Three San Francisco Homicides
Belle Cora's Revenge -- Act 2: The Trial
Link to Start / Introduction / Table of Contents
Belle Cora’s Revenge
Act 2 -- The Trial
James King of William in the Evening Bulletin:
The entire City is alive to the atrocious slaying of United States Marshal William Richardson last night by the notorious gambler Charles Cora, triggered by events reported in these pages pertaining to that gambler's pretended spouse. It will be difficult to contain the fury of the public. That a sporting man can gun down our most senior federal law enforcement officer on the street should already be enough to jolt us into action. We ask again, as we did days ago, whether the reader would wish their families back in the Atlantic States to even hear that such a thing was possible in California.
But this is not the worst we have to fear. The only thing more damning to our reputation than the slaying of our marshal is the effort of Belle Cora, with her money and connections, to save her paramour from justice. Already, we are well informed, she has retained the famous Colonel Baker for a princely fee. That Baker would so prostitute his talents, reputation and experience is perhaps the most despicable development in this chain of shocking incidents. We understand the right of criminal defendants to be represented by attorneys of their choosing. But Colonel Baker's association with this case, coloring it with his own sterling reputation, is an act against the public interest and security. The good counselor can surely spend his sparkling oratory on some criminals less threatening to the public weal. We hope our readers, and especially his existing business clientele, will communicate these sentiments to him in the bluntest possible terms.
* * *
At Belle Cora's parlor house on Pike Street:
Col. Baker:
I was hoping that you'd understand my situation. My partner is insistent that I quit the case. He'll leave the firm if I do not. His clients won't permit him to remain with me. And with this campaign against me in the Bulletin, I fear my representation will hurt Charlie more than help him. I'm now a symbol of the influence of money on this case, and you must understand that.
Belle:
I only understand that you are running like a coward from the battlefield! How did you get to be a colonel, anyway? By fleeing from the Mexicans!?
Col. Baker:
I appreciate that you are angry, but hear me out. When I agreed to take this case, I failed to understand how much the Bulletin could shape the public’s mood. It’s branded me the tool of wealth corrupting justice. And it’s making you the target of the public's wrath. The only hope for saving Charlie is to strip this noise about corruption from the case and make the jurors focus solely on the facts. Then there's no way he can be convicted. Both men's guns were out when they were found. It’s impossible to say for sure that Charlie drew his gun first and that he didn't act in self-defense. Especially as Richardson was chasing him and had already threatened to assault him. At least one juror won’t convict for murder on these facts. We can't expect a full acquittal given who the victim was, but we can reasonably expect to hang the jury. Then when things cool down, the state will never seek a retrial because they'll lose that, too.
Belle:
I don't know if what you say is true. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm old enough to know I've got a contract. You took my money, and I'm going to hold you to the bargain. If you had told me all of this before you took my gold, then it might have been a little different. But now that everybody knows you took the case, you'll be killing Charlie if you suddenly abandon him. I got you for your reputation. If you flee his case at this point, that bastard King of William will have made you crawl. And everyone will think that you believe that Charlie's guilty and fear losing. So there's no way you can make me take back what I paid you. And if you're fearing for your business, I'll double what I paid you. If you won't run the case yourself, at least you have to sit right next to Charlie in the courtroom with the other lawyers, so that the jury doesn't think that you've abandoned him.
Col. Baker:
I'm trying to convince you that my presence works against him. The public is connecting me with you more than with Charlie. You have to face this, Belle. This case can be tried two different ways, and only one way can save Charlie. You can either let James King of William sell his papers with the message that the case is all about the immorality and corruption in San Francisco, of which you are made the symbol. Or you can do everything to keep the public and the jury focused on the actual encounter between Charlie and the Marshal. If you let the Evening Bulletin try this in the press, Charlie's lost.
Belle:
If what you just said was supposed to make me cut you loose, you must be crazy. I only see we need you more than ever. My only fear is that you'd deliberately screw it up to lose the case.
Col. Baker:
If you were a man, Belle, I'd be compelled to take offense. I can't imagine what you mean.
Belle:
If you were a man you wouldn't let this crazy editor whip you like a schoolboy! And I'm very sure you can imagine what I mean. You might decide it's better for your future if you don't succeed for Charlie. After you've obtained your fee, that is. Don't put up any mock affront! If Charlie taught me anything it's that you can't trust anyone. I'm just making sure you know that I suspect you just might try to sabotage the case. Because there's no way I can let you go at this point.
Col. Baker:
As long as we are being candid, let me tell you there's no legal barrier to my parting from the case at this point by returning your retainer. I haven't even entered an appearance yet. Ask another lawyer if you doubt me.
Belle:
I'm the barrier, Colonel! Not the law! You shook my hand. That was your bond and my trust. You’re betraying me on something more important to me than my life. You'll make an enemy of someone maybe even more determined than that moron of a journalist you seem to fear. Don't underestimate how nasty I can be where Charlie is concerned!
