If you're just joining us for the first time, you can catch up on Part One and Part Two before diving in. Since it's been about a month since our last post, let's quickly recap where we are in this story. After initially being on board with a punishment for Oscar and Lycurgus in the death of Clinton, the other Little family members, seemingly spearheaded by Columbus' press tour in Washington D.C., wanted to back off and drop the case. However, the indictment was deemed a "true bill" at the July court session, and the trial was scheduled for the October term. Columbus' press tour caused some feuds between the Richmond Enquirer and the Winchester and Clarke papers, but by the end of the summer, it seemed the press had largely come to acknowledge that the original statement and reporting in the Winchester papers was accurate. The state and the prisoners both secured all-star law teams.
As this section of the story is heavy on medical testimony from the doctors called to the scene and those who performed the postmortem, use caution if you follow the links to the original sources. While not excessively graphic, the coverage is often very thorough and may be disturbing to some readers.
And now, for the first trial...
Lycurgus Little's Trial
The Little brothers were the first item on the docket for October 15, 1873. The brothers opted to be tried separately, with Lycurgus being the first tried. The Daily Dispatch recapped the change that occurred over the summer: "At one time there was a very strong current of public opinion against the prisoners, but this seems now to be somewhat quieted."
The same newspaper presented a scene (perhaps with a touch of skepticism of its authenticity, which may not be unwarranted):
When Mrs. Little entered the court-house a scene took place which, whether prearranged or not, thrilled all who were present. When she saw her son Lycurgus she rushed to him, making her way as best she could through the crowded room, regardless of judge or jury, and fell upon his neck, crying and wailing in a most piteous manner.
The first day was preoccupied with finding jurors, which continued into most of the second day. The Clarke Courier reported the final jury consisted of "Jno. W Beemer, Geo. Deck, Dennis Fenton, Henry Huyett, Jno N. Kimmell, Josiah R. Locke, A. M. Monroe, W. A. Riely, Israel Rontzong, Jas. N. Hardesty, Jesse N. Russell, [and] Jno. Watson."
"[T]he reading of the indictment and other matters consuming some time," the testimony for the three doctors called to the scene on July 5 (Drs. Lewis, Love, and Miller) began late that day (Daily Dispatch).
Dr. Lewis' Testimony
The fullest account of the early testimonies are all in the Clarke Courier. Dr. T. M. Lewis, the doctor from White Post who was the first person on the scene, was first witness. He recalled:
As I approached the house saw two persons lying on the ground under a tree in the yard; they were Oscar and Lycurgus Little; Oscar was wounded. I stopped to examine him [Oscar]; he remarked, “there is one in the basement worse wounded and and requires more attention than I." This happened about 10 or 11 o’clock.
When I received this information I went to basement and found Columbus and Gilbert Little and two ladies, whom I did net know, with Clinton Little, who was lying on a lounge, wounded in abdomen from a ball, and bruised and cut about his forehead from a blow.
His professional opinion was that internal hemorrhage from the gunshot wound was sufficient to kill Clinton. His examination did not try to determine if Clinton had been shot at close range or at a distance, and he did not examine his clothes for powder residue. He also did not consider the head wounds serious at the initial patient examination, and could not determine if they were caused by sharp or blunt objects, though he stated they "were not quite as smooth as if they had been cut by a knife." During the postmortem, the head wound was also examined and determined not to be the primary cause of death, but might have caused death over a longer time through brain swelling (that is, if Clinton had only been struck on the head, there was a chance his brain inflammation could have increased and killed him, but since he died in only a few hours, the doctor did not feel confident saying it was a mortal blow).
 |
| "I feed you all!" detail, by American Oleograph Co., Milwaukee, c1875. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress. |
Dr. Lewis was also asked about the prisoners Oscar and Lycurgus and their demeanor, particularly whether they may have been under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He recalled:
When I got there and found Oscar and Lycurgus Little in yard, prisoner [Lycurgus] said nothing except to speak to me so far as I remember. Nothing in his conduct attracted my attention during my stay. I had them moved up on the back porch next to garden. Some of us were with them pretty much all the time; Capt. Bitzer, their sister [Amanda Little], Miss Pritchard, and myself, and after Drs. Love and Miller came they were with them.
After I had them taken on the back porch Lycurgus asked me to give him a little morphine, something to make him sleep; Oscar also asked for some, said he was suffering with his wound. Prisoner had a phial of morphine before this, which Drs. Love, Miller and myself took from him. Found phial in prisoner’s pocket. I didn’t regard prisoner’s condition as that of a man under effect of opiates when I got there or at any time after. He might have taken a little morphine but was not under effect of it.
Additionally, Dr. Lewis was asked to comment of Oscar's wounded leg. As you may remember, Columbus Little had claimed in his press tour that only one accidental gunshot caused all three injuries to their mother, Clinton, and Oscar. Dr. Lewis attested that Oscar's wound appeared "to have been fired from a small bore rifle." There were no powder marks on Oscar's clothes, indicating it had not been fired at close range. Crucially, he testified that he was present when Dr. Love extracted the ball. Combined with the bullet found in Clinton's thigh during the post mortem, it is clear that at least two shots were indeed fired that day.
Finally, Dr. Lewis was asked to comment about Lycurgus' hand injury, which he did not examine, and his ability to escape: "From what I saw prisoner [Lycurgus] had abundant opportunity to escape, if desired to do so. . . . Oscar Little could have escaped if he desired it; nothing in his [wound] would have prevented it."
Dr. G. L. Miller's Testimony
The next person to testify, Dr. Miller, largely corroborated Dr. Lewis' account of Clinton's wounds, including no direct finding of power residue on his body, no examination of his clothes, and the findings at the postmortem. This account was also published in the Clarke Courier.
He remembered arriving between 10 and 11 o'clock:
Didn’t see prisoner [Lycurgus] at first; saw Columbus Little first; saw also Clinton Little; he was in basement mortally wounded; examined his wounds, one in right side, other on his head in front. . . . He was in a dying condition at time of my arrival.— [Clinton] Spoke but I couldn't hear what he said; don't know whether he was conscious or not; did not tell him whether his wound was dangerous or not. Was in room when he died, about half an hour after I got there.
. . .
When I arrived saw prisoner [Lycurgus] and Oscar Little, after death of Clinton; they were together on a porch. I was there a little while; didn't hear prisoner say anything about events of the day. Don't know that any statements were made to me in hearing of the prisoner.
On cross-examination, Dr. Miller elaborated on the ball found inside of Clinton during the postmortem, stating it "looked like it had been cut in two by a sharp instrument." They doctors were unable to find the other portion of the ball. He believed the ball was a large one, likely from a pistol, and confirmed he saw two pistols at the scene on July 5th. Although he did not examine them that day, when the two pistols were brought out from evidence, he corroborated they were likely the pistols he saw at the Little mansion.
Dr. Love's Testimony
The last of the three doctors present at the Little mansion on July 5 was Dr. W. S. Love, also from Winchester. He stated he arrived closer to 11 o'clock with Dr. Miller. Dr. Love's accounts printed in the Clarke Courier might be the most graphic concerning Clinton's wounds and examination, so be prepared if you visit the original source.
He remembered first seeing "Columbus, Gilbert, and Clinton Little and two ladies, and Dr. Lewis in a room in basement." His examination of Clinton went into further detail corroborating his symptoms were highly indicative of internal hemorrhaging, and the head wounds were of minor concern. He recalled:
[I] Did not think he [Clinton] was fully conscious; I made attempts to get answers from him, but he seemed indisposed to talk or not to understand. He seemed to be in great agony but did not express it in words; made several requests to be lifted up and have his limbs raised; he said nothing about who inflicted his wounds.
Dr. Love had more details concerning Oscar and Lycurgus:
I saw prisoner [Lycurgus] and Oscar Little after the death of Clinton. They were on back porch. Drs. Lewis, Miller and myself went together and found them alone. I extracted ball from leg of Oscar; . . . Did not examine with view to find out whether Oscar was in motion or at rest at time of shooting. . . .
He [Lycurgus] seemed much concerned [when] he heard of the death of Clinton. Oscar, first, and then both asked my opinion of Clinton's wound. Both asked me if he was really dead and seemed much concerned at his death. Nothing was said to me in hearing of prisoner about the occurrence, so far as I remember. Neither Oscar or the prisoner left the porch, or expressed a desire during my stay to see Clinton before his death or afterward.
You may also remember the earlier false reports of suicide, and some potentially exaggerated reports of Dr. Love's struggle to wrest a bottle of morphine away from Lycurgus. Dr. Love expanded on the occurrence in his testimony:
After I had gone to my buggy some one said Lycurgus had taken poison; I went back and saw the saddle packets from which a bottle had been taken; he would not tell what he had taken; his sister seemed very much concerned. When I spoke to him he asked me politely to let him alone, as he wanted to die. I got a bottle from his pocket and found it was morphine. Stayed awhile and did not think he had taken enough to injure him; he did not take any more after I got the bottle. I attributed his want to die to the agitation of the moment. That was probably shortly after 12 o'clock; could not have been long after Clinton's death.
The Daily Dispatch also noted that the doctors "prepared an emetic for him, but he would not take it," reiterating Lycurgus' wish to die in the moment. On cross-examination, more details about this incident were shared (also from the Courier):
I had to hold [Lycurgus] on the porch, after I took the morphine from him, until Drs. Lewis and Miller came, then I gave him up to them. He threatened to shoot himself, and I thought it was because he had killed his brother.
Cross-examination tried to raise doubt about Dr. Love's objectivity, as he admitted "I had been told that prisoner had killed his brother and this was impressed on my mind." He was, so far as was recorded, the only doctor who shared that impression. He also claimed to have seen one pistol matching one produced from evidence on a sideboard the day of the event, and he believed it had "two or three barrels discharged."
Finally, they discussed Mrs. Little's gunshot wound. Dr. Love remembered it was in the right thigh. His impression after seeing the wound already dressed was that it entered lower, near her knee, and exited higher on her thigh, running "obliquely up the leg." Since it appears Dr. Lewis may have seen the wound first, he was recalled and contradicted Dr. Love's impression, believing it entered higher on the thigh and exited closer to the knee. He believed this wound was "from a small pistol ball; it was a small hole."
Dr. William Sommerville's Testimony and the Coroner's Inquest
The final doctor to testify was only present for the postmortem. The newspapers omitted most of his direct statements, as his testimony aligned with those who had preceded him. The Courier printed that Dr. Sommerville's recollection of the postmortem findings were "very clear and elaborate, yet the general facts were same as given in previous evidence."
The newspaper coverage seems to indicate Dr. Sommerville's testimony may have been split over two days, due to its detailed nature (Daily Dispatch). It appears at this point evidence from the coroner's inquest, where at least some members of the family were compelled to make statements, was introduced. The Dispatch said "The brothers from Washington city, who it was thought would absent themselves, have all made their appearance, and are greatly interested in securing the acquittal of the accused, although their evidence before the coroner, which is of a very damaging nature, has been preserved, and it is thought it will be hard for them to get over it."
Since we did not find the information on the inquest until this batch of research, and no newspapers directly covered what was introduced during the trial, we will backtrack momentarily to July in the Daily Dispatch to fill in the gap here:
It was in evidence before Coroner Wharton, who held an inquest over the body of Clinton, and at which Mrs. Little, Columbus, Gilbert, and Wallace, among others, testified, that part of the family were at the breakfast table Saturday morning--Mrs. Little, Clinton, Gilbert, Columbus, and Wallace--when Lycurgus and Oscar entered the room armed with pistols, Oscar locked the door and put the key in his pocket; for some reason his pistol would not go off; that of Lycurgus did, and the first ball entered the thigh of Mrs. Little, who had at once jumped up for the purpose of preventing bloodshed; at the second fire of Lycurgus's pistol a mortal wound was inflicted on Clinton, . . .
When the firing commenced Columbus and Gilbert rushed to the rescue of Clinton, and Wallace jumped from the window and kicked open the door from the outside, as is shown by the foot-marks on it; Columbus wrested a pistol from one of the would-be murderers, and struck Lycurgus a severe blow across the fingers. Seeing a means of exit, Oscar and [Lycurgus] fled towards the barn, for the purpose, it is supposed, of getting horses to make their escape, Columbus followed in pursuit and fired with the pistol which he held, but without effect. Gilbert, who in the meantime had ran up stairs and procured a rifle, got in range of the fugitives when they were a hundred and fifty yards distant, and fired, wounding Oscar in the leg. This prevented his further flight. Lycurgus was also caught up with and arrested, either because he was detained in his endeavor to save his brother, or from his unwillingness to desert him.
