The defendant received a fair and impartial trial.

      There was assigned to him as counsel, two able and experienced attorneys.

      Vol. 1, fol. 78.

      The date of the trial was fixed by agreement between Court and counsel; all parties desiring a speedy trial.

      Vol. 1, fol. 127.

      In forming the jury the defense exercised twenty-three of his peremptory challenges and when the jury was pronounced satisfactory the defendant still had seven peremptory challenges remaining unused. The people exercised fifteen peremptory challenges.

      Vol. 1, fol. 243.

      Vol. 1, fol. 215.

      Every challenge to the jurors interposed by the defendant's counsel for cause to the Court was sustained and every juror objected to by the defense for any cause whatsoever was excused by the Court, so that it cannot be said but that the defendant was tried by a jury of his own selection.

      But fifty-eight talesmen were examined as to their qualifications. The sheriff was directed to summon the witnesses desired by the defense at the expense of the county, and these witnesses were paid for their attendance by the county.

      Vol. 1, fols. 390-395.

      Defendant's counsel were also authorized to employ expert witness or witnesses at the expense of the county by the Court, and the compensation of such witnesses was paid by the county.

      Vol. 1, fols. 357-367.

      Both the Trial Court and the District Attorney understood the rule that not only must there be satisfactory evidence to justify and call for conviction of the defendant of the crime charged in the indictment but that also the manner and the method of the trial must be such as to be approved by this Court, and so far as they were able the trial was conducted in accordance with that understanding.

      A defendant indicted for a homicide may be found guilty upon evidence which is wholly circumstantial, and where it appears upon a review of such evidence, that the uncontradicted and unexplained facts and circumstances, proved upon the trial, not only establish the existence of a powerful motive for the commission of the crime by the defendant, but form so complete and strong a chain of evidence as to exclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, every hypothesis save that of defendant's guilt, a verdict convicting him of murder in the first degree will be sustained.

      People vs. Sexton, 187 N. Y., 495.

     


[Respondent's points continued next page.]

Page 18

     

The Historical Society of the Courts of the State of New York
140 Grand Street, Suite 701
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
phone: (914) 824-5717