State v. Meyer

Decision Date25 October 1917
Docket NumberNo. 31446.,31446.
PartiesSTATE v. MEYER.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from District Court, Madison County; J. H. Applegate, Judge.

Defendant was indicted jointly with her son on a charge of murder in the first degree. Trial was had to a jury. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. Defendant appeals. For reasons pointed out in this opinion, the cause is reversed.John A. Guiher and W. S. Cooper, both of Winterset, for appellant.

George Cosson, Atty. Gen., John Fletcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Phil. R. Wilkinson, Co. Atty., of Winterset, for the State.

GAYNOR, C. J.

The defendant is charged with the crime of murder in the first degree. She was indicted jointly with her son, Fred Meyer, and charged with the killing of the wife of Fred, Ethel Meyer. The crime is alleged to have been committed on the 25th day of July, 1915, and by means of a revolver held in the hands of said Ida E. Meyer, defendant herein, and her son, Fred Meyer. The indictment was returned on the last of October of that year. At the December term of court she appeared, pleaded not guilty, and filed a motion for a continuance. This motion was sustained. On the 4th day of February, 1916, she again appeared and filed a petition for a change of venue, supporting the same by affidavits.

From these affidavits it appears: That her codefendant, Fred Meyer, was tried at Winterset, in said county, at the December term, 1915, and a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree returned against him. On this verdict he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 15 years. That this trial was attended by a large concourse of people and lasted for several days. That there were a large number of jurors summoned and examined, most of whom were present during the trial. That this trial gave great publicity to the affair, and to the facts upon which the state relied for a conviction. That the newspapers of the county, while assuming to publish reports of the trial as it progressed, gave coloring to the facts by comment and innuendo unfavorable to this defendant, thereby producing in the minds of the people a settled conviction that this defendant is guilty of the offense charged against her. That these newspapers began the publication of their accounts of the tragedy soon after its occurrence, and continued comment upon the facts developed as the investigation proceeded, greatly to the prejudice of this defendant. That these newspapers have a large circulation, and are influential in the county, and are taken and read by most of the citizens of said county. That the public mind is no longer in a condition to receive patiently, and weigh impartially and dispassionately, the evidence which may be adduced in said cause for and in behalf of the defendant. That the public mind has been poisoned against the defendant in said county by the circulation of untrue rumors touching the chastity of this defendant, and in the circulation of false stories as to the cause of the death of her husband. That it has been persistently and generally circulated through said county that the defendant's husband came to his death by foul means. That it has been falsely circulated that this defendant was instrumental in causing his death. That it has been falsely circulated throughout the county that the defendant is a woman of bad character.

It appears, from the affidavits of the attorneys who represented her in this cause, that when they approached citizens with a request for signatures to the application for a change of venue they were refused on purely prudential grounds; that citizens asserted and claimed that to do so would be prejudicial to their private interests. The same attorneys assert in their affidavits that during the trial of the son it was frequently said to them, by residents of the county, that there was no doubt of the mother's guilt; that there would be no trouble in showing her guilty; that she had murdered her husband, and should have been sent to the penitentiary for that, and that now she must go; that it was said by many citizens of the county that they could not believe that reputable attorneys would allow themselves to be employed in the defense of such a guilty person as Mrs. Meyer, and that many friends had said to them that people were surprised that a reputable attorney would be employed in the defense of one so guilty as Mrs. Meyer, and that it would hurt these attorneys in the estimation of good people to be so employed. These attorneys stated that the publicity given to the trial of Fred Meyer, and the rumors and gossip circulated touching Mrs. Meyer's character and her connection with the death of her husband, had so prejudiced the people of the county against her that, in their judgment, she could not obtain a fair trial in the county. It further appears that it was currently reported throughout the county that the judge who tried Fred Meyer and sentenced him to 15 years in the penitentiary stated that he would have sentenced him to a longer term if he had not believed that Fred Meyer had little to do with the crime; that Ida E. Meyer, this defendant, was the one who really committed the murder. The affidavits of these attorneys show that they had spoken with many people touching her claim for a change of venue, and that the people spoken to admitted that the prejudice against her was so strong that she could not have a fair trial, but declined to sign affidavits, because they did not want to incur the ill will of persons interested in the prosecution.

It appears from a reading of the newspaper reports of the tragedy and of the trial of Fred Meyer, as the same have been submitted to us, that every detail touching the tragedy, and the manner in which it is claimed to have occurred, was fully published and circulated through the county; that detailed accounts of the testimony of witnesses on the trial of Fred Meyer were published, with comment, and with suggestion as to discrepancies that appeared in the testimony, and, though perhaps not intentional, they received the coloring which is naturally given by those who have the conscious feeling that the defendant is guilty of the offense charged. For instance, in one publication, made on January 13th, in one of the leading newspapers of the county, it was said:

Mrs. Ethel Meyer, bride of only a few months, was found dying in the Meyer home, northwest of here, on July 25th, with bullet wounds in her head, and a revolver lying by her side. Meyer and his mother assert the young bride committed suicide, using the revolver that lay beside her to commit the act. The state proved, however, that this revolver had long been unused, and could scarcely have been discharged by one of Mrs. Meyer's strength” (meaning the younger Mrs. Meyer).

In another publication it was said:

“It was developed at the inquest that the bullet found in the cavity, practically intact, weighed but 74 grains, while the bullet from the cartridge in the revolver which Meyer said was found in his wife's hand weighed 154 grains.”

Further it was said:

“There was evidence before the grand jury that Meyer and his mother did not tell the same stories; that they tried to cover up some of their actions, and destroyed some of the bed clothing, which was blood–soaked.”

It further appeared in said paper as follows:

“The fact that Fritz Meyer had been found dead in the fields years ago was recalled. Young Meyer is declared by a neighbor to have said, ‘I suppose I will have to pound stone for this.’

It appears that the Des Moines Tribune, a paper circulated in said county, on December 9th, contained a partial account of the trial. The report began:

‘The revolver was not close to the dying woman. The revolver with which Fred Meyer and his mother insist Mrs. Ethel Meyer killed herself was not lying beside the dying woman when he arrived at the Meyer home a few minutes after the shooting.’ So testified Albert Kneuper, neighbor of the Meyers today in the trial of Fred Meyer.”

It was further published in some of the papers that Fred and his mother had said that, upon discovering the wife lying with a gunshot wound, she spoke and said to them that she wanted to die––“Folks, I wish to die;” but that it was shown the wound was of such nature this could not be true. It would be profitless to set out all the comments. They are numerous, and many of the headlines inflammatory.

To this showing the state filed its resistance. Certain witnesses made specific denials of matters to which we have not referred in this opinion. The resistance was supported by an affidavit to the effect that they (the affiants) believed that the people of the county were not only without prejudice against the defendant, but they were without any special knowledge of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT