The city of New Orleans is not particularly known for its dedication to political forthrightness and justice. Seldom does an individual dedicated to the honest administration of his duties garner much notoriety in a city known for its historical corruption and decadence. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, an individual of such conviction and dedication rose to prominence and respect within an atmosphere of rampant corruption and lackadaisical administration of justice. J. Ward Gurley epitomized the role of the incorruptible public servant. Gurley became a well-loved and honored member of the Louisiana Bar and rose to prominence in the New Orleans legal community because of his well-respected demeanor and commitment to the proper dispensing of the law. No one believed at the time that anyone wished him harm. What happened to Gurley stunned the legal community to its core and awakened its citizens to the reality that even the most upstanding citizens suffer from the scourge of violence.
Gurley was born in 1850 in New Orleans. Educated in private schools in his early years, the young man graduated from high school and then attended Washington College (now Washington & Lee University) in Virginia, in the late 1860s, where he graduated with honors. Gurley followed closely in his father’s footsteps, also pursuing the noble role of attorney. Gurley attended Louisiana University where he graduated with a law degree in 1872. Immediately after graduation, he entered the practice of law.1
Early in his career, Gurley concentrated in the area of admiralty and bankruptcy cases and even practiced before the United States Supreme Court. As a young attorney, Gurley showed prowess and detail in his presentations before the highest court in the land. Beginning in 1888, Gurley entered public service as a city attorney, a post he held until 1892. Gurley returned to private practice after his tenure with the City of New Orleans and was appointed the position of United States Attorney by President Grover Cleveland in 1896. As a U.S. Attorney, Gurley maintained an impeccable reputation and in 1900, the city fathers requested that he run as city attorney. Gurley rejected the suggestion, stating that he “did not deem it right to go into a political campaign against the Democrats,” as they were the political power of the state at the time.2 Instead, Gurley placed his name on the Democratic ticket for the position of Orleans Parish District Attorney in the election of 1900—a contest he won handily.3
J. Ward Gurley, a well-respected district attorney of Orleans Parish, became a victim of a dissatisfied client from his past (The Times Picayune, July 21, 1903).
As district attorney in and for the Parish of Orleans, Gurley became known as a tough prosecutor who left no stone unturned, yet dealt with the defendants in a respectful and compassionate manner. One of his contemporaries cited, “I recognized in him a man of rare integrity, sterling character, brilliant mind, and sincere in all of his acts….”4 Other members of the Louisiana State Bar heaped praise upon Gurley in characterizing his nature as that of “gentleness,” a quality rarely seen in a prosecutor of the time. This gentleness, however, was never seen as a weakness, merely a trait that most of the assistant prosecutors in his office lacked in dealing with criminal cases.5 While practicing as an attorney in private endeavors, Gurley “was content in the quiet practice of his profession” and never sought the public eye, although through his associations with various social and political clubs throughout the city, Gurley made many public appearances supporting one charitable cause or another.6
While in private practice before his stint as the U.S. Attorney, Gurley and his law partner took on a case that, at the time, seemed routine but later proved troublesome. Client Lewis W. Lyons exhibited some traits of a conspiracy theorist and seemed to be unbalanced, with a tendency to blame everyone else for his own actions.
The difficult case began one night in July of 1895. Lewis Lyons, D.S. Carroll, and another man named Will McGrath drank heavily in Smile Saloon on Baronne Street in New Orleans. At approximately 12:00 AM, Lyons left the two men and took a cab from the saloon to his home in the residential area of Carrollton, just a short distance from downtown New Orleans. Carroll and McGrath sought more drink and wandered into the Little Diamond Saloon at the corner of Burgundy and Customhouse streets. Three hours later, after drinking almost to the point of incoherence, Carroll noticed that his diamond stickpin had gone missing sometime during the night. Carroll immediately called the police and stated that Lyons and McGrath were the only two men with him at the time of the stickpin’s disappearance. The police sought to question McGrath concerning the missing diamond pin, but when detectives went to the McGrath residence, there was no response.