Col. Baker:
Okay, Belle. I'll keep the case. And I won't just sit in court. I'll manage the defense and make the arguments. But on one condition only! That you swear you'll stay at home and never go to court, or even step out on the street during the trial. King of William is determined to make this case entirely about you and how you're using wealth and influence to stifle justice. You must do absolutely nothing to make it worse or to draw attention to yourself in any way that can be mentioned in the papers. Nothing can be allowed to distract attention from the simple facts about the incident. Your name can’t come up anywhere, at any time. Especially in court.
Belle:
I understand. But remember that I'm trusting you won't queer the case yourself, because I'm not sure you won't do it. I'm trusting you to save my Charlie and not to think about yourself and how to best protect your hide. I'll stay out of sight, but I'll be watching very closely.
* * *
James King of William in the Evening Bulletin:
Colonel Baker took a blow in court today. The Colonel has been pressing his main argument that, as both men's guns were out when witnesses approached immediately after Richardson was shot, it was impossible to know which man drew first. This strategy has now been wounded by the prosecution. Two witnesses today both testified that Cora's pistols were still in his hands as he stood over the dead body, but the Marshal's gun was lying near him on the pavement. The prosecutor asked the witnesses whether the victim's gun could have fallen from his pocket as he fell, rather than his hand, such that he never drew at all. Both witnesses agreed that it was possible and that they could not testify that they had ever seen the pistol in the Marshal's hand.
This testimony, which will likely be maintained by further witnesses, is most important as the jury can now fairly hold that only Cora drew his weapon and could not possibly have fired in self defense. We applaud our district attorney for finally convincing us of his good faith, because Belle Cora's influence and money might have poisoned his commitment to the public trust. We'll be interested to see what Colonel Baker does on Monday to respond to this important challenge, which he apparently failed to anticipate.
* * *
James King of William in the Evening Bulletin:
The jury in the Cora murder case heard explosive testimony this afternoon. Sarah Harding, a young woman who was near the killing, rushed to the spot almost immediately after. She testified, just as prior witnesses had done, to seeing Cora with Derringers in both his hands standing over fallen Richardson, and the Marshal's pistol on the ground beside him. She agreed that it might well have fallen from the victim's waistcoat pocket, and testified that she’d not seen the pistol in his hand.
This much was expected, but what followed rocked the courtroom. The prosecutor asked her whether anybody had requested her to falsely testify that she had seen the pistol in the Marshal's hand. With great courage and conviction, she boldly told the jury that Belle Cora called her to her Pike Street mansion this past Sunday, and offered her a large amount of money to so falsely testify. In addition to the tendered bribe, she said Belle Cora threatened her with unnamed consequences should she not cooperate, consequences that the witness feared were violent or fatal. Her detailed and apparently correct description of the luxurious furnishings left little doubt that she had actually visited the mansion.
The cat is now, as the saying goes, out of the bag. We long have insisted that the issue here for San Francisco is not some lawyerly debate about exactly who did what around the instant of the murder, but rather the outrageous fact that a gambler, acting at the instance of a famous prostitute, shot down a U.S. Marshal in the street. Even more, the issue is whether this same prostitute can use her wealth and influence to save her lover from the hanging he deserves. This argument has suddenly matured from mere opinion to unblinkable reality, living proof of the corruption and depravity that we must stamp out in this City. A young woman showed the courage to resist this scandalous assault on justice, and risk the wrath of those who would destroy the social fabric. May we all exhibit like determination. We trust the jury understands their duty now that everything is clear.
* * *
At Belle Cora's Pike Street mansion:
Col. Baker:
There is nothing that you could have done as damaging to Charlie's case. King of William is in jubilation! You've given him the trial he wants. A trial against you, and against corruption in the courts! How could you have done such a destructive thing?!
Belle:
I was frightened when I read how the prosecutor had hurt your strategy. By saying how the gun might have fallen from his pocket. I panicked. I wanted her to say she saw the gun drop from his hand.
Col. Baker:
You didn't trust me to be able to deal with it?
Belle:
I was scared because I feared you might be looking for a way to throw the case.
Col. Baker:
You see where this has left me? The jury can't be sure I wasn't part of it, no matter how much I insist. You've placed me in a most untenable position. I'm completely at a loss how to proceed, or whether I can possibly proceed at all.
Belle:
You can't leave the case! Not now!
Col. Baker:
Normally I could never leave a case at this point in a trial. But after what you've done, I think the judge would let me, if only to protect my reputation. It was bad enough for people to be mad at me for simply representing Charlie. But now there's a question of my conniving in witness tampering. Bribery. Even threats of violence! You say that you were scared that I might throw the case, but you've made it impossible for me to continue!
