We continue our brief synopsis of the evidence in this
trial.
On Wednesday, April 20th, Mr. Wooldridge
was examined by the prosecution. No fact of interest was elicited.
“Albert A. Megaffey examined by Mr. Brady. I reside in
the city of Washington; I knew the late Mr. Key; was acquainted with him from
January or February, 1858; was tolerable intimate with him; I was a member of
the club up to the time of its dissolution, and met Mr. Key there.
“Ques. Did you at any time have a conversation with
Mr. Key in reference to Mrs. Sickles?”
“Witness. I did.
“Mr. Carlisle. Stop a moment.
“Mr. Brady. We
don’t ask the witness to state the conversation. When did the conversation take
place?”
“Witness. In June, 1858; I had a subsequent
conversation on that subject the day or two immediately preceding the Napier
ball, which was on the 17th of February; recollect it from something
that occurred at the ball between Mr. Key and myself; never had a regular set
conversation with him about the matter but these two; but I have referred to it
three or four times when I met him.
“Mr. Brady. I desire you to state this conversation.
“District Attorney. We object.
“Mr. Brady. We propose to prove by this witness:
“First. That shortly before the decease of Mr. Key,
the witness had noticed certain conduct on his part towards Mrs. Sickles, which
led him to suggest to Mr. Key that the latter was observed to be over-attentive
to her, in answer to which Mr. Key remarked that he had a great friendship for
her, that he considered her a child, and hat paternal feelings towards her, and
he repelled indignantly the idea of having any but kind and fatherly feeling
towards her.
“Second. That at a subsequent conversation in relation
to the same subject, the witness suggested to Mr. Key that he might get into
danger or difficulty about the matter; Mr. Key laid his hand on the left breast
of his coat, and said, ‘I am prepared for any emergency.’
“Mr. Ould argued that evidence of these conversations
was inadmissible.
“The Court did not perceive how this evidence tended
to the establishment of any point involved in the controversy in this case. It
seemed that some of the declarations of the deceased were made in last June,
and that the last we made on the 17th of February last. How that
tended to prove that the deceased was armed on the 27th of February,
some ten days later, did not strike the court. Another ground on which it was
not admissible was, that it was offered to excuse the conduct of the accused,
on the ground that he had a right to suppose the deceased was armed. The court
did not think the question of his being armed on the particular day when this
witness conversed with him had anything to do with that either, as it was not
proposed to show, nor was there any evidence to show that the conversation
between this witness and Mr. Key had ever been communicated to Mr. Sickles by
this witness or any other Party.
“The court could not look upon this evidence as
admissible.
“John McDonald was called, and answered substantially
as follows: I was footman for Mr. Sickles. On the Thursday preceding Mr. Key’s
death, while Mrs. Sickles was driving in the carriage, we met Mr. Key at the
houses of Secretary Brown and Secretary Thompson, and at the flower house on
the avenue. At the latter place, Mr. Key leaned into the carriage, and, looking
into Mrs. Sickles’s face, asked her if she was going to the hop at Willard’s.
Mrs. Sickles said, ‘I am going if Dan will let me.” He got in, and we rode
round awhile. I let Mr. Key out in Fifteenth street. I then drove Mrs. Sickles
home.
“To Mr. Ould. It was on Thursday, at about four
o’clock, that I let Mr. Key out at the corner of Fifteenth street.
“This closed the evidence on the part of the defence.
“Mr. Ould, the District Attorney, said, that inasmuch
as the evidence of adulterous intercourse has been admitted, he was prepared to
admit the truth of the confession of Mrs. Sickles, and allow it to go before
the jury as evidence.
“Considerable discussion here ensued between counsel
for the prosecution, disclaiming that they had anything to do with the
publication of the confession, and Mr. Brady regretting that it had been
published.
“Hon. George H. Pendleton, member of Congress from
Ohio, was called by the prosecution in rebuttal. He testified that he, in
company with Charles Jones, had visited the house in Fifteenth street after the
death of Key, but he had never had any participation in the removal of the lock
from the house.
“Several cards, letters, &c., were produced and
identified, but at the request of the prisoner, the names of the persons on the
cards were not made public.
“Before leaving the stand, Mr. Pendleton addressed the
Court, and said that any statement that had been made, of his having attempted
to defeat the ends of Justice in this case was infamously false.
“Charles Lee Jones, Esq., testified to accompanying
Mr. Pendleton to the house, but he knew nothing at all of the lock having been
taken off. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Brady and an exciting scene
ensued on his being asked if he had not been assisting the prosecution. He said
Mr. Key was one of his dearest friends, and he should always revere his memory.”
Thursday, Mr. Doyle, and other witnesses testified as
to the disposition of the papers found on the person of Mr. Key at the time of
his death, and particularly as to a letter written in cipher. The evidence
seemed not to be very material, and we shall therefore pass it over.
