On June 30, 1915, a jury convicted George Joseph Smith in London of murdering Bessie Mundy. Three years earlier, Mundy had married Smith (who unbeknownst to her, was already married), had executed a will leaving him all her property, and then had drowned in her bath. Smith claimed the drowning had been accidental, but at trial, the prosecution proved that, following Mundy's death, two other women had died in their baths after going through marriage ceremonies with Smith and making out wills in his favor. The introduction of this evidence was the principal issue on appeal:
Mr. Marshall Hall carried the appeal before [Lord Chief] Justice Darling and his brother judges on July 29, 1915. "All I say is 'not guilty,'" he told the Court. "Until the prosecution has proved this death was not by accident, they cannot proceed." He contended that the evidence of the other two deaths should never have been admitted, and that without it, there was not a prima facie case to go to the jury.
"Why, after all, can't lawyers act as sensible people?" demanded Mr. Justice Darling. That remark was typical of him. His practical common sense cut right through legal quibbles and got down to the true basis of true justice.
"It would be difficult to believe," persisted counsel, "that the same number could come up on a roulette table five times in succession, but if it happened, you would not be entitled to convict the croupier as a dishonest man."
"If I saw it happen," observed the Lord Chief Justice, "and the same people were at the table all the time, I should grow suspicious."
After the three judges had consulted together for nearly half an hour, the Lord Chief Justice delivered the judgment. The Court had decided that there was a prima facie case on the death of Bessie Mundy, without taking the other deaths into account at all. Therefore, they upheld Mr. Justice Scutton's decision to admit the evidence…The appeal was dismissed. George Joseph Smith was executed without having confessed on August 13, 1915.
Would the evidence of the other deaths be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence?
Mr. Marshall Hall carried the appeal before [Lord Chief] Justice Darling and his brother judges on July 29, 1915. "All I say is 'not guilty,'" he told the Court. "Until the prosecution has proved this death was not by accident, they cannot proceed." He contended that the evidence of the other two deaths should never have been admitted, and that without it, there was not a prima facie case to go to the jury.
"Why, after all, can't lawyers act as sensible people?" demanded Mr. Justice Darling. That remark was typical of him. His practical common sense cut right through legal quibbles and got down to the true basis of true justice.
"It would be difficult to believe," persisted counsel, "that the same number could come up on a roulette table five times in succession, but if it happened, you would not be entitled to convict the croupier as a dishonest man."
"If I saw it happen," observed the Lord Chief Justice, "and the same people were at the table all the time, I should grow suspicious."
After the three judges had consulted together for nearly half an hour, the Lord Chief Justice delivered the judgment. The Court had decided that there was a prima facie case on the death of Bessie Mundy, without taking the other deaths into account at all. Therefore, they upheld Mr. Justice Scutton's decision to admit the evidence…The appeal was dismissed. George Joseph Smith was executed without having confessed on August 13, 1915.
Would the evidence of the other deaths be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence?