SENTENCED TO DEATH

Evening Star, Issue 20321, 1 November 1929, Page 2

SENTENCED TO DEATH

BRAUMAN GUILTY OF MURDER STRONGEST RECOMMENDATION TO MERCY ' CONVICTED MAN REITERATES MIND WAS BLANK Donning the black cap, Mr Justice Kennedy last night in the Supreme Court sentenced William Henry Brauman, who had been found guilty of murder, to death. When asked if he had anything to say why the sentence of death should not bo passed upon him, Brauman said: “ Your Honour, 1 don’t remember anything about the murder.’’ The convicted voice was firm, but ho showed the strain of three days’ anxious waiting throughout his trial. Friendless and lonely, he stood upright in the box, unsupported, when the death sentence was pronounced. For three days, the trial had proceeded, and in the twentieth hour of the case the jury retired, returning an hour and a-quarter later with a verdict of guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy. Brauman was flushed throughout the final day, and he was ■ obviously troubled by his wound. A minute after the sentence was passed, Brauman stepped down the steps from the docks to the cells, and for the first time since he first made an appearance in the courts on the capital charge, the attending constable had to assist him. Throughout the long day, till sentence was passed at 9.40 p.m., Brauman took little interest in the proceedings. His defence was carried out by Mr White, with Mr G. M. Lloyd, and Mr F. B Adams was the Crown Prosecutor. The charge against him was that of the murder of his wife, Annabel! Dorothy Deans Brauman, at St. Clair on the night of August 7. MR WHITE’S ADDRESS,

Mr White, in addressing tlte jury, pointed out that jurymen should first of all sweep from their minds anything they had read or heard concerning tlio tragedy before they came into court. He would tell them that the whole gist of the defence was the question of intent. As they had been told by the Crown Prosecutor, there were four possible verdicts —guilty of wilful murder, his acquittal, guilty of manslaughter. and a verdict that the committal of the crime was due to insanity. The defence invited the jury to bring in a verdict of insanity, and submitted that it was the only possible verdict that could be returned. The circumstances under which the tragedy was committed were in themselves evidence of the fact that the man was mad. Isobody in his right senses would have done such a thing as was done by the accused. Then there was the fact that all the doctors spoke of the fact that the man showed abnormality and evidence of mental instability. The life of the accused for the past twelve or eighteen months seemed to have been_ a sort of a hell. Whatever was the intention of the accused towards las mother-in-law, or towards his wife, he had certainly made up his iuuid to end his own life. UNHAPPY LIFE OF ACCUSED. Learned counsel went on to recall the married life of the accused, and to point out that homes had been broken up, and that there had been a senes ot matrimonial unhappiness. 1 All this seemed to be contributed to by ins mother-in-law’s interference. They had been told that Brauman was a jealous man, and that his jealousy had become an obsession. Was the tragedy committed by a sane or an insane man m the broad sense as a layman looked at the case?. If the accused were sane then the crime would be called a bloody and deliberate assassination. The circumstances, however, did not fit in with that theory. The defence was that the accused was labouring under delusions and was goaded on by the pm-pncking tactics of his wife until he was driven to such a degree of desperation that, being in the vicinity with the intention of taking his own life, he happened to accidentally stumble upon the joy-nfl-ino- party, lost control of himself, was carried away with an extreme state ot amnesia, and did not in fact know what he was doing, or that he was doing wrong. In the circumstances ot the tragedy there could be found none of the pre-conceived ideas of a deliberate assassination. Nor did the prisoner look the part of a bloody assassin. CRIMINAL INTENTION BROADCAST. They knew that Brauman had broadcast hLs intention to kill the woman, and learned counsel suggested that tne fact that he had told everyone of his intention was the strongest evidence that could be given in favour of the contention that accused was _ insane. When a man advertised his intention to kill in this way he was either insane or would not do it at all. . The jury had also to consider the location where the tragedy occurred. If the accused wanted to kill his wire why on earth did he not seize a more opportune time and place to kill hen' Ho must surely, if the Crown witnesses were to be believed, have had many other opportunities of killing her. Then they had to consider the weapon. Did they not think the accused would have chosen some other weapon than a revolver if ho had intended to deliver a death blow, and if he was a sane man—a knife, or a dagger, or something of that sort, some death-dealing, silent weapon. It was an extraordinary weapon for a sane man to choose to do murder because ho had alarmed the whole neighbourhood. The accused had made no attempt to get away from the locality of the murder, and had also made a deliberate attempt to take hi a own life. Counsel asked the jury to consider the circumstances, and said that they could come to no other conclusion than that the crime had been committed by an insane man, and « they were satisfied that the insanity was such as to bring him under the legal definition of insanity, then they must acquit him. MERE OPINION. Learned counsel dealt with the evidence at length, and referred to the idacl jealousy of the accused of his wife and his deep feeling of resentment against his mother-in-law. He asked what effect the feeling . against his mother-in law and his feelings regardin* what he considered was the wrong conduct of his wife and her wrong influence of the on her .daughters would have on the mind of a man like the accused’s. Counsel also .dealt with the 1 medical evidence, and said that the doctor’s evidence was made up of mere opinions. They had, however, all agreed, with one exception, jibout the accused’s abnormality—that he was not mentally stable. -The ■defence' maintained that he was-insane at the time of the tragedy, and he asked the jury

to accept that contention and acquit the prisoner. Mr ’White, who commenced his address at 2.15, concluded at 3.30. CROWN PROSECUTOR’S ADDRESS The Crown Prosecutor; in his address to the jury, said their choice lay between a verdict of guilty and a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity. Ho contended that on the evidence the defence of insanity had not been made out' Reviewing the evidence, learned counsel referred to the unhappiness in the Brauraan home, and said it was clear that the woman left her home because of the treatment shown to her by the accused. Could it be said that the mother-in-law had anything to do with the departure of Mrs Brauman from her home? Her departure was entirely due to the fact that she bad found life intolerable in the home. There was evidence of threats made by the accused respecting his wife, and he had in his possession a revolver, which, he said, he would use. He must have had the weapon some tinio before his wife left Invercargill, and no doubt ne got it with the intention of using it, sometime or other, on his wife. After :tha family came to Dunedin there was another series of threats by the accused. In all these threats there was no reference to the mother-in-law; they were threats- against, the wife, except ;in one instance when he threatened to cut the grandmother’s throat. It was obvious from the evidence that on the day before the tragedy the accused had found the place where his wife was working, and on the following day he was found haunting the same spot with a revolver in his pocket. THE LAW OF INSANITY. “I repeat that the onus of establishing his defence is upon the accused man,” said the Crown Prosecutor. “My learned friend has put the matter somewhat otherwise to you. You will he given the law by His Honour, and in the meantime, subject to His Honour’s correction, the onus is upon the accused to, establish to your reasonable satisfaction a reasonable conviction that ho was insane, in the legal sense, at the time of the murder. The matter is not to bo watered'down or evaded by any resort or choice as my friend suggested. If the matter rests in doubt your duty is to return a verdict of guilty. Only if you are well convinced that the accused was insane have you the right to return ft verdict on that ground. There has been some discussion on the legal and medical views of insanity. You will remember that my friend, at a later stage, endeavoured to suggest that the law was somewhat out of date. The law tinder which we are working is the law as enacted in New Zealand in 1893, and earlier and again in 1908. It is a law which simply embodies the law which has been applied universally in English courts, from the time c. the M'Naughton case in 1840, and the law. so far, has been accepted in the courts both here and in England. “ Abnormality is not sufficient to excuse a man from the consequences of a criminal act. The law is intended to apply to all and sundry, not only to rich and poor, but also to the normal and the abnormal. It is an old construction of words that every criminal act implies some degree of abnormality In 99 cases out of 100 a girl without some abnormality does not steal dress material from a shop. The greater the crime the greater the degree of abnormality to commit that crime. Whether it be murder for gain or lust, it necessarily implies some 'form of abnormality, and I do not hesitate to say that it is clear tnnt the accused in this case lias some degree of abnormality. NOT A NORMAL MAN. “ His actions are not those of a normal man. No one could contend to the contrary. But that is not the point. Even the abnormal and mental have to be controlled by the criminal law, which exists to curb people who have been given abnormal, moral, or mental conditions and would otliermiso do things which they ought to know very well, under the criminal law, that they should not do. The test adopted by the law is perfectly simple. It says that, no matter what the abnormality may bo you must establish three things: You must show natural imbecility, which is not suggested in this case, or disease of the mind. The defence relies upon disease of the mind—insanity. Beyond that, you must find that it rendered the accused incapable_ of understanding the nature and quality of his act. Shortly, it must be shown that he did not know that his act was wrong. Even : f cn abnormal person > knows the nature and quality of bis act, and r.bat his act was wrong, then it is right and proper he should hear the consequences of that act. The question of punishment may be a different one, hue the matter of abnormality which has often to bo taken into account _ when considering punishment, even in oases like this, does not concern us here, “How does the evidence, then, stand on the question of insanity. My friend, adopting the line taken by Dr Stuart Moore, relied strongly upon the publicity of the crime. Why was it not done secretly and earlier? it is sufficient to say that the man who contemplates suicide as well as murder, as this man did, at every stage knows that he has not to worry himself about secrecy or time or place. When be came upon her at night on tbo Esplanade, himself having the oniy weapon, it was secret enough and open enough for his purpose. As to his not doing it earlier, when a man threatens an act he does not always do it early. There are many threats before his action is crystallised. Of course, it is ridiculous to suggest, as Dr Moore did, that the threats by the man were an invitation to people to stop him. A man does not make any such threats with any such thoughts, even at the back of his mind. Tho defence of amnesia was intended to convey the suggestion that while tho accused may have known what he was doing or contemplated doing at Invercargill and Dunedin, when making the threats, nevertheless at the v-ry moment before the tragedy his mind may have become a blank and lie himself may have been carried away by amnesia. That is a thing you are not going to assume, gentlemen, and there is the evidence, which I think you will agree, makes it very difficult to suppose that anything such happened in this case.” BRAUMAN’S FIRST CONCERNS. The evidence showed that Brauman’s concern immediately after the shooting was for the main figure in the case, his wife. To the ambulance driver he said : “I did it. Why don’t you take me away.” Those were the accused’s first important words, and showed that although suffering from the first shock of his own wound, he knew full well that he had shot his wife immediately beforehand. Then there were -the accused’s inquiries to the constable in the Hospital. He mentioned the number of the license plate on the car Observe, said Mr Adams, the meticulous memory which the man had, before the defence of insanity and amnesia entered his mind. Another disingenuous state ment was that ho- first came to his senses in the hospital, yet his first statements in the ambulance showed that lie recalled everything. Accused also said ho thought his wife lived at Anderson’s Bay, • yet the' previous day ire had been finding out where the woman

was working. His statement, “I suppose I will bo charged with attempted murder, attempted suicide, and being un lawfully in possession of a revolver and in the end I will get seven years for it,” showed that Brauman had a very clear perceptic i of the probable consequences of his act. In the hospital Brauman asked \vhero_ he had wounded his wife, but after his arrest he said he knew nothing about the act. The jury had seen the revolver, and its damage and was it it likely that he would be able to work the trigger in a fit of sheer absence of mind? As to Brauman’s suggestion that he saw black, Dr Moore had stated, “ I am not prepared to swear that the man saw black when he shot his wife.” Dr Moore then was not prepared to swear that Brauman suffered from amnesia. According to Dr Evans, Brauman said he did not remember anything until ton days !ater,_ when he heard the doctors in hospital talking about tbo wound.' Ho himself thought he had gob there by an accident The jury could see how the man’s mental processes worked. Dr Evans said Brauman had had two months to think over it, and he considered his- story fabricated. Counsel for tire defence, said the Crown Prosecutor, had spoken of Brauhot having bean asleep for three weeks before the shooting. A human being was unable to withstand sleep fox' more than three or four days, and there was no evidence that Brauman suffered from lack of sleep. All that they knew was that lie did not sleep at tho boarding house. MEDICAL EVIDENCE AGREED. While they recognised the degree of abnormality, which the Crown itself admitted, the five doctors called by the Crown were’ agreed that the man was not insane. They would except, however, Dr Ross, who had his doubts, of his being sane in the medical sense. They all agreed that Brauman knew the nature and the quality of the act. Not one of the five doctors had given a loop hole for holding that the accused was legally insane at the time of the commission of the offence. The only witness for the defence was Dr Moore, and it was for the jury to say whether they were satisfied with the medical testimony of that witness. Dr Moore said his opinion was that the crime was a confession of guilt, yet he was not prepared to swear that the man did not know he was doing wrong. He next contradicted that statement because he realised that his answer destroyed the defence of insanity. To bis evidence, he could apply Dr Moore’s own words during the case. “He is inconsistent.” Dr Moore’s evidence was that the man realised that the act was a criminal act, only in tho eyes of the law. Throughoxxt the letter found in Invercargill, there was no suggestion that the nian was acting under a sense of duty, of preservation of himself, or of duty to his family. The letter read simply of a malevolent spirit of revenge. Mr Adams then read extracts from the evidence of the various medical witnesses.

