The Judge Who Was Both Defendant and Accused

The Wickersham trial, which had occupied the entire time of the district court for over a week, ended at a few minutes before 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon, when the jury returned a verdict of "guilty as charged in the indictment."

At 9 o'clock yesterday morning the jury filed into the box, the defendant took the seat he had occupied throughout the trial, the counsel in this case found good positions, and a large number of other attorneys were seated inside the bar to hear the charge to the jury. The prosecutrix and the ladies of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union were not present; but the court room was filled with the same crowd that had been present every day of the trial.

Hardly had the minute-hand on the big court clock passed the meridian, when Judge Burke turned his chair towards the jury and commenced delivering the charge. The main points of which are given below:

CHARGE TO THE JURY The court instructed the jury that the defendant was on trial for the crime charged in the indictment, and for no other crime or offence whatever. That to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged, it is necessary under our statute that the woman should be unmarried and of previously chaste character. A married man may be guilty of this offense as well as an unmarried man.

No general rule can be laid down for determining what acts and what representations, arts, artifices, batteries or promises will amount to a seduction of the crime. That the circumstances of each case, the condition in life, the age and intelligence and other circumstances of the parties must be considered by the jury. That it was incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the crime was committed by the defendant; that she was previously an unmarried woman of chaste character.

That in determining what the character of this prosecutrix was, the jury should consider her life and conduct as shown by the evidence; what was her conduct, who were her associates, what places she frequented, what books she used, in what devotional or other exercises she engaged, and what was the nature of her conversation. All these things, as well as everything else in her conduct and manner of living, are the external marks and must constitute the proof of her character, and from all evidence in the case the jury must determine what were the personal qualities of mind and heart of this girl, as to whether she was chaste before the defendant began his alleged seductive acts, if he did begin them, and would have remained chaste in the absence of his influence.

That there is testimony in this case tending to show that Sadie Brantner, prior to October, 1897, was modest, pure and chaste in her conduct, her reading and her associations. There is also evidence tending to show that during the same time the girl was guilty of acts of the grossest lewdness and immorality.

Upon this subject the jury must judge of the credibility of all the witnesses and determine whom to believe; and they should consider whether it is probable that Sadie Brantner, in view of her general good character and associations shown by the evidence, would be guilty of these acts of gross lewdness and immorality with the persons and at the places related to by the witnesses for the defense.

That it is not every act of impropriety nor even indecency that would stain the soil of her chastity upon the altar and deprive her of the protection of the law. Persons differ in their manners and forms of conversation, in their education and in manifestations of character; some are much more free and unrestrained than others, whilst have no more doubt of their purity is one case than in the other.

It becomes, therefore, one of the highest and most important as well as most delicate duties of a jury to judge of the proofs of such acts or conduct, with the utmost intelligence, care and freedom from bias, that a female innocent of actual purity of mind, may not suffer in her person from the interference and unconsidered words or acts which may be consistent with purity and integrity.

Questions of this character should be examined with extreme caution, still the jury should judge hastily or lightly concerning them. That the defendant was not on trial for any crime but that named in the indictment and that all evidence relating to the alleged criminal operation performed on the prosecutrix or false swearing to the land, as well as all occurring during the commission of the alleged crime, were admitted for the purpose of showing the defendant's conduct and his relation with the prosecutrix as throwing light upon the question of whether or not he is guilty of the crime charged.

That the jury should take into consideration the whole of the evidence, and all the facts and circumstances proved on the trial and these facts and circumstances include not only the statements that fall from the lips of the witnesses, but also the conduct of these witnesses and their manner of testifying. That what measure of evidence or belief should be given to the accounts of witnesses is a question for the jury to determine, but in doing so they were to consider them in each witness in the event of the trial, their conduct and demeanor in testifying, their apparent fairness or bias whether the story submitted by them is reasonable or probable in the light of the general course of events in human affairs.

Whether it was consistent with the other testimony and all the circumstances in evidence. That some witnesses had testified to the alleged facts of Sadie Brantner at times and placed an emphasis on certain matters or less consistent with her chastity. In reference to these matters the jury should determine the credibility of the witness under the usual ready guide, they should further consider whether not such witnesses, or none of them, may have been actuated by some ulterior person for Sadie Brantner in matter very frequent occurrence in daily life, as well on the testimony in courts of law, for persons to falsely give the identity of others, and especially when a witness testifies to the identity of a person essentially upon an occasion long past, and is unable to give any distinguishing marks of size, personal appearance or peculiarity of clothing or other particulars of the person to identified.

The testimony should be received with caution; and carefully considered with reference to the degree of previous acquaintance of the witness with the person to be identified, the marks or peculiarities by which the witness recognized the person, the opportunities the witness had for observation, and generally all the corroborating facts and circumstances bearing on the issue.

The jury is bound to listen to any witness to whom it may seem fit that it is entirely within the discretion of the jury to believe for they shall believe or not any witness.

