The Poison Precedent: Part Two

It's 1900, and Roland Molineux's murder trial is coming to a close. The prosecution has used some unorthodox methods to prove their case. Will their tactics secure them a conviction? Or will the defense manage to argue their way out? What happens next will create a precedent that still matters today. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
You are listening to History on Trial, a production of
iHeart Podcasts. Listener Discretion Advised, Hello, History on Trial listener.
This is the second part of a two part series.
If you haven't listened to part one yet, you'll want
to begin there. Thank you for listening. Last time on

(00:23):
History on Trial, we met Roland Molineux, the highly polished
middle son of General Edward Malaneu, a Civil War hero. Roland,
a talented gymnast and professional chemist, didn't play well with others.
In late eighteen ninety eight, two of his nemeses, his
romantic rival Henry Barnett, who had once wooed Roland's wife Blanche,

(00:47):
and his personal rival Harry Cornish, who had battled Roland
for status at the Knickerbocker Athletic Club, and one received
mysterious anonymous packages, each containing what looked like ordinary medicine.
Henry Barnett took a bit of his and died two
weeks later. Harry Cornish brought his home, where his relative

(01:10):
Catherine Adams took some and died in minutes. Both Barnett
and Adams were found to have been killed by cyanide
of mercury. Detectives quickly locked in on Roland Molineux as
a suspect, but were only able to build a circumstantial
case against him. They eventually managed to wrangle a handwriting
sample from Roland after handwriting experts agreed that Roland's handwriting

(01:32):
matched the writing on the poison package sent to Harry Cornish.
The DA's office charged Roland with Catherine Adams's murder at
the trial, which began in November eighteen ninety nine. Prosecutor
James Osborne also submitted evidence from the Henry Barnett case,
although Roland was not charged with this crime, using it
to weave a complicated tale of envy and revenge. Osborne's case,

(01:57):
the longest murder prosecution in New York history to the point,
finally concluded on February fifth, nineteen hundred. We're picking up
the story the next day, Tuesday, February sixth, as Roland's
lead defense counsel, Bartow Weeks stands to begin his eagerly
anticipated defense case. Will Roland take the stand? What about

(02:18):
his wife Blanche? Or does the defense have something else
entirely up their sleeve. You're listening to history on trial.
I'm your host, Mira Hayward. This week New York v.
Roland Malineux. A hush fell over the courtroom as Bartow

(02:39):
Weeks rose to speak. The thirty nine year old Weeks
had a commanding physical presence. He was nearly as well
known for his involvement with athletics as he was for
his legal acumen. But today he looked pale and drawn.
He was suffering from a mild case of laryngitis, true,
and the month's long trial had no doubt worn on him.

(03:02):
But there was something else too, an undercurrent of uneasiness,
even fear. And for good reason, it would turn out,
Bartow Weeks was about to shock all of New York
by announcing a decision that he and his legal team
had agonized over. May it please the court, Weeks began,

(03:24):
after a careful consideration of the case, We believe that
the prosecution has utterly failed to make a case against
this defendant, and that he has not been proved guilty,
and the jury should not find him so. Believing this
as we do, we rest upon the case made by
the prosecution. The lead prosecutor, Assistant District Attorney James Osborne,

(03:48):
looked astounded. The crowd briefly shocked into silence, began to
murmur only Roland Molineux, smiling enigmatically at the jury, seemed
to the decision to not present a defense, which both
Roland and his father had agreed to, was meant to
deliver a symbolic message that the state had presented such

(04:11):
a weak case that the defense had no need to
rebut it with witnesses of their own. In his closing argument,
Weeks detailed what he called quote the missing links in
the evidence. Take the silver bottleholder, which had been sent
to Harry Cornish along with the poisoned Bromo Seltzer. The
police hadn't proved that Roland bought the silver bottleholder. They

(04:35):
had only proved that a shop that Roland had once
been seen near had once sold a silver bottleholder. Roland
worked down the street from this shop. Was it really
so damning that he had been seen near it? Weeks
next turned to the handwriting analysis. The prosecution's experts claimed
that Roland's handwriting matched the writing on the poison package.

(04:57):
But could these experts really be so sure of their conclusions?
Weeks brought up the Dreyfus affair, an infamous contemporary miscarriage
of Justice in France. In that case, Weeks told jurors, quote,
a man spent five years in jail because the handwriting
experts were mistaken. Next, he questioned the identifications made by

(05:21):
Joseph Coche and Nicholas Heckman, owners of the private letter
boxes that Roland had allegedly rented in Henry Barnett and
Harry Cornish's names. Weeks reminded jurors that both men had
initially refused to identify Roland, and that Heckman had even
tried to get payment for his statement. About the testimony
presented by Blanche's former maids who discussed the love triangle

(05:44):
between Blanche Roland and Henry Barnett, Weeks was contemptuous. This
was just an underhanded attempt by the prosecution to insult
the defendant's wife. James Osborne, ever confrontational, loudly asked Weeks
why he had denied the maid's claims. Weeks wheeled on
Osborne with what The New York Times called quote the

(06:07):
ferocity of a tiger. Why did we not deny it,
Weeks asked, incredulously, because we were not called upon to
deny it. It was not necessary to deny it called
upon to deny such infamous lies, How dare you to
produce it when you could not connect it with this case?
Osborne did not respond. Besides being a moment of high drama,

(06:31):
this exchange reminded jurors that Roland was not on trial
for Henry Barnett's murder, and the prosecution hadn't produced a
compelling motive for Roland to murder Harry Cornish. Roland and
Cornish had squabbled. Weeks acknowledged, but he asked, quote, would
the defendant imperil his life, ruin his family, drag them

