|
From the Archives of the State Library: Reproductions from the Parties' Briefs to the Court of Appeals of Initial Statements and Points of Counsel in People v Gillette. A turn-of-the Century (19th!) circumstantial murder case. | |
| Argued by A. M. Mills, Little Falls, N.Y. |
|
|
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS. | |
| THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent, | |
| - against - | |
| CHESTER GILLETTE, | |
| Appellant.
| |
| Points for Appellant: | |
STATEMENT | |
| The defendant, Chester Gillette, appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in Herkimer County on the 10th day of December, 1906, by which it is adjudged that the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree and that the punishment of death be inflicted upon him during the week of January 28th, 1907. (Case Vol. 1, folios 445-453.) In August, 1906, an indictment was presented by the Grand Jury of Herkimer County against the defendant, Chester Gillette, charging him with the murder of one Grace Brown. It alleges the crime to have been committed on the 11th day of July, 1906, by assaulting and beating her and casting her into the waters of Big Moose Lake and drowning her. (Case Vol. 1, folios 23-39.) The defendant was arraigned August 31st, 1906, and pleaded, "Not Guilty." Mr. Charles D. Thomas and Mr. A. M. Mills were assigned by the Court as counsel for the defendant. The Court was adjourned to the 12th of November, 1906, on which date the defendant being present with his counsel the trial began. A jury was drawn and the trial continued from day to day until the 4th day of December, 1906, when the jury rendered it's verdict: "We find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment." (Case Vol 1, folio 323.) On the 10th of December, 1906, the Court being in session, the defendant, before judgment was pronounced, moved that the verdict of the jury be set aside; that the defendant have a new trial and that judgment be arrested on the grounds: That the verdict is contrary to law. That the verdict is against the weight evidence. That the jurors were prejudiced by improper statements of the District Attorney made in his opening address. That the jurors were prejudiced by improper statements made by the District Attorney in summing up the case. That this Extraordinary Term of the Court has no jurisdiction in this case. And upon all the exceptions taken in the court. The motion was entertained and denied and order duly entered denying the motion on the 10th of December, 1906. (Case Vol. 1, folios 406-411.) The defendant thereupon made a special motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the Extraordinary Term of the Court was unlawfully convened and was without jurisdiction or power to indict, try or sentence the defendant, which motion was denied and the order duly entered. (Case Vol. 1, folios 417-438.) The term of the Court at which the defendant was indicted, tried and sentenced was an Extraordinary Term, called and appointed by the Governor of the State of New York, and the Justice to hold the said term was assigned by the Governor. There was on other designation or appointment of the said term of Court, and no other assignment of the Justice to hold the same was made, and there was no such designation or appointment by a Judge of the Appellate Division or of any authority other than the Governor of the State. (Case Vol. 1, folios 2-10 and 418-427.) The deceased was Grace Brown a young woman whose home was at South Otselic in Chenango County, New York. In the spring of 1906, she lived at Cortland, New York, and worked in a factory which was carried on by N. H. Gillette, an uncle of the defendant. She was then twenty years of age. In 1906 the defendant lived at Cortland, New York,. and worked in the same factory in which Grace Brown was employed. He was then twenty-two years old. There arose an intimacy between these young people and finally in about March, 1906, the girl became pregnant, the defendant being the father of the child. In the latter part of June, 1906, when her condition became embarrassing the girl went to her home in South Otselic and stayed until the 9th of July. Then by a previous arrangement between her and the defendant they met at DeRuyter, New York, and came together to Canastota-thence to Utica where they stayed that night. From Utica they went the next day to Tupper Lake, New York, and stayed there the night of the 10th. From Tupper Lake they went to Big Moose Lake in the Northern part of Herkimer County. They went to the Glenmore Hotel at Big Moose arriving there about eleven o`clock in the forenoon. They planned to go out on the lake and around the lake on the steam boat which made trips from the Glenmore Hotel to points of interest on the lake. They were prepared to take the steamboat at the time of its leaving which was shortly before twelve o`clock. On the suggestion and recommendation of the landlord of the hotel, who was interested in the row boats, and not in the steamboat, made to the defendant, they changed the plan and took a row boat and went out on the lake leaving the hotel at about noon. They rowed around the lake and went out on the land at different points on the shore until about six o`clock in the afternoon when by some means the young woman got into the lake and her dead body was found by searchers the next day, the 12th of July. The claim of the prosecution is that the defendant took this young woman out on the lake intending to kill her, that he did kill her and threw her body into the lake. The defendant stoutly asserts that the young woman, becoming desperate over the situation jumped into the lake thereby committing suicide. A large amount of testimony was taken. The record of the trial contains something over two thousand pages of printed matter. The trial took place within four months after the tragic death of the girl and while, the public mind was greatly excited. The trial lasted, three weeks. The defendant in giving his narrative of the occurrence which resulted in the death of the young woman, says, that about six o`clock in the evening while they were drifting on the lake in the boat, they began talking about the situation and the predicament they were in. The defendant said to the girl that they could not keep going on in the way they had done and that some different course must be pursued. He proposed that they should go home and tell the parents of the girl all the facts. The girl thereupon began to cry and finally saying: "I will end it here" sprang up in the boat and threw herself into the lake. The defendant tried to reach and stop her but was net quick enough. The boat was overturned and both went into the lake and the girl was drowned. (Case Vol. 3, Folio .83-89.) For some days before then the girl had contemplated suicide. In June when she left the factory to go to South Otselic from whence the couple went away, she talked to a foreman in the factory bidding him good-by -- said she was going to the North Woods and probably would never see him again. (Case Vol. 3, Folio 1304.) A day or two before she left the factory on that occasion in. June she was crying and said to a fellow workman that she wished she would die and hoped she would not live to see the sun rise again. (Case Vol. 3, Folio 1307.) At the same time to another associate in the factory she said she was going to the North Woods and might never come back. She was crying and. said she wished she was dead; she said she wished she would never see the sun rise again. (Case Vol. 3; Folio 1312) At about, the same time she said to another person in the factory: "I am awfully blue; I wish I would never see the sun rise again." (Case Vol. 3, Folio 1315.) The letters which she wrote from her home in South Otselic to the defendant, and which were put in by the prosecution, are filled with the expression of an intention and desire to commit suicide. (See the letters case Vol. 1, Folios 2278-2414.) When the couple. arrived at the hotel at Big Moose Lake the defendant made an arrangement for them to go out on the steamboat which started from the hotel and went about the lake. The landlord at the hotel then talked with him about it and suggested and persuaded him to abandon the plan of going on the steamboat and to take a row boat from the boat house of the hotel. (Case Vol. 2, Fol. 226 and 236, Vol. 3, Fol. 48-5.) The case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. | |
|
Page 1
 The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York
| |