Did the jurors have options?
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
snokkums
- Posts: 2543
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 10:09 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Robin
- Location: fayetteville nc,but from milwaukee
- Contact:
Did the jurors have options?
I was reading my other thread that I posted, and I got to thinking. Did the jurors have options? I mean other than 1st degree murder? Could they have gone with a lesser charge. Like maybe Lizzie had knowledge of the murders or maybe had something to do with the murders or something. Or was it first degree murder was the only option? You know, maybe she had something to do with the murders but didn't require a punishment of first degree murder.
Suicide is painless It brings on many changes and I will take my leave when I please.
-
SallyG
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 4:49 pm
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Sally Glynn
- Location: Gainesville, Florida
- Contact:
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
This is from Harry's post in another thread, quoting part of Dewey's charge to the jury:
Chapter 202 of the Public Statutes contains these sections: "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or in the commission of or attempt to commit a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty is murder in the first degree. Murder not appearing to be in the first degree, is murder in the second degree.
End quote.
If Lizzie had time to retrieve a hatchet in order to kill one or both of her parents, she had time to think about it and it was first degree murder with malice aforethought. The second condition may not apply unless it could be proven she killed Andrew out of fear of reprisals for having killed Abby. This was never done, so it really doesn't apply. Extreme atrocity or cruelty may apply due to the number of blows used in each instance. Just the fact that there were two murders separated by a period of time indicates malice aforethought.
Second degree murder is described only as that which is not first degree. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the strict legal definition, but murder might be described as purposeful, wrongful death, as opposed to accidental death, or justifiable homicide. It would be difficult or impossible to contort the Borden murders into a second degree offense. If Abby had attacked Lizzie or initiated a violent argument against her and Lizzie (who just happened to be carrying a hatchet) responded by using the hatchet, it might be called second degree murder. Andrew, having fallen asleep on the couch, was in no position to instigate anything and killing him by any means was likely first degree murder.
The fact that Bridget was not killed supports premeditation, it wasn't just a sudden urge to start swinging a hatchet at people. It was focused on Abby and Andrew. In my opinion, a second degree murder plea under those conditions really becomes an insanity plea due to what is necessary to commit the crimes.
Chapter 202 of the Public Statutes contains these sections: "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or in the commission of or attempt to commit a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty is murder in the first degree. Murder not appearing to be in the first degree, is murder in the second degree.
End quote.
If Lizzie had time to retrieve a hatchet in order to kill one or both of her parents, she had time to think about it and it was first degree murder with malice aforethought. The second condition may not apply unless it could be proven she killed Andrew out of fear of reprisals for having killed Abby. This was never done, so it really doesn't apply. Extreme atrocity or cruelty may apply due to the number of blows used in each instance. Just the fact that there were two murders separated by a period of time indicates malice aforethought.
Second degree murder is described only as that which is not first degree. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the strict legal definition, but murder might be described as purposeful, wrongful death, as opposed to accidental death, or justifiable homicide. It would be difficult or impossible to contort the Borden murders into a second degree offense. If Abby had attacked Lizzie or initiated a violent argument against her and Lizzie (who just happened to be carrying a hatchet) responded by using the hatchet, it might be called second degree murder. Andrew, having fallen asleep on the couch, was in no position to instigate anything and killing him by any means was likely first degree murder.
The fact that Bridget was not killed supports premeditation, it wasn't just a sudden urge to start swinging a hatchet at people. It was focused on Abby and Andrew. In my opinion, a second degree murder plea under those conditions really becomes an insanity plea due to what is necessary to commit the crimes.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
doug65oh
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:26 am
- Real Name:
It’s actually very strange that the jury had the option to find second degree murder – even recognizing that they were statutorily obligated to determine the degree of murder. In one of the clearest portions of the charge, Justice Dewey told the jury: “The defendant is being tried before you on a written accusation, termed an indictment, which contains two charges or counts; one count by the use of the usual legal language in substance charges her with the murder of Andrew J. Borden, and the other count charges her with the murder of Abby D. Borden in Fall River in this county on August 4th, 1892. Chapter 202 of the Public Statutes contains these sections: "Murder committed with deliberately premeditated malice aforethought, or in the commission of or attempt to commit a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty is murder in the first degree. Murder not appearing to be in the first degree, is murder in the second degree.” Trial, v. 2, pg. 1888.
