Tales from the Morgue: Jealousy made him do it, conclusion

Case of Tom Reap, Charged with Murder, Goes to Jury Today
_____

TESTIMONY IS GIVEN RELATIVE TO HIS SANITY
_____

Doctor Declares Reap Showed Symptoms of Insanity
_____

Fate of Thomas Reap, charged with the murder of John Halter, goes into the hands of the jury today.

Thirteen witnesses were examined yesterday and the case given over to the attorneys' arguments. At 5 o'clock the court adjourned on the order of Presiding Judge Samuel L. Pattee to meet again today at 9 o'clock a. m.

County Attorney George R. Darnell declared the state would complete its argument and the case ought to go to the jury before noon.

Before the argument commenced, four doctors were summoned to the witness stand to testify as to the sanity of the defendant. They were Drs. I. E. Huffman, Charles A. Peterson, Joel I. Butler and W. P. Whitmore.

J. M. Treahy, desk sergeant of the Tucson city jail, where Reap was taken immediately following the shooting on the evening of May 12, testified that he thought Reap was perfectly sane, as did also L. G. Wagner, jailer for Pima county. Testimony of Night Desk Sergeant C. F. Aisnworth, who saw Reap at the time he was lodged in the local jail, was likewise to the effect the defendant was sane.

Summoned by the prosecution, J. F. Hazelton testified he knew the Halter family and had sold furniture to Halter. He declared that Halter lived across the town from Mrs. Reap. He said he had seen Mrs. Reap and Mr. Halter together about 150 times and had never noticed anything out of the ordinary.

Oscar Richey testified that the shoe shop in question was bought for Mrs. Reap by her brother and that Mrs. Reap made her husband manager.

Continued cross-examination of the defendant yesterday brought out the testimony that he married his present wife in Holbrook under the name of Reed. He testified that he had taken the name at the request of the woman he married, but that his correct name was Reap. Other witnesses called to the stand by the prosecution testified to the sanity of the man charged with murder. A doctor summoned by the defense stated Reap had symptoms of insanity.

Brought into the court room by the prosecution, Mrs. Reap faced her husband.

Defense counsel objected to her taking the witness stand against her husband and Judge Pattee allowed the objection. Mrs. Reap was dressed in black. She appeared very weak and could hardly step to the platform to face the judge. Two men assisted her. Her face was emaciated and thin and her hands were so thin the blue veins showed plainly through the skin.

While the lawyers addressed the jury, Reap tilted back in his chair, listening.

Insanity is Plea

Tom Reap, the cobbler, it was alleged by the defense, was driven temporarily insane and killed John Halter of the same vocation, on learning that the victim had stolen his wife's affections.

Tom Reap, the prosecution alleged, was driven to commit the murder by drink.

Arguments of the prosecution appeared to indicate that a prison term, not the death penalty, was advocated. Deputy County Attorney Ben B. Matthews stressed the fact that Reap is alleged to have had drinks before the shooting.

The prosecution also relied in argument more on the testimony of Reap's shop deal than on the testimony his wife's affections were taken.

Deputy Matthews summed up the case this way when he addressed the jury:

"Booze; the shop deal; and Tom Reap shot John Halter, shifting the blame to his wife."

In their turn defense attorneys continued to emphasize the insanity plea and the testimony given as to the relations between Halter and Mrs. Reap.

Brilliant oratory on the part of the prosecuting attorneys featured the argument.

Deputy County Attorney Ben B. Matthews was first to address the jury. He scored the evidences of Reap's insanity given by defense witnesses. These witnesses had testified Reap was insane on the subject of the relations existing between John Halter and his wife.

"All of you twelve men," he declared, "have got those peculiar characteristics mentioned by the witnesses of the defense. Sometimes you yourselves walk the floor and drum your fingers.

"As for being obsessed with one subject, I myself am insane of that decides it. I do nothing but talk about my baby all the time. It looks absurd to me."

The deputy also ridiculed the alleged efforts of the defense to weave in the unwritten law.

"If necessary, we will make this case as dirty as we can," he said. "Witnesses didn't say definitely that Halter had relations with Mrs. Reap. They simply said they heard him on the back screen porch."

With flashes of sarcasm, Deputy Matthews appeared trying to tear the testimony of Reap in shreds.

Questions Reap's Fear

"Reap said he bought the gun on the afternoon of the shooting because he was afraid," he said. "Why didn't he stay in California, if he was afraid? No, he walks right into the lion's mouth.

"In fact, he buys his little gun and walks right into the danger point. Reap bought that gun and used it to put John Halter out of the way.

"That he bought that little gun because he was afraid is absurd. Afraid of Halter, was he? Of that terrible Halter who had nine cartridges on him and no gun, when he was shot dead.

"That he bought the gun and killed Halter because Halter had stolen his wife's affections is also absurd.

"Here is the high point of the whole case.

"Tom Reap had two drinks under his belt when he did the shooting, After he was full of liquor he was like a rabbit ready to spit in the bull dog's face. Is that insanity? Not for a minute.

"It was old alcohol, old booze. And there is a difference between insanity and drunkenness."

In closing his address the deputy said:

"We want Reap to have a fair trial, but we don't think Halter had one. We are not protecting John Halter or Mrs. Reap, but the people of Arizona.

"There is a place for Tom Reap and he should go there. A term in jail would do him good."

Ralph Bilby, the defense counsel, addressing the jury next rehearsed the testimony given, which he declared tended to show that Reap had been driven insane by the actions of Halter with his wife.

"We brought witnesses before you," he said, "who have known Reap for two or three years. We did not rely as did the state on witnesses who had known him only a short while; at the time ofd the murder and since. These defense witnesses all said in their opinion Reap was simple minded."

Scores Prosecution

Mr. Bilby scored attempts of the prosecution to dismiss the evidence given in regard to Halter's relations with Mrs. Reap.

"Whether or not it was true," Mr. Bilby insisted to the jury. "I want you to imagine the effects on Tom Reap's mind the stories he heard about the affair had. It preyed on his mind for a year or two."

Mr. Bilby stressed the great love Reap had for his wife. He recited testimony given by the witness to the effect that he had married Mrs. Reap when she had nothing, and had cared for her lovingly.

County Attorney George r. Darnell took this last argument of the defense as the start of his address to the jury. Attorney Darnell spoke from 4 o'clock until 5:15, when court adjourned. He ridiculed Reap's great love for his wife argued by Attorney Bilby.

"Tom Reap thought so much of his wife," the county attorney declared, "that he took his great love for her in a solid mass right out of Arizona to the seashores of California, leaving his wife in her sickened condition to obtain the necessities of life the best way she could.

"He loved his wife so much that he returned to Tucson, after he had written letters telling of the good time he was having in California, and brought action in this court to oust her from the shoe shop, and have it declared to be his property after having testified that he voluntarily gave it to her and left her.

"Sympathy, too often in a murder trial is not distributed correctly. It is lavished sometimes on a defendant who sits in the court room trying to convince the jury he had a perfect right to take away a human life, whole the rights of the dead man are buried in the grave.

"Tom Reap broke up his own home before John Halter was ever known to any of the parties concerned. Reap abandoned his wife and gave up his home voluntarily and now asks the jury to place a value on his household a million times greater than he ever placed.

"The defendant, in order to save his life, conveniently accused his wife of being untrue. When Mrs. Reap was led into the court room to become a witness in order to protect her good name and tell the truth, he generously exercised his legal right and closed her lips by objecting to her testimony.

"Tom Reap is a great and good Tom Reap so long as he alone may testify to the fact; but, when he closes his wife's lips, which were to open in defense of herself, he became a detestable coward and the halo of sympathy faded away as the mist before the rising sun.

"Juries should decide cases on facts, not on the imagination of the defending counsels. Flights of oratory cannot be made in a balloon held captive by the anchor of truth.

"This trial," Attorney Darnell continued, "is not a play, in which the imagination and the emotion should hold sway, but it is the checking up in the accounting house of justice to ascertain whether or not the defendant had made an overdraft on his rights as a citizen and on the rights of defense.

"Witnesses are called to testify in the case so that the jury may take their words for the happenings in question, instead of the words of attorneys who deftly plan to put the law violator out into the open places with honorable men.

"Tom Reap did not see his wife walk out of the door of the little show shop arm in arm with John Halter," the county attorney argued.

"The defendant might argue until doomsday that he shot John Halter while he stood at the side of Mrs. Reap, but four disinterested witnesses have testified that she was not there.

"Even under the burdens placed upon the state, it seems as if the prosecution has overcome that stumbling block against punishment for crime by introducing proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"If the jury could not find the defendant guilty on solid facts, the county attorney's office would not be so unfair as to ask conviction on any other bases."

Jury Finds Tom Reap Guilty of Murder in Second Degree
_____

VERDICT CALLS FOR TEN-YEAR TO LIFE TERM
_____

Jury Deliberated Over Case for Five Hours
_____

Following five hours deliberation, the jury in the trial of Thomas M. Reap, yesterday returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. Reap was charged with the shooting to death of John Halter on Congress street the evening of May 12.

Given the case at eleven o'clock the jurymen returned to the court room at 4. Reap sat unmoved on the prisoner's bench when the verdict was read. Sentence will be imposed on Wednesday, July 26.

Second degree murder calls for a jail term of not less than 10 years to life, according to Arizona statute.

Throughout the trial of four days' duration, nearly fifty witnesses were summoned by defense and prosecution attorneys. Several of these witnesses were eye witnesses of the shooting.

Pleading insanity, the defense counsel representing Reap, argued that the reports heard by the defendant about the infidelity of his wife drove him temporarily insane. They stressed the great love Reap was said to bear for his wife, whom he married in Gallup, New Mexico, when she was in great need of help and protection.

Completing the closing argument, the county attorney took the floor before the jury at 9 o'clock and for 45 minutes reviewed the evidence in the case.

With the argument completed, Judge Samuel L. Pattee briefly instructed the jury. He explained the law, urged against prejudice, declared sympathy should not enter into their deliberations and outlined the possible verdicts from which it was possible to choose.

These were: Not guilty; not guilty by reason of insanity; guilty of first degree murder; guilty of second degree murder; guilty of manslaughter.

Members of the jury in the trial of Reap were:

William T. Robinson, Carl R. Lehman, James R. Soann, Roy Gonzales, Charles M. Leith, John Williams, Erik Wik, Haskell Cohen, Joseph T. Scott, John A. Harris, J. M. Carver, Oswald E. Kellond.