Later the next day, the detectives found Carroll walking away from the Grand Opera House in the company of Lyons. The detectives stopped the two men and asked Lyons if he had been with Carroll when he noticed the diamond pin was missing. Lyons responded that he left prior to any commotion concerning the missing jewelry. Carroll listened to Lyons’s response to the detectives’ query. Carroll then stated to Lyons, “Never mind, I will fix you to-morrow!” and instructed the detectives to arrest Lyons for the theft of the diamond pin. Lyons spent that night in lockup and later sought revenge for what he deemed a harrowing experience.7
At his trial, two weeks after his arrest, Carroll testified that Lyons had nothing to do with the theft of the diamond pin. After hearing Carroll’s testimony, Lyons became livid at the false accusations that forced him to spend the night with “negroes” and “common criminals” at the Orleans Parish Prison. Lyons engaged Gurley as his attorney and filed suit against the two detectives for false arrest and imprisonment, but subsequently lost the case. From that point on, Lyons leveled charges that a conspiracy existed between Gurley, the detectives, and the court that contributed to the failure of his lawsuit. Lyons hounded Gurley and periodically stalked the jurist for many years after his court case failed. He accused the court stenographer of collusion with the court.8 Lyons threatened violence to those involved and even challenged Gurley to a duel.
Macheca Building as it stands today at the foot of Canal Street. Hardly anyone suspects as they pass the building that an infamous homicide occurred there in New Orleans’ early history (courtesy Stephanie Gibson and Gibson Photography).
Although Lyons still held some animosity toward Gurley, his anger lessened, and the confrontations between the two men became few and far between. Attorney D.C. Mellens, Gurley’s law partner for some years, remembered that he and Gurley “thought that in his [Lyons’s] unbalanced state of mind that he might be moved to attack somebody connected with the case.”9 Although Lyons visited Gurley on many occasions at his offices in the New Orleans National Bank Building, Gurley entertained his former client so as to not inflame the situation within Lyons’s mind any further. When Gurley and Mellens moved their offices to the Macheca Building at the foot of Canal Street, Lyons’s visits lessened considerably. Although his animosity seemed to fade towards Gurley, Lyons’s obsession with the case failed to subside and Mellens’s words proved to be prophetic.
On July 20, 1903, at approximately 10:00 AM, Dr. C.C. Buck, whose office was also located in the Macheca Building within earshot of Gurley’s, bumped into a man matching Lyons’s description at the entrance of the building. The man asked Buck if Gurley was in his office to which Buck responded that he should be.10
The man Buck encountered waited for a few minutes and then walked into the entrance of the building, entered the elevator, and exited the lift at the fourth floor opposite Gurley’s office. Lyons walked out of the elevator and proceeded into the offices of the district attorney. When Lyons entered, the office boy, young Robert Robinson, motioned for Lyons to enter the outer office, where a woman waited to seek counsel with Gurley. Lyons asked if the district attorney had arrived at his offices and Robinson responded that he expected Mr. Gurley shortly and seated Lyons in the anteroom adjacent to the main office.11
Another patron, W. L. Shepard, arrived at the same time and took a seat in the anteroom. A few minutes after 10:00 AM, J. Ward Gurley hurried off the elevator into his offices. When he entered the anteroom and saw the people waiting to speak with him, Lyons blurted, “Gurley, I….” and then caught himself before he could say anything more. Lyons caught Gurley’s eye but the attorney said nothing and motioned for a Mrs. Revero to enter his inner office. Mrs. Revero only stayed in the room for a short period of time and then Gurley escorted her to the door of the anteroom. As Mrs. Revero left, Gurley motioned for Lyons to enter his inner office, closing the door behind them.12
Lyons took his seat in front of Gurley’s desk and immediately began rehashing his disappointment at Gurley’s performance in the suit and the perceived “conspiracy” against him. Eyewitnesses, such as the office boy and Mr. Shepard, stated they did not hear any loud protests or arguing emanating from the district attorney’s office. As the patrons sat quietly in the waiting room, a gunshot rang out, quickly followed by another. Shepard ran from the anteroom into the hallway, followed by Robinson, who screamed and yelled at the top of his voice. Two more shots rang out and Lyons cracked open the barrel and reloaded three more chambers of the six-chamber weapon. Another single shot rang out and then—silence.13
