Testimony played a significant role in presentations by both the prosecution and defense during trial of Patrick Eugene Prendergast in 1893, on murder charges for killing (assassinating) Chicago Mayor Carter Harrison III. The assassination and trial was a prominent affair, being heavily covered by news media. Some contemporary journal literature related to the trial has called into question the relevant expertise of medical professionals that had testified in the trial as expert witnesses. Prendergast's action of having killing Harrison was not contested in the trial. Instead, the defense argued an insanity plea. Since outcome of the case rested on determining whether Prendergast was sane (guilty) or insane (not guilty by reason of insanity), the cases presented by both the defense and prosecution relied heavily on testimony. Expert witnesses testified on their professional opinions about Prendergast's sanity. Lay witnesses' testified about Prendergast's history, personality, and behavior. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict, and Prendergast was sentenced to death by hanging.
Importance and qualifications of expert witnesses Expert testimony (by the era's understanding of expertise) made up a very large portion of the testimony heard in the trial. At the time, expert witnesses for matters of sanity tended to be medical doctors regardless of whether they held any specialty granting them understanding of behavior. The specialized fields of psychiatry and psychology had not yet been properly established. Additionally, nonprofessionals were held by courts as permissible expert witnesses. This meant that a mere "common sense" view of sanity could be admitted as expert opinion. Resultantly, when the prosecution brought a medical doctor to testify that Prendergast's display of fear while jailed was an indication of sanity, the medical doctor was not an alienist (psychiatrist). During the trial, several medical doctors testified on behalf of the prosecution to assert that, while Prendergast was paranoid, he still knew right from wrong and that he was capable of standing trial for the murder. In a journal article published in The American Law Register and Review in 1894, H. M. Bannister cast doubt on the psychiatric knowledge of several of the prosecution's expert witnesses (including Dr. Bluthardt).
An editorial in the February 1894 edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association called into question the ethics involved with much of the expert testimony given in the trial, suggesting, [Much] bias [by expert witnesses] towards one of the other side frequently arises from their being employed practically as assistant counsel, to coach the attorneys. In our judgement, a witness should be ineligible to give evidence as an expert, who has acted as an advisor to counsel in the case at issue. An editorial in the July 1894 edition of The Journal of the American Medical Association (which expressed agreement with the outcome of the trial) called into question the expertise of many of the expert witnesses both the prosecution and defense had called to the stand. In a July 1895 journal article published in Medical Record, physician J. R. Ransom opined that, "the case was clearly one for medical testimony to decide on. Ransom believed that the physicians that case opted against calling (due to their determination that he was insane) had more relevant credentials towards determining sanity than the medical doctor the state called to testify to the opinion that Prendergast was sane. Ransom characterized the latter as, "a surgeon with considerable local reputation making no claim, however, to expert knowledge of insanity."
A 2002 journal article by Edward M. Burke that was published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology notes that the prosecution's expert witnesses ignored key aspects of Prendergast's biography that had been outlined by lay witnesses for the defense, "Expert" witnesses testified that although [Prendergast] was a "crank," he was, in fact, sane when he pulled the trigger and murdered Harrison. They paid little attention to the report that he had suffered a severe head trauma as a child that left him impaired, or the fact that his grandfather had died in Ireland in a lunatic asylum.
Testimony during the prosecution's presentation After Wade finished the defense's opening statement, the prosecution's arguments began. In the two days which followed the end of opening remarks, a parade of witnesses for the prosecution were questioned before the court to establish facts. The prosecution relied primarily on laypeople as witnesses, rather than expert witnesses. Thirty non-medical witnesses were called, many of them being individuals casual connections of Prendergast who they brought to illustrate that Prendergast was sane. This included the judge that had presided over the arraignment, despite the fact that Prendergast had only appeared before that judge for less than ten minutes.
December 13 The prosecution's first witnesses included several house staff of Harrison's. The first witness to testify was parlor maid Mary Hansen, who had let Pendergast into the residence on the evening of the murder. Her testimony was followed by the testimonies of Helma Johnson (Harrison's other housemaid), Harrison's cook, and Bartha Reisberg (Harrison's coachman). Also testifying about the circumstances of the night of the assassination was Harrison's son William Preston Harrison.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
