 |
| New York Supreme Court Judge Albert H. Sewell. |
Cortland Semi-Weekly Standard, Tuesday, March 16, 1900.
THE EXPERT WITNESSES
APPEAR TO TESTIFY IN THE TRUCK MURDER TRIAL.
Dr. H. E. Allison, Superintendent of Matteawan Criminal Insane Asylum; Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton of New York; Dr. F. W. Higgins and Dr. F. D. Reese of Cortland for the Prosecution; and Dr. W. A. White of Binghamton State Hospital, Dr. F. Sefton of Auburn Sanitarium and Dr. H. T. Dana of Cortland for the Defense.
Court convened Monday morning at 9:40 o’clock. The judge was in his seat ten minutes before that, but the attorneys were a little late, having gone to the trains to meet their insanity expert witnesses. The prosecution sprung a little surprise on the public this morning in one of its experts. Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton of New York, it had been announced, was to be one of the experts, and it is well understood that he is one of the most eminent authorities in the country on the general subject of insanity, but his experience with the criminal insane has not been as extended as in other classes of practice. For this reason the prosecution secured as an additional expert, Dr. H. E. Allison, the superintendent of the Matteawan insane asylum, the institution for the criminal insane of New York state, whose testimony in a case of this class will carry much weight. The fact that he was to testify had not been given out to the general public till he appeared in court Monday morning. The prosecution also has Dr. F. W. Higgins and Dr. F. D. Reese of Cortland.
For the defense Dr. F. Sefton of Auburn and Dr. W. A. White of the State hospital at Binghamton are to testify. Both of these have had more or less to do with the criminal insane in addition to large practice and experience in insanity in general. Dr. H. T. Dana will also testifying for the defense.
Dr. Sefton is at present ill and Mrs. Sefton telegraphed counsel for defense about it Sunday night. If he is unable to be present Tuesday counsel asked the privilege of calling him out of order. Court said they would have a chance to get in his evidence at some time.
A considerable number of the physicians of Cortland were in court Monday and will undoubtedly be there more or less during the week to hear the expert testimony.
The jury looked refreshed Monday morning after their two days’ rest and their little outing on Saturday to Glen Haven. The usual large crowd was in attendance.
The trial of the Truck murder case was interrupted by a recess that lasted over Saturday and gave everybody a breathing spell. The respite, however, was taken to save expense to the county which has to foot the bills. At 5 o’clock Friday night all the lay testimony of the defense on the subject of rationality or irrationality was submitted and the next thing was to call the expert witnesses. At this point it was decided that it would be a measure of economy to adjourn over to Monday at 9:30 o’clock. It was questionable whether it would be legal to hold court upon the half holiday of Saturday afternoon. On this basis only a half day’s session could be held Saturday. The insanity experts who are to be called upon to testify both for the defense and the prosecution, it is understood, will cost the county about three hundred dollars per day, and to get them to Cortland for a half day and then in addition to keep them over Sunday would be an expensive piece of business. It would be far less expensive to entertain the jury a little longer. Upon this representation of the case both by the prosecution and the defense Judge Sewell said he was willing to adjourn over. His only hesitation was as to detaining the jury longer than might be needful. But he would trust the sheriff, he said, to entertain them. The big sheriff replied with a laugh that he would do the best he could at it.
The jury is having a pretty good time of it there considering that it can’t go out into the outside world except under escort. The twelve men and the two attendants have the run of the courtroom and side rooms. There are two violinists among the number and they have some private dancing parties there, and the way in which some of these sober and sedate individuals can dance clogs is said to be surprising. The officers tell of it, but so far the public has not been admitted to the rehearsals. They have books and magazines in abundance and the New York papers, but the local papers are forbidden. Nothing that suggests the Truck trial is permitted to meet their eyes. A barber comes down twice a week and shaves then all and clips their hair. A bath for each twice a week is prescribed by the jail physician. The sheriff’s table gives them all the good things of the season and the two officers in charge take them out for a long walk every day. Everything that can be done for their health is being done. They are all feeling well and expect to wind up the trial in good shape.
Saturday to relieve the monotony of the day and to get the fresh air besides the twelve jurymen and Officers Metzgar and Flint stowed themselves comfortably away in Hopkins’ big carryall for a sleigh ride to Glen Haven. They took dinner with Mine Host Mourin and were back in time to take supper with Sheriff Brainard.
Up to this adjournment Friday night the trial had been in progress thirteen days. The prosecution had called and examined forty-eight different witnesses and the defense thirty. The expert witnesses for the defense will be sworn and they will include Dr. H. T. Dana of Cortland, Dr. F. Sefton of the private sanitarium at Auburn, and Dr. W. A. White of the State hospital at Binghamton. The experts for the prosecution will include Dr. F. W. Higgins and Dr. F. D. Reese of Cortland and Dr. Allan McLane Hamilton of New York. As soon as the expert testimony for the defense is in, that side of the case is probably ended, so far as taking testimony is concerned. The prosecution will then swear a number of lay witnesses in rebuttal of the lay testimony of the defense who claimed that the acts of Truck were the acts of an irrational man. These witnesses are expected to swear that they have known Truck at different periods of his life and that all his acts were rational, though he was undoubtedly a great liar and a wonderful braggart. The expert testimony of the prosecution will then be introduced and the summing up will come, first by the defense and finally by the prosecution.
FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
During the session of Friday afternoon only five witnesses were sworn. Some of the testimony was unimportant, but the defense scored a point by getting before the jury the testimony of an unruly witness who swore that he had worked along slide of Truck and that “the man was crazy.” The record of this testimony was immediately ordered stricken from the stenographer’s notes, but the jury had heard the witness’ opinion. There was a counter blow, however, squarely between the eyes when the defendant’s last witness testified that he had known the prisoner for years and that on the day after the tragedy he was “the same old John Truck,” and that he knew he was “perfectly rational.”
But the greatest interest of the afternoon was aroused when the defendant's half sister was recalled to the stand and with great ease remembered the bad headaches John used to have between twenty-five and thirty years ago and was able to remember his exact language as he described them to her, a girl of 7 to 13 years, on three separate occasions and the remarkable part is that this language is said to be almost identical with the characterization of one phase of insanity as described in one of the most modern and thoroughly known works on insanity. Her memory failed her on other material points in regard to recent events and she got considerably tangled up in relation to certain correspondence which she claimed she had with the counsel for the defense, as well as to other matters.
ELBERT BARBER.
Elbert Barber was the first witness of the afternoon. He testified: I reside in Homer, N. Y. Came there in May, 1893. First met defendant in fall of 1893 cutting corn on Hiscock farm . Have known him more or less since that time. We worked together at Fassett’s hay barn in Homer. My attention was attracted to him very particularly the first time I saw him. I noticed that he went around with head down and had dull and glassy look to eyes at times. Glanced sideways with eyes. This appearance lasted all that first day I saw him. Next night was very talkative. Seemed jovial and merry. It was quite a contrast to previous day. Two days later he was quiet again. When working at Fassett’s while setting up engine he told me they had a nice lot of mechanics at that place. They had put up the smokestack and didn’t know enough to get the guy ropes off the top and he had to do it for them. He had to build a ladder of short sticks up through the inside of the smoke stack to the top, wedging them in by laying them cross ways and he had climbed up on them to the top and had cast off the guys from the top. He couldn’t have gotten up through the stack though if the sticks had been actually there. These acts impressed me as being irrational.
Cross examination—Truck told me he and Weingartner were at work in the woods one day and Weingartner told him if he did some particular thing again he would boot him. Truck told him he had better try it. Weingartner did kick him again and Truck took the ax under his arm and with the end of the ax helve knocked Weingartner stiff. Two fellows coming through the woods said don’t strike him again. Truck replied that he wasn’t going to do so; that the old man had already got enough. They put Weingartner on a sleigh and took him home. When he recovered he discharged Truck, but afterward came around and re-engaged him and he worked for him nearly a year after that.
WILLIAM ROBSON.
William Robson testified: I reside in Cortland. I once worked in George Stevens’ stone quarry. John Truck worked there too. It was first about five years ago; afterward at another time about three years ago. Some days he worked well; some days we had to brace him up to get him to do anything. Some times he would speak and sometimes not when he did not seem to be feeling well. Some days he would put big stones on the load alone; wouldn’t let any of the men help him; those days he felt well. Other days he wouldn’t try to load the stones.
“These acts impressed me as being rational,” said the witness. The prosecution looked amused and pleased at this.
“What do you mean by that term,” asked the counsel for the defendant.
“Why, the man was crazy,” came the answer.
A laugh ran over the courtroom and the prosecution objected to characterization.
“Strike it out,” said the court, and the witness was turned over to the prosecution.
Cross examination: I never had a blue day in my life. All my days were just alike. I always felt just alike. Some days Truck wouldn’t do a half day’s work. Mr. Stevens paid him just the same. He didn’t know it. I never told him about Truck’s work.
Redirect examination—I don’t know what “rational” means. That is a new name to me. When you asked me what I thought about Truck up at your office I told you then the man was crazy.
“I object,” exclaimed the prosecution.
“Strike it out,” directed the court.
“That’s all,” said the questioner, and Mr. Robson stepped down.
DENTON ATWOOD.
Denton Atwood testified: I live in Cortland. I was once employed by H. W. Hall in the brick yard at Homer. I was the engineer and machinist and did general work at other times. I saw Truck had a sore hand. I told him if he would take my place in the engine room I would shovel for him. We changed work. I was where I could look into engine room and see the water glass. After a little I heard steam blowing off hard. I ran in to engine room and looked at fire. He had a big fire. I told him not to keep up so big a fire. A short time afterwards I went in again and he had the drafts all open and a big fire again. He acted differently on different days. His acts impressed me as irrational.
MRS. SOPHIA A. WHEELER.
Mrs. Sophia A. Wheeler, defendant’s half sister, was recalled to the stand and testified: I have heard John complain in regard to his head. It was after he received the blows upon his head struck by mother with the potato hook and by father with the tug. He said his head hurt and it seemed as though there was a cap or a bandage or a weight upon it.
Cross examination by Mr. Duffey:
When did it first occur to you, Mrs. Wheeler, to speak of that head trouble?
After I got off the witness stand before.
Then it is entirely an after thought with you to speak of it at all?
Yes, it is an after thought. I first thought of it that night after I had gone to my room.
But you were on the stand next morning for an hour and a half under cross examination. Why didn’t you speak of it then?
It slipped my mind.
And you didn’t remember anything about it at all the next morning?
I didn’t recall it. After I had left the stand the second time it occurred to me that I had forgotten it.
The doctors first spoke to you about that last night, didn’t they?
No, they did not.
Well then didn’t the counsel for the defense speak to you of it?
I told counsel about it after I had left the stand, and last night I spoke to the doctors about it.
And they told you what to say about it, didn’t they? They first used the terms “cap” or “bandage” to you, didn’t they?
No, I told them about the cap or bandage. They did not tell me.
But you had a talk with the doctors last night? Yes.
How long a talk?
I don’t remember.
Was it ten minutes or two hours?
It wasn’t two hours.
Was it over ten minutes?
It might have been.
And counsel asked you why you hadn’t thought of this before?
Yes, they said it was important. I only thought to speak to counsel about it after I had been twice on the stand.
And you think John told you that his head felt as though he had a cap or bandage about it?
Yes, those are his exact words. I remember them well.
Don’t you know that these are exactly the words that are used in an eminent modern work on insanity to describe a certain phase of mental trouble?
No, I don’t.
How many times did you ever hear John speak of his head feeling as though it had a cap or bandage upon it?
Two or three times.
When were those times?
The first time was three or four years after he was struck on the head with the potato hook by mother.
How long was it before you went to Mr. Outt’s that John received that blow on the head?
Four or five years.
And when was the first time you heard him mention this strange feeling?
About four years before we went to W. Outt’s.
And when was the second time?
Just before we went to Mr. Outt’s.
And when was the third time?
About a year after we went there.
And you remember his language definitely and exactly?
I do.
And you told me, I think, that you were 11 or 12 years old when you went to Mr. Outt’s. Yes.
Then you were about 6 years old when you first heard John use this language?
I must have been as much as 7 years old.
Tell me about the circumstances of that first time he used these terms.
Well, he was sitting one day with his elbows on his knees and his head in his hands and I went along and gave him a nudge and I said “what is the matter, John, are you sick?” And he replied, “No, but my head feels bad. It feels just as though there was a cap or a bandage on it.”
Tell me about the second time.
Well, that was just before we went to Mr. Outt’s. John didn’t get up very early and he didn’t eat any breakfast, and I asked him why and he told me his head hurt him and it felt as though there was a cap or a bandage around it.
And he used the same terms that time that he did before?
Yes, the very same.
And you remember the not getting up early? Yes.
And you remember the breakfast? Yes.
And you remember the language? Yes.
Tell me about the third time.
Well, it was at Mr. Outt’s. He wanted I should go out to help him milk. It was a hot night. And I said I don’t want to go out to milk to-night in a hot stable. And he said to me my head is sore and hurts. It seems as though it were top heavy. It feels as though a cap or a tight band was around my head.
Oh, it’s a tight band this time, is it? Yes.
And you remember this language distinctly? Yes.
And it has been in your head clearly ever since? Yes.
And you only forgot it the other day?
Yes, while I was on the stand.
And you remember the milking? Yes.
And the heat of the day? Yes.
And what he said about the cap or band? Yes.
And the tight? Yes.
And the or? Yes.
Have you ever been in Cortland before this trial begun?
I had passed through here.
But you didn’t come here to stop till the trial begun? No.
Did you write to John while he was in confinement? No.
Then you didn’t follow the matter up particularly?
No, I wrote to his counsel to inquire if the person arrested was the John Truck who was my brother.
What did you say to him?
I don’t remember.
How long was it after John’s arrest that you wrote to the counsel?
Two or three weeks.
How did you first learn of John’s arrest?
I read it in the Syracuse Post-Standard.
Do you know when Mr. Hyatt was appointed counsel for John? No.
How did you find his name? I saw it in a directory there in our house.
What kind of a directory was it?
It was a Cortland directory.
Do you mean to say that you have a Cortland directory up there in your home in Oswego county?
Well, it was in a sort of a Syracuse directory.
What sort of a looking book was it?
I can’t describe it.
How large a book was it?
About as large as that (indicating a large law volume that lay on the judge’s desk.)
How long had you had it?
Two or three years.
And you wrote to Mr. Hyatt as counsel for John within two or three weeks after his arrest.
Well, it may be longer than that.
Wasn’t it two months?
No, it wasn’t over a month or a month and a half.
Don’t you know that as a matter of fact Mr. Hyatt was not appointed counsel for John till the May term of the supreme court in this county, in the latter part of the month of May? No.
Did you in fact have any communication with Mr. Hyatt till this last winter?
Yes.
Mr. Hyatt came up to see you during this winter, didn’t he?
Yes, in February.
Did you say anything to him then about having written to him before?
I may have done so.
He came to see your father too, didn’t he?
He didn’t see him.
How long was he there at your house?
About two hours. He said he was looking up evidence in the case and had come to see me as John’s sister.
What did you say to him about coming to Cortland?
I told him I w as very sorry this thing had occurred and that I would rather not come down to Cortland if it could be avoided, but that if there was anything that I knew or could swear to that would help I would come and testify.
Can’t you remember anything that was said to you in that letter? No.
What did you write it for?
Well, I wanted to hear direct from John. I asked him how John was feeling and getting along. There wasn’t much to the letter.
How long a letter was it?
I don’t remember.
Redirect examination—Don’t you know what sort of a directory it was? I don’t know. I never saw the directory myself. My husband looked up the address for me.
You have no reason to doubt your recollection of John’s complaining of his head?
No, I remember it well.
But you don’t positively remember the occasions do you?
No, there may have been three of them, there may have been more.
Re-cross examination—But you have told me the occasions. Do you want to change your answer now?
No, what I told you is correct.
And you remember the three occasions?
I remember the three occasions.
And the language?
And the language.
But notwithstanding the fact that you remember so definitely and distinctly the occasion and the language twenty-five years ago or more, you can not remember now what was written in this letter to Mr. Hyatt less than a year ago?
Why, what I wrote him was a word of consolation of a kind sister to a brother under lock and key.
But you remember those three things back there with distinctness? Yes.
And you don’t remember fully about the letter? No.
What was the object of writing this letter?
To find out if it was my own brother who had been arrested and to send a word of consolation to John I asked him to remember me kindly to John and to tell John to look forward to better days or to better hopes.
And you wrote both of these things in one letter? Yes.
But you didn’t learn till the letter was replied to but what the man arrested might be some other man than your brother?
No, I didn’t.
Then there was a reply to your letter? Yes.
And Mr. Hyatt replied to you and gave the information? Yes.
Then the first letter was simply an inquiry?
Yes, I asked if the John Truck arrested was my brother who was formerly of Otisco.
And what was the reply?
That it was my brother.
Didn’t you read in the paper that the man arrested on the charge of murder was formerly of Otisco?
No, I didn’t read the account myself. I only heard part of it read. I left the room while they were reading it. I was filled with grief. Didn’t know he was charged with murder.
Why, what was there about the affair that so filled you with grief at his mere arrest if you didn’t know what the charge was?
Well, I didn’t want my brother arrested.
But you didn’t know for sure that he was your brother? No.
Didn’t you inquire further about it afterward when you had recovered from your grief?
No, we didn’t talk about it afterward.
Didn’t you hear where he was arrested? No.
When did you learn what he was arrested for?
A few days afterward they told me he was arrested on the charge of murder.
Didn’t you read the rest of the account in the paper then to find out more particulars?
No, the paper was taken into the other side of the house, and I didn’t see it again.
Weren’t you interested to know at once whether it was your brother who was arrested and what was the charge against him?
Yes, but I preferred to write directly to his counsel.
But then you waited two or three weeks before you did write?
Yes, but we watched the papers every day in the meantime.
And you didn’t learn anything more about it? No.
Didn’t you know that the Syracuse Post-Standard which you said you read had a Cortland correspondent with Cortland news in it every day? No.
Weren’t you anxious or worried about the matter till you heard from Mr. Hyatt?
No, I thought it would be time to worry when I knew it was some of my own people.
Now, Mrs. Wheeler, didn’t you know for a fact at once that the John Truck who was arrested in Tully valley was your own half brother?
No, I didn’t.
Did you know of any other family having the name of Truck?
No, I didn’t.
That’s all.
LEONARD F. BARRETT.
Leonard F. Barrett was the last witness of the day. He testified: I reside in Tully Valley. I know John Truck. He came to my house about 5 P. M. on March 15. Next day he was arrested by sheriff. His wife was with him. He seemed cheerful. Spent night with me. Told me had bought a horse that he had paid $40 for. Had bought a wagon and twenty pounds of butter. Showed me his watch. Took it out to look at it. I spoke of it. He ate heartily at both evening and morning meals. He told me he wanted to hire a horse. I directed him to Mr. Reihlman. I went away . When I came back he was in charge of the sheriff. He told me he had been trying for this horse for some time and had got it now.
Cross examination—Truck once worked for me. He said be bought twenty pounds of butter for 10 cents per pound. I didn’t notice any change in John that night. He seemed just the same as in the years before. His acts impressed me as being rational.
Re-direct examination—He was the same John Truck I had known before. He seemed to me to [be] perfectly rational.
At this point court took an adjournment till Monday at 9:30 A. M.
DR. WM. A. WHITE.
Dr. Wm. A. White was on Monday morning the first expert witness for the defense and testified: I reside in Binghamton and I am a physician. I have given the subject of diseases of the mind and of insanity special attention and study. I am the resident physician at the State hospital for insane at Binghamton; will have been there eight years next month. Have given attention to the regular lines of insanity as I must from day to day, and have also carried on special lines with other scientific men. I saw John Truck on two occasions for purposes of examination—once in January, and the second on Feb. 28. Dr. Sefton of Auburn and Dr. Dana of Cortland were with me.
I found a man in the neighborhood of 40 years of age, stooping at shoulders, head somewhat down, shambling gait. First made general examination of body by having him remove clothing. Body well nourished. Marked scar on right side of head, 1 1/2 inches long; scar somewhat adherent to tissues beneath as scalp moved. Circulation poor, extremities cold, hands and fingers blue, pulse rapid, 120, palms moist. Manner somewhat restless. Continuously looking from one to another in a quick nervous way. At times quiet and subdued in answers; at others animate, talkative and volunteered information that when quiet had to be drawn out from him by direct questions. Muscular fibres of tongue were tremulous, knee reflex somewhat exaggerated. In questioning him with reference to specific instances of life I found that he frequently contradicted his statements; not only contradicted statements made in replying to questions; he contradicted after attention called to them and they had been specifically fixed. His animated conversation and talkativeness always followed the introduction of the subject of machinery. At once brightened up and told of his ability to handle and run machinery. At no time when subject of alleged homicide was broached did he exhibit any emotional disturbance. Asked him with reference to sensations in [head]: replied had headache, feeling of a tight band drawn about head just above ears; said suffered from this frequently. Showed utter inability to locate his past acts correctly, even when questioned definitely in regard to them. Requested him to read and write. Read in hesitating, stumbling fashion, miscalling words. Writing slow and inaccurate as to spelling, capitalization, etc. Asked him what his idea of right and wrong was. Couldn’t reply. Asked if act was wrong because prohibited by law; concluded was wrong. Asked regarding religious training; said hadn’t been to church for good m any years. Had once belonged to church. Examined pulse after pulse. It was 80 after examination; 120 before. Examination lasted about four hours. Went out to dinner in mean time. Symmetry of face not perfect. Slight difference between two sides. Second examination disclosed contradictions of statements made at first examination.
At this point counsel asked witness two long hypothetical questions, each one of them covering several pages of typewritten matter. The first question assumed the truth of nearly all the facts brought out by the witness for the defense relating to Truck’s boyhood, his lack of education, the blows upon his head, his days of despondency and of exaltation, his remarkable stories, his claims of ownership of property which he did not own, etc.—on this basis, assuming all these facts to be true in what condition would you consider defendant to have been on March 14, 1899, sane or insane.
This question was objected to by Mr. Duffey for the reason that not all the facts claimed in the assumption were justified by the witness. Overruled. The witness testified that he should consider the defendant insane at that time.
The second hypothetical question assumed the truth of many of the facts brought out by the witnesses for the prosecution in regard to the movements of Truck prior to March 14, and as to the transaction at the Miller house on that night, that Truck had struck Miller a blow upon the head fracturing the skull and killing him, and that he had then ransacked his house, stolen his property and set fire to the house. It also assumed the truth of this testimony in regard to Truck's action subsequent to March 14 as detailed by prosecution’s witnesses. Witness was asked, assuming the truth of the first question and assuming all the other things to be true was the defendant on March 14, 1899, laboring under such a defect of reason as to be unable to comprehend the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong.
Objected to by Mr. Duffey for a long series of reasons. Mr. Kellogg also objected saying that the question called upon the witness to determine a question of fact and not a question of science or skill. The witness should not draw opinions from facts, said Mr. Kellogg, which it is the province of the jury to determine; the defense has also not incorporated in the evidence all the matter which tended to show the nature and quality of the act.
Objection overruled by court.
I considered that he was in such a mental condition on March 14, 1899, said the witness, that he was not able to comprehend the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong.
Cross examination—I have based my answer on the assumption that the facts submitted to me are true I did not necessarily include in the assumption the fact that all the facts in the case were presented to me. It is desirable that they should all be included, but not necessary. I do not consider it needful that all the facts in the question as presented be true in order to insure the correctness of my answer, but certain of them alone would lead me to that conclusion. It is the facts taken as a whole and in their relation to each other that leads me to the conclusion. I really utilized all those facts in drawing that conclusion, and I don’t know as I would want to say that any of them are specially immaterial. Some are of greater importance than others.
In reply to further questions Dr. White said that though the second question assumed the truth of the first he would draw the same conclusion from the facts introduced in the second question independent of the first question.
If most of the assumptions alleged in these questions could be explained by natural causes and on a rational basis I might be able to reach a different conclusion. It might in fact be directly the opposite.
The fact of his desire to tell big stories and stories untrue and to tell larger stories than others indicates to me an unnatural condition of mind, but I would not necessarily characterize such a person as insane.
At 12:35 court took a recess till 2 P. M.
MONDAY AFTERNOON.
Dr. Wm. A. White again took the stand and the cross examination was resumed. One by one the district attorney took up the different points in the hypothetical questions and questioned the doctor in regard to them. In each case he assumed that the peculiarity of the defendant noted in the hypothetical question might be examined for good reasons and for natural causes. In this case, he inquired of the witness, would not this action on the part of the defendant be a rational one? In many cases, if the questioner's assumption were true, the witness thought the action would be a rational one and no evidence of insanity. In this way the district attorney sought to eliminate the different points in the hypothetical question that did not or might figure in the conclusion of insanity and reduce the number of points in the hypothetical question that did figure in making up the conclusion.
When we made our first examination of defendant there were present Dr. Sefton, Dr. Dana and myself, and later on Mr.Miller and Mr. Hyatt. I had never seen defendant before. Dr. Sefton had seen him before, said the witness, but not in Cortland. The question as to where Dr. Sefton had seen him was objected to by the defense and sustained. Dr. Seflon said he remembered Truck and Truck said after a while that he remembered Dr. Sefton. Dr. Sefton told Truck that we were there as physicians retained by his counsel to examine into his mental condition and otherwise; and that we wanted him to answer all of our questions with truth and freedom. His pulse the first time was taken while we were alone with him at the beginning. The last time we took it was in the presence of Mr. Miller and Mr. Hyatt. He became more composed after we had explained who we were and what we were after, and that might explain in part his composure toward the end of the interview.
It was the morning of the first day that he told me of the feeling as of a band about his head. He volunteered the expression. I don’t remember that he spoke of a feeling as of a cap pressing down upon his head. Lying by itself is not an necessarily insanity.
If I were to divorce hypothetical question No. 2 entirely from the facts assumed in the first question I don’t believe I could arrive at the conclusion that I did that the person who committed that crime did not know the nature and quality of the act which he committed and that it was wrong. To arrive at that conclusion I should need the facts in the first question.
Redirect examination—It is almost invariably necessary to consider many matters in arriving at a conclusion of sanity or insanity. In these questions some of these points might be eliminated without affecting the conclusion. The suggestion of the tight band was a description made by the defendant himself without any suggestion on our part. From the facts given in the last hypothetical question alone barring the facts of the first question I could only arrive at probabilities, but my probabilities would be that the person who committed the crime was not of sound mind. Question of insanity is based upon a complex set of symptoms taken as a whole, and not on any one alone. Individual acts might be performed by person perfectly sane, but grouped together and taken together belong to a person insane.
Re-cross examination—The district attorney here asked a long hypothetical question including nearly all the facts referred to in the defendant’s hypothetical question, and assuming that there was an adequate cause from the outside to account for them—on these assumptions would these facts change the conclusion arrived at. Witness said on this assumption it would change the conclusion he had arrived at.
Re-direct examination—Witness stated that to arrive at conclusion referred to in answer to district attorney’s question he must consider the latter’s assumptions all true and some of the assumptions in the defense’s hypothetical questions untrue.
At 3:53, after being on the stand for nearly four and one half hours, all but about an hour of which was under cross examination, Dr. White was excused.
No comments:
Post a Comment