“What is your plea?” asked the Clerk.
“Not guilty,” said the girl, and then, having said this indistinctly and the clerk repeating his question, she answered the same thing in a louder voice and, with a very clearly cut emphasis on the word “Not.”
Mr. Jennings now arose. “It seems to me,” said he, “your Honor, that this proceeding is most extraordinary. This girl is called to plead to a complaint issued in the progress of an inquest now only in its early stages. The complaint has been brought in spite of the fact that she was not allowed to be represented by counsel in the hearing before the inquest. She has no knowledge of the evidence on which the complaint is made. I spoke to the District Attorney about this fact before she testified at the inquest, and I admitted that it might be legally done. But this has left the girl in this position, that she is charged with a crime in a complaint issued during the inquest, and I understand that inquest is still open. Your Honor sits here to hear this case, which is returnable before you, when you have already been sitting on the case in another capacity. We do not know what you have heard on this case in the inquest or of the purport of the testimony there. By all the laws of human nature you cannot help being prejudiced from the character of the evidence which has been submitted to you. You might look at things differently from what you do, if certain questions that may have been asked in the inquest had been excluded, or if you had been allowed to hear both sides, with counsel to ask for rulings upon the character of the interrogatories. So it seems to me that you are sitting in a double capacity to hear a charge against my client based upon evidence of which we know nothing, and for all that we know you may have formed opinions which make you incompetent to hear
this complaint under the rules of law. The constitution does not allow a Judge to sit in such a double capacity and it guarantees a defendant from a prejudiced hearing.”
District Attorney Knowlton answered saying: “The commonwealth demurs from the plea. My brother is entirely in error in stating that there is anything extraordinary in this proceeding. This is exactly the line laid down that has been followed in other cases that have excited less attention than this one. More than twenty times to my certain knowledge, has a similar thing been done, and I should not be doing my duty if this thing should not be done now. You have your duty at the inquest and you are also obliged by statute to hear cases of this kind. I must respectfully submit that it is not a compliment to your Honor’s conception of your duty, to suggest that you cannot faithfully and impartially perform the duties that devolve upon you in this case. The inquest was against no one. It was to ascertain who committed these murders. The inquest is still proceeding, and the evidence before it has nothing to do with this case. It is your Honor’s duty to hear this complaint and you ought not to be deterred.”
Mr. Jennings then said: “I don’t think that the District Attorney comprehended my point. The inquest is generally held early in a case of this kind, and you can see where suspicion falls. The difference between the custom and this case is, that after the police determined whom they thought the guilty person was, then, without holding an open trial at once, they settled on the guilty party and held an inquest to examine her, without anybody to defend her. That’s what this inquest is, and because your Honor has been sitting here before the inquest you can’t help being prejudiced. To illustrate: A person comes to your law office and states his case, and then after that you go into court to hear the case and pronounce judgment on it.”
Judge Blaisdell—“I think Mr. Jennings is mistaken. The statutes make it my imperative duty to hold an inquest and upon the testimony introduced at that hearing, to direct the issuance of warrants. The motion is overruled and the demurred sustained.”
Mr. Jennings—“Then, your Honor, we are ready for trial.”
Mr. Knowlton—“The evidence in this case could not be completed at once. It could hardly all be gathered by next week.” He moved a continuance till one week, Monday, August 22, at 2 o’clock, when the State hoped to be entirely ready with the case.
Mr. Jennings—“We are very anxious to proceed at once. We ask for a trial at the earliest possible moment.”