Summer in Wisconsin is County Fair season. With seventy-two counties, I imagine every week from July 15 through the end of August includes multiple fairs. Want to find one near you? The Wisconsin Association of Fairs has a listing of events. Summer reminds me of preparing 4-H projects, decorating animal barns and pens, showing and selling animals at the youth auction. If you grew up in 4-H or FFA, you know the routine and excitement of preparing for and participating in a county fair. For many of us, the fair was not about rides, games, demolition derbies, or grandstand shows. The county fair was our chance to showcase a year of learning and working. The season has inspired me to find and share a case that involves a county fair, infidelity, and murder – Eckert v. State, decided by the Wisconsin Supreme Court on April 1, 1902.
The facts are based upon the confession of the accused, Mr. Eckert. On August 25, 1899, his wife, Mrs. Eckert, attended a county fair with her uncle who was visiting. The uncle returned to the Eckert home about 5:00 pm, without Mrs. Eckert. Mr. Eckert went looking for his wife of twenty years. He found her leaving the fair with a Mr. Turner. For some time, Mr. Eckert had suspected “improper relations” between his wife and Mr. Turner, so he followed them. He confronted them in front of a saloon, telling Mr. Turner he was digging his own grave. Mrs. Eckert refused to go home without Mr. Turner so all three walked back to the Eckert residence. The Eckerts began fighting and Mr. Turner left to go downtown with the visiting uncle. Mrs. Eckert made supper. Mr. Eckert initially refused to eat, but eventually did. With full bellies, they reconciled and went for a carriage ride. During the ride, they passed Mr. Turner. Mrs. Eckert asked her husband to apologize to Mr. Turner. Mr. Eckert refused. They returned home about 10:00 pm. Mrs. Eckert sat down to write a letter. When she was done writing, she left the house to mail it. She did not return until 2:00 am. They fought again. During the fight, she grabbed a razor and threatened to cut Mr. Eckert’s throat. When she went to bed, she put the razor under her pillow. Mr. Eckert slept on the couch. Between 4:00 am and 5:00 am, Mr. Eckert tried a final appeal to his wife, asking her to stop seeing Mr. Turner. She said she loved Mr. Turner. Mr. Eckert threatened divorce. Mrs. Eckert said he would never live to get a divorce and pulled the razor from under her pillow. Mr. Eckert ran to the drawer of the washstand, grabbed a revolver and shot is wife in the head twice. Please keep in mind that this is Mr. Eckert’s version of events, which the Courts have adopted as true because no one testified differently.
A jury convicted Mr. Eckert of second-degree murder. Mr. Eckert appealed. One of the arguments on appeal was that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury about insanity. While the decision from the Supreme Court does not give many details about what happened at trial, it appears that Mr. Eckert pled insanity – that he was so distraught by his wife holding the razor, he had no clue what he was doing. The attorney for the Defendant asked the trial court to instruct the jury, “If the defendant killed his wife in a manner that would be criminal and unlawful if the defendant were sane, the verdict should be, ‘Not guilty, by reason of insanity,’ if the killing was the offspring or product of mental disease in the defendant.” The trial court refused to give that specific instruction, instead telling the jury, “If the defendant at the time of the homicide had sufficient mind to know right from wrong, and to understand the nature and quality of the act he was committing, that then he was sane in the law.”
I am not a criminal law attorney. I do not know if the word “insanity” is even used anymore. I do not know if the standards for “insanity” are even remotely close to what they were in the early 1900’s. I think the judge’s instruction seems easier to understand than the lawyer’s version. The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided that both versions say the same thing, and the Judge’s version was fine. It upheld the conviction.
Is there wisdom to share from this case? I think so. I am reminded to simplify my words and cut back on fancy legal lingo. I am also reminded of a saying my late father used when telling me about his days of dating, “When you go out dating – to a dance, to a movie, to a dinner, you leave with the one you came with.” It was sound advice. He would have told Mrs. Eckert, “Go enjoy the county fair. But if you go to the fair with your uncle, be sure to leave with your uncle when he goes home.” If Mrs. Eckert had done that, who knows?