?
A No, I do not think so.
Q Have you any prejudice against this man's race?
A Not to any extent that would affect my actions as a juror, I think.
Q And if you had a slight prejudice, wouldn't that make you careful, not to let it play any part -- MR. ARANOW: I object to that question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Have you any prejudice against the death penalty?
A Not the slightest; I believe in it.
106
Q Do you know any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A I think I would make a good juror, yes, sir.
Q You are quite sure in your mind that you would be able to give this man as fair a trial as you would be able to give the State?
A I would decide entirely on the evidence, I am absolutely satisfied of that. BY MR. THORNE:
Q When you said just now that your opinion in the matter, because of this man's race or color-you said you would be governed to a certain extent; would you give us a better statement of that, just what you meant when you said that, that to a certain extent you would be governed or not governed?
A Well, I would not attach the same kind of credibility, for instance, to one man's evidence as I would to another, and my mind might be gauged according to my estimate of his character.
Q But, the subject of the question on referred to the subject of color; and now, taking that as the subject of your answer, would you mean because of his race or color you would not give the same credence to his testimony?
A I fully believe I would give him all he is entitled to.
Q Did you hesitate because you did not understand the question, or are you doubtful about whether or not you could give the same credence?
A No, I do not doubt it all; I simply repeat what I stated before, that as between one witness and another I
should attach more or less credibility, according to my estimate
107
Of his character.
Q But as between the witness, where they would be white or colored, would that affect you?
A Not the mere fact of color, no, I do not think.
Q Now are you sure? You are answering more or less in the evasive, Mr. Juror. You said you think. Now are you positive of these facts? We want to be sure. You seem to be doubtful. Now, are you sure, or not, that because
of the color of the witness, of the race, that you would be affected one way or the other in giving credence to their testimony?
A Well, I wish to answer you fairly; for instance, I would not attach the same amount of credibility to the testimony of say, lot of Mexicans, as I would to a lot of Americans.
MR. WELLMAN: Not just today, would you?
THE WITNESS: Not at the present time; nor to Germans. MR. THORNE: Excused by the defense.
HENRY W. BOLLES, (121 East 54th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Bolles, what is your business, please?
A I am not in business at present.
Q What was your business before you retired?
A The jewelry business.
Q Downtown?
A Yes, down in Maiden Lane.
108
Q You have sat as a juror before, have you not?
A Oh, yes.
Q In civil and criminal cases?
A Yes.
Q Have you lived for some time in New York?
A Yes, all my life.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A No, none.
Q Do you feel you would be able to find this defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, if the evidence warranted it?
Q Yes.
Q You would not let sympathy have anything to do with your verdict?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A No.
Q Would you be able to give him as fair a trial as you would any man who is charged with crime?
A I would.
Q You have not heard of the case?
A No.
Q Or of any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a fair juror to both sides in this case?
A No, I do not.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
HARRY C. VAUGHAN, (22 St. Nicholas Place). a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Are you a married man?
A Yes.
Q What is your business?
A New York Edison Company.
109
Q Have you lived in New York for a number of years?
A About fifteen.
Q During that time have you sat as a juror?
A Yes.
Q In civil cases?
A Both.
Q And criminal cases?
A Both.
Q Haven't you ever sat in a homicide case?
A Never.
Q Never. You know the charge against this defendant, I take it?
A I do.
Q Have you any prejudice against capital punishment?
A None.
Q If the evidence in the case satisfies you that this man committed willful, deliberate murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of that crime?
A I would not.
Q Through sympathy, would you be swayed to find him guilty of a lesser degree of crime, although you believed him guilty of that crime?
A Not if I believed him guilty.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in the case?
A None whatsoever.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Where did you live before you came to New York?
A Schenectady.
Q That is also in New York State?
A New York State.
Q You have lived here in New York State all your life?
A Born here in New York.
Q Do you know any one associated with the District Attorney's
110
Office?
A No.
Q Or the Police Department of the City of New York?
A One or two officers of the Department, just friendly acquaintances, that is all.
Q Have you any prejudices against the defendant by reason of his color or race?
A No.
Q None whatever?
A None whatever.
Q Would the fact that the person shot, the deceased, was a woman, would that raise any prejudice in your mind?
A No.
Q Would the fact, if proven, that the defendant was the husband of the deceased, and lived away from her prior to this shooting, would that raise any prejudice in your mind so as to interfere with your weighing the
testimony fairly?
A No, I do not think so.
Q Or the fact that he imbibed alcoholic beverages?
A I do not think so.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
LEROY F. HOVEY, (245 West 104th street) a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows:
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Hovey, what is your business?
A Financial secretary.
Q For whom?
A West End Shirts, 105th street and Amsterdam avenue.
Q Have you heard of this case or read of it?
A Not until today.
111
Q Have you sat as a juror before?
A I have.
Q In criminal cases?
A I have.
Q Do you entertain any prejudice against the death penalty?
Q If the evidence convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that this man committed willful, deliberate murder, will you hesitate to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A No.
Q Have you any prejudice against his race?
A I have none.
Q Do you know of any thing which would in any way affect your judgment in this case outside of the evidence?
A I do not.
Q Or of any reason why you would be anything but a proper juror to both sides?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: Excused by the defense.
ALOYSIUS J. BIGLEY, a talesman, being first duly sworn, is examined on the voir dire as follows: BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What is your business, Mr. Bigley?
A Real estate.
Q At what address?
A 29 Broadway.
Q Where do you resiee?
A 65 Morningside avenue.
Q Are you married?
A Single.
Q How old are you?
A Thirty-nine.
Q Have you heard of this case?
A Only since I came to court here.
Q Have you ever sat as a juror in a criminal case?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you ever in a homicide case?
A Not in a homicide, no.
112
Q You know this man is charged with murder in the first degree?
A Yes.
Q The penalty for which is death. Have you any prejudice against that penalty?
A No prejudice.
Q Do you feel satisfied in your mind that if the evidence convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed deliberate, willful murder, you would be able to find him guilty of murder in the first degree?
A I think I would, yes.
Q Do you think that sympathy would sway your mind; are you inclined to be sympathetic?
A Well, it would not enter into my decision.
Q Have you any doubt about that?
A Not nay doubt at all.
Q Have you ever before searched your mind to ascertain whether or not you ***ould convict a man of murder in the first degree, if the facts warranted it?
A I have never given it any consideration; I have no prejudice against the punishment that goes with that degree.
Q You know of no reason why you could not do that?
A No.
Q Provided you are satisfied by the evidence?
A No.
Q Do you know any one whose name has been mentioned in connection with the case?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know of any reason why you would not be a proper juror in the case?
A I know of no reason.
Q Have you any prejudice against this man's race?
A None.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You do not know any one associated with the District At to mey's office?
A I know one of the assistants. I have not
113
Seen him in many years.
Q Might I ask who that is?
A That's Mr. Lavelle.
Q Intimately?
A Why, I used to know him intimately, but I have not seen him in about a dozen years, or so.
Q That would not raise any favoritism in any particular in you mind?
A Oh, no.
Q Have you ever had any trouble with any one of the race of the defendant to create any prejudice in your mind?
A No.
Q Would the fact that the defendant is charged with killing his wife raise a prejudice in your mind so that you could not weigh the testimony fairly?
A No, I do not think so.
Q Or that the lived away from her for a time before her death?
A No.
Q Or that he partook of alcoholic beverages?
A No.
Q Would you give nay greater credence to the testimony of a police officer than you would to an ordinary citizen's testimony?
A No; about the same.
Q About the same?
A Yes.
Q Or that of an assistant to the District Attorney?
A The same way, yes, sir.
Q You are ready and willing to go into the jury box and judge the testimony given to you on the stand and try to find the truth?
A Yes.
Q And take all the circumstances into consideration, all the environments, and give it the same hones and sincere consideration that you would give to matter of great importance to yourself?
114
A I think I could, yes.
Q You have no doubt about it?
A No doubt about it.
Q And you would apply the law as given to you by his Honor the judge to these facts given before you?
A Yes.
Q And you would endeavor to find a verdict accord to the evidence and the law?
A I would, yes.
MR. ARANOW: No challenge for cause. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Bigley, may I ask you again, do you feel that you would have such a shrinking from rendering a verdict where you knew the penalty was the extreme one, that you would not be able to render that verdict? Now, I want to know frankly?
A No, I would render the verdict.
Q The State maintains that this is a case where there is but that one verdict that can be rendered, and we ask you if you feel that you can render it?
A If the evidence showed it, I would. MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory.
MR. ARANOW: Satisfactory. (Sworn as Juror No. 12.)
THE COURT: Gentlemen, you are admonished not to converse among yourselves on any subject connected with this trial, nor form nor express any opinion thereon until the same is submitted to you.
(The Court then adjourned the further trial of the case until Monday, January 17t h, 1916, at 10:30 o'clock.)
115
THE PEOPLE vs. ALIEN BRANDFORD. New York, January 17th, 1915.
TIRLA RESUMED.
Mr. Wellman opens the case to the jury on behalf of the People, as follows:
May it please your Honor, Mr. Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Jury: In June, 1913, the defendant, Allen
Brandford married a colored girl, named I sabella Griffin. They lived together for about a year, a little more
than a year, when troubles arose between them, and the defendant left her and took up with another woman. They were separated for about a year, before the 23rd day of November, 1915, when the crime charged against this defendant was committed.
The defendant had been to see his wife from time to time during the last few weeks, trying to get her to take him back. She had told him she was going to take her time about it, and it was to be settled, and they were to have a meeting on the night of the 23rd of November. That day, in the morning, the defendant had a place of employment, which was an apartment house in 98th street, where he worked ad fireman, and was told by the elevator boy, who was a friend of his, and a friend of his wife's in fact who had stood up with him at his wedding, - he had told Bradford that there had been a party the night before, given by his wife, and
116
Asked him if he had been to it. Defendant said no, that he had not been invited.
Evidently he had brooded about this slight on the part of his wife, and a few hours later when his employer,
Mr. Brown, the superintendent, of the building, came around, Brandford told him that he wanted to leave, and that he was going away, he had had some family troubles. Brown told him that he could quit the place at any time, and that he would pay him off and let him go at once, if he wanted to. Defendant said that he wanted to go right away, and he was paid the sum of $7, a little over $7, which was owing to him.
He went to Jersey City, and at a shop near the ferry he purchased a .38 calibre revolver and five bullets,
five cartridges. He came back to New York an went up to 59th street on the elevated, got off there, and went into a house which is between 61st and 62nd street, nearby there, and went into the toilet, unwrapped the gun, and loaded it with five cartridges and then went up to 71st street where his wife worked for a Dr. Murray Waxman. She had been working there, I think, ever since they were married, self=supporting, and lived with her sister.
He was let in by Mrs. Hisler, who was the janitrees of that building, and he asked for his wife. Mrs. Hisler will tell you that he came here before, and there was
117
Nothing unusual in his manner. She told him that Bella was in the kitchen. He went into the kitchen and Mrs. Hisler heard him say, "Hello, Bella", and heard his wife say, "Hello", and then heard him say something to her which she could not get, and then heard him say, "This is for you", saw him take a revolver from somewhere, and saw him discharge one shot into the back of his wife. Then she screamed and ran up the stairs and heard other shots, Defendants fired in all four shots into the body of that woman, killing her instantly. They were
fired from such close contact that the back of her shirtwaist caught fire from the flash of the pistol.
Defendant thereupon walked out of the building, down to the street, fired ht last shot in the chamber up in the air, broke the gun open, threw it on to the street and stood there surrounded by a crowd of people that gathered, hearing the shots.
He was asked by some one what he had done, and he aid "I killed my wife; I had good reason for it." Not very long after the police came and he was taken into custody, and he said that he had killed his wife, that he meant to do it.
He was taken down to the District Attorney's office, or, I am not sure that it was not in the station house, that very afternoon, and that he was questioned by Mr. Deacon
118
Murphy who was then Deputy Assistant District Attorney, as is the custom in the homicide cases, and was questioned about this case. He was warned of his rights, and asked if he wished to make a statement, and he
said that he did, and he told Mr. Murphy all about this occurrence, how he had made up his mid and when he was told that he had not been invited to that party, that he was going to kill his wife. Hw he had gone to Jersey
City and purchased the revolver, came over here, loaded it on the way up to the house, and had "gone up there straight to do my work", as he put it.
He said that he had had some drinks. He said that they were not taken to get up his nerve, that he did not need it, that his nerve was there already, that his mind was made up, and neither whiskey or anything else would change it.
Now, as you know, the law places certain rules which govern the trial of criminal cases, made for the protection of the accused. His guilt must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt the presumption of innocence shall have been overcome. In the case of a man charged with murder in the first degree, the rules are even more stringent. Under the laws of our State a defendant charge with the crime of murder in the first degree is not allowed to plead guilty to the crime of murder in the first degree, but his guilt must be shown in every
step, in ever particular by the state.
119
We will make the proof as brief as possible, but we will have to prove every step of our case, so if you find us proving some fact which it is intimated will not be disputed, you will understand that it is in fulfillment
of that requirement of law that we are doing it.
I take it that the fact of the shooting itself will not be seriously disputed, or that it was done by the defendant, or that the person killed was in fact, Isabella Bradford, the person named in this indictment, but it has been intimated in the questions put to the talesmen that the defendant's act, due to the defendant's condition of mind, will be a subject of contention.
MR. ARANOW: May I at this time, if the Court please, object to counsel using argument of this kind, and ask him to confine himself solely to what his proof shall be.
THE COUT: Well, I think that is so.
MR. WELLMAN: This, I believe, gives me the right to tell you that you should bear in find from the outset that the law says if a man intending to commit murder and goes out and gets himself intoxicated --
M.R ARANOW: May I ask your Honor, if the Court please, to object to the statement of counsel as to what the law in the matter is, and leave that entirely to the Court and to confine himself solely to a statement of the
facts as he intends to prove them.
THE COURT: I am inclined to think that, Mr. Wellman
120
has already outlined about what evidence he proposes to deduce, - isn't that so, Mr. Wellman?
MR. WELLMAN: Yes, your Honor, but it seems to me in view of the proof of that may be offered, it is only fair that the jury should have it in mind, as to what the law is in regard to intoxication as a defense.
THE COURT: I will charge them in regard to that.
MR. WELLMAN: So when they hear the evidence that they might have all of this in mind. That was my intention in saying it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to any such remark. THE COURT: I think I will sustain the objection.
MR. WELLMAN: Very well, I will make no mention of that then.
MR. WELLMAN: (Continuing) It is the contention of the State that his murder was deliberate, that it was premeditated, and that it was done with the intention of causing the death of his Isabella Brandford. In view of this I want to ask you to pay the evidence your strictest attention. It will be very short. At the end of
the case you are going to be confronted with the serious duty of finding the defendant either guilty or not guilty of murder in the first degree.
MR. ARANOW: My I please ask the Court that all the witnesses be excluded from the Court room?
121
THE COURT: The witness on both sides will step out and remain outside until called.
OTTO A. SCHULLTZE, M. D., Medical Assistant of the District Attorney's Office, being duly sworn on behalf of the People, testifies as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Dr. Schultze, you are a licensed practicing physician and surgeoun, are you not?
A Yes sir.
Q And you were formerly a Corner's physician in the County of New York?
A I was.
Q For how many years, covering that period?
A During 1896 and 1897 in the County of New York, and from December 1902 until April 1915 in the Borough of
Manhattan, and since April I have been medical assistant to the District Attorney of New York County.
Q During the time that you were a Corner's Physician, and at the time while you have been medical assistant to the District Attorney's office, have you performed a number of autopsies, with a view to ascertaining the
cause of death?
A I have.
Q Approximately how many?
A More than 5,000.
Q Did you on the 24th of November, last, perform and autopsy on a body identified to you as that of I sabella
Brandford?
122
A I did.
Q Where did you perform the autopsy?
A The autopsy was performed, together with Dr. Weston, the Coroner's Physician, at the Mortuary, foot of East
29th street, Borough of Manhattan. That was performed on November 24th. I saw the body on the previous day at
143 West 71st street.
Q In what part of West 71st street?
A 143 West 71st, in the kitchen of the house.
Q By whom was that body identified to you?
A The body was identified by Detective Leonard, of the Fourth Branch, and by Officer Kotschau, and by Blanche
Wright, a friend of the deceased's
Q That is the deceased's sister?
A Sister of the deceased.
Q As the body of Isabella Brandford?
A Exactly.
Q And as that the same body -- let us have it on the record -- in the same condition as you found it in the above premises 143 West 71st street on November 23rd?
A It was with the exception that the body had been disrobed at the Mortuary.
Q What was your autopsical finding?
A There was a bullet wound over the knuckle of the left hand, at the junction of the index finger, and the
hand, over the back of the hand. The wound was surrounded by a burn, three-quarters of an inch in diameter, and embedded powder grains that extended upward from this bullet wound towards the wrist a distance of three-quarters of an inch. The track of the bullet passed through the
123
Lower ends of the bones of the hand and emerged in the palm of the hand at the base of the little finger where there was a bullet wound of exit that measured, it was branched, one angle measured three-eighths of an inch and one angle one-half of an inch on the other.
THE COURT: Pardon me, for convenience and purposes of the record, suppose we call that Wound No. 1. MR. WELLMLAN: Yes.
Q May I ask you, Doctor, from the powder marks that you have described, and your experience in gun shop wounds, were you able to ascertain anything with regard to the distance from which that shot was fired?
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to that. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q What experience have you had in gunshot wounds, Doctor? Have you ever examined them with a view to ascertain how far distant the shots have been fired from?
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except to the question on the ground it is incompetent and improper. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer yes or no.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes.
Q On more than one occasion?
A How many, approximately?
A In numerous cases, I should
124
Think a large number that I examined on the body; then there were a large number of experiments at which I was present, in measuring the distance of revolvers of different caliber, from skin, hair, cloth, and so on.
Q Now, I will put my former question again; from your examination of this wound, No. 1, as we are going to call it, did you form any opinion as to how far distant the shot had been fired from?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant and not properly founded. THE COURT: I think I will allow him to answer that yes, or no.
Q What was that conclusion that you reached? MR. ARANOW: Same objection and exception.
THE COURT: In regard to that, you may ask him whether he is able to express any opinion with reasonable certainty.
Q Are you able to express an opinion with reasonable certainty as to how far distant that shot had been fired from?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent, and immaterial, and not properly founded. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes, sir.
Q Give us your opinion.
A Within one inch.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection and exception.
125
Q Go on with the other wounds.
A There were three wounds of entry in the back, on the left side. Uppermost --
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please, I respectfully object. I do not dispute his qualifications and I do not question any of his testimony, but I do object to the giving of testimony which is wholly opinion testimony. I think when the Doctor describes them as wounds of entrance, they are merely opinion on his part.
THE COURT: You admit his qualifications?
MR. ARANOW: I have no question about his qualifications.
MR. WELLMAN: That would be a matter of cross examination, your Honor, I should think. THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ARANOW: If your Honor thinks it is not important, I will withdraw my objection. THE COURT: I think the doctor may describe the wounds as he saw them.
Q Now, Doctor, just complete the last question: do you want to have it read to you?
A No, thank you. There were three bullet wounds on the left side of the back. The upper-most was three inches to the left of the sixth dorsal spine. There are twelve dorsal spines, that are at the back of the chest, in
the middle line. The uppermost was three inches to the left of the sixth dorsal spine.
Q Will you indicate just where that wound was on me?
A There
126
are twelve dorsal spines (indicating on Mr. Wellman's body) The sixth would be just little above the level here (indicating), so thee inches to the left of that would indicate the position of the wound.
Q Where your finger now is?
A Yes.
Q That is on the left shoulder blade?
A Well, it might be on your left shoulder blade as you are holding it now, but it did not pass through the left shoulder blade of this body.
Q Just beside it?
A Just within the inner margin of the shoulder blade.
Q What was the track of the bullet?
A The track of the bullet passed to the left, though the lung, and lodged in the sixth rib in the middle line of the left arm pit, on the left side. I have that bullet in my pocket now (producing bullet.)
BY THE COURT:
Q Was there a place of exit with respect --
A Your Honor, I am in error as regards Dr. Weston being present at this autopsy. I confused it with another case in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court. I think Dr. Ray was present at this one. The fragment of a bullet was found in the structure of the sixth rib on the left side, the bullet having gone through the left
lung. This is the fragment of the bullet found there (Exhibiting) THE COURT: Do you want that marked for identification?
MR. WELLMAN; Yes, I would like to have it marked for identification.
127
(Article marked People's Exhibit 1. for identification.) BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Were you able to ascertain whether the wound that you have just described in the back was a wound of entrance of a bullet?
A Yes, sir.
Q From the track that you have described of that bullet, and from the fact that it lodged in the body, I take it that was a wound of entrance?
A Its track was followed through the lung to the structure of the sixth rib described, where the fragment was found.
Q On that very question, can you tell from examination of a wound whether it is a wound of entrance or a wound of exit?
A You can.
Q How can you tell?
A The wound produced by a bullet on the surface of the skin, unless the shot is fired at contact, or very close, it fired at a distance beyond a close distance, the wound in the skin will be smaller than the caliber of that bullet, and the margin around it will be bruised or scraped as the bullet passes through, and when this drives in the skin it produces a round, dirty, brown, circular mark about the bullet itself.
Q You mean about the bullet?
A About the bullet wound; the hole. Where there are two wounds connecting a track, of course there is then the question as to whether which is exit and which is entrance, but where there is only one wound to the track,
and at the end of the bullet track the bullet is found, then the hold is clearly a wound of entrance.
128
Q But without finding the bullet in the body , do I understand you are able to tell us from an examination whether it is an entrance or an exit wound?
A You can always tell.
Q Will you describe a wound of exit and state its difference?
A There was no wound of exit in this case.
Q There was none?
A No; the bullet lodged. Only a fragment could be found, lodged in the sixth rib on the left side.
Q Did you find the bullet in the case of each wound?
A No.
Q Describe, please, what a wound of exit is, and state its difference from a wound of entrance.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the gound as calling for a statement of facts not contained in the evidence.
THE COURT: If you will pardon the suggestion, Mr. Wellman, suppose he describes all the wounds he found in the body in the first instance. He has described the wound in the hand, and now he has described this other one. Suppose we conclude that.
A There are two in the left-hand, if your Honor please, the one in which the bullet entered, where it was
burned, where the power grains were, nd the lacerated angular wound where the bullet came out of the palm of the hand.
MR. WELLMAN: It was in view of the objection of counsel that I sought to show the doctor's qualifications on the subject of wounds of entrance and of exit.
MR. ARANOW: It is in view of the statement of counsel that I reiterate that I
129
have absolute confidence in Dr. Schultze, and I have never questioned Dr. Schultze's ability, and I have made no objection, except where the evidence does not have anything to do with this case.
BY MR. WEELMAN:
Q Will you go on with the other wounds in the back Doctor?
A The second wound in the back was located on the left side, at a distance of four inches from the eighth dorsal spine. That is two spines below the one formerly described. The track of this bullet passed through the
lung, through the left lung, from behind forward, and emerged through the second space between the second and third rib and produced a wound in the skin that measured three-eighths of an inch in vertical measurement, to
half of an inch in transverse measurement and was located three inches to the left of the middle line, and two inches below the collarbone. That was a wound through and through. The track was through the lung, giving a wound from behind, which was round and measured a quarter of an inch in diameter, to a wound in front that was very much more torn, and measured three-eighths of an inch in vertical diameter, and half an inch in
transverse diameter.
THE COURT: Now, suppose we call that, including the wounds on each side, No. 3. MR. WELLMAN: Yes.
Q Where was the wound of entrance in this case?
A In the back.
130
Q And the wound of exit in the front?
A Yes.
Q Will you indicate on me where the bullet entered and left the body?
A In the eighth dorsal spine, four inches to the left of the middle line. (Indicating) Passed directly
forward through the lung, emerged through the second space, that is between the second and third rib, three inches to the left of the middle line, and two inches below the collar bone. (Indicating on Mr. Wellman)
Q Have you described to us all the wounds?
A No, another wound was found three and a quarter inches to the left of the ninth dorsal spine. The track of this wound passed through the left tenth rib, two inches from the middle line of the body, through the base of the left lung, through the aorta, which is the main blood vessel of the body, passing in front of the spine, through the right lund; no, through the liver, not the right lung; and stopped on the upper surface of the
liver underneath the diaphragm, - that is the muscle separating the chest from below. I found that bullet and have it here. That is a 38 calibre bullet, rifled from the base towards the right.
MR. WELLMAN: I would like to have that marked for identification. (Bullet marked for identification People's Exhibit 2.)
MR. ARANOW: If it please the Court, I am going to ask you to strike that out. Simply, I want to have the thing in
131
record form. I think the doctor volunteered the information it was a .38 calibre bullet; not that I care
whether it was .38 or .40, unless they show the doctor is qualified to tell the difference between a .32 and a
.38. I do not think that testimony is properly binding on the defendant, or ought to be. THE COURT: Strike that out as to the caliber.
Q Now, doctor, are you able to state from an examination of the bullet, which you found, with reasonable certainty, what its caliber was?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Have you had any experience in measuring the calibers of bullets, and in ascertaining the calibres of bullets found by you in bodies?
MR. ARANOW: Same objection.
THE COURT: I will allow him to answer yes or no
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q About how wide has that experience been?
A Very considerable.
Q How many years?
A
A Large number of bullets have been measured for years.
Q Thousands or hundreds? Give us some idea.
A I will not say thousands; in hundreds of cases.
Q I repeat my question: did you form an opinion which you
132
are able to state with reasonable certainty as to what the caliber of the bullet was which you have just produced, and which is People's Exhibit 2 for identification?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant, and not within the issues, and not properly founded.
THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes, sir.
Q What caliber?
MR. ARANOW: Same objection and exception.
A .38.
Q This was wound No. 4; we will call it wound No. 4. Did you ascertain or form an opinion which you can express with reasonable certainty as to the cause of death in this case?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not properly founded, and not proper in form.
THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes, sir.
Q What was that opinion?
A Two bullet wounds of the left lung, a bullet wound of the left lung, aorta and liver. There was also a bullet wound of the left lung, aorta and liver. There was also a bullet wound of the left hand, which,
however, would not have caused death, unless from hemoorhage; but the other bullets, any of those three, would have caused death from
133
Hemorrhage into the left sac containing the left lung, in which there was found more than one quart of blood.
Q Would the bullet which passed through the aorta, or main artery, which you have described, have caused death within a short length of time?
A Yes, sir.
Q How short, if you can state?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not within the issues, and not properly founded.
THE COURT: I do not think that is material.
Q What did you find to be the condition of the woman's body otherwise? MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I RESPECTFULLY EXCEPT.
A There was no disease of any organs in the woman's body with the exception of the right ovary, which contained a cyst, two inches in diameter, which would not have been of any importance in regard to her health.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out the last part of the answer as irresponsive. THE COURT: I will let it stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Was she a woman otherwidse than you stated in normal and
134
Healthy condition?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question as not properly framed, not proper in form, and without giving facts upon which an opinion may be formed.
THE COURT: I think it is merely a repetition of what the witness has said. He has said that in substance.
Q Then you found no other contributing cause of death?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection.
THE COURT: I will let the answer stand. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except. MR. WELLMAN: You may examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q When did you see this body, Doctor?
A This body was seen somewhere about between two and three o'clock in the afternoon of November 23rd.
Q At the premises 143 West 7 1st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q You merely examined that body; that is all you did?
A At that time, yes.
Q After you examined that body in the mortuary, as you stated?
A Yes, sir.
Q Doctor, can you tell with any reasonable degree of certainty where there are two or more wounds which of the wounds is the first wound?
A Not always.
135
Q You have observed the wound, as you state, No. 1, on the knuckle of the hand?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you have also observed the wound, as you state, on the left side, to the left of the spine. Was there anything there that was disclosed in your examination, which would tell you which bullet was fired first?
A No, sir.
Q Or second?
A No, sir.
Q Or third?
A No, sir.
BY THE COURT:
Q In other words, your statement although given in a certain order, does not imply at all that you express any opinion as to which short was fired first, or which wound was received first?
A No, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q So when you merely named them No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, you did that for convenience sake? BY THE COURT:
Q In a certain order, I take it, - that is so, is it, Mr. Witness?
A Yes, sir.
Q Doctor about how long was the body under your observation when it was in premises 143 West 71st street?
A I think about ten minutes, your Honor. I simply looked at the situation in the kitchen, the position of the body, the fact that the woman was dead, and examined for rigidity.
Q About how long was the body under your observation while
136
You were making the autopsy?
A While making the autopsy, I think it must have been under observation for some two hours.
Q The woman was apparently a woman of what age?
A She was a young woman apparently twenty-five or twenty-six, I should judge, and measured five feet three quarters of an inch in height, and her estimated weight in my record is 120 ponds.
BY MR. RANOW:
Q Did you state that wound No. 2, which you say entered at some part of the left side, dorsal, six inches to the left of the spine, as I have it here, lodged in the sixth rib?
A There was no wound of entrance six inches to the left of the spine. The uppermost was three inches to the left of the sixth spine.
Q That is the one I mean; you say that went through part of the lung?
A Through part of the left lung, and lodged I the sixth rib, in the middle line of the left arm pit.
Q Doctor, in your opinion as a physician do you believe that any of these is sufficient to cause death?
A It would be.
Q Immediate?
A Not immediate, not until hemorrhage from the blood vessels that were torn in the bullet track would fill the sac in which the left lung was contained, in which there was found in this instance, one quart of blood; over one quart of blood.
MR. ARANOW: That is all. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Doctor, does this photograph which I show you, fairly
137
represent the woman's body on which you performed the autopsy on that day?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: I offer that for identification. (Photograph marked People's Exhibit 3 for identification
CARL W. KOTSCHAU, (28th Precinct) called as a witness in behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Officer Kotschau, how long have you been in the Police Department?
A Close on to seven years.
Q Where you attached to the 28th precinct on November 23rd last?
Q Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember whether that day fell on a Tuesday?
A Tuesday, yes.
Q Did you go that day to the premises 143 West 71st street in this City?
A I did , yes, sir.
Q And at about what time?
A About one o'clock.
BY THE COURT:
Q In the afternoon?
A In the afternoon. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q State what you find on going there?
A Well, on that day a telephone message came to the station house. Q
A telephone message was received and you went out?
A Yes.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q When you went there, what did you find?
A I found the
138
Defendant, Allen Bradford, standing in the centre of the street in front of 143 West 71st street, and crowd of people around him, and alongside of him I found a revolver, which was opened up. I picked it up and I asked him what he was doing with that. He said, "I am just after shooting and killing my wife." I said, "Where?" He said, "In 143." He said, "Dr. Waxman's house." I took the defendant into the basement. I went into the basement with the defendant, and saw this woman, who he identified as his wife, lying dead in the kitchen, in front of the kitchen stove. I asked him why he did it. He said, "Well, I have been separated from my wife, I came here this morning, and asked her for the last time to come back, and she refused, and I shot her."
Q Is this the revolver which you found (handling revolver to the witness?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: I ask to have it marked for identification. (The revolver is marked People's Exhibit 4 for identification.)
Q Did you find any exploded shells?
A Two, yes, sir.
Q Where?
A In the centre of the street, not far away from the revolver.
Q Did you make a mark on them by which you can identify them (exhibiting shells to witness)?
MR. ARANOW: I object to Mr. Wellman leading the witness, and I object to the form of the question on the ground it is leading.
THE COURT: It was leading, Mr. Wellman.
139
Q Are these the shells?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out the answer. THE COURT: I will let it stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: I ask to have them marked for identification at this time. (Shells are marked People's Exhibit 5 for identification.)
Q Did you go into the premises 143?
A Yes, I went.
Q In the kitchen?
A Detective Leonard came right in back of me; we both went in together.
Q Tell us what you found in the kitchen?
A Well, we found---
THE COURT: Kindly talk louder. There are twelve men there, every one of whom would be glad to hear you.
A I found the wife of Allen Brandford lying in front of the stove, dead. That is, we looked around the room;
and Detective Leonard found the rest of the shells there.
Q Were you present when he found them?
A Yes, sir, I was present.
Q Where was the body lying?
A Right close to the stove, the range in the kitchen.
MR. WELLMAN: It has been conceded, I think, has it not -- MR. ARANOW: Put it on the record.
MR. WELLMAN: (Continuing) -- that this diagram, now offered in evidence, fairly represents the measurements of the basement of the premises 143 West 71st street as
140
they existing at that time?
MR. ARANOW: With the exception of the arrangement of the furniture.
MR. WELLMAN: Yes, it may or may not be the same, and it is offered subject to correction at any time. (Diagram is marked in evidence as People's Exhibit No. 6.)
Q I show you this diagram and ask you to indicate where the kitchen is?
A Here (Indicating place marked "kitchen").
Q You come into the areaways here (indicating in front of house), after descending two steps from the street, do you not?
A About two steps.
Q And then through the vestibule?
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: I object to the manner of asking questions, as leading. If he is familiar at all with the diagram, he ought to be able to know it, without having the District Attorney tell him about it.
THE COURT: Well, that is so.
MR. WELLMAN: As I understand the law, your Honor, and the rules of evidence, I am allowed to ask leading questions upon immaterial matters. I want to get the officer into the kitchen as briefly as possible.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object.
THE COURT: I will allow him to lead up to that. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
41
Q This is the hall (indicating place marked on diagram as hall)?
A Yes, sir. (Indicating)
Q And then at the back of the hall there is a door leading into the kitchen, is that right?
A Yes, sir, (indicating).
Q Will you state whether or not the range in the kitchen was placed as it is represented here in the diagram?
A Yes, sir.
Q That day?
A Yes, the range is correct there.
Q And the sink and tubs, do you recall?
A Yes.
Q They were the same?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about the gas range?
A The gas range is in the right place.
Q And the table?
A Yes, the table is there.
Q Was it under the electric light, the table?
A It was a little out, not in the direct centre.
Q Where was the body lying?
A (Indicating) Right here about, where that red line is.
Q Put a mark there?
A The body was lying this way here, with the head to the front. (Witness indicating by marking across mark) .
Q Lying with the head towards the front of the building?
A Yes.
Q And the feet?
A The feet towards the yard.
Q The head facing south the the feet north?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: (To the jury) He states, upon entering the area-way, after going down about two steps, and through the hallway, you come to the kitchen; that the
142
body was lying with the head facing the front of the building, and the feet to the rear of the building, in front of the range.
Q Did the defendant say anything as to the identity of the body?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as already having been answered; on the further ground it is leading. THE COURT: I will sustain it as leading.
BY THE C OURT:
Q What, if anything, did the defendant say to you after you were inside the kitchen?
A I asked him if that was his wife. He said, "Yes, that is my wife."
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Did you identify the body at the Morgue next day to Dr. Schultze and Ray?
A Yes, I was there next day.
Q Did you identify the body?
A Yes.
Q As that of Isabella Bradford?
A Yes.
Q And was that the same body you saw in the kitchen?
A Yes.
Q I show you People's Exhibit 3 for identification and ask you if that is a fair likeness and fairly represents the person whose body you found there?
BY THE COURT:
Q Have you ever seen that person?
A Yes, sir, that is the person identified at the Morgue. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q As Isabella Bradford?
A Yes.
Q When you found this revolver, did you question the defendant
143 about it?
A I asked him where he bought it. He said he went over to Jersey. He said he bought it for $4.50, and he bought five cartridges for 10 cents; $4.60 all told.
MR. WELLMAN: Your witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Just prior to going to 71st street, where had you been?
A To the station house, West 68th street.
Q You were not on duty at that time?
A No, sir.
Q You said there was a telephone call, and after that telephone call you went to 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you came there did you see any officers there?
A No, sir.
Q When did you first see Officer Leonard?
A He was right in back of me, just as we were going into the building.
Q Did he come with you from the station house?
A He was on his way. He was at the station house when the telephone message came in.
Q Did he come with you from the station house?
A He did not.
Q But he was in the station house when the message came?
A Yes.
Q And you were at the station house, when the message came?
A I was.
Q Ad you went towards 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q And he went towards 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q But he did not go with you?
A No.
144
Q Which route did you follow?
A I jumped on a car.
Q What car?
A On the Amsterdam avenue car which goes up Broadway.
Q What did he do?
A He walked up, and he was right about a few feet behind me on 71st street.
Q How far from the corner of Broadway is 143?
A Well, it is nearer towards Columbus avenue than it is to Broadway.
Q Between Amsterdam and Columbus avenue?
A Between Columbus and Broadway.
Q You say it is nearer Columbus?
A It is a little nearer to Columbus than it is to Broadway, yes.
Q And you found quite a crowd outside of 143?
A There was quite a crowd there, yes, sir.
Q Where did you find the defendant?
A In the centre of the street infront of 143. BY THE COURT:
Q Was he on the sidewalk or in the roadway?
A In the roadway.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q In the roadway?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was he standing still?
A Yes, sir.
Q Absolutely still?
A absolutely still.
Q Were there any persons around him?
A Well, the people who were around him stood on the sidewalk.
Q How many would you say?
A About twenty-five or so.
Q Men and women?
A Mostly men; a few women.
Q And the defendant was standing still, just as still as

