-Natrona County Tribune-
-Casper Wyoming-
-Thursday, January 27, 1898-
-Page 1-
Recap
It was November 1897, Mr. McRae was in some trouble, with a trial date set for January 17, 1898. He was accused of perpetrating a suspicious murder, shooting and killing Robert Gordon, his very own employee, while another man, Peter Keith, slept just below. Desperate accusations of bias were leveled at the grand jury that indicted him, but the judge had little patience for these attempts to delay justice, dismissing all objections so that the trial could proceed. And proceed it did.
This Article
They could’ve made it a little more suspenseful. Why start with the decision when you could build to it? Anyway, after the first section, where they ruin the drama, it goes into detail about how the trial went. This is when it starts to get interesting. I’ve transcribed the whole article below, but I’m going to interrupt it sometimes with my own words. Not too much though. A lot of it speaks for itself.
Jury Could Not Agree
After Remaining Out Thirty-Six Hours the Jury in the McRae Case Was Discharged and a New Trial Ordered to Begin Next Monday Morning.
PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE DISAPPOINTED
The jury which was secured to decide as to the innocence or guilt of Kenneth McRae, charged with the killing of Robert Gordon on the 30th day of May 1897, could not come to an agreement after taking twenty ballots and remaining out thirty-six hours, and on Monday forenoon was discharged by the court and a new trial ordered for next Monday morning.
The jurymen, weary and worn, filed into the courtroom last Monday morning and took their seats, and in a short time McRae was brought in. Attorney Bradley shook McRae’s hand, and whispered in his ear “Disagreed!” McRae changed to scarlet red in the face. It was plainly to be seen that he expected something better. When all was quiet, the court asked:
"Gentlemen, have you come to an agreement?" Foreman Turner arose and replied: "We have not" The court: "Is it likely that you can come to an agreement?" Forman Turner: "I have seen juries farther apart than this one come to an agreement, and I have seen juries not so far apart as this one come to an agreement."
It is my opinion that Foreman Turner enjoys attention.
The court then asked if the jury needed any enlightenment from the court. and the foreman replied that a few explanations were necessary. The jury was sent to the Warner house and in a short time returned without having reached a conclusion, and was discharged.
The first formal ballot that was taken Saturday night was unanimous against conviction for murder in the first degree.
The next ballot gave eight for conviction of murder in the second degree and four for acquittal.
There were twenty ballots taken in all, and the votes varied from eight to four for acquittal, and eight to four for conviction for murder in the second degree.
Sunday night at 12 o’clock the vote was eight for acquittal and four for conviction of murder in the second degree, and at 3 o’clock Monday morning the vote gave eight for acquittal, one for manslaughter and three for conviction of murder in the second degree.
The next to the last vote taken gave seven for acquittal and five for the second degree. The last vote taken, it was argued that the jury must be farther apart if they expected to be discharged and the vote stood seven for conviction of murder in the second degree and five for acquittal.
Peter Keith
Remember that guy? He was the one sleeping under the wagon when Robert Gordon was killed. I don’t know why McRae was considered the only witness for the indictment, but Peter is here now to ruin McRae’s day.
There were other witnesses, as mentioned in the article below, but Peter Keith is the star. He’s also the one who initially recommended a “thorough” investigation take place way back when the death happened. It is interesting to me that he isn’t a suspect too. I’m not sure why. He must be an upstanding and trustworthy gentleman.
Last Thursday afternoon when the Tribune went to press Peter Keith was on the witness stand testifying in the McRae case. He went through a severe cross-examination and his testimony was changed on several minor points from that at the preliminary trial.
The witnesses for the state, all of whom testified materially the same as they did at the preliminary trial, are as follows: W. S. Clark, Patrick Fagan, Samuel Hanes, John Gregg, John F. Landon, T. A. Dean, M. D., C. H. Souter, J. L. Garner, M. D., H. L. Patton, J. F. Leeper, M. D.
The witnesses for the defense were as follows: Kenneth McRae, C. M. Robinson, Dan McKenzie, Frank Kincaid, Mrs. J. Grieve, Marguerette Grieve; depositions offered and refused admission; Robert Morris.
Kenneth McRae was the first witness examined, and while on the stand not a sound could be heard during the hour he was being examined.
During Saturday morning other witnesses for the state were examined after which court adjourned till 1:30 in the afternoon.
The evidence was all in; all witnesses were examined, and the case was drawing to its finale. The most interesting part was near at hand, vis: The instructions of the court and the pleadings of the attorneys. After consultation between counsel and court there was an adjournment taken until 1:30 in the afternoon.
