Vengeance Is Mine: The Scandalous Love Triangle That Triggered the Boyce-Sneed Feud

Protecting a Home or Protecting a Killer?: The Conclusion of the 1912 John Beal Sneed Murder Trial

113 Protecting a Home or Protecting a Killer? The Conclusion of the 1912 John Beal Sneed Murder Trial IN SPORTS CONTESTS, there comes a time during most games when the momentum shifts to one of the teams. At that point it is crucial for the other team to reinvigorate, to shift strategies, to seize the initiative and stop that momentum before the game turns into a rout. So it is with most hotly contested jury trials. That crucial point in the Sneed murder trial came when McLean concluded his direct examination of John Beal Sneed. Beal’s virtuoso performance, enhanced by the tearful accompaniment of his two daughters, had been carefully orchestrated; it hit all the right notes at the right time to captivate the hearts and minds of the rural and unsophisticated jurors imbued with Victorian values. When McLean ended his direct examination and announced, “No further questions,” momentum was clearly with the defense. It was now or never for the prosecution. It was also precisely at that point that an excellent opportunity was presented to the prosecution to turn the tide by attacking the Achilles’ heel of the defense: Lena’s alleged moral insanity. Beal’s carefully scripted portrayal of himself as the heroic, self-sacrificing martyr depended on convincing the jury that Lena had been—and 7 C H A P T E R 114 V E N G E A N C E I S M I N E still was—morally insane. Failing that, the entire defense structure was likely to collapse. Had Senator Hanger been a perceptive and skilled cross-examiner he would have put some very embarrassing—and deflating— questions to Beal, queries that called for a “yes” or “no,” and then forced Beal to give direct, responsive answers. And when Beal started his usual evasions and explanations, he would have immediately interrupted him and repeated the question. If Beal again attempted to dodge the question, he would have interrupted again, and this time requested Judge Swayne to instruct the witness to give direct and responsive answers, and limit his answers to the scope of the question. There is nothing quite like a witness who continues to evade answering simple, direct questions that causes that witness to lose credibility before a jury. By asking simple yes-or-no questions, Hanger could have forced Beal to make a number of damaging admissions, casting much doubt about Lena’s alleged moral insanity. Questions that would force Beal to admit the following: that there had been no judicial determination that Lena was insane when Beal originally had her committed to the asylum; that there had been no judicial determination that she was insane when he had her recommitted; that when Lena finally forced a sanity trial, the presiding judge, District Judge Tom Simmons, heard Lena herself testify as well as three doctors who all testified that she was sane; that the defense expert, Dr. John Turner, also testified at that hearing and told Judge Simmons that he believed Lena was insane, but that Judge Simmons didn’t believe him; that the judge then found Lena sane and ordered her released from the asylum; that Judge Simmons made the determination that Lena was sane on January 19, 1912, less than a month ago; that Beal and his attorneys must have believed that Lena was sane five days ago when they subpoenaed her to testify in this case, but Mr. McLean now tells this court that the defense isn’t going to call Lena as a witness because everybody on the defense team now believes that she is insane; therefore please tell us on which of those past five days after the defense issued the subpoena did Lena lose her sanity. Finally, he might have ended with this question: Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Sneed, that Protecting a Home or Protecting a Killer? 115 the real reason your defense team decided not to call Mrs. Sneed to testify in this trial and let the jury hear what she has to say is that she refused to testify the way you wanted her to? After Senator Hanger finished this cross-examination of Beal, Hanger should have immediately called as the state’s first rebuttal witnesses Dr. R. O. Braswell and the other two doctors who testified for Lena at the sanity hearing. All three experts could have again certified Lena’s sanity. (The state did eventually...