145
I am?
A Yes.
Q How long did yo observe him before you approached him?
A All the way from Broadway.
Q How long would that be?
A About a minute or so.
Q You saw him standing in the middle of the street?
A Yes.
Q While you were looking at him he was standing perfectly still?
A Yes.
Q Absolutely still, - didn't move an arm?
A When I got there he threw up his hands.
Q I mean before.
A He was absolutely still there before I got there.
Q Absolutely still?
A Yes.
Q When you saw this man standing in the middle of the street and a crowd on the sidewalk you went directly for the man?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not ask anybody anything?
A There was person ---
Q Did you ask anybody anything?
A No, I didn't ask anybody.
Q You straight away went for the man who was standing in the middle of the street?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you got there what did he do?
A He said ---
Q No, what did he do?
A He put up his arms.
Q How?
A Like that (indicating by putting up both arms to the level of the shoulder). He said, "You might as well kill lme right now."
146
Q Did you have your gun out?
A No, I did not.
Q What did you see?
A I saw the gun lying alongside of him. I picked it up. I asked him what he was doing with it; he said he had shot and killed his wife in Dr. Waxman's house.
Q What did you do?
A I searched him to see if he had anything on him.
Q In the street?
A Yes, in front, downstairs, to make sure he would not have anything else on him.
Q I don't care for your reasons; what did you do?
A I searched him. And Detective Leonard was there and then we both went in together. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out as not responsive.
Q Can't you answer my questions as nicely as you did Mr. Wellman's? MR. WELLMAN: I object to that.
THE COURT: Sustained; that is not a proper comment.
Q Did you find anything on him?
A No, sir.
Q What did you do after you searched him?
A I took the defendant into the kitchen of the premises of Dr. Waxman. He said, "That is my wife."
Q Then what did you do?
A Detective Leonard was there then, he assisted me. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out as irresponsive. THE COURT: Strike it out.
147
Q What did you do?
A I left the case over to Dr. Leonard then, or Detective Leonard.
Q What did you do?
A I took the defendant to the station house and different witnesses.
Q After the defendant said "This is my wife", what did you do next?
A Detective Leonard placed him under arrest.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out as irresponsive. THE COURT: Strike it out.
BY THE COURT:
Q "You" refers to you personally: What id dyou personally do?
A I took care of the different witnesses that were there.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q What did you do?
A I brought them to the station house. Detective Leonard assisted me, and went to the station ho use with me.
Q How long did you remain inside of 143, after you went in there with this defendant?
A Well, about half an hour anyway.
Q Now in that half hour, what did you do inside of 143?
A Well, we got the ambulance first, and got the doctor to examine the deceased. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out that part.
THE COURT: I will let it stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A (Continued) The deceased was pronounced dead by Dr. Simpson of the Polyclinic Hospital. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
148
THE COURT: Strike out the last. BY THE COURT:
Q Just keep in mind what you did, yourself; tell us what you did?
A I notified the station house that a woman had been shot. Then the ambulance arrived, and this Dr. Simpson pronounced her dead.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out the last.
THE COURT: Strike it out; the jury will disregard it.
A (Continued) Then we went to the station house. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q What did you do, Officer? That is what I am trying to find out; you personally?
A In that half hour we had to wait for the ambulance.
Q You telephoned to the station house?
A Yes, sir.
Q After that did you wait?
A Yes.
Q Did you stand there?
A We stood in the kitchen.
Q Where was Bradord at that time?
A He was sitting on a chair in the corner of the kitchen.
Q Who was beside him?
A Detecitve Leonard.
Q Were you near him?
A Well, I was a few feet away from him.
Q Did you leave him at any time?
A No, sir.
Q You were in the rooms at all times?
A Yes.
Q What did Bradford do, if anything , in the half hour he was in the room?
A He did not do anything.
Q Sat there?
A Sat on a chair.
Q Quiet?
A Yes.
Q Didn't say anything?
A He did not say anything, only when ---
149
Q Didn't move an arm? BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What were you going to say, "only when" what?
A Only when he was questioned.
Q Did he say anything?
A I asked why he done it. He said he was separated from his wife, and he was glad it was all through.
Q Was that in the street or inside?
A Both in the street and inside. BY THE COURT:
Q Is that all he said?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Is that all?
A Yes.
Q When he say that, outside?
A He said that both outside and inside.
Q Did he say it outside?
A Yes, sir.
Q And inside?
A Yes.
Q Who was doing the questioning?
A Detective Leonard asked him inside.
Q Who asked him outside?
A I asked him outside.
Q Did he say anything else?
A No.
Q Did you say anything else to him?
A No, sir.
Q Did you ask him any other questions?
A No, sir.
Q Did you say anything to him on the way to the station house?
A No, sir.
Q Was he your prisoner?
A No, Detective Leonard took him to
150
the station house.
Q Did you walk with him?
A No, sir
Q Did you go to the station house first, and he follow?
A I was first, and he was right in back of me. I was taking a couple of witnesses down there.
Q When you got to the station house did you say anything to him?
A No, sir.
Q Did he say anything to you?
A No.
Q When you searched him did you find anything on him at all?
A No.
Q Did you find any money on him?
A I just gave a superficial search from the outside. I didn't go through his pockets.
Q You just frisked him?
A Yes, frisking, superficial search.
Q You don't know whether he had any money in his pockets at the time?
A No.
Q All you know about is this: that you came there and you saw the man in the middle of the street, and you saw the revolver?
A Yes.
Q Broken, lying there, and you asked him, "What did you do?" And he said, "I just shot my wife." Is that right?
A Yes, "I just shot and killed my wife."
Q Is that all?
A I asked where. He said "In the kitchen."
Q Anything else?
A That is all.
Q Then you took him inside?
A Yes, sir.
Q And there he said that was his wife?
A Yes, sir.
Q You asked him who the woman was?
A Yes, sir.
151
Q And after that he sat down?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you heard Officer Leonard ask him why he did it, and he did it, and he said he was glad he did it, or something of that sort?
A Yes.
Q And that was all?
A Yes.
Q Not another word?
A No.
Q Nothing else?
A That is all.
Q That is all you can recall now?
A Yes, sir.
Q Officer, did you at any time smell his breath?
A No, sir.
Q Did you get a whiff of it?
A No, sir.
Q At no time during the time that you had this man under observation from the time you first saw him did you get a whiff of his breath?
A I didn't smell anything on his breath.
Q You didn't?
A No.
Q Not a thing?
A No, sir.
Q You are positive about that, Officer?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you testify in this case before?
A Down in the Cornor's Court.
Q Did anyone examine you there?
A You examined me there.
Q Did I cross examine you as to that very particular question?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you at that time answer me that you did not smell his breath?
Q Was that your answer there?
A Certainly.
MR. WILLMAN: That is what he said here. MR. ARANOW: Now, Mr. Wellman ---
MR. WELLMAN: submit, your Honor, the question is
152
Improper in view of the testimony of the witness given not ten seconds ago. THE COURT: I will let the answer stand.
Q Did you not, in your examination in the Coroner's Court testify there that you smelled alcohol on his breath?
A No, sir, never at any time.
MR. WELLMAN: I submit if we have not the minutges here that is an improper question. I will produce the minutes here.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to that question. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: Counsel well knows the proper method of cross examining. MR. ARANOW: I object to the comment.
THE COURT: I have sustained the objection; we will have no comments.
Q How long a time did it take you to go from 143 to the station house?
A Oh, perhaps seven minutes or so; seven to ten minutes.
Q When you arrived there it was around one?
A Perhaps one; between one and one-ten, something like that.
Q You stayed a half an hour in 143?
A Yes.
Q That would bring it about 1:30 or 1:40, is that right?
A Yes.
Q You came to the station house about seven or ten minutes
153 after?
A Yes.
Q That would bring you at about 1:45 to the station house?
A About that time.
Q That is all you know about the case?
A That is all I know.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Officder, have you seen or observed a number of intoxicated persons?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Have you made a number of arrests for intoxication?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial, and not within the issues. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you observe the conduct and condition of this defendant?
A I did.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you observe any evidence of intoxication at any time that he was in your custody?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and i***material, and improper in form. THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q What is the answer?
A No, sir.
154
Q Did you examine or notice the clothes that the woman had on?
A I saw clothes; that is, I did not given them a thorough look.
Q Did you observe the back of the shirtwaist?
A No, I did not.
Q You did not?
A No.
MR. WELLMAN: That is all. MR. ARANOW: That is all.
JOSEPHINE HISLER (340 (East 93rd street) a witness called on behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: (Through Official Interpreter Rosentha***)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Is that East?
A Now I live east.
Q In November, 1915, where did you live?
A 143 West 71st street.
Q With whom did you live there?
A With Dr. Wasman.
Q Are you married?
A Yes.
Q Where did your husband live?
A With me; the whole family with me.
Q Have you a family too?
A Yes, I have four children.
Q How long had you lived in that house?
A Three years.
Q Were you the janitress there?
A Yes, housekeeper.
Q On what floor did you and your family live?
A Underneath; in the basement.
Q Did you know I sabella Breadford?
A Yes, I knew her for two
155 years.
Q Did she work there?
A Yes, she worked for us two years.
Q Do you know the defendant, Allen Bradford?
A Yes.
Q How of ten have you seen him before?
A I did not count, but quite often.
Q Did you see him on the 23rd of November, last year?
A Yes, sir.
Q At about one o'clock in the day?
A Yes, one o'clock in the afternoon.
Q Where did you see him?
A The bell rang and I went to the door and found him at the door. He said, "Hello", to me, "How are you?" I
said, " All right." I asked him how he felt. He said "Fine."
Q Did he say this in English?
A Yes.
Q You speak a little English?
A Yes.
MR. AANOW: I object to the question. THE COURT: Objection overruled. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Then what did he say, if anything?
A He asked, "Where is Belle?" I told him that she was in the kitchen. Then he said. "Could I see her?" I said yes. Then I opened the door, and then he went in front of me. He went into the kitchen, and I followed him slowly, and I remained standing at the kitchen door, and he ran into the kitchen. He said, "Helloo, Belle".
Then he went to the sink, and the woman was standing there. She was standing at the sink, and he was standing alongside of her.
156
He spoke to her, over her shoulder, because she is short and he is tall, and he said something to her, I
didn't understand it, and she answered him, and he again said something, and she again answered him. And then
I understood him to say, "This I give to you", and as soon as he said "to you", then he shot, he fired a shot.
I only saw the smoke coming out and the woman started to scream. She screamed very loud and then she could not scream any more and she fell down, and as she fell I saw him stepping back one step, and then I saw him fire
the revolver again. Then I ran back, and I went up the stairs in the house.
Q Did you hear any more shots?
A Yes, while I was going up the stairs I heard another shot and then once more when I was up in the hall.
Q Where did you go?
A I went up in the dining room, and I went to the window and while I was standing at the window I saw the man, indicating defendant, walking into the street.
Q Did you see anything in his hand?
A No, nothing; I could not see an more.
Q Before he went out to the street did you hear another shot?
A Yes, sir.
Q Before you saw him?
A (In English) Before I saw him, yes.
Q Then what did you do?
A Nothing, I stood there. The nurse asked me ---
Q No, not that. Did you notice anything about the condition
157
Of the defendant which was unusual, that you had not observed before?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as being incompetent, immaterial, irrelevant and leading. MR. WELLMAN: Question withdrawn.
Q Did you observe the condition of the defendant that day?
MR. ARANOW: I object to it as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, no foundation having been laid. THE COURT: I will allow the witness to say yes or no.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A He was there frequently.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out the answer as not responsive. THE COURT: Strike it out.
Q did you observe anything unusual about his condition that day? MR. ARANOW: I object to the question.
THE COURT: I think I will sustain the objection; it calls for a conclusion.
Q What did you observe about his condition?
A I noticed nothing unusual from what I saw before.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out as calling for a conclusion. THE COURT: I will let it stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except. BY THE COURT:
Q About how many times had you seen the defendant
158
Before that day?
A I could not swear how many times.
Q About how many?
A I don't know; the year before he came several times. During the summer the Doctor was in the country and Belle was not with us. I was alone in the house, and in September Belle returned, and then it was the first time then that this man came.
Q About how many times?
A I could not swear; three times or four times. I could not swear. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q I show you People's Exhibit 3 for identification, and ask you if you ever saw that person before?
A Yes, she was working for us.
Q Who is that?
A That is Belle.
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please, I must object to the legal effect of this photo, which is not in evidence, being shown to the witness.
THE COURT: I will allow her to identify it. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: It will be offered in evidence. MR. WELLMAN: You may examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q When before November 23rd of last year, when before did you see this defendant; that is, when was the last time before November 23rd had you seen the defendant?
A I couldn't say. I don't know.
159
Q Was it in the year 1915?
A I could not say for sure.
Q Was it 1914?
A Yes, the first year that Belle worked for us, then he came many times.
Q When was the first year that Belle worked for you?
It must be September, she worked for us just two years.
Q So the first time she worked for you was about 1913?
A Yes; she came to us in September, 1913, so in 1914 it was one year, and in 1915 it was two years.
Q In the year 1914 how many times did you see this defendant?
A I could not say how many times.
Q Did you see him more than once?
A Yes. Perhaps every fourteen days he came once, and perhaps in during the week twice.
Q This was in 1914?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever see any conversation between the defendant and Bella?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you in the year 1914 even hear a conversation with Bella and this defendant, where this defendant asked Belle to please go back and live with him?
A Yes, I heard that.
Q and how many times did you hear this defendant ask Belle to please go back to him?
A Almost every time he came.
Q Did you ever hear the name of a man by the name of Grover at any time?
A The name I don't understand, but I heard them speak about a man.
Q And did you heard any conversation where he, the defendant, asked for her address; asked for the address of
Belle?
A Yes.
160
Q Do you know in how many place Belle lived in, or how many changes of residence did she have in the year,
1915?
A Yes, twice she moved.
Q Did you ever hear her tell him of the address where she moved to?
A No.
Q Did you ever hear him ask for the address?
A Yes.
Q And she never told him?
A No.
Q Did you hear what he answers were when he asked for the address?
A she refused abruptly.
Q Did Belle live at 143 West 71st street?
A No.
BY THER COURT:
Q I understand that on November 23rd Belle was in your employ as a cook, is that so?
A No chambermaid.
Q She worked for you as a chambermaid, is that so?
A Not for me, but for the doctor.
Q When you say "the doctor", what doctor do you mean?
A Dr. Waxman.
Q You were the housekeeper for Dr. Waxman?
A Yes.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q On November 23rd, when you first saw this defendant, what was the first thing he said, "Hello, how are you?"
Q And what did you say?
A I said "Fine." (In English) "And you?" And he said "Fine."
Q Was he jolly?
A Yes, he was friendly.
Q He always greeted you in that way, "Hello, how are you?"
A Yes, always. He was always friendly.
161
Q But this time he seemed to be more friendly than others?
A Yes, he was smiling, he was very friendly.
Q More friendly than the last time you saw him?
A He was the same as before; he was always friendly. BY THE COURT:
Q Was any other person in the kitchen at the time the defendant entered it on November 23rd besides the deceased and the defendant, and yourself?
A No.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q How many shots did you hear in all?
A Four.
Q four in the house?
A Four in the house.
Q And were there any outside of the house?
A while he was running out of the house he must have fired another shot. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: Strike it out. BY THE COURT:
Q Did you hear a shot after he left the house?
A While I was standing up stairs in the diningroom at the window, I heard another shot.
Q That was inside of the house or outside of the house?
A This I could not see.
Q Is the dining room in that house in the front or in the b***ck?
A In the front.
Q That is one flight up?
A Yes.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q And you stood near the window?
A In the diningroom, at
162
the window.
Q did you look out on the street?
A Yes.
Q Did you see this defendant come out on the street?
A Yes.
Q Now, how long a time did you observe him on the street?
A Until the policeman came.
Q How long was that?
A I don't know how long it could have been.
Q Five minutes?
A Perhaps.
Q Maybe a little longer?
A It took some time before a policeman came.
Q what did the defendant do out on the street; what did you see him do?
A He was running to and fro, and he said he was waiting for the police.
Q Was he standing still or was he walking back and forth?
A He was standing still a little while and then he was walking to and fro.
Q Was he on the sidewalk or in the roadway?
A When I saw him he was in the middle of the street. Q
A crowd had collected around him?
A Yes.
Q How many persons would you say there were in that crowd?
A there was a whole bunch of people. The wagons stopped. Perhaps thirty or forty were standing there.
Q And you observed him until the policemen came?
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: That is all. MR WELLMAN: That is all.
163
THE COURT: We will suspend for a moment.
(Trial continued after a suspension of about two minutes.)
E?LLI
A S PRINCE, (140 West 71st street) called as a witness on behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Elias Pirnce, you live at 140 West 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you employed in the neighborhood of 71st street, west, in November, last year?
A Yes, sir.
At what address?
A 140 West 71st street.
Q Is that right across the street from 143 West 71st?
A Yes.
Q Were you a porter there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you there on the 23rd of November, the day when there was some occurrence in the street?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where were you at about one o'clock in the afternoon of that day?
A I was on the outside cleaning the door.
Q Did you notice anything in the street, any disturbance?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you hear any shots?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, tell us what you saw, the first thing you saw at that time?
A I seen the defendant come up from 143, and he had his gun in his hand and pointed the gun up in the air and fired a shot. Then he looked at the gun and broke the gun and
164
threw it in the street.
Q He opened the breech of the gun?
A Yes.
Q And threw the gun in the street?
A Yes.
Q Go ahead?
A He keep walking across the street towards my house at 140 West 71st.
Q Had you ever seen the gun before?
A I never did before.
Q Go on.
A
A Crowd started gathering around there and I walked up to him. I said, "What is the matter, George?" He said, "Oh, I shot my wife and I have good reason for it." Then he walked off. He said, "You need not be scared, I am not going away; I am waiting for the officer."
Q Did you observe his condition?
A Yes, sir.
Q At this time?
A Yes.
Q What was it?
A He was pretty calm, nothing at all the matter with him. R? ARNOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: Strike it out.
Q He seemed pretty calm?
MR. ARANOW: That has been stricken out. THE COURT: Yes.
Q Did you observe any evidence of intoxication?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question as incompetent, no proper foundation havingbeen laid. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes, sir.
165
Q Did you observe any evidence of intoxication?
A Yes, sir, I looked at him very good, and he seemed as calm as ever, the same as any other man. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: Strike it out.
Q Did he seem to you to be intoxicated?
A No, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection.
THE COURT: I will let the answer stand. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. ARANOW: I think, in order to get the record straight, I objected to the question, but I also move to strike out the answer.
THE COURT: Motion denied.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Were you there still when the police came?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: That is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q The first thing that you knew was this man walking out of 143, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you saw him hold a revolver in his hand?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where was he at the time you first observed him?
A Right by the step, going down to the basement 143.
Q Going down to the basement?
A Coming up from the basement.
Q Was he on the sidewalk?
A On the sidewalk.
Q Did he continue to walk, or did he stop?
A He stopped
166
and fired the gun in the air.
Q He held up his gun that way (indicating over head)?
A Yes.
Q What did he do immediately after firing the gun?
A He broke it and threw it in the street.
Q By the street uyou mean the roadway?
A Yes.
Q Did he remain upon the sidewalk?
A No, he was in the street then.
Q What did he do?
A He walked towards 140, towards me.
Q What did he do after he got there?
A He stood up.
Q He kept walking back and forth, like this? (Indicating)
A Yes.
Q Between 140 and 143?
A Yes. He took him time.
Q But ke kept walking?
A Yes.
Q Back and forth across the street?
A Yes, sir.
Q How many times did he walk that way before the officer came?
A About twice, walking in the street and coming on back and stood up.
Q You said you ran out to him?
A I did not run out. He walked across the street towards me, and I went to him.
Q Then you walked to him?
A Yes.
Q Where did you meet him?
A By the curb of my sidewalk.
Q What did you say to him?
A I said, "Hello, George, what is the matter?" He said, "I shot my wife. I have good reason for it."
Q About how close were you to him?
A About that, not very far, (indicating about two feet).
167
Q How many feet, about?
A About three feet.
Q How long did he remain that way?
A He stood there a little while.
Q About how long?
A
A few seconds, I guess.
Q then he turned away?
A Walked towards 143 again.
Q Did you see the officer come?
A Yes.
Q What did you see him do, when the officer came?
A Helt his hand up. (Indicating upstretched hand)
Q How long did you observe him before the officer came?
A I could not say.
Q Was it three or five or ten minutes?
A About fifteen minutes is about the time.
Q During that time he was walking back and forth?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you touch him with your hand?
A No, sir.
Q Just looked at him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did a big crowd collect?
A Yes, sir.
Q About how many in the crowd?
A I could not really say now.
Q More than twenty?
A Maybe more, maybe less; I don't know.
Q Anyway, there were a good many people there?
A Yes.
Q did you go to the station house with them?
A Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT:
Q Did you see the defendant on the way to the station house?
A No, sir, I was there when he took him out from 143 to the station house.
168
Q Did you walk along to the station house at that time?
A No, sir.
Q Was the defendant taken in a patrol wagon, or on foot, from 143?
A On foot.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Did an officer in uniform take him?
A An officer in uniform and a detective.
Q And when did you go there?
A They came for me about an hour or half an hour afterwards; I could not really tell.
Q Did you go inside to 143 with the officer and this defendant?
A After the detective came and got me from 140, he took me to 143.
Q When was that?
A After he went to the station house?
A Yes.
Q But were you in 143 when the defendant was there with the officer?
A No, sir.
Q about an hour afterwards the officer came and had a conversation with you?
A He came to get me.
Q He talked to you?
A Yes.
Q Took you to 143?
A Yes.
Q did he show you anything there?
A No, he just questioned me, that is all.
Q Then you went down to the station house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did anybody else go down there with you?
A I and the officer.
MR. ARANOW: That is all.
169
MR. WELDMAN: That is all.
L. P. HANSON, (Jersey City, New Jersey), a witness called on behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Hanson, you have a shop in Jersey City, have you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How far is it from the ferry that comes from New York at Cortlandt street?
A It is the fourth block from the ferry; corner of Washington street.
Q After you get off of the ferry how do you get to your store?
A Straight up from the ferry.
Q Straight up?
A Yes.
Q Is there a hardware store across the way from you?
A Almost straight across.
Q What articles do you deal in?
A Stationery and sporting goods.
Q Do you have revolvers for sale?
A Yes, sir.
Q On the 23rd day of November of last year did you sell a revolver to a colored person?
A I have got my book here, showing the date.
MR. THORNE: I object to that for the defendant. MR. WELLMAN: I withdraw that question.
Q On the 23rd day of November, 1915, did you sell any revolvers?
170
MR. ARANOW: That is objected to.
THE COURT: He may answer yes or no. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I haven't got the date down. I couldn't recall it to my mind.
Q I show you people's Exhibit 4 for identification and ask you to examine it and state whether or not that was in your store and sold by you?
A This is my tag (referring to a tag attached to the revolver).
Q Do you recognize the tag?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the mark on it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Look around the room and state whether you see any one here to whom you sold a revolver in the month of
November?
A That man there in the corner chair.
Q Where?
A There in the corner.
Q What man?
A That man g facing me now (indicating towards the defendant). MR. WELLMAN: I think he indicates the defendant.
MR. ARANOW: Yes.
Q You recognize him, do you?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you sell the revolver to this man for, at that time, at what pri***e?
A $4.50.
Q Have you your book here?
A Here, (Looking at book) yes.
Q Did this man give you any name and address?
A Yes, sir.
Q Look in your book and tell us what it was? MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
Q Unless you can tell us without your book: can you tell
171
Without refreshing your recollection from the book?
A Not absolutely.
Q Is the entry in the book made by you?
A The description is made by me, but the address and his name was m*** by himself.
Q Made by himself in his own handwriting?
A Yes.
Q Is that your rule, to have people sign the book?
MR. ARANOW: Objected to on the ground it is incompetent.
THE COURT: I think he may testify as to what his custom in the business was. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Is that you custom?
A Yes, the police require that.
Q Which entry did he sign?
A That one (indicating).
Q The one with the "X"?
A Yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q You identify that as having been written by the defendant who is on trial here?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Did you see him write it?
A Yes, sir, wrote in my presence.
Q The name "John Wilson"?
A that is what he wrote down.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, calling for a statement of the contents of a paper not in evidence. THE COURT: I will allow the answer to stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
172
Q Did he also write the address which is here?
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you see him write that?
A Yes, sir.
BY THE COURT:
Q That is to say, you saw the man who is now on trial, write that?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q "36-139th, N.Y."
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground of being incompetent. THE COURT: I think I will let that stand.
MR. WELLMAN: He saw him writing on that line in the book; if you want it in evidence, of course the writing speaks for itself. I want to avoid keeping this gentleman's book in evidence for a year, but if counsel
insists, I will do it.
THE COURT: I think counsel is within his rights in that respect. MR. WELLMAN: Do you?
MR. ARANOW: The court has said I have got to give this man legal testimony in this case. MR. WELLMAN: All right, I offer the book in evidence. I offer the entry in evidence.
I am sorry for you, Mr. Hanson, but it
173 offered.
MR. ARANOW: I object to any comment being made by the District Attorney in regard to that book. THE COURT: I have ruled on that, Mr. Aranow. The book is offered in evidence and I receive it. (Book received in evidence and marked People's Exhibit 7.)
THE COURT: Having been offered in evidence it can be read.
Q This part at the left-hand corner of the entry, is that written by any one whose handwriting you recognize?
A That is my own writing.
Q ".38 calibre, U. S., hammer revolver, $4.50, blue"?
A Yes.
Q Will you examine People's Exhibit 4 for identification, and say whether that is the revolver?
A I could not say, except from general appearance. It corresponds to my entry in the book.
Q How about the tag?
A The tag is mine. That is my son's writing.
Q You recognize your son's writing on the tag?
A Yes.
Q Is that a .38 calibre U. S. hammer revolver?
A Yes, sir.
Q Blue?
A Yes.
Q What is the price of that revolver?
A $4.50.
MR. WELLMAN: (Reading) ".38 calibre, U. S. hammer revolver, $4.50 blue." "John Wilson, 36-139 St. N. Y."
174
BY THE COURT:
Q On what day was that entry made?
A I haven't noted the date down. Judge. I was alone in the store at the time, and I overlooked that. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Do you recall the incident of this man purchasing the revolver with sufficient distinctness to tell us what the conversation was?
A No, I could not. BY THE COURT:
Q About what hour of the day was this sale?
A the only way I can reckon, I was alone, my son going to dinner between eleven and twelve o'clock.
Q In the forenoon?
A Yes, in the forenoon. BY MR. WELDMAN:
Q Now, tell us what you can remember about his coming in?
MR. ARANOW: If your Honor please, he already testified he does not remember. THE COURT: I will let him state.
BY THE COURT:
Q Give us your best recollection of the incident? MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except?
A He came in there like many others and asked to buy a*** revolver. I took him over by the counter where they were and I asked what calibre he wanted. I think he said a .38 calibre and I sold it to him.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q How many revolvers did you have there?
A Possibly a dozen.
175
Q What is the largest calibre you have?
A That is the biggest we carry.
Q .38?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you sell him any cartridges?
A Yes.
Q How many?
A If I recollect*** right, five.
Q Were they .38 calibre too?
A .38 calibre, yes, sir.
Q Did you observe the man's condition?
A Yes, sir, in an ordinary way.
Q Have you seen drunken people, intoxicated people?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: That is objected to. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q How old a man are you?
A Sixty-five years.
Q Have you seen a number of intoxicated people?
A Well, yes.
Q Do you know one when you see one?
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you observe any evidence of intoxication in this man?
MR. ARANOW: Objected to on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant, not properly founded. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A.No, sir, I did not. He looked perfectly normal to me.
176
Q Did he talk normal and rational? MR. ARANOW: Objected to.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. MR. WELLMAN: Your witness.
BY THE COURT:
Q Are you able to fix the month of in which the sale, as you say, was made, - yes or no?
A I could not, no.
Q Are y***u able to fix the year in which the sale was made, yes or no?
A No; -- oh, yes.
Q What year was it made?
A 1915.
Q Are you able to tell the season of the year in which the sale was made?
A Yes, in the fall of the year.
Q Is there any way in which you can refresh your recollection as to the date of the sale?
A No.
Q You do not enter the date in your book, do you?
A Some times we do, but I was alone that day and I had very little time to.
Q I call your attention to a date appearing on the bottom of the preceding page, "October 4, 1915", Do you see that?
A Yes.
Q that represents the date on which you sold the gun referred to in that entry?
A Yes.
Q And there appear to have been three gun sales entered in your book between that one and the one in which name john Wilson appears?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q There appear to have been three sales since
177
that time?
A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You mean subsequent to the John Wilson sale? MR. WELLMAN: Yes.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Subsequent to the John Wilson sale?
A Yes.
Q In other words, if you sold the three before the John Wilson sale, say in October, is there anything in the entry book which now refreshes your recollection so that you can tell us any more nearly than you have when this sale, was made?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question, calling for a statement of facts not in evidence; on the further ground it is irrelevant, incompetent and improper.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR.. ARANOW: I RESPECTFULLY EXCEPT.
A No.
THE COURT: We will take a recess now.
MR. WELLMAN: If your Honor please, this gentleman is very anxious to get back to New Jersey. May we finish with him now?
THE COURT: We will wait until we get through with the cross examination. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. THORNE:
Q How many revolvers have you sold during the year 1915?
178
A I could not tell from memory.
Q Then how is it that you can identify this man as a man that entered your store in connection with that particular purchase? Will you explain that to us?
A In the first place he was a colored man.
THE COURT: Have you finished your answer? THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q You have a number of colored people come in to make purchases?
A Yes.
Q Then how do you identify this particular colored man?
A Because he bought a gun.
Q How many blocks are you from the ferry?
A About three and a half blocks.
Q Are there saloons between your place of business and the ferry?
A Yes.
Q How many?
A I could not tell.
Q There is a sloon on the next block below you, isn't there?
A There is one right next to me.
Q Is there one in the next block?
A Yes.
Q Do you know the name of that saloon?
A In the next block?
Q Yes.
A One is McNulty; that is one of them.
Q when this man came in to make a purchase on this day you did not pay any particular attention to it, did you excepting to observe that he was a colored man?
A No, I did not.
Q Soo that what his condition was you don't know?
A To my observation if he was under any excitement at all I should
179
not have sold the gun.
MR. WELLMAN: What is that answer?
THE COURT: The Stenographer will please read the answer. (The last answer of the witness is read.)
Q He simply came in and asked for a gun and you sold it to him?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that when you stated that the man was not under the influence of liquor, you had in mind whether he was excited; not directly under the influence of liquor, but whether he was excited, that is what you had in
mind?
A Both, possibly.
Q How wide was the counter over which you sold the revolver?
A Oh, ordinary width, about 24 or 27 inches.
Q You were not paying and attention as to whether you detected the smell of alcohol or not?
A No.
Q You were intent on selling the revolver; that is all you cared about?
A Yes, sir.
MR. THORNE: That is all.
MR. WELLMAN: Perhaps Mr. Hanson will let him us have the page out of his book and then we can save keeping the whole book.
MR. HANSON: With the Court's permission I would like that book back. (Mr. wellman tears out the page which has been marked.)
THE COURT: Why can we not have the transcript upon the record?
180
MR. ARANOW: I will be satisfied with the transcript. THE COURT: That is satisfactory, is it?
MR. ARANOW: Absolutely. THE COURT: It may be read.
MR. WELLMAN: I think it might be well, before that is done, for counsel to show it to this clinet. THE COURT: Yes.
(Mr. Aranow shows the page marked Defendant's Exhibit 7 in evidence, to his client.)
MR. ARANOW: I would respectfully ask this Court to return this book to him, excepting that I would like to use the handwriting for later purposes.
MR. WELLMAN: All right.
THE COURT: By consent the page can be taken out.
MR. WELLMAN: I offer the revolver in evidence at this time, People's Exhibit 4 for identification. With the tag of course on it.
THE COURT: I will receive it.
(Revolver marked People's Exhibit 4in evidence.)
MR. ARANOW: As far as the tag in concerned, I do not believe there has been proper identification of the tag by the officer, as to tracing it to their hands at the present time. I didn't know there was a tage on it
until at the present moment. I have no objection to the revolver itself.
181
MR. WELLMAN: I think the tag might be marked separately under the circumstance. THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: If it may appear on the record that is the tag of which the witness said that he recognizes his son't handwriting on it.
MR.
A RANOW: I object to its admission. THE COURT: I will receive it.
MR ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(THE TAG is marked in evidence as People's Exhibit 8.) MR. WELLMAN: That is all for this witness.
M.R Th***: That is all. BY JUROR NO. 8:
Q Are you able to testify to that particular revolver aside from the tag, that it was purchased in your shop?
A Yes.
Q You can identify that?
A Yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q That is to say, Mr. Witness, if that gun had no tag on it, you would recognized the gun as gun that had been in your shop and bought from your shop?
A No, sir.
Q You recognize it because of the presence of the tag on it?
A Yes, sir.
Q You do recall having sold a revolver of that description to the man that you have described, is that so?
A Yes, sir.
Q But you say this is the revolver that you did sell to him because of your identification of it, based upon the presence
182
On it of the tag?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that so?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLLMAN: May we let Mr. Hanson go back?
THE COURT: Any other question of this witness, Gentlemen? Mr. ARANOW: No.
MR. WELLMAN: That is all.
THE COURT: Do you want him any further? MR. ARANOW: No.
THE COURT: We will take a recess, Gentlemen, until a quarter past two. You are admonished not to converse among yourselves upon any subject connected with this trial, nor form nor express any opinion thereon until
the same has been submitted to you. The court will take a recess until 2:15 p.m. (The court takes a recess until 2:15 p.m.)
TRIAL CONTINUED, 2:15 p.m.
JOSEPH F. LEONARD, (Fourth Branch Detective Bureau), a witness called in behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You are attached to what Branch?
A Fourth Branch Detective Bureay.
Q How long have you been a detective?
A About seven years.
183
Q Did you go on November 23rd, 1915, to the premises 143 West 71 street?
A I did .
Q What did you see there, and in the street in front of those premises when you went there?
A I left the station house about five minutes after one on a telephone call and I went to 71st street. In the middle of the street the defendant stood. Officer Kotschau was about five feet ahead of me. He went to the defendant first. Somebody there said that this man had shot his wife.
Q Not what you heard.
A Well, Kotschau asked what he had done. He said he is just after shooting his wife, and "I am ready to die."
He asked him where. He said "In the house", so Kotschau and him and I went into the basement, to this kitchen.
Q Was there any one else there?
A Yes.
Q Did you see a body there in the kitchen?
A I did.
Q Did you afterwards identify that body to Dr. Schultze?
A I did.
Q And to Coroner's Physician Ray?
A Yes, sir.
Q I show you People's Exhibit 3 for identification, and I ask you if you ever saw that person in life?
A Yes, that is the woman that was lying on the floor.
Q That is the woman that was lying on the floor in the kitchen of the basement of 143 west 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q And was that the same body which you identified to Dr. Schultze and Dr. Ray?
A Yes, sir.
184
Q Where was the body lying when you saw it?
A In the kitchen, in the centre of the kitchen, right near the stove. The head of the body was towards the street and the feet towards the yard.
Q I show you a photograph and ask you if that properly represents the position in which the body was lying?
A Yes, it does.
Q Is that a photograph of the body?
A Yes, it is.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q The furniture as represented in the photograph, is that as you saw it on that day?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection. THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you examine it carefully?
A Yes, sir; the same way.
Q Does that represent anything different from what you saw when you entered the kitchen that day?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection. THE COURT: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: I ask that the picture be marked for identification. (Photograph marked People's Exhibit 9 for identification.)
MR. WELLMAN: I offer the picture in evidence.
185
MR. ARANOW: Objected to on the ground it is incompetent. THE COURT: I will receive it.
MR. ARANOW: On the further ground no proper foundation has been laid. THE COURT: I think I will receive it as a representation.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(Picture is marked in evidence as People's Exhibit 9.)
Q You took the defendant into the kitchen at the time?
A Yes, Officer Kotschau took him in, and I behind Officer Kotschau.
Q Did you question him?
A I did.
Q State the questions and answers that he gave?
A I asked him was the woman on the floor his wife, and he said yes. I asked him for the woman's name, he gave me her name in full I sabella Bradford. I ask him how old she was. He said twenty-seven years old. I asked him was his wife born in this country, and he answered all the questions all the way through.
MR. ARANOW: I ask the very last part of the answer be stricken out. THE COURT: I will let it stay in.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Go on.
A I asked him why he had shot his wife. He said he had a good reason, that she had not lived with him for about two years, and that he had made up his mid that morning
186
and he went to this superintendent, received his pay, and he left there and he went to Jersey where he bought the revolver, paying $4.50 for it, and five cartridges, paying ten cnets for the five cartridges. He said, "I
then came back to New York", he said, "went up Eighth avenue, right direct to the house, "he said, "when up
Eighth avenue, right dire to the house, "he said, "when I got there the housekeeper met me at the door. I
asked the housekeeper was my wife in. She said yes, she was I the kitchen. I asked her could I go in. She said
"Sure". She opened the door and let me go in. When I go to the door I seen my wife there. I said, 'Hello, Belle'. She said 'Hello' to me. I said 'That don't suit me.' I went over to her. She had her back turned to me. The first time I shot her I shot her in the back." Then he said, "I fired two or three more shots at her breast, I don't know exactly whether it was two or three."
A Any more?
A That was all the conversation I have in that house with him.
Q Did you observe the condition of the defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q State what this condition was?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, no proper foundation having been laid. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
MR. ARNOW: I respectfully except.
A He was very cool.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: Strike it out. The jury will disregard that.
187
A He was sober.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out also. THE COURT: I will let that stay in.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q You saw no evidence that he was intoxicated? MR. ARANOW: Same objection.
THE COURT: Same ruling.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did he answer your questions without hesitation? MR. WELLMAN: Question withdrawn.
Q Was there anything in his speech, or in his voice to indicate a condition of excitement or a condition of intoxication?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper in form.
THE COURT: I will allow him to answer. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Nothing in his voice; he answered me right away.
Q Did he talk coherently?
MR. ARANOW: Same objection as incompetent, irrelevant immaterial, and improper. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes, he spoke right up.
Q Did you examine the body after its position was charged, after it was taken away, did you examine the clothing?
A Yes, sir.
188
Q What did you find to be the condition of the clothing,
MR. ARANOW: I Object to that, if your Honor please, permitting a conclusion to be drawn. THE COURT: I will allow him to state what he saw.
A In the waist, there was a burnt hole in the shirtwaist.
Q What part?
A In the back (indicating region of left shoulder blade.)
Q How large a hold?
A About half an inch.
Q Did you ask the defendant any questions at any other time as to his place of residence, and so on?
A Yes, sir, in the station house.
Q What address did he give you?
A 36 West 139th street.
Q Did he tell you where he worked?
A Yes, he told me where he worked.
Q Where?
A 251, I think, West 98th street.
Q Did you find anything else in the kitchen besides what you have told us about?
A Yes, I found a slug at the table, and I found two shells outside in the street. Would you be able to identify them if you saw them again?
A Yes, sir.
Q Any of these articles which I show you?
A That is the slug (indicating).
Q Where was this found?
A In the kitchen, at the table, the leg of the table.
MR. WELLMAN: I ask to have them marked for identification.
189
(The articles are marked People's Exhibit 10 for identification.) MR. WELLMAN: I offer it I evidence at this time.
MR. ARANOW: The only objection which I have is that it has not been properly connected with the defendant, or it being identified, whatever it is, except this witness says it is a slug. I don't know what that means.
Q Where did you find it?
A I found it in the kitchen about five minutes after we got in there, at the table.
Q The same time you found the body?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: I renew the offer.
THE COURT: I will receive it subject to being connected. (People's Exhibit 10 for identification is marked in evidence as People's Exhibit 10 for identification is marked in evidence as People's Exhibit 10.
Q Anything else?
A These two shells were found in the street, right outside the door.
Q By whom?
A By me.
Q Where in reference to the place where the defendant was?
A Right as you come out of the door, right at the stoop, in the street.
Q The stoop of 143?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: I offer them in evidence.
MR. ARANOW: Same objection on the ground it has not been properly connected. THE COURT: I will receive them.
190
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(Two shells are marked People's Exhibit 11 in evidence.)
Q What calibre are those shells, if you know?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, no proper foundation having been laid. THE COURT: Ask him a few questions regarding that.
Q Do you know the calibre of revolver cartridges when you see them?
A Yes.
Q You have handled firearms for how long?
A Ten years.
Q Are you familiar with the usual makes of cartridges?
A Yes, sir.
Q Look at the shells, People's Exhibit 11 in evidence, and state, if you can, what calibre those are?
A .38 calibre.
MR. ARANOW: I object to that. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Are they revolver shells?
A Yes, sir.
Q Such as are used in revolvers?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you call them .38 shorts?
A .38.
MR. WELLMLAN: You may examine. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q When the telephone message came, where were you?
A In the station house.
Q Where was Officer Kotsch***au?
A In the station house.
Q Did he and you go up to the place in 71 street?
A No.
191
Not together, I left there a little ahead of him; I was waiting; I tried to get a car, to get up there quick.
Q You were five feet in back of the officer?
A Yes, just about five feet.
Q Tell us what Officer ***tschau said to this defendant, and what this defendant said to Kotschau, the exact words, if you can recall.
A He said, "I am after killing my wife." He said, "I am ready to die." "Shoot me", something to that effect.
Q That is about as near as you can remember?
A Yes.
Q What did Kotschau say to him before that?
A He asked him why did he shoot his wife. He said he had a good reason.
Q Where was this?
A Just as they started in to the house.
Q Where did you first see the defendant?
A He was standing in the middle of the street, not quite in the middle of the street.
Q Standing still?
A Yes, standing still.
Q Absolutely still?
A Still.
Q How long had you observed him before you finally came up to him?
A Coming right through together, somebody said "That is him."
Q How long did you observe him?
A From the time I could see him. I didn't know whether it was him; there were about twenty-five people there. I was not paying any more attention to him than anybody else.
Q When did you first see him?
A No more than we both closed
192
In together, somebody says "That's him."
Q Officer, can you answer my question: when did you first see the defendant?
A Right at the time; we both hid*** there together, about a couple of feet away from him, to know him.
Q How many feet away from him were you when you first observed him?
A About ten feet.
Q That is time you first observed him standing there?
A Yes, facing towards Columbus avenue.
Q And you came from Amsterdam?
A Yes, from Amsterdam and Broadway.
Q After he had a conversation with Offer Kotscha*** the three of you went inside?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did Officer Katschau do when you first went inside?
A He stood there. I told the defendant to sit down on the chair that was in the corner of the room.
Q And he sat down?
A Yes, he sat there.
Q He remained sitting?
A Oh, yes.
Q He didn't try to get up?
A No.
Q How long did he remain sitting in that chair?
A About twenty-five minutes or half an hour.
Q What did Officer Kotschau do while he was sitting in the chair?
A He was standing there, he did not do anything in particular.
Q Standing where?
A Right at the table, right alongside of him.
Q Where were you?
A Right this side of him.
193
Q Suppose you illustrate on this diagram, People's Exhibit 6 in evidence where you were standing and where the defendant was, and where Officer Kotschau was?
A That was the chair in the corner, (indicating at point A) Kotschau was standing about there (indicating at point A) Kotschau was standing about there (indicating at point B).
Q Where were you?
A About here (indicating point C.)
Q How long did you remain in that position?
A How long we all remained?
Q Yes.
A
A few minutes.
MR. WELLMAN: (Addressing the jury) Defendant was in the chair here at "A", Officer Kotschau was at position
"B", and the witness was at position marked "C".
Q Now when you came in you saw the body lying in front of the stove?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who spoke to the defendant first, you or Kotschau?
A In the street?
Q Inside?
A I said --
Q What did you say?
A I asked him who the woman was. "Is that your wife?"
Q What did he say?
A He said it was.
Q What did you say after that?
A I asked him if he was legally married to her. He said yes, he was legally married to her. I said, "Do you live with your wife?" He said "No, *** I haven't lived with her in two years. I tried to get her back, but she would not come back." I said, "Is that why you
194
Shot her?" He said, "I had good reasons for shooting her." I said, "What are your reasons?" "Well," he said, "I made up my mind this morning that I was going to end it all." He said, "I am willing to die." He said, "I
will not give you any trouble, I am willing to die."
Q Is that all the conversation there was?
A I asked him for his wife's name, where she lived and hom***old she was.
Q What did he say?
A He answered all the questions.
Q What did he say?
A I will have to get it out of my book.
Q You can remember without your book?
A I could not remember just the exact answer he gave me.
Q You testified to those things a few moments ago?
A Not to her address.
Q He gave you the address?
A Yes. I testified before to his address.
Q What besides that did you ask him?
A Besides the address?
Q What was the further conversation, or was there any further conversation?
A No, there was not any further conversation in there.
Q So all we have here is that you asked him whether this was his wife; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And whether he had been living with her?
A Yes.
Q And he told you he had not been living with her for two years?
A Yes.
Q And then you asked him the reason why he shot her, and
195
he said he had good reason?
A Yes.
Q And the he made up his mind in the morning he was going to end it all; is that what he said?
A Yes.
Q And then you asked him for the address, and he gave you the address of his wife?
A Yes.
Q That was all the conversation you had at that time?
A He told me how he got paid and how he left.
Q That is what I want.
A Yes, he told me that morning at work he told the superintendent that he had some family trouble and was going to leave and he was paid off by him, got $7.50, and he left there and went to Jersey, and he went a few blocks after getting over in Jersey to a place he thought was a ***tationery place and bought this revolver
and paid $4.50 for the revolver, and five cartridges for 10 cents, making $4.60. He came over, he said, he
walked up Eighth avenue and went directly to the house. When he got there he met the housekeeper, and he asked the housekeeper was his wife in, sand the housekeeper told him yes. He asked the housekeeper could he see her and she let him in. When he go to the kitchen door his wife was at the stove and he said "Hello, Belle." She
said "Hello" to him. He said, "Oh, that don't suit me." He said, "I went over to her, and the first shot I
fired, I fired at her back." He said "I fired two or three more", he said. "They went in the front some place, he said, but I ain't sure whether there were two or three I fired."
Q That is all there was?
A That is the conversation.
196
Q You don't remember any more of it?
A No.
Q Did you leave out anything?
A That is all I can remember.
Q Did you ask him how much money he received that day?
A Not there I did not; in the station house.
Q After that you took him to the station house?
A Yes.
Q There you questioned him again?
A At that time we questioned him. He was in the back room, and Assistant District Attorney Murphy asked him questions and I was there. I had asked him some questions before that of the Assistant District Attorney.
Q Did you question him again in the station house?
A Yes.
Q What did you ask him in the station house?
A I asked him was he paid that morning, and who paid him. He told me the superintendent. I asked him where he worked and he gave me the address, 251 West 98th street.
Q What else?
A I asked him how much he received. He said $7.50.
Q I asked him if he had been drinking. He said he had a few drinks but that had nothing at all to do with it.
I asked him if he used any kind of drugs, he said no, he positively did not.
Q Anything else?
A No, there is nothing else.
Q Sure?
A That is all I can remember.
Q Do you remember asking him were he went to after he left 251 West 98th street?
A He told me went to Jersey.
197
Q Did he tell you he went to Jersey directly or stopped off anywhere?
A He said he went directly.
Q Did you ask him anything about 98th street and Columbus avenue or 99th street?
A I didn't know anything about it.
Q Did you ask him which station he went up on Columbus avenue?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you hear any one ask him about that?
A No, I could not say I did.
Q Don't you remember?
A No, I don't. I know I did not ask him.
Q Did you hear anybody ask him?
A Not I can remember.
Q Did you hear any one ask him as to what he did on 99th street and Columbus avenue?
A No.
Q Or how long it took him from 251 West 98th street to get to the station in Columbus avenue?
A I believe the Assistant District Attorney asked him a question similar to that, but that I ain't sure of.
Q You don't remember that?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you remember whether he was asked how far he went down on the elevated train?
A I believe a question of that kind was asked by the Assistant District Attorney.
Q Do you remember him answering that he went down as far as Cortlandt street?
A I don't remember that.
Q Do you remember a question being asked what he did when he got off at Cortlandt street?
A No, I don't.
198
Q You don't remember that?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you remember him saying that he stopped somewhere before he went to the ferry in Cortlandt street?
A No, I don't.
Q You don't remember that either?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you hear any such question asked?
A Not that I know of.
Q Do you remember any question being asked as to what place he first entered after he left the ferry?
A No, I don't.
Q Did you hear him say anything as to what place he entered after he left the ferry?
A Yes, he spoke to the Assistant District Attorney.
Q What did he say?
A He said he went to this store which is a few blocks away.
Q Did you hear anything mentioned about a hardware store?
A No.
Q You never heard of it?
A No.
Q Or about any stop he made before going into this stationery store?
A No, I don't remember.
Q Do you remember he was asked to retrace his footsteps going back uptown?
A Yes, the Assistant District Attorney asked him.
Q Do you remember him asked whether he made any stops between the stationery store and Cortlandt street ferry?
A No, I don't remember the answer.
Q Or whether he made any stops from the time he left the ferry and the time he took the elevated?
A He said he made a stop at 62nd street and put the bullets in the revolver.
199
Q I am asking you do you remember him saying anything about making a stop?
A I remember that as a stop. He said he stopped there at a place.
Q Officer, do you remember any one questioning him, or he answering anything about a stop having been made between Cortlandt street ferry, and the Cortlandt street Ninth avenue station?
A The question may have been-asked; I don't remember hearing it.
Q You don't remember?
A No.
Q Do you remember anything about stopping off at 59th street?
A Yes, he said something about that.
Q Do you remember anything about a visit being paid in 60th street to a man named Peterson, or something like that?
A He said he went to 59th street, but nothing about going off or anything. He went some place in 59th street.
Q He wanted to see somebody?
A Yes.
Q Did he say why he wanted to see somebody?
A No.
Q Do you remember?
A No. I don't.
Q Would it refresh your mind to say that he wanted to say good bye there; do you remember that?
A No.
Q Do you remember the name was Campbell, at 211 West 63rd street?
A Nothing about 63rd street; I don't remember 63rd street over being mentioned.
Q You don't remember any question being asked?
A I remember 59the street, yes. There was something about 59th street. He stopped a few minutes there, and then he went around to 62nd
200
Street and stopped to load the revolver. I remember that.
Q That is all you remember?
A Nothing about 63rd street; I don't remember anything about that.
Q You are not ready to testify that there was no such conversation?
A Oh, no.
Q Did you search him in the station house?
A Yes.
Q Did you find any money on him?
A He took the money out and put it on the table himself.
Q Did you find money on him?
A Yes, there was money on him.
Q How much?
A
A dollar and a few cents.
Q How much?
A It was about a dollar and four cents, something like that.
Q Did you ascertain how much money he got from Mr. Brown?
A Only what he said himself.
Q How much was that?
A Seven dollars and a half.
Q Did you ascertain what he did with the difference between a dollar and four cents, and seven dollars and fifty cents?
A Questions of that kind were asked by Mr. Murphy, the Assistant District Attorney.
Q That is what I am trying to find out. You were there?
A Yes.
Q What did he say what he did with it?
A He said he bought a few drinks; he spent so much for carfare.
Q How much?
A I think it was twenty or thirty cents, and revolver and bullets cost him $4.60.
201
Q That is $4.80.
A That is about all I can remember.
Q He said he had a few drinks?
A He said he had two drinks. He told me that himself.
Q Two?
A Yes.
Q He told you that himself?
A Yes.
Q Where did he tell you that?
A In the station house.
Q Was it after Mr. Murphy examined him or before?
A Before.
Q Two drinks?
A Yes.
Q Did he say where he had them?
A No, He did not.
Q His statement was taken down in writing while Mr. Murphy was there?
A By a stenographer; he took the mintues.
Q And no doubt you saw them in typerwritten form afterwards?
A I never did.
Q You never saw them?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know whether or not they were reduced to typewritten form?
A That I don't know.
MR. ARANOW: That is all. MR. WELLMAN: That is all.
NATHAN BIRCHALL, JR., of the Assistant District Attorney's staff, a witness called on behalf of the People, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Birchall, you are the stenographer attached to the Homicide Bureau of the District Attorney's are you not?
A I am.
202
Q How long have you been in that position?
A A little over two years.
Q How long have you been a stenographer in the District Attorney's office?
A Not quite eight years.
Q How long have you been a stenographer?
A About ten years.
Q During that time have you been taking dictation in shorthand and transcribing it into typewritten form?
A I have.
Q Did you take down and examination of the defendant Allen Brandford, conducted by Mr. Deacon Murphy of the
Homicide Bureay?***
A Yes, sir.
Q On November 23rd, 1915?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall at what time and place the examination was?
A It was at the 28th precinct station house at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
Q On the 23red of November?
A Of the 23rd of November, yes, sir.
Q Who was present at that examination?
A Mr. Murphy and Officer Geary and myself, we were present during the whole examination.
Q Do you mean Officer Leonard?
A Officer Leonard; And Officer Geary, and another officer, - I forget his name.
Q Legerenne?***
A Yes, and Captain Cooper were present during part of the examination.
Q That is Captain Alonzo Cooper of the 4th Branch?
A Yes, sir.
Q About how long did the examination last?
A About half an
203
hour, as I can remember. I can look up the time; (looking at paper).
Q Did you look at the time of the commencement and termination of the examination?
A I did.
Q State when it commenced and when it terminated?
A It commenced at 3 p. m., and ended just 3:30 p. m.
Q It lasted*** half an hour?
A Yes, sir, just half an hour.
Q Did you take down everything that was said by Mr. Murphy or others and by the defendant?
A I did.
Q Did you transcribe that examination afterwards?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q All of it?
A All of it, yes, sir.
Q Did you make notes of the entrances and exits of the officers whom you say were there only part of the time?
A Yes, sir.
Q and all other incidents which occurred during the examination?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you compared your typewritten transcript of that examination with the minutes taken by you in shorthand at the time?
A I have.
Q Is the transcript a correct transcript of the shorthand minutes that you took?
A Yes, sir.
Q I ask you to examined this paper, pages 12 to 34 inclusive, and I ask you whether that has been compared by you, and if that is the original transcript of your minutes?
A Yes, sir.
Q That is the original copy?
A That is the original copy.
204
Q Examine it, please. Is that a correct transcript of the proceedings and examination held that afternoon, of the defendant?
MR. ARNOW: I object to that on the ground that it is incompetent, and improper in form. THE COURT: I will allow him to say that is a transcript from his notes in shorthand.
Q Is it?
A It is.
MR. WELLMAN: I offer it in evidence.
MR. ARANOW: I object to it on the ground it is immaterial and incompetent, no proper foundation having been laid.
THE COURT: What is the authority for receiving it?
MR. WELLMAN: I will ask one or two fundamental questions first.
Q Are you able to state the conversation, the questions and answers which made up that examination, without reference to your notes?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: I renew the offer as an examination of one accused. BY THE COURT:
Q You can tell us as much as you can, what you recollect that the defendant said in that conversation?
A I could not remember very much of it. I can remember the substance of the conversation.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q May I ask first, was some preliminary
205
question asked of the defendant, a statement made to him about his rights?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is I improper, leading, and on the further ground it calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness as to what "preliminary" is, or what is meant by "preliminary". It may
be very vital.
MR. WELLMAN: I think the witness understands the word. BY THE COURT:
Q When you were present in the station house, the defendant was spoken to by somebody, is that so?
A He was.
Q Who spoke to him first?
A Mr. Murphy.
Q And do you recall what was said to the defendant; you may answer that either yes or no?
A I recall, *** yes, I recall some of it.
Q And do you recall what, if anything, the defendant said?
A Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I am disposed to receive what this witness heard the defendant say.
MR. ARANOW: I don't believe my objection could stop it, but the only objection I halve is to having it introduced as my friend Mr. Wellman offers it, in that form.
THE COURT: I think you will have to exhaust his recollection. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Give us what you recall from memory of the examination.
205-1/2
MR. ARANOW: If Mr. Wellman will let me look it over I may not have any objection.
MR. WELLMAN: It seems to me in a case of this importance to trust to the witness' recollection when we have it all down would be hardly fair to the defendant. I am willing, is*** counsel is.
MR. ARANOW: I would like to look it over. Perhaps I will have no objection. (Mr. Wellman thereupon hands some papers to Mr. Aranow.)
206
MR. WELLMAN: While this delay is taking place, your Honor, I might go on with the examination? THE COURT: Well, I think that counsel are examining the --
MR. ARANOW: I have no objection. MR. WELLMAN: And so I may go on? MR. ARANOW: Surely.
Q Did you notice the demeanor and the condition of the witness, the defendant?
A I did.
Q And what was it?
A
A perfectly natural demeanor.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: Strike it out. The jury will disregard it.
Q And how was his speech, coherent or incoherent?
MR. ARANOW: The same objection, your Honor, as not competent, and improper, and further, as leading.
THE COURT: I think that I will reserve my ruling on that to see whether we get in evidence this paper, because if we do, why, it speaks for itself.
Q What was the condition of the defendant?
A Condition as to what?
Q Well, you say you observed his condition. I ask you what was his condition as to sobriety?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is not proper, and it is incompetent and immaterial. THE COURT: I will allow it.
207
MR. ARANOW: Exception.
A He appeared perfectly sober to me.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out that answer, if your Honor please. THE COURT: I will let it stand.
MR. ARANOW: Exception. BY THE COURT:
Q How close were you to the defendant?
A About two feet.
Q About two feet away?
A bout two feet away.
Q Was he sitting or standing?
A Sitting.
Q You saw him for a space of about half an hour?
A About that, yes, sir.
Q When you first saw him he was brought into the room from some other room?
A He was.
Q And you saw him in the act of walking in?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q How did he walk?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as calling for a conclusion. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
A He walked naturally.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out. THE COURT: Strike that out.
Q How did he walk?
A He walked in a natural manner, straight. MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out.
THE COURT: I will leave in the straight; the balance goes out.
208
Q And what was his manner as to whether he was calm or excited?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, immaterial and leading in form, only suggesting to the witness.
THE COURT: I will exclude it.
Q What was his manner, demeanor?
MR. ARANOW: The same objection, if your Honor pleases. THE COURT: I will allow him to state what he observed.
A His manner was calm, not excited.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out, as being a conclusion and as being irresponsive to the question. THE COURT: Well, it does call for a conclusion, but I think it is competent.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: I take it, the answer refers to his outward demeanor. THE COURT: Yes, I think it is competent.
MR. WELLMAN: I renew my offer. Counsel has examined this transcript.
MR. ARANOW: My associate tells me that -- I will object to it -- I have not read it. MR. WELLMAN: Well then, we will have to exhaust his recollection.
THE COURT: Yes, I think so.
209
Q Give us what you can from recollection of the examination, and if you cannot give it in detail, then refresh your recollection from the notes which you made at the time, We want the complete examination.
A I have to refresh my recollection from my notes. The defendant was first asked his name, and replied, "Allen
Bradford." Mr. Murphy then told him that he was an Assistant District Attorney --
MR. ARANOW: If the Court pleases, I think my friend is reading from the notes, if I am not mistaken. MR. WELLMAN: He said he needed to in order to refresh his recollection.
THE WITNESS: I have to refresh my recollection from my notes.
Q How many of these examinations do you take?
A I take hundreds of them in a year.
MR. ARANOW: I do not doubt for a moment the gentleman's ability to take the examination. BY THE COURT:
Q You mean to say that you do not because of the fact you have taken so many, you do not recall anything that was said to the defendant to which he made answer?
A I can recall just the bare details, that is all.
Q Well, suppose you tell us what you do remember?
A The defendant was first warned of his rights. Mr. Murphy told him that he was an Assistant District Attorney
--
210
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out that part that he was warned. THE COURT: Strike out he was warned.
A (Witness continuing.) Mr. Murphy told him he was an Assistant District Attorney, and that he was informed that the defendant had shot and killed his wife that afternoon in 71st street, I think it was 143 West, and
Mr. Murphy told him that he did not have to say anything to him unless he wanted to, and that he was going to
ask him some questions and the defendant did not have to answer them unless he wanted to, and anything he did say could be used against him in the case of a trial. Then the defendant said in answer to questions that he
had been separated from his wife for some time, owing to jealously, based principally on the fact, as I remember it, that one night she had told him she was going to church with her two sisters, and he had followed them to the church, or he had gone to the church after they went, and stayed on the other side of the street
until the church was empty and the lights were put out, and he did not see his wife come out of the church,
That he then went home another way and arrived home before the two sisters, and asked the two sisters where his wife was, and they gave him some evasive answer, and for that reason he thought his wife was going with another man, but he said he never asked his wife whether she was actually going with another man, never brought up the subject. They separated, and he used to call her up
211
from time to time at the place where she was working in 71st street. That she would not come back to him, so the day before the murder the called her up at this house and asked her to come up to his house the following night, that would be the night of the murder --
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike out that part about the murder. BY THE COURT:
Q Did he use the word "murder"?
A He did not, no, sir.
THE COURT: Strike it out.
THE WITNESS: The night of the 23rd of November, that would be. And she said she could not come up that night, but she would come up the following night, and the next morning when he went to work one of this fellow
workers told him that his wife, that the defendant's wife, had given a party the night before, and when he heard that he made up his mind to kill her, so he gave up his job, he quit his job where he was working as a fireman, and immediately went over to Hoboken -- to Jersey City, and purchased a gun, and came back to New York and went right up to 71st street and knocked at the door, or rang at the door, and the housekeeper came
to the door and he asked her whether Belle was in, and the housekeeper said yes. He went right in through the hall to the kitchen and said how do you do to his wife. His wife answered him, how do you do, and he thereupon shot her, shot
212
her once, I think, he said, shot her once in the back and then fired two or three more shots at her, he did
not remember which. Then he went out the same way to the front of the house out in the street and fired one shot in the air, and then put the gun to this stomach, but it did not go off, and he then threw the gun down
in the street and waited for an officer to come. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Is that all you remember about it?
A That is about all I can remember of it.
Q Well, now, refresh your recollection, which you say is exhausted. Will you give the examination now from your minutes?
MR. ARANOW: I must respectfully except.
THE COURT: If you have any paper in your hand, the examination of which will refresh your recollection as to what the defendant said, you may look at it.
A The defendant said he was twenty-eight years old, and born --
Q Have you given us the first?
A He said his name was Allen Bradford. Mr. Murphy then said, "My name is Murphy, I am a Deputy Assistant
District Attorney. From information --"
MR. ARRANOW: Pardon me. Does your Honor permit the witness to read from there?
THE COURT: The witness has said that his recollection was exhausted, and I have told the witness that he may look at any paper in his hand to see whether it refreshes his
213
Recollection, and the he may testify.
THE COURT: "from information that the police and other people give me, you shot and killed your wife this afternoon --
MR. ARANOW: Pardon me. I respectfully object, if your Honor pleases, to the witness reading from the paper. The Court has said that he may look at this paper and see if it refreshes his recollection.
THE COURT: You may look at the paper and see what, if anything, in the way of memoranda you have, which will refresh your recollection respecting any matter which you have not already brought to our attention.
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, I think I can give your Honor authority which shows that the paper itself, the notes themselves, are really the evidence, but they are through the guise of refreshing the recollection, read and readable to a jury.
THE COURT: If you will have the kindness to let me have that, I will rule.
MR. WELLMAN: It is done in all our cases. We have the minutes read from beginning to end of the defendant's examination. I have never before seen it objected to like this.
MR. ARANOW: I object, if your Honor pleases, to the criticism of counsel. THE COURT: My recollection is that you customarily call
214
the party who made interrogations.
MR. WELLMAN: Yes. Mr. Murphy is sick in bed and I am not to have him until tomorrow morning; but we always call the stenographer who takes down ever word. Mr. Murphy, too, conducts many examinations, it may be.
THE COURT: Give me an authority and I will be very gland to look at it.
MR. ARNOW: I hate to be a very hard and cruel hearted person in this case, but I have tried cases very similar to this, where minutes were not admissible.
MR. ARANOW: If they are admissible, I will receive them, but I am now in doubt, and that is why I am not receiving them at this stage, I am in doubt whether it is receivable. But I would be very gland to look at the authority Mr. Wellman, if it is receivable I will allow it.
MR. WELLMAN: It will require a little delay. THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: I think we can put in our case this afternoon, probably -- THE COURT: You can withdraw this witness if you like.
MR. WELLMAN: I cannot look it up while I am here. I well send for Mr. Johnston and ask him. THE COURT: If you have any authority on the subject I will examine it carefully.
MR. WELLMAN: (To the witness.) Will you step aside?

