Oh, my friends, it is indeed a painful duty that brings me before you today. For I had rather lose this arm, this good right arm that you see here, than have to stand here and admit that any citizen of the United States of America could be guilty of any such dastardly deed as Summers did that night. Summers! Summers, the man that would never go to church! Summers, the man that went week after week, month after month, year after year, without ever putting a foot inside the house of God or offering up a prayer for the good of his soul! Summers! There he sits, gentlemen of the jury; look at that face and ask yourselves is that man fit to walk the streets of our fair city or breathe our country’s air! Summers! Summers fired those shots. Look at the evidence! What does it say? Out of his own mouth, gentlemen of the jury, we have it that he fired those shots, that he shot to kill or to maim or to work any frightful havoc that might come! That he and he alone was responsible for the death of Pete Brody and whatever judgment the death of Pete Brody may bring! He fired those shots! Summers fired those shots! Summers killed Pete Brody, and, before God, I say Summers must pay the price of his crime!
Self-defense! Against what? Against what? Against a hymn to the Lord God Almighty, my friends. Against God-fearing men, standing with bared heads on his own front stoop, singing “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” the favorite hymn of President McKinley and perhaps the most beautiful hymn ever written by Godfearing men.
No, gentlemen of the jury! No, no, no! Summers must bring better evidence than that before he can escape punishment for his crime. Summers can perhaps escape punishment for not going to church. That is between himself and his God. But I tell you, gentlemen of the jury, as God is your judge, Summers must be made to pay for this dastardly crime that he committed when he shot at those men. Summers must pay! Summers must pay with his life! An eye for an eye! A tooth for a tooth! A life for a life! So spake that great God that you worship and I worship! So spake the God that Summers refuses to worship! So spake the great God on high, and I tell you gentlemen of the jury to alter by one jot or one tittle the word of the great God on high is something that neither you nor I dare do nor any other man, I don’t care if he’s rich or poor or Jew or Gentile or black or white. Murder in the first degree! Murder in the first degree! That is the only thing that will satisfy your oath, gentlemen of the jury! That is the only thing that will satisfy the demands of justice! That is the only thing that will satisfy the word of God! Murder in the first degree! Gentlemen, I ask you for that verdict! Gentlemen, I implore you for that verdict! For the honor of our fair state, gentlemen of the jury, for the honor of your state and my state, for the honor of our fair country, I ask you for a verdict of murder in the first degree!
I thank you.
[He sits down.]
The defense rests.
2. The Judiciary
The same, a moment later. THE COURT wipes its glasses and turns gravely toward the jury.
Gentlemen of the jury, you have now heard the evidence and the argument of counsel. The court will now instruct you on the law, after which you may retire and consider your verdict.
The court instructs you that the defendant Summers is being tried under an indictment which charges murder in the first degree. On such an indictment the law permits you to return four verdicts. You may return a verdict of murder in the first degree, in which case you must satisfy yourselves that the defendant Summers intended to kill the deceased Brody and that he was actuated by malice prior to the act. It is not necessary that there should be a lapse of time between the formation of malice and the killing of the deceased. If you find that the defendant Summers intended to kill the deceased Brody and that he was actuated by malice at any time before the act, then you should find him guilty of murder in the first degree. Next, you may render a verdict of murder in the second degree. This must embrace malice, but not intent to kill. If you find that the defendant Summers bore malice against the deceased Brody, but did not intend to kill him, then you should return a verdict of murder in the second degree. Next, you may return a verdict of manslaughter. This must embrace intent to kill, but not malice. If you find the defendant Summers intended to kill, but bore no malice, then you should return a verdict of manslaughter. Next, you may render a verdict of acquittal. Under the law, if there is in your mind a reasonable doubt that the defendant Summers committed the act described in the indictment, or if his act was justifiable, then you should render a verdict of acquittal. As the defendant Summers, however, does not deny that he committed the act described in the indictment, but denies merely that his intent and purpose were those described in the indictment, you must disregard reasonable doubt and render a verdict of acquittal only if you find that his act was justifiable. If you find, then, that the defendant Summers was justified in killing the deceased Brody, then you should acquit him.
The evidence shows that the deceased Brody was a member of an organization known as the Ku Klux Klan, and that he was in the regalia of his organization when he was shot by the defendant Summers. You are to disregard all allusion in the testimony to the repute borne by this organization, whether favorable or unfavorable, and confine yourselves strictly to the actions of such members of it as were present at the time when the acts described in the indictment were committed. You are to disregard all allusions to the religion of the defendant Summers. As to whether he was an atheist, or a Disciple of Christ, or anything else, you are not concerned in the least.
It is the plea of the defendant Summers that he shot in self-defense and that his act was accordingly justifiable. Such a plea is permissible under the law, and if supported by the evidence is ground for acquittal. In view of this plea, then, you must consider whether the life of the defendant Summers was actually threatened. To determine this, you must consider the actions of the deceased Brody and his companions antecedent to the acts described in the indictment. It is in evidence that the only act which they committed of which the defendant Summers became aware was their forgathering on his front stoop and singing a hymn known as “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” a point on which he satisfied himself by peeping through the curtains before reaching for his gun. Before his plea can be allowed, then, you must consider whether the singing of the hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee” by Brody and his companions constituted a threatening act. If you find that it was a threatening act, then you should acquit him. If you find that it was not a threatening act, and if you find that his shooting of the deceased Brody was in no other way justifiable, then you should find him guilty of whichever of the three crimes are open to you under the law. Are there any questions, gentlemen?