“Tho position from the medical point of view is abundantly clear,” he said. “There are five doctors called for the Crown, and they are all emphatic and clear that this man did not fulfil the conditions of the statutory definition of insanity. If you accept one answer of the other doctor, you must place his opinions in tho same category as the others. And I ask you to accept that one answer and x-eject the rest.” With all solemnity, he suggested that Brauman was not entitled to a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity There was only one course left to the jury to be consistent with their oaths ; THE SUMMING UP. ' The summing up by His Honour commenced at 4.45. He said that the jury bad listened for three days with great attention to the case. His Honour defined the crime of murder according to the law, and said that the burden of proof x’ested upon the Crown. The jurors were the judges of fact in this case, and the fate of the prisoner was in their hands. Ho would merely suggest the facts for their consideration, but they were the supreme judges of the facts. His Honour reviewed the evidence, and said the accused admitted he was the man who had shot his wife. If they found that Brauman did shoot his wife, did. ho moan to cause her death or to do her any bodily injury which was likely to cause her death? Let them ask themselves this question: Did he or did ho not intend to kill Mrs Brauman? The evidence disclosed that the married life of tho two had not been happy—it was mostly what might bo described as “ bedroom unhappiness.” His Honour emoted the evidence of the accused’s son to show the threats issued by the accused against his wife after she had left Invercargill, and said they also had the evidence pf Olivo Brauman. Did those threats disclose, or did they not, -an intention to cause Mrs Brauman’s death? Those threats were made not only to members of the fainilv, but also to strangers. His Honour quoted the evidence of Mr Bacon, Mrs Mitchell, and Mr Brosnan to show that the accused had also made threats to them against his wife. Were those threats mere idle words, asked His Honour, or did they indicate an intention on the part of tho accused to take his wife’s life? Were they expressive of an intention to kill, or mere empty words? They might ask why Brauman was at St. Clair on the night of the killing. If ho had a revolver with him, might they not ask why ho had it; and if it was loaded, they might further ask themselves why it was loaded. Was it to carry out the threats ho had so frequently made?” The accused had given two different reasons why he bad borrowed the revolver, and two different reasons why he had not it to its owner.

WAS MEETING A COINCIDENCE? The accused had stated that he had taken the revolver to St. Clair intending to throw it into the sea, as he was afraid the police might get to know he xvas in possession of it. If they; accepted that evidence it was a coincidence that he had met Mrs Brauman on tho esplanade. His Honour referred to the letters found in the possession of the accused,, and said that the Invercargill letter disclosed an intention to take Mrs Brauman’s life, because he had said: “As regards my wife, I trust and hope she will have a decent burial,” If they took it that the accused met Sirs Brauman and fired at her with intent to kill her they might bring in a verdict of murder. His Honour, continuing, said that if the jury thought that Brauman shot his wife in the heat of passion, caused by a sudden provocation; it would be open to them not to find him guilty of murder, although they found that the prisoner meant to kill his wife. WAS THERE PROVOCATION?