215
MR. ARANOW: Well, will the Court allow me any cross examination of this witness afterwards? THE COURT: Why, certainly.
BERNARD E. H. BROWN, called as a witness in behalf of the People, being duly sworn, testified as follows: (The witness states he resides at 255 West 98th street.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You are the superintendent of that apartment building?
A I am.
Q And it takes in No. 255 and what other number?
A 251 West 98th street, that is, 2 51 to 255 West 98th street.
Q In the month of November, 19 15, was the defendant, Allen Brandford, in your employ?
A He was.
Q What was his work there?
A Fireman, and helping with porter work.
Q You have an elevator boy there named Foster, Thomas Foster?
A We have.
Q Also colored?
A Yes.
Q Was it through Foster that the defendant came into your employ?
A Well, practically, yes.
Q Now, when did the defendant co me to work for you regularly?
A Around about October.
Q Did you see him on the morning of November 23rd?
A I did.
Q Do you recall what time?
A About 9, a little after 9.
Q Did you have a conversation with him?
A Well, only that
216
he came to me and says, "Mr. Brown, I intend to leave you. "I says, "Why? What seems to be the trouble, Brand? Have you had any trouble with the boys?" He says, "No, I did not, I had trouble at home, family troubles." And
I says, "Well, I cannot keep you if you want to go, I am only sorry you are going, and I suppose you want your money?" And he says, "Yes, I do."
Q He had been a good man, had he, a good worker?
A Yes, Brad has been a good worker.
Q He had been sober always?
A Yes.
Q Have you ever seen him intoxicated?
A Not that I have seen, no.
Q Go on. Was anything said as to when he was to go?
A Well, I asked him then, "When do you intend to go, do you want to wait until the time is up?" and he says, "No, I will go now if you can let me go." I says, "Could you stay until I get somebody in your place?" And he says, "I would like to go right away, but I will stay until you do get somebody." And I sent one of the other boys out to get me a man to fill his position.
Q Did he go that day?
A Well, he went a little before -- I told him he could go, he was anxious to go and I told him he could go and he went.
Q You mean before you sent some one out?
A No, before the other man came.
Q You felt there would be no difficulty in getting a man,
217
And you let him go right away?
A Yes.
Q You paid him off?
A I paid him off, yes.
Q How much did you pay him?
A Somewheres around seven dollars and a half -- seven thirty-three was coming to him, I think, and I gave him seven dollars and a half.
Q Have you ever seen him from that day to this?
A No.
Q Did you observe his condition when you talked with him?
A Not much, otherwise than he seemed like something was troubling him, that is all.
Q Did you form any opinion as to whether he was intoxicated at the time he was talking? MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent, immaterial and irrelevant.
THE COURT: I will receive it. MR. ARANOW: Exception.
A Well, he was not intoxicated when I was talking with him, no.
Q He was no. That is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q What was his work at the place, Mr. Brown?
A Attending to the boilers, that is, steam boilers for heating, and cleaning part of the cellar, as packing paper and so forth.
Q He was the man that put the coal inside and raked up the fire?
A Yes, a regular fireman.
Q And he worked for you for about a month?
A Oh, he worked on the off for me nearly a year, but steady, he worked from
218
October on.
Q You never had any trouble with him?
A No.
Q You found him to be reliable?
A Yes.
Q Honest?
A He attended to his work.
Q He attended to his work?
A He attended to his work?
A He attended to his work.
Q Truthful?
A And honest, as far as I can say.
Q Yes. Now, when he came to you and said he wanted to go, did he tell you he wanted to leave town or something of that sort?
A Well, I told him, I says, "Brad, where do you intend to go?" and he says, "Well, I want to leave New York and forget things."
Q Was he as quiet about it as I am?
A Yes, he was quiet.
Q You said before that he seemed troubled and disturbed.
Q Well, yes, inasmuch as he wanted to leave me, that is all.
Q Yes. What made you think so, what was so apparent to you that he was so troubled and disturbed, what made it apparent to you?
A Well, the way he handled things around.
Q That is what I want to find out, what did he do? What did he handle around to make you believe that he was troubled and disturbed?
A Just when I asked him he had some paper in his hand which he was just taking off the dumb waiter, and he just said, "I want to forget things," (illustrating) and threw it in the barrel. I said, "Why, did you have
any trouble with the boys?" I thought may be he had an argument of some kind. Then he told me no, he says, he had family trouble and he wanted
219
to leave, wanted to go away.
Q Was there anything else you observed him do at that time?
A No.
Q How close were you to him at that time?
A Well, speaking distance, as close as I -- say, about two or three feet.
Q Did you know there was a Hygrade liquor store around the corner from your place, Hygrade wines and liquors?
A Yes, there is wine, yes.
Q Do you know whether or not this defendant had purchased any liquor in that place any time that morning before he spoke to you?
A Not to my knowledge. In fact, that was the only thing I spoke to him hat morning.
Q You mean that conversation that you just related?
A Yes, that was the only conversation I had with him that day. BY THE COURT:
Q And that conversation was about what hour?
A Well, say around 9, or a little after.
Q In the morning?
A In the morning, yes.
Q And you saw him for the last time on that day about what time?
A When he left me, about an hour and a half or three quarters of an hour after. I had a little business to attend to before I could make up his pay-roll and pay him off.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you know other people that know this defendant, Mr. Brown?
A Well, the boys that are working with me.
220
Q I see. And do you know what the defendant's reputation around there among the boys, among the men, is, for truthfulness, honesty and veracity, is it good?
A Well, if he was not any good I would not have him in my employ. He done his work, he was a good boy.
Q But do you know what his reputation for truthfulness and honesty was, good or bad?
A Well, as far as I know, good; there is nothing bad about him. RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q What were his working hours?
A The hours differed. Sometimes he came on some weeks at 12 o'clock and worked until 12 at nights, and then again he came on at 5 o'clock in the morning and worked until 5 or half past 4 in the evenings, in the
afternoon, and then again he came on at 7 o'clock in the morning.
Q Now, this morning, what time did he come on, or the night before?
A Well, I don to know exactly, I think it was on the early watch, it was either the 7 o'clock man that he was or the 4 o'clock man, that I cannot exactly say unless I go back --
Q If he was the 4 o'clock man he would came on at 4 o'clock in the morning and work until when?
A Until 5 o'clock -- he was supposed to work then until about 4 in the afternoon.
Q I see. That is all.
221
THOMAS FORSTER, called as a witness in behalf of the People, being duly sworn, testified as follows: (The witness states he resides at 65 West 134th street.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You are a friend of the defendant , are you not?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long have you known Bradford?
A Between eight and nine years.
Q He worked in the same place where you worked in November, did he not?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were an elevator runner in Mr. Brown's apartment?
A Yes, sir.
Q And while the defendant was a fireman there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember his coming to work some time in the first part of October, and working steady there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, were you instrumental in getting him that position?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as being incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. MR. WELLMAN: I withdraw it.
Q Did you see the defendant on the morning of November 23rd, last year?
A Yes, sir.
Q About what time and where did you see him?
A About half past 4 he came in.
Q You had been on all night, had you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, tell us what conversation, if any, you had with him at that time.
A Why, I did not have any conversation then, but
222
Around 6 o'clock I went down and he was there, he was laying around like he was kind of tired, and then I went down later and I asked him did he go to the party and he said no. So he asked me what party, and I told him
his wife gave a party, and maybe his sister-in-law, gave a little entertainment, Belle -- I mean the other one, Blanche.
Q Yes, on.
A And that is all he said to me then, he did not say anything more.
Q Did you tell him where the party had been?
A I did not know the address where it had been, but I told him it was his wife's house, I did not exactly know the address, but I know it was around 135th street.
Q What did you say to him, tell us the words you used when you asked him this question?
A I asked him, I says, "Brand, were you to the party last night?" And he said, "No." So he asked me what party and I told him his wife gave a party, a birthday party.
Q Yes?
A And he says he guessed it was not her, it was her sister gave the entertainment.
Q Now, when do you get paid by Mr. Brown?
A The 15ht and the 1st of the month.
Q Did you notice the defendant's condition as to sobriety that morning?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, improper in form, and leading.
223
THE COURT: I will allow it. MR. ARANOW: Exception.
Q What was his condition?
A Well, he looked to be kind of tired, laying around that morning.
Q Do you understand what sobriety means? Did he look intoxicated?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it is incompetent, improper, and leading in form. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: Exception.
A He did not look to be intoxicated that morning to me.
Q Did he look to you as if he had had anything to drink?
A Not then, no, sir.
Q You say not then, what do you mean by that, did you see him after that?
A Not that morning, I only seen him that morning.
Q When do you leave?
A About 8, or half past 8, quarter past, I leave around about that. MR. WELLMAN: I think that is all.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You knew his wife?
A Yes, sir.
Q You had been to her home before November 23rd?
A No, sir.
Q Have you ever been to her house or her sister's house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you ever been to any parties there?
A No party; I went down to his house to his wedding.
224
Q When?
A It was in 1913.
Q Where?
A In 61st street, I think it was, if I am not mistaken.
Q Right off Tenth avenue?
A Yes, sir.
Q At her sister's house?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were friendly right along with his wife and him?
A Yes, sir, very well, both of them.
Q You knew that right after they were married she gave a party in 61st street?
A Yes, sir.
Q Were you there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you see a man by the name of Grover there?
A I do not remember now if I did or not.
Q Do you know the Grover I mean?
A No, I do not recall the name.
Q Do you know a man who was a hall man in the Hotel right on 71st street there, or the door man?
A No, sir, I do not know him at all.
Q Did you notice Bradford's wife that night?
A No, sir, I did not take any particular notice at all.
Q Did you look at her condition that night?
A I cannot remember now what it was.
Q Did you notice what she did?
A No, sir, I did not take any notice at all.
Q Did you know that Brandford left his wife?
A I heard it,
225
a month after he left.
Q Did you find out why?
A No, sir, I did not ever find out why he left her or nothing of the kind.
Q Did you know that he afterwards tried to get her to move from her sister's?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know that he wanted her to come and furnish a home for him?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q You never heard of it?
A No, sir.
Q Do you know of a party being given in 130-odd street, where she was invited and he was invited?
A No -- yes, I do.
Q And they were brought together?
A Yes, I was up there to that party, yes, sir.
Q What was the name of the person that gave that party?
A Bayne.
Q Bayne?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that was given in order to bring Bradford and his wife together?
A Well, I do not know exactly, but they both were there.
Q Do you know what happened after that party?
A No, sir.
Q Her sister was there that night, too?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is she in court here?
A I do not know.
MR. WELLMAN: All the witnesses were excluded by your own motion.
Q Did Brandford ever tell you before the 23rd day of November that he had been trying to get his wife to go back to him?
226
A He has said so.
Q And did he tell you that he had pleaded with her and followed her around?
A He says he was trying to get her to come back to him.
Q And did he tell you that she moved from one place to another to avoid him?
A No, sir, he did not tell me she moved at all.
Q Did he tell you that she would not go back to him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he tell you he was almost going crazy because of it?
A No, sir, he did not say anything about going crazy.
Q Did he say he was disturbed about it?
A He did not explain his troubles to me at all.
Q He just merely told you that she would not come back?
A That is all, yes, sir.
Q When you came down into the cellar -- as I understand, that is where you saw him that morning -- you found him lying down?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that in the furnace room?
A No, sir, that was in the laundry.
Q Did you tell him who was at that party the night before?
A No, sir.
Q Did you tell him that anyone had received an invitation to go there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he get up when you spoke about the party?
A Well,
227
he was up at the time I spoke about it.
Q What were the first words out of your mouth when you went down there?
A Well, I said, "Good morning" the first time, and then I went upstairs again, and I came down again.
Q When you came downstairs, what were the first words out of your mouth?
A I asked him, "Was you to the party last night?"
Q When you first came down he was lying down?
A In the morning, yes, sir, early in the morning, yes, sir, that is correct.
Q When did you speak to him about the party?
A Well, between 6 and 7, a little after 6, I know.
Q What was he doing at that time?
A He was in the laundry, just walking around there.
Q Did you know that Brad took a drink once in a while?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you know that that morning there was a bottle of whiskey gotten at the Hygrade store around the corner?
A Yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to in that form, stating it as a fact; there is no proof of it. THE COURT: Sustained.
Q You testified to Mr. Wellman that you thought the defendant was sober on that morning; is that your testimony?
A Yes, sir.
228
Q When you say sober, you mean a man walks straight?
A Yes, sir.
Q Had you observed his actions for any length of time?
A That morning, you mean?
Q Yes.
A No, sir, I did not observe him at all, his actions.
Q Just while you were talking to him?
A Only while I was talking to him.
Q That was a few minutes?
A Yes, sir.
Q Probably a minutes?
A I do not know exactly how long it was that I was talking to him, I only spoke a few words.
Q And during that time you did not see him stagger around the laundry, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that is the only reason you say this man was not intoxicated or not under the influence of liquor, isn't that so?
A Well, I did not see him.
Q You did not see him stagger?
A I did not see him stagger, and I did not see him drinking anything.
Q And that is the only reason why you say the man was sober?
A (No answer.)
Q In other words, you would not say a man is drunk until you see him stagger or fall around?
A Well, I could not say about that, because I did not see him drinking anything.
Q I see. And just because you did not see him drinking, and because you did not see him stagger, therefore you say the
229
man was sober, that it is your opinion that he was sober?
MR. WELLMAN: Objected to as already having been answered. MR. ARANOW: I submit, if your Honor pleases --
THE COURT: I will let him answer it.
Q Is that right, sir?
A How is that, sir?
Q Just because you did not see him drinking and just because you did not see him stagger, that is the reason you say that it is your opinion he was sober?
A I could not say that he was sober.
Q You could not?
A I could not say that.
Q In other words, you do not know whether he was sober or intoxicated?
A I did not see him, I did not see him take a drink, so I do not know.
Q You do you know what his condition was, do you?
A But he spoke to me all right that morning.
Q He seemed all right to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q You did not examine him?
A No, sir.
Q Did you see Brandford after the time that you spoke to him about the party?
A Well, I seen him up to the time I left.
Q What time was that?
A About quarter past 8. MR. ARANOW: That is all.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You mean to say that outwardly he showed no signs which you saw of intoxication?
A No, sir.
Q But you do not know what was going on inside?
A No, sir.
230
MR. WELLMAN: That is all.
NATHAN BIRCHALL, Jr., recalled testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN: (Continued.)
Q Have you any independent recollection of the questions and answers themselves which took place on the afternoon of the 23rd in the examination of the defendant?
A No, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: Now, in view of that statement, your Honor, I renew my offer of the transcript in evidence. THE COURT: Excluded.
Q Now, will you produce your notes, then, and let me ask you, since you have stated all that you could of the examination, whether or not this question and answer was made, and you may look at your notes if you need to refresh your recollection:
"BY MR. MURPHY:
"Q What is your name?
A Allen Bradford."
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it contains instructions.
THE COURT: The witness may look at any memorandum that he has, and if by looking at the memorandum that he has, and if by looking at the memorandum his recollection is refreshed so that he has an independent
recollection refreshed from the memorandum, he may testify from recollection.
A Yes, sir, that question and answer were asked and answered.
BY THE COURT:
Q You remember now that it was, is that so?
A Yes, sir.
231
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Now, was this question then asked and this answer made:
"Q My name is Murphy, I am a deputy Assistant District Attorney.
A Yes, sir."
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question being asked in the manner of counsel sitting or standing before the jury holding a paper in his hand purporting to be a transcript which he himself had announced to be a transcript of certain records having been made at a certain time, and which counsel himself had said was said was what the witness had taken in stenographic minutes; I object to the form and the manner in which the question is put forth.
THE COURT: I do not think it is open to objection.
The witness has exhausted his recollection apparently, and he now has, as he claims, a memorandum made at the time which he has been able to say was accurate when made, which he says will refresh his recollection, and,
as I understand it, he is now testifying from a present recollection refreshed by a memorandum which he said was made at the time and which he says was accurate at the time when made.
MR. ARANOW: I understand. Your Honor has ruled that this paper is not admissible in testimony? THE COURT: That is my ruling.
MR. ARANOW: And that, your Honor finds is the law, and that is the reason I object to it. Now Mr. Wellman takes
232
the same paper which your Honor excluded and before the jury holding that paper, reads the questions off that paper and asks the witness whether or not those are the questions asked. I fail to see where the difference comes in between putting them in evidence and reading from that in front of the jury, that is what I object
to, to the reading of this paper by Mr. Wellman in front of the jury.
THE COURT: There may not be a practical difference, but there is in theory of law a difference, because the witness understands that he is assuming to testify now from a refreshed recollection. (To the witness.) In
other words, Mr. Witness, you understand that you are now testifying from your present recollection, refreshed
by a memorandum which you say was made at the time, and which you say was accurate at the time when made. You understand that, do you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do.
MR. ARANOW: I just simply respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: And now, may we have this objection perhaps noted to each question so that it will not interrupt the proceeding any more than is necessary?
MR. ARANOW: If your Honor would permit me to at this time -- MR. WELLMAN: To this entire line of examination?
MR. ARANOW: Yes, so as not to interrupt Mr. Wellman. THE COURT: Very well.
MR. ARANOW: Exception.
233
Q Then was this question and answer made:
"Q From information that the police and other people give me, you shot and killed your wife this afternoon up at 143 West 71st street. You are under arrest charged with that crime. I am going to ask you some questions about what happened there this afternoon.
A Yes, sir."
A Yes, sir, it was.
Q And then this question and answer:
"Q I want you to understand that your don't have to answer any of them unless you want to.
A Yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q And:
"Q And if you want to say anything to me I will be glad to listen to you and hear what you have to say, and if you say anything it can be used against you if you are brought to trial on any charge arising out of what happened this afternoon. Now, you understand what I have said?
A Yes, I understqand."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How old are you?
A I am twenty-eight."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And where were you born?
A I was born Alabama."?
A It was.
Q Now, Mr. Witness, if I state anything which is not in accord with your recollection as it is refreshed from an examination of your minutes which you hold in your hand, will you kindly interrupt me --
MR. WELLMAN: May I put it that way? That will save a "Yes" each time. MR. ARANOW: I cannot be objecting to the form and
234
matter in which these questions are asked --
MR. WELLMAN: Well, do you consent to that, to save time?
THE COURT: No, I think you will have to ask the questions, Mr. Wellman. MR. WELLMAN: All right.
Q "Q How long have you lived in New York?
A Fifteen years."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Were you married to this woman?
A Yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What was her name before you married her?
A Griffin."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And her first name was Belle?
A Isabelle."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Isabelle. When did you marry her?
A When did I marry her? Well, it was in 19 -- about 1910. I am so worried now I can't just get that right now."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, about?
A About that."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You met her here in New York?
A Met her in New York."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And married her in New York?
A And married her in New York."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Ad where did you live with her?
A I lived with her at 219 West 61st street. In fact, we got married in the same place, see."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q About how long did you live with her there?
A Well,
235
we lived there about a year, I guess, probably more."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And you moved from there where?
A We moved from there -- we moved from there -- we separated there, too. Married here and separated there. It must have been a little more than a year."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Why did you separate from her?
A Well, a little spat, you know, family affairs. Couldn't agree, so --"?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Anything in particular?
A Well, very particular, I must say."?
A Yes, sir.
Q At this point did Captain Cooper enter the room?
A He did.
Q And was this question and answer made:
"Q Well, what was it about? What was the trouble about?
A Well, she was just crooked, that is all."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How do you mean, crooked?
A How do I mean, crooked?
Because the first time I caught her one Sunday evening, I was off duty and she was to go to church with her other two sisters. They all lived in the same building."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q I see.
A And they all three went out together, but they figured I was going to bed, becaused I were in bed when they left for church, but I went up to the corner there for a drink, naturally, and come on back a little later,
see, and when I got in it was around 10 o'clock, and I wasn't asleep when the
236
other two sisters came in, because I seen them, and I asked for my wife and they say -- they didn't give me no decided answer. They say, `She'll be home later.' Well, the first time -- no, after that she come about an hour later and I asked her, 'What church did you go to?' You know, like a man will do, and she said she went to Salem's Church. And I was around to Salem's Church during my absence --" is that "during my absence", or "during her absence"?
A During my absence.
Q "during my absence, looking for her, and I knew the time that the church let out, don't you understand, and
I stood on the opposite side of the street to see her when she come past, and I saw the other two sisters come out, but I didn't see her at all" -- is that "see her"?
A "see her", yes.
Q "and I waited there until the lights were turned out and then I blows on around and beats the other two around there, you know, I went the other way, and gets in the door there, the stoop, rather, and I asked them then for my wife and they kind of slurred me up, you know" --
BY THE COURT:
Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you recall that those questions were asked and those answers made?
A I recall that all questions and answers that I have down here were made at that time.
Q You do remember that?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q "and I asked them then for my wife and they kind of slurred
237
me up, you know, they knew what had happened and everything. So that's the way it went. That's the first case"?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, do you think she was out with another man, then?
A I surely do."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You didn't see her with another man?
A I didn't see her, no."?
A "with any other man."
Q "With any other mna"?
A Yes, sir.
Q "A I did not see her, no."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ask her if she was out with any other man?
A I didn't ask her that. I merely caught her in a lie the first time."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q About her not being in church, is that what you mean?
A No, I didn't --"?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Was that the lie you caught her in, not being at the church?
A Not being at the church. She wasn't there."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You say that was the first time?
A That was the first."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Was there any other time?
A Yes, there was another time, because they moved up here in 68th street and I don't know what avenue it was between, but they was living in that street because they told me. But she refused to give me the number of where they was living at, see? That was after we separated, and I was going to her daily to try to make up,
don't you understand, and showing her why, and I would be better to
238
her, and this and that and the other, but she wouldn't listen to that. She said she would take her time in doing it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well where did you see her?
A I see her at the place where she was working, where I killed her at."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q 143?
143 -- 71st street. I used to go up there."?
A Yes, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Did he say "dash"?
A No, he said, "143 71st street, and I put the dash in just to separate the two. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Beause he did not mention East or West?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Go up there to see her?
A Go up there daily, and all up.",
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Trying to get her to come back and live with you?
A Trying to do it. To come back to me. It doesn't matter where she wanted to live, I am willing to do ust what she said."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Are you employed?
A I am employed. I were. I quit this morning."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where were you working at?
A I worked at 251 West 98th street, right off of Broadway."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What , an elevator runner?
A No, I was a fireman."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q
A fireman?
A Yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
239
Q "Q Well, when was the last time you went up to see her before today?
A The last time I went up to see her? Well, I was up there -- no, I haven't been up there since they permitted me not to go there. They didn't exactly do that, but the doctor was on the stoop at the time I was ringing the bell, and naturally I didn't get no response and I asked him where were Belle, and he said, 'Oh, Belle's busy, hse ain't got no time to fool with you.' Well, that was all right, too, because she's working
for a living, I give her credit for that. And the next time I see her it was near Easter then, and I goes up
to the house where she's living now, 34 West 135th street, her and her other sister, and I goes up there and I
tells her too, there or four days previous, that I was coming up and bring a couple of friends up there. I go up there and they treat me so bad until I might have known that it wasn't agreeable. So I disliked that and she sent the smallest sister out for a cop, to have me locked up, and I refused to move unless the cop came up. The cop didn't show up and evidently she didn't find none on the street, so I went on out after the cop didn't come. I was going to explain it to him then."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well now, when she came home that night when you didn't see her down at the church, did you tell her that you thought she had been out with another man?
A I did not."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you tell her at any time that you thought
240
she was going with another man?
A I didn't do it, no."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, what reason did you give her for wanting to separate from her?
A What reason did I give? Will, because I was out of work when the war first began don't you understand, or shortly afterwards, and it was kind of hard in getting a position until she got kind of tired of me hanging around, I suppose, and she started doing this crooked business."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What do you mean, she started this crooked business?
A Well, she started going out and staying out unusual hours, you know, and it wasn't the custom."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ever tell her that she was going off with another man?
A No."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did anyone ever tell you that they had seen her with another man ?
A Well, no, not on the street."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ever hear of her being in the house with another man?
A Well, not alone. Not with the two, you know, but she has often gone to places that I didn't like. Because I forbade her to go, you know. She would take I those parlor socials, you know, rough, you understand, and I didn't like it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, where did they go?
A Well, I don't know no particular place, but they would come back in a couple of days and give the kitten out to water, you know, tell everything,
241
and me being good natured, I would say, 'Well, that's all right' and let it pass."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did she ever go out and stay all night?
A Not all night."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Used to come in late?
A 1 and 2 and 3."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Have you called her up on the telephone lately, up at the doctor's place?
A I did."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q When was that?`
A I called her up yesterday, in the afternoon."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What did you tell her yesterday?
A I asked her to come up to my place, where I am stopping, in 139th street, that night."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q I see. Who answered the telephone?
A I couldn't say, because I got the operator. We got a girl operator at this place, and I merely got the phone
in the basement and told her to get this such and such a number, don't you understand. I didn't even know the doctor's number at that time, because I had forgotten it, and I gave her the address and the doctor's name,
you know, and who I wanted to speak to, and when I got there Belle was on the wire and I asked her to come on up that night, I wanted to see her on something important, and she said, 'I can't come down, I'll be up
tomorrow night, probably.?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What did you say to that?
A I said, 'All right,
242
Dear, come on up as early as you can tomorrow night."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q She meant tonight?
A Yes, she meant tonight***."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And was that all that was said over the telephone?
A That was all."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q When did you get this gun?
A I bought the gun this morning as soon as I left the job."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You left the job what time?
A Oh, I didn't notice the time."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, about?
A Well, it was around half past 10, somewhere along there."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Why did you give up the job?
A Why did I give it up? On this account, because I meant to do it, and I ain't particular about no trial at all, just go on and kill me. Do what you want to."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And where did you get the gun?
A I bought it in Jersey City."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Why did you go over there?
A Oh, I didn't know where to get them around there. The first gun I ever had, the first one ever I bought, and
I don't want another one."
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How much did you pay for it?
A Four fifty."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Do you remember where the place was that you bought
243 it?
A I could take you there, yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How did you go there?
A I went straight after I got offer the boat, in the same street."
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What feery did you got over there on?
A Went over on the Pennsylvania."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q From what street?
A From Cortlandt street."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q From Cortlandt?
A That's it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And then you went straight up that street?
A Straight up the street, about three or four blocks up on this side, there is a stationery -- but first I
went into a hardware store right across from it, and I asked him did he have any, and he said no, and he showed me where to get it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q In a stationery store?
A In a stationery store right across the way."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Do you remember what street that was on?
A I didn't notice what street."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Are there any car lines on that street?
A There is one."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And did you get the bullets there, too?
A Got the bullets there."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How many bullets did you get?
A Got five."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you put them in the gun or did the man put them in?
A I put them in myself."?
A Yes, sir.
244
Q "Q And where did you put them in, right there?
A Put them in over on the New York side."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where?
A The place I put them in, I got off the E1 at 59th street and between 62nd and 61st, in that barrel house there, I goes in there, in the toilet, and unwraps the gun and puts the bullets in."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Yes. And from there where did you go?
A Went directly up to do my work. I went to do it, so that's all there is to it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Who let you in there?
A Who let me in? The care taker, you know, the -- they got a janitor like, there. She is not exactly a janitor, we called her the care taker."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you say anything to her when she let you in?
A I says, 'How do?, that's all. She says, 'Come right in.'?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ask her where Belle was?
A I asked her was Belle in, and she said, 'Yes, she's in', and opened the door wide to signify to come right in. I went in and went straight down the hall into the kitchen."?
A Yes, sir
Q "Q And when you got to the kitchen door was the door open or shut?
A It was open."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And was Belle in the kitchen?
A She was there."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where was she standing?
A Standing at the stove,
245
at the range, rather."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you say anything to her?
A I say, 'How do you do?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Yes?
A She said, 'How do you do?, too, but that didn't go for me. I just did that on purpose. I meant to do it, so that's all. I went there for that."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q When you said, 'How do you do' where were you?
A I was coming through this here last door before you come to the kitchen."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, did she have her back turned to you, or was she facing you?
A She had her back turned."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And how far did you go toward her before you fired the first shot?
A I went right up on her, as close as from here to this."?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then did Mr. Murphy indicate -- tell you to put down "Indicating a distance of a few inches."?
A He did.
Q Do you recall how far was indicated?
A Why, about three or four inches, is my recollection of it.
Q Yes. "Q Did you fire the first shot into her back?
A I did."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where abouts?
A Well, around the shoulders there, I didn't take no particular notice."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How many shots did you fire at her?
A I fired three if I am not mistaken."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What did she do when you fired the first shot?
246
A She screamed, you know."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did she fall down?
A No, she did n't fall down then, she didn't fall until the second bullet hit her."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where did you fire the second bullet at her, did she turn around?
A she went to twirl, yes, she went to turn around and I tried to strike her."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q She tried to strike you?
A I tried to strike her. She didn't raise no attempt to strike me, and she fe***l when the second bullet struck her, and I fired the third one."?
A That's right.
Q "Q When she was down?
A When she was falling."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q When she was falling down? Do you know whether the second bullet struck her?
A I do not."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Do you known whether the third bullet struck her?
A I don't know where any of them struck her, only I could see fire burning on her shoulder, between her left shoulder blade."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q In the back of the dress?
A Yes, sir."?
A that is right.
Q "Q Then what did you do, after you fired the third shot?
A Walked out."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where was the woman who let you in?
A She was upstairs, she heard the reports of the revolver and she goes upstairs and screamed."?
A Yes, sir.
247
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Had she come down the hall behind you
A She was coming down when I made the report and then she broke and run back and went up the stairs."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where did you go then?
A I went out the way I come in, the basement entrance."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What did you do when you got out in the street?
A I fired the gun off up in the air.?
A That is right.
Q "Q Yes?
A And thre it away."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How many times did you fire it up in the air?
A Fired it only once, because if it had of went the other time, I certainly would have been dead. I don't know how come that fifth bullet didn't go off.?
A That is right.
Q "Q Did you fire one in the hallway?
A I did not."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Are you sure?
A Well, I am quite positive."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Didn't you fire one at the woman as she was going upstairs?
A No, no, no, I didn't do that."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, the five bullets went off?
A It went off somewhere -- well, I was excited, naturally, I didn't know -- I don't know whether I struck her four times or three. But I know when I pressed the gun and tried to kill myself it refused to go off."?
A That is right.
Q "Q Did you try to kill yourself?
A I did, yes."?
248
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where was that?
A In the street."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Was that after you fired the shot in the air?
A That was afterwards, yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where did you put the gun?
A Where did I put it? I put it in my stomach (indicating)."?
A Yes, sir, that is right.
Q "Indicatng"?
A He indicated his stomach at that time.
Q "Q And you pulled the trigger and it wouldn't go off?
A It wouldn't go off and then I looks at it and anyway I was so excited I don't know whether they all were off or not, but I know it refused to go off then, and I three it in the street."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you open it up?
A I opened it up after that bullet went off in the air."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Then what did you do, after you threw it in the street?
A I walked to and fro, waiting for a cop."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, you knew you had done something wrong?
A I knew it; I admit it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You knew it was wrong to do that when you went to do it, don't you?
A I must admit that."?
A Yes, sir.
Q"
Q And how long had you been planning to do this?
A Well, just since last night."?
A Yes, sir.
249
Q "Q Well, what made you determine last night to do it today?
A Well, what made me do that? Because she give a party there last night and I surely think, and if you will trace the matter you will find it out, that they was giving a farewell party to the fellow she had been with previous, don't you understand?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Yes, what is his name, do you know?
A His name? No, I don't know his name, but I got a strong idea he used to work here in 71st street, above her, as a door man, when they had colored fellows there. That tall building, you know, right next to the Hotel Hargrave. He used to work there as a door man. And so where she met him, you know, going to and fro to the market."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ever see her with him?
A She invited him up there, but the best proof they give a party down at 61st street. I don't know what the representing of the party meant, it might have meant this same party they gave last night, a farewell to me and farewell, good bye. I don't know"?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you ever see her with him?
A I did not."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How did you hear about this party that she was going to give last night?
A I heard about that this morning, while I was on watch."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Who told you about that?
A A fellow works in the
250
building there."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q What is you name?
A Tom Foster, he was running an elevator."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Then you didn't make up your mind to kill her until this morning, did you?
A Not until this morning."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q When you heard about the party?
A Yes."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q In other words, you expected her to come up and see you tonight?
A I din, yes."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q And then when you heard this morning about the party that she gave last night, then you made up your mind you were going to kill her?
A That just disgusted me, yes, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did Foster say he had been at the party?
A He did not, no. But his wife's sister was there. They got an invitation to the party, and that leads me to believe they was giving the party the same as they give it down in 61st street, at the reunion, don't you understand."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you have anything to drink today?
A I did, yes."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How much did you have to drink?
A I must have had about" -- what is the next word?
A Ten.
Q "About ten Old Crows. That's before the accident."?
A Yes, sir.
Q *** "About ten Old Crows", is that right?
A Yes, sir, that is right.
251
Q "That's before the accident.
Q Where did you get the first one?
A The first Old Crow I got -- I got it right off -- no, I'll get it right -- it's across from Greenberger's, or some place near 98th street, between 98th and 99th, on the uptown side."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q That is after you left your place and gave up your job?
A That's it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Went out to get a little whiskey in you to get your nerve up, is that right?
A Well, not only that. I wanted some whiskey anyway. It wasn't to get the nerve up. The nerve was already there."?
A That is right.
Q "Q You had your mind all made up to do it, then?
A To do it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you wanted the whiskey anyway/
A I had to have the whiskey."?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you get any whiskey after you came back from Jersey?
A From Jersey? I did."
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Where?
A I stopped at 63rd street. I made a mistake -- was it 63rd? -- yes, it was 63rd street, there on Tenth avenue, or whatever you call it, Amsterdam. Where it's cut off. Goes over to get another old crow?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did Officers Lagrenne and Geary enter the room at this point?
A They did.
Q "Q You say you had ten all together?
A I had ten, yes."?
A Yes, sir.
252
Q "Q How did they affect you?
A Well, I had still -- I still had my right mind. I wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q You knew what you were going to do and it didn't change you mind any by having the whiskey?
A I did. Whiskey ain't going to change it at all when I got it made up."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q It didn't make you change your mind at all?
A No, sir."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Have you ever before been arrested and convicted of a crime?
A Never."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you walk up from 63rd street or come up in a car?
A I walked up."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Walked up Amsterdam avenue and came through 71st, is that right?
A That's it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Well, is there anything more you want to say to me?
A No, sir, that's all. I didn't care to say that, because I don't care what you do. I am ready to die so it doesn't matter to me."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q That's the gun, isn't it (showing U.S. Revolver, 38 calibre, blued steel, top ejection, five cylinder, No. 66755, with a price tag marked '4.50' on it)?
A That's it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember seeing that tag on the revolver, Mr. Birchall?
A I do, yes.
253
Q "Q And that price tag that is on it, is that the price that you paid for it, $4.50?
A $4.50, that's it."? Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you have to pay anything extra for the bullets?
A I did."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How much?
A 2 cents a piece."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Then you paid $4.60 all together?
A $4.60, that's right."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you get any money when you were laid off today?
A I wasn't laid off. I asked off. I told the man what had happened. 'I give up, I am ready to leave the city,'
I told him, 'I am going to leave the city.' He asked, 'What's the trouble?' he hated to see me go, and I says,
'Well, I had a little family affairs, and I have to leave the city or I will kill somebody.' I was ready to do
the crime then, but I said that because I was afraid he wouldn't pay me. That's why I said it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Did you have any money until he paid you?
A I did not."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How much did he pay you?
A It was $9.32 all together, But I owed him two, so it would make it $7.32 I got all together."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q How much money have you got in your pocket now?
A I don't know. You can go through it if you like."?
A Yes, sir.
Q "Q Just look and see.
A I may find it in all pockets,
254
because I was really crazy this morning."? AS Yes, sir.
Q Did the defendant then search his pockets?
A He did.
Q "The Defendant: That's all (spreading out money on table, five quarters, two nickels and a dime.)". Did you note that?
A I did.
Q "Q $1.45. is that right?
A That's it."?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, the examination began at 3 and it terminated at 3:30?
A It did.
MR. ARANOW: At this time, if the Court pleases, I would like to have it recorded that during he entire examination the Assistant District Attorney was reading from a paper which he had formerly offered in evidence and which was rejected by the Court upon my objection, that the District Attorney read the questions from that paper, facing the jurors, not the witness--
MR. WELLMAN: That is not the fact. I object to that going on the record. That is frivolous, your Honor.
THE COURT: The Assistant District Attorney was facing the witness, as I saw it. I think you are mistaken in saying that he was not facing the witness.
MR. ARANOW: At times he was facing the witness. MR. WELLMAN: I am now.
MR. ARANOW: But most of the time he was facing the jurors. MR. WELLMAN: And I was reading it for them to hear.
255
The witness heard it too.
MR. ARANOW: May I add to my objection that at most of the times the witness answered "Yes, sir" to the questions given, with the exception of the few corrections he made, and I take exception to all of the reading.
THE COURT: The witness was asked a series of questions by the Assistant District Attorney, and the witness was looking at a memorandum which, as I understand, he has testified was made by him at the time, and which he
says was correct to his knowledge at the time when made. I understand him to say that memorandum now refreshes his recollection, and that he is now testifying from his refreshed recollection. Is there any cross
examination of the witness? MR. ARANOW: Yes, sir.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q When did you first arrive at the station house?
A Probably fifteen or twenty minutes before we examined the defendant.
Q You came up there with Mr. Murphy?
A We came over from the scene of the crime, yes, sir.
Q With Mr. Murphy?
A Yes, sir.
Q When you first walked into the station house, that is, where the desk is, you had a conversation with the sergeant, or some one at the desk, the lieutenant?
A I do not remember any conversation, no, sir.
256
Q Where did you go after you entered the first room?
A We went into the captain's office.
Q And who was there?
A Why, when we went in nobody was there.
Q Who went in with you?
A Mr. Murphy and myself went in.
Q How long did you remain there?
A Remained there during the entire time.
Q Who came in after you -- Mr. Murphy came in first?
A I don't know which of us went in first; we went in about together.
Q Together. Who came in after you and Mr. Murphy?
A I believe Officer Leonard brought one of the witnesses in.
Q Some other witness in particular?
A Yes, sir.
Q Who was examined?
A He was.
Q And you took down the minutes?
A Yes, sir.
Q What was the name of that witness?
A I would have to refer to my notes.
Q Can you remember without that?
A I cannot remember the name of the witness, no, sir.
Q What sort of a looking man was it?
A Why, we examined three or four that day.
Q What sort of a looking man was he?
A I cannot tell you what sort of looking men they were. One was a negro, I know, and one was a Jewish fellow.
Q Which one was that first one, the Jewish or the negro?
A I cannot tell you unless I took that up.
257
Q Did he have long hair or short hair?
A I do not know.
Q Was he clean shaven or did he have a moustache?
A Which one are you talking about?
Q I am talking about the first one.
A I do not know which one was first.
Q Now, you are a stenographer how long?
A About ten years.
Q And when you transcribe your minutes you have got your eyes riveted on your notes, haven't you?
A When I transcribe my minutes?
Q Yes.
A When I transcribe them I have got them mostly on the typewriter.
Q Suppose you start to transcribe minutes now --
MR. WELLMAN: He means when you are taking down notes.
Q When you are taking down your notes --
A Oh, When I am writing them?
Q You look at your notes all the time, just the name as this man is doing here, don't you?
A I know, but when a witness is making a gesture, I try to follow his gesture.
Q Once in a while they call your attention to it and you look?
A Whenever they call my attention to it I note it down in my record as having been called to my attention.
Q During all this examination were you able to observe the defendant?
A I observed him when they sat down and when --
Q Did you observe him during the examination?
A During the examination I glanced at him.
258
Q Did you look at him just the way I am looking at Mr. Foreman now?
A I simply glanced at him.
Q Did you look at him the way I am looking at him now?
A No, not as sharply.
Q You just glanced at him?
A Except when he made a gesture, for instance, when he counted the money I looked at him quite steadily.
Q Did you see how he did when he said he was almost crazy that morning?
A I do not think he did anything, I did not see him do anything. MR. WELLMAN: He said, "I was really crazy this morning." THE WITNESS: I did not see any gesture at that time.
Q You did not see him move his head?
A No, sir.
Q Did you see him move a finger?
A I did not notice.
Q Do you want this jury to believe that he sat there absolutely -- MR. WELLMAN: I object to the form of the question.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Do you want to tell this jury that this man sat there all the time and did not move a muscle?
A I do not know whether he was moving his muscles or not. He did not move them to any appreciable extent, or I
would have noted it.
Q You did not see it?
A I did not see him move his muscles to any appreciable extent, no, sir.
Q Did you see him move them to any extent?
A I did not
259
notice it. If he did, it was so slight I could not notice it.
Q In other words, you are trying to excuse your not seeing it?
A No, sir, it is not part of my business to see it.
Q That is exactly what I am trying to bring out, it was not part of your business to see it.
A Unless it was some marked gesture which I could record in my notes.
Q But yet you are willing to testify in this court that this man acted naturally?
A I certainly am, I could tell from his ***. Although you had your eyes on your minutes just the same as this man his has eyes on his minutes?
A I heard this talking, and I saw him on several occasions, for instance, when he counted out his money, and other things like that.
Q You heard this man say that he had ten Old Crow whiskeys?
A I did.
Q You believe the man told the truth about the ten, do you?
A I know nothing about whether he told the truth or not.
Q Can you tell how the defendant was dressed, what kind of a shirt he had on that morning?
A No, sir.
Q Or what kind of a tie?
A I do not remember.
Q And yet you want to tell this jury that you observed this man and this man acted naturally, to you?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: That is all.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WHELLMAN:
Q Did he answer the questions freely?
A He did.
260
MR. WELLMAN: That is all.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q And after this first witness was excused, who was the second witness?
A I am not sure, but I believe the second witness was the negro elevator man from across the street. He may not have been the second, he may have been the third, or the first.
Q Who came before this defendant?
MR. WELLMAN: I object to this as immaterial. THE COURT: I will allow it.
Q Who was the witness before this defendant?
A I am quite sure that it was the young man that was employed by a butcher in the neighborhood, I do not remember his name.
Q Did you note his statements?
A Yes, sir.
Q And after this boy -- where is this boy, what is his name?
A I do not remember his name, I do not know where he is.
Q You took his testimony.
A I can look it up.
Q Please give it to me.
MR. WELLMAN: It is immaterial; I object to that. I cannot see any bearing -- THE COURT: I am allowing it as testing his recollection.
Q What is his name?
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, how can it test his recollection, I submit, to look at his note book? THE COURT: It does not.
261
MR. WELLMAN: Then I object to the question on the ground that it is no test of his recollection. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Do you know the name of the boy that appeared as a witness before this defendant was called in that room?
A I do not, no, sir.
Q Can you, by refreshing your memory from that book, that you have in your hand, tell me the name of the boy that appeared as a witness there before this defendant was called in?
A I can, yes, sir.
Q Will you please do so?
MR. WELLMAN: That is the same question. The same objection. THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. I do not think it is material. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q How many witnesses in all did you have that day?
A I think there were three.
Q And when this boy went cut, who brought in the defendant, if anyone?
A I believe it was Officer Leonard, but I would not swear to it.
Q Well, your recollection is not very clear on that?
A No, sir, it is not.
Q Bow, the caption's office is there on the side, is that
262 right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Away over at this side there is a desk (indicating)?
A There is a desk over there, yes, sir.
Q Where did you sit?
A We sat at a table.
Q That table is against the wall, is it?
A It is about in the centre of the room.
Q And you were facing which way?
A I had my back to the door.
Q Back to the door facing toward 67st street?
A No, I would be facing towards Broadway.
Q Facing towards Broadway. And when the defendant first came in the room -- when did you first see him?
A As soon as he came in.
Q As soon as he came in the door?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you turn around?
A I did.
Q And you saw him walk?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did he say when he walked in?
A He was told to sit down, and he sat down.
Q Who told him that?
A I think Mr. Murphy told him to sit down.
Q And what did the defendant say to that?
A He did not say anything, he just sat down.
Q Did you take that down?
A No, sir.
Q Did Officer Leonard say anything?
A Nothing that I heard, no, sir.
263
Q Nothing that you heard?
A He did not say anything.
Q What do you mean by nothing that you heard?
A Well, he didn't say anything; I would have heard it if he had said anything.
Q Did the other officer in uniform say anything?
A I do not think there was any uniformed officer in the room.
Q How many people were there in that room?
A There were four, including the defendant, at the beginning of the examination.
Q And before the defendant sat down was anything said by anybody?
A Nothing about the case. There might have been some conversation, I do not remember.
Q About what?
A I do not remember what it was.
Q There was some conversation?
A I am not even sure that there was; there might have been.
Q Well, can you recall any?
A No, sir.
Q There might have been conversation about some other matter?
A Yes, sir.
Q And yet you were all there to investigate a very important murder?
A Yes, sir.
Q Isn't it a fact that when Detective Leonard brought in this defendant, he was talking to him as he walked in?
A Not according to my recollection, no, sir.
Q You say not according to your recollection, do you mean that your recollection may vary with the fats?
A It may;
264
I may not remember it.
Q And after the defendant sat down, did any of the four persons say a word?
A Not until Mr. Murphy began the examination.
Q And then afterwards did they say anything?
A They did not.
Q Did anybody say any word in the room excepting Mr. Murphy and this defendant?
A No, sir, Mr. Murphy always gives orders to that effect.
Q No, I do not care about always. Did he that day?
A He did.
Q Were you in the court room here when this officer testified before?
A No, sir.
Q Officer Leonard testified that he asked certain questions in the station house of this defendant. Did you hear any such questions asked?
A No, sir.
Q Have you got on your books any question asked by Officer Leonard?
A No, sir.
Q Now, if Officer Leonard had asked that question in the presence of Mr. Murphy, you would have had it?
A I would.
MR. WELLMAN: That is a difference matter. The officer did not say in the presence of Mr. Murphy.
THE COURT: I think I will sustain the objection, unless you can point out of me that the officer said that what he asked was in the presence of Mr. Murphy.
265
MR. ARANOW: I have not got the stenographer's minutes here. MR. WELLMAN: Well, you are welcome to them, Mr. Aranow.
MR. ARANOW: Thank you. Will your Honor permit me to refresh my memory from the minutes of the stenographer? THE COURT: Certainly.
MR. ARANOW: (To the stenographer.) Will you please turn back to that testimony? MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, may I suggest --
MR. ARANOW: To save time I can have officer Lenoard on the stand here, recall him for a minute, if my friend has no objection.
MR. WELLMAN: Oh, that won't save time. Certainly, call him, if you want. He answered the question, your Honor, this morning quite plainly. We will have he minutes tomorrow.
THE COURT: This witness may be recalled tomorrow so that you can interrogate him regarding it.
Q You did not hear Officer Leonard ask any question of the defendant?
A No, sir.
Q And you did not make any record of it?
A No, sir.
Q And you did not make any record of any answers made to him?
A No, sir.
Q Do you recall any question having been asked of the defendant
266
as to what he did after he left No. 251 West 98th street? Immediately after he left it?
A Not in those words, no, sir.
Q Do you recall any questions being asked as to what he did on the corner of 98th street and Columbus avenue?
A No, sir.
Q Was there any question asked that you heard as to how long he remained standing on the corner of 98th street and 99th street and Columbus avenue?
A No, sir.
Q You did hear that he stopped in at some place on Columbus avenue before taking the elevated down, that he mentioned some name?
A He mentioned stopping in some place before -- yes, just after he left his place of employment, before he went to Jersey City.
Q Yes. Do you remember the place at the present time?
A I think he said it was Greenberger's.
Q Do you know what that is?
A I do not, though I should imagine it was a liquor store.
Q I see. Was that question asked of him?
A Not in those words, no, sir.
Q I got a glimpse of your notes and in some parts there you had 1911 dash, dash, dash; what did that mean, a dash?
A Why, a dash means a broken sentence.
Q
A Broken sentence. Now, when Mr. Wellman asked you the question at that time did you portray that at that time, that this sentence was broken?
A That was a different place that he asked me, it was 143 dash 71; that dash was simply a
267
mark of punctuation.
Q I mean, did you correct Mr. Wellman at every place where there was a dash?
A No, sir, he broke his voice to correspond with the dash.
Q When you transcribe, Mr. Birchall, you only try to get as far as you can the sense of the question and the answer?
A I try to get down the exact words.
Q You do not, for instance, state how much stop there is after a word?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q And you do not state when a man puts up his voice or puts his voice down?
A No, sir.
Q You do not mean to say that the defendant here gave the answers in exactly the same tone of voice and with the same calm manner and spirit that my friend, Mr. Wellman, did?
A I do not record the changes in the tones of voice at all.
Q Would you think that it was in the same calm manner?
A His answers, as I remember them, were all in a calm manner.
Q There were no stops between words?
A There were stops between words, naturally, yes, sir.
Q Didn't you record them?
A I recorded, for instance, where he would hesitate in the middle of a sentence, I would put a dash.
Q How many dashes have you got in this book?
A I have not counted them.
Q Or the length of time that he stopped?
A He never really
268
stopped, he would simply hesitate, break off in the middle of a sentence, and then go on with another thought and then I would put a dash in as a matter of punctuation only.
Q At the time of transcribing?
A I generally make note of the dash in my notes if I can.
Q If you were taking my dictation now, you would also take note of the stops that I make?
A Only the stop at the end of the sentence, or, as I say, if you stop in the middle of a sentence and break off your thought and start a new thought, or make a mistake and correct it.
Q Did you see his hands at any time while you were taking the notes?
A I did not notice them except when he made a gesture.
Q What gesture did he make?
A He indicated his stomach, I remember at one time.
Q And what else?
A That is all I remember.
Q Did you notice his lips?
A No, sir.
Q Or his eyes?
A No, sir.
Q Did you notice the lines around his face?
A No, sir.
Q And still you want this jury -- your testimony is that this man was rational in all respects?
A Yes, sir.
MR. ARANOW: That is all.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Now, how many rooms are there in the Detective Bureau there?
A It is not the Detective Bureau, it is the station
269
house; a large room near the lieutenant's desk is where you open the door, and up to the left of that where you go in is the captain's room.
Q Where did this examination take place?
A In the captain's room to the left of the lieutenant's desk.
Q And is your recollection clear that only Mr. Murphy took part in the examination, and the defendant?
A Yes, sir.
Q And no questions were asked there while Mr. Murphy was there and while you were having this examination, except by Mr. Murphy?
A That is right.
Q Are there other rooms, detective rooms there?
A There are rooms at the back used by the patrolmen, I do not know what for.
Q And there were just you four people at the start in this room?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is the room off from the other room?
A Off from the mail room, yes, sir.
MR. WELLMAN: That is all. I offer People's Exhibit 3 for identification in evidence at this time. MR. ARANOW: I object to its competency and materiality.
THE COURT: I will receive it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(People's Exhibit 3 for identification was marked in evidence and handed to the jury.) MR. WELLMAN: If your Honor please, I offer in evidence
270
the fragment of lead which Dr. Schulze produced, now that the corpus delicti has been completed. THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: That is People's Exhibit 1, if I am not mistaken. THE COURT: I will receive it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(People's Exhibit 1 for identification is marked in evidence.)
MR. WELLMAN: With the reservation, your Honor, that tomorrow, if the doctor informs me, I will be able to have
Mr. Murphy here, I rest my case.
MR. ARNOW: If the Court pleases, I now make the formal and usual motion for direction of a verdict of acquittal and discharge of the defendant and dismissal of the indictment, on the ground that the People have failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt --
THE COURT: I deny the motion, Mr. Aranow, and you have an exception.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except. Also, on the further ground that the People have failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime sufficiently in law.
THE COURT: In what respect do you contend?
MR. ARANOW: I believe the shooting of Isabelle Bradford was wholly hearsay testimony and not proven sufficient in law
THE COURT: I deny the motion.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except. Also on the ground that the people have at this time failed absolutely here to establish the crime of murder in the first degree. There has been shown no deliberate act of premeditation
or malice aforethought.
271
THE COURT: Denied. You have an exception.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except. And I also respectfully ask your Honor to please charge the jury at this time that your denial of the motion is no indication that this man is guilty, but is merely a matter of law.
THE COURT: You are so told, Gentlemen.
MR. ARANOW: Does your Honor want me to open now. THE COURT: You may open now.
MR. ARANOW: May I have until tomorrow morning for the production of my witnesses? THE COURT: Yes, you can produce your witnesses tomorrow morning.
(Mr. Aranow opened the case to the jury in behalf of the defendant as follows:)
If it pleases the Court, Mr. Foreman, and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Koenig, of my firm, Mr. Thorne and I were assigned to defend this man, charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, that he did it with malice aforethought, a willful and deliberate murder.
It is not my intention, nor the intention of Mr. Koenig, nor Mr. Thorne, nor any one in his case to mislead
you about the truth. We want you, and I have asked you to find where the truth lies, and where the truth lies so shall your verdict be.
We have slight differences with our friend Mr. Wellman.
272
Mr. Wellman believes there was a willful and deliberate murder. We differ with him. We intend to show you that this man, who comes from some where down south, had very little training, very little schooling, and had not had the advantages of a white man, and that after laboring for a good many years in the south, polishing
boots, and working hard, away from home when a boy of twelve years of age, traveled to St. Louis, there he worked in a barber shop, and continued to polish boots and maintain himself, and did so, a hard working fellow, honestly living by the sweat of his hands. Never been charged or even suspected of any wrong doing.
We will show you again, that after he left St. Louis he went to Chicago, and there by reason he left St. Louis
he went to Chicago, and there by reason of his experience he obtained a job as a porter, and having made good there he again advanced and became a waiter, and that he worked for several years as a waiter in some of the hotels in Chicago, and prospered fairly well. We will show you that from Chicago he went somewhere, - to Detroit, I believe, and stayed there a few years, and finally he came to New York.
We will show you by people who had employed him in New York, that he was always a hard-working, reliable, honest, efficient man, not a high grade man, not a skilled man, but hard worker. To accomplish anything you could rely on Bradford to do it, he was right there, and he
273
was reliable at all times.
We will show you that in the year 1913 he first met this woman. Now, he was working in some elevator apartment as an elevator boy, and this girl worked for one family, and they had an acquaintance, and after they had
been keeping company for quite a while they got married, and they went to live with a sister-in-law, and everything went along very smooth for quite a while.
We will show you how this man who went out to work returned at the hour of eight or nine o'clock -- no eight hour jobs, but at nine o'clock returned from his work to his sister-in-law's house, and would find that this
wife was not home, and would not return, and we will show you how, upon some investigation made by him, he found her to be hanging around gin mills, with her sister, in the back of some of the gin mills in 61st street
and Amsterdam avenue.
We will show you how he remonstrated with her, and asked her to conduct herself properly, as a wife should, and that his entreaties met with very little favor.
We will show you that one time without even being know to him, in his home, his wife gave a party, one of those parlor socials, where gin was a-plenty, and he walked in there and found his wife sitting in the back room drinking with a man all by themselves, having hidden a bottle somewhere.
274
We will show you how this was the beginning of the end. How after that he accused her, and that was never denied, and she kept silent about it. We will show you how this thing worked upon him, that silence, not even a denial of the thing, had worked on him, and how he left her.
We will show you that after he left her he found out that he could not very well get along without her. We will show you further that before he left her she absolutely refused to have any sexual relations with him, that he accused her at that time, and that that was the reason why he left her, and that ten days after that he came back and tried to get her to come back to him, and told her so, hot only told her so alone, but told her so in the presence of her sister, in the presence of her relatives, begged her to come back, told her that
he was going to start a home, and to come back, but she refused. We will show you that he continually called upon her at the place where she worked, and went to see her where she worked, and was not refused admittance by her. How he finally did find out where she lived, and when he got there once she was away, and the second time he came to see her she had already moved out, she was gone. We will show you at certain times when she told him to call upon her, that he went to the house and rang the bell, and saw the light,
275
and he heard the music playing up there, he heard the singing, and that by the time he came up to the first floor, to that glass door, the room was darkness, and his knocking on the door met no response, whatsoever.
We will show you that some of these friends who had known Bradford for quite some time, took an interest in him, saw his plight, and gave a party to bring Bradford and his wife together, and that at this party Bradford and his wife talked it over and she said she was no ready to go back to him. He asked her why, and all the answer he could get was that she was not ready to go back to him.
We will show you that at that particular time Bradford began to drink, although not to excess, he began to drink more than he usually did. In fact, he never drank at all, until a very short time ago. We will further
show you that he called her up on the day before this shooting, and that he had a conversation with her, and asked her to meet him that night, the night before the shooting, and she told him that she could not possibly see him, that she had to work very late that night, and was very busy and she could not see him that night. That was the night of the 22nd.
We will show you that she was going to give him word that night whether or not she was coming back to him. I
am also going to show you about that episode about the church which some of the testimony here mentioned, but that was
276
not before the leaving, but this happened sometime after he left, and while she was living with her sister,
that he watched at the church all night, waited until everybody a out and they had locked the door, and came
home and asked her where she was, and she said she was at the church, and he asked her, "How was the sermon?", and she answered, "How do you think how the sermon was?", and that is as far as it went.
We will show that the night before he called her upon the telephone, and she said she was busy and she would see him on the 23rd. He came to work on the early morning of the 23rd, we will show you that because of the conditions he had started to drink, and that he went to the Hydgrade store, and there bought a pint bottle of whiskey, plain, and that once in a while he used to sip from it.
I am going to let him tell you exactly what his feelings were art that time. I am going to let him tell you exactly what he did, what effect, if any, the story told by this elevator boy had upon him. I am going to let him. I am going to let him tell you what he resolved to do at that time, and I do not believe that even my friend Mr. Murphy's examination will serve, excepting it was a very cleaver examination, but did not bring it to the point. We will show you that after he spoke to this boy, he went and finished the pint of whiskey, that he demanded his pay, and told the man he
277
could not stay here, that he was resolved to do a certain thing, made up his mind to do it, and he was going to do it right before her and with her. I am going to show you what he did when he left 251, and what he did before he took the elevated, what he did when he went off the Cortlandt street ferry, what he did before he took the ferry, what he did after he took the ferry, what he did to get the gun, what he did to get the cartridges, what he did after he bought the gun -- after he did -- the only reason I objected to it was that
I wanted it in in a legal way -- he bought the gun -- what he did after he bought the gun, where he stopped, how he went up and down and what he did. He will tell you himself. I intend to put him on the stand. He will tell you himself what he did when he went in the house, what conversation he had, what he said to her, and what she said to him, and what he did. And I believe that after he tells you his story and you hear his
witnesses, you will agree with me that it was not a deliberate murder, not a premeditated murder, not a murder with malice afore thought.
That he killed her, he will admit, but he did not kill her with malice, he did not do it with malice, and that whatever crime he is guilty of he is ready and willing to serve his penalty for it, and you are solely to be the judges of it, and I hope your judgment will be true.
THE COURT: Gentlemen of the jury, you are admonished
277-1/2
Not to converse among yourselves on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion thereon until the same is submitted to you.
The Court then adjourned the further trial of the case Until to-morrow morning, January 18th, 1916, at 10:30 o'clock.
278
THE PEOPLE vs. ALLEN BRADFORD. New York, January 18th, 1916.
TRIAL CONTINUED. (Roll called.)
THE COURT: Now we will proceed with the case on trial. The case is with the defendant.
MR. ARANOW: I am going to ask the Court at this time to permit me to take some of the other witnesses later, because of their not being here.
THE COURT: Why, as far as the order of proof is concerned, you may go ahead and produce any witness you see fit.
ALLEN BRADFORD, who states he lived at 36 West 139th street, the defendant, sworn in his own behalf, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Allen, you will please speak loudly, slowly and distinctly. We are all anxious to hear you, and try to understand my questions. If you do not understand my questions I want you to say so. Don't answer any question until you thoroughly understand it.
A Yes.
Q How old are you?
A Twenty-eight.
Q Where were you born?
A Born in Alabama.
Q Where?
A Alabama.
279
Q What city?
A Bessemer.
Q Did you go to school?
A I did.
Q Up to what year; how old were you when you left school?
A I was twelve.
Q Did you remain in Alabama after twelve?
A I did not.
Q Where did you go to?
A I went to Memphis, Tennessee.
Q What did you do in Memphis, Tennessee?
A Shined shoes in a barber shop.
Q How long did you remain there?
A I remained there for two years.
Q And during that time you shined shoes?
A I did.
Q Did you have the same place for two years?
A I did.
Q After you left Memphis, where did you go?
A I went to St. Louis.
Q Missouri?
A Missouri.
Q How long did you remain there?
A I remained there about a year.
Q What did you do while in St. Louis?
A I was a waiter in a boardinghouse.
Q Did you work in one place?
A One place.
Q When you left St. Louis, what did you do?
A I went to Chicago, Illinois.
Q What did you do when you got to Chicago?
A Waiter.
Q Where?
A At the Chicago Beach Hotel.
Q How long did you stay there?
A I stayed there eight

