Insanity Proceeding For Patrick Eugene Prendergast

After Patrick Eugene Prendergast was convicted of murder in his trial for the assassination of Carter Harrison III and sentenced to death by hanging, a hearing was granted to determine whether Prendergast was experiencing a current state of insanity that (under state statute) would have precluded the state from carrying out his execution. Prendergast was represented by Clarence Darrow, Stephen S. Gregory, and James S. Harlan. Despite Darrow offering a passionate representation of Prendergast, arguing for the jury to find him insane, the jury judged Prendergast to be sane and he was executed soon after.

Prendergast's proceeding marks a rare complete defeat in Darrow's legal career. He is the only client Darrow had defended to have been executed. This was an early case in Darrow's career famed career. Darrow is held by some legal scholars to have been the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.

Background

Prendergast

Patrick Eugene Prendergast had family history of mental illness, and had exhibited mental troubles in his pre-adulthood. During his adulthood, he exhibited much behavior that appeared indicative of mental troubles.

Assassination of Carter Harrison III

Prendergast held delusions that his support of arter Harrison III (mayor of Chicago) had been the decisive factor in Harrison's victory in Chicago's 1893 mayoral election, and that he would be appointed the city's corporation counsel by Harrison as a reward. Prendergast, who had no legal education or experience, believed that he was entitled to appointment to that office, and that it was important he be appointed so that he could undertake work to grade separate railroad tracks in the city (an issue which was a fixation of his).

Prendergrast grew upset at Harrison for having not appointed him to the office. October 28, 1893, Prendergast visited the mayor at his home on October 28, 1893, and killed him with three gunshots from a .38 revolver. Prendergast fled by foot, but soon surrendered himself at a police station.

Harrison's assassination (only two days prior to the scheduled close of the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago, and only two weeks before his scheduled wedding) was met with a significant national reaction, and was one of the most sensationalized events in then-recent memory. Media reports in the days immediately after the assassination questioned Prendergast's sanity. Initially, the public viewed Prendergast as a mentally troubled individual. However, as more about his background was learned, the public began to view him more as an angered egomaniac that had killed as an act of revenge.

Murder trial and conviction

Prendergast was tried for murder in the first degree. His attorneys argued an insanity defense. In the trial, Prendergast was represented by court-appointed attorneys Robert Essex and Richard A. Wade, as well as private counsel John T. McGoorty and John Heron (the two of whom had been hired by Prendergast's brother, John Prendergast). The trial lasted three weeks (from opening remarks to sentencing). On December 29, 1893, after quick deliberation the jury delivered a guilty verdict and sentenced Prendergast to death by hanging. His execution was scheduled for March 23.

Prendergast's attorneys motioned for a new trial, citing errors "in admitting incompetent and improper evidence," as well as claiming that testimony that was allowed during the arraignment about Prendergast's conduct had amounted to compelling Prendergast to "give evidence against himself," in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Judge Brentano considered the motion. On February 24, Brentano denied the motion, sentencing Prendergast to execution on March 23, 1894.

Attorneys

Defense (Prendergast)

By some time in May, Wade departed from representing Prengergast's defense and Clarence Darrow had become Prendergast's primary counsel. Darrow had months earlier left his position as the city's assistant corporation counsel. This was his first murder case, and marked the start of a storied criminal law career for him. Joining Darrow in his representation of Prendergast was James S. Harlan and Stephen S. Gregory. Darrow was among Chicago's most boisterous opponents of capital punishment (the death sentence) but had never before represented a defendant in a murder case. Representing the Prendergast case has described as a "major coup" in his burgeoning legal career, despite the negative outcome of the trial.

State (prosecution)

A. S. Trude, who had been lead prosecutor in the murder trial, continued in that role. Prendergast's attorneys had objected to Trude continuing to represent the state, but the judge allowed him to. Trude's primary work as a lawyer had been in defending newspapers in lawsuits relating to libel claims. Trude had some prosecutorial experience, prosecuting cases on behalf of the Chicago city government during the mayoralty of Joseph Medill in the 1870s.

Assistant state's attorneys James Todd and Morrison also represented the state. Todd had also participated in the prosecution during Prendergast's murder trial. Todd had years earlier graduated from the Chicago College of Law in 1890, and had been hired to his position as an assistant state's attorney in February 1893. By the time of Prendergast's murder trial, he had prosecuted twenty murder cases, winning nineteen convictions to one acquittal.