(06:52):
to dishonor and disgrace for such a trifling motive? As
that it mattered that the evidence was rock solid, Weeks
told jurors because it was upon that evidence that they
would be sentencing a man to death, the mandatory punishment
for first degree murder in New York at the time.
Weeks did not spare them the graphic details of what

(07:13):
Roland would endure if executed, describing the effect of the
electric chair on the human body. In the audience, Blanche
Molineux wept loudly by the end of his closing argument,
which spanned more than eight hours over two days. Weeks
was visibly exhausted. His voice was hoarse and ragged, but

(07:36):
this only made his plea more poignant, as he asked
the jurors to quote Air on humanity's side. The wrong
you do, he said, can never be restored. Gentlemen, in
a case of doubt, when the scales are oscillating, let
them turn in favor of the prisoner. It is a

(07:58):
terrible thing to destroy the temple of an immortal soul.
On Thursday, February eighth, James Osborne delivered the prosecution's closing arguments.
Osborne was a born showman, and he brought all of
his passion to this final performance. Before getting to the
facts of the case, Osborne attacked the defense's strategy. Looking

(08:21):
right at Bartow Weeks, Osborne shouted, quote, if you knew
of a single witness who could have aided the theory
of the defendant's innocence and did not call him, you
have violated your oath as a counselor. Your action is
a plea of guilty. Week subjected to this attack, but

(08:41):
Judge John Goff allowed it. Osborne would return to this
point over and over, calling the defense's choice unnatural. Quote
it is one of the prime evil principles of human
nature to say, when you are accused of a crime,
I am not guilty. See here are my witnesses. But
Osborne wasn't surprised to see Roland Molineux behaving abnormally. Throughout

(09:06):
both the press coverage and the prosecution of the case,
Roland's strangeness had been a theme. People had speculated on
his behavior, his associates, and his sexuality. Poisoning was seen
to be a woman's crime. What kind of man would
use poison as opposed to say, his fists to kill?

(09:28):
And then there were the numerous impotence cures that Roland
had allegedly ordered to the private letterboxes. The prosecution was
quick to play up these themes, insinuating that a lack
of virility made Roland less of a man and thus
more likely to kill with a womanly method. This murder,
Osborne said, was quote an outre strange, abnormal crime. We

(09:54):
must therefore look for a man who is outre strange abnormal.
These attempts at criminal profiling were based on contemporary gender
norms and stereotypes, and though they are obviously offensive, they
were likely compelling to jurors. They also weren't the only
character based arguments Osborne made. He brought up Roland's behavior

(10:16):
during the trial, describing how, quote, when reference was made
to the death of Missus Adams and the death agonies
of Barnet, you have seen the defendant laughing, coolly laughing.
It is this attitude, gentlemen, which shows that the defendant
has an entire absence of soul. Osborne's closing was an

(10:40):
entirely personal attacks though he reviewed all of the evidence,
pointing out that even if it was circumstantial, every single
piece of it pointed back to Roland Molineux. Like a
bloated spider in his web, Osborne said, the poisoner spun
out his filaments to the outer world. We must trace
for the end of the filaments back to the center.

(11:02):
Here's a line running out to Barnett. We trace it back,
and at the other end is the mind of Molineux.
A line running out to Cornish. Tracing it back to
the web center, we find the mind of Molineux. A
line stretching to the blue crested paper, a line stretching
to Heckman's letter box, and at the center of the

(11:23):
web to which all these lines extend, we find spinning
its deadly plots the mind of Molineux. Osborne agreed with
Weeks that the stakes were high, but not for Roland.
The stakes were high for the community, who would not
be safe should Roland be set free. Ending his nearly

(11:44):
six hour summation, his voice raised to full volume, Osborne thundered,
I say that the evidence from every direction points to
that conclusion, and I leave this case in your hands,
knowing that you will find your verdict in the sight
of God, in the sight of man, without fear and

(12:05):
without favor. The next day, Judge goth summarized the evidence
and charged the jury at three twenty three p m.
The jurors were dismissed to deliberate. Outside the courtroom, bookmakers
were laying odds on the verdict. The odds favored acquittal.
In his cell in the tombs, Roland Molineux was not

(12:26):
so confident. He began chronicling his feelings in a journal
while he waited. I am very tired, he wrote. For
full three months. I have been under a physical strain
and a mental tension. I have been falsely accused. I
am innocent. An hour later, with no news from the jury.
He reflected, I am chemist enough to love an experiment.

(12:50):
The jury is the unknown substance, the testimony, the reagent.
My case is in solution. What will precipitate? It would
take more than seven hours for the jury to reach
a verdict. At ten forty eight pm, the jurors filed
back into the courtroom. Roland Molineu came in next. His

(13:12):
face was dead white, a reporter recorded, and his dark
eyes shone like live coals. The court clerk asked the
jury foreman to announce their findings on the charge of
murder for the death of Catherine J. Adams. The defendant,
Roland Molineux was found guilty. There is no good place

(13:35):
to contemplate your impending execution, but Sing Singh's death House
was especially grim. Built in eighteen ninety to hold condemned prisoners,
the death house contained both cells and the execution chamber itself.
Each prisoner was kept in a windowless, stone walled cell.
From behind these walls, they could not see one another,

(13:56):
but they were constantly surveilled by others. The lights stayed
on all night, allowing the wardens, who walked incessantly up
and down the corridor to watch the inmates. The men
were not allowed outside and they could only bathe once
a week. The worst part of the death House was
the sounds. Because the execution chamber neighbored the cells, inmates

