The following list is a partial list of the State's Rebuttal Witnesses that were heard after the Defense produce it's witnesses in the September, 1911 Murder trial transferred to Woodward, Woodward County, Oklahoma, with N. L. Miller as defendant in the case.
The State's Rebuttal Witnesses --
(Click on name to view testimony of each of the Defense's witnesses.)
George W. Oakes -- Mr. Tincher called Mr. Oakes back to the stand on rebuttal questioning concerning the morning of 8 November 1910, election day, to see if Oakes remembered anything wrong with his daughter's face or any bruises or marks on it.
Mr. Swindall cross examined Mr. Oakes asking him, "Did you pay very close attention to your daughter when she went downtown."
Mr. Oakes reply was that he didn't see her when she went downtown the morning of 8 November 1910. he mentioned that he only saw her at bedtime.
When asked if he had looked at her face to see whether there was any bruises or not... Mr. Oakes replied, "The same as I would any member of my family."
At one point in the testimony Mr. Swindall (defense attorney) asked Mr. Oakes, "Didn't Judge Wilson ask you when you were on the witness stand if you didn't testify at the coroner's inquest that Mabel Oakes was taking treatment for her trouble and you said 'No sir.'"
Carrie Howard Oakes - Mrs. Oakes testified in rebuttal that the morning her daughter left the home the day after the election around 10:00 o'clock that she had faced her daughter across the breakfast table and there had not been any bruises or marks upon her face. Mrs. Oakes said, "There was no bruises there I know that." Mrs. Oakes also testified that the day before (election day) Mabel was with her all day that day.
Judge I. B. Lawhon - Judge Lawhon (74 years of age) testified on rebuttal that the last time he saw Mabel Oakes before he saw her dead was the day before her death on election day, on the south side of the sidewalk close to Mr. Miller's office. Judge Lawhon testified that he wasn't looking for any bruises and he only saw that place on her face when she was dead but he didn't notice it on her the day before and never before. He was in the habit of passing Miller's office and testified the other day that he used to see her from three to six times a day. He didn't pay any more attention than ordinary.
Charles A. Wagner - Mr. Wagner testified that he now lived in Waynoka and he was acquainted with Miller and had seen Ms. Oakes a good bit because she used to go by his home everyday. Now I suppose Mr. Wagner lived in Alva during the time of the murder.
Mr. Wagner also testified that he had gone to Miller's office 7th day of November 1910, between the hour of twelve and one o'clock. Mr. Wagner spoke with Ms. Oakes as he walked into the office and asked her where Mr. Miller was. Mr. Wagner testified that Ms. Oakes raised her face up and looked like she had been crying. Ms. Oakes mentioned to him that Mr. Miller was in the rear room. The business that he came to Miller's office was in regard to some roller skates. Mr. Wagner walked on back through the door and met Miller coming in through the back door.
Dr. Saffold - Saffold takes the stand on rebuttal testimony. Saffold testified that he had received a phone call from Miller on 9 November 1910 about the time the Rock Island train had come to town.
Saffold testified, "He called me and said 'This is N. L. Miller, and I want you to come immediately' or words to that effect." Saffold told Miller that he was sick and couldn't come.
Miller says, "It is very important and you must come" and Saffold replied that he was sick and couldn't come and Miller repeated that it was about that girl, and He wanted Saffold to come immediately, or words to that effect, and Saffold answered the same.
Saffold arrived at the time of the call (about two-thirty) by what time his nurse told him that the Rock Island train came in to town -- .Saffold based his judgment as to when this occurred on what a nurse told him in regard to the arrival of the Rock Island train.
Mr. Wilson then moved that the testimony of Dr. Saffold be excluded from the jury and withdrawn from the jury, for the reason that it was based wholly upon hearsay testimony.
The Court overruled. The State rested its case and the Defendant rested its case. The Court was adjourned until 2:30p.m.
Counsels' Arguments... After the Court came back at 2:30p.m. the Defense and State Counsel gave their arguments from 2:30p.m. to 6p.m. after another adjournment until 8:00 p.m. and the court continued until a late hour and adjourned until 9:00 a.m. the next morning.
It was during the next morning arguments that Pruiett (prosecutor for the State) made the following statement: "Gentlemen of the jury once in a hundred million times would such an instrument be used in a man's own family. Did he use it in his own family? I say if he did, why didn't he put his wife on the stand."
After the noon adjournment and back in the court room, Mr. Swindall argued, "Owing to the fact that the Court didn't permit counsel for the defendant to save certain exceptions to the argument of counsel during the progress of the argument, and saw fit to insult counsel every time they saw fit to protect the rights of the defendant by threatening to send us to jail, in the presence of the jury, we at this time desire to save an exception to the remarks made by counsel Moman Pruiett in his closing argument to the jury in which he impersonated the jury Harry McGriff, Henry C. Thompson, Mr. Phillips, and George B. Welty, by calling their names during the course of his argument to the jury and to which impersonation the attorney for the defendant objected at the time and was by the Court overruled and exception allowed. And also counsel for the defendant objected to the state in its closing argument to the jury making the statement that "Where is Snoddy? Where is he? Why is he not here. They claim that blackhand letters were given to him by Miller. Snoddy was counsel in the case, Wilson was counsel in the case, he was here."
"And the defendants counsel also objected to the argument of counsel referring to the fact that Snoddy wasn't present, and attempted to offer an explanation that the Snoddy referred to as being with the defendant N. L. Miller, was not E. W. Snoddy who was of counsel in the case, but was a different person, to-wit, J. C. Snoddy, and that the Court thereupon in the presence of the jury stated to counsel for the defendant that if they didn't quit interrupting the argument and cross-firing and talking back and forth he would send them to jail, or words in substance to that effect."
To that statement the Court replied, "I made no such statements. I did not say that I would send you to jail."
Counsel's arguments with the Court
© . Linda Mcgill Wagner - began © 1999 Contact Me