. . .
At the coroner's inquest Gilbert could only be induced to testify after he had ignored several peremptory demands and was in the act of being committed to jail for contempt, Columbus remarked that this was a family matter, and as the punishment of bis brothers could not restore the life of him who was gone, it was better to drop the prosecution.
With the key testimony of the doctors concluded, all agreeing the gunshot wound was the primary cause of Clinton's death, the testimony then moved on to other parties who were at the house during or shortly after the shooting on July 5.
Other Testimonies of Visitors on July 5
It seems directly after Dr. Sommerville, the first guest staying at the house, Miss Pritchard, was called to the stand. Most reports of her testimony were brief, covering her recollection "that it had been determined upon the night before to
have a shooting match that morning [July 5]; all the brothers were to engage in
the trial of skill. She saw Lycurgus, the prisoner on trial, nail up a
target before she left her chamber the fatal morning. She breakfasted
before the boys, and then proposed to Miss Little and Miss Villwig, the
latter also a visitor, to walk to the orchard. The shooting took place
during her absence, consequently she saw nothing of it" (Daily State Journal). Another report of her testimony included some follow-ups to her possibly hearing shots fired. Since the women were walking in the orchard, Miss Pritchard indicated:
she heard one shot only, which seemed in the house; that she went to the house, and saw Oscar and Lycurgus Little, the prisoners, going towards the barn, but that they returned very soon, Oscar limping. She also stated that as far as she could see the family were all on good terms, and gave examples, &c., to show this. She saw Clinton after death, but did not know anything of the cause of it. She helped to attend to Oscar's wound when he returned from the barn. That Gilbert was standing on the porch looking to the barn with a gun; but did not hear any firing except the first shot she heard when at the apple-tree. (Daily Dispatch)
Colonel Washington Dearmont was the next to testify; all accounts concur that he was brought in to identify one of the pistols in evidence, which Lycurgus had borrowed from him that morning for the alleged shooting match, and Lycurgus did not appear intoxicated at the time (Daily Dispatch, Clarke Courier).
The final testimony of the day came from James H. Bitzer, who lived "a few hundred yards only from" the Littles' mansion (Daily Dispatch). Mr. Bitzer indicated he and Gilbert stayed with Clinton in the basement dining room until the arrival of the doctors, and that Clinton "insisted on it that the ball was in his bowels" (Daily Dispatch). His testimony seemed to be lengthy, as it was necessary for the prosecution to lay the groundwork for considering the statements he related from Clinton as sufficient for a dying declaration of Lycurgus' guilt. The Daily Dispatch noted:
When it came to this, great objection was made by counsel for the prisoners on the ground that there was not sufficient proof that the deceased was under such an impending sense of immediate death as the law requires. It was sought to introduce the declaration itself as proof of this, and the Court required the jury to be taken out, and heard the statement, which was, "They have killed me without a cause." The argument on the admission or rejection of this was very long and exhaustive, having four speeches on it. Major Conrad had just concluded his speech for rejecting it when the hour of adjournment for the day arrived, and the Court withheld its decision until to-morrow.
Both Colonel Dearmont's and Captain Bitzer's testimony aligned with their statements made at the inquest in July (Daily Dispatch).
Additional Testimony for the State
The following day, Judge Turner announced his decision on the dying declaration: "there was sufficient evidence that the deceased was in the state of mind required by law in order to permit the introduction of a dying declaration before the jury, but [he] decided to exclude it for the present on the ground that the prosecution had failed so far to show that the deceased (Clinton Little) referred to the prisoner when he said 'they killed me without a cause'" (Daily Dispatch). The Clarke Courier noted that Captain Bitzer's relation of the "dying declaration" could be introduced to the jurors if the prosecution could successfully link the statement to Lycurgus through further examination.