(14:21):
could hear every step of the grisly process, the slow
walk to the chamber, the administration of last rites, the
sickening thrum of the electric chair, and the appalling sounds
of the autopsy conducted after Roland. Molneux, who entered the
death House on February sixteenth, nineteen hundred, called execution days

(14:45):
quote the greatest horror we are called upon to bear.
Roland had done his best to avoid the death House.
At his sentencing, he had delivered a powerful, moving statement
to Judge Goff, proclaiming his own inn an sc since
many wondered, given how well Roland did, why Barto Weeks

(15:05):
had not put him on the stand during his trial. Now,
his words, however compelling, meant nothing. New York mandated the
death penalty for first degree murder. Judge Goff sentenced Roland
to be put to death during the week of March
twenty sixth, nineteen hundred. He was transported to sing Sing

(15:26):
only hours later. Roland's projection of calm optimism, which he
had maintained for months now, did not falter. On the
journey to sing Sing, he joked with passengers on the
train to Austening, many of whom had bought tickets just
to see him, and admired the scenery of the Hudson Valley.
But the oppressive atmosphere of the Death House quickly took

(15:48):
a toll on Roland. When Blanche visited him less than
a week after his arrival, she found Roland a shell
of his former self. His eyes, she later wrote, they
were dead and expressionless, set in a stone mask that
was immovable. The soul of him was dead. It had

(16:09):
gone out of him. During his trial, a journalist had
called Roland a man in a mask, but that had
been a mask he had chosen to wear. This mask
did not seem voluntary. He seemed finally to have accepted
the reality of his situation and had become, Blanche observed,
obsessed with freeing himself. Back in New York City, Roland's

(16:34):
lawyers were working hard on his behalf. In early March,
bartow Weeks and George Gordon Battle filed a notice of
appeal Roland's execution was put on hold as the appeal
was prepared. Weeks in Battle decided to engage another lawyer
to argue the case, landing on John G. Milbourne. Milburn
was an accomplished attorney and a leading citizen of Buffalo,

(16:56):
where the New York Court of Appeals was based. There
were a number of delays in the process, but Roland's
appeal was finally scheduled for June seventeenth, nineteen oh one.
David Hill, a former governor of New York and ex
US Senator, had been retained by the Manhattan District Attorney
to represent the States case at the appeal. On Monday,

(17:17):
June seventeenth, the seven judges of the New York Court
of Appeals seated themselves to hear arguments in Roland's case.
John Milburn, for the defense, spoke first. The main thrust
of his argument quickly became clear. Milburn believed that it
had been an error on Judge Goff's part to admit
any evidence about the Henry Barnett case. When your honors

(17:40):
read the court record, Milburn said, it will require an
effort of your mind to convince yourselves that you are
reading a record of an attempt to poison Harry Cornish,
and not a record of the alleged murder of Henry C. Barnett.
Seven tenths of the evidence in this record relates to
the death of Barnett. The Barnet case was irrelevant. Milburn argued,

(18:03):
if Barnett were murdered and if Missus Adams were murdered,
they were two separate and distinct crimes. He said, and
thus quote the admission of evidence of one crime on
an indictment charging the other was improper and incompetent, and
its admission was clearly an error. Towards the end of

(18:24):
his argument, which spanned five hours over the course of
two days, Milburn made a grave charge. The admission of
the Barnet evidence, he claimed, had not been a simple
mistake on Judge Goff's part. It had been part of
a larger pattern of bias against the defendant. The judge
in this case, Milburn stated, took the side of the

(18:46):
prosecution from the very beginning to the very ending. Milburn
acknowledged that accusing a judge of impartiality was a serious matter,
but he believed that the record backed his accusation up.
He claimed that quote every piece of testimony which seemed
to be damaging to the defendant was freely and welcomingly admitted,

(19:06):
while everything which seemed to be in the prisoner's favor
was hampered and repressed, battered, and cross examined by the court.
He pointed out the insults Judge Gough had aimed at
defense attorney Bartow Weeks, including when Gough admonished Weeks for
his quote fatal and ungovernable habit of talking, an insult

(19:28):
I probably would never recover from. Milburn brought up a
variety of other points. He criticized the admission of testimony
relating to Blanche, Judge Goth's charge to the jury, which
he claimed was also biased, the lack of proven motive,
and the reliability of handwriting analysis. But to observers, according
to the Buffalo Inquirer, it was clear that Quote Milburn

(19:51):
rests his case upon the alleged error of Judge Goth
in admitting the evidence relating to Barnett's death. Once Milburne
finished on the afternoon June eighteenth, David Hill presented the
state's argument. Hill argued that the Barnet evidence was admissible.
The Barnet case was introduced, he said, in order to
quote make the chain of evidence complete and prove the

(20:14):
theory of the prosecution in the Adams case. Hill rebutted
Milbourne's argument that the two cases had nothing in common, saying, quote,
there is the same hiring of private letter boxes in
the names of the intended victims, the same writing for
samples of medicine in the names of the victims, the
same plan of assassination, the same drug cyanide of mercury used.