The defence complained that these papers had been in
possession of Mr. Carlisle, who assisted the prosecution, when they should have
been furnished the prisoner’s counsel.
Several witnesses testified as to the condition of Mr.
Sickles at the time of and immediately subsequent to the homicide. They
differed among themselves; but, for the most part, their evidence tended to
show that Mr. S. was perfectly cool and self-possessed. This account differed
entirely from that of Governor Walker, Bridget Duffy, Wooldridge, and others,
called by the defence.
Mayor Berret was at Sickles’s immediately after the
homicide. He testifies that “Sickles and Walker went into the parlor, and
witness followed, thinking it proper to be present. They remained there some
five or ten minutes, and then returned to the library, and, after some
conversation, left for the jail. While in the parlor, Sickles discovered
Walker, and said, “A thousand thanks to you, my friend, for calling,” and spoke
of his child and his house being dishonored. He then sat on the sofa, and wept
heartily; witness recommended to him to compose himself, and he did so, and we
soon after left. This burst of grief lasted four or five minutes—perhaps more. He
made a noise indicative of deep grief; can best describe it as a hearty cry,
accompanied by sobbing, which could have been heard all over this room. There
were no other indications than those that ordinarily accompany a hearty burst
of grief. Witness left with them for the jail. No such manifestations were made
on the way to jail. He seemed to be restive and excited on account of the
crowd, and witness remarked to him that he had better not observe the crowd. He
once or twice passed salutations with persons on the street by the usual
gesture. Don’t know to whom these salutations were particularly addressed. Left
shortly after the examination at the jail, which was brief. During this
examination, Sickles was composed; witness did not see any exhibition of grief
at the jail such as he has described.
“To Mr. Brady. He certainly made a strong effort to
become tranquil when witness suggested the importance of it, in view of the
crowd through which he had to pass.”
In the morning of this day, Judge Crawford stated that
he had received a letter direct to Mr. Wilson, one of the jurors, and that, if
there was no objection, he would hand it to him. This was assented to on both
sides, and the juror was permitted to open and read it. The juror immediately
returned the letter to the court, remarking that he had no knowledge of the
author, and that it was not proper for him to receive it. The judge then read
the letter, and found that it related to the trial going on before the court.
He thought that the author should be detected and punished, and proposed to
place the letter in the hands of the District Attorney, which was agreed to.
The reporters for the Associated Press say of the
letter in cipher, that it has been translated by Mr. Charles Howard, of
Baltimore, a brother-in-law of Mr. Key, and that it purports to be a love
letter from Mrs. Sickles to Mr. Key. This, however, is a surmise.
Friday, Messrs. John L. Dubrow and Edward Delafield
testified that they saw Sickles about the time of the homicide, and thought him
rather cool than otherwise, under the circumstances.
“Charles F. Lewis testified: is connected with the
office of the Congressional Globe: has with him the manuscript of the
speeches made in the House of Representatives on Friday and Saturday previous
to the killing of Key; the reporters were Messrs. Hays, Hinks, now in court,
and Messrs. Andrews, and McElhone, who are not here. [Mr. Smith, one of the
reporters, was here requested to examine the bundles of copy, and select that
of the speeches made by Mr. Sickles on the days named.] Mr. Brady remarked that
the defence were here perfectly willing to admit that Mr. S. did make five-minutes
speeches on the days named, but at the time these speeches were made he was
under the impression that the charges against his wife were untrue.”
Mr. Carlisle for the prosecution stated that the
evidence on that side was now closed, except two witnesses, who had been called
to testify on the point of insanity.
“Judge Crawford decided to wait till to-morrow morning
for the missing witnesses, and informed the District Attorney that the Court
could not possibly wait longer for them.” Mr. Brady stated that the counsel on
both sides had agreed to furnish each other with their instructions this
afternoon. They could thus be examined at leisure, and both parties come into
court to-morrow, fully prepared to make very brief arguments. By this mode time
would be gained instead of being lost, and the trial brought to a close much
sooner than otherwise.”
The following are the instructions to the jury
prepared by the prosecution:
“If the jury believe, from the whole evidence in this
cause, that the prisoner, on the day named in the indictment, and in the County
of Washington aforesaid, killed the said Philip Barton Key, by discharging at,
against and into the body of him, the said Philip Barton Key, a pistol or
pistols loaded with gunpowder and ball, thereby giving him a mortal wound or
wounds, and that such killing was the wilful [sic]and intentional act of
the prisoner; and that said act was induced by the belief that the said
deceased had seduced his, the prisoner’s wife, and on some day or days, or for
any period, definite or indefinite, prior to the day of such killing, had
adulterous intercourse with the said wife; and that the prisoner was not
provoked to such killing by any assault or offer of violence, then and there
made by the deceased upon or against him, then such wilful and intentional
killing, if found by the jury upon all the facts and circumstances given in
evidence, is murder. But such killing cannot be found to have been wilful and
intentional, in the sense of this instruction, if it shall have been proven to
the satisfaction of the jury, upon the whole evidence aforesaid, that the
prisoner was in fact insane at the time of such killing.”
