Volume 15 , Issue 36

Exhaust Venire In Reuter Case (9/23/1913)

This is another article found in The Tulsa Daily World, 23 September 1913, concerning the Reuter murder case. Eleven prospective jurors to try Mrs. Reuter were selected the day before. Crowds filled the courtroom. The jury would be secured either late that day or the next day, Wednesday.

We find that Pat Malloy was county attorney of Tulsa county, who was leading the prosecution, and assisted by his deputies, Ed Crossland and Nat Ligon, and County Attorney W. J. Donohue of Washington county. The Defense attorneys were Moman Pruiett and J. B. Charlton.

We also learn that Joe Baker and Guy Mackenzie, serving life sentences in the state penitentiary for the murder of Charles T. Reuter, would both testify in the trial of Mrs. Laura Reuter, that was on at Bartlesville. Baker would be used by the State and Mackenzie by the Defense.

Bartlesville, OK, Sept. 22 (1913) -- Mrs. Laura M. Reuter, of Tulsa, was on trial int he district court for the part she was alleged to had played in the conspiracy that resulted int he murder of Charles T. Reuter, her husband, in May, 1912.

The case started the morning of September 22, 1913, before Judge Henry Hudson. The same curious crowds of men and women that thronged the Tulsa court house when Guy Mackenzie and Joe Baker were tried and convicted of the murder, were in attendance.

The added fact that Mrs. Reuter was the defendant on trial and would tell for the first time the story of her married life with the slain attorney and what she knew of the killing, was making the sensation seeking public even more eager than before to attend the trial.

A venire of 100 men, drawn from all parts of the county, was exhausted on that Monday and at 6 o'clock, a recess was taken until 9 o'clock Tuesday morning. The court issued a call for a special venire of thirty, and ordered a similar number drawn from the jury box. As the cue then stood, there were eleven men in the jury box, while the state and defense had each exercised but one of the nine preemptory challenges allowed them.

It was generally conceded that at bird venire would have to be ordered by Tuesday afternoon, but owing to the fact that night sessions of the court were to be held, it was probable that the jury would be completed either late Tuesday or early Wednesday. Nearly every talesman examined on Monday, September 22, 1913, had read of the Reuter case in the newspapers.

Pruiett Chews Tobacco

Mrs. Reuter sat alongside of Ben Thompson of Sapulpa,one of her attorneys. Directly in front of them was J. R. Charlton of Bartlesville, and over to one side, like a lone sentinel, in black-haired, vitrolle, Moman Pruiett of Oklahoma City with a big chew of tobacco in his mouth. Mrs. Reuter had again donned the somber gowns that she wore at her preliminary hearing in Tulsa. She wore a black velvet hat, covered with a black veil, and a black tailored skirt and coat. She removed her coat once that morning, but later threw it around her shoulders and shivered as though she were cold. Shortly after the examination of jurors began she started crying, but no aloud. She wiped some tears from her eyes and the rest of the morning she managed to maintain her self-composure. She eyed every action of the attorneys and court with hawk-like eyes that at times looked almost cynical. Underneath her coat of black was a white silk shirtwaist with purple stripes. She attentively studied the face of each prospective talesman.

One Woman Spectator

When recess was taken at noon the court room was filled and several were standing up. But one woman spectator was present, and she occupied a front row seat. None of the witnesses showed up on that Monday, 22 September 1913, but a large crowd of them were expected tomorrow morning. They had been subpoenaed to appear in court on different days, in order to save as much of the heavy expense as possible.

Of the panel of 100 that had been subpoenaed by the court only 85 responded that morning. The judge put the customary questions to them as a body, but only two men claimed exemption. One was a minister of the gospel and the other a farmer. The latter said his home was burned down two weeks ago, his family was in Kansas and there was no one but himself to look after his chattels on the farms. He was given until 9 o'clock Tuesday morning to hire someone as caretaker.

One juror pleaded that he was "Kinda hard of hearing sometimes." "Can't you hear very well?" inquired the judge in a low voice. The man, standing twenty feet away, answered him instantly. "Just sometimes." he said. He was no excused.   |  View or Add Comments (0 Comments)   |   Receive updates ( subscribers)  |   Unsubscribe

---