People v. Sheldon

• Citation: 156 N.Y. 268,50 N.E. 840
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SHELDON.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1898
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

156 N.Y. 268

50 N.E. 840

PEOPLE

v.SHELDON.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 7, 1898.

Appeal from supreme court, trial term, Cayuga county.

Frank N. Sheldon was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

The defendant, Frank N. Sheldon, was, on the 9th day of October, 1896, indicted by the grand jury of Cayuga county for the crime of murder in the first degree, charged with the killing of his wife, Eva M. Sheldon. On the 12th day of October, 1896, he was arraigned on said indictment, and pleaded not guilty. On the 25th day of January, 1897, at a trial term of the supreme court held in and for the said county, the indictment was moved for trial. The trial lasted for seven weeks, ending on the 15th day of March.

A great number of witnesses (119 in all) were examined. The evidence against the accused was largely circumstantial. The defense insisted that the deceased came to her death by suicide, and considerable evidence pointing in that direction was given during the progress of the trial. It was generally supposed at first that the deceased had taken her own life, as, when the body was discovered in a closet of the house occupied by her and the prisoner, a pistol was lying beside it, and not for some time after the burial was the defendant accused of the crime of which he was subsequently convicted. In fact there were two disinterments of the body, considerable time elapsing between them, before the idea of murder became prevalent and the prisoner charged with the crime.

On March 11th the case was finally submitted to the jury, who immediately retired to deliberate upon their verdict. Three times, at their request, the jury were brought into court for instructions. After being out all of one night and the greater part of one day, they announced that they had not agreed upon a verdict. The judge ordered the jury to be sent out again for further deliberation. They returned into court the second time, after having been out two nights, all of one day, and part of the second day, and reported, in a writing signed by the foreman, that they were unable to agree upon a verdict, and that it was impossible for them to do so. The jury were again sent back to the jury room by the court, after receiving certain instructions, and remained there until 3:20 o'clock of that day (it being Saturday), when they were sent for by the court, who, after giving them further instructions and directing certain provision to be made for their convenience and comfort, ordered them to be taken back for further deliberation. They remained out, from that time, two nights and one day, until Monday morning, when they returned into court, and announced a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. The jury were out altogether four nights and about four days. During all this time they had been provided with no sleeping accommodations whatever, confined for two nights and almost two days in the narrow quarters of a jury room, and the rest of the time in the court room, which had been set aside for that purpose. What following each time, as the jury returned into court, will fully appear by the following synopsis taken from the record:

‘Jury went out Thursday, March 11, 1897, at 8:30 p. m. 11:30 a. m., Friday, jury came into court, and asked two questions as to the evidence, which were answered by the court from the minutes of stenographer (folios 11,202 to 11,240) without objection. 3:25 p. m. jury again came into court and announced they had not agreed upon a verdict. By the Court: ‘Well, gentlemen, you must make an effort to agree. This case has involved immense labor. A great deal of time, as you know, has been given to it, and, from all the evidence that has been produced, it would seem that the case is susceptible of a conclusion. The only way of reaching a conclusion is through the verdict of the jury. There is no reason why these twelve men are not as capable of understanding this case and coming to a conclusion as any other twelve that could be gotten together. It is a case of too much importance, that has entailed too much labor, to permit a jury to separate without the utmost effort to agree. Differences that exist amongst you as to the evidence must be further investigated. Any questions of law the court will be glad to explain to you. It is for the interests of all concerned and public justice that there should be a decision of this case so that the questions in it shall be put at rest. I cannot hear of a disagreement of this jury. You must retire, gentlemen.’ The jury again retired at 3:30 p. m., and at 5:30 p. m. sent a communication to the court asking for further information. Instructions were given, and questions of jury answered by reading from stenographer's minutes (folios 11,245 to 11,281), without objection. Jury then retired. Saturday morning, March 13, 1897, the jury came into court by the order of Justice Dunwell, at 12:45 p. m., and presented a written communication to the court, Mr. Drummond having previously waived his presence in court, which read as follows: ‘Judge Dunwell-Dear Sir: The probability or even possibility of this jury ever agreeing is impossible in my opinion. George J. Holden, Foreman.’ By the Court: ‘The order will be that you be conducted to your hotel, and that you be brought back for further deliberation. The counsel for the defendant is not here, and later I will have something further to say to you with reference to your present communication. I have made my own arrangements so as to be back at your call both for to-day and for some time in the future, so that this case may be fully disposed of if there is a possibility of it, and I will have something further to say on this subject later in the day, when the defendant's counsel can be present.’ At 3:20 p. m. the jury again returned to the court, and were addressed by the court as follows: ‘Gentlemen, I have been giving consideration to the note that you addressed to the court this morning, in which you stated your doubts as to your ability to agree upon a verdict in this case. I very much regret this supposition of yours, but I by no means despair. This case has involved immense labor, enormous expense has been entailed, evidence has been gathered and brought before you from every direction, evidence bearing directly upon the issues in this case, and some of it remotely upon the issues. All, everything that could be suggested, that might throw light upon the question submitted to you, has been brought before you and is in your possession. Now, the truth of this case lies within the compass of that evidence. Mrs. Sheldon died by violence. How that came about and whether the defendant is guilty or innocent is something that must be told by the evidence that has been presented to you. I don't know that you fully appreciate the gravity and importance to this community and to the state that a decision shall be reached in this matter, and that this important question shall be settled as to whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. This case has occupied nearly seven weeks, and to say now, at the end of all that time, at the end of all this labor and expense, that the question is no better off than it was when started, is almost to confess incompetency in this matter. Of course, I have no means of knowing, and I don't desire to know, unless it is something that you desire to bring before the court, the reasons why this state of affairs exists in your body. I hope it is nothing like pride of opinion. I hope it is nothing like, having once taken a position in this case, that, therefore, you must say it is unalterable; that it is not susceptible of change by argument, and by a review of the evidence in the case,-because such considerations as those would be most unworthy to divide a jury upon so important a question. Engaged as I am in the administration of, or attempt to administer, public justice in this district, I have laid aside my other engagements so that this case can be attended to, because I appreciate the importance of it, and I would like to enforce upon you an appreciation of the importance of settling this question. It has got to be settled. When an affair of this kind has occurred it has got to be tried, it has got to be investigated, and the interests of public justice will not stop short of going to the very bottom of it, and discovering what the truth is, regardless of time and expense. I do not say these things, gentlemen, in a fault-finding way. I desire to say them to you with the idea of urging upon you and of bringing to your minds an appreciation of the great importance of this matter, and of settling it and deciding it. I appreciate somewhat your position. I don't say this with any unkindness. I know that your labors in this matter have been tedious, and that they are wearisome, and I appreciate the length of time that you have been out, and you must not think that I am forgetful of these things; but there must be a supreme effort made on your part to harmonize differences, and, therefore, I am going to insist that you begin at the very outset of the case, from the very beginning, and go over it again, looking at it from every possible point of view, so that there shall not be a failure of justice in this case. I know that your jury room is a narrow place, and that you are a good deal confined there, and for that reason I have arranged with the sheriff that you shall occupy this room from now on to the completion of your labors. Of course, I don't know how long it will take, and, therefore, I have arranged with the sheriff that you shall have more comfortable quarters, so that this room will be cleared shortly after you have retired, and the officers will remain downstairs in the sheriff's office, and you will be given this room, giving you a better opportunity to circulate about, and making your position as comfortable as possible under the circumstances.’ At 7:35 p. m. the court ordered that the...