I staid the night for shelter at a farm behind the mountains, with a mother and son - two "old-believers." They did all the talking...
- Robert Frost
- Robert Frost
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
From the Trial, pages i-iii:
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
Preliminary Proceedings
On the 2nd day of December 1892, the grand jury for the County of Bristol returned into the Superior Court the following indictment against Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River, charging her with the murder of her stepmother, Abby Durfee Borden, and her father, Andrew Jackson Borden:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Bristol ss: At the Superior Court begun and holden at Taunton within and for said County of Bristol on the first Monday of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two.
The jurors for the said Commonwealth on their oath present that Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River in the County of Bristol, at Fall River in the County of Bristol, on the fourth day of August in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two in and upon one Abby Durfee Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought an assault did make, and with a certain instrument, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument, the name and a
more particular description of which is to the Jurors unknown, her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, feloniously, wilfully, and of, her malice aforethought did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in upon the head of her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, giving to her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, by the said striking, cutting, beating and bruising, in and upon the head of her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, divers, to wit, twenty mortal wounds, of which said mortal wounds the said Abby Durfee Borden then and there instantly died.
And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the said Lizzie Andrew Borden, the said Abby Durfee Borden in manner and form aforesaid, then and there, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder: against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided.
And the Jurors for the said Commonwealth, on their oath, do further present,--- That Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River in the County of Bristol, at Fall River in the County of Bristol, on the fourth day of August, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety two, in upon one Andrew Jackson Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought, an assault did make, and with a certain weapon, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument, the name and a more particular description of which is to the Jurors unknown, him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought, did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, by the said striking, cutting, beating and bruising, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, divers, to wit, ten mortal wounds, of which said mortal wounds, the said Andrew Jackson Borden then and there instantly died.
And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the said Lizzie Andrew Borden, the said Andrew Jackson Borden in manner and form aforesaid, then and there, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder: against the peace of said Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided
A true bill.
Henry A. Bodman,
Foreman of the Grand Jury.
Hosea M. Knowlton,
District Attorney.
Bristol ss: On this second day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two, this indictment was returned and presented to said Superior Court by the Grand Jury, ordered to be filed, and filed: and it was further ordered by the Court that notice be given to said Lizzie Andrew Borden that said indictment will be entered forthwith upon the docket of the Superior Court in said County.
Attest ---
Simeon Borden, Jr.,
Asst. Clerk.
The Grand Jury indictment was for first degree murder, with malice aforethought in both murders.
From the Trial, page 1:
Lizzie Andrew Borden, indicted for the murder of her stepmother, Abby Durfee Borden, and her father, Andrew Jackson Borden, was placed on trial at the June term of the Superior Court for the County of Bristol, sitting at New Bedford, beginning on Monday, the fifth day of June, 1893: Hon. Albert Mason, Chief Justice, Hon. Caleb Blodgett and Hon. Justin Dewey, Associate Justices, presiding.
This mentions murder without specifying the degree.
Chief Justice Mason, from the Trial, pages 4-5:
Also with reference to the question as to whether opinions are entertained which preclude one from finding a defendant guilty of an offence punishable by death. It is not at all what opinions are entertained with reference to capital punishment, but there are some persons so constituted mentally that they could not sustain a law of the land which they deemed wrong. There are some persons so mentally constituted that they could not declare the simplest axiom of mathematics if it were to follow that death was to be inflicted in consequence of the declaration of such truth. If any person is satisfied that he so mentally constituted that he could not find upon evidence that a defendant was guilty of an offence punishable with death, then, in response to that question he should so answer. But in answering that question, as the others, each juror should keep in mind, that he is answering upon oath. The Clerk will proceed to impanel the jury.
Why would Mason raise the question of prejudice against the death penalty if it wasn't the intent of the court to prosecute Lizzie for first degree murder?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all seems rather odd to me, it allows the trial jury to re-define the indictment brought by the grand jury if the trial jury can find for second degree murder. It seems clear enough that the trial was for first degree murder. Wasn't there also something about three counts, one for Abby, one for Andrew, and a third for both Abby and Andrew combined?
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
Preliminary Proceedings
On the 2nd day of December 1892, the grand jury for the County of Bristol returned into the Superior Court the following indictment against Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River, charging her with the murder of her stepmother, Abby Durfee Borden, and her father, Andrew Jackson Borden:
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Bristol ss: At the Superior Court begun and holden at Taunton within and for said County of Bristol on the first Monday of November in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two.
