Talbot Publishing recently released my
co-author Bob Dekle’s book entitled Lindbergh Kidnapping Case: A Critical Analysis
of the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann. Although the Lindbergh kidnapping case has
been written about innumerable times, never before has the trial of Bruno Richard
Hauptmann been meticulously researched and analyzed. Bob and his co-author Jim
Dedman have done just that.
The book is somewhat reminiscent of Vincent
Bugliosi’s book Outrage: The Five Reasons O. J. Simpson Got Away WithMurder. In Outrage, Bugliosi, who had prosecuted Charles Manson,
explains how he would have prosecuted Simpson, along with providing examples of
what he would have done, such as what he would have said in closing argument.
Lindbergh
Kidnapping Case is instructive on
how to conduct a cross-examination. For instance, one of the prosecution witnesses
at the Hauptman trial was John Conlon, an interloper who was involved in the
negotiations over the ransom. This is how the book assesses defense counsel’s
strategy in cross-examining Conlon:
Reilly adopted the wrong
strategy for the examination of Condon. Instead of attacking the implausibility
of Condon’s testimony, he attacked Condon personally. What Reilly succeeded in
doing by aggressive verbal sparring with Condon was to highlight Condon’s wit
in repartee, which in turn masked the implausibility of his testimony. . .
Rather than merely criticizing the strategy, the book recommends effective
techniques that could be utilized as follows:
Reilly
should have attacked the plausibility of the testimony, not the personality of
the testifier. Snide remarks and personal assaults proved counterproductive and
resulted in this portion of the cross-examination being diverted down a rabbit
trail of arguing over the meaning of words. He would have done better by asking
a line of tight and controlling single-fact questions. Such a line of
questioning might have gone thus:
Q: You attended a lineup at the
Greenwich Street police station in New York?
A: Yes.
Reilly
should expect Condon to append a verbal barrage to his affirmation, but he
should not take the bait. Rather he must relentlessly pursue the
non-identification.
Q: The police asked you if anyone
appearing in the lineup was the John whom you met in the cemetery?
A: Yes.
Q: Bruno Richard Hauptmann was in the
lineup?
A: Yes.
Q: At that time you did not identify
Mr. Hauptmann as John?
A: I identified Mr. Hauptmann at that time
but I made no declaration of identification.
The Lindbergh
Kidnapping Case is the perfect read for anyone interested in the Lindbergh
case, an insightful telling of the story of the Hauptman trial, and a superb
tutorial on trial strategies and techniques with illustrations from this famous
case.