Belle:
I did wrong, Colonel! I admit it! But you can't abandon Charlie! I'll pay you anything! Anything you ask!
Col. Baker:
I don't see how I can save him anymore, now that you've destroyed my strategy. I can only hurt myself by going on. The trial is now entirely about you, just as the Bulletin has tried to make it! I don't even know how to begin to counter it. And I certainly don't like being betrayed by you, especially after you've been suggesting that I'd ever betray Charlie! You swore to stay away completely, and I relied on that. Or else I would have left the case back then.
Belle:
I’ve got no one else to help us. We’ve got no one else. I'm sorry what I said about your courage. I know you were a hero in the war. We're counting on that courage now. I'm pleading for it, Colonel!
Col. Baker:
I have to think about this overnight. I have never in my life abandoned any client during trial. But I've never faced the pressure I do now. If I can think of any path of hope to save him, I'll continue with the case. But right now I can't think of one.
* * *
From Colonel Baker's final summation to the jury:
“That, in short, is the legal basis of the case you must decide. The judge will tell you that your job is to determine the facts of the encounter and apply them to the law. The sole legal issue is whether you’re convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Charles Cora was the aggressor in the altercation. Because if he was not the aggressor, the killing was in self defense and lawful.
“I submit that it's impossible for anyone to feel assured beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Cora was the aggressor. It's impossible because both men's guns were out, and no witness has been able to testify as to which man drew first. It's impossible because Richardson was pursuing Mr. Cora, and not the other way around. In fact, there is no question Mr. Cora had been deliberately seeking to avoid a meeting when the Marshal discovered him at the Blue Wing Saloon and called him out onto the street. And most importantly, the Marshal had publicly sworn to assault Mr. Cora for some perceived offense when he was heavily in drink, as you have heard from Dr. Mills. Is it not much more likely that Marshal Richardson, perhaps again too much in drink, was the aggressor than that Cora was?
“This should be all I need to say to sober gentlemen who understand their solemn duty to uphold our laws. But I'm compelled to face some issues that, while they should have no place in this courtroom, cannot be avoided because of the publicity surrounding them.
“There are those who wish to make this trial into a vehicle for their own interests and passions. Specifically, there's been an effort to transform this trial from what it should be -- a determination as to whether Mr. Cora did or did not commit a crime -- into a trial of California, and especially of San Francisco. In other words, there's been an effort to put us all on trial, and ask us to convict ourselves of tolerating, and therefore nurturing, corruption and depravity in our morals, our politics, and, in this case in particular, the enforcement of our laws.
“It may seem strange that anyone would ask us to convict ourselves. But there's much precedent for this. Some of you may have read about Savonarola. In an era long before the newspaper, he was a Catholic clergyman and preacher who discovered he could seize the wealthy city-state of Florence in his grasp by exhorting all its people to convict themselves of sin. He knew enough of humankind to understand that self-condemnation can hold a strange but powerful gratification, like confession. A man condemns himself of sin because he seeks redemption and purification. There's a subtle pleasure to be sought in self-conviction that makes a man feel morally superior.
“This Savonarola was enormously successful for a little while, so much that he took control of Florence. But in the end, the people shook off their hysterical delusion, and the preacher was hung up in the public square and his body burned to ashes. You may be forgiven if you don't recall these strange events from history because today, centuries later, the Florence of that glorious era is not recalled as morally debased but as the Athens of its age. What we remember now are Leonardo DaVinci, Botticelli, Machiavelli, Lorenzo De Medici, the foundation of modern banking and commerce, and a great political republic. Those Florentines were not inferior, but rather far superior to others of their time, and have become the pride of all humanity.
“So there's a precedent for those today who, seeking to sell newsprint, call on us, like some phony John the Baptist, to purify ourselves by condemning ourselves and the world we have created. For we, ourselves, have created San Francisco out of nothing by the efforts of our hands and with an enterprising spirit unmatched anywhere on earth. A great metropolis and port against the sunset sea, opening a commerce up with China, sure one day to rival New York City's trade with Europe. The business capital of a brand new sovereign state, bound to reshape our entire nation, has risen from the sand dunes in a matter of five years. Was this the work of moral reprobates? What have we to be ashamed of?
“I will not have California, I will not have San Francisco, so maligned. The work that we have done to build this place has been the marvel of the world. Do moral reprobates rebuild their city time and time again after destructive fires raze it to the ground, new timbers going up while ashes are still smoldering? Can we conceivably have built a commerce that's the envy of the world without those fundamental qualities of personal integrity and trust that underlie all commonwealths?
