He Swindled a Banker Out of $5,000. Now He Says the Newspapers Poisoned His Jury.
Harvey W. Knowlton, convicted of swindling an Aberdeen banker, files for a new trial claiming jurors read prejudicial news accounts and that a missing sheriff would have testified the money went to another man.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
KNOWLTON WANTS NEW TRIAL.
He Alleges Jurors' Misconduct and Absence of Woolery as a Witness.
Harvey W. Knowlton, the gold brick swindler convicted in Judge Humes' court Thursday night, on a charge of swindling Charles T. Wooding, a banker of Aberdeen, out of $5,000, yesterday filed a motion for a new trial. He alleges misconduct of the jury, errors in law, a verdict not in accord with the evidence, and accident and surprise.
In his petition Knowlton sets forth that the jury were allowed to read defamatory and malicious accounts of the trial published in the daily papers, and lines as exhibits several columns heretofore published, which, he says, prejudiced the minds of the jurymen against him and influenced them to an unfair verdict.
Knowlton further alleges that he was unable to secure the testimony of Sheriff Woolery, who, he says, would have sworn that Wooding paid the $5,000, not to Knowlton, but to a man named Russell. The sheriff was not subpoenaed, because the defendant thought such a proceeding unnecessary, as the sheriff was an officer in attendance upon the court. When the testimony was desired the sheriff was absent from the courthouse, and as he could not be found the case went to the jury without his testimony, greatly to Knowlton's disadvantage.
Other grounds, based upon the record and the evidence, are set out in the petition. The motion will probably be heard in regular course next Saturday.
“The jury were allowed to read defamatory and malicious accounts of the trial published in the daily papers.”
Knowlton's complaint that newspaper coverage biased his jury anticipated modern debates over media trials and prejudicial pretrial publicity. In an era of viral news and social media, the line between public information and jury contamination remains contested.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.