(20:37):
Though Hill acknowledged that quote in the prosecution of one crime,
you cannot prove another, he said that this case was
an exception to the rule. It was an abnormal crime
by an abnormal man, Hill argued, echoing Osborne's closing, and
as a consequence, it produced an abnormal condition on the trial.
Hill also cited another poisoning case in which the court

(21:00):
had ruled that it defend its history of attempted poisonings
could be discussed in his trial for poisoning his wife.
After briefly addressing Milbourne's other claims, Hill said that the
handwriting analysis had been properly conducted, that the judge's charge
was fair, and that the prosecution had provided a compelling motive.
Hill finished by saying, quote, no substantial error was made

(21:21):
upon this trial. No real, genuine evidence was excluded. Nothing
that was immaterial or irrelevant, incompetent, or improper of any
consequence was admitted. After a series of questions from the judges,
the appeal concluded on the afternoon of June nineteenth. Four
months later, on October fifteenth, the Court of Appeals published

(21:42):
its ruling on the Malinu case. Though the opinion, which
was not unanimous, addressed several points, including the admissibility of
handwriting analysis, the majority of the opinion focused on whether
the Barnett evidence was inadmissible. Judge William E. Werner began
by reviewing why discussion of or bad acts, whether charged, uncharged,

(22:02):
or resulting in a conviction, is generally not allowed at trial.
This rule, Werner wrote, is the product of that same
humane and enlightened public spirit, which, speaking through our common law,
has decreed that every person charged with the commission of
a crime shall be protected by the presumption of innocence

(22:24):
until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Werner cited a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Schaffner v. Commonwealth. Logically, the commission of an independent offense
is not proof in itself of the commission of another crime.
Yet it cannot be said to be without influence on
the mind. For certainly, if one be shown to be

(22:47):
guilty of another crime equally heinous, it will prompt a
more ready belief that he might have committed the one
with which he is charged. It therefore predisposes the mind
of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty. Because of
the enormous weight this kind of evidence could carry, Werner
explained there were only rare instances in which it was admissible.

(23:08):
Werner described these instances as falling into five categories. If
evidence of prior bad acts established motive or intent, or
the absence of mistake or accident, or a common scheme
or plan, or the identity of the person charged with
the commission of the crime on trial, then this evidence

(23:29):
might be admissible, as long as it was more probative
than prejudicial. Werner then examined the Malnu case to see
if any of these exceptions applied. Motive was irrelevant, Werner
said because the alleged motives for each killing were distinct
and unrelated intent. Whether or not the person intended to
commit a criminal act was also irrelevant. Whoever had killed

(23:53):
Catherine Adams had clearly intended to kill someone by sending
them poison disguised as medicine. No additional evidence was needed
to prove this. The same reasoning applied to the exception
for mistakes or accidents. This crime was clearly not an accident.
The two crimes could also not be said to be
part of a quote single design, as no evidence showed

(24:15):
that they were quote united for the accomplishment of a
common purpose. As to the final exception, identity, Werner said
that the Barnet evidence would only be allowed for this
purpose if quote it had been shown conclusively that the
defendant had killed Barnet and that no other person could
have killed Missus Adams, but no such evidence was given.

(24:36):
The evidence tended to show that the defendant had the knowledge, skill,
and material to produce the poison which was sent to Cornish,
but he was not shown to be the only person
possessed of this knowledge, skill and material. Therefore, the naked
similarity of these crimes proves nothing. David Hill had claimed
that Roland's case was an exception to the general rule,

(24:58):
an abnormal propit sus justified by an abnormal crime. The
appeals court did not agree. According to their ruling, the
Barnet evidence was inadmissible. Thus they reversed Roland's conviction and
ordered a new trial. Early the next morning, Roland received
news of the decision in his cell in the death House.

(25:20):
He seemed stunned, then laughed and said it seems too
good to be true. The following day, October seventeenth, Roland
was transferred out of Sing Sing and back to the
Tombs in Manhattan, where he would occupy the same cell
he had during his first trial. The city jail was
no luxury hotel, but anything was better than the death House.

(25:41):
Roland would just have to hope that his second trial
wouldn't send him right back in the Malinus Fort Green Brownstone.
Blanche Molnu couldn't help but feel that her sentence had
just been extended. Blanche would later write in her memoirs
that even from the earliest days of the investigation, she

(26:03):
had begun to draw away from Roland. By the middle
of his first trial, she was completely repulsed by him.
She felt misled. She had agreed to marry Roland because
he'd offered a comfortable life full of the arts and travel. Instead,
she'd gotten relentless public scrutiny. She had attended Roland's first trial,

(26:24):
putting on the act of devoted wife, only out of
affection for General Molineux, who she described as a quote
fine and splendid and brave man. By early nineteen oh two, however,
Blanche's patience had worn thin. She'd been cloistered in the
Fort Greenhouse with limited contact with the outside world for

(26:46):
three years. Her cabin fever was intense. She missed seeing
friends and going to concerts and singing in her choir.
In August, she moved out of the Malinus House into
a residential suite in a Manhattan hotel. General Molineu was
covering her expenses and giving her an allowance on the

(27:07):
condition that she attended Roland's upcoming trial, But when the
trial began on Monday, October thirteenth, nineteen oh two, Blanche
was nowhere to be found. He would not attend a
single day. General Molineu, on the other hand, was a
constant presence, as was Harry Cornish. A number of other

(27:28):
familiar faces filled the courtroom eighty A. James Osborne was
once again leading the prosecution. Bar two Weeks was back too,
but he would not be lead defense council. Weeks's decision
not to present a defense had been a controversial gamble,
and ultimately it hadn't paid off. After the verdict, one

(27:48):
jer had asked a reporter quote, if Molineux had friends,
or if his lawyers had witnesses who could have testified
on his behalf, why weren't they called? This time around?
The defense would fight back, led by Attorney Frank S. Black,
a former United States representative and ex governor of New York.
John S. Lambert, a justice on the New York Supreme Court,

