Part 3 of 6. In October 1881, new trials began for Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger, who had been previously been convicted of the murder of Daniel Troutman; the new trials were granted because of problems with the instructions the judge gave to the jury in the first trial. In the end, both were again found guilty of murder in the first degree. This series of posts follows the second trials through to their conclusion, including the death sentences imposed by the court. The newspaper articles describing the trials are from the Harrisburg Telegraph.
For all other parts of this series on the second trials, see: Second Trials of Henry Romberger, etc.
For all parts of the series on the first trial, see: First Trial of Henry Romberger & Frank Romberger.
________________________________
From the Harrisburg Telegraph, 19 October 1881:
GIVEN TO THE JURY
HENRY ROMBERGER’S FATE IN THE BALANCE
The Line of Defense Adopted – Witnesses Examined and Elequent Pleas by Counsel – Judge Henderson’s Charge – The Case Given to the Jury – Frank Romberger’s Trial Begins
Our report of the [Henry] Romberger murder trial closed yesterday with the confession of Henry Romberger as detailed by Constable Williard.
John A. Bingaman was then called and corroborated Constable Williard in his account of the confession made by Henry in their presence.
William Hoffman, the executor of Daniel Troutman’s estate, gave an estimate of the distance from Tower City to Troutman’s house.
This closed the Commonwealth’s case.
Mr. S. S. Bowman opened the case for the defendant by referring to the difficulty of their position. They were present to defend not from choice, but by order of the court, and they were but doing the best they could against the powerful resources of the State. The defense must necessarily rely upon the dying declarations and the alleged confession. If the dying declaration were not made under a consciousness of approaching death and the confession was not delivered without treats or promises, then both must be excluded, and without them there was no evidence that would justify a conviction.
The defense then called Alice Doerr. She testified that Henry Romberger had invited Lincoln Troutman and Kate Troutman to come to singing school, on the night the murder occurred, at her request. This evidence was to rebut the Commonwealth’s theory that Henry had asked them to go so that they would be absent when the murder took place.
J. Y. Boyer and Benjamin Dockey were also called by the defense. They were expected to swear that Henry’s confession was the result of promises or threats, but they testified exactly to the contrary.
The defense then closed with reservation that they could present more witnesses this morning if they appeared.
This Morning’s Session.
At the opening of court Mr. Hollinger, for the Commonwealth, began the first address to the jury. His opening remarks were confined to the legal definition of murder, he showing that any killing done in an attempt to perpetuate burglary, robbery, or other felonies, is murder in the first degree. The speaker concluded that Troutman with his gun following the intruders out of his house did not affect the question. Troutman had the right to drive the robbers from his house and pursue them until he felt secure from all danger. It was then argued that he was not secure from danger, because the robbers did not leave his premises, but remained there and killed him. It makes no difference whether Henry or Frank fired this shot. They were engaged in the common enterprise of burglary or robbery. They had with them a pistol when resistance was opposed to their design. Killing followed. Under such circumstances both are equally guilty. It makes no difference which fired the shot. Mr. Hollinger then reviewed the testimony sowing that a burglary had been committed by the defendant and in an attempt to perpetrate a robbery Daniel Troutman was killed by two men, who the evidence showed were Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger. Mr. Holliner spoke about twenty minutes and closed with a strong appeal to the jury to do justice between the people and the defendant.
Mr. Bowman followed with the opening address for the defense. He referred to the grave position which the jury and counsel occupied, contending that both were simply doing their duty. The defense relied for the success of their efforts on their ability to show that this murder was not of the first degree. If there was no premeditation there could not be murder in the first degree. If there was no premeditation there could not be murder in the first degree, unless the killing was done in the perpetration of crime, when the Commonwealth must show that the killing was done while the crime was being perpetrated. The speaker when argued where was no burglary or robbery, because there was no evidence that the door was locked and nothing had been stolen. It was admitted that an attempt at robbery had bee made, but when the old man got his gun the intruders had given up their design and were fleeing when Troutman fired. The fatal shot was probably fired becasue the men believed themselves in danger from Troutman. Furthermore, the dying declarations were not worthy of credit, because Mrs. Troutman, who was in full possession of her senses, did not recognize Henry, while her husband, who was dying did. This the counsel contended should be considered by the jury and the doubt given to the prisoner. Mr. Bowman’s closing appeal for mercy was a beautiful peroration to his argument, and held the strict attention of the spectators in the court room.
Robert L. Muench made the closing argument for the defendant. He began by referring to the relative responsibility of counsel and jurors in a trial for murder. Are the jury prepared to say that Henry Romberger can offer no other sacrifice than a life for a life? The defense must answer to the highest crime known – willful and deliberate murder. The jury must first determine who did the killing. So far as known testimony can go to, two men answering to the description of Henry Romberger and Frank Romberger were at the Troutman house on the night of the murder. The only question is was the killing murder in the first degree? If the killing was done in an attempt to rob, then Henry Romberger must die. But was the killing done in an attempt to rob? The speaker then proceeded to argue that the killing was not done in an attempt to commit a burglary or robbery. 1st, it was not a burglary, because the Commonwealth had not proved that the front door was latched; 2nd, it was not robbery because that crime was given up when the Rombergers were driven out by Troutman. Mr. Muench’s argument was directed solely to convincing the jury that their verdict should be murder in the second degree, and in that view was as strong a presentation as could be made under the evidence.
