People v. Molineux

Last updated

People v. Molineux
Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg
Court New York Court of Appeals
Full case nameThe People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roland B. Molineux, Appellant
ArguedJune 17, 1901
DecidedOctober 15, 1901
Citation(s)168 N.Y. 264
Holding
Judgment of conviction reversed and new trial ordered.
Court membership
Chief judge Alton B. Parker
Associate judges John Clinton Gray, Denis O'Brien, Edward T. Bartlett, Albert Haight, Irving G. Vann, William E. Werner
Case opinions
MajorityWerner, joined by Bartlett, Vann
Concur/dissentParker, joined by Gray, Haight

People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264 (1901), was a landmark decision by the Court of Appeals of New York concerning the trial of a suspected murderer. [1]

Contents

Background, trial and appellate decision

Roland Burnham Molineux Roland Burnham Molineux portrait.jpg
Roland Burnham Molineux

Roland Burnham Molineux, son of General Edward Leslie Molineux of Brooklyn, was a chemist by profession. He was charged with first degree murder for having caused the death of Katherine Adams by poisoning. It was alleged that Molineux had a feud with Harry Seymour Cornish, [2] the athletic director of the Knickerbocker Athletic Club, and that Molineux had mailed a bottle labeled "Emerson's Bromo-Seltzer" to Cornish at the club. The powder in the bottle contained cyanide of mercury. [3] Cornish took the bottle home to the lodgings he shared with his 62-year-old distant cousin, Katherine Adams, and her daughter, Florence. On the morning of December 28, 1898, Katherine was suffering from a headache, and Florence, recalling that Cornish had brought the bottle of bromo-seltzer home the previous evening, asked Cornish for it. At Katherine's request, Cornish removed the cork from the bottle and prepared a dose by mixing a heaping teaspoonful of the bromo-seltzer with a half glass of water. Katherine drank the contents of the glass and, within a few minutes, became violently ill. A doctor was called, but Katherine died shortly after his arrival. [4]

Molineux's first jury trial lasted from November 1899 to February 1900, making the People v. Molineux the longest and one of the most expensive trials in New York history to that date. The press offered wall-to-wall coverage, especially the New York World and the New York Journal , then locked in the epic circulation struggle that began yellow journalism.

Molineux was convicted on February 10, 1900. [5] After being sentenced to death on February 16, he was transferred to Sing Sing to await execution. [5] His lawyers filed an appeal, and on October 15, 1901, the Court of Appeals of New York reversed the conviction. [6] The decision was a

judicial landmark, defining the conditions under which prosecutors could introduce evidence of previous crimes at a defendant's trial. Generally speaking, wrote Justice William E. Werner in a formulation that even today is known as the "Molineux rule," the state "cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment." This rule was intended as a constitutional safeguard, protecting a defendant from "the assumption that [he] was guilty of the crime charged because he had committed other, similar crimes in the past." [7]

At the original trial, the prosecution had entered evidence suggesting that Molineux had been responsible for an earlier death, that of Henry Crossman Barnet, with the aim of showing that he had a propensity to murder. Molineux and Barnet were friends. In November 1897, Molineux had introduced Barnet to Blanche Chesebrough, and shortly after that, Blanche turned down Molineux's proposal of marriage. [8] It was alleged that a rivalry which developed between Molineux and Barnet over Blanche was Molineux's motive for bringing about Barnet's death. Barnet died on November 10, 1898, and on November 19, 1898, one week after attending Barnet's funeral, Blanche married Molineux. [9] Barnet's death had been attributed by the attending physicians to a weakened heart caused by diphtheria, [9] despite the fact that he had become violently ill on October 28, 1898, after having taken a dose from a sample tin of Kutnow's Improved Effervescent Powder which had arrived in the mail, unsolicited, two months earlier. [10] The powder was later analyzed, and found to contain cyanide of mercury. On February 28, 1899, Barnet's body was exhumed and the organs, when analyzed, were found to contain the same poison; however, Molineux had never been indicted for the murder of Barnet, and the Appeals Court ruled that using "evidence" of an unproven previous act of murder against the defendant in a subsequent unrelated trial violated the basic tenet of presumption of innocence, and, therefore, such evidence was inadmissible [1] (other than on five clearly defined grounds). [lower-alpha 1] Thus, "the state cannot prove against a defendant any crime not alleged in the indictment, either as a foundation for a separate punishment, or as aiding the proofs that he is guilty of the crime charged." [11]

The decision was notable in its impact on the rules of admissibility of evidence. Over one hundred years later, Judge Rosenblatt of the New York Appeals Court stated that the Molineux decision was a "landmark case" which led to the precedent that:

a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on the basis of a defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged. It is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence (or lack of evidence) relating to the case before it. We have repeated this theme throughout the last century [12]