Additional information was introduced by witnesses who could shed more light on the family relationships, outside of the incidents on July 5. One was William Everhart, a tenant on the Little farm, who "testified that Gilbert, Oscar, and Lycurgus Little forcibly removed deceased [Clinton] from his house on one occasion when he was paying a visit to his daughter; one of the supposed motives for homicide was the attachment of Clinton for Miss Everhart, which his brothers disapproved of" (Clarke Courier). The Daily Dispatch reported some additional details:
The same witness said that Clinton had been at his house the morning of his death very early, and that they--witness [Everhart], Clinton, and Columbus Little-had all taken a drink, and sat and talked for a little while; that while they were together they saw Lycurgus go and return from Colonel Dearmont's. Two hours after Clinton left he heard that he was shot; went to the Littles' house and found Columbus at the gate with a pistol in each hand. The account Columbus gave him of the affair was excluded because it was not given in the hearing of the accused.
Some excitement or consternation occurred when the next witness, James Milton, Jr., testified. He was the deputy jailor in Berryville, and he "testified that Lycurgus told him in his cell the day after the shooting that it was he that shot Clinton" (Clarke Courier). This statement was obviously very damaging for Lycurgus, so Milton was treated to "a searching cross-examination, but adhered to his first assertion with regard to Lycurgus's confession" saying:
I have gone up to the cell door in my stocking-feet and listened, and have never heard the accused commit themselves in any other language; I do not know why witnesses are required to kiss the Bible, unless to make them more particular about telling the truth; I do not know whether a man is punished in this world for false swearing, but suppose such a one stands a very bad chance in the next. (Clarke Courier)
The Daily Dispatch additionally related that Milton "was twenty-six years old, and could neither read nor write. . . . Many of his answers were caused, probably, more by the confusion caused by cross-examination than by ignorance." In the end, despite his apparent jumbled testimony and the rigor of the cross examination, Milton "adhered to his first statement throughout, and in conclusion declared that 'Lycurgus said what was narrated, and he would stick to it if he was going to the eternal world.'" (Clarke Courier)
Additional testimony from Jas. F. Milton, Sr. confirmed that "the pistols produced in court were the weapons given him by the coroner, who found them in the room where the killing of Clinton Little occurred" (Clarke Courier). Wm. T. Wharton, magistrate, "testified that he committed the prisoner to jail on the testimony of Columbus Little, . . . acted as coroner, and summoned the jury that sat at the inquest over the body of Clinton Little" (Clarke Courier).
Dr. R. P. Page, who attended Lycurgus at the Berryville jail, testified that Lycurgus "told him several of his fingers were wrenched out of place in the scuffle," and he "thought the hurts of the prisoner were more painful than the wound Oscar had received" (Clarke Courier).
Finally, an unnamed servant woman for the Little family, who said she was in the garden at the time of the fight, "heard two shots fired in the house" (Clarke Courier). It appears that these last straggling witnesses concluded the State's testimony. Many of the newspapers were shocked that the State did not call any members of the Little family to testify; the speculation was that "they. . . feared to call the Little family as their witnesses" (Daily Dispatch) since "doing so will deprive it of the privilege of discrediting their testimony if unfavorable" (Winchester News).
Testimony for the Defence
At this point in the trial, the Winchester News predicted, "Now that the evidence for the State is all in, it is thought by the public that the prisoner will be acquitted." The theory of the observers was that the defence would argue "that the brothers had had some bad feeling in regard to certain family matters, . . . and that one of the pistols. . . went off by accident, and that the sons and brothers, not knowing this, became excited and entered into a fight which ended fatally but was not designed or premeditated, but the result of an accident which could not have been controlled" (Daily Dispatch). The Clarke Courier printed that their source at the trial, S. S. Moore, needed the notes for use by counsel, so they had only the lightest sketch of the testimony in favor of Lycurgus, "which was nearly all of a kind to prove the good character and standing of the accused."
From piecing together accounts of the trial, apparently at some point the prosecution had provided evidence that Clinton was holding property in trust for his mother, providing a financial motivation for the murder. The defence attempted to offset this by claiming Clinton was planning to leave the farm soon and give up his financial duties: "The defence introduced A. Moore, Jr., who. . . testified that Clinton had come, some months ago, to his office and told him that he expected to move away to live, and wished to have some one substituted in his place as trustee, and had asked him to arrange it at the next court" (Daily Dispatch).
The same paper noted the defence made no progress combating Milton, Jr.'s testimony, and we learn that the "confusion" during his cross-examination likely stemmed from Milton paraphrasing or not using the exact same words he heard every time he was questioned. His lack of literacy also came back into play, as he made no written record of the statement he heard from Lycurgus. Moore, Jr. "stated that Milton had said to him that the prisoner had said that he had shot two load-out of one of the pistols he had, and that he had shot him, and that that was all the prisoner had said; but did not say who he had shot" (Daily Dispatch).
Colonel Dearmont was recalled and gave a character testimony for Lycurgus:
. . . he had known the prisoner since he was a boy, and that his reputation was as good as that of any young man he knew. His character was unexceptionally good as to sobriety, temperance, and profanity, he never knew of his being quarrelsome. As far as he knew he was a dutiful son, and he never knew of his being of an excitable nature. A number of other witnesses were examined as to the character of the prisoner, and all of their testimony was pretty much what has been stated already. (Daily Dispatch)
Other character witnesses included Rev. J. B. T. Reed, W. F Lewis, T. S. Sangster, J. R. Stewart, J. H. Kitchen, Adam Thompson, Mason Hesser, and B. Trinary, all apparently corroborating Col. Dearmont's statements. There seemed to be a bit of a surprise, however, in the testimony of George Kitridge, recorded in the Winchester Times:
I am a school teacher, and for two years that I lived with Mr. Little the prisoner at the bar was one of my pupils; he was then and as far as I know has always been quiet and of good character. Cross-examination.—Soon after the tragedy I did say I was not surprised at what had taken place, as I had always anticipated some such result. Re-examined by defense.—I never thought the prisoner would provoke a strife, but knowing the revengeful character of Clinton, the deceased, I felt sure that if he ever conceived himself aggrieved he would not hesitate to avenge himself, and therefore I was not surprised that there had been bloodshed in the family.
A brief note of testimony, relating to the often-overlooked note that the door to the basement dining room was locked by Oscar and was forced open, was addressed by John Little, a carpenter who also lived in Washington, D.C. (whether he was a relative or not was not disclosed in the newspaper coverage). He had worked on the house, including adding the mansard roof about four years earlier. The paper recorded his testimony that the "lock on the basement door is an old one, and was out of order [the object being to rebut the evidence of the prosecution that the lock was injured on the day of the difficulty], and is now just as it was at that time" (Daily Dispatch). Additionally, the Winchester Times reported "that the key found upon the bed Oscar Little occupied immediately after being wounded could not be the key of the dining room— the room in which the homicide occurred—as the lock and key were essentially unsuited," according to John Little's professional opinion.
The defence was somewhat more successful, it seems, in countering the "dying declaration" of Clinton to Mr. Bitzer, as reported in the Winchester News:
Counsel for the defence argued that as deceased, after his declaration to Mr. Bitzer, had asked Dr. Lewis what were the chances of his recovery, his appreciation of his position was not such as to evince an absolute and entire belief in his impending dissolution. The court sustained the views of defense and excluded the declaration, its former decision, admitting it in evidence under certain conditions, being based on the supposition that it was the conclusive act of the mind of deceased.
Concluding the Trial
Milton, Jr. was the subject of more thorough examination by the defence and prosecution, primarily of his character and reliability. The State called additional character witnesses for Milton to counter the defence's line of questioning (Dr. S. S. Neill, D. H. McGuire, J. Marshall McCormick, Rev. Mr. Martin, J. T. Lancaster, George Phillips and W. H. Young), but it is unclear how substantially this impacted the trial (Winchester Times).
At noon, Major S. J. C. Moore, "commenced the opening argument for the prosecution. He claimed that the accused was convicted of murder in the first degree by circumstantial evidence and asked for that verdict" (Winchester Times). Two and half hours later, A. Moore, Jr. "followed for the defense in a speech of an hour and a half in length, in which he argued that the testimony of the State did not fasten the killing of the deceased upon the prisoner on trial" (Winchester Times).
