Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/70

 A Sequence in Crime.

43

doubt upon the diagnosis of the attending to repel the strong presumption which would physicians as well as upon a post-mortem exist in favor of a husband on trial for the examination made by the State's experts. murder of his wife. Finally after an exceed They contended that Miss Potts did not die ingly careful review of the facts the court of morphine poisoning but uraemia, and the declared that it did not see how the jury medical testimony which they offered tended could have brought in any other verdict. chiefly to show the extreme similarity be Not discouraged, the defendant put forth tween the two. 1 redoubled efforts. Petitions were circulated, No useful purpose would be served by praying Governor Flower to appoint a com entering into a detailed statement of the missioner to take what was claimed to be expert evidence introduced beyond advert newly discovered evidence, on which to base ing to the fact that signs of morphine were an application for pardon. Many signatures found in the stomach and intestines. The were obtained. It should be noted that at importance of this can be appreciated when this point Harris abandoned his contention it is considered that quinine takes no longer that Helen Potts did not die of morphine, to be resolved into the system. Had the and took refuge in the plea that she was an pills, therefore, contained the ingredients habitual user, and that her death simply called for by the prescription, the latter drug resulted from over-indulgence. would have been present in quantity five Desiring that every possible degree of times that of the former. leniency might be exercised the governor On February 2, 1892, after a deliberation appointed Hon. George Raines to take testi of only an hour and twenty minutes, the jury mony. Every nerve was strained by the criminal in an endeavor to prove his case, declared Harris guilty of murder in the first degree. Motion for a new trial was denied. , but all to no purpose, for after a hearing An appeal was of course taken to the Court lasting many days the commissioner reported adversely. On May 4 Governor Flower of Appeals, for the purpose of arguing which the noted criminal lawyer, William F. Howe, announced his determination not to interfere with the course of justice. was retained. His contentions rested chiefly upon objections taken to the testimony of On May 8, tour days later, the murderer physicians who had at various times attended paid the penalty of his diabolical crime. More than a thousand persons stood on the Helen Potts. It was argued that any informa tion which they might have obtained as to hill in front of the prison watching for the her condition while attending her was con black flag which would announce that justice fidential, and consequently privileged under had been done. Carlyle Harris met death the New York code. Evidence as to the with perfect sang froid, declaring his inno Queen Drew episode as well as to the boasts cence to the last. which the prisoner had made was, it was It is more than doubtful whether so ex asserted, improperly allowed. The general tended an opportunity would have been ground was also taken that the facts as pre accorded to Harris in which to establish his sented did not justify a verdict of guilty. innocence had it not been for the devotion The highest tribunal, however, emphatically of his mother. With tireless energy she be dissented from ' these arguments. The sieged reporter, court official and counsel. privileged communications rule is for the No task was too severe for her abiding love. benefit of the patient so that he may have Absolutely confident in her son's guiltless confidence in his physician. Surely it cannot ness, nothing daunted her in the effort to be used as a buckler for a murderer. The obtain his freedom. She was the mainstay Canandaigua affair as well as the statements of the defence. As well as Helen was she of Harris was properly admitted in evidence, the murderer's victim. They should share as bearing upon the question of motive and our pity.