Lindbergh vs.

Hauptman
February 1935
Justice Thomas Whitaker Trenchard

FACTS:

On March 1, 1932, Charles Lindbergh Jr., the 20-month-old son of the

famous aviator, was kidnapped, and although a ransom of $50,000 was paid,
the child was never returned. His body was discovered in May just a few
miles from his home. Tracking the circulation of the bills used in the ransom
payment, authorities were led to Bruno Hauptmann, who was found with
over $14,000 of the money in his garage. While Hauptmann claimed that the
money belonged to a friend, key testimony from handwriting analysts
matched his writing to that on the ransom notes. Additional forensic research
connected the wood in Hauptmann’s attic to the wood used in the make-shift
ladder that the kidnappers built to reach the child’s bedroom window.

Then, on May 12, 1932, 72 days after the kidnapping, the decomposed
body of a baby was found in the woods near the Lindbergh house. The child
had been dead, probably due to a fractured skull, since the night of the
kidnapping. Two days later Charles Lindbergh identified his son's body by
examining its teeth. The kidnapping investigation was now a murder
investigation.

Charles testified that he recognized Hauptmann's voice from the night

that he and Condon had delivered the ransom money to the cemetery.

When Hauptmann took the stand he denied all involvement with the
crimes. He went on to say that he had been beaten by the police and forced
to alter the way he wrote so that his handwriting matched that found in the
ransom note.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hauptman is guilty for kidnapping.

RULING:

The Court found Hauptmann guilty of murder in the first degree. He

was sentenced to death. At 8:44 p.m. on April 3, 1936, Bruno Richard
Hauptmann was put to death in the electric chair. Right up to that moment
doubts about Hauptmann's guilt existed.

Following Hauptmann's death, some reporters and independent

investigators came up with numerous questions regarding the way the
investigation was run and the fairness of the trial. Questions were raised
concerning issues ranging from witness tampering to the planting of
 evidence. Twice during the 1980's, Anna Hauptmann sued the state of
New Jersey for the unjust execution of her husband. Both times the suits
were dismissed.