The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann

The State of New Jersey vs. Bruno Richard Hauptmann

June 20, 1935 – October 9, 1935

The court below: Court of errors and Appeals – New Jersey, Supreme Court – New Jersey

Fact

PARKER, J. delivered the court opinion. The plaintiff in error was tried for murder at the Hunterdon county court and was found guilty. He was not given the option of being imprisoned for life, and hence this appeal to write off this error. Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr.is the victim of murder for a child of not more than two years left sleeping in parents’ home on the night of 1st March 1932. Around eight o’clock at the parents’ house in Hunterdon County, East Amwell, and the child was placed on the bed by the nurse. On returning at around ten o’clock, the nurse found the child was missing, and evidence pointed to the possibility of kidnapping. A letter found on the sill of the window demanded a ransom of $50000 and indicated that further instructions would be given about the mode of delivery. The state testified the handwriting as being that of the defendant. Negotiations started, and in the course, more notes were found. On second April, Dr. Condon met a man at Bronx cemetery, who, according to the state testimony, was the defendant. Dr. Condon was an agent of Colonel Lindbergh, the child’s dad. The parents had evidence that the child was with the kidnapper from the night outfit the kid wore before the kidnapping and paid the money, but the kidnapper did not return the child. On March 12, his decomposed body was found buried in a grave in the neighboring county of Mercer. The autopsy revealed that the child’s death was instantaneous and had suffered three skull injuries.

Procedural History

Investigations were carried out over several months, and the defendant, a resident of the Bronx, was arrested and charged with the murder. On October 8th, the accusation was returned, and on 2nd January 1935, trials began until 13th February 1935 when the defendant was found guilty and charged to face the death penalty. The appeal was delayed until 20th June, as requested by the appellant lawyers. The issue is whether it was right to prosecute the defendant. The plaintiff of error presented 16 points to challenge the ruling. First, Attorney generals violated the rights of the defendant. In conclusion, it was without merit. Second, there were different theories regarding the cause of the child’s death. The prosecutor of pleas relied on the argument of death, resulting when the ladder broke when taking the child out of the room. The Attorney-general relied on child death resulting in child beating the child. The conclusion was that no error made since the latter is not the basis on which the case got subjected to the jury. Third. It argued out that the Attorney General in charge of prosecution should restrict the ruling public policy law. It was deemed to be without substance. Fourth, the defendant’s constitutional right was violated according to the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States. It was concluded there was no such violation. Fifth, prosecution happened in Hunterdon instead of Mercer County. In conclusion, there was enough evidence to do so in Hunterdon.

Issue

Six, It argues the court charged statutory crime, which was wrong since common law evidence was not there. Proof existed, and the court didn’t charge the statutory crime as claimed. The error, if any affected state, not the defendant. Seven, no evidence of intent to steal, and thus the charges on the jury were wrong. In this case, larceny was established. Eight, the theft was in Hunterdon County while the murder is presumed to have happened in Mercer County, and thus the two are separate occurrences. The court said that the burglar was still at Lindbergh’s premises when the child got killed. Nine, the attorney general suggested with an alternative theory of possible homicide, and this was found without substance since it was neither subjected to the jury nor implemented by court. Ten, it suggested the court gave an unfair verdict. The court regards the criticism was utterly and unwarranted. Point eleven focuses on the charge language and evidence of the handwriting of the letters being of the defendant. Numerous experts in handwriting had testified the writing to be that of the defendant, and the conclusion was overwhelming. And thus, no error was found in this.

Point twelve concerns refusal to charge on reasonable doubt and the venue. The court said that full charges applied as per the evidence available during the occurrence. Point thirteen is the excluding of the Tartell testimony. It was found to be irrelevant and deserved exclusion. Point fourteen, Kelly and Maish were allowed to testify, and neither had qualified. Point fifteen, the ladder should not have been used as evidence. There was sufficient evidence regarding the history of the ladder and its admission. The claim was thus regarded as lacking substance. Point sixteen, the defendant argued there was no enough evidence connecting him to the scene of the crime when the kidnapping happened or any other time. Investigations found that the defendant had no money before receiving the ransom amount and after receiving ceased from working and participated in speculation in Wall Street on a large scale. This evidence links him to the scene of murder and kidnapping.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Judge Parker, J ruled out that the allegations of the petition were delayed for too long only to be brought quite late, several months after the trial, and at a time when the case is under review for writ of error. No reversal on this case and the previous death penalty judgment remains. 11