Motion for a proceeding, stay of execution, pretrial

Also on March 22, Prendergast's brother filed a petition on Prendergast's behalf citing Illinois' section 285 of the (then-current) Illinois Criminal Code, which barred the trial or execution of individuals who become "lunatic or insane" after the commission of a crime for as long as the remain in such a mental state. If he were to be deemed insane, this would forbid Prendergast's death sentence from being carried out until such a point that he would be deemed sane. The statute required a sanity hearing to take place if it appeared that the condemned may have become insane since the verdict sentencing them to death had been delivered.

Prendergast's new defense team (attorneys Darrow, Gregory, and Harlan) were attempting various avenues to prevent his scheduled execution from going forward as scheduled on March 23. While Darrow lobbied for a pardon, Gregory and Harlan searched to find a judge who would entertain a motion on the basis of John Prendergast's affidavit attesting that he had observed his brother to be currently insane. Late on the evening of March 22, sitting in the Cook County Criminal Court, Judge Arthur H. Chetlain ordered a two-week reprieve ordering a stay of execution until April 4. He further issued a ''de lunatico inquirendo'' –a writ which ordered for an inquiry to be held in which a jury would rule as to whether or not Prendergast was currently insane. Current insanity would make him ineligible to be executed. This move by Chetlain was highly unexpected, and he faced tremendous backlash for issuing the reprieve.
Also available at:

*
* He was accused of philandering and having exceeded his judicial authority.. In response to criticism, Chetlain recused himself from the matter and the case was given to Judge John Barton Payne.

Delays arose, with the execution being further stayed until July 2. In May, a stipulation was presented to Payne in which it would have been agreed to postpone the trial to the court's September term and further stay the execution until November. However, Payne rejected this and set a start date of June 20 for the trial.

The sanity proceeding began on June 20, and were ultimately concluded on July 3. Since the trial was not concluded in time for a June 2 execution, the execution received an additional stay until July 13.

The proceedings received renewed pubic interest after French president Sadi Carnot was assassinated on June 24 (during the course of the trial). Many had already been concerned after Harrison's assassination that it was part of a perceived trend of violent crimes being committed against officials, with other examples in then-recent years including the assassination of U.S. president James A. Garfield and the assassination of Russian Tsar Alexander II (both in 1881).

Opening statements

Gregory gave the defense's opening statement, in which he promised the jury that expert testimony they would present from professionals would convincingly demonstrate that Prendergast was insane. In the state's opening statement, Trude cautioned the jury against lending too much weight to expert testimony on a case regarding insanity, arguing that the testimony of "plain, honest, unprofessional people" was superior in establishing whether one was insane or not.

At the start of his presentation, Darrow highlighted characteristics that he asserted demonstrated Prendergast's insanity. He argued that Prendergast had already exhibited mental disability prior to his incarceration, and that his mental state had worsened since his incarceration. He characterized Prendergast as irrational, pointing to his behavior. Darrow noted that, while incarcerated, Prendergast had written strange letters to notable figures both from Chicago and throughout the United States. Among such messages were requests written to single-tax advocate and Baltimore-based Catholic Church figure Cardinal James Gibbons asking each to testify at his trial. He characterized Prendergast's hyperfixation on various issues (single-tax, the gold standard, railroad grade crossings) as behavior of an irrational mind. Particularly since Prendergast had at times claimed that such issues were his motivations for shooting Harrison.

Presentations

Since specialized fields of psychiatry and psychology had not yet been properly established, and because nonprofessionals were held by courts as permissible expert witnesses, a mere "common sense" view of sanity could be admitted by those who were relative non-experts on the subject as being "expert opinion". The state's lawyers argued to the jury that "common sense" opinions their witnesses presented could properly determine the sanity of Prendergast. The state's witnesses were primarily relatively undistinguished medical doctors and jailers under whose supervision Prendergast had stayed while at the Cook County Jail.

Darrow called into question the expertise behind the opinions of the medical professionals providing the prosecution's expert testimony. He criticized the age of one doctor (an octogenarian that he characterized as a, "relic of a forgotten age"), called into question the skills of a former doctor (characterizing him as having skill akin to a "butcher"). He also pointed out that the state had decided not to call a previously-considered expert witness after he had come to the conclusion that Prendergast was insane.