The penalty then must be left to the jury for all questions of law in this case to be given to the defendant directly. That while the law allows a man charged with crime to testify in his own behalf he is not compelled to do so, and that no inference of guilt arises against the defendant on account of his failure or refusal to testify as a witness in his own behalf; that in this case the law raises no presumption against the defendant, and every presumption of the law is in favor of his innocence; and in order to convict him of the crime alleged in the indictment, every material fact necessary to constitute such crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and if the jury retain any reasonable doubt upon any single fact or element necessary to constitute the crime it was its duty to give the defendant benefit of such doubt and acquit him.

A reasonable doubt was defined as "such a one as a man of ordinary prudence, scrutiny and decision in determining a matter of like concern to himself, as that before the jury to the defendant, would allow to have any influence whatever upon him, or make him pause or hesitate in arriving at his determination."

The court further instructed the jury as a matter of law that the doubt which the juror is allowed to retain in his own mind and under the influence of which he should form a verdict of not guilty, must always be a reasonable one. A doubt produced by undue sensibility in the mind of any juror, in view of the consequences of his verdict, is not a reasonable doubt, and a juror is not allowed to create sources of materials of doubt by resorting to strained trivial and fanciful suppositions and remote conjectures, as to possible state of facts differing from that established by the evidence. They were not at liberty to disbelieve as jurors what they believed as men. Their oath imposed on them no obligation to doubt where no doubt would exist if no oath had been administered.

RECEPTION OF THE JURY The jury retired immediately upon the delivery of the charge, a little before 10 o'clock. Counsel for the defense took several exceptions to the charge.

The jury commenced balloting soon after being locked into its room, and took a large number of votes before a verdict could be arrived at. A majority were for conviction from the first ballot, but one or two held out on the grounds that they had not been thoroughly convinced of Miss Brantner's character for chastity previous to October. At 4 o'clock it was rumored that the jury intended coming into court for further instructions on this point, but a few moments later the bailiff at the door was informed that a verdict had been agreed upon and that the jury was ready to report to the court.

THE VERDICT ANNOUNCED At 20 minutes to 4 the jury came into the room.

A moment later Judge Wickersham, accompanied by Charles Sullivan, one of his attorneys, came in and took a seat. District Attorney Hornsby was called, and stood leaning on the railing surrounding the clerk desk, with an anxious face. Dr. Miller, of Tacoma, was in the audience, and appeared to be deeply concerned in the result. Neither the prosecutrix nor representatives of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union were present.

Clerk called the names of the jurors, and each responded to the roll as if he were glad he had at last performed his disagreeable duty.

"Have you arrived at a verdict?" asked the court.

"We have, your Honor," said Foreman Allen, as he handed the paper that spoke the fate of the defendant to the bailiff.

While Judge Burke scanned the verdict there was deep silence in the room. Wickersham sat with his legs crossed, his hands nervously moving with his watch-chain and an intense look of anxiety upon his face. Attorney Sullivan was even more nervous than his client, although his face wore a bone of hope.

Judge Burke finally handed the paper containing the Verdict to Clerk Longworth, who read:

"We, the jury in the case of the Territory of Washington vs James Wickersham, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment."

J. G. ALLEN, Foreman.

A spasmodic twitch of his features indicated how the verdict affected the defendant. His attorney at once demanded a poll of the jury. The roll was again called and each juror was asked; "Is this your verdict?"

"This is our verdict," was the firm response from each of the 12 men.

ARRESTED ON ANOTHER CHARGE The United States grand jury had during the day returned an indictment against Judge Wickersham for subornation of perjury in inducing Sadie Brantner to file on government land by swearing falsely immediately after the verdict of the Jury had been given, and before Judge Wickersham had time to leave the court room.

United States Attorney White instructed United States Marshal Hamilton to arrest him on this charge. Judge Wickersham's attorneys protested that this was unnecessary, as he was in court and willing to give bonds for his future appearance if necessary.

"What bonds are you willing to give?" asked the court.

"I think $5,000 would be about right, considering that Judge Wickersham is already under heavy bonds," suggested Attorney Sullivan.

Attorney White objected to such small bonds; but said he would be willing to let him off with $10,000. Judge Wickersham at once furnished the required recognizance, Dr. F. C. Miller, of Tacoma, becoming his surety.

THE DOUBT REMAINS Now that the verdict of the jury has been announced, everyone is anxious to know what the penalty will be. The severity of the sentence is at the option of the court, and according to the laws of Washington the defendant may be imprisoned in the penitentiary for any period not exceeding one year, or a fine not exceeding $1,000 and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year.

Judge Wickersham and his attorneys do not intend that either sentence shall be imposed if they can help it. Notice of a motion for arrest of judgment and a new trial has already been filed. If this is denied, they will ask for an appeal to the supreme court upon the large number of exceptions to rulings during the trial of the case.

The United States' case against him cannot be tried so long as he is under the jurisdiction of the territorial courts; but United States Attorney White has announced his intention of taking the case as soon as opportunity presents.