Robert's Murder Trial Begins
Part 4: The Buckfoot Gang
On Saturday, March 20, 1875, Robert P. W. Boatwright was arraigned before Judge William C. Jones in the Criminal Court of St. Louis City. He was formally charged with the March, 1875 murder of Charles Woodson. Boatwright entered a plea of Not Guilty. Robert M. Boatwright, the defendant’s father, had chosen defense attorneys and the Judge was informed of their names. The case was referred for scheduling.
The Boatwright case was in court on Wednesday, October 20, 1875. It isn’t specified if this was brought up before this day or whether it was merely being formally addressed on this day, but during this appearance, it was deemed that Judge Jones could not hear the murder trial since he was a witness to the incident and was slated to be called to give testimony by the prosecution. The trial was deferred to be scheduled in the Circuit Court.
I wondered why another judge in Criminal Court wasn’t assigned the case. Based on election results for judge’s seats, Judge Jones appears to have been the only sitting judge for the Criminal Court, not because there was a seat vacant, but because they only had one. In the election results from January 1875, he is listed as the winner for “the Office of the Judge for the Criminal Court.” Thus, the case went to Circuit Court to be heard.
On Tuesday, February 22, 1876, the morning edition of the St. Louis Globe Democrat printed a notice that the Boatwright murder case would come before Judge James J. Lindley that day. The trial was originally on the docket for the day prior, but the prosecuting attorney had requested a delay. He stated he had planned to have Charles Woodson’s father, Edward Woodson, as a witness but Mr. Woodson had died and he needed time to obtain additional witnesses in order to prove that Boatwright had committed the murder as an act of malice rather than due to insanity, the defense’s intended plea. The attorney was given until the morning of March 7.
On that appointed Tuesday, order was called at 10 o’clock in Circuit Court Room #4. The courtroom was filled with spectators who seated themselves in groups according to whom they supported. A pool of fifty potential jurors had been summoned but many didn’t show up. Unlike now, the names of potential jurors were printed in the paper and a few of their answers to questions such as, “Can you read and write,” were also published, although not attributed to the specific juror.
In 1876, contacting potential jurors must have been an arduous task. Methods of communication were limited to in-person visits, mail, or possibly in this case, publishing a general notice in the newspaper. While doing research, I’ve followed someone’s trail through a city directory. I see a lot of people who moved frequently; sometimes they are at a different address every year. Besides communication, transportation was also limited, or at least could be quite slow or unaffordable for most people on a regular basis. Jobs were often transitory, temporary, or ended with little notice. Because getting to and from a job in a city the size of St. Louis was a major factor, even in 1875, people often moved to be as close to their current source of income as they could. Summoning jurors must have been a bit of a nightmare and the selection process (voir dire) was probably influenced by that, defining what was acceptable in a juror and what was not less defined than it is now.
Even though sifting through the jury pool can be tedious, it only took about three and a half hours. Both sides excused interviewees for cause and vied for the jurors they wanted, similar to how it is done now.
Jury selection concluded at 1:30 pm that same day. With zero delay, the court jumped right in by asking the jury to take the oath, but “an hour” had to be spent searching for a bible upon which to take it. It doesn’t say if a bible was normally kept in the courts for that purpose, but if so, it must have gone missing.
Robert P.W. Boatwright, the defendant, was led into the courtroom by Jailer Mathias Schulter. He sat quietly, was a bit pale and thin, having been incarcerated for nearly a year awaiting trial. Even so, he was said to have “grown almost a foot” during that time. Robert would have been 16-17 years old during his confinement. He was noted to be free of obvious nervousness and to appear unconcerned. This observation is repeated in several documents about Robert at both the inquest and the trial. I would imagine he felt that, as a young white man, even having committed murder, he had few worries about the outcome. Charles Woodson was black and had been on trial for killing Robert’s older brother, also white. For Robert, he may have viewed it an irritating inconvenience while he waited to get on with his life and he wasn’t concerned about showing it.
His mother and father were present, Priscilla Boatwright sat between her son and husband, fully dressed in mourning, including a veil. An article described Priscilla as a “very handsome woman” immediately after stating she wore a “long, heavy, black veil.” So there’s that … an indication as to the veracity of some reporting.