280 months.

Q Did you work in the same place?
A Same place.

Q After you left Chicago where did you go to?
A I went to Detroit, Michigan.

Q And what did you do in Michigan?
A Waiter.

Q Where?

A At the Cadillac Hotel.
Q How long?

A I worked there for eight months.
Q Any other place?

A No, I ran on the boat.
Q Pardon me?

A I ran on the steamboat.
Q Which one?

A On the Western States steam ship.
Q What did you do?

A Waiter.

Q After you left Detroit on the steamboat, where did you go?
A I went to Buffalo.

Q What did you do in Buffalo?
A Waiter.

Q How long?

A I stayed there for about two weeks.
Q And from there where did you go?
A I came to New York.

Q When you first came to New York, do you remember what year it was?
A No, I can't recall the year.

Q How long ago?

A Well, about fourteen years; fourteen or fifteen.
Q You were about fourteen years of age then?
A Yes.

Q Where did you first live?
A I lived 136th street, 34.

Q What did you do?

A I was assistant janitor there.
Q Where?

A At 34 West 136th street.

Q How long did you remain there?
A I remained there for

281
about a year.
Q What did you do after that?
A I started working in an apartment house, running an elevator.
Q Where?
A 49 Claremont a avenue.
Q How long did you work there?
A I worked there for about nine months.
Q And after that what did you do?
A I was running an elevator in 93rd street.
Q Where, what number?
A At 312.
Q And how long did you work there?
A I worked there going on two years.
Q And after that where did you work?
A 411 West End avenue.
Q How long did you work there?
A I worked there for about eight months.
Q In what capacity, what did you do?
A Run an elevator.
Q What street was that, Allen?
A That is 80th street and West End avenue.
Q And after that what did you do?
A I run an elevator in 1***11th street.
Q What number?
A 528.
Q For how long?
A About two years.
Q And for the past fourteen years, Allen, have you been out of work for any length of time?
A Not any long length of time, no, sir.
Q Well, what was the longest length of time?
A About two months.

282

Q Otherwise for fourteen years you worked steady?
A Yes, sir.

Q And supported yourself?
A Yes, sir.

Q Did you ever have to go to charity for any help?
A No, sir.

Q Isabella Bradford was your wife?
A Yes, sir.

Q Where did you first meet Isabella?
A 312 West 93rd street.

Q Were you working there?
A Yes, sir.

Q Was she working there?
A Yes, sir.

Q What were you dong in there?
A I was elevator man.

Q What was she doing there?

A She was general houseworker.

Q How long did you know Isabella before you were married?
A I knowed her about two years.

Q You saw her often?
A Yes, sir.

Q Did she work in the same house with you?
A Yes, sir.

Q And do you know Isabella's sister?
A Yes, sir.

Q What was her name?

A She had one named Blanche Wright, and one named Lizzie Petty.

Q After you were married did you go to live with one of Isabella's sister?
A Yes, sir.

Q Which one?

A Blanche Wright.

Q Where does she live?

A She lives 219 West 61st street.

Q Is that right off Amsterdam avenue?
A Between Amsterdam, yes, sir.

Q Between Amsterdam and what?
A And Eleventh avenue.

Q Commonly known as San Juan Hill?
A San Juan Hill, yes, sir.

Q How long a period of time did you live with Blanche

283
Wright, and your wife, rather, at Blanche Wright's?
A About two years.
Q Two years or one year? Do you remember?
A No, sir, I don't know the exact time.
Q Do you remember when you were married?
A I don't remember the year.
Q How long ago?
A It was about four years ag***
Q When you lived at Blanche Wright's did you have a room there, or did you have an apartment?
A I had a room.
Q How long did you live with your wife after you were married?
A About two years.
Q Before you married Isabella, did you know whether or not Isabella drank?
A I did.
Q And when you were first married did Isabella perform the duties of a wife regularly?
A She did.
Q Behaved herself in a good and orderly manner?
A Yes, sir.
Q How long did that state of affairs continue?
A A little over a year.
Q Then what happened?
A Then she started staying out late at night.
Q With whom?
A With Blanche Wright.
Q Who is that?
A That is her sister.
Q Do you know where she was?
A No, I don't.
Q Did you hear where she was?
A No, sir.
Q Did you suspect her of being anywhere?
284
MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q When you mean late nights, what do you mean by late nights, nine o'clock?
A No, twelve and one.
Q Any later?
A One time she came in after two.
Q Did she come home sober, or what was her condition when she came home on those occasions?
A Well, she had been drinking.
Q Did you say anything to her?
A I did.
Q What did you say to her?
A I told her it was not right for her to stay out that late, being a married lady.
Q What did she say?
A She said she was twenty-one; she knew her business.
Q Did that happen on more than one occasion?
A Yes, sir.
Q On about how many occasions would you recall that this thing happened?
A About a dozen.
Q Did you afterwards leave her?
A I did.
Q Just prior to your leaving her had anything extraordinary occurred there?
A I it did.
Q What?
A She refused to connect with me in bed.
Q You mean to have sexual relations with you?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember a party being given there?
A I do.
Q Her refusal to have any relations with you, was that before or after the party?
A That was after the party.
Q How long after the party?
A It started from that night.
285
Q What happened on the night of that party; were you at home when the party began?
A No.
Q Where were you?
A I was working.
Q Where?
A Working 41 West End avenue.
Q What time did you go home?
A I got home around half past seven.
Q And what did you find when you got home?
A A party was going on.
Q What do you mean by "party was going in?"
A There was a lady there, playing a guitar, and about a dozen people there, strangers.
Q Men or women?
A Men and women.
Q What were they doing?
A They were dancing and drinking.
Q What?
A Drinking beer and whiskey.
Q What did you see your wife do, if anything?
A She was dancing when I first went in. Later on she went out in the kitchen and drank whiskey out of a bottle with Grover.
Q Who was he?
A I don't know; he introduced himself as a doctor.
Q Did you ever see him afterwards?
A I did.
Q Where?
A Where I was working at the Hotel Hargrave; he were working just opposite the Hargrave, in the apartment house, as a doorman.
Q What number, do you remember?
A I don't remember the number.
Q How far away from 143 West 71st street?
A That is about a
286
Dozen stoops, I judge.
Q In other words, it is right near?
A Yes.
Q The Hargrave is on the corner, or almost near the corner of 71st street and Columbus avenue?
A It is on the corner.
Q And this man was working where?
A He were working right near 71st street, right behind the Hargrave.
Q Below the Hargrave, between Columbus and Amsterdam avenue?
A Yes, between the block.
Q Or further down towards Amsterdam, or Broadway, rather?
A Yes.
Q And your wife worked at 143?
A Yes.
Q Was your wife drinking with this man Grover in the presence of anybody; was everybody around them?
A No.
Q Where were they?
A They were in the kitchen.
Q Was anybody in there with them?
A No.
Q Did you go in there?
A I did.
Q Did you say anything to Isabella?
A I didn't at the time.
Q What did you say?
A I didn't at the time.
Q You did not?
A I didn't say anything.
Q Did you watch her there for any length of time?
A I did.
Q For how long a time?
A For fifteen minutes.
Q Did she leave that room?
A No, sir.
Q Did that man leave the room?
A The man came out ahead of her.
Q Did you say anything to her at all about that thing?
287
A After the party.
Q What did you say?
A I told her it was not right for her to be out in private rooms, drinking whiskey out of a bottle with
Grover.
Q Did you join that party?
A No, I did not join it.
MR. WELLMN: I do not think that is material. THE COURT: I do not think it is material.
Q What did you do; did you dance?
A No.
Q Did you go out drinking with them?
A No.
THE COURT: I call your attention to the fact, I do not think that the date of this party has been fixed.
Q Do you remember, Bradford, when that party took place, how long ago?
A It was in 1914.
Q About what month?
A It was in June or July.
THE COURT: It appears to me that is very remote.
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please, I believe in view of what the District Attorney said -- THE COURT: Well, go ahead.
MR. ARANOW: I will not dwell upon it any longer. THE COURT: It appears to me to be remote.
Q After this night you say your wife refused to have any relations with you?
A She did.
Q What did you say to her?
A I would ask her in, and she would merely push me away.
Q Did you say anything about that?
A I did.
288
Q What did you say?
A I asked her why should she treat me like that, and she would not give me any answer.
Q How long did that continue?
A That continued about a week.
Q What did you do?
A Then I got room in 528 West 58th street.
Q Did you move there?
A I did.
Q With any one?
A Yes.
Q W ho?
A With Arthur Wright.
Q Who is that? Any relation to Blanche Wright?
A No, a different Wright.
Q Did you see your wife immediately after you parted?
A Yes, sir.
Q How soon after?
A I saw her immediately after the last person left the house.
Q No, I mean after you moved?
A After I moved, that was a week later.
Q Where did you see her?
A I saw her at 143 West 71st street.
Q Is that the place where she worked?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you have any conversation with her?
A I did.
Q Please tell the Court and jury what you said to her, and what she said to you?
A I said, "Belle, I think it is time for us to go back and live like a married couple." She would not give me any answer.
Q What do you mean, she would not give you any answer? Did she say anything?
A No, she did not say anything at the time.
289
Q Did she say anything afterwards?
A I came back the next day and asked her the same question, and she said she would take her own time, and when she would get good and ready she would come back.
Q Anything else?
A No.
Q Did she say anything about your leaving her?
A No, not that time.
Q That was afterwards?
A Yes.
Q Did she ever go back and live with you from that time on?
A What is that?
Q From the time you moved away to this fellow Wright's did she live with you after that?
A No.
Q In the year 1914, did you see her many times?
A Yes, sir.
Q About how many times?
A About a dozen times.
Q Did you have any conversations with her?
A Yes, sir.
Q Please tell the Court and jury what you said to her, and what she said to you? MR. WELLMAN: When was this?
MR. ARANOW: 1914.
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, this is all very remote. THE COURT: It seems to me to be very remote.
MR. WELLMAN: I have not been making any objection, to see if it would lead anywhere, and I object now. THE COURT: I think it is too remote. I am inclined to exclude it.
290
MR. ARANOW: I will take the Court's suggestion.
THE COURT: You have a right to show anything which may bear upon the condition of mind, the frame of mind. MR. ARANOW: That is exactly what I am trying to do.
THE COURT: But when you go back as far as that, it appears to me to be remot.
Q Did you see Isabella in 1915?
A I did.
Q Where?
A I saw her at 143 West 71st street.
Q How many times?
A About a dozen times.
Q More or less?
A Well, perhaps more; it was no less.
Q Did you have conversations with her?
A I did.
Q That was last year?
A Last year.
Q During what months was that, Bradford?
A During the winter months.
Q You mean January, February, March and April?
A Yes, sir, when I was working at the Hargrave.
Q What conversations did you have with her, if any?
A I would ask her to come back to me, I would treat her better, and thought it would be better for us to go back together and have a nice home, as a married couple should do.
Q What did she say?
A She said I left of my own ac cord, and she would see a good time before she would consent the matter.
Q Before she would what?
A She would consent to coming back.
291
Q Did you visit her at her home at any time?
A Once at 135th street.
Q When was that?
A I don't remember the month.
Q How long ago?
A Yes, I do, it was Easter Sunday.
Q In April?
A Yes.
Q Was she home?
A She were.
Q Did you see her?
A I did.
Q Did you have a conversation with her?
A No, I walked in and she did not speak to me.
Q Did you speak to her?
A I said, "How do you do. Belle?" She refused to answer.
Q What did you do?
A I sat down a few minutes and walked out.
Q Did you say anything else than "How do you do to her"?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you see her after that?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you have any trouble in seeing her at 143 West 71st street?
A At one time.
Q What happened?
A I rang the bell, and heard her coming to the door, and she refused to open the door; or the housekeeper, I
don't know whether she were her or not.
Q You don't know who it was?
A No.
Q Did you know at that time where she lived?
A I did not.
Q Did you ever ask her for her address?
A I did.
292
Q What did you say to her, and when was that?
A That was about the second time I visited her in 71st street.
Q What did you say to her about that?
A I said, "Belle, give me your address so I can call on you, and we probably talk the matter over, and get back together."
Q What did she way?
A She said, "You don't need to get my address."
Q Did you ever out her address?
A I did.
Q Did you call on her?
A No, sir, not at the 68th street house.
Q Did you know where she had lived before she moved to 68th street?
A She lived at 219 West 61st street.
Q Where did you get that address from?
A That was address I left her at.
Q After she moved away from 68th street where did she move to, do you know?
A She moved to 34 West 135th.
Q Did she give you that address?
A No.
Q How did you get the address from her?
A I was standing at the corner of Lenox avenue at 135the street, about five o'clock one evening.
Q Some one gave you the address?
A No, she got off the car, and Is lowly walked behind her and saw the door she went in.
Q Did you visit her there?
A I did.
Q Did you have a conversation with her there?
A No.

293

Q Did she remain there?
A She remained there.

Q How long did she live there after you called?

A She is living there now -- she were -- she would be.

Q When did you first begin to drink, Bradford, - or did you drink?
A Well, I started to drink when I came to New York.

Q Did you ever drink to excess?
A No.

Q In the last two years where had you been working?
A I worked different places.

Q And last November, where did you work?

A Last November I worked at 330 West 95th street.
Q Last November?

A Oh, last November I worked 251 West 98th.
Q With Mr. Brown?

A Yes, with Mr. Brown.

Q Do you know this Foster boy Thomas Foster?
A I do.

Q How long have you known him?

A I have been knowing him eight nine years.

Q Did you know any one by the name of Bayne?
A Yes, sir.

Q Where do they live?

A They live 36 West 139th street.
Q Did you see Bayne recently?

A I did.

Q When?

A That was about the week of the party.
Q What party?

A There was a party given there to try get I and my wife together.
Q By whom?

A By Bayne.

Q Was your wife there?
A She were.

Q Who was with her?
A Blanche Wright.

Q Were you there?
A I were.

Q Did you have any conversation with your wife?
A Not a close

294
Conversation.
Q When did you see her; when did you talk to her?
A I talked to her on the way home. I had taken her home that night.
Q How long ago was that, Bradford?
A That was about three weeks up to the shooting.
Q Did you walk home with her?
A I did.
Q Did you have any conversation with her?
A I did.
Q What conversation; what did you say to her?
A I told her it was time for us to go back, we had been separated long enough, and my love to her overpowered me, I could not stand it much longer and it was time for us to go back, go and make ourselves a home.
Q What did she say?
A She did not give me any answer. She looked as if she would do it.
Q What did she say? You walked home quite a distance with her, didn't you?
A Well, it was a few blocks.
Q Didn't you say anything to her in that time?
A She did not say anything in regard to that.
Q Did you say anything in regard to anything else?
A We were talking on different subjects.
Q And Blanche Weight was there?
A She were.
Q Did you see your wife after that party given by Bayne?
A No.
Q Did you speak to her?
A I spoke to her over the telephone.
Q When?
A The day before the shooting.
295
Q Why did you go to speak to her on the telephone that day?
A I wanted her to come up to my house so I could give her a general talk about the matter.
Q About what matter?
A Going back together.
Q Why didn't you go and see her?
A I was working at the time.
Q And you called her up while you were working?
A I did.
Q Had you been thinking about the matter?
A I had.
Q How long?
A It was on my mind all day.
Q For how long a time?
A Ever since we had been separated. I had been worrying over it.
Q What did you say to her in the telephone conversation, and what did she say to you?
A I said, "Belle, come up to the house tonight. I want to see you on some important business."
Q What did she say?
A She said "I can't come tonight, but probably tomorrow night or later on in the week."
Q Did she say why she "can't come tonight"?
A No, she did not say so.
Q What did you say?
A I said all right.
Q Did you make any appointment at all for any time?
A She would not tell me the exact day she were coming.
Q Anything said about the evening of the 23rd?
A She said "I will probably be up that day or later on in the week."
Q She did not say the 23rd?
A No.
Q What shift were you on that time?
A I were on the early watch. I came on at half past four.
296
Q What time did you go to bed the night before?
A I went to bed at half past ten.
Q What time did you get up?
A I got up about four o'clock.
Q How did you feel when you got up that morning?
A I left pretty good.
Q Did you go to work?
A I did.
Q When you got to work what did you do that morning?
A I opened my fires up.
Q What else?
A Then I sit around.
Q What did you do?
A I didn't do any particular thing then.
Q What did you do form the hours of four until eight?
A I stood around in the boiler room until seven. Then I went out to see was the Hygrade store open.
Q Where was the Hygrade store?
A Right around the corner, Broadway.
Q Did you find out whether it was open?
A It were open.
Q What did you do?
A I bought half a pint of whiskey.
Q Was that your usual custom?
A Once in a while I would get a half pint early in the morning like that.
Q What time was that about?
A It was seven o'clock.
Q Did you buy that half pint of whiskey?
A I did.
Q In what form, in a bottle?
A Half pint bottle, sealed bottle.
Q How much did you pay for it, do you remember?
A I paid 20 cents for it.
297
Q What did you do after you bought that?
A I went back to the boiler room, and drank near half of it.
Q After that what did you do?
A I threw coal on the fire and went up in the laundry.
Q What did you do there?
A I sit around.
Q Did you see anybody there?
A Not at that time.
Q When?
A It was about seven thirty then.
Q Who did you see?
A I didn't see any one at that time.
Q Did you see any one after that?
A I saw Tom Foster about eight.
Q Did you have a conversation with him?
A He asked me how was party.
Q What did you say?
A I asked him what party?
Q What did he say?
A He said the party my wife gave.
Q Then what did you say?
A I said it was the first I heard of it. He said, "Yes, there was a party given by your wife, and a friend of mine received a card, and he showed it to me last night." I said, "It is the first to my knowledge, I didn't know anything about it."
Q Did he remain there any length of time?
A No, he went on out the door then.
Q What did you do?
A I went back to the boiler room and drank the balance of the whiskey.
Q What then?
A
A few minutes later I sent for Mr. Brown.
Q What did you do between the time that you spoke to Foster
298
and the time you sent for Mr. Brown?
A I drank the whiskey and threw coal on the fire.
Q Anything else?
A No.
Q Were you thinking of anything particularly?
A No.
Q Did you ever think of Isabella?
A I did.
Q What?
A It pressed upon my mind when she was sleeping in the bed with me and refused to connect, and I also thought of her staying out late at night, and I also thought when she was drinking whiskey out of the bottle with
Grover.
Q When did you think of that?
A That day when I drank the whiskey.
Q What then?
A And all of that pressed upon my mind.
Q What did you do?
A I sent for Mr. Brown. Later on he came down. I told him I thought it was best for me to leave the City. He asked me what was the trouble. I told him I had family troubles, and I thought it was best for me to leave the city. He said, "Well, I hate to see you go, you proved satisfaction around here. Of course, if you will go I
can't keep you." Then he asked me would I remain there until he got some one. I said yes, so later on he brought my money down.
Q How much?
A $7.50.
Q Did you have any money in your pockets before that?
A I did.
Q How much?
AI don't know, it was about ninety cents.
Q When he brought you your money what did you do?
A I dressed myself.
299
Q You put your street clothes on?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you remain there?
A No, I went to Columbus avenue.
Q Where?
A Between 98th and 99th street.
Q What particular place?
A I stopped in a saloon.
Q What saloon?
A It was a wholesale place, I remember.
Q On the corner or in the middle of the block?
A In the middle of the block.
Q What did you do there?
A I had some drinks.
Q Some drinks, - what is that?
A I had some three or four drinks.
Q Of what?
A Of Old Crow whiskey.
Q How long did you remain there?
A I remained there about fifteen minutes, inside, and on the streets, too.
Q What part of the street?
A Near the curb in front of the place.
Q What did you do on the curb?
A Smokig cigarettes.
Q What were you doing besides that?
A I was trying to study out whether to leave the city or to take my life. I didn't have money enough to carry me where I wanted to go to Detroit.
Q You had $8.40, didn't you?
A I did.
Q Was that enough?
A No, sir.
THE COURT: Pardon me, Counselor, you had $8.40? MR. ARANOW: $8.40, yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q Is that the amount you had?
A I don't know.
300
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You had ninety cents to begin with?
A Yes.
Q And you had seven dollars and a half?
A Yes, I did.
Q How much did you spend about, for drink?
A I don't know.
Q You didn't have any more than eight dollars and a half, did you?
A No, I did not.
Q How long did you remain on that corner of 98th street?
A I remained there for fifteen minutes about.
Q During that time you were thinking the matter over?
A I were.
Q Did you resolve to do anything, or did you decide to do anything?
A I did.
Q What?
A I decided to take my own life.
Q Then what did you do?
A Then I caught the L.
Q Where?
A At 99th street and Columbus avenue.
Q Where did you go?
A I went to Cortlandt street.
Q What did you do at Cortlandt street?
A I got off and had some more drinks.
Q Where?
A At the river front there, about a block from the station.
Q In a saloon?
A In a saloon.
Q How many did you have that time?
A I don't know.
Q One, two, do you recall?
A It was more than one, but I don't know how much more than one.
301
Q What did you drink, do you remember?
A I was drinking Old Crow.
Q You mean you were driking Old Crow?
A Yes.
Q After that did you cross the ferry?
A I did.
Q After you crossed the ferry, where did you go?
A I walked up two or three blocks and stopped in another saloon.
Q What did you do in that saloon?
A I had some drinks there.
Q Did you remain there a long time?
A No, not a long time, about twenty minutes or fifteen minutes; something like that.
Q Where did you go after you left that saloon?
A I went into a hardware store about a block or two up from there.
Q You had a conversation with somebody?
A No.
Q Did you ask anybody anything? Just say yes or no; Did you ask for something in that hardware store?
A Yes.
A After that you went to a stationery and sporting goods house?
A I did, yes, sir.
Q You saw this elderly gentleman who was here, that was here yesterday on the stand?
A I didn't notice him.
Q Don't you remember him?
A No.
THE COURT: Now, in your question you are referring to the witness Hanson? MR. ARANOW: Yes, Hanson.
Q Do you remember that man with the little beard that appeared on the stand here yesterday?
A I do.
302
Q Did you ever see him before? I don't remember.
Q When you went in there you bought a revolver, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is this revolver (exhibiting People's Exhibit 4 in evidence)?
A It looked to be.
Q Do you remember that part of the revolver being broken? (Indicating butt of revolver)
A No.
Q Did you examine it all?
A No, I didn't.
Q Did you ever see the revolver in your life before?
A Never.
Q You also brought cartridges?
A I did.
Q How many cartridges?
A Five.
Q Did the man wrap them up for you?
A He did.
Q What did you do?
A I put them into my pocket.
Q I show you this paper, People's Exhibit No. 7in evidence, and ask you whether or not this part here is your handwriting (John Wilson)?
A (Witness looking at paper) That is my handwriting.
Q Do you see the same "John Wilson" there?
A Yes, sir.
Q What is your name?
A My name is Allen Bradford.
Q How is it you wrote there "John Wilson"?
A I don't know. I thought I had my name there.
Q Is that your address (indicating matter on paper)?
A That is my address.
Q How much did you pay for this revolver?
303
THE COURT: Pardon me. For the purposes of the record you were showing him what? MR. ARANOW: I showed him People's Exhibit 7.
Q How much did you pay for this revolver, People's Exhibit 4?
A I don't know.
Q The man testified yesterday, Bradford, that you paid him $4.50 for it --
A I don't remember.
Q Anyway, you paid him for it?
A I paid him for it, yes, sir.
Q After you bought this revolver, what did you do?
A I came out and went in a saloon.
Q Where?
A About a block or two from the place.
Q What did you do in that saloon?
A I had some drinks.
Q How many?
A I don't know.
BY THE COURT:
Q What kind of drinks?
A Whiskey.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q After you left that saloon where did you go?
A I caught the ferry.
Q And then what did you do?
A Came on this side.
Q Yes.
A And stopped in a saloon and had some drinks.
Q What kind?
A Whiskey.
Q Then where did you go?
A I caught the L.
Q Where?
A Cortlandt street.
Q And then where did you go?
A I went to 59th street.
Q Are you chilly?
A No.
304
Q What did you do at 59th street?
A I stopped out there and to Tenth avenue.
Q Where?
A Stopped in a saloon.
Q What did you do?
A Had som drinks.
Q What did you take?
A Some whiskey.
Q After that what did you do?
A Then I went to 211 West 63rd street.
Q What for?
A To see a fellow by the name of Louis Campbell.
Q What did you want to see him about?
A I wanted to bid him farewell.
Q Where did he live?
A He lived 211 West 63rd street.
Q What floor?
A On the fourth floor, front, on the west side.
Q Did you go up?
A I did.
Q Did you knock?
A I did.
Q Was he there?
A No.
Q Then what did you do?
A I came out and stopped on the corner saloon and had some more drink.
Q On the corner saloon?
A Yes, corner of 63rd street.
Q Do you remember anything else besides the drinks there?
A I went into the lavatory and loaded the revolver.
Q You first unwrapped it, didn't you?
A Unwrapped it, yes.
Q And then you loaded it?
A Yes.
Q With five bullets?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you do after you loaded it?
A Then I had another drink, and then walked up to 71st street.
305
Q What were you doing in 71st street?
A I wanted to kill myself there.
Q Why there?
A I wanted to fall at my wife's feet.
Q Why?
A To let her know that she did me wrong in life.
Q What did you do?
A Then I went there and rang the bell, and the caretaker let me in. Then I walks in the kitchen. I said, "Hello, Belle." She refused to answer. Then I said "Hello", and she refused to answer. She looked over her left shoulder and didn't say anything. Then I pulled the revolver, I said, "Well, well, well", and when I knowed anything the revolver was exploding.
Q Did you see her fall?
A Well, not in a way, I didn't remember seeing her fall. She was turning around when I knew anything.
Q Did you see her waist burn?
A I don't remember that.
Q How many shots did you fire?
A I don't know.
Q Two, three?
A I don't remember how many.
Q More than one?
A I don't know.
Q Well, you fired one?
A I fired one; don't know whether it was one or two or three.
Q Did you see her fall?
A I didn't notice.
Q You saw her go to the ground?
A I saw her fall.
Q Did you fire any shots at that time?
A I saw her fall.
Q Did you fire any shots at that time?
A I don't remember. I was so excited, I didn't remember.
Q And did you remain in that room?
A No, I walked to the
306 street.
Q When did you walk to the street?
A
A few minutes after the revolver was fired.
Q Did you empty the revolver?
A I don't know.
Q Did you still have the revolver in your hand?
A I did.
Q When you walked to the street?
A Yes.
Q In which hand?
A In my right hand.
Q When you walked out to the street, what did you do?
A Then I pressed the gun to my stomach.
Q Did it discharge?
A No, it did not.
Q You said you wan ted to kill yourself in front of your wife; why didn't you press it to your stomach inside?
A I don't know. I was excited. I don't know what happened. I was practically crazy.
Q How is it you pressed the revolver to your stomach on the outside; you remember that. Do you understand me, Bradford?
A I pressed it to my side.
Q After you did that, what did you do?
A Then I held the gun in my hand, like this (indicating right hand), and it went off.
Q Did you point it upward like this, in the air (indicating holding over head)?
A I don't remember whether it was in the air, or in which direction it was pointing.
Q After then gun went off what did you do; did you open it?
A I don't remember it.
307
Q Did you break it?
A I don't remember it.
Q Did you keep it in your hand?
A I don't know.
Q Well, what did you do after that; after you said the gun went off what did you do; did you run, or stay there, or fly. What did you do?
A I stayed there.
Q Did you see any people around you?
A Yes, there was a crowd of people there.
Q What were you waiting for?
A I don't know, not any particular reason.
Q Do you remember seeing a policeman?
A Yes, he came up later.
Q Did you do anything when the policeman came?
A No.
Q Did you throw up your hands and say, "Shoot me now; I am ready to die?"
A I don't remember it.
Q Did you have the gun in your hand at that time?
A I don't remember whether I had it in my hand or in my pocket.
Q What did you do when the policeman came?
A The policeman carried me inside.
Q Carried you inside?
A Yes.
Q Carried you?
A Well, he caught me by the arm.
Q He led you inside, you mean?
A Yes.
Q Did you mean carried inside?
A I meant led inside, he caught me by the arm.
Q Did you see anything there at that time, Bradford?
A I did.
Q What did you see?
A I saw my wife lying on the floor.
308
Q Did you tell him that was your wife?
A I don't remember saying anything at all to them.
Q You had some conversation with them?
A No; I don't remember it.
Q Did he ask you who the woman was?
A I don't remember it.
Q What did you do after that?
A Later on the ambulance came.
Q Were you still there?
A I were.
Q What happened after that?
A They carried me to the station house. Carried you again?
A They taken me to the station house.
Q What did you do at the station house?
A I sat there a long time.
Q Alone?
A No, there was about a dozen men in the room.
Q Did they say anything to you at that time?
A They were talking there once in a while.
Q Did they ask you any questions?
A They asked me a few questions.
Q Did you make answers?
A I don't remember answering them.
Q Do you remember having a conversation with them?
A They was trying to talk to me, but I don't remember answering them.
Q Do you remember this man with the eyeglasses, with a dark rim, a blonde man? Do you remember Mr. Murphy?
A No.
Q Do you remember this young man, that stenographer that was on the stand here yesterday?
A No.
Q Don't you remember him at all?
A No.
309
Q Do you remember you had some conversation with those men and you were talking to them?
A Well, I talked to them yes.
Q And you told them different things?
A I don't remember what I told them. The questions I answered, I really could not any what they are.
Q Do you remember whether you signed that paper or not?
A I don't.
Q Do you mean you didn't?
A I don't remember signing it.
Q Did they ask you to sign it?
A I don't remember whether they did or not.
MR. WELLMAN: I thought you meant the paper in Jersey City. I object to the question now as indefinite.
THE COURT: I would suggest, in order that you make the record, that you indicate what paper you have reference to.
Q Was there any paper before you?
A I don't remember seeing any.
Q Was any man sitting in front of you and writing?
A I don't remember seeing any.
Q Did any man read anything to you that he had written on a book?
A No, I don't remember it.
Q Did any man ask you to sign any paper, and ask you, "Bradford, is this the truth now? If that is the truth will you please sign it?" Did anybody say anything like that to you?
A I don't remember it.
310
Q They might have?
A They might have; I don't remember it
THE COURT: You are referring now to the time when he was in that station house? MR. ARANOW: I am referring now to the time when he was in the station house.
Q You were incourt all day, yesterday, Allen. Did you hear Officer Kotschau say that when he approached you you said, "I killed my wife, Officer, and I had good reason to." Did you make any such statement to him?
A I don't remember making no statement to him.
Q You heard Officer Leonard, in describing you conversation with him, state that you told Officer Kotschau, "I
killed my wife. I am ready to die." Do you remember any such statement being made?
A I don't remember it.
Q You were perfectly cool at that time, Allen?
A I don't know how I were.
Q Are you cool now?
A No, I am not cool now, because I am trembling.
Q Are you cold?
A No.
Q Were you as cool on the 23rd of November as you are now?
A No, I was not cool then.
Q How many drinks did you have altogether that morning?
A I don't know.
Q About how many?
A I haven't got the least idea.
Q How much money did you have when you first left?
A When I started out I had eight dollars and something; I don't know
311
how much it were.
Q How much money did you give to the police afterwards, do you remember?
A No.
Q The officer said a dollar and four cents? MR. WELLMAN: He said he don't know.
Q The officer said a dollar and forty-five cents.
A I don't remember how much it were. I remember taking some change out of my pocket, and putting it upon the table.
Q Do you remember how much you paid for the gun?
A No.
Q Did you spend any money outside of your car fare?
A No.
Q Outside of your buying the gun and cartridges?
A No.
BY THE COURT:
Q What time did you have breakfast that morning?
A I didn't eat any breakfast that morning.
Q What time did you have dinner?
A I didn't east any dinner.
Q When last before the shooting had you eaten solid food?
A In the middle of the day, the day before the shooting.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Now, Bradford, you spent approximately about four dollars and sixty cents for the gun and cartridges; you don't di spute that?
A I would not dispute it, but I would not say whether I spent that or more.
Q You spent for car fare about 30 cents, is that right?
Car fare downtown, across the ferry and back from the ferry
312
and uptown?
A It would not be 30 cents, it would only be 16.
Q Well, we will say sixteen. That would be $4.76, and you had eight dollars and forty cents. What did you do with the other remaining $2.30? Did you buy anything for it?
A I didn't buy anything, excusing drink.
Q Excdeption you mean?
A Excepting drink. BY THE COURT:
Q When you were drinking in these different place, as you say, were you drinking alone, or were you treating any one else? Were you paying for drinks for anybody else?
A I were drinking alone, your Honor.
Q So that you say you paid out no money on the day of the shooting, or paid for drinks taken by other people?
A No, sir.
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Now, Mr. Birchall, a stenographer of the District Attorney's office, testified yesterday that you had made up your mind to do it. Tell the Court and jury what you mean by "you made up your mind to do it"?
A I made up my mind to kill my own self.
Q Didn't make up your mind to kill your wife too?
A No.
Q When did you make up your mind to kill your wife?
A I didn't make it up at all.
Q How did you come to kill her?
A I don't know; the revolver exploded, and that is all I know about it.
313
Q When you took out the gun, didn't you shoot her; you aimed it at her?
A I don't know whether I aimed at her or not. When I knowed anything the revolver was exploding.
Q Mr. Birchall also said that youafterwards said you had good reason to do it, or some testimony like that. Do you remember that?
A No.
Q Do you remember, or did you at any time tell anyone that you had made up your mind to kll your wife that morning?
A No.
Q What do you mean, "No", which is it?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you make any such statement?
A I don't remember.
Q Did you, as a matter of fact, make up your mind to kill your wife that morning? MR. WELLMAN: He has answered that.
THE COURT: He said he don't remember having made such a statement.
Q Did you, as a matter of fact make up your mind to kill your wife that morning?
A No, I did not.
Q This thing had been on your mind --
MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to as leading.
THE COURT: Sustained. You have gone all over that.
Q Mr. Birchall testified that you said that you did not take the whiskey to get up nerve to do it, but htat when you made up your mind to do it, you would do it without the whiskey?
A I don't remember it.
314
Q If you made any such statement "to do it", what do you refer to by "to do it"? MR. WELLMAN: How can he say that? He says he don't remember it.
MR. ARANOW: All right; question withdrawn.
MR. ARANOW: If your Honor please, I think, in view of the fact that my friend, the District Attorney has read from a paper yesterday, I think in fairness to me I ought to have a copy of it, or have the use of the same paper which he read from.
THE COURT: The position which the Court has taken in the matter is very plain. There is no paper in evidence, and when I say no paper in evidence I mean to say in connection with the testimony of the stenographer in the employ of the District Attorney, or in the office of the District Attorney. The witness was allowed to look at
the paper which he said that he made at the time, for the purpose of refreshing his recollection after he had exhausted his recollection; and at the time when he said he knew that what he wrote, at the time he wrote it, was correct, which was made at the time of the transaction.
MR. ARANOW: I see, but if I am not mistaken, I may be wrong; but I believe that in any proceeding, or especially a criminal trial, where counsel, either counsel reads from a paper, that then, upon application to the Court the other counsel may have the use of such paper for the purpose of cross
315
examination or rebuttal.
THE COURT: Any paper that was held in Mr. Wellman's hand so far as the trial was concerned, was nothing but private memopranda used by him in the examination of the witness.
MR. ARANOW: And I cannot have the paper? THE COURT: No.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except .
THE COURT: I will allow you to have the Court's copy of the stenographer's minutes of the trial. MR. ARANOW: I would like to.
(Mr. Aranow uses the stenographer copy of the minutes of the proceeding.)
Q Mr. Burchall testified in his testimony, gave some detail about some episode on a Sunday evening in a church; do you remember that, Bradford?
A I do.
Q Do you remember telling that to the police?
A No.
Q What did you do?
A I remember going to the church after my wife.
Q when was that?
A That was in 1914.
Q Was that at the time she lived with Blanche Wright, her sister?
A That was before we separated.
Q What was the occasion there?
MR. WELLMAN: Objected to as too removte. THE COURT: Sustained.
316
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please there was testimony on that given by Mr. Birchall and the Court admitted it. MR. WELLMAN: I withdraw the objection, in view of that, and I am willing he should give his present version of
that.
Q Just tell us what happened there?
A My wife and her two sisters were going to church one Sunday evening, and about half past ten I went around to the church, and brought my wife home, and I saw the other two sisters, but I didn't see my wife.
Q How long did you stay there?
A I stayed there until the doors were closed.
Q what did you see?
A I saw the other two sisters going home.
Q Did you have any conversation with your wife afterwards?
A After she came in, yes.
Q What did you say to her?
A Well, I asked her what church did she go to. She asked me what church I think she went to.
Q Did she say anything further?
A No.
Q You said you went there to get her and bring her back from church?
A I did.
Q Now, Mr. Birchall said you said you went to get a drink?
A I don't know nothing about no drink.
Q He says that it was around 10 o'clock and you were not asleep when the other two sisters came in?; I will read it. (Reading) "And when I got in it was around ten o'clock and I wasn't asleep when the other two sisters came in, because I seen
317
them, and I asked for my wife and they says, - they didn't give me no decided answer. They saying 'She'll be home later.' Well, the first time -- no, after that she came about an hour later, and I asked her, 'What
church did you go it?'" Do you remember making that statement?
A No.
Q But you did wait for them at a church?
A I waited at the church.
Q Where did you see the sisters?
A At the church.
Q Did you see them at the house?
A No, I didn't see them at the house.
Q Where did you see your wife?
A I saw my wife come in an hour later.
Q Where? In the house, or on the stoop, or on the street, or in the church?
A I saw her in the house when she came home. I went directly home.
Q Now, Bradford, have you ever been convicted of a crime?
A Never.
Q Have you ever been charged with a crime before this?
A Never.
MR. ARANOW: Your witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Why is it you were trembling a little while ago as you sat there?
A Well, I am shaking now.
Q Are you afraid?
A Not altogether afraid. This is my first time sitting up here.
Q You didn't see the other witness who sat there tremble,
318
did you?
A I didn't pay that much attention to them.
Q Are you afraid?
A I am not afraid, no.
Q Are you afraid of going to the electric chair?
A Well, no, I am not afraid of that.
Q Were you afraid on th 23rd of November, when you walked out into the street with the pistol in your hand?
A Was I afraid, no.
Q You are not afraid of anything?
A No.
Q You stood there in the street and waited for a policeman to come, didn't you?
A I was not particularly waiting for him.
Q What were you waiting for?
A I don't know what I was waiting for.
Q You discharged the pistol in the air, didn't you, after you came out?
A I don't know whether it went up in the air or across, which way the ball went.
Q Was that before you pressed it to your stomach, or afterwards?
A It was afterwards.
Q Then when you pressed it to your stomach you didn't pull the trigger?
A I did.
Q How many times did you pull it?
A I pulled it once.
Q And then the next time you pulled it, it was this way, and it went up in the air (indicating up in the air)?
A I had it in my hand. I don't know in what direction I had it, but it went off anyway.
Q Why did you tell this story to Mr. Murphy that was read yesterday?
319
MR. ARANOW: I object to the form of the question. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Did you answer Mr. Murphy's questions?
A I *** some of it, I suppose, I don't remember which, though.
Q Do you really mean to say you dispute anything about that? MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A No, I don't.
Q You don't remember anything about it?
A No.
Q You don't remember Mr. Murphy?
A No.
Q The man that had the tortoise-shell rimmed spectacles?
A No.
Q You don't remember the man who sat in that chair and told us what you had said?
A No.
Q In the station house?
A No.
Q You don't remember ever having seen him before?
A No.
Q Do you remember seeing Mr.s Hisler when she opened the door for you?
A Yes, I remember her.
Q Do you remember walking into the kitchen and saying, "Hello, Belle"?
A I do.
Q Do you remember that Belle was standing at the range?
A Yes.
Q And do you remember that she was standing with her back to you?
A Yes, she had her back to me.
320
Q And do you remember taking a pistol from your pocket?
A Well, I don't remember how the revolver got into my hand, taking it out. I really could not account for that.
Q When did you cease to remember?
A After she refused to my last answer.
Q You remembered everything up to that time, did you?
A Yes.
Q Then all these drinks you have been telling us about that you had, they didn't affect your memory one bit, did they?
A In what case?
Q The 23rd of November? They didn't affect your memory one bit, did they?
A Not up until then, no.
Q You can remember just where she stood, just what she said, Can't you?
A I don't know about that.
Q You remember getting off at 59th street, don't you?
A I did.
Q How did you go up to 71st street? Did you walk or take a car?
A I walked up.
Q You remember that, don't you?
A Yes.
Q You remember going in to speak to a friend in 63rd street, don't you?
A Yes.
Q You remember going into the toilet and unwrapping the pistol and the cartridges and loading the pistol, don't you?
A Yes.
Q You remember going into the toilet and unwrapping the pistol and the cartridges and loading the pistol. Don't you?
A Yes.
Q What did you say to Belle when you went into the kitchen?
321
A I says, "Hello, Belle."
Q What did she say to you?
A She did not say anything.
Q Do you remember Mr.s Hisler, saying that she said "Hello" back to you?
A I remember her saying that yesterday.
Q Was that true?
A No, that is not true.
Q Don't you remember Mr. Birchall saying that you told Mr. Murphy that you said "Hello", and she said "Hello" back to you? You remember hearing that yesterday in court, don't you?
A Yes.
Q Was that true?
A No, that is not true.
Q It was just a coincidence that Mrs. Hisler and Mr. Birchall made that same mistake, is that so? MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
Q Well, how do you account for it?
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to the question. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q How much is a drink of Old Crow whiskey?
A Fifteen cents.
Q You told Mr. Murphy that you started off with $7.32 in your pocket, didn't you? MR. ARANOW: I object to that; no such testimony.
MR. WELLMAN: May I be allowed to cross examine and put my questions?
MR. ARANOW: I object on the ground it calls for a statement of fact not in evidence. THE COURT: Does it appear in the testimony of Mr. Birchall?
322
MR. WELLMAN: It does.
THE COURT: I will allow it then.
MR. ARANOW; I recspectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: The purpose of these*** objections can readily be seen, and I ask that I be allowed to cross examine, unless there is some valid ground of objection.
THE COURT: Have you any further objection, Mr. Aranow.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to the question asking or stating that he told Mr. Murphy that he began with
$7.32. There is no such testimony in the record.
THE COURT: Suppose you read exactly what he is supposed to have said. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q The question by Mr. Murphy was, "Did you have any money until he paid you?
A I did not."
"Q How much did he pay you?
A It was $9.32 altogether, but I owed him two, so it would make it $7.32 I got altogether." THE COURT: I will allow that question.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Mr. ARANOW: I further object to the remark of the District Attorney. I believe I am within my rights. If I in
my good faith deem a question improper, I have a right to object on cross examination to a remark before the jury as to the purpose of my objection. I ask the Court to
323
Please tell the District Attorney to refrain from such remarks.
THE COURT: I will make no comment now on it at all. I have ruled on your objection. If it occurs again, I will say something. Now proceed.
Q You told Mr. Murphy that you started off with $7.32 in your pocket, didn't you?
A I don't remember it.
Q You heard Mr. Brown say on the witness stand yesterday that he gave you seven dollars and some odd cents, he thought it was thirty-three cents, that he owed you?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
MR. Wellman: May I be allowed to finish my question? Your Honor, it hampers me considerably if the witness is to be allowed to think before he answers each question.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to that.
THE COURT: Pardon me, Mr. Wellman, you will frame your questions and when the question is entirely finished I
will hear Mr. Aranow if he makes any objection, and I will rule on the objection.
Q You heard Mr. Brown say on the witness stand yesterday that he gave you seven dollars and some ood cents, he thought he gave you $7.50, did you hear that?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it is a statement of fact not now in evidence. There is
324
No evidence he gave him $7.32. He said he owed him $7.32, and he actually gave him $7.50.
MR. WELLMAN: The ground of the objection is just what was I the question. I said, "He thought he gave you
$7.50," ad counsel objected on the ground that it was not $7.32 but $7.50.
MR. ARANOW: I am beginning to feel I do not understand stand the English language. THE COURT: We will not have any comments, it serves no useful purpose.
(The question is read.)
THE COURT: I will allow the question to be answered.
A I heard him, yes.
Q Is that true or not true?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Is it true that he gave you seven dollars and a half? MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please. THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I wish to except.
A It must be true, if he said so.
Q Is that in accord with your recollection of what he gave you?
A No, I don't know how much I had at all.
Q Mr. Birchall said yesterday that you answered to this question, "Did you have any money until he paid you?
A I did not." Is that true?
A That is not true.
325
Q How much did you owe Mr. Brown when he paid you off?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that question on the ground it calls for a statement of fact not in evidence. I don't know there is any evidence that he owed Mr. Brown anything when he paid him off.
THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I beg your pardon, I withdraw that objection.
Q Why it was one or two dollars, - I don't know.
Q So when Mr. Birchall said that you answered to Mr. Murphy that "It was $9.32 altogether, but I owed him two", does that refresh recollection as to whether it was one or two that you owned him?
A No, it don't.
Q You don't remember saying that to Mr. Murphy?
A No, I don't.
Q Or anything like that?
A No.
Q Was Mr. Brown in the station house?
A No.
Q This was at 3 o'clock that same day was it not, that you were questioned in the station house?
A I don't remember what hour it was.
Q It was that same afternoon, wasn't it?
A Well, it was in the afternoon.
Q That same afternoon, wasn't it?
A It must have been.
Q Don't you remember whether it was the same day?
A It was the same day, yes.
326
Q It was after you were taken to the station house by the police officers, carried to the station hosue, wasn't it?
A Yes.
Q Now do you remember being brought into a room, a small room in the police station where there were three or four men, two of them police officers, and being questioned?
A No, I don't.
Q You don't remember anything about that?
A No.
Q Your mind in an absolute blank, you mean, on that?
A Well, I don't remember it, no.
Q You have no recollection of it at all?
A No.
Q Do you remember being brought to the station house?
A Yes.
Q When did your memory leave you completely, in the station house?
A After I sat there in the back room; they had me in the large room in the back.
Q All of a sudden everything went, did it?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as incompetent. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A They transferred me to the large room, - I don't know.
Q Did everything go all of a sudden? Did you cease to remember and know that you were awake?
A My memory were gone, yes.
Q When did it go?
A I don't know when it went.
Q What is the last thing you remember?
A The last thing I remember is sitting down on a bench.
327
Q Who was around you?
A There were a couple of officers sitting at a table.
Q Did anybody strike you?
A I don't remember it.
Q You don't remember anybody striking you, do you?
A No.
Q When did you wake up from this lapse of memory? MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please. THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I was going out the door.
Q After they had finished questioning you?
A Yes.
Q So that just before they began to question you, you lost your memory absolutely, and after they finished questioning you, your memory came back, is that right?
A Well, I remember going out the door, after they put handcuffs on me; I remember that.
Q Before you went to the station house, do you remember being questioned in the kitchen by Officer Leonard?
A No.
Q When did your memory leave you then?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that as calling for a statement of facts, that his memory left him. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Well, I might have had my memory, but I was not paying any at tention what they was talking about.
Q You answered their questions?
A I don't remember whether I did or not.
328
Q When did you case to remember whether you did or not?
A I was sitting off, I know, on a chair in the corner.
Q Was it when you sat on a chair there any they began to question you that you lost your memory?
A Yes.
Q When did your memory come back again?
A When they were talking me to the station house.
Q Just after they stopped questioning you?
A I don't remember them ever questioning me.
Q I thought you remembered then talking to you?
A I thought they were talking to themselves. There was about half a dozen there.
Q Then when they began to talk, your memory ceased, and it did not come back until they took you out of the kitchen?
A I was not paying any attention to what they were talking about. I don't remember them even talking to me.
Q They didn't say anything to you?
A Not to my remembrance.
Q Now, don't you remember telling Mr. Murphy that you were twenty-eight years old?
A No, I don't remember anything.
Q You are twenty-eight years old, aren't you?
A I am twenty-eight, going on twenty-nine.
Q Don't you remember telling Mr. Murphy you were born in Alabama?
A No, I don't remember.
Q You were born in Alabama, weren't you?
A I were.
Q Do you remember in Alabama, weren't you?
A I were.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy how long you have lived in New York?
A No.
329
Q You don't remember telling him you lived here fifteen years?
A I don't remember telling him anything.
Q You have lived here fifteen years, haven't you?
A Yes, about that.
Q You told us that this morning, didn't you? (No answer)
Q Do you remember telling him your wife's name before she was married was Griffin?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that on the ground it is already answered. The witness says he does not remember anything.
THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A No.
Q Her name was Griffin, wasn't it?
A It were.
Q Do you remember telling her first name, when he asked you was her first name Belle, telling him it was
Isabella?
A No.
Q Her first name was Isabella, wasn't it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you remember telling him you met her in New York?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember telling him you were married in New York?
A I was married in New York.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy that?
A No.
Q You were married in New York?
A Yes.
330
Q And you met here here?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember saying that you lived with her at 219 West 61st street?
A No.
Q You did live there, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember telling him that you married there and separated there both?
A No.
Q That is true, isn't it?
A No, I married in 225.
Q You married at 225?
A Yes.
Q You lived at 219 after you married her, didn't you?
A After I was married, yes.
Q Weren't you married in B lance Wright's house?
A I were.
Q And wasn't you married in Blanche Wright's house 219 West 61st street?
A Yes.
Q You were married there?
A We were married in 225.
Q What do you mean when you say your wife was crooked?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that question. There is no testimony here that he said she was crooked. I did not hear it this morning.
MR. WELLMAN: Well, I will withdraw the question. There is no use asking it now.
Q Did you ever say your wife was crooked?
A I don't remember.
Q Was she crooked?
A Crooked? I don't know. What do you mean, crooked?
Q Then you didn't say to Mr. Murphy, "Well, she was just crooked, that's all."?
A I don't remember saying it, no.
331
Q And he did not ask you, "How do you mean, crooked?", and you didn't say, "How do I mean, crooked? Because the first time I caught her one Sunday evening, I was off duty and she was to go to church with her other two sisters; they all lived in the same building."?
A I don't remember saying it.
Q That was true, wasn't it?
A Only this was at night instead of the afternoon.
Q You caught her one Sunday evening?
A Oh, I see.
Q They got that right?
A (No answer)
Q Do you know whether anyone else was in the station house that could tell him that?
A No, I could not say.
Q You never had seen Mr. Murphy or Mr. Birchall before in your life, had you?
A No; I would not know them now.
Q You don't know any reason why they said you said this if you didn't, do you?
A No.
Q You never seen them before that afternoon at *** o'clock?
A No.
Q When you lost your memory?
A (No answer)
Q And this: "And they all three went out together, but they figured I was going to bed." That was right, wasn't it?
A I don't know about the bed, because I was not thinking about bed that time.
Q Weren't you in bed when they left for church?
A No.
Q Weren't you resting, lying down and resting?
A I was lying down with my clothes on.
Q And you thought that they thought you were resting for the
332
Night?
QI don't know what they thought.
Q And then, "But I went up to the corner there for a drink and come on back a little later, see, and when I
got in it was around ten o'clock", is that right?
A No, I left the house at ten or half past.
Q They say you did. (Reading) "And I wasn't asleep when the other two sisters came in---I asked for my wife, and they says---they didn't give me no decided answer. They say she'll be home later." Did they say that?
A I don't remember it.
Q Did they say that, the sisters?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: May I at this time say I am following page 123, where it has been supposed to be read into the record.
My friend Mr. Wellman reads from another document, which does not agree with I have here. It says on page 123, "But I went up to the corner there for a drink, naturally." My friend left out "naturally". The he says, "I
wasn't asleep when the other two sisters came in." It says, "Because I seen them and I asked for my wife." "Because I cause I seen them and I asked for my wife." "Because I seen them", he left that out, I think. Therefore, unless my friend will bring the hole question in I must object to it.
MR. WELLMAN: I press the question in its present form.
THE COURT: I think the question is proper, because it is calling, not for what he may have, but what the fact was.
333
MR. WELLMAN: I left out "naturally", and left out "seen them". MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: I understand you are being questioned as to what the fact was. In that light I will allow the question.
MR. ARANOW: I that light I will allow the question. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(Previous question read.)
Q Is that what happened?
A That is what happened.
Q What church was it you went around to?
A The Union Baptist church.
Q It was not the Salem church?
A I don't know nothing about that.
Q You never heard of the Salem church?
A Selms is pastor.
Q Where is Salem's church?
A I don't know.
Q Listen to this: "After that she come about an hour later, and I asked her, "What church did you go to", you know, like a man will do, and she said she went to Salem's church." Is that true?
A I don't remember that. There is no church by that name, I don't think.
Q Salem's church?
A There is no Salem church in New York City.
Q Salem's church you just said?
A Salms.
Q Well, Selms and Salem's sound enough alike for the stenographer to get them mixed. MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
334
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q (Reading) "And I was around (at this church, whatever the name is) during my absence, looking for her, and I
knew the time that church let out." Is that right? (Reading) "And I stood on the opposite side of the street
to see her when she come past, and I saw the other two sisters come ***out, but I didn't see her at all, and I waited there until the lights were turned out, and then I blowed on around and beats the other two around there." Is that right?
A I don't remember.
Q Is that what happened?
A No.
Q You didn't get home before the two sisters did?
A No, I saw the two sisters standing in front of the church. The church was turning out when I arrived there.
Q Did you see your wife?
A No.
Q It was proper then when they said you didn't see your wife? I mean when they said that you said didn't see your wife?
A That is right.
Q Now, have you ever seen your wife with another man?
A I saw her drinking with a man, yes.
Q You arrived at 225 West 61st street, that is where you were married?
A Yes.
Q You were married on the 16th day of June, 1913, is that right?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy that there was another time when they lived in 68th street, and she would not
335
give you the address after you separated?
A No, I don't remember it.
Q Did she live in 68th street?
A She did.
Q Do you know between what avenues?
A Yes, it is between West End avenue and 11th avenue.
Q Did she refuse to give you the number?
A She did.
Q And did you go around to see her at the place where she worked, and tell her you would be better, you would treat her better?
A Yes, I have gone there.
Q Now, as a matter of fact, when you left your wife you went to live with a woman named Sylvia Grey, didn't you?
A I had a room off her, yes. Q
A room off her?
A Yes.
Q You lived with her as man and wife, didn't you?
A No.
Q You slept with her?
A No.
Q You had sexual intercourse with her?
A I might have did that. I don't know I kept as man and wife.
Q She was married woman too, wasn't she?
A I don't know whether she were or not.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q How long did you live with Sylvia Grey?
A I stayed with her off and on about two months, I guess.
Q See if I can refresh your recollection. You lived at 223 West 60th street with her, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q You lived there from October, 1914, until April, 1915, is
336
that right, six months?
A No, I didn't live there with her six months.
Q You did not?
A No.
Q How long did you live with her?
A I lived with her two months the longest, and that was not steady.
Q When was it you went to live with Miss Collins, at 58 West 137th street?
A I don't know the date.
Q Was it in April, 1915, or thereabout?
A No, it was later than that in the season.
Q Was it May?
A About June.
Q When you left Sylvia Grey you went to live at the Victoria on 38th street, didn't you?
A No, never lived there.
Q You lived on 38th street, didn't you?
A No.
Q Where did you live after you left Sylvia Grey?
A I lived 58 West 137th.
Q How was it you came to leave her?
A To leave Sylvia?
A Yes; do you remember telling her you were married?
A I told her that at the beginning.
Q How did you come to leave her?
A I don't know.
Q Were you tired of her?
A No, I was not that close to her.
Q How long after you left her was it you took up with Miss Collins?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it calls for a statement of facts not in evidence. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Did you live with Miss Collins?
A I had a furnished room
337
off her.
Q At 58 West 33rd street?
A 133rd.
Q 133rd street?
A Yes.
Q You had the third floor front, west room, didn't you?
A Yes.
A And you had sexual intercourse with her too?
A About once, yes.
Q How long did you live with her?
A I lived with her about weeks, or probably longer.
Q You only had sexual intercourse with her about once?
A About that; I didn't pay no notice.
Q Was this the time you were going to your wife trying to get her to come back to live with you?
A No, my wife had disappeared then. Her people were gone to the country and I could not locate her.
Q In the summer, was it?
A In the summer, yes.
Q You knew she worked in the country for Dr. Waxman in the summer, didn't you?
A That is the first time she disappeared.
Q When you say "disappeared" she went to the country in her employment with Dr. Waxman, is that you mean? MR. ARANOW: I object to the question as improper in form.
THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Is that what you mean by disappeared?
338
BY THE COURT:
Q What do you mean you say the disappeared?
A That is the first time she went out of the City. BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You knew she was working for Dr. Waxman?
A I do.
Q And when you called around at his office you knew that he had went away for his summer vacation, didn't you?
A I didn't go there during the summer months.
Q You knew he would be away, didn't you?
A No, that is the first time he went to the country to my knowledge.
Q You just happened not to go around there in the summer, is that so?
A Yes.
Q It was not that you thought he would be away?
A No.
Q Then how do you know she disappeared, if you didn't go around to look for her?
A Because I knew she lived at 34 West 135th street, and I never seen her around.
Q I thought you said that she said she refused to give you the address where she lived?
A Yes.
Q You didn't think she had gone away to the country?
A I didn't have the least idea.
Q Do you remember now she did?
A I don't know; she might have.
Q You were very quick to jump at conclusions where your wife was concerned in her conduct?
A No.
Q You didn't give her much chance in judging her, did you?
339
A What do you mean?
Q Just what I say.
A In judging her?
A In judging of her conduct.
A I don't understand.
Q She never stayed out all night, did she?
A Not all night, no.
Q She stayed out once until two o'clock, did she?
A More than that.
Q You said a few minutes ago, in answer to your own counsel that she stayed out once until 2 o'clock?
A Well, I never put tabs on her ever time.
Q Then why did you tell the one occasion if you did not keep tabs?
A I did tab it that one time that I remember.
Q Only once you remember?
A Only once I remember.
Q Then why did you tell me it was more than once?
A Because she stayed out late since then.
Q It was not because you want these men to think your wife was a bad woman, and that you had a right to be angry at her, was it?
A No, I didn't want them to think that.
Q Did any one ever tell you that they had seen your wife with another man?
A No, sir.
Q You told Mr. Murphy that, didn't you? AI don't remember it.
Q Do you remember saying to him in answer to the question.
"Q Did any one ever tell you they had seen her with another man", and answer, "Well, no, not in the street."?
A No, I don't
340
Remember it.
Q Do you remember his asking you, "Did you ever hear of her being in the house with another man?, and you saying, "Well, not alone"?
A I don't remember it.
Q (Reading further) "Not with the two, you know, but she has often gone to places that I didn't like, Because
I forbade her to go, you know. She would take in those parlor socials, you know, rough, you understand, and I
didn't like it."
A I don't remember it.
Q You told us a little while ago she would go to parlor socials, didn't you? MR. ARANOW: Objected to.
MR. WELLMAN: I withdraw the question.
Q Did she go to parlor socials?
A Yes, she did.
Q And you don't remember telling Mr. Murphy that?
A No.
Q Were you ever known to talk in your sleep?
A No.
Q Did you ever see her with another man?
A Yes.
Q When?
A I saw her the night of the party in 219 West 61st street.
Q You didn't tell Mr. Murphy about that, did you?
A I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember his asking you, "You didn't see her with another man?
A I didn't see her, no."
A I don't remember it.
Q Did you ever tell her that you didn't like her going out
341
with other men?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever tell her she was going out with other men?
A I didn't tell her directly she was going with another man. I told her to stop staying out late.
Q You would not go out with her, would you?
A I would when she asked me to, yes.
Q Why didn't you go anyway and take care of your wife?
A I was willing to go when I was home.
Q You were not working at that time, were you?
A No; at the time of separation, no.
Q You were out of work for some time?
A Yes.
Q How long?
A I don't know about how long it was.
Q Tell us as near as you can?
A It was about six weeks or probably more.
Q In fact you would be out of work quite frequently while you lived with your wife?
A Yes, sir.
Q You would take a job, make a little money and then you would go and spend it and leave your job, is that right?
A Well, yes.
Q And then you took up with this Sylvia Gray, didn't you?
A Yes, I stopped with her.
Q How long before you left your wife did you meet Sylvia Gray?
A I don't know; a couple of weeks later.
Q How long before you left your wife did not first have intercourse with Sylvia Gray?
A About a month, I guess.
342
Q About a month before you left your wife?
A Yes.
Q Then you wanted your wife to take you and she said she would take her time about forgiving you, isn't that right?
A Yes.
Q She said you had gone of your own free will, and she was not going to be in a hurry, to take you back, is that right?
A Yes.
Q She knew about your intimacy with Sylvia Gray, didn't she?
A What is that?
Q She kenw aboutyour intimacy with Sylvia Gray, didn't she?
A That I don't know.
Q You never told her?
A Why, no.
Q Now, you told us a little while ago that the name of this man who worked in 71st street was Grover?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember beig asked by Mr. Murphy, "Well, what made me do that becausae she gave a party there last night, and I surely think, and if you will trace hte matter, you will find it out, that they was giving a
farewell party to the fellow she had been with previous."
A I don't remember that.
Q Do you rememgber his asking you this, "Yes, what is his name, do you know?"
A His name? No, I don't know hios name, but I got a strong idea he used to work here in 71st street, above her, as doorman, when they had colored fellows there"?
A I don't remember it.
343
Q You meant the same fellow that they call Grover now?
A Yes.
Q And this: (Reading) "That tall building, you know right next to the hotel Hargrave; he used to work there as a doorman." That is Grover, isn't it?
A That is him.
Q Did you ever see her with Grover?
A Yes.
Q You thought that the party was a farewell party, didn't you?
A I didn't have the least idea.
Q Well, did you think it was a party for this man Grover?
A Well, I don't know what it was given for.
Q What was there about the party that made you angry?
A It was because I told her to come up there. I wanted to see her on some important business. It seems to me she thought more of the party than she did of me.
Q About that meeting with you?
A Yes.
Q And you didn't like that, is that right?
A Well, that is what pressed on my mind.
Q It pressed pretty hard, didn't it?
A Yes, it did.
Q And how about Grover? Did you think Grover must have been at the party?
A Well, I thought of him being at the other party. I don't know whether he was there or not.
Q You didn't think of his being at that party?
A Yes, I thought probably he might.
Q And that pressed on your mind?
A Yes.
Q When was it you decided to buy a revolver?
A When I
344
standing at Columbus avenue, after I had left the job.
Q When was it you decided to leave the job?
A On the morning of the 23rd.
Q Was it before or after you heard about that party that pressed on your mind?
A It was after.
Q What was the reason for your leaving your job?
A I wanted to leave the City.
Q Where did you want to go?
A I wanted to go to Detroit, Michigan.
Q Now, you told Mr. Brown that you wanted to leave the City, didn't you?
A I did.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy that you told Mr. Brown: "Well, I had a little family affairs, and I
have to leave the City"?
A No.
Q You did tell him that, didn't you?
A I don't know whether I did or not.
Q Do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy, "I was ready to do the crime then, but I said that because I was afraid he wouldn't pay me. That's why I said it."
A I don't remember it.
THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, we will suspend for a moment.
(At this point the Court suspended for a minute and then the trial continued.)
Q I show you People's Exhibit 3. Is that a picture of your wife?
A Yes, it is.
Q That is the picture of Isabella Bradford, your wife?
A It is.
345
Q Did you ever speak to this man Grover about your wife?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever speak to him?
A No.
Q Why didn't you speak to him if you thought he was going around with your wife?
A He never would let me catch him.
Q He never let you catch him?
A No.
Q Did you try to catch him?
A Well, not particularly.
Q You knew where he worked?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever go around there to see him?
A No.
Q Then why do you think he never would let you catch him?
A Because when I would come at the entrance of the Hotel Hargrave, he would be in the front and duck his head when he saw me coming.
Q Then you did go there and look for him?
A No.
Q Just when you saw him he would duck his head?
A And go back inside.
Q At the time you were questioned by Mr. Murphy, you had not had any lawyer to advise you, had you?
A No.
Q You didn't have any lawyer; you had not talked with any lawyer at all, had you?
A No.
Q When you bought the gun, why did you use the name of "John Wilson"?
A I don't know, I thought I was putting my name there.
Q If you were going to kill yourself, it didn't matter whether you used the name of John Wilson or of Allen
Bradford, did it, when you bought the gun?
A I don't know what name I put there.
346
Q You did not have it in mind that you might want to go away after you killed your wife, and that to have your name down as having bought the gun would incriminate you?
A I didn't have the least idea about that.
Q Were you drunk when you wrote this?
A No.
Q Were you drunk at all that day?
A Not drunk, no.
Q You had your right mind, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q You were not doing anything out of the ordinary, were you?
A No.
Q You wrote that in a good , steady hand, didn't you?
A It is not a steady hand, because I write better hand than that.
Q You were not afraid and trembling then, were you?
A I don't know what condition I was in.
Q Do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy, when you got into the kitchen, you said: "How do you do?", to Belle, "She said 'How do you do' I meant to do', too, but that didn't go for me. I just did that on purpose, I meant
to do it, so that's all. I went there for that."?
A No, sir, I don't remember it.
Q If you said that, what did you mean by saying, "I went there to do it:, -- "I went there for that"?
A I went there to kill myself, if I said it all. I don't remember saying it.
Q Why didn't you say to Mr. Murphy you went there to kill yourself?
A I thought I did, if I said anything.
Q You thought you did, if you said anything?
A Yes.
Q Why didn't you tell the officer in the kitchen that
347
You went there to kill yourself?
A I don't know. I don't know whether I told him that or not.
Q Did you say anything to Bella about killing yourself when you went into the kitchen?
A Not when I walked into the kitchen, no.
Q Did you at any time say anything to her there about killing yourself?
A No.
Q If you intended to kill yourself, why didn't you do it when you loaded that pistol in the barrel yard?
A I wanted to do it in front of her.
Q You wanted to kill yourself in front of her?
A yes.
Q But did not?
A Nom I didn't do it.
Q What happened that you did not do it; did she say anything to you that made you that made you angry with her?
A I don't know what happened.
Q She just said Hello?
A She didn't say "Hello".
Q She did not say anything?
A No.
Q Did that make you angry?
A I don't know what it did. I lost control of myself.
Q How do you mean, you lost control of yourself?
A I don't know what happened; all I heard, the explosion of the gun.
Q Do you know how many times you fired it?
A No.
Q Do you know whether you fired it more than once?
A That I could not say.
Q Do you think you fired it more than once?
A I haven't the least idea.
348
Q You haven't any idea whether you fired it once of five times, is that right?
A No.
Q Do you remember Mrs. Hisler saying on the stand yesterday that after the first shot Belle screamed?
A I remember her saying it.
Q Did she scream?
A That I don't know.
Q Do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy in answer to the question, "What did she do when you fired the first shot?
A She screamed, you know?"
A No, I don't remember it.
Q You don't remember that?
A No.
Q Do you remember telling him that you fired three shots, if you are not mistaken?
A No.
Q You don't remember his asking you, "How many shots did you fire at her?
A I fi red three if I'm not mistaken."?
A I don't know.
Q Do you remember saying afterwards you were not sure whether it was three or four?
A I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember saying to him when you said, "She screamed, you know", and this question, "Did she fall down", and your answering "No, she didn't fall then; she didn't fall until the second bullet hit her"?
A I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember his asking you then, "Where did you fire the second bullet at her; did she turn around?", and your answering, "She went to twirl, yes, she went to turn around and I tried to strike her"?
A No, I don't remember it.
349
Q Did you attempt to strike her?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Did she raise any attempt to strike you?
A No.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy? "I tried to strike her; she didn't raise no attempt to strike me; and she fell when the second bullet struck her, and I fired the third one."?
A I don't remember that.
Q (Reading) "When she was down?
A When she was falling." Do you remember that?
A No, I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember the officers saying that they saw a burnt spot in her clothes at the back of her shirtwaist, do you remember them saying that here yesterday, or one of them?
A Yes.
Q Did you tell Mr. Murphy, in answer to the question, "Do you know where the third bullet struck her?"
A I don't know where any of them struck her, only I could see fire burning on her shoulder, between her left shoulderblade"?
A I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember Dr. Schultze locating one of the bullets right beside the left shoulder blade?
A Yes.
Q Now, when you fired him shots, what did you do?
A I went into the street.
Q You walked out, didn't you?
A I don't remember whether I walked or run.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy you walked out?
A No.
Q What became of Mrs. Hisler?
A She went upstairs, she disappeared, I don't know where she went.
350
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy that "She was upstairs, she heard the reports of the revolver and she goes upstairs and screamed."
A I don't remember it.
Q You remember her saying that, don't you to the Court, yesterday?
A Yes, I remember her saying it.
Q Did you go out the way you came in, through the basement entrance?
A I guess I did. I was out in the street when I knew anything.
Q Do you remember telling Mr. Murphy that you pressed the gun to your stomach?
A No, I don't remember it.
Q You did, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q It was to your stomach and not anywhere else?
A Well, I could not swear to that.
Q It was not to your head?
A No, it was not up that high.
Q It was to your stomach?
A It was only in here somewhere (indicating around right side.)
Q You call that your stomach?
A I call this my stomach (indicating pit of stomach).
Q Then you opened the gun up and there it on the street?
A I don't remember it.
Q You saw a broken piece in the handle today, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy in answer to the question: "Well, you knew you had done something wrong?
A I knew it. I admit it"?
A No.
351
Q Did you know you had done something wrong?
A I don't remember it.
Q Do you remember this question and answer: "You knew it was wrong to do that when you went to do it, don't you?
A I must admit that"?
A I don't remember it.
Q Will you say you did not make that answer?
A I would not say it, no, but I don't remember saying it.
Q Do you remember being asked this question: "Then you didn't make up your mind to kill her until this morning, did you?
A Not intil this morning"?
A I don't remember it.
Q Then again: "And then when you heard this morning about the party that she gave last night, then you made you your mind your were going to kill her?
A That just disgusted me, yes, sir."?
A I don't remember it.
Q It did just disgust you, didn't it?
A In a way, yes, it just pressed upon my mind.
Q When you did this did you have your nerve up, was your nerve already there, or did you need the drinks to get your nerve up?
A I don't know about that.
Q Why did you take the drinks?
A To drown my troubles.
Q How many drinks do you think you told us this morning that you took?
A I haven't got the slightest idea how many I had taken.
Q Do you think that you have told us that you took less than thirty?
A I think I did, yes.
Q How many do you think you have told us you took?
A I don't
352 know.
Q How many do you want to tell us you took?
A I haven't the slightest idea.
Q But however many you took, you want us to understand that you were in your right mind, and that you were not doing anything out of the ordinary, is that right?
A No, I would not say that.
Q You did say it a minute ago, you said you had your right mind, you were not doing anything out of the ordinary; didn't you tell me that a few minutes ago?
A No, I told you --
Q When I stood up near where the stenographer is, don't you remember me asking you?
A I was in my right mind until going to buy the gun, I was in my right mind, yes.
Q When you loaded that gun were you in your right mind?
A I could not say.
Q When you walked into the kitchen and saw Belle standing by the range, with her back towards you, were you in your right mind?
A I were, up until the time I spoke to her, and she fused to speak.
Q Then all of a sudden you lost your memory?
A Yes.
Q Just as you lost your memory all of a sudden, when you were questioned in the kitchen, just so you lost your memory all of a sudden, when you were questioned by Mr. Murphy, is that right?
MR. ARANOW: I object on the ground it is incompetent, in the manner in which the question is asked.
353
THE COURT: I will *** the answer. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: He testified he lost his memory on three occasions.
Q (Previous question repeated)
A Yes.
Q You had your memory at all other times that day?
A I could not say that, not altogether.
Q Well, what other time didn't you have your memory?
A At times I would go off in a trance, it seemed it.
Q That day?
A Yes.
Q You seemed to go off in a trance?
A Yes.
Q Where did this trance take you?
A I don't know; I was thinking about the time she was staying out late and the time she was drinking whiskey out of a bottle with this Grover, and that pressed upon my mind.
Q And made you make up your mind to kill her, isn't that right?
A No, I didn't have no intention of that.
Q Do you remember saying to Mr. Murphy, in answer to the question: "You knew what you were going to do, and it didn't change your mind any by having the whiskey?
A I did. Whiskey ain't going to change it all when I got it made up."?
A I don't remember it.
Q When you wrote your name there in a clear hand you had your mind made up to kill, didn't you? MR. ARANOW: Objected to.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
354
Q When you wrote your name "John Wilson and your address, you had your mind made up to kill, didn't you?
A To kill myself, yes.
Q Then you were perfectly calm, your mind was made up?
A My mind was made up to that effect.
Q When you rang the doorbell, and Mrs. Hisler came, what did you say to her?
A I say, "How do you do".
Q Said it just as you always used to?
A If I am not mistaken, I would not say definitely I stated that.
Q You are not sure of the words you used, but you gave her a friendly greeting?
A Yes.
Q You did not want her to suspect that you were going in to kill yourself, did you? MR. ARANOW: I object to that.
THE COURT: Allowed.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I didn't have the least idea.
Q That was not your reason in saying "Hello", as you ordinarily would?
A No.
Q But you did intend to kill yourself in the next few instants?
A Yes.
Q And you were perfectly cool and calm, and greeted her just the same as you always did, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember asking where is Belle?
A No.
Q Do you remember her saying "She is in the kitchen"?
A No.
Q You did go into the kitchen, didn't you?
A I did.
355
Q Do you remember saying something like that?
A No, I don't remember.
Q What led you to go into the kitchen and not into the back yard or upstairs?
A That was the place I was accustomed to going.
Q You were not excited at that time, were you?
A I was not altogether excited.
Q Your wife, after you lived in 61st street, and parted there, lived at 68the street first, didn't she?
A Yes.
Q And then on 135th street?
A Yes.
Q So she did not move around and try get away from you all time, did she?
A Well, she did when she moved in 68th street.
Q She just moved once after you left her?
A she moved twice.
Q Once to 68th and once to 135th?
A Yes.
Q And both times she lived with her sister, didn't she?
A Yes.
Q You don't call that crooked, do you?
A That part of it is not, no.
Q Do you call it crooked that she was working for a living for two years with Dr. Waxman?
A No.
Q Do you call it crooked that she went to parlor socials and stayed out until twelve or one o'clock?
A I thought it was unjust.
356
Q You judged that as unjust?
A I thought it was unjust.
Q You thought that that gave you the right to do anything you wanted?
A No.
Q Did you think that gave you the right to have intercourse with other women, or live with other women?
A No.
Q Did you think that gave you the right to leave your wife and take up with Sylvia Gray?
A No.
Q Now, the time you bought this whiskey at seven o'clock in the morning, what time did you get that?
A I am accustomed to getting a drink in the morning.
Q You are accustomed to drinking whiskey, is that right?
A Occasionally, yes.
Q If doesn't affect you very much, does it?
A No. I didn't drink that much before we separated. THE COURT: I think we will take a recess.
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, I think I can complete this examination in a few moments. THE COURT: Very well.
Q You don't remember that you paid $4.50 for the gun and ten cents for the cartridges?
A No.
Q You didn't have anything to eat that day at all?
A No.
Q Why didn't you have dinner the night before?
A I don't know; I was not hungry.
Q Why weren't you hungry? Do you know of any reason?
A A little trouble.
357
Q What trouble?
A Thinking of my wife.
Q You had been thinking about her for the last year, hadn't you?
A Yes.
Q You had been eating right along?
A Well, at times.
Q You don't want us to think that you spent any money on breakfast and lunch out of that $7.32, do you?
A No.
Q That is not the reason why you say you took no lunch or breakfast, so it will make more money to spend on whiskey?
A No.
Q Now, do you remember the boy Prince, the colored boy, saying that you came out into the street, and he asked you "What is the matter, George?", and you said, "I killed my wife, and I had good reason for it?"
A No, I don't remember it.
Q Had you ever seen that man before?
A No.
Q Do you remember that?
A I would not say it definite.
Q What?
A I would not say it positive, whether I said it or not.
Q Will you say you did not say it?
A No, I will not.
Q If you did say it, was it true that you killed your wife and you had good reason for it?
A No.
MR. ARANOW: That is objected to.
THE COURT: I will let his answer stand.
Q Then you did not say it?
A I would not say that; I don't know if I said it or not.
Q Do you remember Office Kotschau saying that you said practically the same thing, that you had killed your wife, and you
358
had good reason for it?
A No, I don't remember it.
Q You had never seen Kotschau before that day, and never had any trouble with him, had you?
A No.
Q Do you remember Officer Leonard saying you said that?
A Yes.
Q Was he telling the truth?
MR. ARANOW: That is objected to, if the Court please, THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q Do you remember Officer Leonard saying that you said it going inside of the kitchen?
A I remember him saying it, yes.
Q You have never had any trouble with Leonard, have you?
A No.
Q You do remember taking some change out of your pocket, don't you?
A Yes.
Q That was while you were there with Mr. Murphy, wasn't it?
A I don't know who I was with.
Q I thought you said that your memory left you until you went out of the station house? MR. ARANOW: I object to that as argumentative.
Q Didn't you say that?
A Didn't I say what.
Q That you memory left you from the time you were in the station house, taken into the main room, until the time you were taken out of the station house?
A I told you I was not paying much attention to who was talking, ad what they were talking about.
359
Q Then you don't mean you went into a swoon, or trance, or anything, just you didn't pay attention: is that what you want us to understand?
A I want you to understand I was not paying any attention to those people who were there.
Q It was not that you fainted, or anything like that, or you lost consciousness?
A Yes, I lost full control of my head.
Q Did everything leave you? Did everything go away like when you go to sleep?
A No, not altogether.
MR. WELLMAN: I think that is all.
MR. ARANOW: Will the Court allow me just one question. I think perhaps I should have asked these questions before.
THE COURT: Yes. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Bradford, do you know now that Grover called upon your wife at 143 West 71st street. MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to.
THE COURT: Sustained. It is immaterial, what he knows now.
Q Did you then know that Mr. Grover called on your wife at 143 West 71st street?
A I don't know whether he did or not.
Q What?
A I don't know if he did or not.
Q Do you know now, Bradford, that certain people told the District Attorney that Grover had called on your wife, and was chased out by the doctor, with whom she worked?
360
MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to as absolutely contrary to the evidence. THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. ARANOW: I will ask the other questions after recess. MR. WELLMAN: My we complete with the witness now? THE COURT: I think we will take a recess now.
Gentlemen of the jury, you are admonished not to converse among yourselves on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion thereon until the same is submitted to you. The court will take a
recess until quarter past 2.
(At 1:15, the Court takes a recess until 2:15.)
361
AFTER RECESS.
ALLEN BRADFORD, the defendant, resumed the stand: RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You told Mr. Wellman before that for a time you felt as if you were in a trance; do you mean that you fainted?
A No, I lost control of myself.
Q Did you lost consciousness at any time?
A (No answer.)
Q Do you know what I mean by consciousness, did you lose control of your sight or hearing?
A (No answer.)
Q You know what a fainting spell is?
A Yes.
Q Did you have a fainting spell?
A Yes.
Q Where?
A In the head.
Q What do you mean by that, I do not quite understand?
A I just felt as though all my brains had gone, I didn't have no sense.
Q But you could see?
A Yes, I could see.
Q You could hear?
A Yes.
Q What did you mean when you said you lost consciousness?
THE COURT: I do not think, Mr. Aranow -- I may be wrong, but I do not think he said that, did he? MR. WELLMAN: He said he lost his memory.
THE WITNESS: I lost my memory.
Q You lost your memory; what did you mean by that?
A W ell, I lost my memory of hearing the men talking to me at the station house, I do not remember anything they said to me, although I knew they were talking.
362
Q Did you have a paper in your hand?
A No.
Q Did you have a pencil in your hand?
A No, I do not remember.
Q Did you have any mechanism joined with your mind at that time whereby you marked down the times that you remembered or you did not remember?
A Well, I don't remember anything that was said now, I couldn't give it.
Q Do you remember a man that had very large glasses, tortoise shell glasses, questioning you at all?
A No.
Q You do not?
A No.
Q Supposing you write the name, write the words John Wilson, please (handing paper to witness). MR. WELLMAN: This is all new matter, your Honor, not re-direct examination.
THE COURT: I think so. I do not think we will go into that.
MR. ARANOW: I believe Mr. Wellman brought out in his cross examination that -- or questioned him as to whether or not he was in his normal mid or in normal state at the time he wrote the words John Wilson.
THE COURT: I recall the examination. I do not think that I will allow you to go into that any further. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: When I say I do not allow you to go into it any further, I merely have reference to the question that
363
you last put, the objection to which I sustained. MR. ARANOW: I see.
Q When you wrote the name of John Wilson were you as cool then as you are now sitting in this chair?
A No, I wasn't.
THE COURT: I think you interrogated him about that on the direct; that is my recollection.
MR. ARANOW: Yes, your Honor. If the Court pleases, I had made sundry notes for my re-direct, and my assistant, Mr. Thorne, has not returned, so I have not that with me; I am trying just to exhaust my memory at this time.
THE COURT: Well, we will wait until you have your notes. BY MR. COURT:
Q In what saloon did you buy as you say the pint of whiskey on the morning of November 23rd? MR. WELLMAN: It was a half pint, I think he testified.
Q Half pint of whiskey, I should say?
A At the Hygrade wine and liquor store.
Q Do you know the name of the man who sold you the half pint bottle?
A No, sir, I do not know his name.
Q Have you seen him before, as far as you can recall?
A Well, I have seen him, yes, sir.
Q Did you see anyone in that store on that morning that you bought the half pint bottle whom you knew at the time you were buying it?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q I understood you to say that you bought some drinks of
364
Old Crow whiskey at a place on Columbus avenue between 98th and 99th streets in the middle of the block; is that so?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was that the same place at which you had purchased the half pint bottle?
A No, sir.
Q Did you know anyone in the saloon on Columbus avenue between 98th and 99th streets?
A No, sir.
Q At the time you were buying those drinks?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q You did not see anyone in there that you knew?
A No, sir.
Q And is that true of the other places where you say that you bought drinks, that you did not see in any one of them anyone that you knew?
A Yes, sir, it is true. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q I believe you answered the District Attorney that you did not do anything extraordinary at that time, is that right?
A At what time do you man here?
Q He asked you whether you were not sober, whether you understood your acts and did not do anything extraordinary when you went into the house at 143 West 71st street.
A Well, I didn't do any more than walk through.
Q I see. Well, what did you do in the kitchen?
A Oh, in the kitchen I saw my wife drinking whiskey with this Grover.
Q I am talking about 143 West 71st street.
A Oh, yes. I just walked straight into the kitchen.
Q Did you do anything extraordinary there?
A I don't remember
365
Doing anything; all I remember the revolver exploded and I don't remember anything more.
Q Were you in your right mind then?
A No, I couldn't say I was in my right mind.
THE COURT: I think you have been over that on your direct.
Q The District Attorney asked you why you went into the kitchen. Do you know where Belle was employed? MR. WELLMAN: That has all been gone over. He has answered.
THE COURT: He gave an answer to the District Attorney, he said that is where he was in the hbit of seeing her.
MR.ARANOW: If that is satisfactory I withdraw the question then. MR. WELLMAN: Satisfactory -- I object to it as already gone over. THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
Q Now, the address that you gave on that paper that you singed, is that the address where you lived at?
A It were, yes .
Q That was the address that you lived at at that time?
A Yes.
Q You testified, I believe, that you went -- you moved from your wife's house and you went to live somewhere else with a person whose name I do not now recall, with some woman --
THE COURT: Some one by the name of Gay, I think. THE WITNESS: Sylvia Gray, yes.
366
Q Now, I believe your testimony was that that was one month before you left your wife, is that your testimony?
A One month afterwards.
Q One month afterwards?
A Yes.
MR. WELLMAN: He said that; it has been answered, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think you misunderstood him. I think that was that he said that he had sexual intercourse with this woman by the name of Gray before he left his wife.
MR. ARANOW: I will ask him.
Q Did you have sexual intercourse with the woman by the name of Gray before you left your wife?
A Not before, no.
Q When?
A It was a month afterwards.
Q After you had moved into her apartment?
A Yes.
Q You also had moved into her apartment?
A Yes.
Q You also testified that you were out of work for a period of several weeks; now, what did you do those several weeks?
A I was looking for work.
MR. WELLLMAN: This is all new matter; not re-direct. THE COURT: Well, I will let his answer stand.
Q Where you out of work any time any longer than a period of six weeks or two months?
A No, not any time.
MR. ARANOW: That is all.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Who did you talk to in the lunch hour?
A What is that?
Q Who did you talk with in the lunch hour, since you were
367
on the stand the morning?
A No one.
Q You did not talk with your lawyer?
A Not at this lunch hour, no.
Q You did not talk with either of these gentlemen here?
A No.
Q Think it over now before you answer me.
A No, I did not.
Q After you left the stand this morning?
A I did not talk to anyone.
Q All right. That is all.
MR. ARANOW: Louis Heisler; (No response.)
MR. ARANOW: The defendant rests.
DEACON MURPHY, called as a witness in behalf of the People, his examination having been reserved until this time, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
(The witness states he resides at 40 East 39ht street.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q You were formerly a deputy Assistant District Attorney, were you not?
A I was.
Q And you are now practicing counselor and attorney at law?
A Yes.
Q You examined the defendant, Allen Bradford, on the afternoon of November 23rd, did you not?
A I did.
Q Relative to the shooting of his wife, Isabella Bradford, in premises 143 West 71st street?
A Yes, sir.
368
Q Do you recall about what time it was and what place it was that you conducted the examination?
A I do.
Q Where, and when?
A Why, it was in the afternoon about 3 o'clock that I first started talking to him. The place was in the
captain's room of the 28th Precinct station house, which is located on 68th street between Broadway and Tenth avenue.
Q And who was present when the hearing began, the examination?
A Well, my stenographer Mr. Birchall and several police officers, one uniformed officer from the precinct, and a plain clothes man from the Fourth Brach.
Q They came in, did they, during one time or another of the examination?
A Well, several other officers came in at one time or another, Captain Cooper and one or two other men from the branch.
Q And were you at that time in charge of the Homicide Bureau of the District Attorney's office?
A I was.
Q And was Mr. Birchall the stenographer of the Bureau?
A He was.
Q Did you take notice of the appearance and condition of the defendant at the time that you were questioning him?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the questions on the ground they are leading. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I' did.
369
Q First, did you notice his condition as to sobriety?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it is incompetent, improper in form and leading. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: Exception.
A I did.
Q What was it?
A In my opinion, he was sober.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out, if your Honor please. THE COURT: I will allow it to stand.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q Did you observe any evidence of drink about him?
A Yes, sir.
Q What?
A There seemed to be a slight odor on his breath.
Q Yes. Did you notice any other signs of drink?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please, on the ground it is incompetent, improper in form and calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A None that I recollect at this time.
Q Did he answer the questions incoherently or coherently?
MR. ARANOW: I object to the question on the ground it is incompetent, improper in form and leading. THE COURT: Sustained.
370
Q How did you answer the questions?
THE COURT: I do not think I will allow the witness to express an opinion as to the manner in which the questions were answered.
MR. WELLLMAN: All right.
Q Tell us about his mane, anything else that you noticed about him.
A He sat directly across the tale from where I was sitting, and he spoke to me when I spoke to him, he spoke I answer to my questions. Immediately after my question was put he made these answers. And we neither of us, I think, has any difficulty in understanding each other.
MR. ARANOW: I move to strike that out as being irresponsive.
THE COURT: I think I will strike out "neither of us had any difficulty in understanding each other." Strike that out, and the jury will disregard it. He may testify that he had no difficulty in understanding the defendant.
Q Did you have any difficulty in understanding the defendant? MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I did not.
THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q And do I understand you to say that his answers were given promptly to your questions? MR. ARANOW: I object on the ground it is incompetent,
371
improper in form and leading.
THE COURT: I will allow it. It appears to be a summary of what the witness already said. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A Yes.
Q Did you after wards read the transcript of the minutes which was made by Mr. Birchall of the examination? MR. ARANOW: I object, if your Honor please, on the ground it is incompetent, improper, and not showing any
definite time, not connected with the time when the examination was held; "afterwards" might mean yesterday.
Q Well, did you at any time, yes or no? THE COURT: I will let him answer that.
A Yes.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Q When?
A At the time the copy was furnished to me by Mr. Birchall, about two to three weeks subsequent to the examination.
Q And did it accord with your recollection of the examination?
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object on the ground it is incompetent, improper in form and leading.
Q Yes or no?
MR. ARANOW: The same objection.
THE COURT: I think I will let him answer. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
372
A It did.
Q Now have you ever read it since that time, the transcript?
A Not since the time it was given to me by Mr. ***irchall.
Q And was that -- you say about two or three weeks after the examination?
A That was about a month ago, I should say, possibly longer than that.
Q Will you state as best you can from your recollection the substance of the examination, the story told you by the defendant at that time?
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to that, on the ground it is incompetent and improper rebuttal. THE COURT: I will allow it.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
MR. WELLMAN: I would like to have that objection withdrawn. I think in view of the fact that I reserved the right to call this witness when I rested my case --
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please, I objected -- THE COURT: I have allowed the examination. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: I have allowed the examination because I consider it proper.
A I first told him what my name was, and what my position was, and that he was under arrest charged with having shot his wife that afternoon. That I was going to ask him some questions about what happened, and that he need not answer those questions.
373
Unless he wished to do so, and if he did say anything it could be used against him if he was brought to trial at a later time.
And I asked him if he understood what I had said to him, and he said he did. And I then asked him a number of questions about the occurrence, and he made answers to all the questions.
I do not recollect the verbatim questions put, or the answers made, but the substance of what he said was that he had been living apart from his wife for about two years. That he was working as an operator of some kind in
an apartment house. That on the morning of the occurrence he had had a conversation with another colored man in reference to a party which his wife had given the night before.
He then said that he himself had on the day before called up his wife and asked her to come up and see him, and that she had said she could not do it. He said that the information that he got about the party that she
had given irritated him, and he made up his mind that that was simply an excuse, and that he was going to kill. That he went to his employer, the superintendent of the building, and asked to be given his money and discharged.
Q Do you remember whether or not he said whether he had any money at the time?
374
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please, on the ground it is improper and leading.
THE COURT: Well, we will exhaust his recollection, Mr. Wellman, entirely in regard to the matter, and then you may ask him leading questions.
Q Go on from where you left off, then, Mr. Murphy.
A He said that he received from his employer the sum of about $7. That it was not all that was due to him,
that he was owed about $9, but I think he said he owed $2 to the employer, money that had been advanced to him.
That after getting the money from the employer he put on his best things and went over to New Jersey. After arriving at New Jersey -- I think he said he took a ferry from Cortlandt street, somewhere downtown.
That he walked straight down a block that had street car tracks on it, and he went into a place and bought a revolver and five cartridges. He told me what he paid for the revolver and the cartridges; I do not remember what the sums were now.
He said that he then came back to New York and came uptown, I think on the elevated. That he got off the elevated and went into a saloon and loaded his revolver. That he had several drinks.
That he went uptown to the place where his wife was working, which was at 143 West 71st street. That he went in
375
by the basement door, which was opened to him by the lady who worked there. That he went directly into the kitchen on the rear of the floor.
That his wife was standing over near the stove. That as he went into the kitchen door which was open, and which he left open, he said to her, "Hello.", and that she said to him, "Hello." Then he said, "That did not satisfy me", and I said to her, 'I have got something for you,'" or something like that, and he want over toward her.
She was standing with her back turned toward him, and when he got a distance of a few inches away from her he fired into her body. That as she fell he fired again.
He did not remember whether he fired all together three or four shots. She fell on the hearth in front of the stove. That he turned around and went out into the street. That when he got into the street he fired a shot into the air, to attract the attention of the police, and that he threw the revolver down on the payment and waited until the officers came. That is the substance of it as I recollect it.
Q Now, have you told us all that you recollect of the examination?
A I recollect that he said that he was glad that he had done it, and that he did not want to wait for a trial. Would we please take him out and hang him right away, I think he said. Further than that I do not recollect anything more.
376
Q Do you remember whether he said anything about having any money before he was paid off by his employer?
A I remember that I asked him whether he did have any money before he was paid off, and he said he had none.
Q Do you remember whether you asked him anything about what effect, if any, the drinks he had had produced on hi, had on him, and what answer he made?
A I remember that asked him that, and he said they did not bother him. I will not say that those were his exact words, but that was the answer approximately.
MR. WELLMAN: You may examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You were then in the employ of the District Attorny?
A I cannot hear you, Mr. Aranow, when you turn your back to me.
Q I beg your pardon. You were then in the employ of the District Attorney?
A I was.
Q When did you last read those minutes that you testified to?
A As I testified to, when they were given to me by my stenographer.
Q When did you read them last, Mr. Murphy?
A That is the last time.
Q About two weeks ago?
A About a month ago.
BY THE COURT:
Q Mr. Murphy, did you see the defendant as he was in the act of coming into the room in which you were?
377
A Yes, sir, I saw him then, and I saw him about a half an hour before I examined him.
Q Where was he when you saw him a half an hour before you examined him?
A He was sitting then in the rear room, the big room of the station house, together with a number of other witnesses, and I examined the witnesses first, two of them, I think, if not three, before I examined the defendant.
Q And your examination of the others, did that take place in the same room in which you afterwards examined the defendant?
A Yes, your Honor, in the captain's room.
Q You were threin that room when the defendant was brought into it, or came into it?
A I was either there or on the floor of the precinct station house just outside the door.
Q Did you at any time that way observe the defendant while the defendant was in the act of walking?
A I think on two or three occasions, your Honor, I did.
Q When first?
A My recollection is that he was told to stand up and go into the front room when I first came into the station house, and that I said, "No, I want to talk to the witnesses first," and he then went back to where
he was seated in the back room. At that time I was in the back room. I saw him also when he was brought into the captain's room, and I saw him when he left the captain's room.
Q Now, on those occasions did you observe anything with respect to his walk; was there anything about it that attracted
378
your attention?
A No, sir.
Q It was in the station house that you saw the defendant that day for the first time, is that so?
A To my knowledge, your Honor, yes.
THE COURT: Examine, Mr. Aranow. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q When you were in there and asked him whether or not he wished to make any answers, and that any answers that he might give could be used against him, you went there in order to use that for a trial, didn't you?
A If the case came to trial, yes.
Q You said you were there to get evidence?
A Yes, sir.
Q You were one of the assistants of the prosecuting attorney's staff?
A I was.
Q And the only reason you asked him that was to -- in case this matter came to trial, that you would be able to testify that "I asked him whether or not he wished to make any statement, and if he made any statement it could be used against him," wasn't that your only purpose?
A The question is a little involved, Mr. Aranow.
Q I will try to make myself plain: the only reason you had for asking the man any question or making any statement to him at that time that you were going to ask him several questions, and if he did not want to
answer them he need not do so, and if he did answer them it could be used against him -- now, the only purpose of that was in case this matter came to a trial
379
that you would be able to come on the stand and testify to that effect?
A If you mean -- and I do not want to have any misunderstanding with you on your question --
Q I never do.
A If you mean what was my reason for telling him --
Q Yes, yes.
A That I was going to ask him questions, and that anything he said could be used against him -- is that what you mean?
Q Exactly; wasn't that your purpose, Mr. Murphy, that in case this matter reached a trial that you would be able to come here on the stand and testify that you gave him that warning?
A My reason for telling him that, sir, was so that in the event of his wanting to make any statement to me he would understand that what he did say at that time could be used against him. I did not want to obtain any statement from him under any misunderstanding of the facts.
Q Is there any law of the State of New York requiring you to make that statement as a prosecuting attorney?
A None that I know of.
Q And yet you stopped to wan this man?
A As is my custom.
Q As is your custom. And you had no intention at that time, then, to take the stand against him?
A If I was needed to testify I certainly should take the stand, if is my duty.
Q So that you could testify to the very fact that you gave him a warning?
A Yes, sir.
380
Q You said, if you remember, that he testified that he was going to kill her -- kill her -- and that he was glad of it; is that right -- or that he made that statement?
A At different times during the conversation, yes.
Q Would you please consult your former associate and point out to me that part of the testimony where you gave that testimony?
THE COURT: No, there is not testimony at all -- I mean to say what you refer to as testimony is not. MR. ARANOW: I see.
THE COURT: If you want him to consult his memoranda, or any -- I cannot hear you, Mr. Aranow, and I should be very glad to know what you are saying.
MR. ARANOW: Mr. Wellman asked me to explain what my question was, and I explained it to him as best I could. THE COURT: Very well.
Q Did he make any statement to you that he did not want to wait for trial?
A He did.
Q And that he wanted you to go out and hang him?
A He asked -- he said, "Won't you take me out and hang me right away?"
Q Now, will you please show me where that statement was made? Have you got the stenographic minutes?
A I have not.
Q You took everything down?
A Yes. I am not in the Distirct Attorney's Office at the present time, Mr. Aranow. I do not know where they have the papers.
381
MR. WELLMAN: Here it is: "I ain't particular about no trial at all, just go on and kill me. Do what you want to."
MR. ARANOW: If the Court please, I did not ask Mr. Wellman any question, I asked Mr. Murphy. THE COURT: Well now, proceed, please. Another question to the witness.
Q I show you this paper, I do not know what it is, and ask you to show me where it says, "I am glad to have done it; I don't to wait for a trial; take me out and hang me."
THE WITNESS: The paper shown to me by counsel, your Honor, is the stenographic report---- MR. ARNOW: I move to strike that out, if the Court pleases, as being irresponsive.
BY THE COURT:
Q Well now, does the paper that you have in your hand enable you to answer the question put by counsel?
A I can examine it, your Honor.
Q You may look at it.
A I should like to have it identified in some way.
THE COURT: Well, do you want to mark it as an exhibit for identification? MR. ARANOW: I believe it is already so marked.
MR. WELLMAN: I think it is People's Exhibit 12 for identification. There is a number reserved for it.
382
THE COURT: Very well.
THE COURT: On page 22 -- BY MR. ARANOW:
Q Do you find any question such as I have asked you? THE COURT: You mean any such statement.
Q Any such statement?
A I find a statement in here about his being desirous of being punished, yes.
Q I see. But do you find any statement such as "I am glad to have done it; I don't want to wait for a trial;
take me right out and hang me."?
A I find the statement, "I ain't particular about no trial at all, just go on and kill me. Do what you want to." And at a later time -- that is on page 22 --
MR. ARANOW: I submit, if the Court pleases, that is not a proper answer to my question.
THE COURT: Now the answer, as I take it, of the witness is that he does not find any statement in those words.
MR. ARANOW: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Not in those words, your Honor, thank you.
THE COURT: He has called your attention to what he conceives to be the statement that he had in mind, and I
take it.
MR. ARANOW: Yes.
Q Now, Mr. Murphy, do you recall him telling you about going to 98th street and Columbus avenue and stopping in at a liquor store?
A No, I do not.
383
Q You do not recall that at all?
A No.
Q Do you recall him telling you that he had about ten drinks of whiskey?
A Yes, sir.
Q And did you recall that when Mr. Wellman questioned you?
A I did not, not the specific number.
Q Do you recall him stating anything about going into a hardware store for a pistol?
A I do not know whether he characterized the store when the pistol was bought or not.
Q Do you recall him mentioning a hardware store?
A No, sir, I do not. I should have to refresh my recollection.
Q Now, in that captain's room -- would you please describe it, the furniture inside of it, if you can?
A Well, there was a table in the center of the room; the defendant was seated on the farther side of that from the door. My stenographer was seated across from him, and I was sitting next to my setnogrpher.
Q How big was that table, would you say?
A I should say the table was about a little bit larger than the counsel table there (indicating).
Q Right here (indicating)?
BY THE COURT:
Q About how far would you say, Mr. Murphy, that you were from the defendant at the time you were asking him questions and he as you say was making answers?
A Variously, from three to five feet, your Honor.

384
BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You were seated at all times during the time that you asked the questions?
A Yes.
Q And your stenographer was sitting with his back towards the door?
A Yes.
Q And you were sitting next to him?
A He was either sitting with his back toward the door or he was sitting at the end of the table with his back toward the window, I do not remember which.
Q He testified yesterday he was sitting with his back toward the door. Does that refresh your memory any?
A Yes, I think that was right.
Q And you were sitting next to him?
A I was sitting on his right.
Q And you say the defendant was on the opposite side of the table?
A Yes, sir.
Q And the table was longer than the counsel table here, is that right?
A No, the longer table of the two; you have two tables there.
Q This one here? (Indicating.)
A Yes, the one you have your fingers on.
Q And the defendant was sitting on the opposite side here?
A No.
Q Where? Where then? I asked you whether the defendant was sitting about opposite you.
A The defendant was sitting
385
about where your associate is, about the middle of the tbale.
Q Right here (indicating)?
A Yes.
Q You examined several witnesses before this defendant came in?
A I think I examined two witnesses before he came in, in the station house.
Q How many witness were there all together?
A I talked---in the station house, or elsewhere?
Q Elsewhere.
A All together?
Q Yes.
A Well, I spoke to the doctor, and I spoke to the --
Q How many, Mr. Murphy?
A What?
Q How many means a number.
A I was trying to count up. This thing happened almost two months ago, you remember. One, two, three, four, five, six---eight or ten witnesses.
Q Did you take statements from all of them?
A Yes, some oral, some stenographic.
Q Can you recall any of the names of those witnesses, at the present time?
A I cannot. I know who they were, but I do not know what their names are.
Q When you asked this defendant how many drinks he had and he answered he had ten---do you remember that?
A Yes.
Q You asked him then where he stopped off the first place, after he had left 251 West 38th street---do you remember that?
A No, I do not.
Q You don't remember him---
A I do not recollect 98th street at all, Mr. Aranow.
386
Q You do not remember him going into that part at all. Did you at any time inquire as to the places where he had those ten drinks?
A From him?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
BY THE COURT:
Q Do you remember his saying anything about a place at Columbus avenue between 98th and 99th streets, a saloon in the middle of the block?
A I do not , your Honor. I do not remember anything about the uptown location at all. BY MR. ARANOW:
Q You say you recall having asked him where he had those ten drinks?
A Yes.
Q Now can you recall where he had them?
A I cannot.
Q Were they recorded by your stenographer, Mr. Birchall?
A His answers were recorded, whatever they were.
Q They were, all of them?
A (No answer.)
Q Now, will you please look through that paper you have in your hand, People's Exhibit 12 for identification, and try and refresh your memory as to where he had the ten drinks that he testified to?
A By referring to this, Mr. Aranow, I am able to refresh my recollection as to --
Q I wasn't you to look at it. Now, if you refresh your recollection, just tell me so.
A I find that he states before he went to Jersey he went to a place across from Greenberger's or some place here in 98th street -- or between 98th street and
387
99th street, and he had a drink there of whiskey. MR. WELLMAN: What page is that?
THE WITNESS: That is on page 30 of the transcript.
Q I am asking you whether or not after looking at that paper that you have, can you refresh your memory as to what answers he gave to your question where he had these ten drinks?
A I can.
Q Please now tell me after refreshing your memory, where did he have those drinks, or where did he say he had those drinks -- after looking at this paper, and please do not read from the paper.
A He stated before going to Jersey he had his first drink in this place, Greenberger's, up in the neighborhood of 98th street, and stated that after coming from Jersey he had drinks in a place in 63rd street and Tenth avenue, and that from there he went directly up to West 71st street.
MR. ARANOW: No, no.
MR. WELLMAN: Now, let us get that.
A (Witness repeating:)---and that from there he went directly up to West 71st street.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully ask the Court to strike out the last part of the answer as being irresponsive. THE COURT: Yes, strike it out.
Q Did he in his statement to you account as to the places where he took ten drinks?
A He mentioned those two places where he had drinks.
Q Did you question him as to where he had ten drinks?
388
A I do not think I did any further than I have already stated.
Q Merely the one he had in 98th street and Columbus avenue, and that he had drinks in 63rd street; did you inquire how many drinks he had in 63rd street?
A I do not recollect whether I did or not. The record will show that.
Q Will you look and see whether it refreshes your memory?
A I will be glad to.
Q And if it does so, please signify.
A No, I do not find I asked him that question.
Q How long have you been connected with the Homicide Bureau, Mr. Murphy?
A About three years.
Q And from your experience in the Homicide Bureau you knew that ten drinks would have an effect upon a man's mind as to the nature of his acts?
MR. WELLMAN: That is objected to. THE COURT: Sustained.
Q Tell me why didn't you ask him and verify at that time as to whether or not he had ten drinks or not?
A I asked him how many drinks he had, and he said he had ten, and then he stated that --
Q And did you believe him?
A No, I did not.
Q Why didn't you verify it?
MR. WELLMAN: Now, that is objected to. Perhaps he did, your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.
389
Q Did you verify it?
A I do not know whether the officers verified it or not; personally I did not.
Q Did you verify it?
A Personally, no.
Q Did you send anyone to 98the street to find out whether or not he had any drinks?
A I think I spoke to one of the dete***es about it.
Q Did you send anyone, Mr. Murphy?
A I cannot tell you off hand whom I did send if I sent anyone.
Q Did you send anyone; did you send anyone?
A I will not say that I did or that I did not, Mr. Aranow.
Q Mr. Murphy, you testified as to what he said when he went into that room first, you repeated the conversation; now, you were not nervous at that time that you took the examination?
A No, sir.
Q Perfectly cool?
A Yes, sir.
Q Calm?
A Yes, sir.
Q Collected?
A Yes.
Q And going about it -- your business as you usually do?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember him saying anything to you about having taken the gun and pressed it to his abdomen, or his belly, as he called it?
THE COURT: Stomach.
Q Stomach?
A I do not recollect his having said anything to me about his putting the gun to any one specific portion of
390
his anatomy.
Q Do you recollect him saying that he put his gun to any part of his anatomy?
A No -- I recollect his making a statement in a somewhat different manner, Mr. Aranow.
Q Well, did he -- do you remember any statement whatsoever, Mr. Murphy, wherein the defendant told you at that time that he put his gun to any part of his anatomy?
A I do not remember whether he said he put his gun to any part of his anatomy or not, but I think he did say he tried to kill himself; that is what I am trying to get at; I do not remember exactly how he said he tried
to do it.
Q When the defendant was brought into the room where you were seated, the captain's room, he was accompanied by a detective?
A He was either accompanied by a detective, a police officer, or a door man.
Q Anyway, there was some one at that time with him?
A Some one was with him.
Q Holding him by the arm?
A No.
Q Walking with him?
A Walking with him.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WELLMAN:
Q Mr. Murphy, you were asked whether you made any verification of the defendant's statement to you about having had about ten drinks. Now, do you remember whether or not you asked him after that what money he started out with, and then made him produce what he had and counted it?
391
MR. ARANOW: I object, as already having been covered by the District Attorney, and as improper re-direct. THE COURT: I will allow him to answer.
MR. ARANOW: I will allow him to answer. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A I do recollect. I asked him what money he started out with, and I asked him to produce what money he had left, and he brought out some change, and we laid it down on the table between us, and I counted it and he counted it.
Q Now, when you asked him how much he had to drink today, will you refresh your recollection from page 30 and state, if you can, what his answer was, whether it was ten drinks, or about ten drinks?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor pleases, on the ground that the witness is allowed to look at a paper before exhausting his memory on it.
THE COURT: Oh no, you have exhausted his recollection on it. I will allow him to look at the paper. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
A In answer to a question as to how much he had to drink, I find the exact answer that he made was, "I must have had about ten Old Crows. That is before the accident."
Q Yes, then do you remember asking him whether he knew what he was going to do, and did not change his mind through having the whiskey?
MR. ARANOW: I object to that, if your Honor please,
392
on the ground it is improper re-direct examination; I have not touched on any part of that testimony at all. THE COURT: I think I will sustain that objection.
MR. WELLMAN: That is all. The People rest, your Honor. MR. ARANOW: The defendant rests.
THE COURT: Mr. Aranow, I suggest that if you have any motions to make you may make them now.
MR. ARANOW: I ask the Court at this time to please direct the acquittal of the defendant on the charge of murder in the first degree, on the ground that the People have wholly failed to establish the crime against the defendant in all the essentials required therein in the code of criminal procedure.
THE COURT: Denied; and you have an exception. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
(Mr. Aranow closed the case to the jury in behalf of the defendant as follows:)
If it pleases the Court, Mr. Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Jury: It becomes my duty at this time to sum up the case before you. You will recall that when you were first chosen as jurors I particularly asked of you whether
or not you would take everything into consideration in forming your final decision as to the question of the guilt of this man. Let me in the outset tell you that it is not my contention, nor the contention of my associate, Mr. Thorne, that this
393
man, Bradford, charged with the degree of murder in the first, is innocent. That is not our claim. My friend
Mr. Wellman, who is able, and has been here a long while. Has foreseen my defence, and he has tried very hard to prove an alibi, and I will try very hard to disprove his alibi.
You were sworn to listen to the testimony and take consideration of everything that was given as testimony here, and apply that to the law, and then form your judgment as to what was the extent of the guilt. I am not going into legal definitions of the different degrees of homicide. I am going to leave that to the very
honorable and able Court. He will charge you when a man is guilty of murder in the first degree, when a man is guilty of murder in the second degree, when a man is guilty of manslaughter, which is also a form of homicide, in the first degree, and when he guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. I asked you nothing, I made you promise me nothing, excepting to give this defendant a fair and impartial trial, and do likewise by the State
of New York. I am only an officer of the court, assigned by the court to do my duty -- this is no retainer or anything of that sort -- assigned by the court to do my duty, and I will endeavor to do it to the best of my ability.
You gentlemen have heard testimony, Testimony is not always evidence. I particularly asked you, each juror
394
sworn, -- and you have seen me examining a good many men that day -- but there was one question that I asked each juror, and this was, "Will you carefully consider of the circumstances, acts and facts in the case as it
was a matter of greatest importance to you, and consider everything in forming your judgment," and every man on this panel answered me that he would, because that is the very thing that I want you to do. The fact that a man gave testimony here, you are not bound by that. You are only bound by the testimony which you give credence and belief to, and the reason I asked you that time whether or not you would give it the same consideration as you would a matter of great importance to you, was because I wanted you to scrutinize every piece of testimony there, and see whether or not you in the same position would do the thing likewise, or
whether you as an ordinary everyday business man would act reasonably upon such a thing; that is what I asked you, and each one promised you would. I want you not only to take into consideration the testimony here, but I want to take into consideration the circumstances, I want you to take the physiological condition here. Here
you have the man -- colored -- you have seen a few men on the jury, or the panel here, excused because they were prejudiced against him charged with a crime -- colored, I emphasize, because, unfortunately, that man has not had
395
the advantages that you and I have had for centuries, he has only had it for sixty years or slightly less.
Now let us take a human being and see what he is.
A human being is born; he is nothing more than a machine with senses, he has the sense of sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste; those are natural things which have been given to us, the senses; but as we develop, and as we learn, and as we educate and advance in civilization, we develop other things. We develop the power of inhibition; that is education. We learn to control ourselves.
A child, an infant in its mother's arms, has a district, very sensitive sense of touch, and when the mother takes up that baby and holds it to her breast, warms it, and continually warms it, that child does not want to lie down, it will cry until the mother takes it up and warms it again, because it does not know when to stop
-- continues to want it.
Take a young child, one that has had toys and had everything that he wants, he will want anybody's toys, he
does not know the difference between 'my property' and another person's property, he wants everything he sees, because he believes everything belongs to him. He has not learned the point of stopping. With education we
learn when to stop.
Now I am going to ask you gentlemen to please consider one thing. You have had two thousand years of this
396
education, while this man has had about sixty years. I am going to ask you to please take that into your consideration of this verdict. Sixty years this man has only had the advantage which you men havae had forcenturies -- If you have not had it you have inherited it from your parents. He has not. Take a boy who has left his home at twelve years of age, as he tells you, and not contradicted -- and let me tell you right now there is no greater office in the country than this District Attorney's office, and if this man had lied or
they wanted to know anything about him, they could have had any report on this man from any part of the country; all they have to do is to press a button and ask Captain McQuade or Captain Faurot , and they can have any information they want, from any part of the country, and it is not controverted.
This boy was twelve years of age at the time he left school, and that is all the tutoring he had. He went out to polish boots, and he kept on polishing boots until he raised himself to a waiter. Finally he went along and worked as a waiter in Chicago, and finally in Detroit, Michigan, and then came to New York, fifteen years ago. You have testimony before you that this man worked steadily, regularly, and so far as he has said he has not been out of work for any time in the past fourteen or fifteen years in New York City longer than two months, and even that time
397
he was out seeking employment. He was a man fairly regular in habits, and ever has been identified with crime of any sort whatsoever.
The people that have appeared there even against him, the District Attorney's own witnesses, testified to his good character. I have not been able to get many, because probably his avenues of society are not the same as my friend Mr. Wellman's or myself or any one of you gentlemen. He has not the friendships probably that you and I have. You heard he had to come home at 9 o'clock after working a whole day, or had to go to work at 4 in the morning and come home at 4 at night, and therefore it would be utterly impossible for me to bring people, large business men, into this court to testify in his behalf. But sufficient there be if there is not bad
character against him. He has been a regular fellow right along.
He tells you that he went along and worked somewhere and met this girl. He met her and he kept company wither for a period of two years, and they finally became engaged, and they were married. They were married somewhere in 61st street. It is not important to me whether he was married at 219 61st street or whether he was married
at 225 61st street, not a bit, only as far as it goes to influence his acts ever since. I want you to bear in mind and please remember it
398
deeply, gentlemen, when you go to say whether or not this man is telling the truth on the stand here, as to that statement between himself and the other detectives after the terrible episode, I want you to bar in mind my friend Mr. Wellman in his usual good nature said smilingly, "Yes, I see you are right, it was 225, that is
it, and not 219" as contained in some paper.
Anyway, they were married. I chose married men, most of them, as my jurors, because I wanted them to understand the things that an ordinary and single man does not. They lived together for quite a time. That is admitted. Admitted. And then he tells you that that woman went out at night, and stayed out lae at nights, and
that she came home under the influence of drink. He is no minister. He is not asking you to condemn that woman because of it, nor am I, nor is my friend Mr. Wellman. But we simply want you to please get the effect it will
have upon this defendant and his state of mind afterwards. You are a married man. You will please remember, seeing your wife coming home at 12, when you came home at 9 o'clock after a hard day's work shoveling coal intone of those hot furnaces, with the heat almost burning you, and you come home to find your wife had been out, with influences of drink upon her, out with her sister.
And he remonstrated with her and told her that in
399
his own way. He did not have the education that I have had, my friend Mr. Wellman, or a great many of you gentlemen have had, in talking down, and saying, "Listen here, now, girl, what do you mean by going out late nights? This cannot be.
A Woman cannot for any length of time go out late nights and keep right. Now, you have got to stop it." He did not do those things, he asked her in his crude way to stay in, and she told him she
is over twenty-one years of age and knew her book and therefore did not need any suggestion.
We might as well look into this case. I do not deem this man a highly cultured man. I deem this man by reason of circumstances not much above an animal. I myself am an animal, but, thank God, by my training, the
training of my parents and my associations, I have been trained somewhat and I can curb my feelings. I do not know what training this man has had, whether his parents ever had the same influence upon him that mine had upon me or that Mr. Wellman's have had upon him.
I want you to imagine the underlying fire that started in that man's mind when he told her that she could not
go out late nights and take drinks without him, and she told him she was over twenty-one and she could do as she pleased. I want you also to go to that party, which happened in Blanche Wright's apartment -- Blanche Wright --
400
did you hear him testify that name, Blanche Wright? I heard it distinctly, and my friend with a little
***ress of the button upstairs or telling that young man sitting here could have had Blanche Wright here in a jiffy. I could not. I have got to send her a subpoena, but he could have had her here, he could have a policeman bring her here if he wanted to.
In Blanche Wright's apartment -- while this man was out at work -- a party was given. Well, I am not sufficiently acquainted with what they call parlor socials, but I have heard through many examinations in the magistrate's courts as to parlor socials, and I know enough to say this to you, that even with the advantages that I have had, thank God, I would have objected to my wife having a parlor social.
And then what happened? You take this man that is not more than an animal. He sees his wife inside of the back room drinking with a man, alone, in a back room. And is that right? Is Blanche Wright here to say that that
did not happen? Blanche Wright could have been here, could have been got here in a jiffy, but she is not here.
I asked for Blanche Wright some time ago, and I remember some comment being made about it, but I have not seen
Blanche Wright.
Then he tells you that he moved away, he moved
401
somewhere else. Well there the testimony began to get conflicting. Up to that we have everything admitted. So far everything is admitted. But after that point there gets to be conflict in the testimony. And he gets even admissions from my client that after he had lived away from his wife for a third of a month he had sexual relations with some other woman, and he says also that from that place he moved to another place, and that he had relations with another woman. I am going to take him just where he is. I do not want to change the truth.
I want the truth, and I want to find out and see what an analysis of the truth will bring him.
What does it mean to our mind when a man has not got the power of inhibition, when a man has not got the power of control in his veins and in his body, and on his passions, but he is somewhat of the animal. The poor man
has not had the advantages, to judge when to stop. He has been away -- he is married -- he has for a year or so had relations with his wife, and all of a sudden they had ceased; they had ceased; and he tells you, and it is not contradicted, that even at that time he was going to his wife and asking her to go back to him, because he found out he could not do without her. Now, is there any question in the case at all, I submit, gentlemen, whether or not this man wanted -- really and sincerely wanted his wife
402
to go back to him? Can my friend contend seriously that that was a bluff, that that was for effect, or it was a lie, and untruth? I do not believe he will even attempt it. I do not believe he will. At best the man really
and sincerely thought himself -- he had not the high reasoning power, he had not he six- motor mental engine to work, he has got one of those old engines that have not been developed, the power is there but it has not been developed, and perhaps he did not know -- we admit that absolutely, but if he had denied those facts they could not have proved it otherwise; if he had said no, that would have stopped right there, and then they
could not have proved it; but the man absolutely and honestly said yes, he said yes because he was advised by counsel that "the truth at all times must come cut, and you must let these gentlemen, who have your fate in
their hands, do according to their judgment and according to the truth, but you must give them the truth to work with," And he admitted it to you at that time.
He tells you of the numerous times that he called on her at 143 and had conversations with her and asked her to go back -- that is not disputed, that is admitted even by the witnesses of Mr. Wellman -- or for the prosecution, which is the same thing.
Now, we are going to get right down close. This
403
man was working at 251 West 98th street, working in that place, a basement, at a hot furnace, where the man was standing shoveling coal into the furnace that supplies steam and runs the elevators in the apartment house; the man gets up early in the morning, and goes to work at 4 o'clock, and works until 4 o'clock in the afternoon; and he tells you that at one time -- this is also very significant; I want to bring out this
because I want to dwell upon it later -- he says at one time he did not speak to his wife when he first saw
her with that man. I want you to bear that in mind, that he did not speak to her, and when she refused to have sexual relations with him he did not talk to her about it, but he simply left her. I want to bring that out to
you later and ask you your opinion of it. But he says when he suspected that, he telephoned to her that day
and asked her to come over and see him, about coming, back because before, they had a party at one time given by friends to bring them together.
Now, that is admitted. That is admitted, because if Mr. Wellman had any reason to disbelieve it, all he would have had to have done was to bring Blanche Wright, who, I believe, was in this court room, and all he would have had to do was to get the name and address of the very person who was called up onto bring those two persons together and he could have found out whether it was true
404
or not; but he knew it was true; he knew it. It stands uncontradicted on the record, and that is why it is true.
The defendant knew at that time that this woman was baiting him pushing him on, so he calls her up on the telephone, and she says she could not see him then, but some time in the future -- that indefinite pushing off
-- she would endeavor to see him. And then this man, as he tells himself, after that telephone conversation which he had in the evening, he did not eat anything. And I did not bring it out, I did not even know it, I
had not the slightest idea what he ate, and I did not care whether he did or not, I did not go far into that; but the Court himself brought it out, and it brings out that the man did not eat the night before or that morning or that noon.
I am going to let you say why.
Then the morning he goes to work he tells you it was his usual habit to go in buy half a pint of whiskey, he says that was by reason of his work, working at a hot furnace, that he had to have some stimulant -- also getting up so early in the morning. Well, whether he did right or wrong I am not going to condemn him or praise him for it, I am not going to give him any crosses for it, but that is what he did, that is
uncontradicted. I would have had the man from the Hygrade store here if I knew who he was, but he does not know himself who he was,
405
and I cannot subpoena the whole Hygrade Company down here to prove that fact.
There is no law requiring that a record be made of a man buying a pint of whiskey. Anyway, he tells you that he took, because of his troubles and because of his work, he took about half a pint of that whiskey and drank it; that after he attended to the boilers he went up to the laundry, and there Foster came to him and told him about this party.
Now, I want you to please realize what that means. The Court asked him, "Did you eat the night before?" and he said he did not, he did not eat anything since the night before. This thing had been dwelling upon this man's
mind before this. It had been pressing upon him, and he did not eat. As he was lying in the laundry room in which Foster found him, Foster told him about this party. Naturally, he must have been weak, and he said he
was thoroughly disgusted. I believe, although he does not remember it, I believe he was disgusted, when he was not called to the party, because you can readily imagine the animal man -- you can readily imagine that first
party that she had, and you can readily imagine that Grover in that back room, and that bottle of whiskey. And his entreaties to her to go back to him, and her indefinite promises to see him.

