In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

| 304 | hauptmann’s ladder rebuttal and summations in a criminal trial, the prosecution always goes first because the burden of proof rests squarely upon them. a defendant has no obligation to offer any evidence, but has the absolute right to do so. if a defendant chooses to offer evidence in defense, the prosecution is then entitled to contest that evidence. ed reilly and his associates spent twelve days offering witnesses and evidence. david Wilentz used the time to gather rebuttal witnesses. his rebuttal consisted of twenty-three witnesses called in rapid-fire succession over two days.1 The first target of his rebuttal was Benjamin heier. heier testified that he saw isidor Fisch jump over the wall at st. raymond’s Cemetery on the night of april 2, 1932. if true, then Fisch, not hauptmann, was Cemetery John. Wilentz called Joseph Farber, an insurance broker, as his first rebuttal witness. he testified that he had been involved in a car accident on april 2, 1932, on sixth avenue in manhattan, some eight to nine miles away from st. raymond’s Cemetery. The driver of the other car was none other than Benjamin heier.2 since the accident took place around 10:00 p.m., heier could not have seen anyone jumping the cemetery wall as he was nowhere near the area. a little over a month later, on march 22, 1935, heier was indicted by the hunterdon County grand jury for perjury. heier was represented by lloyd Fisher and eventually obtained a dismissal because the law at that time required a second witness . The second witness did not appear in court and the charges were dropped. With heier discredited, Wilentz turned his attention to elvert Carlstrom and his claim that he saw Bruno richard hauptmann in Fredericksen’s Bakery at around 8:30 p.m. on the night of the kidnapping. The attorney general called arthur larsen and oscar hilbert Christensen, who both stated that elvert Carlstrom was not at the bakery that night. instead, he was working with them in dunellen, new Jersey, and remained there all evening.3 The next three rebuttal witnesses dealt with the kidnapper’s ladder. erastus mead hudson had shocked the court with his claim that rail sixteen had only one nail hole made with a square nail. Wilentz impeached this testimony with a photo-| 304 || 35 | Rebuttal and Summations | 305 | graph purportedly taken in the days after the kidnapping that showed four holes in rail sixteen. now it was time to back up that claim. George C. Wilton, a photographer with the new Jersey state police, told the jury that he developed the picture of rail sixteen of the kidnapper’s ladder on march 8, 1932. reilly cross-examined the man harshly, but could not shake his testimony. Wilton even had records with him showing the date of development.4 Wilentz was not finished rebutting the testimony of mr. hudson. he presented harold s. Betts, an employee of the united states Forestry service, who testified that he examined the kidnapper’s ladder on may 23, 1932. he issued a written report on June 1, 1932, in which he recorded observing four holes in rail sixteen.5 The next target for rebuttal was isidor Fisch. The defense had spent considerable time and energy trying to convince the jury that Fisch was the real kidnapper and blackmailer. one of their witnesses, Bertha hoff, advised the court that her friend, alfred Budreau, brought isidor Fisch to her house in november 1933. Fisch had a small package with him. Wilentz produced mr. Budreau, who denied even knowing Fisch, let alone bringing him to hoff’s home.6 The next three witnesses, Joseph levenson, erna Jung, and henry Jung, could account for the whereabouts of isidor Fisch on the night of the kidnapping. Fisch was at the home of henry and erna Jung on march 1, 1932, from 7:30 p.m. to nearly midnight .7 levenson even had some documents, including a promissory note, to confirm Fisch’s presence.8 hannaFisch,isidor’ssister,wasnext.demonstratingthathewouldgotoanylength to prove his case, Wilentz had hanna flown in from Germany. testifying through a German interpreter,9 hanna recounted her final days with her brother, from his return to Germany in 1933 to his hospitalization in march 1934 and finally to his death. asked about the estate, hanna told the court her brother had little of value.10 reilly stood for cross-examination and asked the witness, “Verstehen sie englisch ?”11 Before...

Share