Post #6: We, the jury.

The trial of State vs. Rehberg was a documented murder trial in 1885. A man by the name of Edward Rehberg was being accused of beating his young daughter Clara Rehberg to death. There are facts, however, that came into consideration because in the trial itself the testimonies of the witnesses of that day were mostly females and female children. Also, social class came into consideration. On one hand, there was a doctor’s testimony and on the other hand, there were testimonies of the other witnesses in the lower social class. A 19th century jury would more likely take into consideration what the higher class said than the people of the lower class. The importance of gender, age, and social class in court cases in the 19th century vary greatly and can produce differing decisions in reviewing major cases.

It was said by some female members of the family that Edward Rehberg had an alibi for the day he was accused of beating his daughter. It was said by Emma and Bertha Rehberg that Edward Rehberg had an alibi for the day he was accused of beating his daughter.[1] Most of the testimonies of the family members put him at the time of the alleged beating at the haystacks.[2] He could still be guilty by default in a 19th century court room due to evidence that he was a male and a woman could never have done this because women had a “socially defined role as guardians of morality.”[3]

In the declaration of death by Clara Rehberg, it stated that her stepmother Louisa should in fact be the person in question for brutalizing her. A 19th Century jury might not take Clara’s confession into account however due to the fact that she is just a child. According to Mr. E.D. Weed who wrote the testimony, “She seemed to be an intelligent child of about the age of eight or nine years. I think that if the child had received any sort of moral education or training whatever, she would be received as a reliable witness in any Court of Justice.” [4] Another factor must also be taken into consideration. At the time of the declaration, Clara Rehberg was in such pain that may not have been thinking clearly. Since Clara had been beaten, the doctor had most likely given her drugs to dull the pain, and she was aware of the fact that she was going to die. Any person in her situation would be too distressed to relay the exact happening of the events; especially, for an eight or nine year old child this may have been even more difficult. Clara might also have been protecting her father, since Louisa was her stepmother and may not have been of as much importance to her as her father.

Based on that the only other person that could have been responsible for the beating of Clara was Louisa and she was discredited due to the fact of being a woman and not able in the 19th century minds to wrap around the fact that she could beat a child to death. The jury based on the evidence would convict Edward Rehberg guilty.

In the 20th century Louisa would not be discredited and social standing and Clara not being “well read” would not be as much as a problem in a court of law and her testimony would in fact be taken seriously into account. Edward Rehberg in a 20th century court of law would be found not guilty based on the evidence of having an alibi and also the death bed testimony of Clara witnessing Louisa beat her which lead to her death.

In the case State v.s. Rehberg, we the jury find the defendant, Edward Rehberg, guilty of second degree murder in the 19th century and we the jury find the defendant, Edward Rehberg, not guilty in the 20th century.

[1] Reader Hist 120 pg. 17-21
[2] Reader Hist 120 pg.18
[3] Nation of Nations pg. 320
[4] Reader Hist 120 pg. 30

Comments

[Landon Michaels]

The paper does a wonderful job of explaining why Edward would have been fould guilty in the 19th century. What the paper lacks the most is information to why he would not be found guilty in the 20th century. Even the introduction does not mention the 20th century. The paper could be revised to add sections in the other paragraphs comparing the 19th century to the 20th in social, age, and gender aspects. The last sentance of the second paragraph does not fit well with the rest of it. The sentance is repeated as the entire fourth paragraph, and would find a better home there. The second paragraph could also include where Clara was at. The conclusion could be extended to bring all the points of the paper together. The sentance would go well as the final line, but a few more sentances are required to back it up.

[Miriam]

Your thesis was really good. The arguments used to prove the thesis were kind of weak. I wasn't swayed. There was a little repition as well within the first few lines of paragraph two that made it a bit redundant. A few spelling errors as well, but nothing too bad. Overall good work!