(28:11):
presided Lambert ran a tight ship, and it soon became
clear that this trial would not be as prolonged as
the first jury selection, for example, took only two days,
not three weeks. Ady A. Osborne delivered an abbreviated opening statement,
perhaps out of deference for Lambert's preferences, or maybe because

(28:32):
he had less material to work with. Thanks to the
appeals court ruling, Osborne could not discuss the Burnett case
in the same detail as he had before. He kept
things focused on the Adams case and on Roland Molineux,
saying that the defendant met all the requirements to commit
this murder, knowledge of poisons, knowledge of Hartigan's jewelry store

(28:52):
in Newark, which had sold the silver bottle holder, access
to a private letterbox, and above all quote a strong, continuing,
deadly hatred of Cornish from there. The trial progressed rapidly.
Instead of months of testimony, the prosecution presented their case
in seven days. Most of the major themes were the same.

(29:15):
Handwriting experts appeared to identify the handwriting on the letters
and poison package as belonging to Roland. Harry Cornish and
other Knickerbocker members testified about Roland and Cornish's feud, but
the prosecution encountered several new obstacles in this trial. Several
key witnesses were missing. Elsie Gray, the bookkeeper at Cutno's,

(29:36):
had died in the first trial. She had discussed a
letter her company received requesting a sample of Cutno's improved
effervescent powder, the product that Henry Barnett had taken shortly
before his death. The letter, Gray had said was written
on distinctive Robin's egg blue stationary emblazoned with silver crescents.
It had been signed H. Barnett, but had been dated

(29:59):
and since several weeks after his death. Justice Lambert allowed
Gray's testimony from the first trial to be read aloud
in court, but Lambert would not allow Osborne to read
the testimony of another missing witness, Mami Milando. In the
first trial, New York police had tricked Milando into entering
the state. This time, she went into hiding in New Jersey.

(30:22):
Detective Joseph Farrell, the New York police officer who had
testified in the first trial to having seen Roland near
Hartigan's jewelry store on the day the silver bottleholder was sold,
was similarly absent, having taken a curiously timed vacation right
as the trial started. The prosecution thought that the defense
might have encouraged Milando and Ferrell's absences. Ady A. Osborne

(30:47):
enlisted his boss, District Attorney William Travers Jerome, to look
into the matter. As a fun side note, Jerome's predecessor,
Asa Bird Gardiner, who had supervised Roland's first prosecution, was
removed from office by Governor Theodore Roosevelt in nineteen hundred
for rampant corruption. Oops Jerome appealed to the Governor of

(31:07):
New Jersey to pressure the Newark Police to help produce
the missing witnesses. The governor agreed, but neither Milando nor
Ferrell ever took the stand. These absences were less striking
than the absence of Henry Barnett from the proceedings. No
longer allowed to discuss the Barnett case, Osborne found his
prosecution hollowed out. He could not bring in many key

(31:30):
pieces of evidence, such as the diagnosis form signed with
Barnett's name but filled out with Roland Molineu's measurements, which
connected Roland to the private letterboxes. But Osborne didn't give up,
bringing in every shred of evidence he could before resting
the state's case on October twenty ninth. On October thirty first,
the defense began its case. Frank Black's opening statement took

(31:54):
less than five minutes. He called the evidence against Roland
quote trivial and unimportant, and then, in the most highly
anticipated moment of the trial, he called Roland Molineux to
the stand. By this point, Roland had had nearly three
years in jail to consider his testimony, and his preparation

(32:16):
enhanced by his natural composure showed he was extremely polite
and patient even during Osborne's cross examination, refusing to be rattled.
He readily admitted to disliking Cornish, but dismissed his anger
at the man as a passing phase. He acknowledged that
he might once have written a letter on Robin's egg

(32:37):
blue stationary, but denied owning multiple sheets. This testimony did
give James Osborne a chance to shoehorn in part of
the missing Mamie Milando's testimony, when he asked, quote, outside
of her statements at the former trial, did you ever
hear Mamie Milando's state that she saw six sheets of
this paper in your desk? But Roland, on ruffled, simply

(33:01):
said no. As a reporter for The New York Times observed, quote,
all of mister Osborne's persistence and the cutting questions he
asked failed to shatter the calmness and courtesy of the witness.
But the reporter also noted that Roland's poise was almost
uncanny writing quote. Many said he was acting, but they

(33:21):
also said that it was remarkably good acting. After Roland's testimony,
the defense presented a number of handwriting experts of their own.
These handwriting experts didn't add much to the case. Their
testimony was dry, and several of them struggled under cross examination,
but the defense felt that they had at least placed
the question of the reliability of handwriting analysis into the

(33:45):
jury's mind. Much more exciting than the experts were the
various new witnesses the defense managed to produce. Chief among
this crop was Anna Stevenson, a Brooklyn resident in her
mid fifties with a surprising story to tell on the stand.
In a nervous voice, Stephenson claimed that on December twenty third,

(34:05):
eighteen ninety eight, the day the poison package was mailed,
she had observed a man sending a package addressed to
Harry Cornish at the Knickerbocker Club, and she was certain
that the man sending the package was not Roland Molineux. Stephenson, however,
was not the most credible witness. On cross examination, James

(34:28):
Osborne got Stevenson to admit that she could barely read
without her glasses and that she hadn't been wearing her
glasses on the days she claimed to have read the
poison package's label. But other parts of Stephenson's testimony stuck
Her claim that Roland wasn't the sender was backed up
by another new witness, doctor Hermann Volti, a professor of

(34:49):
chemistry at Columbia University, who claimed that Roland had been
with him for the entire afternoon of the twenty third,
and after Stephenson had said that she was certain Lew
hadn't sent the package, Osborne made a mistake. He had
Harry Cornish stand up and then asked Stevenson, quote, is

(35:09):
that the man you saw with the poison package that day?
Never ask a question you don't know the answer to?
To Osborne's chagrin, Stevenson replied, he looks very much like
that man. The defense was delighted. Throughout their case they'd
been advancing an alternate theory of the crime, one in
which Harry Cornish, not Roland Molineux, was the real poisoner.

(35:34):
While cross examining Cornish, Frank Black had discussed Cornish's own
sordid romantic history and highlighted Cornish's connection to Newark and
friendship with a chemist Black also called Louis Jacobson, a
clerk at a drug store near Cornish's former apartment. Jacobson
testified that Harry Cornish and Florence Rogers, Catherine Adams's daughter

(35:55):
had once come into his store and ordered pre mixed
Bromo seltzer drinks from his soda fountain. On several occasions,
Jacobson said he had sold Florence Rogers bottles of Bromo seltzer.
In his closing argument, which began on Monday, November tenth,
Black devoted much of his time to attacking Cornish. First.

(36:16):
Though Black ripped into the case against Roland of Roland's
alleged motive for killing Cornish, Black dismissively said, quote, there
are plainer motives than that in every church quarrel. He
questioned why Roland, if he wanted to kill Cornish, would
send poison to him at the Knickerbocker, where Roland had
friends who could have been hurt. Men do not wreck

(36:38):
a railroad train in order to murder an individual, Black scoughed. Moreover,
Black continued, why would Roland send a package with a
handwritten address to a club where many people knew his
handwriting if he were trying to conceal his role in
the crime. Whatever else Molineu may be, Black said, he
is not a fool. Black pointed out the circumstantial nature

(37:02):
of the prosecution's case, saying, the blue paper is all
the tangible evidence the prosecution has in all this contemptible,
massive testimony. He told jurors that the company who made
the blue stationery had sold more than forty thousand sheets
of it. It was a crime to murder Missus Adams,
Black said, but it would be a bigger crime to

(37:24):
take the life of a man upon such evidence as that. Next,
Black moved on to Harry Cornish. Cornish's motive, which Black
claimed was a desire to be with the Florence Rogers,
which Catherine Adams stood in the way of, was much stronger.
In his view. He emphasized Cornish's close friendship with a chemist,

(37:45):
John Yocum, his uncertain alibi on the day the poison
package was mailed, and the fact that he had not
attended Adams's funeral. In conclusion, Black argued, as one reporter
put it, quote, that every circumstance in the case pointed
to Cornish, while not a single fact pointed to the
guilt of Molineux. In truth, Black's case against Cornish was

(38:07):
mostly smoke and mirrors, but it did put eighty eight
Osborne on the defensive during his own closing argument, Cornish's
so called motive, Osborne said, was an invention. No evidence
had ever been found of a romantic relationship between Cornish
and Florence Rogers. When Missus Adams died, he said, her
daughter held her in her arms. I ask you, gentlemen,

(38:31):
if it does not stagger belief to suppose that this
woman was in a conspiracy to murder her mother. Osborne
also very sweetly said the Cornish was simply too stupid
to have committed this murder. Look at Cornish, he instructed
the jurors, big, muscular, aggressive and with not much sense.

(38:52):
You can't make a poisoner out of such a man.
With Cornish defended and also probably insulted, Osborne moved on
to Roland Molineux. He reviewed Roland's motive, reminding jurors that
it didn't matter if a motive made sense to them,
It only mattered if it made sense to the killer.
He highlighted Roland's relentless campaign against Cornish, which had continued

(39:15):
even after Roland had lost the war and had to
leave the Knickerbocker. He reviewed the testimony of the handwriting
experts who had connected Roland's handwriting to the poison package.
At this point, the court adjourned for the day. When
Osborne resumed the next morning, November eleventh, he spoke for
a further ninety minutes for The New York Times quote

(39:37):
those who heard the speech said that no element of
the prosecution's case that could possibly count against the defendant
was omitted. In the end, Osborne told the jurors that
they had a duty to stand strong and vote with
their consciences, no matter their quote. Natural indisposition to cause
harm to a fellow being. With closing arguments finished just

(39:59):
as Lamb began his review of the evidence and his
instruction to the jury. Then at three fourteen pm, he
sent the jury to deliberate. The jury was back at
three point twenty seven. The short deliberation gave the defense
cause for hope. As guards led Roland back into the courtroom,

(40:19):
Barto Weeks told him, quote, the time shows its acquittal. Roland,
ever confident, replied, quote, I've never doubted it. But as
the minutes dragged on while they waited for Justice Lambert
to return to the courtroom, the tension built. In Roland's
first trial. The jurors who had convicted him had refused

(40:40):
to look him in the eye. As he watched these
jurors violin, he noticed them looking away too. Finally Justice
Lambert arrived. He asked the jury Foreman Edward Young to
stand and deliver the verdict on the charge of murder
in the death of Catherine j Adams. The defendant, Roland Moleneu,

(41:01):
was found not guilty. The courtroom erupted in cheers. The
celebration went on for five minutes before Justice Lambert regained control.
He asked District Attorney Jerome if they had any further
cases against the defendant. When Jerome said no, Lambert ordered

(41:23):
Roland released. Eighty eight James Osborne looked devastated by the verdict,
so distraught that even the jurors went to comfort him,
with Foreman Edward Young telling him, we had to go
against you, but you went down with flying colors. Interviews
with other jurors expanded on the point. They revealed to