Saturday, Ex-Senator Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, was
called as a witness by the prosecution. He testified that he was at Judge
Black’s when Mr. Sickles arrived there, immediately after killing Key. Sickles
was introduced to Mr. Haldeman, who entered into a conversation with him upon
Pennsylvania and New York politics. Nothing was said by Sickles in reference to
the shooting affair at the time, until the police arrived, when he inquired if
the case were bailable; and said that, if the facts were known, “God knows I
would be justified,” or “I could not help it.”
This closed the evidence on the part of the
prosecution.
The Following are the instructions to the jury
prepared by the prisoner’s counsel:
“First. There is no presumption of malice in this
case, if any proof of “alleviation, excuse, or justification, arise out of the evidence
for the prosecution. [State vs. Johnson, vol. 3, Jones, page 266;
McDaniel vs. State, vol. 8, Smead’s and Marshall’s page 401; Day’s Case
17 of pamphlet.]
“Second. The existence of malice is not presumable in
this case, if, on any rational theory consistent with all the evidence the
homicide was either justifiable, excusable, or an act of manslaughter. [Same
cases as above cited; United States vs. Mingo, Vol. 2, Curtis C. C. R.
I., Commonwealth vs. New York; Vol. 2, Bennett and Heard, Leading
Criminal Cases, page 505.]
“Third. If, on the whole evidence presented by the
prosecution, there is any rational hypothesis consistent with the conclusion
that the homicide was justifiable or excusable, the defendant cannot be
convicted.
“Fourth. If the jury believe that Mr. Sickles, when
the homicide occurred, intended to kill Mr. Key, he cannot be convicted of
manslaughter.
“Fifth. It is for the jury to determine, under all
circumstances of the case, whether the act charged upon Mr. Sickles is murder
of justifiable homicide. [Ryan’s Case, 2; Wheeler’s Criminal Cases, 54.]
“Fifth. It is for the jury to determine, under all the
circumstances of the case, whether the act charged upon Mr. Sickles is murder
or justifiable homicide. [Ryan’s Case, 2; Wheeler’s Criminal Cases, 54.]
“Sixth. If the jury find that Mr. Sickles killed Mr.
Key while the latter was in criminal intercourse with the wife of the former,
Mr. Sickles cannot be convicted of either murder or manslaughter.
“Seventh. If, from the whole evidence, the jury
believe that Mr. Sickles committed the act, but, at the time of doing so, was
under the influence of a diseased mind, and was really unconscious that he was
committing a crime, he is not in law guilty of murder. [Day’s Case, pamphlet,
page 9.]
“Eighth. If the jury believe that, from any
predisposing cause, the prisoner’s mind was impaired, and at the time of
killing Mr. Key he became or was mentally incapable of governing himself in
reference to Mr. Key, as the debauchee of his wife, and at the time of his
committing said act was, by reason of such cause, unconscious that he was
committing a crime as to said Mr. Key, he is not guilty of any offence
whatever. [Day’s Case, pamphlet, page 17.]
“Ninth. It is for the jury to say what the state of
the prisoner’s mind as to the capacity to decide upon the criminality of the
particular act in question—the homicide—at the moment it occurred, and what was
the condition of the parties, respectively, as to being armed or not, at the
same moment.
“These are open questions for the jury, as are any
other questions that may arise upon the consideration of the evidence, the
whole of which is to be taken in view by the jury. [Jarboe’s Case, pamphlet,
page 20.]
“Tenth. The law does not require that the insanity
which absolves from crime should exist for any definite period, but only that
it exist at the moment when the act occurred with which the accused stands
charged.
“Eleventh. If the jury have any doubt as to the case,
either in reference to the homicide or the question of sanity, Mr. Sickles
should be acquitted.”
Mondy—occupied in argument by counsel.
_______________
Mr. Sickles Acquitted.—We
are gratified to announce that Mr. Sickles has been acquitted. The jury
remained out but half an hour, and when the verdict was announced, the
sympathies of the large audience burst forth in shouts of applause. Mr. Sickles
came out accompanied by his friends, and was received but the dense throng with
renewed applause. He immediately got into his carriage and drove to his house,
followed by the excited crowd.
SOURCE: The
National Era, Washington, D. C., Thursday, April 28, 1859, p. 2
