Post #7: We the jury..

    In the Montana case State vs. Edward Rehburg, the petit jury of Group 3 found Mr. Rehburg not guilty on one count of murder in the second-degree. According to laws in the United States, one must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt in order to be found guilty of a crime. A murder in the 19th century was not easily solved, as forensic science was limited at the time. This made jury decisions much more difficult because if no one saw the event occur, it was very hard to put the accused at the scene of the crime. There was not ample evidence to support a conviction in this case; on the contrary, the testimonies in the courtroom, including that of the victim herself, support Mr. Rehburg verdict as not guilty.

    During this time period, testimonies made by women were not typically taken as seriously as those made by men. Despite this fact, both Emma and Bertha Rehburg proposed evidence placing Edward away from any possible opportunity to beat his daughter during the day, making it less likely for him to commit the crime. Additionally, Joe Tiebow, a worker for Mr. Rehburg, also supported the statements made by the girls. The prosecutor questioned Mr.Tiebow with simple queries. This might suggest a discrimination against his social classification. First, he states that Clara came out of the house when she first appeared hurt, which helps the defense as he was supposedly on the haystack all day. He also mentions that as soon as Mr. Rehburg saw his daughter’s condition, he asked her about her wounds and took her into town to see a doctor 10 minutes later. This particular deposition shifts a huge amount of blame away from the accused, and also places the inside of the house as the most probable crime scene.

     The majority of the doctor’s statements simply mentioned Clara’s physical condition as being poor. However, those of Dr. Weed and Dr. Steele bring to light the declaration made by the victim on her deathbed. There is a hearsay rule in the procedure of law, which states that a testimony from what one heard will be discounted from the case and will not be used by the jury to apply in their decided verdict. There is an exception to this and that is the death bed declaration, this can be used in the case as concrete evidence. Clara stated that her step mother abused her, and not her father. This clearly shuts out any verdict of Mr. Rehburg being the guilty suspect.

   

The statements made by the three Rehburg daughters, Joe Tiebow, and the doctors provide plenty of evidence for a 19th or 20th century jury to find Mr. Rehburg not guilty, despite any generational differences between the two time periods. Clara’s deathbed declaration was particularly important to the defense because not only did she state the abuser was not her father, but she specifically mentioned that it was her step-mother, Louisa. Along with the depositions from the others involved, it would not be plausible for a panel to find Edward Rehburg guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comments

[Eric Perkins]

The paper had several strong points and a few weak points.

The introduction was well written. It told the audience exactly what was going on. It allows them to be more critical of your paper, which in turn allows them to get more out of your paper in the end even if they totally disagree with it.

The paper had a very logical flow to it. The paper started off with the decision your group reached and then the paper progressed to all of the evidence you used to support this decision. This is where the structure really became well ordered. You did not just through the evidence out there. You told the legal context of the evidence, such as this evidence would be inadmissible in a modern day court. Then you gave your evidence and told the importance of the evidence, and as a result the evidence was fully integrated into your paper.

As for the weaknesses of the paper, I saw three categories: a lack of explanation of your 19th century verdict, no quotes, and a few speculations presented as facts.

The paper really lacked much evidence to prove the innocence of Edward Reghberg in the 19th century. It seems that much of your analysis was only for the 20th century. Sure there is some mention about the fact that women were not taken seriously in court for much of the 19th century, but there is really no discussion about how the 19th century would have analyze each article of evidence. It seemed more like the paper just said well they would have reached the same conclusion.

It would have been a lot better if you talked about how the 19th century women were not taken seriously in court so the testimonies of the Reghberg girls would have been pretty much ignored by the jury.

You could have talked about how during the 19th Century the death bed declaration would have been taken as a very vital piece of evidence. Instead you mainly look at things through a 20th Century perspective and do not do much analyzing in the 19th Century.

Another problem you guys had was the lack of quotes in your paper. If the audience doubts your word, there is nothing to reinforce it. The audience is more readily able to rationalize away your points because after the paper was only written by college students.

In your paper there are a few times in which you present your thoughts as to how something looked as facts. For example “This particular deposition shifts a huge amount of blame away from the accused, and also places the inside of the house as the most probable crime scene.” could have been written differently. It is the opinion of the jury that Mr. Edwards did not mortally wound his daughter. This based on the fact that Mr. Edwards inquired at the injuries of his daughter and after having examined the wounds of his daughter he promptly took her the hospital. It is not the opinion of this jury that Mr. Edwards would mortally wound his daughter and then take her the hospital.

[Eric Perkins]

P.S.

Here is a quote that you could have used from the book

"women exercised power as the moral gaurdians of the nation."

[1]Davidson, Heyrman, Lytle, Stoff, and Gienapp. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2006. pg 320