XXXIII
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that evidence of the want of a rational and reasonable motive on the part of the defendant for the perpetration of the act charged in the indictment is to be considered by the jury as strong corroboration of the fact of his mental irresponsibility.
XXXIV
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that the perpetration of the act charged in the indictment without any apparent motive or object, but against every motive which would appear to be naturally influential with the defendant, that they must at once inquire whether or not the defendant was of sound mind and take into consideration with the other evidence of this case that he was not of sound mind, the absence of sufficient motive must lead them to conclude that he was of unsound mind and could not distinguish between right and wrong or know the nature and quality of his act.
XXXV
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that the absence of a clear and convincing motive in itself is evidence of an unsound mind.
XXXVI
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that if the defendant acted without any reasonable or rational motive or object, but against every motive and object, which it would appear should have been influential with him, that fact in itself raises a presumption that the defendant was of such unsound mind that he could not distinguish between right and wrong or know the nature or quality of his act.
XXXVII
Defendant requests your Honor to charge the jury that they have no right to presume a motive from the mere commission of the crime and have no right to speculate, guess, or surmise or supply any motive for the commission of the act charged in the indictment.
XXXVIII
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that the failure of the commonwealth to call as witnesses Drs. Maybon and Palmer, who made examinations of the defendant, to testify as to his mental condition, raises the inference that if they had been called as witnesses, they would have testified adversely to the commonwealth in respect to the defendant’s mental condition.
XXXIX
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that from the failure of the commonwealth to call as witnesses Drs. Maybon and Palmer, who examined the defendant, the jury may infer that they would have testified that the defendant was a high-grade imbecile who was laboring under such defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act of which he is charged in the indictment or not to know the act was wrong at the time it was committed.
XL
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that from the failure of the commonwealth to call as witnesses Drs. Maybon and Palmer, the jury may infer that had they been called they would have testified unfavorably and adversely to the commonwealth, especially in the absence of any explanation made under oath as to why they were not called.
XLI
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that if the jury acquit the defendant on the ground of insanity, in that event the jury should specify in its verdict that it acquits him on the ground of insanity.
XLII
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that if the jury acquit the defendant upon the ground of insanity, it will become the duty of the Court to order him committed to a State Asylum.
XLIII
Defendant requests your Honor to charge that if the jury acquit the defendant on the ground of insanity, in this case such insanity will mean imbecility, and that as imbecility cannot be cured, it will become the duty of the Court to order him committed to a State Asylum for the rest of his actual life.
XLIV
Defendant requests your Honor to charge the jury that the denial of the several motions made by defendant’s counsel throughout the trial, and the rulings of the Court upon objections, and refusals by the Court to charge as requested, are not to be taken as any expression of opinion on the part of the Court upon the facts of this case, but are only rulings upon the law, about which the jury has nothing to do.
Note. Requests XXIV, XXV, XXVII, and XXVIII, the Court refused to charge.
Abstract ideas, lack of, in morons, 98.
Actions after crime, Gianini, 25, 27.
Pennington, 50-52.
Tronson, 76-78.
Alcoholism, 110.
Barr, Dr. Martin W., statement of, 86.
Beecher, Miss, annoyed by Gianini, 23.
Binet tests, and school experience, 35, 38, 54.
use of, in Gianini case, 32-35.
in Pennington case, 53.
in Tronson case, 80.
Capital punishment, 101.
Cause of Gianini’s condition, 39-41.
Causes of feeble-mindedness, 39.
“Charity” in Binet tests, 34.
Children, testimony of, 90.
actions of, 94.
suggestibility of, 63.
Code quoted, 128.
Colonization, 107.
Confession, Gianini, 4, 9, 10.
Pennington, 44, 53.
Tronson, 67-80.
characteristic of imbeciles, 16, 29.
childishness of Pennington’s, 55, 56.
not necessarily true, 17.
why Gianini made a, 15.
Confessions compared, 83, 90-93.
Courtroom, conduct in, 30, 67, 92.
Coward, the imbecile, 23.
Cretinism, 40.
Crime, details of, Gianini, 122, 132.
Pennington, 47.
Tronson, 74.
Criminal imbeciles, what should be done with, 102.
Criminals, 50 per cent feeble-minded, 106.
Defense in case of, Gianini, 2, 5.
Pennington, 43.
Tronson, 66.
Delinquencies, previous, of Gianini, 7, 37, 115, 116.
of Tronson, 68, 69, 82.
Display, love of, 29.
Experts, qualifications of, 85.
Feeble-mindedness, causes of, 39, 106.
may be exterminated, 108.