(41:44):
The New York Times that their vote had been unanimous
on the first ballot even before they had discussed the case,
largely because, in the words of juror John Redner, quote,
the prosecution failed to connect the defendant with the cyanide
of mercury or with the purchase of the silver holder.
Juror Charles O'Connor explained that though quote I do not

(42:04):
think the evidence conclusively proved that Molineux was innocent. I
did not feel that the evidence furnished was sufficient to
warrant taking a man's life. But the jurors felt Osborne
had done the best he could, with one even telling
him they would vote for him if he ran for
district attorney. Osborne never became district attorney, but he enjoyed

(42:24):
a successful lock career. In nineteen thirteen, he was appointed
Special Attorney General to investigate conditions at sing Sing. His
work there prompted massive reforms. Roland Molineu and his father
shared a carriage to Brooklyn, a large crowd following them
through the streets and chanting malin knew, malin knew Yeah.

(42:46):
Not the most catch each year. Arriving at the Fort Greenhouse,
Roland ran up the front steps towards his mother, who
flung her arms around him onlookers cheered loudly. Notably absent
from this touching scene was Blanche. People were not entirely
surprised cracks in the Malinu's perfect marriage had begun to show.

(43:09):
On November eighth, Blanche had given a revealing interview to
the New York World. When the reporter asked about her
and Roland's future, Blanche cryptically replied, quote the future. No
matter what the future may be, nothing can repay me
for all that I, an innocent woman, have suffered. When

(43:30):
the verdict was announced, Blanche stayed in her hotel suite.
At the urging of one of Roland's lawyers, she reluctantly
agreed to come to the Fort Greenhouse later that evening.
As always, she put on a good show, dramatically rushing
past General Molineux at the door as if she couldn't
wait to see her husband. In reality, she would later write,

(43:51):
she ran straight upstairs to her former bedroom and locked
herself in without saying a word to any of the Molinews.
Early the next time morning, Blanche wrote a note to
General Molineux, explaining that she could not go on and
wishing him the best. She did not mention Roland, Placing
her wedding ring on top of the letter, Blanche snuck

(44:12):
out of the house. Roland Molineu would never see the
woman he had allegedly killed over again. One week later,
news broke that she was seeking a divorce. The divorce
was finalized in September nineteen oh three. Two months later,
Blanche married her divorce lawyer, Wallace Scott. She tried to
resume her singing career, but General Molineu, furious at her,

(44:36):
used his connections to shut her down. After a tumultuous
life in which she and Scott divorced and remarried several times,
Blanche died in Minnesota on March twentieth, nineteen fifty four,
at age eighty. Harry Cornish lived largely in anonymity after
the Malinu trial. In nineteen oh eight, he married a

(44:57):
woman named Mary Waite. In July of that year, news
broke that a body found floating off Coney Island had
been identified as Cornish, but this turned out to be false.
He would live another twenty nine years, eventually moving to
Los Angeles and working as a mechanical engineer. Harry Cornish
died on January eleventh, nineteen forty seven, aged eighty four.

(45:21):
Both Harry and Blanche outlived Roland Molineux. After his release
from prison, Roland went to work as a chemist at
his father's paint company and resumed his gymnastics practice, But
while incarcerated he developed a new passion writing. In nineteen
o three, he published The Room with the Little Door,

(45:42):
a collection of writing he'd done while in the tombs
and in Sing Sing's death House. Reviews were not great.
The next year he published The Vice Admiral of the
Blue historical romance. Once again, his work found few fans. Undaunted,
Roland turned to the age, writing a play called The
Man Inside, which was eventually put on by the prominent

(46:06):
theater producer David Belasco. Belasco's involvement, however, was not thanks
to any merit on the play's part, but rather because
he felt bad for Roland's parents, who had begged him
to produce the play. Pattie Molineux, Roland's mother, told Belasco, quote,
if he is disappointed in this, on top of all

(46:26):
the rest that he has suffered, we fear that he
will die. If his play should be a success, it
might open a new life to him. But by the
time the play debuted two you guessed it poor reviews,
it was too late for a new life for Roland.
He was deep in the grips of the illness that
would eventually kill him, syphilis. By nineteen twelve, Roland's behavior

(46:51):
had become erratic and frightening. His once immaculate grooming habits
had disappeared. He was disheveled and unkempt. Despite these problems,
Roland married again, this time to a woman named Margaret Cornell,
who was twenty years his junior. But shortly after their
marriage in the fall of nineteen thirteen, Roland's condition deteriorated further.

(47:13):
His parents sent him to a sanitarium on Long Island.
In September nineteen fourteen, he escaped from the sanitarium and
assaulted several men. He was charged with disorderly conduct. The
next day, he was declared insane and committed to the
State Hospital for the Insane. In January nineteen fifteen, his
first child, a girl, was born, but Roland Molineu would

(47:35):
never meet her. He died in the state hospital on
November two, nineteen seventeen, aged fifty one. By this time
both his parents were gone had he died on February fifth,
nineteen fourteen, aged seventy one or seventy two. General Edward Molineux,
who had spent most of the last twenty years of
his life fighting on his son's behalf, a battle which

(47:59):
seemed to have aged him more than any he'd fought
in in the Civil War. Died on June tenth, nineteen fifteen,
age eighty one. Today, the Malnu name is most famous
for the legal rule that emerged as a result of
Roland's appeal. I'll note here that the family pronounced their
name Molineux, but the rule is known as the Malineaux rule.