406
And he tells you that after Foster told him about the party he went and finished the other half of the bottle of whiskey. Then he tells you that he thought the matter over, and he thought it would be safer for him to
leave the town. Now, I do not believe there is a single person who would dispute that. I cannot see, unless my friend Mr. Wellman, who during the years I have known him is very ingenious, brings out something more than I expect, I cannot see where he can deny that this man said, "I am going to leave the town." I believe some of
the testimony said that if he does not leave the town he will do somebody harm or kill somebody.
Supposing he did say that, that he would kill somebody, is that in any way saying that he was going to kill his wife, that he had some family trouble? I want you to figure those things out. I want you to try this case
beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you any reasonable doubt as to that particular instance, whether the man said, "I am going to kill somebody," even that testimony which he himself denies and says he does not remember making any such testimony -- what that means? And he tells you that he got his money.
Now, there seems to be a little conflict there. I do not care about it, I do not care whether he had $7.50 and spent $4 and a half, leaving three and a half, and
407
Leaving one forty-five and $2 for whiskey. That does not both me a bit. I do not care whether he drank thirty drinks or whether he drank five, it does not make a particle of difference to me, excepting as I will point
out to you hereafter.
That he started out with this money he tells you, and went out and stopped at 98th street, and he says he had a couple of drinks there. Is there any doubt in your mind that he stopped there? Is there any doubt in any one of the jurors' minds that he stopped at 98th street? I had a very difficult time to find it out from anyone excepting the defendant, even thought it was contained in this so-called mysterious paper. Oh, I had a very, very hard time to find it. But he tells you that he stayed there on the corner of 98th street and contemplated what he was going to do. And he made up his mind that he was going to kill himself.
Is there anything to contradict that? Not a scintilla of evidence to contradict that at all, not a scintilla
of evidence to contradict that he was going to kill himself, so far. Then he says that he went down and stopped at Cortlandt street. That there he had a couple more drinks, and that is not denied, that stands admitted. And that he went over the ferry, and after the ferry he had a couple more drinks -- not contradicted. That he went
408
along there and went into a hardware store and offered to buy a gun, and after he went into the hardware store he went over to this sporting house, and there he bought the gun. He does not remember the amount, but he remembers signing his name to that paper, and he says that he signed his name John Wilson. You heard the answer to the question as to why he signed John Wilson, he says he does not know he signed John Wilson, he thought the was signing his own name. It does not make any difference to me what he did, nor should it make any difference to you, unless my friend Mr. Wellman is going to argue that this man was a man, one of those thugs, you know, going out to rob somebody, and there gain advantage and there gain some money, take the money, rob the person or kill the person, and hide the money and retain its benefit -- naturally, that person would not want to be caught, that person is going to try to hid his identity, that person is going to try to
evade the police, evade the District Attorney, and then he will give a false name.
I ask you even if as Mr. Wellman says -- even as the District Attorney has tried to show you -- the police
-- that this man went there with the intention of killing his wife -- even, even, even -- with every intention as they said of killing his wife, and that going out there and shooting up in the air to surrender himself -- what does
409
it make -- why did he sign his name John Wilson, that is what I would like to know, if that was his intention?
But he did. Why? Just to bear out the other things that I will dwell upon a little later, whether or not that man knew what he was going at that time, with that drink, with that state of mind, with that unsatisfied sex desire, with that awful depressing suspicion -- unfounded suspicion, which is far worse than any suspicion
that a man have upon foundation -- unfounded suspicion, that is the worst. And he goes in there, and he does not know why he took a drink, he just wanted a drink. Why does a man want drink when he is in nervous excitement, except to try and soothe him, and to try and deaden those nerves which are wearing on him? Why does any man take a drink unless he is actually thirsty, if not to try and soothe down his nerves?
Do you believe that this man took one, two or there drinks just for the sake of drinking, just because he was was a bon vivant, he just liked good liquor and that is all, just going out and having a good time? I do not believe my friend Mr. Wellman will seriously contend that.
I am sure he did not go there in the same spirit that nay man goes in to his club ring a bell and says, "Bring me an Old Crow." He wanted to get that liquor because it was going to give him some return, that is what the liquor was to him, and he did not know what he was doing when he
410
signed John Wilson; he tells you he did not know even why he did it.
And the greater proof of it is -- just follow that, follow the reasoning of a reasonable man, if he was reasonable -- if he wanted to hide his identity -- he goes and puts his right address on there. So, in case
this man committed a crime, in case this man was caught, so that they could not possibly connect him with the purchase of this revolver, so that when they took him up to 41 West 139th street, or wherever the address is, they would not be able to identify him. That is wonderful work, of a wonderful brain. Very clear. Absolutely normal. Absolutely qualified to simply plan the thing.
Then he tells you that he had several drinks before the ferry, and he had several more when he crossed the ferry, and took the elevated up. And here is the significant point: I do not believe it is argued by any one,
or that there is any dispute about it, but he says that he went got off at 59th street, 59th street and
Columbus avenue; there is not dispute about that. Now, why did he get off at 59th street? Why didn't he go up to 66th street, or 72nd street, which is nearer to the place where he was going to kill this woman? He got off there, he tells you, because he went to see a friend of his, and because he was resolved to do it -- to do it. This clever Assistant District Attorney, with the very large tortoise she ***lases,
411
Says "to do it" -- "it", you know. "It" stands for almost anything under the sun; "it". You would think he was back in the old school yard, playing tag. "It." He was going to do it.
If he was going to do it, why didn't he go to 72nd street? But he says he went over there because he had made up his mind to kill himself, and he went to see his friend, and he told you where, and he told you why, he
went up there to see him and to say good bye to him. But he did not find him home, and he says he went into another gin mill, and there he had a couple of drinks, and went into the toilet and unwrapped the gun and loaded it and put it into his pocket, and went up there prepared to do it.
He went in there and greeted the housekeeper --there is no question about that -- greeted the housekeeper and walked into the kitchen. My friend Mr. Wellman will lay great stress on the fact of why he should go to the kitchen. Well, I suppose a colored maid in a house would be found in the parlor, or in the music room, or in
the library. I believe if you, or myself, or any respectable man, would look for a colored woman, I think that is where we would find her, in the kitchen. Isn't that a terrible thing to do? "Why did you go to the
kitchen?" Ah, - a detective. "If you went to the kitchen, therefore you went there to kill her." Why, he went to the kitchen because the colors
412
is found in the kitchen; and the puzzle is solved. That is where she is supposed to work, in the kitchen. He walked to the kitchen, and there he saw her.
Now, regarding that there is controversy. This woman, the woman on the stand, who was the housekeeper, who admitted to me that this man had been there several times and had entreated his wife, and that she overheard his entreaties to return, said he went in there and said "Hello, Belle", and afterwards she said "Hello", and
he says, "This is for you." Well, I have nothing to say regarding her testimony, but I want you to please consider her, an elderly woman, not expecting anything at all, hearing a shot fired -- I want you to imagine your wife in the same place. If a person went into your house and fired four shots, three shots, or two shots,
what her memory of the identical words used at that time would probably be -- or your own -- or your own. Test it for yourself, whether you would remember every word spoken at that time.
I gave tried some cases in other courts; I have talked to witnesses in civil actions, and I have had my little experience, and I have no doubt you, in your own way, have had ours, and I want you to judge. I have had witnesses whom I first interviewed, "Madam, did the car stop?" "Well, no, Counselor, the car did not stop; I saw the woman raise her foot, and then I saw the motorman doing
413
like this (indicating) and the car was almost at a stop."
A month later: "Now, Madam I want you to make up your mind definitely, did the car stop?" "Well, Counselor, the car was practically at a stop." And before
you know it that woman will go on the stand and swear that the car stopped. And you see that in everyday life;
that is only a little elastic imagination, very open to suggestion.
People who go about and drop a word here and there, -- you have seen this defendant here on the stand, he is very elastic, his mind is very elastic; if I wanted to, I could have him answer any question I wanted to by
the slightest suggestion. Then you have seen the other witnesses, even my friend Mr. Murphy, who was formerly in charge of the Homicide Bureau, was very elastic to the questions asked by the opposing counsel.
I want you to give that consideration, whether a woman under such circumstances -- well, it makes no
difference to me whether this man recalls absolutely what he said or not; what was his state of mind? What was his state of mind? You know a human being is not any different from any other object or thing in nature. You take a river and let it be rolling by, rolling strongly by, and it will go along, and probably take away some
of the earth here, and deposit it somewhere else. If it meets some objection, and the water has force enough, is strong enough to***
414
that away with it, and deposit it in some other place, the river will do that and roll along, but let there be a dike on the river, it will simply so slowly, gradually, until there is some very strong object in its path,
and then what happens? Why, just as it strikes that object, the force of the water will take the whole thing with it, tear down the dike and everything. And the human mind is almost the same thing.
I differ with my friend Mr. Wellman in this case. I say that that little thing where he said nothing at the time about her drinking and being out late in the night, showed that still depth -- the man did not facr it -- and we all know that if there is a quarrel with our wife it is the best thing to right out with it, and say, "Come on, there, Girl, what is it?" and not allow it to collect. He allowed it to collect, he did not say
anything when she stayed out late nights, he did not say anything when she drank, he did not say anything when he saw her sitting there with Grover drinking, and he did not say anything when she refused to have sexual intercourse with him, but he allowed it to collect and collect on him. What cared he when he was without his
wife, what matters that, if nothing more than to show the uncivilized creature that he is? You can imagine, a man having had his training -- he would not do so, if he did not have the animal instinot***
415
That he did, and that is exactly the point I am trying to illustrate.
Now, about his drinking -- this ma, when he tells you he went in there, and I think he is a far better judge
-- he says he is not afraid of the electric chair; I may feel bad about it today, but one or two of my clients have gone there before, probably through my ability -- it will make very little difference whether Bradford
will be in the world next year or not, to me, but it wants to make a difference with you. Each man of you will have to decide whether he does or not, and I am only trying to help you find the light. I say to you that I believe him, that it is perfectly reasonable for a man to believe that -- he could not possibly care -- he entreated this woman, and he found himself that he could not stand it any longer, it was just tearing him apart, and he then said to himself, "I am going to kill myself, and I am going to kill myself how? Right in
front of her, so she can see, so she can see what she has done to me;" and he goes in there, and when she does not answer him he sees her and he drew the gun and he shot her.
Would my friend Mr. Wellman sit down and take notes how many bullets he had used at that time? Probably if the the defendant had as good a mind as Mr. Wellman he might have done that. Did he take notes at that time.
416
"My memory ceased now", and "My memory began again then"? Did he have a book with him for witnesses, and try to get them? No, he tells you he was in there and he shot her, and he says he never intended to do it. He
intended to kill himself first, "So that she may see ht fruits of her life." She had ruined him spiritually, and she might as well see that he is dead. That was his intention.
He said he went out into the street. I am going to wait and see what Mr. Wellman will say about it. And out
in the street he says he did not know what he did out there. He says he remembered pressing the thing against his abdomen, or -- abdomen, I believe, and it would not shot; and he says he shot off one in the air, and he stood there. He does not know why he stood there. Of course, what explanation would the policeman give for that, excepting, "Why, he was waiting for me."
It is like the story about the man and the birds, -- waiting for a cop. The story is told about two men: One
man went to a boarding house. He was a man who studies nature a good deal, Every morning he would get up at five o'clock in the morning, and there was a wonderful tree in front of his place and all the birds would
gather on that tree and sing, and he opened his window, and he enjoyed listening to the birds singing. Several days after he was there, fellow downstairs also opened his
417
window and looked at the birds, and heard them singing, and they got into a quarrel as to who they were singing for, as to who had a right to hear the birds, and they got into a first fight, and banged each other's noses pretty well, and were taken before a Magistrate who collected his fees from the fines he got, and when the men got up there, he said, "Gentlemen, what is the trouble?" And one fellow explained that he had been at
the boarding house the longest, and that he always opened his window for the birds, and the birds were singing for him. The other fellow says, "Why, if your Honor pleases, I was on the lower floor; the tree was right in
front of my window, and when I opened it I could see the birds right from my window and they were looking right in to me. The birds were singing to me." The Magistrate said, "$30 fine apiece, the birds were singing for me, Gentlemen."
This policeman says the man was standing there dazed, having committed a murder -- he was standing there waiting for him. Well, perhaps he was waiting for him, I don't know. You are to judge whether he was waiting there for him or not, but I want you to see how he was waiting for him, whether as a reasonable man. Where was he standing? In the middle of the roadway. You see this cool, collected, calm man, who walked perfectly
straight, the drink had no influence whatsoever on him, -- cool, calm, collected,
418
just as normal as my friend over here, or myself -- he was more so than I, because I have been slightly nervous during this trial -- he was just simply standing in the middle of the roadway, in 71st street between Broadway and Columbus avenue; in the middle of the roadway, simply standing there. Is that the act of a reasonable, calm, prudent man? An ordinary man? Would my friend Mr. Wellman do it? I don't think so. I think he would probably stand on the sidewalk.
And what did he do? He does not remember. He says he walked up and down, back and forth, back and forth. Very calm. Then he tells you he was taken to the station house, and there he was questioned by several people. He
says he does not remember that, and he says he was not listening to them.
Now, I want you to put yourself in the same position: a man killing his wife, and seeing her fall before him, with a bullet shot out of this hand, whether he would sit still and listen, look at a pair of goggle glasses,
or whether he would think of what he had done. What would be in his mind? I want you to take that thing into consideration, whether this man actually did say those things. No doubt he did, but I wish I had those minutes. If the Court pleases, may I at this time have a loan of those minutes, the stenographer's minutes, so I can see the so-called questions that were asked? (Paper handed to counsel) You
419
Know a stenographer does not take -- you have seen this gentleman here work, he is an expert Court
Stenographer, sitting in the most important court in this City, where human life depends upon his work, the
appeal depends upon his work. I hope that you have observed, and seen how much attention he paid to me, or my friend Mr. Wellman. But this other stenographer says he saw the defendant, he observed his demeanor and conduct. I am not going to question it at all. It would ill become me to question it, but, let me tell you
that young boy -- colored man who has said in answer to Mr. Wellman's questions that the defendant was perfectly sober, he did not think that a man was really drunk until he saw him stagger. Well, I do not think he was so drunk. I claim the whiskey had some effect upon him; what effect it had upon I won't say.
I want to read only some few of the questions asked by Mr. Murphy, and some of the answers that were perfectly rational -- perfectly rational. Listen to this:
A perfectly rational man talks as follows:
"Q And you moved from there where?
A We moved from there", one, two dashes, "We moved from there", one, two dashes, "We separated there too." Married there and separated there." Now, think of that in connection with the following: "It must have been a
little more than a year." Page 123. "Q Shy did you separate from her?
A Well, a little spat, you know,
420
family affairs." Now, think of that for rational answer. "Q Anything in particular?
A Well, very particular, I must say." That is the answer.
"Q Well, what was it about? What was the trouble about?
A Well, she was just crooked, that is all.
Q How do you mean, crooked?
A How do I mean, crooked? Because the first time I caught her one Sunday evening, I was off duty, and she was to go to church with her other two sisters. They all lived in the same building." That is his explanation of
crooked.
MR. WELLMAN: Go on. MR. ARANOW: Thanks. "Q I see.
A And they all three went out together, but they figured I was going to bed, because I were in bed when they left for church, but I went up to the corner there for a drink, naturally, and come on back a little later,
see, and when I got in it was around ten o'clock, and I wasn't asleep when the other two sisters come in, because I seen them, and I asked for my wife, and they says -- they didn't give me no decided answer." And I want to call your attention to the fact that there are two dashes between "says" and "they". "They says,
"she'll be home later.' Well, the first time" dash, dash, "So after that" --
MR. WELLMAN: No, no. "No, after that" -- he corrected himself. Please read it the way it is. I am following it.
421
MR. ARANOW: I submit to the Court that it says "so" on line 3.
(Stenographer's notes The word "No", through typographical error, appeared "So" in the transcript of yesterday's testimony.)
THE COURT: I think what you are doing is inexpedient. MR. ARANOW: Very possibly.
THE COURT: That is my judgment of it.
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, it is "No" in the original. I am not responsible for the minutes. Here is the original.
THE COURT: I think that you are making a comment, Counselor, which is not based upon the evidence in the case.
MR. WELLMAN: "Well, the first time -- no, after that she came about an hour later, and I asked her"--- MR. ARANOW: I am reading form this copy.
THE COURT: I think I will confine you, Counselor, in your summation to the evidence in the case. MR. ARANOW: If the Court pleases --
THE COURT: You may regard yourself as so confined.
MR. ARANOW: May I at this time state something to the Court? THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ARANOW: Mr. Birchall testified as to his recollection of these questions, these questions were read by the
Assistant District Attorney, and were answered "Yes, sir", once in a while by the ---
422
THE COURT: I have in mind the testimony, and in the light of the testimony in the case I conceive that you are going outside of the evidence in your summation to the jury, and I tell you to confine yourself to the
evidence in the case in our summation. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: You can make any comment upon the evidence; you may not go outside of it. MR. ARANOW: I believe Mr. Birchall testified to this.
THE COURT: I recall the evidence. You are in my opinion going outside of it, and the comment is not allowed. MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
Well, Gentlemen, I am not going to start in to say what happened there. I was not there. But I hope that you paid attention to the questions asked by Nr. Wellman, as to the testimony given by this witness, and I want you to compare, please, the mentality of this gentleman occupying an official position in the County of New York, and the manner of his reading of the answers of the defendant, and the manner of his giving the testimony under those conditions, their connectedness, or possibilities or probabilities for giving a flowing
answer. What have we a police department for? Have we got them to show off brass buttons, or to march up Fifth avenue, once in awhile? We have brass buttons to show their official authority, but
423
the police are there to prevent crimes, and when crime has been committed to investigate it. They are the assistants of the District Attorney, and my friend, Mr. Deacon Murphy told you right there and then that he went there with the idea -- as an investigator and prosecutor -- assistant to prosecutor of the County of New York.
Now, let us take up from the first instant, where that man had shot of the gun. What had happened before that?
It is mostly a guess. What happened? He tells you what happened, and there is nothing to contradict him except what these gentlemen got out of him later. Now, let us see: what was his conduct later, as relating to the
actual act? That is the thing in question, not what he did later. But what were are trying to find out is what did he do before, immediately before, whether there was willful premeditated malice, or was it the act of passion?
AN act committed with passion with a dangerous weapon, the Court will charge you what the law is in that case, but whether it is as my friend says, a deliberate and premeditated thing, let us see his conduct afterwards.
He goes out in the street. They say he went out there and shot in the air for the police. Is that the act of a
man who is trying to escape? Then the policeman comes. What do you expect a policeman to do? Do you expect him to come up thre and say: "Listen, shut up, you, you better not say a
424
word about it, or those policemen will try to get you", or is he going to try every possible way of getting
and fastening he crime? You know what is means, the catching of a criminal. We all know that a man gets a reward for it, and when you get a record for having convicted a man, a man convicted of murder, murder in the first degree is quite a prominent record to receive in the New York Police Force--- and also of an Assistant District Attorney, - with all due respects to what they say in Court, here before juries. What they say in the
jury room is one thing, and what they say in the restaurant is another, or in the home -- they say: "I
convicted this desperate murderer."
A wonderful thing.
MR. WELLMAN: I submit, your Honor, that is decidedly going outside of the case. THE COURT: I think it is.
MR. WELLMAN: And I would not object if it were not a gross misstatement of the facts, outside of the case. THE COURT: It is outside of the case, Counselor.
MR. ARANOW: But the District Attorney is not there to play with him. He is there to get evidence, to get evidence of a crime. Now, the policeman arrives, -- and they tell you their story. They tell you that the man said -- one officer said that the threw up his hands and said: "Kill me." Or he said, "He threw up his hands and said, 'I did it, I had good reason to.'" And as another officer who was
425
five feet behind him said, he says, "I did it, kill me", or, "I am ready to die, kill me." That is two conflicting stories of two officers.
The young man who questioned him said he said, "I did it." There is no question but that he said he did it,
and he said he had a good reason to, and there is no doubt in my mind that he said he had a good reason to, because a man after he does a thing -- we all know if Johnny breaks his littler horse he will also say, "Why, Mother, I know I broke the horse, but you see the horse was broken before." That is a perfectly natural thing to do, for a man to try to excuse his act, if he did it, even though he did not intend to do it.
Then one of the uniformed officers says that he took several witnesses to the station house. Leonard says he asked this man several questions and identified him. Well, I haven't a doubt about that. He says he did it. I haven't a doubt that he said he did it. This man was not in a position to know what he said, or particularly
to care for praise, or anything else. His mind was on what he did, and he saw the fruits of his act.
And then they took him to the station house and what happened there? He is taken to a room with twelve or more persons in there, a big, large room. Mr. Murphy tells you there were ten witnesses. The officer tells you that
there
426
were -- he brought three, and then he went back and got the colored boy, that is four. Anyway, we saw here a young man and a colored boy; that was two witnesses.
Now, it is very unfortunate that this man should have been so neglectful and careless when he goes out to commit a murder, that he did not have his lawyer there to go out and get the witnesses. He has no witnesses, excepting his own conscience, to what happened.
Now, everybody saw it; these ten witnesses saw it; they are not here. This is the debated question. We deny having made statements, and it is a matter that is very important, so important that we have to get back the man who was formerly on the staff. Why aren't they here? Well, I don't know. I am going to let you say why they aren't here. I questioned myself. I say, "Well, simply, I would not use a witness when he is no good to me." All men do not say the same thing. Of course it is all very well, to take ten witnesses, and pick out two out of the who suit in with the purpose of a prosecution. I suppose if I had the ten I would excuse those two and use the other eight.
He is taken into a room -- now I am going to ask you to bear with me in this: my friend Mr. Wellman does not agree with me -- I asked Officer Leonard, "Did you question him in the station house?" He said at that time that
427
he questioned him with Mr. Murphy in the room, and Mr. Murphy asked him things and he asked him things. I want your memory to serve because after all, what the Court says is nothing, and what I say in regard to that is nothing, or Mr. Wellman, but you are the judges of the facts. My recollection is very clear and distinct
that I asked him. "Did you ask him about the hardware store, did you ask him about the murder?" And he said, "I did that when Mr. Murphy was there, and Mr. Murphy asked him."
You heard the questions. That man's answers are entirely not there; absolutely left out. Why did I object to the admission of that paper? My friend is liable to make a fight in this -- I am going to tell you why. I objected to it because it is simply a paper, as Mr. Murphy says, drawn for the purpose of use in a trial; that is why I objected to it, because a man can read one line with different intonation and leave out one word of
punctuation which will change the entire demeanor of the whole thing. And look at the language of the whole thing that was rejected, and which was afterwards gotten in through another way. "Did you do it? Did you mean to do it? When had you resolved to do it"? If he had said, "When did you resolve to kill our wife? Why did you
kill your wife? When did you think of killing your wife?" -- but he said "do it." "Do it" might mean a lot of things.
428
I want you to see why -- I objected to the thing, because I have been in these cases before -- did you notice
Mr. Murphy, did you notice the officer, did you notice the other officers, they were all there, and not a one of them smelled liquor on this man, not a single one of them -- oh, yes, Mr. Murphy recalled I his direct examination that he did. And he testified, "I went to the man and I asked the man questions, and he told me that he went to 98th street and got the cash, and went back and got the gun and loaded the gun, and then he went there and shot her. All the other facts and circumstances his mind had entirely slipped. Why, even this
officer who was present in the room, and who the stenographer said was always present in the room, said, "Yes, he had a recollection that the man said he took two drinks." That is why I did not admit that paper in
evidence. I wanted every fact. I tried to bring it out even then.
My friend Mr. Wellman shows me here that there is some record that I had asked before, that Officer Leonard asked him some questions before -- that -- the District Attorney.
MR. WELLMAN: "Before that of the District Attorney"---before the questions of the District Attorney. Read it right.
MR. ARANOW: I object, if your Honor pleases, to
429
counsel interrupting me.
MR. WELLMAN: If counsel reads from the record, your Honor, I submit he should read what is in the record, and my objection to counsel's reading is that he is not reading what is in the record.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except to interruptions by the District Attorney. I had read exactly what was there before me, and I submit the District Attorney has followed the course of conduct right through here of trying
to make a fool of me.
THE COURT: No, I do not want you to make comment one way or the other.
MR. WELLMAN: Your Honor, I must object when counsel is misstating the testimony with it right before his eyes.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully except.
THE COURT: Now it is embarrassing to the Court -- what page were you reading from? MR. WELLMAN: Page*** 84, sir.***
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully ask the Court that the stenographer read what I have said. I mentioned the word
"that".
THE COURT: Page 84, is it?
MR. WELLMAN: Yes, your Honor, the first question which has a long answer: "There you questioned him again" is the question.
430
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Stenographer, will you kindly read what Mr. Aranow said?
(Mr. Aranow's remark is read as follows: "My friend Mr. Wellman shows me here that there is some record that
I had asked before, that Officer, Leonard asked him some questions before -- that -- the District Attorney.") THE COURT: On page 84 I find the following, the question is as follows: "There you questioned him again?
A At that time we questioned him. He was in the back room, and Assistant District Attorney Murphy asked him questions, and I was there. I had asked him some questions before that of the Assistant District Attorney."
MR. ARANOW: I believe, Gentlemen, I have said that. The stenographer seems to hold with me. But, anyway, I
want you to take every possible feature of this case, your recollection of the testimony, into consideration, and decide it as you see fit. I want you to please look into the motive of this defendant, in giving his testimony. He is a man who is charged with a very serious crime, and his life depends upon it. I want you to please give that testimony the consideration that it is entitled to. The consideration that your conscience ought to require you to give it, and to decide upon ever element of the law and the facts as applied together beyond a reasonable doubt. If there be any doubt in your mind the Court will tell
431
You what to do, as to any element.
I want you to take all the witnesses and take their motives for testifying, pro or con, what motive my friend
the superintendent had for saying this man has a good character; what motive the police officer had in stating the testimony he did, which differed, and what motive Detective Leonard had, what motive the boy had, and all the testimony in entirety, and come to your judgment.
Now, if it pleases you, Mr. Foreman, and Gentlemen of the Jury, I am going to be brief. Custom, practice and law, they are all pretty well allied together. The law is based upon custom, and practice, and says that no
man charged with crime shall be convicted unless the evidence given against him is beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because people differently situated, differently constituted, see things differently. Twelve men of your
own peers have got to say beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element that a crime committed as charged has been committed before a man came be convicted.
You have heard all the testimony: you have heard that I have tried very hard myself to produce everything that
I had in my hands, but you realize I was not retained, I was only assigned to this case long after this man was incarcerated. My friend on the other side has been there while this man was I jail, without a friend in the world
432
to help him.
Now, my friend Mr. Wellman will go before you ad he is a very able man, a man who has had very considerable experience in the trial of murder cases, and this is my first; he will probably take my little summation of
the facts and tell you it is all disjointed and all rotten, ad he will make it look very cheap, I know his capabilities. But please ask in justice to yourselves and in justice to my client, and to me, and to the Court
-- do not permit his eloquence to take you from the testimony. Please consider everything. Please consider that littler thing, that human machine, the brain, and the effect that other things have upon it, the unsatisfied sexual desire, the suppressed energy, the suspicions -- unfounded, all of the thigs which go to disrupt a brain and the human mind, his acts at that time.
Please consider whether at that time he was -- if a scale -- take a scale, what is premeditation of a murder? Where a man can reason and say "This is right", and "This is wrong" -- were the scales in his mind balanced, so that he could say, "This is right", and "This is wrong", or were the scales capsized so he could not weigh? That is the thing for you to find. Could that man have reasoned and said, "Is this right or wrong", or was it simply that his balance was all upset, the scales were loaded? This is
433
for you to decide.
The man is guilty of a crime. In law you are bound to find him guilty of some crime, but I tell you this is
not a premeditated murder. There is no profit, there is no gain, and there is nothing selfish to obtain by it. He did not go there to rob her of her money. Here is a poor devil, colored, prejudiced against, without the advantages that other men have, animal instinct greatly in him, depressed by the years and years of anxiety, unfounded, he goes to do an act, and loses of the balance of his head, and asks you to deal with him justly. He says he did not deliberate the murder. He says the world has not given him a chance, and he tells you the truth, even to say that he committed adultery. I hope that you Gentlemen will find the truth and stick to it,
and not forfeit a life unless you have a moral certainty, a moral certainty that he premeditated to murder her.
THE COURT: Take a recess for five minutes. Gentlemen of the jury, you are admonished not to converse among yourselves on any subject connected with this trial, or form or express any opinion thereon, until the same in submitted to you.
(Recess fir five minutes.)
434
MR. WELLMAN CLOSES THE CASE IN BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE TO*** THE JURY AS FOLLOWS:
May it please your Honor, Mr. Foreman, and Gentlemen of the jury: I know that you appreciate the seriousness of this case, not only to the defendant, but to the community which you represent. I know you appreciate this
is neither the time nor the place for flippancy. I do not want you to convict the defendant of murder in its
first degree, unless you are convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, so that you can see it in no other way than that he is guilty of premeditated, deliberated murder.
There is but one thing that I want to warm you against in approaching the case. I feel that there is but one thing that could possibly stand between you and a proper verdict in this case, and that is letting sympathy
play any part whatsoever when you come to deliberate upon this case. By sympathy, Gentlemen, I mean not only sympathy for the defendant, in the plight in which he finds himself, but sympathy for that woman who was shot down, without any chance for her life, in the back, by the one man in the world whom she had a right to look
to for protection and to trust. I have not had a single relative of that woman here in court, I have not let
them put their hands inside of the courtroom, and I have done that because I did not want you to be swayed from what was right, because I feel the balance of
435
sympathy is against this defendant.
Now, it is no record to me, and it is no record to any man, and if it were he would be ashamed of it -- to convict a man of murder in the first degree who has confessed that he was guilty of murder in the first degree. It is not a question of skill, it is not a question of trickery. All I want you to do is to look at
the evidence, and if you decide from the evidence that the defendant is not guilty of murder in the first degree, or that there is any doubt about it, which you entertain as reasonable men, after going carefully all over the evidence, I want you to find him not guilty of murder in the first degree. This is his last day I
court, Gentlemen, and you will not hear one flippant word from me.
The evidence in the case as I view it leaves no room for a reasonable man to doubt how this crime was committed, and with what motive, and with what intent. The man who shot Isabella Bradford, on the 23rd of November last, shot her with a pistol of large calibre, a deadly weapon, and shot her three times in a vital
spot. Either one of those shots would have been enough to have caused her death. He shot her at close range where he could not miss, and there cannot be a doubt, a scintilla of doubt, in a reasonable man's mind that it was done with the intention, not of wounding
436
or of frightening, but of killing. Then the sole question for you will be: Was that killing deliberate as well as intentional? And that is what you are to direct your minds to -- your minds, Gentlemen, and not your hearts.
Now the evidence has not been seriously disputed that the defendant was the man who fired these shots. There is much that I must say in completing the record in this case, as a review of the evidence produced by the People, which may not be quite necessary to say. As a matter of fact when it comes to the question of
necessity, I do not suppose there is anything that needs to be said to you Gentlemen at this time in behalf of the State; I do not suppose any one of you is lacking in a fresh recollection of what the testimony was. I do not suppose there is one of you who has failed to see what the situation in this trial has been, - a man making a desperate effort to save himself from the electric chair, a coward who was screwed up to the point of talking the life of his won wife, and he has lain over there in the Tombs, and now feels he would like to
go out living himself. He is willing to take the stand and lie, say almost anything, if it will save his lfie.
That has been the plea here in this case, that has been the plea of counsel's summation. He says undoubtedly he is guilty of a crime, but save his life, do not take
437
his live.
Now, I told you at the outset what the rules were governing murder in the first degree, that the State must prove its case, and a man cannot put it on the record that he pleads guilty to murder in the first degree. Now, not one of you has failed to see the situation here, the change in this defendant, in his attitude, from the time when, without the advice of any lawyer, in his state of mind there saying that "He done what he intended to do", and that he did not care what became of himself, and his attitude here now. He thinks he wants to live.
In a criminal case the State must prove that the person whose name in mentioned in the indictment as the person killed, is in fact dead. It is called in law the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime, as it is
translated literally, and that requirement of law has been met in this case by the proof that the body of the woman who was seen in the kitchen lying dead was identified to the Coroner's physician, and to Dr. Schultze, who performed the autopsy for this office, as the body of Isabella Bradford. It was identified not only by the officer, who got the name from the defendant himself, Officer Leonard, but by Mrs. Blanche Wright, who you now know was the sister of the deceased woman. Then a photograph was produced which the doctor identified as a photograph of the woman upon
438
Whose body he performed the autopsy, and which the defendant, himself, admitted on the stand, was a photograph of his wife, Isabella Bradford. So that you have it that the person about whom Dr. Schultze said that she came
to her death from three bullet wounds, either one of which would have proved fatal, all of them in vital spots, and in the back of her body, was in fact Isabella Bradford, the person named in the indictment, and that she was otherwise in a healthy condition, so that there was on other cause contributing to her death.
The State produced witnesses to the shooting itself, Mrs. Hisler testified that the defendant in the usual
manner that he employed with her, greeted her, he was friendly, asked where Belle was, whether she was in, and she said, "Yes, come right in, Belle is in the kitchen", and that then she walked behind him as he went into
the kitchen; and she said he seemed perfectly natural, the same as ever to her. She saw him go into the kitchen where his wife was standing in front of the range, with her back to him, and say "Hello, Belle", and the woman, the wife, say "Hello." And then she testified to his saying something to her to which she replied, and something else, and then his presenting the pistol and saying, "This is for you", and firing the first
shot, And she says that the woman screamed after
439
The first shot, and that she ran upstairs in her fright, and heard the other shot when she was upstairs. Now, that is the testimony of a disinterested witness. And there is not one single witness in this case who has a conceivable interest, Gentlemen, except the defendant himself.
Then we produced a man who had never seen the defendant before, who saw him come out of the basement, and fire a shot in the air, and walk over towards him, across the street, and then he said to him, "What is the matter,
George?" George being the name which one passerby will use to another, you know, and that the defendant said, "I shot my wife. I have just shot my wife and I had reason to do it." He said that he stood there, he seemed perfectly normal; he noticed nothing as to his demeanor, which would indicate that he was intoxicated or in an unusual state of excitement. He said that he walked to and fro on the street, and that presently an officer
came, two officers, and I think that the witness, Prince, told you under cross examination that he put up his hands, and said something to the officers.
The officers came into court and they told you that as they approached the defendant from a short distance,
they saw a crowd surrounding him and that he put up his hands and said, "You might as well shoot me now." That they asked, "What have you done?", and that he made answer to
440
Kotschau, the officer who arrested him, that he had just shot his wife. That they then took him into the
kitchen, and there saw the body of a woman lying already dead in front of the range. That Leonard interrogated the defendant as to who the woman was, and that he said it was the body of his wife. That he gave her name, and that he said then was seated on a chair near on corner of the room, and that after looking about they questioned him as to whether he had shot his wife, and I will read you what it was that Officer Leonard said
the defendant told him.
Page 73 of the minutes: "I asked him was the woman on the floor his wife, and he said yes. I asked him for the woman's name, and he gave me her name in full, Isabella Bradford. I asked him why he had shot wife. He said he had a good reason, that she had not lived with him for about two years, that he had made up his mind that morning, and he went to his superintendent, received his pay, and he left there, and he went to Jersey where
he bought the revolver, paying $4.50 for it, and five cartridges, and paying ten cents for the five cartridges. He said, 'I then came back to New York, 'he said. 'went up Eighth avenue, right direct to the
house', he said; 'when I got there the housekeeper met me at the door. I asked the housekeeper was my wife in. She said yes, she was in the kitchen.
441
I asked her could I go in. She said, 'Sure.' She opened the door and let me go in. When I go to the door I
seen my wife there. I said, 'Hello, Belle'. She said 'Hello' to me."
You remember his testimony here. The defendant's testimony was that she did not answer. "I said, 'That don't suit me.' I went over to her. She had her back turned to me. The first time I shot her I shot her in the
back." And then, "I don't know exactly whether it was two or three shorts after that."
Now, the testimony is that Officer Leonard and Officer Kotschau then took the defendant to the station house, and that they then questioned him further, before Mr. Murphy questioned him.
On page 84, "Q Did you ask him how much money he received that day?
A Not there I did not; in the station house.
Q After that you took him to the station house?
A Yes.
Q There you questioned him again?
A At that time we questioned him. He was in the back room, and Assistant District Attorney Murphy asked him questions and I was there. I had asked him some questions before that of the Assistant District Attorney."
Now, we produced further Mr. Hanson, who said that the defendant, whom he recognized , came in one day, when he could not state, but that will not be a question which
442
will give you any difficulty in view of the defendant's admission that he purchased the gun at that place and
on that day. That the defendant, to his observation, showed no signs of intoxication. He said that he was only a few feet away from him, I think he said that the counter was a narrow one, about twenty-seven inches, if I
am not mistaken. He said that the defendant asked him for a pistol, and he showed him several that they had, and that the defendant picked out the largest calibre that they sold, and also five bullets, or loaded
cartridges, for all of which he paid $4.60, singing a name and address in the book.
Now, I make no contention as to why the name and address were put in that book as they were. The only contention I do make, and the only thing which I maintain the entry shows, is that it was written in a very steady hand, and he said that at the time he bought the pistol, said it right here this morning when he was on the stand, that he had made up his mind to kill. He said that his intention was to kill himself; now, that
will be for you to say. But he said he had made up his mind to kill when he wrote that name in steady hand, and that address.
Now, after the detectives had questioned him he was brought into the Captain's room, and there he was questioned by Mr. Murphy. You have had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Murphy and Mr. Birchall. There is no need to say that it is nothing to them, what happened to this defendant,
443
it is nothing to them whether you go one way or another way in this case. They are disinterested witnesses, just as the policeman who arrests a man for drunkenness on the street, has no interest, except to see that justice is done.
Mr. Murphy says that he took the statement in order that, I think he said, in case the man were put on trial,
it might be used, and he warned him of the predicament he was in, told him that whatever he said might be used against him. He said that was not required by law, but that he always did it. That shows the attitude of a man
is fair. And after that waning, the defendant, after being told that if he cared to say anything Mr. Murphy would be gland to take it, proceeded to tell his story.
Now the defendant told you here that he had a lapse of memory during that time, a lapse of memory similar to the one which he had during the shooting, and similar to the one which he had when he was questioned in the kitchen by Officer Leonard. He describes it variously as a fainting fit, as a loss of memory, and as lack of paying attention to the questions, or to the talking of the People about him.
Now, this statement in highly important in the case. It is the most important thing in all the evidence, because while the shooting is not denied, the motive and the
444
intention are the subject of contention in this case. And the key note to the defendant's state of mind is contained in this statement which was taken by Mr. Murphy, and the stenographer, Birchall. It was taken, remember again, before he had had the advice of a lawyer. It was taken about two hours after the crime was committed, so that his condition when it was taken becomes important as reflecting back on his condition at the time he committed the crime. And it is important because he was fairly frank with Mr. Murphy.
He answered the first preliminary questions as to his age and place of birth, and the maiden name of his wife, and how long he had been in this City, just as the facts were stated by him in court. Now, that may or may not be of importance. I think it is of Importance because it shows that he did answer the questions that were
put, that he answered them intelligently; and then when he goes on and relates the difficulties, the troubles that he had with his wife, which I am not going to trouble to read to you again, he states them in substantially the same form as he did here in court, until he began to see what I was driving at in the cross examination, when he said that some of the facts were misstated in this statement. It will be for you to say whether he did that because he saw what I
445
was driving at, or whether Mr. Murphy and Mr. Birchall made the story up.
Now , this history of his troubles with his wife is simply a repetition of the history of thousands and thousands of cases of an unhappy union between a man and a woman; it is no excuse for murder, it is no mitigation for murder; ther is not anything in it that can possibly lead you, Gentlemen, to say that this man was overwrought, in such a state of mind that he did not know what he was doing when he took the life of his wife. He had been away from his wife after all these troubles occurred, he had lived apart from her, and he had lived with two other women. He had plenty of time to think of that, and he had evidently overcome that, because he was seeking to get her to take him back, promising" to treat her better," if that throws any light
on which answer was correct, whether he had intercourse with Sylvia Gray a month before he left his wife, or a month after.
I say I am not going to read it because I think it has no bearing on this case whatsoever. It is the lamest kind of excuse. It does this much, it shows you that he was an unjust judge of that wife of his. He told Mr.
Murphy that he had never seen his wife with another man, that he never heard the name of another man that she was with, that
446
no one had ever come to him and told him that they had seen her with another man, outdoors of indoors alone;
that all he knew as a fact was that she had attended some parlor socials,-- and that was the crime for which he made himself judge, jury and executioner of that woman.
He was asked by Mr. Murphy, "Why did you give up the job?
A Why did I give it up? On this account, because I meant to do it, and I ain't particular about no trial at
all, just go on and kill me, do what you want to." There was the state of mind that this coward had at that time.
MR. ARANOW: I respectfully object to the District Attorney reading from a paper in front of the jury, facing the jury, holding a paper in his hand, which had here to fore been offered in evidence and rejected by the Court.
THE COURT: Well, the District Attorney is reading what is in substance in the testimony. MR. ARANOW: I merely want to place my objection on the record.
THE COURT: Perhaps the District Attorney had preferably read from what appears in the stenographer's minutes on trial.
MR. WELLMAN: I have asked the questions from this paper. I do not think it appears on the record from what paper I read. If counsel objects to anything I say on
447
the ground it is a misstatement of what was said I court, that may be done, but it seems to me tht I have
***ght to read from anything, or to state it from my recollection, if I so choose, from any memorandum or paper that I may have, so long as it is subject to his correction, and he can follow me in the minutes.
MR. ARANOW: The District Attorney knows I have not a copy of anything. MR. WELLMAN: I will give you my copy.
MR. ARANOW: May I have a ruling on my objection, if the Court pleases?
THE COURT: My ruling is that the District Attorney may read from anything, as long as what he reads is something that is embodied in testimony in the case.
MR. ARANOW: That was the same testimony ---
THE COURT: It is entirely immaterial from what paper the District Attorney may read, as long as he reads that which is in evidence in the case.
MR. ARANOW: May I respectfully except? THE COURT: Yes.
MR. ARANOW: I would like to call your Honor's attention just at this moment to the fact that this is the same testimony that I read from the stenographer's minutes, and which your Honor stopped.
THE CO URT: Now, I stopped you for an entirely different reason. You assumed to comment upon the way in which
448
the defendant is said to have spoken, as based upon and indicated by the given paper. MR. ARANOW: I see.
THE COURT: And I did not allow it because that paper was not in evidence. MR. WELLMAN: May I proceed now, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may proceed, Mr. Wellman. MR. WELLMAN:
"Q And where did you get the gun?
A I bought it in Jersey City." Now, in following this Gentlemen, bear in mind that the man is giving, detail
by detail, exactly what his actions were that day, and that should be taken into consideration in connection with his state of mind, and whether or not he was, as he said to Mr. Murphy, in his right mind, and doing nothing out of the ordinary. "I bought it in Jersey City.
Q Why did you go over there?
A Oh, I didn't know where to get them around there. The first gun I ever had, the first one I ever bought, and I don't want another one."
Then he stated what he paid for the pistol, and how he went over on the Pennsylvania. "Q From what street?
A From Cortlandt street." And then how he went: "Straight up the street, about three or four blocks up on this side, there is a stationery -- but first I went into a hardware store right across from it" -- and you
remember Mr. Hanson testified that he was there and a half blocks from that
449
ferry, his store was, and that right across the way was a hardware store. You see the man was absolutely in possession of his senses, while he was there. He took not to the minutest particular of what he did, and what
the lay of the land was over there. --"and I asked him did he have any, and he said no, and he showed me where to get it.
Q In a stationery store?
A In a stationery store right across the way." He said he did not notice what street it was on, but there was a carline on the street.
"Q And did you get the bullets there too?
A Got the bullets there.
Q How many bullets did you get?
A Got five.
Q Did you put them in the gun, or did the man put them in?
A I put them in myself.
Q And where did you put them in, right there?
A Put them in over on the New York side.
Q Where?
A The place I put them in, I got off the L at 59th street and between 61st, in that barrel house there, I goes in there, in the toilet, and unwraps the gun and puts the bullets in.
Q Yes. And from there where did you go?
A Went directly up to do my work. I went to do it, so that is all there is to it.
Q Who let in there?
A Who let me in? The caretaker, you know, the -- they got a janitor like there. She is not exactly a janitor, we call her the caretaker."
Then he says how she greeted him, and how he came in, and I will read this because he said here that she made no
450
answer, that he does not remember her making any answer, and that his wife made no answer when he greeted her.
"Q Did you say anything to her when she let you in?
A I said, 'How do?' That is all. She says, 'Come right in.'
Q Did you ask her where Belle was?
A I asked her was Belle in and she says, 'Yes, she is in', and opened the door wide to signify to come right on. I went in, and went straight down the hall into the kitchen."
This is the man who would have you believe that he had had any amount of whiskey, and would have you believe he was in a state of mind where he did not know what he was doing, and could not take note of what was going
on about him.
"Q And when you got to the kitchen door, was the door open or shut?
A It was open.
Q And was Belle in the kitchen?
A She was there.
Q Where was she standing?
A Standing at the stove, at the range, rather.
Q Did you say anything to her?
A I say 'How do you do?'
Q Yes?
A She said, 'How do you do' too, but that didn't go for me. I just did that on purpose. I meant to do it, that's all. I went there for that."
Now, my friend says what does "it" mean? well, what do you suppose it means? "Q When you said 'How do you do' where were you?
A I was coming through this here last door before you
451
come to kitchen." He kenw exactly where he was.
"Q Well, did she have her back turned to you, or was she facing you?
A She had her back turned.
Q And how far did you go toward her before you fired the first shot?
A I went right up on her, as close as from here to this." And then Mr. Murphy said, "Indicating a distance of a few inches", and you remember the stenographer indicating.
"Q Did you fire the first shot into her back?
A I did.
Q Where abouts?
A Well, around the shoulders there. I didn't take no particular notice." It is hard to see when you fire a shot just where it takes effect.
"Q What did she do when you fired the first shot.
A She screamed, you know." He took note of that. That was the very thing that Mrs. Hisler said she did, that she screamed. Now, do you doubt that he told that to Mr. Murphy, and that he told it in his right mind, that
he was perfectly aware of what he was doing when he told it? "Q Did she fall down?
A No, she didn't fall down then, she didn't fall down until the second bullet hit her.
Q Where did you fire the second bullet at her; did she turn around?
A She went to twirl, yes, she went to turn around and I tried to strike her.