Feeble-mindedness in family, Gianini, 40.
Pennington, 87.
Finger prints, 26.
Gianini, Jean, case of, 1-41.
actions after the deed, 25, 27.
attitude of Miss Beecher toward, 7, 119.
disregards counsel’s warning, 30.
evidences of pride in deed, 16-19, 29, 123.
facts as established by testimony, 3.
incidents in life of, 113-125.
indifferent to crime, 10, 29, 120, 125.
interest in stories of crime, 26, 118, 121, 123.
mentality of, 13.
mother of, 40, 109-112.
previous delinquencies of, 7, 37, 115, 116.
stories about, 31, 113.
teased little children, 32, 116, 119.
threats made by, 121, 125, 131.
Great White Way, 117.
Hypothetical question, defense, 109-126.
prosecution, 131-136.
Idiot, defined, 12.
Imbecile, career of an, 54.
Imbecility defined, 11.
not curable, 102.
Imbecility, defense of, Gianini, 2, 5.
Pennington, 43.
Tronson, 66, 80.
Imprisonment for life, 89, 101, 104.
Indian, Gianini plays, 23.
Insanity in relation to crime, 102.
Instinct to kill, 105.
Institution for feeble-minded, the logical place, 104.
Intelligence, tests of, admitted into court, 2, 32-35, 53, 80.
Interest in crime, Gianini’s, 26, 118, 121, 123.
Jail, attitude in, Gianini, 30;
Pennington, 55.
examined in, Gianini, 29;
Pennington, 53, 56.
Jealousy of March, 53.
Liberty of defendant not desired, 88, 103.
McIntyre, John F., 103.
March, convicted, 43.
convicted upon Pennington’s testimony, 90.
Pennington’s relation to, 55, 56, 64.
Masturbation, 117.
Melancholia, 110-112.
Mental defectiveness, inherited, 39, 106.
recognized early, 105.
Mentality of, Gianini, 13.
Pennington, 53.
Tronson, 66.
Money as motive, 57.
Moron, defined, 11.
abstract ideas lacking in, 98.
Mother of Gianini, 40, 109-113.
Motive, Gianini’s, 4, 20-25.
March’s, 53.
Pennington’s, 53, 56-60.
Tronson’s, 76, 80.
Pennington, Roland, case of, 42-64.
actions after the deed, 52-53.
conduct at trial, 92.
confession, 44-53.
disregards lawyer’s caution, 55.
mentality of, 53.
relation to March, 55, 56, 64.
testimony against March, 43, 90, 92.
trial, 43.
Preparations for crime, Gianini, 6.
Pennington, 47.
Tronson, 70.
Prevention, 82, 87, 104-108.
Propagation, prevention of, 106-108.
Psychologists, testimony of, 32, 53, 66.
Punishment for criminal imbeciles, 88, 100-108.
Quality of an act, meaning of, 96.
St. Vincent’s School, 7, 116.
School, failure in, sign of mental defect, 37.
Gianini case, 35-37, 124.
Pennington case, 54.
Tronson case, 66.
Segregation, 107.
Sexual theory of Gianini’s crime, 20.
Society, duty of, 82.
protection for, 100.
Speech development retarded, 113.
State prison for the imbecile manslayer, 89, 104.
Sterilization, 107.
Stories about Gianini,
“Indian,” 113.
“Soup and safety,” 31.
“Strap oil,” 32.
teased little children, 32, 113, 116, 119.
“Thief,” 114.
Suggestion, discussed, 61-63.
Pennington, victim of, 56-64.
Superintendents as specialists, 88.
Testimony of, children, 90.
experts, 85.
Pennington against March, 43, 90, 92.
psychologists, 32, 53, 66.
witnesses, 3-8, 18, 31, 35-37.
Trial, Gianini, 1, 30, 31.
Pennington, 43, 92.
Tronson, 66, 67.
Tronson, Fred, case of, 65-82.
actions after the deed, 76-78.
confession of, 76-80.
mentality of, 66.
previous delinquencies of, 68, 69, 82.
Types considered, of imbecility, 83.
of feeble-mindedness, 12-14.
Verdict, Gianini case, 1, 2.
Pennington case, 43.
Tronson case, 66.
Witnesses, children as, 90.
Wrench asked about, 7.
Printed in the United States of America.
Footnotes:
[1] See prosecution’s hypothetical question—Appendix, pp. 131-138.
[2] See Gianini Case, Defendant’s Request to Charge, Nos. XLII, XLIII, Appendix, p. 153.