Darrow told the jury, "you have been asked y the prosecution/nowiki> to ignore all the learning and science of the past. You have been asked to forget all the humanity of civilization which the years of progress and enlightenment have given the world. You have been asked to do this all for the sake of giving the law a victim." He presented the jury with the rhetorical pondering, "ere/nowiki> the state so interested in taking a life that lawyers should travel beyond the truth and beyond the record and beg the jury to violate their oaths for the sake of giving justice a victim?"

Darrow put up a stronger and more boisterous defense than Prendergast had been given in his murder trial. Richard Allen Morton has written,

Harlan's closing argument for the defense

The closing arguments for the proceeding were delivered on July 2, 1894. Each side was allotted 3.5 hours of argument. The closing arguments saw each side given a total of three-and-a-half hours to speak. The state's argument was sandwiched between the two halves of the defense's closing arguments. Harlan gave the first portion of the defense closing argument.

State's closing argument

Todd and Morison gave the prosecution's closing argument.

Todd told the jury that the state was not seeking to be a, "suppliant for mercy," but rather was, "demanding that justice be done."

Todd and Morrison each purported to the jury that they would not use emotional pleas, but nevertheless sought to evoke heavy emotional responses. Todd told the jury,

Morrison told the jury,

He urged the jury against listening to emotional pleas that Darrow would make. At the conclusion of the state's closing argunmment, Morrison argued,

Darrow's closing argument for the defense

Harlan gave the first portion of the defense's closing argument and Darrow gave the final portion of the defense's closing argument.

In his portion of the closing argument, Darrow gave a very strong performance that was acted as the zenith of the defense's case. Delivering what Brand Whitlock described at the time as the, "most eloquent appeal for mercy," he had heard. Darrow spoke for approximately an hour straight on July 2.

Prefacing comments

Darrow prefaced his portion of the defense's closing argument by declaring,

Cautioning for a narrow scope of evidence weighed

Darrow repeatedly cautioned the jury not to rely on the outcome of the first trial, nor even to consider the murder of Harrison. He argued that this would betray the oaththey had taken in this trial. He insisted that they were obligated to instead focus solely on the question of whether Prendergast was currently insane, as the proceeding was merely to determine as to whether Prendergast had become insane following his murder trial. He criticized the state for having brought up the murder trial's verdict. He urged them not to shelter their decision in that of the previous jury.

Darrow was cautious not to seem disrespectful of Harrison nor insensitive to his death. He spoke positively of Harrison and mournful of his death, but heavily pressed the point that Harrison's murder and the previous murder trial were not matters to be weighed by the jury in the sanity proceeding. He told the jury that his defense of Prendergast had come despite having himself had a personal relationship and respect for Harrison, and that executing Prendergast would do nothing to honor the slain mayor. He remarked,

Darrow told the jury that it was them to decide what they considered to merit insanity, and that legal precedent alone should not constrain their understanding of it. He argued that Prendergast indeed lacked no effective discernment of right and wrong, and that it would reflect poorly to execute Prendergast in light of that, "in this day and generation, in the nineteenth century."

Darrow asserted that the question of Prendergast's sanity should be left to analysis from those with particular education and expertise on matters of the mind. He lambasted the assertion by the state that lay opinion on Prendergast's mental state was just as valuable as the opinion of those with specialized expertise on mental wellness. He rhetorically asked, "can a man who lives in Illinois be so ignorant that he does not believe that special skill is necessary for treating of diseases of the mind?" He asserted that the testimony of specialists who were brought by the defense as witnesses made it clear that Prendergast was insane.

Emphasizing the stakes of decision the jury would make

As he would continue to do in the subsequent criminal trials in his legal career, he also sought to give the jury a sense gravity for the fact that the fate of the defendant was in their hands. He told the jury,

Darrow expressed outrage at the prospect of delivering the death penalty against Prendergaest, exclaiming, "it seems to me that the arguments I have heard advanced to this jury as an excuse for taking a human life would not be warranted amongst savage trials."