Aftermath

Molineux was acquitted at his subsequent retrial. [13] On November 18, 1902, one week after Molineux's acquittal, Blanche filed for divorce in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, [14] citing mental cruelty. The divorce was granted in September 1903, and less than two months later Blanche married Wallace D. Scott, her attorney in the divorce proceedings. [15] She died in 1954 at the age of eighty. [16]

By 1912 Molineux had written a play set in a prison, The Man Inside, which was produced by David Belasco in 1913. [17] On November 8, 1913, three days before the play's premiere, Molineux married Margaret Connell. [17] During 1913 Molineux's mental condition had deteriorated, and in November of that year he was said to have had a nervous breakdown, and was in a sanitarium. [18] Molineux died November 2, 1917 [19] in Kings Park State Hospital. [12] According to the death certificate, he had died of "syphilitic infection". [19]

The prosecuting New York District Attorney Asa Bird Gardiner was sacked by then-Governor Theodore Roosevelt on the grounds of incompetence. [12]

One of Molineux's lawyers was former governor Frank S. Black. [20] Another, Bartow Sumter Weeks, went on to become a New York Court of Appeals judge. [21]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ In order to prove Motive, Intent, Modus operandi, for Identification, or to demonstrate a Common scheme or plan. [1]

Related Research Articles

In United States law, an Alford plea, also called a Kennedy plea in West Virginia, an Alford guilty plea, and the Alford doctrine, is a guilty plea in criminal court, whereby a defendant in a criminal case does not admit to the criminal act and asserts innocence, but accepts imposition of a sentence. This plea is allowed even if the evidence to be presented by the prosecution would be likely to persuade a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This can be caused by circumstantial evidence and testimony favoring the prosecution, and difficulty finding evidence and witnesses that would aid the defense.

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law - in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offence, however, a different offence may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger - it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

<i>R v Carroll</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 is a decision of the High Court of Australia which unanimously upheld the decision by a Queensland appellate court to stay an indictment for perjury as the indictment was found to controvert the respondent's earlier acquittal for murder. The court held that charging Raymond John Carroll with perjuring himself in the earlier murder trial by swearing he did not kill the baby Deidre Kennedy was tantamount to claiming he had committed the murder and was thus a contravention of the principles of double jeopardy. The case caused widespread public outcry and prompted calls for double jeopardy law reform.

Barry Michael George is an English man who was found guilty of the murder of English television presenter Jill Dando and whose conviction was overturned on appeal.

Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence:

  1. the purpose for which the character evidence is being used
  2. the form in which the character evidence is offered
  3. the type of proceeding in which the character evidence is offered
<span class="mw-page-title-main">James Marcello</span> American mobster incarcerated in a US federal prison

James J. Marcello, also known variously as "Little Jimmy", "Jimmy Light" and as "Jimmy the Man", is a crime boss who was a front boss for the Chicago Outfit criminal organization in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Organized crime observers identified Marcello as a figurehead during that period while the organization's day-to-day operations actually were run by John "No Nose" DiFronzo, Joseph "Joey the Clown" Lombardo, Joseph "Joe the Builder" Andriacchi and Angelo J. LaPietra.

The Colombo crime family is an Italian American Mafia crime family and is the youngest of the "Five Families" that dominate organized crime activities in New York City within the criminal organization known as the American Mafia. It was during Lucky Luciano's organization of the American Mafia after the Castellammarese War, following the assassinations of "Joe the Boss" Masseria and Salvatore Maranzano, that the gang run by Joseph Profaci became recognized as the Profaci crime family.

The Trenton Six is the group name for six African-American defendants tried for murder of an elderly white shopkeeper in January 1948 in Trenton, New Jersey. The six young men were convicted in August 1948 by an all-white jury of the murder and sentenced to death.


On May 22, 1995, 16-year-old Jimmy Farris, the son of a Los Angeles Police Department officer, was stabbed to death. Farris and his friend, Michael McLoren, were next to a clubhouse-type fort in McLoren's backyard. Four acquaintances of Farris and McLoren jumped the chainlink fence and approached the fort. There was a fight inside the fort. Farris and McLoren went into the house, bleeding from stab wounds, while the other four climbed back over the fence and left. Farris died before paramedics arrived. McLoren was airlifted to UCLA Medical Center.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Court for Sierra Leone</span> Judicial body

The Special Court for Sierra Leone, or the "Special Court" (SCSL), also called the Sierra Leone Tribunal, was a judicial body set up by the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations to "prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law" committed in Sierra Leone after 30 November 1996 and during the Sierra Leone Civil War. The court's working language was English. The court listed offices in Freetown, The Hague, and New York City.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Night of the Murdered Poets</span> 1952 execution of thirteen Soviet Jews

The Night of the Murdered Poets was the execution of thirteen Soviet Jews in the Lubyanka Prison in Moscow on 12 August 1952. The arrests were first made in September 1948 and June 1949. All defendants were falsely accused of espionage and treason as well as many other crimes. After their arrests, they were tortured, beaten, and isolated for three years before being formally charged. There were five Yiddish writers among these defendants, all of whom were part of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee.

The 1960s Sicilian Mafia trials took place at the end of that decade in response to a rise in organized crime violence around the late 1950s and early 1960s. There were three major trials, each featuring multiple defendants, that saw hundreds of alleged Mafiosi on trial for dozens of crimes. From the authority's point of view, they were a failure; very few defendants were convicted, although later trials as well as information from pentiti confirmed most of those acquitted were Mafiosi members, and were guilty of many crimes including some of those they were acquitted of.

Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, to set forth three distinct crimes, each with distinct elements. The Court drew this conclusion from the structure of the statute, under which two subsections provided for additional punishment if the defendant inflicts more serious harm. The Court also distinguished Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), because that case allowed for sentencing enhancement based on a prior conviction.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Robert Eric Wone</span> American murder victim

Robert Eric Wone was an American lawyer who was murdered in the Washington, D.C., home of a college friend, Joseph Price, in August 2006. Wone was living in suburban Oakton, Virginia, but had been working as general counsel at Radio Free Asia in downtown Washington. He had stayed the night at the home of friends located about one mile from his office. According to police affidavits, Wone was believed to have been "restrained, incapacitated, and sexually assaulted" before his death. The residents of the home – Price, Victor Zaborsky and Dylan Ward – contended that the murder was committed by an intruder unknown to them; the trial judge found this unbelievable. Wone's official cause of death was attributed to knife wounds.

Rolando Cruz is an American man known for having been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death, along with co-defendant Alejandro Hernandez, for the 1983 kidnapping, rape, and murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico in DuPage County, Illinois. The police had no substantive physical evidence linking the two men to the crime. Their first trial was jointly in 1987, and their statements were used against each other and a third defendant.

Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation for a prosecutor to submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the person who performed the test. While the court ruled that the then-common practice of submitting these reports without testimony was unconstitutional, it also held that so called "notice-and-demand" statutes are constitutional. A state would not violate the Constitution through a "notice-and-demand" statute by both putting the defendant on notice that the prosecution would submit a chemical drug test report without the testimony of the scientist and also giving the defendant sufficient time to raise an objection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Juan Corona</span> Mexican serial killer (1934–2019)

Juan Corona Vallejo was a Mexican serial killer who was convicted of the murders of 25 migrant farm workers found buried in peach orchards along the Feather River in Sutter County, California, in 1971. At the time, his crimes were among the most notorious in U.S. history. Until the discovery of Dean Corll's victims two years later, he was the deadliest known American serial killer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder of Odin Lloyd</span> 2013 murder in North Attleborough, Massachusetts

Odin Leonardo John Lloyd was a semi-professional American football player who was murdered by Aaron Hernandez, a former tight end for the New England Patriots of the National Football League, in North Attleborough, Massachusetts, on June 17, 2013. Lloyd's death made international headlines following Hernandez's association with the investigation as a suspect. Lloyd had been a linebacker for a New England Football League (NEFL) semi-professional football team, the Boston Bandits, since 2007.

References

  1. 1 2 3 People v Molineux, 168NY264 (N.Y.October 15, 1901).
  2. ↑ Schechter, Harold (2007). The Devil's Gentleman: Privilege, Poison, and the Trial that Ushered in the Twentieth Century . New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN   978-0-345-47679-1.
  3. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 243.
  4. ↑ Schechter (2007) , pp. 107–113.
  5. 1 2 Schechter (2007) , p. 354.
  6. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 397.
  7. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 398.
  8. ↑ Schechter (2007) , pp. 56–58.
  9. 1 2 Schechter (2007) , p. 92.
  10. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 86.
  11. ↑ "People v. Molineux". Columbia Law Review. 2 (1): 39–43. January 1902. doi:10.2307/1109074. JSTOR   1109074.
  12. 1 2 3 Jonakait, Randolph N. (2002). "People v. Molineux and Other Crime Evidence: One Hundred Years and Counting". American Journal of Criminal Law. 30 (1): 1–43. ISSN   0092-2315.
  13. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 423.
  14. ↑ Schechter (2007) , pp. 431–432.
  15. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 432.
  16. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 447.
  17. 1 2 Schechter (2007) , p. 439.
  18. ↑ Schechter (2007) , pp. 440–442.
  19. 1 2 Schechter (2007) , p. 444.
  20. ↑ "Murder Trials Unsought". The Bar. Morgantown, West Virginia. May 1, 1905. p. 35 – via Google Books.
  21. ↑ Schechter (2007) , p. 59.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.