State v. Siegel, 42699.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 42699.,42699.
• Parties: STATE v. SIEGEL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

221 Iowa 429
264 N.W. 613

STATE
v.
SIEGEL.

No. 42699.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Jan. 23, 1936.

Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Robert H. Munger, Judge.

Defendant was indicted charged with committing murder in the first degree. There was a verdict that defendant was guilty of manslaughter upon which judgment was entered. Defendant has taken this appeal.

Affirmed.

[264 N.W. 614]

Yeaman & Yeaman, and George Gorder, and Kindig, Faville & Mathews, all of Sioux City, for appellant.

Edward L. O'Connor, Atty. Gen., Walter F. Maley, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Max E. Duckworth, formerly Co. Atty., and M. E. Rawlings, present Co. Atty., both of Sioux City, for the State.

RICHARDS, Justice.

An indictment was found by the grand jury of Woodbury county charging defendant with first-degree murder of Glenn Cross. The jury found defendant guilty of manslaughter. From judgment upon verdict defendant has taken this appeal.

Defendant filed motion for new trial and assigns as error the overruling of same. In this motion defendant claimed he had not had a fair trial on account of alleged misconduct of the jury and of the bailiffs in charge of the jury and on account of alleged errors of, or abuse of discretion by, the court.

In support of the motion there was a showing by defendant that in the jury room there was talk that the county attorney had evidence that he did not use, and if he had produced it there would have been enough evidence for conviction. There was also a showing that juror Mrs. Ruth Broome stated in the jury room that during the trial of the case, while on a street car, she had overheard a well-dressed man say that at least three of the jurors had been bought; that Mrs. Broome intimated that the jurors voting for acquittal were the three who had been bought; that another juror, Mrs. Schwinn, asked one of the jurors who was voting for acquittal, “How much did you get out of this deal?” and said there was some reason for one of the jurors selling out because he was poor; and that another juror was voting for acquittal because he was working for a certain employer. There is a showing that the juror to whom this question was addressed assembled the jurors and asked if any of them had been bought or bribed and stated heatedly that he had not been and was unwilling to be accused of anything of that sort. The counter showing by the state is that juror Mrs. Broome apologized for her statements and assured Juror Alingh that Mrs. Broome's only purpose in telling him of the occurrence was her belief the whole jury should know about it. There is a showing that the two bailiffs in charge of the jury permitted the jurors to use the telephone when they desired, calling up and conversing with various persons, some of this telephoning being from a booth equipped with a door that closed. The counter showing is an affidavit of one of the bailiffs that he heard the conversation of the jurors telephoning. There was a showing that while the jury was out for meals the women jurors sometimes left the remainder of the jurors and went into stores to make purchases, and that the women jurors at times went to one side and talked to their husbands out of the hearing of the bailiffs and the rest of the jury. There was a showng that after the jury had deliberated for about 67 hours defendant moved the court that the jury be discharged, the motion being overruled; that thereafter, while the jury was out of the jury room for a meal, two of the jurors observed the headlines of a local newspaper stating: “Stick to it says Siegel judge. Defense loses motion to let jury quit task. No reason for disagreement.” That what was so read was communicated to the other jurors when they have been in deliberation about 74 hours. There was a showing that on one occasion while the jury was out for meals two of them heard loiterers on the street say that defendant was guilty and there was no reason for disagreement,

[264 N.W. 615]

which occurrence was communicated to the other jurors. There was a showing that during the latter part of the deliberation the jurors were pretty well tired out, one juror to such extent that he lay on a bed with a severe headache and there was difficulty on some occasions in...