The jurors for the said Commonwealth on their oath present that Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River in the County of Bristol, at Fall River in the County of Bristol, on the fourth day of August in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two in and upon one Abby Durfee Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought an assault did make, and with a certain instrument, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument, the name and a
more particular description of which is to the Jurors unknown, her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, feloniously, wilfully, and of, her malice aforethought did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in upon the head of her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, giving to her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, by the said striking, cutting, beating and bruising, in and upon the head of her, the said Abby Durfee Borden, divers, to wit, twenty mortal wounds, of which said mortal wounds the said Abby Durfee Borden then and there instantly died.
And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the said Lizzie Andrew Borden, the said Abby Durfee Borden in manner and form aforesaid, then and there, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder: against the peace of said Commonwealth, and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided.
And the Jurors for the said Commonwealth, on their oath, do further present,--- That Lizzie Andrew Borden of Fall River in the County of Bristol, at Fall River in the County of Bristol, on the fourth day of August, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety two, in upon one Andrew Jackson Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought, an assault did make, and with a certain weapon, to wit, a sharp cutting instrument, the name and a more particular description of which is to the Jurors unknown, him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought, did strike, cut, beat and bruise, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, by the said striking, cutting, beating and bruising, in and upon the head of him, the said Andrew Jackson Borden, divers, to wit, ten mortal wounds, of which said mortal wounds, the said Andrew Jackson Borden then and there instantly died.
And so the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do say, that the said Lizzie Andrew Borden, the said Andrew Jackson Borden in manner and form aforesaid, then and there, feloniously, wilfully and of her malice aforethought did kill and murder: against the peace of said Commonwealth and contrary to the form of the statute in such case made
and provided
A true bill.
Henry A. Bodman,
Foreman of the Grand Jury.
Hosea M. Knowlton,
District Attorney.
Bristol ss: On this second day of December, in the year eighteen hundred and ninety-two, this indictment was returned and presented to said Superior Court by the Grand Jury, ordered to be filed, and filed: and it was further ordered by the Court that notice be given to said Lizzie Andrew Borden that said indictment will be entered forthwith upon the docket of the Superior Court in said County.
Attest ---
Simeon Borden, Jr.,
Asst. Clerk.
The Grand Jury indictment was for first degree murder, with malice aforethought in both murders.
From the Trial, page 1:
Lizzie Andrew Borden, indicted for the murder of her stepmother, Abby Durfee Borden, and her father, Andrew Jackson Borden, was placed on trial at the June term of the Superior Court for the County of Bristol, sitting at New Bedford, beginning on Monday, the fifth day of June, 1893: Hon. Albert Mason, Chief Justice, Hon. Caleb Blodgett and Hon. Justin Dewey, Associate Justices, presiding.
This mentions murder without specifying the degree.
Chief Justice Mason, from the Trial, pages 4-5:
Also with reference to the question as to whether opinions are entertained which preclude one from finding a defendant guilty of an offence punishable by death. It is not at all what opinions are entertained with reference to capital punishment, but there are some persons so constituted mentally that they could not sustain a law of the land which they deemed wrong. There are some persons so mentally constituted that they could not declare the simplest axiom of mathematics if it were to follow that death was to be inflicted in consequence of the declaration of such truth. If any person is satisfied that he so mentally constituted that he could not find upon evidence that a defendant was guilty of an offence punishable with death, then, in response to that question he should so answer. But in answering that question, as the others, each juror should keep in mind, that he is answering upon oath. The Clerk will proceed to impanel the jury.
Why would Mason raise the question of prejudice against the death penalty if it wasn't the intent of the court to prosecute Lizzie for first degree murder?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all seems rather odd to me, it allows the trial jury to re-define the indictment brought by the grand jury if the trial jury can find for second degree murder. It seems clear enough that the trial was for first degree murder. Wasn't there also something about three counts, one for Abby, one for Andrew, and a third for both Abby and Andrew combined?
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
It seems to me, and it may be naive of me~ but since the murder counts were separate, it might have been possible for the jury to technically decide one was second degree against the defendant for the first death (Abbie), and for the other death- (Andrew) - yet might be found as not guilty~ the possibility that that death was caused by another (as yet unknown person).
I only offer this explanation because the indictments were separate.
The difference in time between the two might show 2 guilty parties, with differing degrees of culpability?. Ya never know!
I only offer this explanation because the indictments were separate.
The difference in time between the two might show 2 guilty parties, with differing degrees of culpability?. Ya never know!
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
While it might have been possible to find Lizzie guilty of one murder and not guilty of the other, that would have worked to the advantage of the prosecution. It covered the contingency of a lack of evidence for one murder and an abundance of evidence for the other. They couldn't simply try her for both murders combined. If involvement in either one or the other was questionable through reasonable doubt, by definition she would have been not guilty of the combination of both, even if one murder was well supported by evidence. The penalty for one murder was the same as for both, so they only needed strong support for one or the other rather than for both. Even if she was found guilty of first degree murder on one count, and second degree murder on the other (or any level of culpability), she would have been executed. There was really no benefit to being found guilty of one and not the other, the penalty was the same for one or both.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
That was in my earlier explanation- that someone other than Lizzie committed the murder of Andrew.
One Scenario: Perhaps Abbie attacked Lizzie with a hatchet and Lizzie defended herself. And Abbie was killed. Since it was overkill, it would look like Lizzie could have stopped herself after the threat of Abbie's attack had been effectively neutralized. Yet she did not stop- she hit her 17 or 18 more times. Second degree murder.
Lizzie's crazy illegitimate brother came in and killed Andrew while Lizzie was in the barn freaking out (trying to decide what to do- and Not eating pears).
Anyway, that would show 2 weapons, too!
One Scenario: Perhaps Abbie attacked Lizzie with a hatchet and Lizzie defended herself. And Abbie was killed. Since it was overkill, it would look like Lizzie could have stopped herself after the threat of Abbie's attack had been effectively neutralized. Yet she did not stop- she hit her 17 or 18 more times. Second degree murder.
Lizzie's crazy illegitimate brother came in and killed Andrew while Lizzie was in the barn freaking out (trying to decide what to do- and Not eating pears).
Anyway, that would show 2 weapons, too!
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
If Abby attacked Lizzie with a hatchet and Lizzie defended herself, it would be self-defense, or justifiable homicide. Overkill with the number of blows, to be sure, but even that is defensible, given adrenaline.
The other problem is in believing the coincidence that someone would just happen to come in and kill Andrew right after Abby had been killed. Two random, unrelated incidents of that magnitude occurring within a couple of hours of each other?
The other problem is in believing the coincidence that someone would just happen to come in and kill Andrew right after Abby had been killed. Two random, unrelated incidents of that magnitude occurring within a couple of hours of each other?
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
In my opinion, what it boils down to is it would be almost impossible to believe the murders were unrelated, random occurrences. It was (and is) far more plausible to believe they were committed by the same person or persons. The danger for the prosecution was to try Lizzie for only the combination of the murders rather than for each one individually.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
I'm almost positive there was a third count for the combination of the murders, one count for Abby, one count for Andrew, and one count for both Abby and Andrew. Otherwise, if there were just the individual separate counts, one for Abby, one for Andrew, wouldn't that require two separate trials? Maybe the count for both allowed a single trial.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
Back to Jose Correiro- I recall he pleaded guilty, had no real trial, served 20 years without being executed and then set free to be exported back to the Azores. That was a brutal murder but he was not executed. So I don't think Lizzie would have been killed by the Commonwealth- they might have put her away in Taunton or something- but kept alive- I mean, a Borden Heiress for gosh-sakes~ they would have thought of something!
-
Kat
- Posts: 14770
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:59 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: Central Florida
According to my own "Epilogue" written for the "Bertha Manchester Murder" disc we sold, I have this:
(summing, not quoting)
Correiro spent 7 months in jail, waiting - finally arraigned 8 Jan 1894 -Court accepted lesser count of second degree -sentenced to life in prison - after 20 years he was pardoned in order to deport him to the Azores.
(summing, not quoting)
Correiro spent 7 months in jail, waiting - finally arraigned 8 Jan 1894 -Court accepted lesser count of second degree -sentenced to life in prison - after 20 years he was pardoned in order to deport him to the Azores.
-
Yooper
- Posts: 3302
- Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:12 pm
- Real Name: Jeff
- Location: U.P. Michigan
So there really is no conclusion to be drawn about what might have happened to Lizzie based upon what happened to Corriero. There is no logical way to imply second degree murder in the Borden case and the penalty for first degree murder was death. Corriero was guilty of second degree murder for which the mandatory penalty was life imprisonment.
To do is to be. ~Socrates
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
To be is to do. ~Kant
Do be do be do. ~Sinatra
-
Darrowfan
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:13 pm
- Real Name: Jeffrey Craig
- Location: Pasco County, Florida
Re:
I don't know about the law in 1893, but these days, the possibility would exist that Lizzie could be found guilty of second degree murder for the death of Abby (if the jury felt that she killed Abby in the heat of passion, uncontrollable rage, etc.) and then found guilty of first degree murder in the death of Andrew (if the jury felt that she killed him to cover up Abby's killing). In other words, the jury could find that Abby's murder was not "premeditated", but that Andrew's murder was "premeditated", in that Lizzie wanted to eliminate him as a witness.Yooper wrote:Actually, the real problem is what is necessary for that scenario to come about, guilty of second degree murder in one instance, but not guilty in the other. How would you frame the possibility?
"Fiat justitia ruat caelum"
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Re:
That's a great question.Darrowfan wrote:I don't know about the law in 1893, but these days, the possibility would exist that Lizzie could be found guilty of second degree murder for the death of Abby (if the jury felt that she killed Abby in the heat of passion, uncontrollable rage, etc.) and then found guilty of first degree murder in the death of Andrew (if the jury felt that she killed him to cover up Abby's killing). In other words, the jury could find that Abby's murder was not "premeditated", but that Andrew's murder was "premeditated", in that Lizzie wanted to eliminate him as a witness.Yooper wrote:Actually, the real problem is what is necessary for that scenario to come about, guilty of second degree murder in one instance, but not guilty in the other. How would you frame the possibility?
The jury did have the option of finding murder in the second degree. Here's a portion of Dewey's charge to the jury (p1919, volume 2)
"You will be inquired of by the clerk as to each count of the indictment separately and in the same manner. If you find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the Foreman, in reply to the inquiry of the clerk, will say, "Guilty of murder in the first degree", and so as to murder in the second degree, if you find that to be the degree of murder. As to the second count, if the finding is the same, the answer should be the same. If, on the other hand, your finding is "Not guilty," the Foreman should so reply to each inquiry."
And on page 1890 Dewey says: "Although most of the evidence may relate to both counts in the indictment, the counts are distinct and will require a separate finding by you."
However, only one verdict was issued.
That would certainly indicate they were required to have separate verdicts for each murder. Is there a lawyer in the house?
BTW, welcome Darrowfan
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
-
Darrowfan
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:13 pm
- Real Name: Jeffrey Craig
- Location: Pasco County, Florida
Re: Re:
Harry wrote: And on page 1890 Dewey says: "Although most of the evidence may relate to both counts in the indictment, the counts are distinct and will require a separate finding by you." Only one verdict was issued.
It's interesting that he refers to "each count of the indictment separately" of the indictment. Here I'm at a loss since the indictment lumps both murders together.Is there a lawyer in the house?
I'm a paralegal, not an attorney, and I work in civil rather than in criminal law. I would like to satisfy my own curiosity on this matter. Where can I find a copy of the 2 page indictment? The only one I have found through Google is a one page document which only shows the count for Andrew's death.
"Fiat justitia ruat caelum"
-
Harry
- Posts: 4058
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 4:28 pm
- Real Name: harry
- Location: South Carolina
Re: Re:
Way back in 2000-2001 I spent about 9 months of my spare time transcribing the entire trial. The transcript includes the indictment. It is FREE for downloading in PDF format. It is in 2 volumes, some 1900 typed pages and formatted to look like the original. All spelling and grammar mistakes are theirs.Darrowfan wrote:I'm a paralegal, not an attorney, and I work in civil rather than in criminal law. I would like to satisfy my own curiosity on this matter. Where can I find a copy of the 2 page indictment? The only one I have found through Google is a one page document which only shows the count for Andrew's death.
The trial and other transcripts can be found here:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/crimelibr ... script.htm
The Library which contains a mountain of other info on the case can be found here:
http://lizzieandrewborden.com/
If you want to purchase a disc copy see here: http://lizzieandrewborden.com/BordenBooks/
Have fun browsing!
I know I ask perfection of a quite imperfect world
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find
And fool enough to think that's what I'll find