Sensing the trial was almost at an end, Judge Turner convened the court at 8:30 AM the following day, hoping to conclude the closing arguments as quickly as possible (Daily Dispatch). Major McDonald opened that morning for the defence:
His speech was long, able, and exhaustive of the subject. Every circumstance and fact connected with the case received his scrutinizing attention. Major Conrad then followed for the defence, making one of the ablest and most effective speeches which has ever been heard on such an occasion in Clarke county. (Daily Dispatch)
The courtroom was reportedly packed, as it was expected Major Conrad's argument would be especially compelling. The Winchester Times elaborated on his presentation:
Major Conrad did not disappoint the general expectation. His argument was forcible and ingenious. He presented the theory that Columbus Little and not the prisoner was the guilty party, with marked ability, and he called upon the jury to say if all the circumstances did not point with an unerring certainty to his guilt, and more so than to the prisoners. He arraigned the prosecution for placing before the jury airy circumstances merely, when there were present in the court-room living witnesses to the scene who could have cleared their minds of every doubt by narrating to them the facts, and telling them the story of the bloody drama enacted at the Little mansion on the 5th of last July. He alleged that defense could not introduce them, because in order to escape punishment for crime which they themselves had probably committed, they might make statements injurious to the prisoner. He told the jury how Columbus had taken the magistrate apart and informed him, out of the presence of the prisoner, of facts which led him to issue a warrant, and suggested the object was to escape suspicion himself. He attempted to show that little credibility should attach to the statements of Milton, Jr., who heard the confession.
This unexpected "twist" ending of shifting the blame to Columbus, who, we must admit, had acted in some questionable ways after the events of July 5, earned a good amount of respect from the spectators, leading the newspapers to state, "[Major Conrad] has nobly done his duty as leading counsel for the defence, and well did they make their selection in procuring his services" (Daily Dispatch).
After a recess, the Commonwealth's Attorney C. L. Louthan presented his closing arguments.
His speech was a thorough exposition of the theory and arguments for the prosecution and an able refutation of those of the defence. He held that there could be no doubt as to the real actor in this bloody tragedy, for if Lycurgus was not, there were numerous members of the family who in a few words could forever set the matter at rest, if called up by the defence to do so. He also claimed that Oscar Little, the fellow-prisoner, and jointly indicted with Lycurgus, could testify as to the statement made by the latter to Milton if it had been misrepresented. (Daily Dispatch)
As with Major Conrad's arguments, the Winchester Times covered the content a bit more thoroughly:
[Mr. Louthan's] speech was one of the very best that could have been made under the circumstances. He offered forcible objections to all the theories advanced by the defense. To the statement that the demeanor of the prisoner before the crime was committed was evidence of innocence, and that when men were going to do anything dreadful there was something marked in their deportment, he answered by several Biblical illustrations to the contrary; among them he told with great effect of how Absalom had invited his brother Ammon to his feast, and there slain him, and by the latter part of this story he illustrated how often it was that after great provocations the father and family of a wicked man would still cling to him with affection and interest.
Most papers reported the jury seemed especially impressed with Mr. Louthan's closing remarks. Around 6 PM on Thursday, the instructions were given to the jury, and then it was all in their hands. The next day, around 2 PM on Friday, the jury returned their verdict: "guilty of murder in the second degree, and fixed his punishment at fourteen years in the penitentiary" (Winchester News). While the defence asked for a new trial, Judge Turner overruled the motion; they then indicated they would appeal, and the general belief that the Little family had substantial wealth made this seem a likely possibility (Daily Dispatch). The Daily Dispatch ran an excellent commentary on the conclusion of this leg of the drama:
This verdict gives very general satisfaction, as the peaceable and law-abiding citizens of this section had great fears that the remarkably peculiar circumstances surrounding this case would lead, possibly, to the acquittal of the perpetrator of a crime such as has seldom been committed in this State. The prosecution are greatly pleased that their experiment of resting their case without the testimony of the eye-witnesses should have succeeded so well. . . . The defence expressed themselves as anxious for the trial of Oscar Little, who was jointly indicted with Lycurgus, and as this is the last day of the Clarke term, they moved that Oscar should be sent to Frederick county jail to be tried at the Circuit Court of that county, which meets in Winchester on Monday, but the trial to commence on the 21st of November, the last day of the term. The motion was granted and the order entered. There is a mystery about this fatal drama that the trial of Lycurgus did not solve--that of Oscar may do it.
And with this, the first part of the legal battle comes to an end. Lycurgus has been found guilty and sentenced to fourteen years, the family planned to appeal, and Oscar's trial was scheduled to take place in about a month, with a change in venue to Frederick County.
Thank you all for sticking with this deep legal dive; we will pick up with Oscar's trial in our next installment!
Enjoy these posts?
Comments
Post a Comment