George H. Terriberry, another attorney who occupied offices on the same floor as the district attorney, heard the shots and ran to Gurley’s office. He found Lyons dragging the mortally wounded Gurley to the anteroom. According to Terriberry, Gurley’s and Lyons’s eyes met, but the two said nothing to each other. When Lyons saw Dr. V. K. Irion, a dentist with offices across the hall, enter the anteroom, he aimed his revolver at the dentist until the young doctor ducked behind the outer door of the anteroom. Lyons then threw Gurley into the anteroom and retreated into Gurley’s inner office, barring the door. Terriberry made his way into the office and managed to catch Gurley before his head hit the floor. He cradled the dying man in his arms as Gurley whispered, “My God, he’s murdered me. He’s murdered me for nothing!”14 The witnesses who did not flee the anteroom heard the latch to the inner door lock. Terriberry reassured Gurley that he would be fine and that the doctors were close and he would call them right away.15
Dr. Irion moved away from behind the door and saw Terriberry comforting the wounded man. As Dr. Irion ran down the hallway to find the telephone, he heard another gunshot emanate from within Gurley’s inner office. He ducked and hit the floor, thinking Lyons had started firing at those helping Gurley.16
When the shooting started tenants of the other offices rushed into the street. Having heard the shots from where they stood outside the building, private investigator Chris Cain and a bystander Henry Gessell ran to the source of the gunshots. When they entered the anteroom, Terriberry warned them that the man with the gun had locked himself in the inner office. They heard another gunshot and Cain quickly summoned the engineer to unlock the door to get to the assassin. When the engineer turned the key and opened the door, Cain and Gessell, unconcerned with the possibility of being shot, rushed through the doorway, and found Lyons on the floor groaning. In the left side of his head near the temple was an apparent self-inflicted bullet wound. His eye protruded out of the socket.
Gurley, the stalwart defender of truth and gentlemanliness, lay dead on his anteroom floor.
When the call came into the First Precinct Police Station, Captain John O. Boyle, Sergeant Jim Driscoll, and Patrolman M. Rizer hurried to the scene. When the police arrived at the Macheca Building, they confirmed that Gurley had indeed died and then concentrated their efforts on the murderer. The ambulance arrived shortly thereafter and it was determined that Lyons needed to be transported to the hospital for emergency treatment.17
After examining Lyons’s wound, the police determined that “Lyons … meant to send the bullet straight through the cranium at a joint just above the nose.” In order to accomplish his grim task, Lyons needed to grip the weapon with his thumb on the trigger and hold the weapon steady until he fired the fatal shot. Instead, “the unsteady position of the pistol caused the bullet to careen and deflect, so that instead of going into the head, it scraped the bony substance and passed out to the left of the head, just over the temple” causing his eye to bulge from the socket.18
Illustration of the likeness of Lewis Lyons that appeared in the headlines after the murder of J. Ward Gurley (The Times Picayune, November 12, 1903).
Capt. Boyle and Sgt. Driscoll feared that, because of the beloved nature of the victim, someone would attempt to assassinate the suspect. When police placed Lyons on the stretcher to transfer him to the hospital, Capt. Boyle ordered more police to the scene to guard the suspect as he entered the ambulance at the crime scene. This same protection detail removed Lyons from the vehicle once they arrived at the Charity Hospital.19
After he murdered the unarmed J. Ward Gurley in cold blood, authorities endeavored to discover more about Lyons to understand the motive for his crime. At the time of the murder, Lyons was fifty years old with a retreating forehead, blue eyes, and “an aquiline [sic] nose.” People familiar with Lyons referred to him as a “ne’er do well,” alluding to the many jobs he had after the failed suit. This was not always the case, though. Lyons had held some semblance of stability, needed to support his wife and five children, but his obsession proved more important than the needs of his family. Although many may have understood Lyons’s frustration with the system, some hoped that the murderer of such a fine, upstanding New Orleans citizen would succumb to his wounds to save the taxpayers the expense of a trial. Dr. M.V. Richard, in his capacity as coroner, began his examination of the deceased body of his friend and colleague, J. Ward Gurley.
Dr. Richards noted the following observations as to the cause of death and the condition of the body:
Wound #1. Bullet made its entrance at a point eight and a half inches below the right armpit and directly in axillary line; it traveled from right to left and in an upward direction; in its course it perforated the liver and both cavities of the heart. Bullet was extracted at a point (one half) inch to the left and below the left nipple; Wound 2. Bullet entered … one half inch(es) below the right armpit and two inches posteriorly to the axillary line; it made its exit at a point immediately above the right clavicle and two inches to the right of the predian line. Wound #3. the bullet entered the right forearm eight inches below the elbow, shattering the bone; (and) Wound #4. Bullet entered the right forearm, three and one half inches below the elbow (bold added).20
Dr. Richard determined that Gurley died as a result of internal hemorrhaging caused by the first two wounds. After the autopsy, Dr. Richard called the Johnson Mortuary Services to retrieve and then prepare the body for viewing and burial.21
While receiving treatment for his self-inflicted wounds in Ward 10 of the Charity Hospital, Lyons remained very benign when asked to describe the incident that took place on July 20. The suspect did not remember much from the incident that placed him there, nor did he remember wounding himself in an attempt to escape justice. Still reeling from the pain he caused himself, Lyons stated he would provide a complete statement to the police within a few days. But as Lyons received treatment and the media continued to portray him as a sinister, crazed attacker, he failed to provide the statement and continued to maintain no memory of shooting Gurley.22 Handcuffed to his hospital bed, Lyons received visits from members of his estranged family and continued to receive treatment until such time as he would answer for his crime.
On Wednesday, July 22, 1903, Capt. Boyle swore out an affidavit against Lyons for the murder of J. Ward Gurley, charging the suspect with “wilfull and malicious murder” of the sitting district attorney. With such a public murder of a prominent figure, Capt. Boyle realized that he had to move swiftly to secure a charge against the wounded assailant. Finally, on August 3, 1903, two weeks after the murder, doctors deemed Lyons well enough to be housed in the Orleans Parish Prison. Capt. Boyle, who had taken a personal interest in the prosecution of Lyons, made sure that the soon-to-be-charged murderer would stand trial for the demise of J. Ward Gurley and arranged for the prisoner’s transport to the prison. Lyons stated that he preferred the more accommodating atmosphere of the prison than that of the cold and clinical Charity Hospital. Due to the destructive manner of his head wound, Lyons would experience blindness in his left eye for the rest of his life.
When authorities continually attempted to hear Lyons’s rendition of the events that led to Gurley’s murder, the suspect repeated that he would provide a statement when he deemed the time right. Strangely, though, Lyons showed no anxiety or apprehension facing trial for Gurley’s murder.
On August 6, 1903, standing before Judge F.D. Chretien in Division “B” of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Lyons pled “not guilty” to the willful murder of J. Ward Gurley. Because Lyons concerned himself more with his medical treatment than the charges now against him, he had not yet engaged an attorney for his defense. Even though Lyons had not retained counsel at the time of the arraignment, District Attorney Chandler Luzenberg (chosen to succeed Gurley until an election could be held) pushed for a trial date on August 11. Meanwhile, Lyons returned to the Orleans Parish Prison hospital ward where he remained until his trial.23
When the trial date arrived, Lyons had still not engaged counsel and DA Luzenberg requested a limited continuance, but stressed that the defendant needed to hire a defense attorney expeditiously. Attorneys Joseph Generelly and Warren Doyle stepped forward to represent Lyons. With a wealth of trial experience, Generelly and Doyle proved formidable opponents for DA Luzenberg.24
Although eyewitnesses placed Lyons at the scene of the crime and he never actually denied responsibility for the murder of J. Ward Gurley, the attorneys for the defense, Generelly and Doyle, stated that their client was insane at the time of the murder and the defense would be asserting the plea of temporary insanity on Lyons’s behalf. Generelly noted that in conversations with his client, Lyons became very agitated and “fretful,” denoting that he may not have been in his right mind. Observations of the prison officials demonstrated that Lyons exhibited “demented” traits and excessive “cunning.”25 Was the cold-blooded murder of an unarmed man the behavior of a methodical killer or a mentally disturbed and uncontrollable psychopath?