A description of Robert’s demeanor was unusual enough that I feel it might have been fairly accurate. He was said to sit with his legs extended at full length at all times, continually chewing tobacco, and spitting downward between his legs…into what it didn’t say. But….ick. Defense attorneys Robert S. MacDonald, Frank D. Turner, and Joseph R. Harris, either hadn’t felt the need to make their client more ‘likable’ in the eyes of the jury, or if they did, they were unsuccessful. Appearance is something to which significantly more care is given today.
The prosecuting attorney was James C. Normile. During his opening statement, he read the indictment and cited the evidence he would produce to prove the defendant’s guilt. He called for the murder weapon: a 12-inch long x 1-1/2 inch wide butcher knife with a notched handle, hand carved to provide a better grip to prevent slippage. The audience in the packed courtroom gave a satisfactory gasp in horror as it was passed to the jury for their examination.
The first witness called to the stand was William C. Jones, Judge of the Criminal Court. He testified that he was present during the murder and positively identified Robert as the perpetrator. Judge Jones described the scene. In addition to information given during his inquest testimony, he described hearing a loud thump during the attack which he attributed to Boatwright’s arm hitting the arm of the Charles’s wooden chair as he dealt the fatal blow. He then also identified the knife as one and the same.
It is impossible to know which of the numerous versions of events is the closest to correct. As before, the judge described calling to Deputy Marshal Thomas Horan to arrest Boatwright after the attack. He explained that Horan misunderstood his order and tried to expel Robert from the courtroom. This agreed with the previous telling. However, this time, the newspaper said the judge told how he left the bench himself and chased Robert to the street, apprehending him on the sidewalk by grabbing his shirt.
The narrative from the inquest is probably the closest to the truth. A sitting judge leaving the bench, vaulting through the courtroom, hallways, and down the stairs past numerous Marshals and other law officers and personnel to chase a fleeing criminal out to the street is highly unlikely. The extra flair of this article was typical of the dramatic effect often used at the time. It’s a good illustration of how much salt must be kept on hand when researching old newspaper articles.
The defense understandably declined to cross-examine Judge Jones and he was dismissed. Charles C. Johnson, former attorney for Charles Woodson (and former Lt. Governor of Missouri), was called next and provided basically the same testimony given by Judge Jones, minus the ‘judge valiantly corrals absconding criminal' scene.
Susan Brown’s turn was next. Susan was Charles’s sister. She gave his age as 12 at the time of the murder, stating he would have been 13 if he’d lived to November 10 of 1875. This gives us what is probably the most accurate information about Charles’s age. Susan described the events of the night Oscar Boatwright was fatally struck, the death for which Charles was on trial when he was killed by Robert.
She said Charley had been skating on the sidewalk in front of their home at the time. The Woodson home was on 16th Street near the intersection with Morgan. Robert lived on Morgan, although his home was several blocks east of 16th.
On the night Oscar was killed, Susan saw Robert walking with a group of boys, including his brother Oscar. She testified it was Robert who started taunting Charley. He had yelled, “[insult] You are skating now. But I will send you to hell before you are many days older.” Robert very possibly did start the taunting, but this quote sounds a little contrived and like more stage drama. Kind of like the dialogue in one of the old Our Gang shows where the 5-year-olds are delivering very adult-like lines. I could be wrong, but I would bet the things Robert shouted were crude teenaged street talk rather than Victorian stage dialogue. The paper takes the liberty of saying Susan’s testimony “did not develop anything of importance,” and said no more of it.
Dr. George F. Dudley, the Coroner who performed the autopsy on Charles Woodson, was called next and gave his findings as described in Part 3 - The Inquest.
At this point, Attorney Normile rested the prosecution’s case. Compared to today’s trials, which can take days or a week or more for each side to present their case, this seems exceedingly brief. They did, though, have the eyewitness testimony of a sitting Judge as well as the former Lieutenant Governor who had been attorney for the defense at the time. Formidably damning witness testimony. The prosecution would have felt immensely confident in securing a guilty verdict against Robert P. Boatwright. Now it would be the defense’s turn to present their client’s plea: Insanity.
Judge Lindley took that opportunity to defer the defense’s opening statement to the following morning, March 8. He said he had another trial scheduled that afternoon which could not be held over and this case could.
What was the outcome of? It reads like a tv murder case.