Q She tried to strike you?" Now, you see, did not even let that mistake go uncorrected: "A I tried to strike her. She didn't raise no attempt to
452
strike me, and she fell when the second bullet struck her, and I fired the third one.
Q When she was down?
A When she was falling.
Q When she was falling down? Do you know whether the second bullet struck her?
A I do not.
Q Do you know whether the third bullet struck her?
A I don't know where any of them struck her, only I could see fire burning on her shoulder, between her left shoulder blade." That is just what the officers said they found, a charred portion of the shirtwaist at the back.
"Q In the back of the dress?
A Yes, sir.
Q Then what did you do, after you fired the third shot?
A Walked out.
Q Where was the woman who let you in?
A She was upstairs. She heard the reports of the revolver, and she goes upstairs and screamed." You see, he took note of everything that happened, this man, who walked out just as calm as he walked onto the stand today,-- calmer in fact. Then he tells how he went out, that he went out the way he came in, the basement entrance. "I fired the gun off up in the air.
Q Yes?
A And threw it away.
Q How many times did you fire it up in the air?
A Fired it only once, because if it had of went the other time I certainly would have been dead. I don't know how come that fifth bullet didn't go off.
Q Did you fire one in the hallway?
A I did not.
Q Are you sure?
A Well, I am quite positive." And then he told about throwing the gun in the street. Then he
453
was asked:
"Q Then what did you do, after you threw it in the street?
A I walked to and fro, waiting for a cop." That is just what the witness Prince said that he did, walked to and fro.
"Q Well, you knew you had done something wrong?
A I knew it; I admit it.
Q You knew it was wrong to do that when you went to do it, didn't you?
A I must admit that.
Q And how long had you been planning to do this?
A Well, just since last night."
Now, you know that a man who is not educated speaks of the early hours of the morning as night; you cannot get them to say it is the next day after twelve o'clock.
"Q Well, what made you determine last night to do it today?
A Well, what made me do that? Because she gives a party there last night, and I surely think, and if you will trace the matter you will find it out, that they was giving a farewell party to the fellow she had been with
previous, don't you understand?" You remember he said that he had telephoned to his wife and asked her to come up to see him. I do not know for what purpose, why it was that he wanted her, to get her in his place where he
lived. I do not know what the purpose was; I have no right to say. At any rate he wanted her to come to his
place where he lived, although he knew where he could find her. And she had given as an excuse that she could not come, but she would be up the next night, or later on in the week. And then
454
he hears about his party being given by his wife, or her sister, and he understands why it is that she could not come up to see him, and that is just enough for him, he said that that disgusted him. I will read that:
"Q In other words, you expected her to come up and see you tonight?
A I did, yes.
Q And then when you heard this morning about the party that she gave last night, then you made up your mind you were going to kill her?
A That just disgusted me, yes, sir." Then he said what has been read already about the whiskey, that it was not to get the nerve up; the nerve was already there.
"Q You had your mind all made up to do it, then?
A To do it." And he was asked, "How did they affect you?"-- the drinks of whiskey that he had-- "A Well, I had still--I still had my right mind. I wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary.
Q You knew what you were going to do, and it didn't change your mind any by having the whiskey?
A I did. Whiskey ain't going to change it at all when I got it made up.
Q It didn't make you change your mind at all?
A No, sir."
Now, there is a statement of deliberate, premeditated murder. You cannot get around it. There was no reason why that man should have said that, if it was not true. He has not taken the stand that he said it but it was
not true, so the only question for you is whether or not he said that.
455
Now, do you think that it is Mr. Murphy and Birchall and Officer Leonard and Officer Kotschau who are conspiring to send this man to his death, or do you think it is this man who is thing to crawl out of this
hold in which he put himself that awful day when he committed that awful murder? Have you any doubt in your minds which it is? Mr. Aranow has only go one of you twelve men to convince, and I have got twelve of you, so if I have said much that was not necessary to be said, realize that I have that in my mind, I have a duty to
perform here, and it makes no difference to me, and it makes no difference to the Statea what happens, so long as justice is done. The State does not seek victims, we do not want to see an innocent man sent to the chair.
It is a very serious matter, and it is only in a case where a man is absolutely guilty of premeditated murder that you should send him to his death.
Now, when that man gave up his job, asked for some money, took it, and went away, he says he did it in order to go and do that deed that he had it in mind then, that his mind was made up when he left the job. He says that he told his employer that he was going to leave the City. He said, "Well, I had a littler family affairs
and I have to leave the City or I will kill somebody. I was ready to do the crime then, but I said that because I was afraid he would not pay me. That is why I said it." He did not want to be put off, waiting for his pay until later, so he said
456
he was going to leave the City. "I must have my money so I can get out, because I am going away from the
City."
And now, does that show whether he had money before or not? He said to Mr. Murphy in answer to a question whether he had any money, "No".
"Q Didn't you have any money until he paid you?
A I did not.
Q How much did he pay you?
A It was $9.32 altogether, but I owed him two, so it would make it $7.32 I got altogether."
Now, the defendant was not asked by Mr. Murphy about his breakfast, or his lunch. It was left simply that way, that he had $1.45 when he came back. $1.45 added to $4.60, which he paid for the revolver and the cartridges, and 30 cents I think Mr. Aranow said fro carfare--
MR.ARANOW: 16 cents.
MR. WELLLMAN: 16 cents for carfare. That would leave him in the neighborhood of $1.20, and he said that Old Crows were fifteen cents a drink, so that if he bought no lunch, bought no breakfast, spent no money except What we have been told about, he would have had enough for eight drinks of Old Crow.
But when a man acts the way this man did, when he records every single thing that happened, everything he did, how the door was, where his wife stood, what she said to him, and what he said to her, and states besides that
he had his right mind and was not doing anything out
457
of the ordinary; and when witnesses who take his examination two hours later, and witnesses who had never seen him before, but who saw him on the street, and witnesses who had seen him before and admitted him to that building, and the witness of whom he bought the revolver, and the sheet that he signed when he bought the revolver, when these are all produced, and they all go one way: that there was no sign of intoxication upon
him, and no sign of anything out of the ordinary about him, what are you going to say when he comes into court and in his extreme condition here today, with everything at stake, tells you that he did not know what he was going?
Can there be any reasonable doubt-- any doubt at all -- in the mind of a reasonable man, that the defendant has yielded to the awful temptation that confronts a man in his position, to lie, -- for it by lying he can
detatch any one of your minds--then he won't have to go to that awful death that he fears, that he trembles here in the sight of.
It seems to me, Gentlemen, that we have come to the end of the case. I do not see what more there is to be said. I do not believe there is any one of you who has the slightest bit of doubt in his mind that this murder was to only premeditated and deliberate, that it was done with the intention to kill, but that it was a
brutal,
458
cowardly, cold-blooded murder. He killed his wife, the woman he had sworn to cherish, love and protect: That is an awful thing, Gentlemen. You are all of you married men, you know what that is. He had been living with other women, judged his wife by a few appearances, a few little parties, and made up his mind that when she did not ask him party he was going to kill her, -- and then he asks you to save his life.
Now, I contend, Gentlemen, that the State has borne its burden, that, disagreeable as it is for all of us, for
you and for me, there is only one conclusion that you can reach, and that you have got to reach; and I ask you to stiffen your backs, and do your duty bravely.
(The Court charged the jury as follows:)
459
THE COURT'S CHARGE, CRAIN J.
The defendant, Allen Bradford, Gentlemen of the Jury, is charged with the crime of murder in the first degree.
It is charged that on the 23rd day of November, 1915, in the County of New York, under circumstances making the killing of Isabella Bradford by the defendant the crime of murder in the first degree, he killed her on
that day.
The charge or accusations formulated in a paper known as the indictment, which has been preferred by the Grand Jury of the County of New York. It creates no presumption that Allen Bradford is guilty, and you have been impaneled and are acting as jurors in this case so that you may determine from the evidence, and from the evidence, and from the evidence as you recollect it, in the light of the law as the law as the law will be
stated to you in this charge, whether or not the defendant, Allen Bradford, is guilty of the crime of murder in its first degree, and under the circumstances to be stated in this charge, whether or not he is guilty of the crime of murder in its second degree, and under certain circumstances to be stated in this charge, whether he is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.
In the domain of fact you are supreme. You are the exclusive judges of the facts. It follows from that
460
that it is your duty to weigh the evidence in order that you may determine what is the truth, so that your verdict will be that which you believe to be true.
The evidence to be weighed consists of the spoken word of witnesses responsive to questions put in so far as answers have been allowed to stand, not having been stricken out upon motion of the defendant's counsel, or upon motion of the Assistant District Attorney, or by the Court of the Court's own motion. The evidence also includes all exhibits which have been offered and marked in evidence. The evidence does not include anything which was said by any witness which was stricken out under any of the circumstances mentioned. It does not include any exhibits merely marked for identification, and not received in evidence. It does not include any colloquy or conversation that there may have been between counsel during the pendency of the trial. It does not include anything which may have been said by the Court during the pendency of the trial in ruling upon any question of law presented by an objection taken, or a ruling in the decision of any motion during the
pendency of the trial, and you are now pointedly and specifically told that you will not regard or consider anything not embraced within the definition of evidence to be considered as that definition has been given to you this charge, and that you will draw no inference whatsoever that the Court entertains any opinion as to what your
461
Verdict should be in this case from any ruling which the Court has made during the pendency of the trial, or from any decision which the Court has made of any motion during the pendency of the trial. Those rulings, and those decisions, do not import the presence of any opinion by the Court as to what your verdict should be.
The evidence may be said to be that which is to be weighed, and the law, as the law will be stated in this charge, represents what may be called the weight on the other side of the balance. The evidence is that which is to be measured, and the law represents the measuring stick by which it is to be measured: And what the law applicable to the case is you will gather from this charge to you, from no other source.
If you have followed me to this point you will see that what I have said may be regarded as, in a certain sense, preliminary or introductory: that your attention was invited to what the charge against this defendant was as contained in the indictment; that your attention was then invited as to what your function was; that your attention was then directed to the fact that that function had to be exercised in the consideration of what was termed "evidence", and that you were then told what was to be regarded as embraced in the term "evidence" as that term was to be used in this charge to you, and that the law of the
462
Case was to be given to your by the Court in the charge. I now proceed to invite your attention to certain parts of certain sections of the Benal Law, defining what it is that constitutes homicide, what it is that constitutes that kind of homicide that is murder in its first degree, what it is that constitutes that kind of homicide that is known as murder in its second degree, and what it is that constitutes that degree of homicide which is known as manslaughter in the first degree.
Your attention will not be directed to what the law has to say as to what it is that constitutes excusable homicide, nor yet to what the law has to say in respect to what it is that constitutes justifiable homicide, nor yet to what it is that the law has to say as to what it is that constitutes manslaughter in its second degree, unless, at the conclusion of this main charge the Court is specifically requested to bring your
attention to those provisions of law; and those definitions are omitted because, in the view which the Court now takes of the evidence in this case, in the light of the summation made by the defendant's counsel, in the defendant's behalf, those provisions are inapplicable in this case.
The Court will not read in the first instance everything contained in the various sections which define the crimes of murder in its first, and murder in its second
463
Degree, and manslaughter in its first degree, but on the contrary will read only those portions of the
sections containing those definitions which in the opinion of the Court are applicable in any conceivable view of the evidence in this case. The reading in the first instance will be without comment, and without any statement by way of analysis, but when that reading is completed the ground will be retraversed, and your attention re-directed to the definitions referred to, and at that time and in that connection those
definitions will be commented upon and analyzed for your information and guidance.
It is the law that no person can be convicted of murder or manslaughter un less the death of the of the person alleged to have been killed, and the fact of killing by the defendant, as alleged, are each established as independent facts, the former by direct proof, and the latter beyond a reasonable doubt.
Homicide is the killing of one human being by the act of another.
Homicide is murder, or manslaughter, or excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide.
The killing of a human being, unless it is excusable or justifiable, is murder in the first degree, when committed from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed.
464
Such killing of a human being is murder in the second degree, when committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed, but without deliberation and premeditation.
Such homicide is manslaughter in the first degree, when committed without a design to effect death; in the heat of passion, but in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon.
Your attention is now invited to the law's definition of the crime of murder in its first degree. That
definition was read to you a moment ago. It is found in section 1044 of the Penal Law. It read in part: "The killing of a human being, unless it is excusable or justifiable, is murder in the first degree, when committed from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed."
Before a person can be lawfully convicted of the crime of murder in its first degree, the evidence must
satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the one charged with the crime was possessed at the time of its commission with a design to effect the death of the person killed, and that that design answered to the description of a deliberate design, and that it also answered to the description of a premeditated design; or, other words, that it was a design which had been deliberated upon, and
465
Which had been the subject of premeditation, and that he was possessed of such a design and that such design fructified into action, the action being the killing by the one so possessed of such design of the person
charged to have been killed, and that that act was either excusable homicide nor justifiable homicide.
In the case of People against Koenig, reported in Volume 108 of the New York Court of Appeals Reports, and decided by the Court of Appeals in the month of December 1904, the opinion of the Court was written by Chief Judge Cullen. In the course of that opinion, Chief Judge Cullen said:
"Probably the best definitions of murder in the first degree under our present law are to be found in the opinions in Leighton against the People, 88 New York, 117, and People against Majone, 91 New York, 211." Further on it the same opinion, that is to say, in the opinion of the People against Koenig, Chief Judge
Cullen says:
"I very much question whether these statements of the law (referring to a quotation or statement in the case of the People against Leighton) can be substantially improved, and I think it would be far wiser for trial
courts to adopt these definitions (referring to the definitions contained in the Leighton case and in the
Majone case) that to refer to cases which arise under different statutes."
466
Adopting the suggestion of Chief Judge Cullen so made, I invite your attention to the first of the two cases so referred to by him, namely to the case of Leighton against the People, reported in Volume 88 of the New York Court of Appeals Reports, and decided by the Court of Appeals in the month of February, 1882. The opinion of the Court in that case was written by Judge Danforth, and during the course of Judge Danforth's opinion, he says:
"To bring the case within the statutory definition of murder in the first degree, it was necessary that the crime should be perpetrated from the deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed. An act coexistent with and inseparable from a sudden impulse, although premeditated, would not be deemed deliberate, as when under sudden and great provocation one instantly, although intentionally, kills another. But the statute is not satisfied unless the intention was deliberated upon. If the impulse is
followed by reflection, that is deliberation; hesitation, even, may imply deliberation; so may threats against another, and selection of means with which to perpetrate the deed. If, therefore, the killing is not the instant effect of impulse, if there is hesitation or doubt to be overcome, a choice made as the result of thought, however short the struggle between the intention and the act, it is sufficient to characterize the crime as deliberate and premeditated murder."
467
Not long afterwards, the second case referred to by Chief Judge Cullen in the case of the People against Koenig, namely, the case of the People against Majone, was decided by the Court of Appeals. It was decided in the month of January, 1883, and the opinion in the case is reported in Volume 91 of the New York Court of Appeals Reports, and was delivered by Judge Earle. In the course of that opinion Judge Earle says:
"Under the statute, there must be not only an intention to kill, but there must also be a deliberate and premeditated design to kill." (And Judge Earle is referring to the statute relating to the crime of murder in
its first degree) "Such design must precede the killing by some appreciable space of time. But the time need not be long. It must be sufficient for some reflection and consideration upon the mater, for choice to kill or
not to kill, and for the formation of a definite purpose to kill. And when the time is sufficient for the
purpose, it matters not how brief it is. The human mind acts with celerity which it is sometimes impossible to measure, and whether a deliberate and premeditated design to kill was formed must be determined from all the circumstances in the case."
What did the defendant do, as disclosed by the evidence, on November 23rd, 1915? Did he on that day, in the
468
County of New York, without justification or excuse, discharge a loaded firearm, so that the bullet or bullets from it penetrated the person of Isabella Bradford, and so that they inflicted upon her a wound or wounds from which she died? And if so, did the defendant so do because he was possessed of a design to kill Isabella
Bradford, and moreover, a design which was a deliberate design, and a premeditated design, as those words have been defined in the cases which have been brought to your attention? If you answer those questions in the affirmative, for the reason that you entertain respecting the proprietyof the affirmative answers, and each of
them, no reasonable doubt upon the evidence, then you will find the defendant, Allen Bradford, guity of the crime of murder in the first degree, as charged in the indictment upon which he is on trial.
If upon the evidence you believe the defendant to be innocent of that crime, or, if upon the evidence you entertain a reasonable doubt respectig his guilt of that crime, you will consider the question of his guilt of innocence of the crime of murder in its second degree. Your attention is therefore now invited for the second time to the law's definition of the crime or murder in its second degree. It is found in Section 1046 of the Penal Law.
That section reads:
"Such killing of a human being is murder in the
469
second degree, when committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed, but without deliberation and premeditation."
The force of the word "such" is to exclude from the operation of the section, or to put it perhaps
differently, to exclude from what would otherwise be the crime of murder in its second degree, a killing that is excusable, or a killing that is justifiable, so that paraphrasing the section, it my be said to read that a homicide which is neither justifiable homicide, nor excusable homicide, is murder in the second degree, when committed with a design to effect the death of the person killed, but without premeditation and deliberation.
There is a similarity between the crime of murder in the first degree, and the crime of murder in the second degree, and there is a difference between the crime of murder in the first degree and the crime of murder in the second degree. The similarity consists in part in the circumstance that in both the crime of murder in the first degree and the crime of murder in the second degree, there must be present a design on the part of the one who is accused with the commission of either of such crimes, to effect the death of the person killed, before he can be found guilty of either the one or the other. But the difference is this: that, as you have
been already told, a design which is required to be
470
established by the evidence before a person can be lawfully found guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree, must be a design which answers to the description of a deliberate design, and a premeditated upon design, whereas, contrariwise, in the case of murder in the second degree, the evidence need only establish in that regard a design without deliberation and premeditation. Deliberation and premeditation are not elements
in the crime of murder in the second degree. They are elements in the crime of murder in the first degree.
If, under the circumstances mentioned, you should come to the consideration of the question of this
defendant's guilt of the crime of murder in the second degree, and should thereupon believe him to be innocent of that crime, or upon the evidence should entertain a reasonable doubt respecting his guilt of that crime, it
will be your duty to consider the question of this defendant's guilt of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. For that reason your attention is again invited to the law's definition of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree. It is found in Section 1050 of the Penal Law, and reads in part as follows:
"Such homicide (and here again the force of the word "such" is to exclude homicide which is either excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide) is manslaughter
471
in the first degree, when committed without a design to effect death; in the heat of passion (and in the alternative either) in a cruel and unusual manner, or by means of a dangerous weapon."
The distinction between murder in its first degree, and murder in its second degree on the one hand, and manslaughter in its first degree on the other, is that in manslaughter in its first degree, the evidence need not go to the point that the defendant did what he did because he was possessed of a design to effect the death of person killed, or to effect death.
A person may be lawfully convicted of manslaughter in its first
degree where the evidence establishes to a jury's satisfaction the death of the one who is said to have been killed, that the killing was by the one who is charged with having done it, and that, in the alternative, it
was either done in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or that it was done by means of a dangerous weapon.
It now becomes my duty to invite your attention to certain provisions of law which are applicable, that is to say, which are to be taken into consideration in connection with the charge contained in the indictment which charges the defendant with the crime of murder in its first degree, and which are also to be taken into consideration, should you under the circumstances already stated come to
472
the consideration of the question of this defendant's guilt of the crime of murder in its second degree. And these provisions are brought to your attention, because, as I recollect the testimony in this case, there is some testimony in the case bearing upon the question as to whether or not the defendant was intoxicated, or under the influence of liquor on November 23rd, 1915, at the time of the alleged killing on that day of one Isabella Bradford, and you will recall what that testimony is.
Section 1220 of the Penal Law is entitled, "Intoxication as a Defence", and the section itself reads as follows:
"No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition." That my be called the first part of the section. That is what is embraced in the first sentence of the section. What may be called the second part of the section, reads as follow:
"But whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive, or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act."
The word "intent" as used in this section is regarded by the Court now charging you as being for all legal
473
purposes the equivalent of the word "design", as that word is used in the law's definition of murder in its first degree, and the law's definition of murder in its second degree. It is for that reason a section to be
taken into consideration in conjunction with the charge against the defendant as contained in the indictment, namely, the charge of murder in the first degree, and to be taken into consideration in connection with the
charge of murder in the second degree, in the event that under the circumstances stated you should come to the consideration of the question of this defendant's guilt of that crime. Persons who observe the acts and
conduct of another may express an opinion as to whether such other was intoxicated. The testimony that a man was intoxicated, or that he was not intoxicated, is unobjectionable from a legal standpoint when it is
limited, as it was been in this case, to what the witness saw, of intoxication on the one hand, or sobriety on
the other: it may be proved by witnesses who observed the person's conditions and acts. Drunkenness, or the absence of it, may be proved by observation, and expert evidence on the subject is not necessary.
A competent witness may describe the actions, words and conduct of a person and express, as has been done by witnesses in this case, an opinion as to whether or not he was intoxicated. What is
474
it that the evidence establishes, if anything, respecting the defendant's condition as to intoxication or sobriety on November 23rd, 1915, at the time of the alleged killing on that day of the one known as Isabella Bradford? Was the defendant intoxicated at that time, or was he at that time not intoxicated? If he was intoxicated, what, if anything, does the evidence show respecting the extent of his intoxication? If he was intoxicated, had it the effect to prevent him from having a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of Isabella Bradford, so that by reason of its effect he had no such deliberate and premeditated design to effect her death. If, upon the evidence, you find that he was at such time intoxicated, and that at such
time by reason of such intoxication he had no deliberate and premeditated design to effect her death, you cannot lawfully find him guilty of the crime of murder in its first degree. Likewise, if, upon the evidence,
you find that he was intoxicated, and intoxicated to such an extent that by reason of such intoxication he was incapable of and did not from any design to effect the death of the deceased, you cannot lawfully find him guilty of the crime of murder in its second degree. But, if on the other hand, you are satisfied from the
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that Isabella Bradford is dead, and that she died from pistol shot wounds inflicted by the discharge of a pistol in the hands of the defendant, and that
475
the defendant discharged such pistol and so wounded the deceased, and the pistol wounds so effected her death, from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of Isabella Bradford, you may lawfully find him
guilty of the crime of murder in its first degree, although he was intoxicated at the time.
Two cases in this connection are brought to your attention. The latest is the case of the People against
Gerdvine, reported in Volume 210 of the New York Court of Appeals Reports, and decided by the Court of Appeals in the month of February, 1914. The opinion in that case is written by Judge Miller, and at page 186 Judge
Miller says:
"Section 1220 of the Penal Law (and that is the section that was read to you) provides, 'No act committed by person while in a state of voluntary intoxication, shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. But whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time, in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act."
"The statute permits any, not simply total, intoxication to be considered on the question of intent. (People
476
Leonardi, 143 New York, 360, People against Corey, 148 New York, 476) It was for the jury to determine the extent of the intoxication and whether it had the effect to prevent the necessary intent, deliberation and premeditation.
A mere reading of the statute with proper caution against considering intoxication as an excuse would have informed the jury what weight to give to the matter."
You will regard the language so quoted from the opinion of Judge Miller as being incorporated in this charge, and made a part of this charge.
In the case of the People against Leonardi, referred to, as you will have already noticed, in the case of the People against Gerdvine, the opinion of the Court of Appeals was delivered by Judge Peckham. The case is reported in Volume 143 of the New Court of Appeals Reports, and was decided in October, 1894. Judge Peckham says, "At common law drunkenness was not only not an excuse for crime, but evidence of intoxication while admissible, and to be considered in the same cases, was yet generally of no avail. If a man made himself voluntarily drunk it was no excuse for any crime he might commit while he was so, and he had to take the responsibility of his own voluntary act. If the assault were unprovoked, the fact of intoxication would not be
allowed to affect the
477
legal character of the crime. The fact of intoxication was not to be permitted to be even considered by the jury upon the question of premeditation. These principles are stated in many cases in this court." He then cities three cases, and then proceeds to add what is today the law:
"The strict rule of the common law has, however, been slightly relaxed by our Penal Code of the Twenty-second Section of which reads as follows: (And that Twenty-second section of the Penal Code was in the same language as Section 1220 of the Penal Law just read to you)
"Under this Section, (continues Judge Peckham) it had been held by this court that it is not proper to charge the jury that the mere fact of intoxication is necessarily evidence even tending to show an absence of premeditation and deliberation. Such fact, the Court said, might tend in some cases to show absence, while in others it might not. We held that it was now simply the duty of the judge to leave it to the jury to take into consideration the question of intoxication, determining the motive or intent of the accused, and whether he acted with deliberation and premeditation. We do not think that under this statute the intoxication need be to such an extent as to necessarily and actually preclude the defendant from forming an intent or from being actuated by a motive before the jury would have the right to regard it as having any
478
legal effect upon the character of the defendant's act.
Any intoxication, the statute says, may be considered by the jury and the decision as to its effect rests with them. That a man may be even grossly intoxicated and yet be capable of forming an intent to kill or to do any other criminal act is indisputable, and if, while so intoxicated, he forms an intent to kill and carries it
out with premeditation and deliberation, he is without doubt guilty of murder in the first degree, and the jury should, when such a defence is interposed, be so instructed. It is a most important and far reaching statute in its possible effects, and the jury ought to be warned that where the criminal act is fairly and clearly proved, the fact of intoxication as furnishing evidence of the want of criminal intent which the proof
might otherwise show, should be considered by it with the greatest care, caution and circumspection and such fact ought not to be allowed to alter the character or grade of the criminal act unless they have a fair and reasonable doubt of the existence of the necessary criminal purpose or intent after a consideration of such evidence of intoxication." He proceeds to say: "It ought always to be borne in mind that by the terms of the
very statute cited, no act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. In other words,
479
it should still be remembered that voluntary drunkenness is never an excuse for crime." He then proceeds to add, after a part which I omit:
"By our statute deliberation and premeditation are necessary constituents of the crime of murder in the first degree, and if by reason of intoxication the jury should be of opinion that the deliberation or premeditation necessary to constitute murder in the first degree did not exist, the crime is reduced to a lower grade of murder, or in the absence of any intent to kill, then to manslaughter in some of its grades. The intoxication need not be to the extent of depriving the accused of all power of volition, or of all ability to form an
intent. The jury should be instructed that if the intoxication had extended so far in its effects that the necessary intent, deliberation and premeditation were absent, the fact of such intoxication must be considered, and a verdict rendered in accordance therewith."
You will regard, Gentlemen, the language of the opinion as incorporated in and as forming part of this charge, and you will give it the same effect as though instead of reading from that opinion I had stated to you what that opinion says as being the law of this case on the subject of intoxication.
This, Gentlemen, is a criminal action. The defendant
480
in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent until the contrary be proved, and in case of a reasonable doubt as to whether his guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.
The burden of proof is upon the prosecution. That burden requires that before the defendant can be lawfully found guilty, you must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is founded in and sustained by reason. It is not a whim, it is not a
caprice, it is not the action of unreasonable sympathy, it is not a mere subterfuge to which resort can be had in order to avoid doing a disagreeable thing. It is a doubt back of which there is a "because".
In this case certain evidence has been given by a witness named Nthan Birchall, and by Mr. Deacon Murphy, respecting certain statements said to have been made by the defendant on the afternoon of November 23rd, 1915, at a station house in this City, in response to questions put to him, the defendant, by Mr. Murphy. The first
of the two witnesses named testified, as I recall his testimony, that he was a stenographer by occupation, and at present in that capacity connected with the office of the District Attorney of the County of New York. As I recall his testimony,
481
he purported to state in response to questions put to him, his present recollection of the substance of what
he says he heard the defendant says on that occasion, and his recollection being exhausted, he was permitted by the Court to refer to certain notes, which he says that he made at the time, and which he says were
accurate when made, for the purpose of refreshing his recollection.
A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the transaction, and concerning which he is questioned, or so soon thereafter that the judge presiding at the trial consider it is likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his memory.
One of the instances in which memory may be so refreshed is when the witness is referring to the writing, and by referring to the writing is enabled to actually recollect the facts and can testify from, in reality,
memory. The writing may be the original one made by the witness while the facts were fresh in his mind. It is not the writing, but the recollection of the witness that is evidence in the case. The notes taken by the stenographer at that time are not in evidence in this case. The transcription which he made as he says of those notes is not in evidence in this case.
There is a provision of law contained in that Code of Criminal Procedure to which your attention will now be
482
directed in connection with testimony as given by two witnesses referred to and in connection with such further evidence as may be in the case, respecting statements said to have been made by the defendant to different persons.
It is the law that the confession of a defendant, whether in the course of judicial proceedings or to a
private person, can be given in evidence against him, unless made under the influence of fear produced by threats, or unless made upon a stipulation of the District Attorney, that he shall not be prosecuted
therefore; but is not sufficient to warrant his conviction without additional proof that the crime charged has been committed.
The trial of this case has occupied a comparatively brief period of time. The evidence in the case is not voluminous. It is of a character which the Court has every reason to believe you can readily retain in mind, and which the Court has reason to believe you have in mind, not merely from the circumstance that the trial did not last long, but from the circumstance that the Court noticed with great satisfaction the evident
attention that you were giving to the testimony as given by the different witnesses who have appeared on the stand; and the Court has also reason to believe that the evidence in the case is well in you minds because of the painstaking marshaling and analysis of the evidence by the learned counsel who represented the
483
defendant, and by the learned Assistant District Attorney representing the prosecution. The Court is not of opinion that it would serve any useful purpose to make even a brief summary or outline of the evidence as it is recollected by the Court, and such summary, therefore, will not be made. If, after you have retired to deliberate, there should arise among you a controversy or dispute as to what in point of fact a witness testified to regarding a particular matter, it will be your right to ask the captain having you in charge to
bring you to the seats where you now are, where in the presence of the defendant, and in the presence of his counsel, and in the presence of Assistant District Attorney Wellman, and in the presence of the Court there may be read to you, for your better information, that part of the stenographer's minutes of the testimony respecting which such controversy or difference of opinion arose in the jury room.
THE COURT: (Addressing Counsel) Now, Gentlemen, I will feel obliged to you, if you have any requests, if you will kindly hand them up. Mr. Wellman, have you any?
MR. WELLMAN: I have but one request to make, your Honor, and that I have not written down. THE COURT: Mr. Wellman, will you have the kindness just to embody it on a piece of paper? MR. WELLMAN: Yes.
484
(At this point Mr. Aranow hands up to the Court a list of requests to charge as follows:)
"1; The defendant is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is established beyond a reasonable doubt. "2 The presumption of innocence is not a mere formality. Every juror is bound to entertain it conscientiously,
sincerely, and ungrudgingly, without any mental reservation or evasion whatsoever, and to give to the defendant the full benefit of it.
"3 The presumption of innocence is legal proof of innocence.
"4 To overthrown this presumption of innocence, there must be legal evidence of guilt carrying home to the mind of every juror a degree of conviction short only of absolute certainty.
"5 The facts provided must not only all the consistent with the theory of defendant's guilt; but they must each and every one of them be absolutely inconsistent with the theory of his innocence.
"6 Before the defendant can be convicted, each and every element or ingredient of the crime of murder in the first degree must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
"7 That if any element or ingredient necessary to
485
constitute the crime of murder in the first degree in the People's case, had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant cannot be convicted.
"8; If you can reconcile the evidence before you with any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused, it is your duty to do so and find him not guilty.
"9; If the conduct on the part of the defendant is equally susceptible of two opposite explanations, the jury is bound to assume it to be moral rather than immoral.
"10; In deciding the question of reasonable doubt, which each juror must decide for himself, he must not allow his previous opinions or impressions to have the slightest influence to affect or impair or destroy a doubt
which otherwise he would entertain upon the evidence.
"11; Where a reasonable doubt of defendant's guilt is entertained by any one juror, the defendant cannot be found guilty.
"12;
A reasonable doubt is one which arises from the evidence and its character, or from the absence of satisfactory evidence in the case. The jury should have such a conviction of the defendant's guilt that a prudent man would feel safe to act upon the conviction in matters of the highest concern and importance to himself.
"13; Each juror is entitled to decide for himself whether a doubt which he entertains is reasonable or not.
486
If it appears reasonable to him, it is his duty to acquit the defendant.
"14; In case of a reasonable doubt whether defendant's guilt is satisfactorily shown, he is entitled to an acquittal.
"15;
A reasonable doubt as to any element of the crime in the mind of any juror, entitles the defendant to an acquittal.
"16; The defendant is not bound to explain his side of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. "17; Nor is he required to prove by convincing evidence, his innocence.
"18; If the jury have a reasonable doubt concerning the intent of the defendant, it will be their duty to acquit the defendant.
"19; If it appears that the defendants committed a crime, and there is reasonable ground or doubt in which of two or more degrees he is guilty, he can be convicted of the lowest of those degrees only.
"20; The jury in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant of the offense charged in the indictment, can consider only the evidence of the case, and are to disregard any statement made during the course of the trial by counsel to the court, not supported by evidence, and they are not to be influenced or governed by any
487
expression of opinion or action of either the Court or counsel.
"21; The doing of the act charged in the testimony on the part of the People in this case, does not raise a presumption that the acts were done with original intent.
"22 A; Before the jury can consider the confession as testimony against this defendant, they must find beyond a reasonable doubt, that the alleged confession was voluntarily made and proceeded from the spontaneous suggestion of the defendant's own mind, free from the influence of any extraneous disturbing cause, either
real or apprehended.
"22 B; If at the time defendant made his statement to the police officers or the assistant district attorney,
he was under the influence of liquor to such an extent as to have been unconscious of what his words meant, the jury should disregard the statement.
"22 C; That if any question of fact arises in the minds of the jury as to the voluntary character of the
alleged confession of the defendant or that it was made under duress, fear, threats or menace, either by acts, words, circumstances or situation, either real or apprehended, then the jury should totally disregard the
same.
"22 D; That any statements made by a person charged with a crime are not conclusive as to the facts and undue weight should not be given to them by the jury; and they
488
should be received with great caution and with great scrutiny on the part of the jury.
"23 The jury cannot find defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, unless they find from the testimony, that not only was there an intention to kill; but also that there was a deliberate and premeditated design to kill, and such design must precede the killing by some appreciable space of time.
"24; There can be no conviction of the defendants of the charge of murder in the first degree, unless it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was deliberation and premeditation.
"25; If the jury find that at the time of the infliction of the wounds upon the body of the deceased, that there was a positive intent on the part of this defendant to kill, and that without a premeditation and deliberation, the defendant cannot be convicted of murder in the first degree.
"26; If the defendant inflicted one or more wounds in a sudden transport of passion, excited by what the deceased the said or did, and by preceding events which for the time disturbed his reasoning faculties and deprived him of the faculties to reflect, or while under the influence of some sudden and uncontrollable emotion, excited by the train of events which have been related, the act does not
489
constitute murder in the first degree.
"27; If the jury finds that at the moment the wound was inflicted in consequence of what was said or done, and the final culmination of the alleged circumstances of which the defendant conceived himself to have been the victim, he became incapable of reasoning or of deliberating the act, the jury then cannot convict the
defendant of murder in the first degree.
"28; The question whether or not at the time of the infliction of the wounds on the deceased, the mind of the defendant was in a condition to be capable of deliberating and reasoning, is one of fact for the jury to determine.
"29; If the jury believes that the wounds inflicted upon the deceased were occasioned by a sudden, rash, and though cruel, impulse, they cannot convict the defendant of murder in the first degree. It is not a deliberate intent.
"30; If the jury find that at the time of the shooting the defendant was intoxicated to such an extent that he was unable to intent the natural consequence of his act, he cannot be convicted our murder in the first degree.
"31; If the defendant, at the time of the shooting, was intoxicated to such an extent that his mind was incapable of reasoning and deliberating, he cannot be convicted
490
or murder in the first degree.
"32; If the defendant, at the time of the shooting, was so intoxicated as to be incapable of premeditating, he cannot be convicted of the crime charged in the indictment.
MR. ARANOW: I have numerous requests, if the Court please, but I don't think all of them -- THE COURT: Pardon me. I shall look through these. I do not care to hear any requests orally.
THE COURT: There are many of these propositions which the Court believes are entirely correct, but I think that they are sufficiently embodied in the charge as made, and therefore they are all declined, and to the refusal to charge, except as charged, and to the specific refusal to charge these various propositions, you have exceptions.
MR. ARANOW: I believe, if the Court please, a recent case has stated that a blanket exception as to requests will not lie unless they are made to each individual one.
THE COURT: I say you will be regarded as having thirty-two exception, which correspond with the number of requests you have submitted; that is to say, an exception to each one, because they are all declined, except as charged.
THE COURT: I am asked to charge as follows, Gentlemen, which I do: "That the jury in determining the state of mind of
491
the defendant at the time of the shooting may take into consideration not only the testimony of the witnesses
who observed him, but the statements made by the defendant touching upon his own state of mind at that time."
THE COURT: You will arrive at the conclusion of what the state of mind of the defendant was at the time, from all the evidence in the case which is relevant to that issue.
THE COURT: Now, Gentlemen, you may retire. (The jury retires at 6:45 p.m.)
THE COURT: I think there was an inadvertent omission brought to my attention by Mr. Wellman. The jury may be brought back into the room. I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Wellman.
(The jury returns at 6:46 p.m. The roll is called, and defendant is brought back to the court room.)
THE COURT: I am about to tell you, Gentlemen, the possible verdicts which may be rendered in this case, depending upon the view which you take of the evidence, in the light of the law as the law has been charged to you. You will understand that in mentioning those possible verdicts, it is a matter of necessity that they
should be mentioned in a certain order; that is to say, one first, and finally one last, but you will draw no inference whatsoever from that circumstance that the Court intimates any
492
opinion as to what your verdict should be. With that understanding you are now told that, dependent upon the view which you take of the evidence, in the light of the law as charged to you, the possible verdicts which
may be rendered in this case are:
A verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree.
A verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.
A verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, or
A verdict of not guilty.
Now, Gentlemen, you may retire. (The jury retires at 6:49 p.m.)
(The jury returns at 10:06 p.m. The roll is called, and the defendant is present.) THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, have you agreed upon a verdict? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We have not.
THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, I am in the receipt of a communication from you, which is headed "premeditation", and
I believe that it reads as follows:
"Shall the fact that a person who premeditates a crime of killing, premeditate to kill a certain person and not any particular person?"
I am not entirely clear that I know what you mean by that question, but I assume that you have in mind this
493
provision of Section 1044, which defines what it is that constitutes the crime of murder in its first degree, namely, the provision which says that the killing of a human being, unless it is excusable or justifiable, is murder in the first degree, when committed from a deliberate and premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed, or of another.
I construe that section to mean that if a person has such a premeditated and deliberated upon design to kill, for example "A", and there upon kills "B", a person other than the one that he had intended to kill, he not being himself the person whom he intended to kill, that section applies to such a case. I do not construe the language as applying to a case where the design to kill, deliberated and premeditated upon, was a design on the part of the person having it to kill himself. I take it that the question which you have submitted is put
in the light of certain testimony given, I think, by the defendant as a witness in his own behalf, that if he was possessed of a design to kill, it was a design on his part to kill himself. I shall construe your silence,
if you remain silent, as an indication that I have correctly interpreted the question which you desired to put to me.
I find that there is an additional request, on turning over the paper, and that is that the Section of
494
the Penal Law relating to when intoxication is a defense be read to you. That is section 1220, and it is entitled "Intoxication as a Defence." I will read it:
"No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication, shall be deemed less criminal by reason of his having been in such condition. But whenever the actual existence of any particular purpose, motive or intent is a necessary element to constitute a particular species or degree of crime, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at the time in determining the purpose, motive or intent with which he committed the act."
I will simply ask you whether you have understood, Mr. Foreman, what I have said. THE FOREMAN: I have, yes, sir.
THE COURT: And as you understand the question as put, have I answered it? THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Gentlemen you may retire.
(Whereupon the jury retires again to deliberate at 10:15 p.m.) (The jury return at 10:40 p.m. Roll called and defendant present.)
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed upon a verdict?
495
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We have.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: How say you, do you find the defendant guilty or not guilty?
THE FOREMAN OF THE JURY: We find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, murder in the first degree.
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Hearken to your verdict as it stands recorded. You say you find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, murder in the first degree, so say you all.
THE COURT: Do you want the jury polled?
MR. ARANOW: I think it would be the better course; I think it would be advisable.
(Whereupon the jury is polled, individually and consecutively from one to twelve, and each says that is his verdict.)
THE CLERK OF HE COURT: Hearken to your verdict as it stands recorded: you say you find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in the indictment, and so say you all.
(Defendant's pedigree taken.)
MR. ARANOW: May I please ask, if the Court please, in regard to the motions, if the Court will allow me to make the motions at the time when sentence is imposed?
THE COURT: Yes, you may reserve all rights to make all the motions that you could make now, on the day of the imposition of sentence, if it is imposed, and I will make
496
it a week from today. Is that agreeable?
MR. ARANOW: May I ask you Honor to please make it in a Thursday or Friday, by reason of my going to Albany? THE COURT: Yes, I will make it on the 27th of January; that will be Thursday.
MR. ARANOW: I regret to again ask any favors, but the 27th is the Governor's reception, and I promised to be there at that time. If your Honor can make it on the 28th?
THE COURT: Yes, I will make it the 28th.
(Defendant remanded to January 28th, 1916, for sentence.)
497
COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS OF THE PEACE. CITY AND COUNTY OF NEW YORK, PART V.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, against ALLEN BRADFORD. The defendant is indicted for murder in the first degree.
Indictment filed November 24, 1915. New York, January 28th, 1916. Appearances:
For the People: ABRAHAM G. MEYER, ESQ., Assistant District Attorney. For Defendant: H. SAIMON MILLER, ESQ.
The defendant is duly arraigned for sentence before HON. THOMAS C.T. CRAIN, Judge.
MR. MILLER: Your Honor, I have tried to get in touch with Mr. Thorne, but have been able to get him here. Mr. Aranow is on his way down here from Albany. I do not know how soon he will be here.
THE COURT: Counselor, will you kindly give me your name. MR. MILLER: H. Salmon Miller.
THE COURT: You are an attorney and counselor at law? MR. MILLER: YES.
THE COURT: You are from the office of Mr. Samuel
498
Koenig?
MR. MILLER: And Frank Aranow.
THE COURT: Is Mr. Wellman in court?
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: He was here a few minutes ago, but I have sent for him. THE COURT: Mr. Meyer, will you represent the District Attorney's office?
MR. MEYER: Your Honor, I move that judgment be now passed upon this defendant?
THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Allen Bradford, have you any legal cause to show why judgment of death should not be pronounced against you?
MR. MILLER: May it please the Court, defendant now moves for a new trial on the following grounds:
First, the Court in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment and to discharge the defendant from custody erred.
Second, that the verdict is contrary to law.
Third, that the verdict is clearly against the evidence. Fourth, that the verdict is against the weight of evidence.
Fifth, because the Court erred in denying the defendant's motion to advise the jury to acquit at the conclusion of the People's case, and at the conclusion of the entire case.
499
On the further ground that the Court at the trial admitted illegal and improper evidence against the defendant, over the objection of the defendant, and the defendant at the trial duly excepted to such admissions.
On the further ground that the Court erred in failing to charge the jury that the acts of defendant disclosed upon the trial did not constitute murder in the first degree.
THE COURT: Your motions are denied, and you have an exception.
MR. MILLER: I take an exception to the denial of the motion, upon each and every ground, and upon all the grounds mentioned.
MR. MILLER: May it please the Court, defendant now moves in arrest of judgment as provided by Section 467 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
THE COURT: That motion is denied, and you have an exception. (Mr. Wellman appears.)
THE COURT: The judgment of the Court is that you Allen Bradford, for the murder in the first degree of Isabel Bradford, whereof you are convicted, be, and you hereby are, sentenced to the punishment of death; and it is ordered that, within ten days after this day's session of Court, the Sheriff of the County of New York deliver you, together with the warrant of this Court, to the Agent and
500
Warden of the State Prison of the State of New York at Sing Sing, where you shall be kept in solitary
confinement until the week beginning Monday, the sixth day of March, 1916, and , upon some day within the week so appointed, the said Agent and Warden of the State Prison of the State of New York at Sing Sing is commanded to do execution upon you, Allen Bradford, in the mode and manner prescribed by the laws of the State of New York.