To reduce murder to manslaughter there must be the heat of passion caused by a sudden provocation, said His Honour, wlio then quoted the law on the point of provocation. The jury, he said, would) have to determine whether there had been any provocation. Had there been any wrongful act to provoke the-prisoner? What was the evidence? If they accepted the only sworn testimony of the witnesses there was neither wrongful act nor insult done immediately prior to the shooting. If that were so, they might that the shooting and killing wore entirely unprovoked. The ac-

cused had made a statement that there was familiarity between his' wife and a man and between his daughter and another man. but the evidence of the people in tho car at the esplanade was that there was no kissing or cuddling between them, and that nothing improper or, anything to insult the accused did in'fact take place. When accused spoke to his wife and said, “ You are having a good time,” there was no complaint of familiarity against the daughter, nor was it likely that a young man like M'Millan—they had seen what sort of a young man ho was—would have acted with such impropriety as to cause a man to lose bis self-control. The jurors were tho judges of the facts, and they might: consider that there was no provocation on the night in question, Why did tho aroused have a loaded revolver? Why was it loaded if it was to be thrown into the sea? The other view was: was the accused at the esplanade—without provocation—for the purpose of shooting the woman who met her death? ’ ‘

He had put that view before them, although the defence had not seriously -suggested in 'the court that a verdict of manslaughter might be brought in. The defence in the case was, substantially, that the prisoner was insane in the legal sense at the’ time he shot Mrs Brauman. The law on this aspect was that the burden of proof of insanity rested not on the Crown, but upon the person who set it up. The law was that every person was presumed to be sane at tho time he did the act until' the contrary was proved, if murder or any other crime Were committed then the person could escape from the consequences oniy by showing himself, or by evidence, to be insane. REVENGE NOT INSANITY. A deep instinct for revenge was not of itself legal insanity, excusing a criminal, nor was a strong sexual instinct ox itself insanity; nor was mere violence of temper, nor were jealousy and suspiciousness, nor were abnormal mental instinct of itself insanity in the legal* sense, excusing crime. The law required much more before accepting insanity as an excuse for a crime. There must be either natural imbecility or disease of the mind. Unless there was either one or the other there was no insanity excuse in the eyes of the law in this country. The jury had to decide whether tho accused was insane in a legal sense. His Honour asked if there was any natural imbecility. The evidence did not suggest natural imbecility. Did the evidence prove that at the time of the shooting the accused was suffering from mental disease. No witnesses, apart from those to whom threats had been made, had deposed to anything abnormal in the accused’s conduct. Was there nothing more than an abandonment to jealousy ? Mrs Jane said that the accused had lived at her boarding house for eight or nine months, and that he was always quite rational. The testimony of the man Thompson, who shared the room with the accused, was that the accused was rational and was never depressed or worried. Moreover, Brauman, according to the evidence, had never discussed domestic matters with either Mrs Jane or Thompson, so that if there was any mental disease the evidence of these two witnesses indication of it. Were accused’s threats made as boasts or were they made with a definite purpose? Were they intended by the mere stress of living to force the wife back to the person who had made the threats? These were considerations to which they should give attention. What was the evidence as to mental disease? asked His Honour, who quoted the evidence regarding accused's '(induct on tl#- night of the theatre party and also in connection with accused’s visits to the witnesses Bacon and B -osnan. Did his words suggest mental disease, or were they mere vindictive expressions used to get his wire back or to make her life so difficult that she would have to return to him? Dr Moore had said there was mental disease, and he relied largely on the fact that in his view the accused had shot his wife to spite his mother-in-law, and his interpretation of the evidence was that his real animus was against the mother-in-law. THE OFT-REPEATED THREATS. Against whom, asked His Honour, did the accused frequently make threats? Were they in. general against the mother-in-law, or were they confined largely to the mother? And in the final act of tho accused, was his animus against the person whoso life, he took or against the mother-in-law ? The quarrels were quarrels with his wife, and his threats were against his wife. These were matters tho jury might bear in mind when considering the view which Dr Moore hold as to the nature of the accused’s act. Referring to the letters written by the accused. His Honour asked; Did they record the state of mind of the accused, or wore they merely stagey, melodramatic, selfpitying letters designed to excuse or justify an act which in fact was inexcusable and unjustifiable? _ Or, on the -contrary, were tho letters in the terms in which they were couched because the person who wrote them was suffering from mental disease?

His Honour passed on to consider this point: When tho accused shot his xyife did he know he was shooting her? In considering that question let them ask what remark the accused made when he accosted his wife. He said : “You are having a fine time of it.” Did those words indicate that he was in possession of his faculties? Was his act out of harmony with his past actions, or was his act one that might have been expected, and was he carrying. out a conscious intention? After an adjournment at 6 p.m. for dinner His Honour continued his address at 7.15 p.m. He recalled the evidence as to the conduct of the accused and. his admissions subsequent to the shooting and in tho hospital. In the hospital he made inquiries about his wife. If he did not know he had shot her, why did he make the inquiries? There was the further question: Did tho accused know, when he shot his wife, he was doing wrong? His Honour quoted statements made by the accused in the hospital which showed that he recognised he had done something that had brought him within tho criminal law. His Honour referred at some length to the medical evidence on the question of insanity, and explained the law on the matter. He pointed out that there was substantial agreement among five of the doctors, while Dr Moore took an opposing view. Dr Moore’s evidence was read almost in its entirety, with extracts from the evidence of the other doctors.

“The verdict I ask you to consider,” said His Honour, “ is: Was the accused guilty of murder ? If you find he was guilty of murder you will bring in a verdict of guilty of murder. If you find the evidence shows that there was what otherwise would be murder, hut that the act was committed in the heat of passiojn, caused by sudden provocation, you will reduce the verdict to that of guilty of manslaughter. If you find that neither murder nor manslaughter is proved you will bring in a verdict of not guilty. If you find that the accused was insane in the legal sens? when he killed his wife (if he ki’led her} you will brin~ in a verdict of not guilty.” RETIREMENT OF JURY. The summing up lasted 2h 35rain, and at 8.17 the jury retired. At 9.30 it was intimated that the

jury had reached a decision, and robed counsel returned to court. A minute before the jury returned at 9.37 Branman was brought up to his seat in the box. He retained his calm demeanour. As the jury filed back to the panel there was a hushed silence in court. THE FATAL SENTENCE. “Mr Foreman, have you unanimously agreed upon a verdict?” asked the Registrar (Mr J. M. Adam). The Foreman: We have unanimously agreed. The Registrar: Do you find the accused guilty or not guilty. “ Guilty of murder,” replied the foreman. “But we cannot lay before your Honour too strong a recommendation to mercy on the grounds of the medical testimony of mental abnormality.” The indictment and the verdict were handed up to the judge, and nil eyes were turned towards the box.

“ William Heliry Brauman, you having been found guilty of murder, have you anything to say why tli© sentence of death should not be passed upon you according to law?” asked the Registrar. Prisoner: Your Honour, I don’t remember anything about the murder. “William Henry Brauman, you have been found guilty of murder,” said His Honour. “It is my duty to pass sentence upon you according to law.” The Court Crier (Mr H. Bennett): His Honour the Judge commands the silence of all persons while the sentence of death is pronounced by the court on the prisoner at the bar. His Honour then placed the black cap upon his head and pronounced the sentence of death. “The sentence of this court,” he said, “is that you be taken to the

E lace of execution, and there hanged y the neck until you are dead.” THANKS TO JURY. Turning to the jury, Mr Justice Kennedy said: “ Gentlemen of the jury, I thank you for your patient attention to this case. It is not possible for me to discharge, you from further attendance this week, but yon will b* released from all jury service during the year 1930.” “The recommendation which you have made will-be passed on by me to the proper authorities,” be intimated; The convicted man was then removed from the dock, being helped .down the steps by the warder.