Long before the appointed hour the courtroom was filled to its utmost capacity. Standing room on the inside of the door was at a premium. Exactly at 1:30 the prisoner was brought in and the court called order, and began to read his instructions to the jury, which were quite lengthy.
After finishing reading his instructions Judge Bramel asked counsel how much time they would require to argue the case and three hours and thirty minutes on each side was agreed upon, and Judge M. C. Brown made the opening argument, commencing at 2:30.
Just to be clear, Judge Brown is not the judge for this case, he’s one of the prosecutors for the state.
Judge Brown’s Address
Image links to a page with a little more history about Judge M.C. Brown
He said that the jury had learned by instructions from the court that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolute certainty was not required, and was never required in courts of justice. The prosecution were not to demonstrate the absolute certainty, but were to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The sacredness of human life and liberty is valued above property and above riches; “Thou shalt not kill,” is Divine, and the man who slays his neighbor in cold blood will carry the stamp of guilt in his eyes, and we may read it, even as we look in his face. When we recognize the wonderful genius of man, is it any wonder that we stop to think how much of Divinity there is in him, and that he is protected by laws of God and the laws of the land. We are to show that this man is guilty of murder in the first degree. If he is guilty at all, he is guilty of that. We ask only that the jury be fair and honest in this case and apply the law to the facts, to the circumstances proved. It would be sad, indeed if all this expense should be wasted because any wrong were done by the jury. On the 30th day of May poor Robert Gordon was shot to death within the limits of Natrona County and the state of Wyoming. By whom was he shot? Was it accidental or was it in malice and revenge? Was he shot down like a dog by his employer, or did he commit suicide? From whence came the fatal bullet there can be no question, who held the gun, probably Kenneth McRae knows. When he told of the tragedy was he telling the truth; or was he trying to deceive? Why not consider Peter Keith’s evidence in connection with this matter? The defendant says he was too sound asleep to hear the noise of the explosion of the gun. He admits one important fact, that he and Gordon were alone in the wagon together, and Gordon was either murdered in cold blood or the shooting was accidental. The shooting could not have been accidental, therefore Kenneth McRae must have discharged the gun that destroyed the life of Robert Gordon. If he did, he should suffer the dire consequences of his wrongdoing. Had he malice against Gordon? “What motive did he have for killing Gordon?” they ask. What motive is stronger among men and pushes them on to baser deeds than revenge, hatred and ill-will? There was hatred and revenge in the heart of Kenneth McRae toward Robert Gordon, and he deliberately and maliciously shot him down and killed him as he would a cur, and now he wants life and liberty while Robert Gordon is lying out in yonder cemetery in everlasting sleep. Gentlemen, consider the evidence carefully, honestly and fairly, and if you can say that this man is entitled to have his liberty, I say may God help you.
During the trial, they must have proven that the shooting couldn’t have been accidental. And that’s their proof of murder. Also is Peter Keith’s testimony, who wouldn’t have any reason to lie probably.
Judge Brown talked to the jury one hour and forty-five minutes, during which time the house was packed to its fullest capacity, but not a sound was made during the address; all eyes were upon Judge Brown and then upon McRae, who seemed rooted to his chair, not a muscle in his face moving and not a sign of any kind to show that he was the accused who in a short time was to hear the verdict of the jury upon which so much depended for him.
Chester B. Bradley’s Argument
Chester B. Bradley followed Judge Brown, and spoke for three-quarters of an hour. He said that this was the second time only in the history of Natrona County it had been deemed necessary to call into working the machinery of a grand jury. That he had been hunted down and persecuted. He said that the prosecution had not satisfied any of the guilt of the defendant by the evidence. “Thou shalt not kill,” gentlemen of the jury, is the commandment that you should carry in your hearts to the jury room. If you say this man is guilty and he is executed his blood is upon your hands; you are responsible, and you alone. Review the testimony. We all agree; the counsel agree, for a wonder, that on the 30th day of May 1897, Robert Gordon was shot and killed. Who was there when he was killed? McRae was there; Peter Keith was there. What kind of a man is Peter Keith? What kind of evidence is his to hang anybody on? When Peter is drunk he tells one thing, and when Peter is sober he tells another. He has shown that he is a blackmailer and a scoundrel. What did he want to see me for, as he told Dan McKenzie, unless he wanted to get money. Remembering the character of this man, and remembering the evidence, which are you going to believe? Does the evidence of Peter Keith, impeached as it is, satisfy you? The only contradiction between all the witnesses in this case is between Peter Keith’s and Kenneth McRae’s. Kenneth McRae told the truth and Peter Keith lied. McRae told the same story to John Landon as he told on the witness stand, and this is the only way he ever told how the killing must have happened. Gentlemen, we do not ask for mercy; we want justice. It is your duty to wipe out the blot which has been put upon the character of the defendant. you are intelligent men, and you will do justice; so I say, find a verdict of not guilty on the first ballot, and remove the stain which is upon an innocent man.
Aha! Peter Keith is a blackmailer and a scoundrel! Totally unreliable, always changing his story. That doesn’t give me a lot of confidence in his testimony, and it makes way more sense that he slept through that gunshot. Those drunk sheepherders will sleep through anything.
This concluded the argument till after supper, and court being at 7 o’clock, the house was again packed so there was not even standing room.
John W. Lacey’s Able Address
Image links to a page with more info about this guy.
Mr. Lacey talked for an hour and fifty-five minutes. He said he would talk with the jury about the facts in the case. Don’t presume any man to be guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. You may say he is innocent, innocent, innocent, until the evidence is forced upon your mind that proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is possible in any way to find this defendant innocent, then it is your duty to find him so. We must harmonize the evidence with the innocence of this defendant. It is clear that there is not enough evidence to convict on a much less charge than the one here. The facts, in order to convict, must be proved; it cannot be imagined. The evidence must be so plain that there is absolutely no chance of explanation. If there is any hypothesis in any way which the defendant may be found innocent, that must be done. The law is the great, just, tender heart. The law does not put a man on the gallows, it does not stamp a man’s character with infamy unless it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. You will be glad to know the inward sentiment of mankind in order that the best, highest and truest propositions may stand. If you are going to find out whether this man is innocent or guilty we must take up the evidence together and talk about it. A reasonable doubt is that state of mind, after a careful and rigid examination, of the facts, that you have an abiding faith that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. you must be sure of it to a mortal certainty. Until you reach the point where you can say that ‘I have a moral faith that the defendant is guilty.’ then you have a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Lacey said that Sam Hanes said that the top of the bed was about three feet six inches from the floor. He then showed that a gun lying on the bed when discharged would hit about where Gordon was shot. Mr. Lacey made a forcible argument, after which County Attorney Norton talked to the jury.
Is Mr. Lacey arguing that the shooting was accidental? It sounds like he is. Why would a purposeful bullet come from the height of a gun resting on a bed? Pretty compelling. These guys disagree on everything. No wonder the jury could not agree.
County Attorney Norton Argues
He said that the laws of the land not only asks justice, but demands justice, and it was true that the officers of the county had been very diligent in their duty in bringing this man to trial, for he had committed one of the most outrageous murders that had ever been known in the history of the county. The jury was to reason this man innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; but they were not to put aside their reason and common sense. Look at the testimony of Peter Keith. It is fair, reasonable and honest. On the other hand McRae’s testimony was impeached. Keith, when drunk, had no reason or sense. His senses were befogged and benumbed and was liable to say anything. When he was sober he told the truth.
Oh. I guess when he’s sober, Peter Keith is not a blackmailer and a scoundrel. He’s an upstanding and trustworthy gentleman. That blows up the whole defense.
Mr. Norton painted a picture in words of the sheep camp, on the foot of Rattle Snake Mountain, in which two men, a sheep herder and a sheep baron, had quarreled on the morning of the 30th day of May, 1897. One of the men who was there in the wagon that Sabbath morning was the defendant, the other was now sleeping out in the cemetery, never to be awakened. The defendant had testified, but the sheep herder’s lips were forever closed. The defendant, he said, had shot Gordon’s heart out, and now it was but just that he should pay the penalty.
Mr. Norton went over the testimony thoroughly and read and explained the instructions of the court and urged the jury to do their duty without fear or favor and bring in a verdict of murder in the first degree. Mr. Norton talked one hour and thirty minutes.
After Mr. Norton concluded his argument it was 10:40; many people had stood up during the entire evening, and the audience, as well as the attorneys the court and the jury, were very tired, but only a few more minutes remained and the case would go to the jury.
The court called O. M. Rice, who was to act as bailiff, up to the front and administered to him the oath of office, and then adjourned court, informing the jury if an agreement was reached before 12 o’clock he would be ready to meet them.
And they returned a verdict of undecided. I’m pretty undecided myself. How did they solve any murders ever back then? It’s just a he said he said situation. For some reason, McRae is under more suspicion. Apparently, he quarreled with Robert Gordon the morning of the shooting, but according to who? Peter Keith? The guy who’s only trustworthy when he’s sober? Aren’t people usually way better at lying when they’re sober? I guess some people on the jury agreed, which is why they couldn’t agree to a guilty verdict, which means there will be another trial, which means there will be a Part 3 next week.
Leave a Reply