(48:22):
This rule concerns the admissibility of prior bad acts into evidence.
As Judge William Warner noted in his opinion in Roland's case,
the idea that evidence of other crimes should be inadmissible
at trial was not a new one. There was extensive
precedent in both English and American law. It existed before
the Malinu opinion, and it existed after. But where Judge

(48:45):
Werner's opinion set precedent was into fining the circumstances in
which prior bad acts could be admissible. These exceptions are
now known by the acronym mimic for motive intent, mistake
identity common scheme in New York. The rule that prior
bad acts are in indisciple except for mimic cases. Is

(49:06):
known fittingly as the Molineaux rule. In practice, says former
New York Supreme Court Justice Mark Dwyer, evidence of uncharged
crimes is quote inadmissible to show that the defendant is
of bad character or is disposed to commit crimes, but
the evidence can be admitted if it helps prove an

(49:26):
element of a charged offense, so long as the uncharged
crimes are not unduly prejudicial. The Molina rule has made
news recently in the case of film producer Harvey Weinstein.
At Weinstein's twenty twenty trial in New York for sexual
assault and rape, a judge allowed several Molinau witnesses witnesses
who testified to prior bad acts. Weinstein was ultimately found

(49:50):
guilty of two felony sex crimes, but four years later,
in April twenty twenty four, the New York Court of
Appeals overturned Weinstein's conviction. In a fouri three ruling. The
majority opinion argued that the Molina witnesses testimony had been
more prejudicial than probative. The opinion's author, Judge Jenny Rivera,

(50:10):
calls the Malina rule quote a judicial bulwark against a
guilty verdict based on supposition rather than proof. In a
dissenting opinion, Judge Madeleine Singus argues that in sexual assault
cases where prevailing societal attitudes about sexual assault may cause
jurors to distrust victims, the additional testimony of Molina witnesses

(50:33):
may sometimes be necessary to overcome this inherent bias. Judge Rivera,
in response rites quote, just as rape myths may impact
the trier of facts, deliberative process, propensity, evidence has a
bias inducing effect on jurors and tends to undermine the
truth seeking function of trials. These opinions both point to

(50:53):
questions of fairness. When is it unfair to defendants to
allow prior bad acts into evidence, when is it unfair
to victims to exclude them. In Roland Malinew's case, it
was clearly unfair to include the Barnett case while trying
Roland for the murder of Catherine Adams. While it would

(51:13):
be to my mind highly highly unlikely for Henry Barnett
and Harry Cornish to have been sent poisoned by anyone
other than their mutual rival, who just so happened to
be a chemist with a dangerous temper. It's also clear
to me that the prosecution didn't have enough evidence to
prove their case against Roland, especially for a capital offense.

(51:35):
The prosecutors relied on evidence of a prior bad act
to fill in the gaps in their case. Where will
land in the future on the question of the admissibility
of prior bad acts is unknown, But as Judge Stingus
points out quote, the Malino rule has never been static. Instead,
its use has evolved over time to meet the challenges

(51:58):
of complex criminal prosecution. In the meantime, I know one
thing for sure. There are better ways to resolve disputes
than poisoning your enemies. That's the story of New York v.
Roland Molineu. Stay with me after the break for one
more tale of a connection between a Malnu defense lawyer

(52:19):
and a president. Not Richard Nixon this time, I promise.
Nineteen oh one was a very busy year for John Milburn.
Besides arguing on Roland Molineu's behalf in the Court of
Appeals in June, Milbourne was also the president of the
Pan American Exposition, the nineteen oh one World's Fair, held

(52:42):
in Buffalo. It was an enormous undertaking several years in
the making. The Exposition's infrastructure occupied three hundred and fifty
acres and cost approximately seven million dollars close to a
quarter of a billion dollars today, more than eight million
visitors attended between May and November nineteen oh one. As

(53:04):
President of the Exposition, John Milburn had the honor of
hosting President William McKinley on his visit to the Fair
on September three, a little more than a month before
the appeals Court announced its decision in the Malnu case.
McKinley arrived at Milburn's Buffalo mansion on the sixth. Milburn
accompanied McKinley to a reception in the President's honor at

(53:25):
the Fairs Temple of Music. At four h seven p m.
John Milburn was standing beside the President when a young
man named Leon Shahgosh pulled out a revolver and shot
McKinley twice. After McKinley was treated in a hospital, the
President returned to Milburn's house to recuperate. Unfortunately, as in

(53:47):
the case of President James Garfield, infection introduced by a
bullet lingering in the President's body began to spread on
September fourteenth, nineteen oh one, in a bedroom in the
house of one of Roland Malinu's lawyers, President William McKinley died.

(54:07):
Thank you for listening to History on Trial. If you
enjoyed this episode, please consider leaving a rating or review.
It can help new listeners find the show. My main
sources for this episode were Harold Scheckter's book The Devil's Gentlemen, Privilege,
Poison and The Trial That Ushered in the twentieth century,
as well as newspaper coverage of the trial and the
appellate opinion in People v. Molineux. For a complete bibliography,

(54:31):
as well as a transcript of the episode with citations,
please visit our website History on Trial podcast dot com.
History on Trial is written and hosted by me Mira Hayward.
The show is edited and produced by Jesse Funk, with
supervising producer Trevor Young and executive producers Dana Schwartz, Alexander Williams,

(54:53):
Matt Frederick, and Mira Hayward. Learn more about the show
at History on Trial podcast dot com and follow us
on Instagram at History on Trial and on Twitter at
Underscore History on Trial. Find more podcasts from iHeartRadio by
visiting the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen

(55:15):
to your favorite shows.