District attorney McCarrell closed the argument. He joined with counsel for defense in recognizing the responsibility under which the counsel and jurors in this case rest. It is not a question of one life the juror is to pass upon, but the safety and lives of all the people. To shield this defendant from motives of mercy might be the greatest cruelty to the people. Daniel Troutman , the Commonwealth claims, was killed in an attempt to perpetrate a crime. The District Attorney then rapidly sketched the evidence as presented by the witnesses , and asserted that it wove a chain about the prisoner from which he could not escape. He also combated the theory that the attempt at robbery had been given up. It it was given up, why did not the intruders leave when the old man drove them out? Why did they remain , and finally shoot him if their crime had been abandoned? Mr. McCarrell’s address occupied fifty-five minutes in its delivery and was a masterly plea in behalf of the Commonwealth. At the conclusion of McCarrell’s address the court took a recess until two o’clock, on account of the illness of several jurors.
This Afternoon’s Session.
At two o’clock court reassembled, and Judge Henderson immediately commenced the charge to the jury. He begun with the admonition, “be just and fear not.” Justice should measure the jury’s mercy. The different degrees of murder and manslaughter were then explained, as were also the crimes of burglary and robbery. His Honor then reviewed the evidence, tracing a closed carriage and gray horse from Tower City to Troutman’s house, and if the jury is satisfied Henry was the occupant of the carriage, and believes the evidence of Mrs. Troutman and the dying declaration of her husband, then the awful consequences are fixed on him. The evidence of Mrs. Troutman was then read. The court then said it will be noticed that Mrs. Troutman does not identify Henry, but the murdered man did. If the old man was mistaken in saying Henry shot him, his declaration certainly shows Henry was in the house. Now, if two men were there engaged in a common enterprise, it makes no difference who fired the shot. Both are equally guilty. But it is said the design to rob was given up. We can say Daniel Troutman was justified in driving these men away, even to the extent of killing them. But was the design abandoned? Was the shooting down of Troutman, after he had driven the men from the house, evidence that they were fleeing away? If it is true that they called out, when Mrs. Troutman was going for help, “there she goes; we must follow her,” is that evidence that they were fleeing? The court then told the jury that if they found Henry was at the Troutman house, they must decide whether the crime was murder of the first or second degree. And further, any doubt the jury must have must be an honest, reasonable doubt.
At the conclusion of the charge, which occupied thirty-five minutes, the jury retired to deliberate upon the verdict.
During the charge to the jury Henry Romberger rested his chin on his hand and looked intently at the judge. Occasionally he would glance around, but not one did his stolid countenance light up. Pale and calm, he seemed the most uninterested listener that Judge Henderson had. His counsel, Mr. Muench, sat in front of him and took copious notes of the judge’s charge, carefully noting points as they were made. Henry’s mother sat by his side, listening intently as Judge Henderson reviewed the evidence, turning occasionally toward the jury as if to catch a gleam of consolation from the faces of its members. The audience in the court room preserved the most careful silence, and caught every word said by the learned judge, as if to learn whether there was the least bias either way. Frank Romberger, the other prisoner, sat opposite to Henry. During the whole charge Frank watched the judge sharply from beneath his eyebrows, his keen eyes flashing as his name was incidentally mentioned. Frank’s father entered and took a seat beside him, but the young man never took his eyes from the judge.
FRANK ROMBERGER’S CASE
His Trial Begun this Afternoon.
Promptly at 2:59 the case of the Commonwealth vs. Frank Romberger, charged with the murder of Daniel Troutman, and jointly indicted with Henry Romberger, was called. The Commonwealth was represented, as before, by Mr. Hollinger and District Attorney McCarrell, and the defense by James C. Durbin.The jury list was then called over and much less difficulty was experienced in getting a jury than was expected. When twenty-four names had been called and nine accepted as jurors the clerk announced that the panel was exhausted, and Sheriff Reel was required to call talesman. Twenty-eight talesmen were called of whom Messrs. Flickenger, German and Frankem were accepted.
The following jury was then sworn: George W. Fox, storekeeper, West Hanover Township; Robert T. Beaty, clerk, Harrisburg; Wilson J. Baker, clerk, Harrisburg; Benjamin Booser, blacksmith, Londonderry Township; Jacob Hocker, merchant, Susquehanna Township; J. E. Rutter, teacher, Lykens Township; W. F. Rutherford, farmer, Swatara; Jonathan Spayd, farmer, Jefferson Township; Elias Fertig, farmer, Middle Paxton Township; Samuel Flickenger, insurance agent, Harrisburg; John Garman, insurance agent, Harrisburg; A. H. Frankem, shoemaker, Harrisburg.
Mr. Hollinger then opened the case for the Commonwealth, briefly outlining the evidence the State intended to present. Our report closes as he is addressing the jury.
_________________________________
News articles from Newspapers.com.
Corrections and additional information should be added as comments to this post.