“But the condemnation of our censors is somewhat more specific. It's said our law courts can't be trusted to enforce our laws. But as I look across this jury, do I see symptoms of corruption? If in some cases in the past, our juries have been conpromised by courthouse hangers-on, this is clearly not the situation here. I only see before me honest citizens intent upon their civic duty. Then there's the argument that you must convict this man because, otherwise, you’d send a message that a gambling man can kill a U.S. Marshal in our streets and get away with it. That to do so would invite much further and more outrageous crime, and that our reputation in the Eastern States depends on it.
“Let's consider all this carefully. Was William Richardson acting as a U.S. Marshal when he chased down the defendant over an entirely personal dispute? If he was not -- and he most certainly was not -- then it's offensive and dishonest to suggest that Marshal Richardson was somehow slain in his capacity as a lawman. And, as to the defendant being a gambler, we are a city of gamblers! The biggest gamble any of us took was to come out here to California in the first place. You had to have a gambler's heart and nerve to challenge land and sea to travel to the shores of the Pacific, a place almost unknown to us, risking all to forge a brand new life by finding gold or building businesses. In such a place, with such astounding sudden wealth, settled by the most ambitious, enterprising breed of men in history, the sporting man has played his role quite well, not least because no dishonest gambler could survive here very long.
“What was Charles Cora's reputation as a gambler? He was here in '49, and in the six years since, he's never been accused of unfair dealing. Could he ever have assembled the small fortune that he did, playing with the richest, shrewdest gentlemen in town -- merchants, lawyers, bankers, even judges -- if the slightest tincture of dishonesty had ever soiled his name? More to the point, was Charles Cora acting as a gambler in the context of this case? Most definitely not! This incident did not take place between a "gambler" and "U.S. Marshal," but between two private men upon an entirely domestic disagreement related to their wives. Let's not be led away from duty by mere words, like "gambler" and "marshal."
“And so, at last, we come to what the argument is really all about. It's all about Belle Cora. Belle Cora, we are told, is bad. Her stature in this City is a mark of shame. She’s the symbol of everything that's wrong here. A man's survival is at stake, so I’ll speak frankly. San Francisco is a city overwhelmingly of younger men, without wives, or of men who left their wives back safe at home to pioneer across the continent. In the few short years this city has evolved from canvas tents to tall brick buildings, wives and families have started to appear in gradually increasing numbers. But this is very new. It's entirely to be expected that Belle Cora's business would not only be well patronized, but that she'd play a social role among our wealthy and elite. Her physical attractions must be honored and acknowledged. They are the gifts of God, and not the Devil. The so-called "moral" standards of the Eastern States cannot apply in this new land, at least not yet. And to pretend that California men can live without a thriving demimonde is patently ridiculous.
“So, no! There's not anything immoral or corrupt or even dangerous about Belle Cora and the role she has assumed in San Francisco. We have nothing to be ashamed of in allowing her to prosper, and I dare not even ask a show of hands of those now sitting in this courtroom who have visited her elegant establishment or have indulged in the parade of beauty there. With no offense intended to those who may hold otherwise, this is a city of bold men, strong drink, large wagers and even larger appetites. It's not a Sunday School.
“The claim is made, in styling herself ‘Belle Cora,’ using the defendant's name and suggesting marital relationship, that she has mocked and even blasphemed our most sacred human institution. Acknowledging that Belle and Charles Cora have not married legally or with the sanction of a church, I ask you what is more important? The mere formality of marriage or the truth of it? If the essence of true marriage has been captured in the classic vow to love and cherish until parted by cold death, then how can the relationship between this man and woman be belittled or condemned?
“And if an absolute of loyalty to one's wedded spouse is an ideal and not a vice, how can we condemn Belle Cora's efforts to protect her man? Why not, instead, admire her? The defendant is a man facing a charge for which he could be put to death. Who else would be expected to do everything to save him if not the woman who believes herself his wife? What wife would not spend every dollar and strain every nerve to save her husband? Her duty to his safety stands far above her duty to society at large, and everybody knows this. If she has done some things, apparently, that may have crossed a legal line, our hearts will tell us that it's understandable. Our laws prevent a wife from being forced to testify against her mate because we long ago accepted that the bonds of love and marriage outweigh even obligations to society. Would Belle Cora stand higher in your estimation if she failed to take all risks to save her husband?
“Yes, I call him ‘husband.’ I call her ‘wife.’ I fear no censor or coarse moral dictator appealing to the smallness in our hearts. Our hearts in California are too big, our purposes too grand, our minds too free to heed those voices that, to resurrect their tarnished fortunes, would call an honest, perfect love between a man and woman sinful or offensive. Our religion, taught us by the Savior of Mankind, is the opposite of this. For Christ still calls on us, as He did when He walked the Earth, not to cast stones at the woman taken in adultery unless one bears no sin himself. He calls us to condemn, and not embrace, the hypocrisy of even modern Pharisees. And Jesus found in fallen Magdalene perhaps his most committed follower, for even the Apostle Peter abandoned Him when the priesthood of that era sought the killing of the Son of God.”