Further seeking evoke for the jury a sense gravity of fact that the fate of the defendant was in their hands, he remarked,

At the end of his closing remarks, in an emotional plea, Darrow said to the jury,

Retorting state's characterization of his use of emotional pleas

Retorting the state's assertions that he would mislead the jury with emotional pleas, Darrow said,

In pointing out that the state had made emotional pleas to mislead the jury by arguing for the jury to be emotionally sympathetic to the deceased Harrison, Darrow said,

Criticisms of the witnesses for the prosecution

Darrow criticized lay witnesses brought forth by the state, such as jailers. He noted that the jailers who testified held patronage positions, deriding them as holding the jobs of, "watching prisoners and carrying caucuses."

He passionately criticized the medical professionals that the state had brought in to testify, exclaiming,

Darrow assailed the reputations individual doctors that had testified for the state. He asserted to the jury that no high-minded jury would execute any man based on the basis of the testimony by Dr. Corbus, who was one of the doctors that had testified for the state. He characterized Corbus as a liar that had met with Prendergast at the jail under false pretenses, having asked a jailer to tell Prendergast that he was a businessman so that Prendergast would be unaware of the fact he was a doctor. Assailing Corbus' competency as a doctor, Darrow quipped, "that was entirely unnecessary, for no human being would ever have supposed he was a doctor anyway, even if he had said so." He used similar humor to assail the credibility of others. Of Dr. Bluthhardt, who also testified for the state, Darrow quipped, "Now if Dr. Buthardt had on a white apron, we would all take him for a butcher. He looks like it, he testified like it." He also characterized Bluthardt as a being a "political doctor". He assailed another, Dr. Davis, as being elderly and senile.

He also argued that even the reports of the doctors that the state had brought forth confirmed aspects of Prendergast's condition that could support a conclusion of insanity, such as Prendergast's obsession with the ideas of Henry George and his sincere delusion that he was supposed to be appointed as corporation counsel.

Characterization of Prendergast as a victim to his own insanity

Darrow characterized Prendergast as a victim to the state of his (insane) creation, drawing on a metaphor from the Hebrew Bible of the Christian Bible) of god as a potter shaping clay and a similar parable of a philosopher working with pottery. The passion with which he delivered these remarks took many in the court room aback. He first offered the parable, and next remarked

Verdict

On July 3, 1894, the court reconvened and Judge Payne over gave twenty minutes gave jury instructions. Payne instructed the jury,

After the court adjourned, Prendergast sat in his chair "sullenly" for five minutes before requesting for the bailiff to return him to the court's holding cell.

The jury then left at 10:20 AM to begin deliberating. At 12:55 PM, they informed the court that a verdict had been reached. Their verdict that found that Prendergast was sane. Prendergast was then scheduled for execution ten days later (on July 13). Darrow made a motion for a new proceeding, which Judge Payne denied. Prendergast's appeal was a rare instance in Darrow's legal career of a complete loss. He would be the only of Darrow's clients to be executed.

Later impact

The case was a unique loss in Darrow's legal career. Darrow repurposed much of the rhetoric he had presented in Prendergast's defense while representing murderers Leopold and Loeb.

Retrospective views

More modern works have been published that content Prendergast contend that the defense indeed was correct in its assertions of Prendergast's insanity. Some have faulted political realities, such anti-"crank" sentiment and a desire to "make an example" of Prendergast, as playing a key role in his conviction and execution.

Darrow would later reflect in his 1905 autobiography '' The Story of My Life'',

A 2002 journal article by Edward M. Burke that was published in '' Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology'' noted that in Prendergast's trial and sanity proceeding,, expert witnesses for the prosecution ignored key aspects of Prendergast's biography that had been outlined by lay witnesses for the defense,

Portrayal in media

In the 1991 made-for-TV movie ''Darrow'' (which starred Kevin Spacey as Clarence Darrow) the sanity hearing was dramatized and Prendergast was portrayed by actor Paul Klementowicz.

Notes

References

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sanity proceeding, Prendergast, Patrick Eugene
Assassination of Carter Harrison III
Capital punishment in Illinois
1894 in Illinois
Prendergast, Patrick Eugene
June 1894 events in the United States
July 1894 events in the United States

Prendergast, Patrick Eugene sanity
Prendergast, Patrick Eugene sannity
Insanity in law
Clarence Darrow