After completing the arduous duty of selecting a jury, Lyons’s trial finally began on Wednesday, November 11, 1903, at 9:30 AM. The prosecution called many witnesses, but those that proved most enlightening gave specific details of the crime, Lyons, and the weapon in an attempt to relieve the jury of any doubt that Lyons, indeed, murdered J. Ward Gurley. Witnesses gave statements and their testimonies differed little from their original renditions. Even under cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses refused to vary on their recollections from relentless bombardment of the defense questions.
District Attorney Luzenberg, appointed after the death of J. Ward Gurley, prosecuted some of the most celebrated cases in New Orleans history (He also defended a few as well.) (The Times Picayune, November 19, 1903).
One interesting witness called by the prosecution added some compelling details to his testimony. Professor Abraham L. Metz, city chemist, testified that when he received the contents of Lyons’s pockets from the police in a sealed evidence envelope, in addition to a 5 dollar bill, some coins, and some newspaper clippings, he found a small envelope containing a white, powdery substance. As the city’s most pronounced chemist, Dr. Metz analyzed the substance and determined it to be “three or four grains of potassium cyanide” which “would be sufficient to produce death” in a grown man.26 In addition to the envelope, Dr. Metz also found that the articles collected as evidence had trace amounts of the poison on them as well. Suspecting he would be cornered in Gurley’s office after murdering the district attorney, Lyons had planned to escape justice one way or the other.
After Dr. Metz concluded his testimony, Delos C. Mellens, Gurley’s former law partner, took the stand and related that he believed Lyons acted very unstable as a result of his failed lawsuit that he and Gurley prosecuted for the defendant. On cross-examination, Warren Doyle, one of Lyons’s attorneys, approached the witness and asked Mellens about some newspaper interviews the latter gave concerning the mental state of his client. Mellens testified that, “He [Mellens] never meant to convey the idea that Lyons was crazy in the meaning of the law, nor that he was an insane person, and he never for one moment thought that he could be interdicted and sent to an insane asylum.”27 Everyone in the courtroom suspected that Doyle intended to register as many instances of insanity upon his client to produce a viable defense towards acquittal, even without a psychiatric examination of the defendant. Mellens meant to say that Lyons acted more like a “crank” than a person certified to be insane either by law or the accepted medical definition of the malady; rather, “he (Lyons) was under great mental excitement at the time.”28 After the conclusion of the testimony of several other fact witnesses, Judge Chretien adjourned the proceedings for the day.
On the seventh day of the trial, November 8, 1903, Lyons fixed his gaze at the floor and expressed inattentiveness to the testimony of the witnesses. But when the defense team called his sister, Chatty Lyons, to the stand, Lyons looked at her with affection and expressed some sense of remorse at the crime he committed. When Lyons’s elderly mother took the stand after his sister, the defendant’s (good) eye filled with tears. During the matriarch’s testimony, Lyons frequently dabbed his eye with a handkerchief to keep the moisture from running down his cheek.
Another defense witness at the time, James Mott, knew Lyons for over twenty-two years and stated that the disposition of the lawsuit where Lyons sued the two policemen and his loss affected the defendant deeply. Before the lawsuit, Lyons “was a pleasant companion, well-read, and usually intelligent, and a genial and sociable man.”29 Mott concluded that the loss of the lawsuit and the events leading to it became an obsession with the defendant and that he, Mott, would avoid meeting Lyons just for that reason because, “he [Mott] knew Lyons was losing his mind.”30 Never did the witness believe that Lyons became truthfully insane because of the circumstances, but rather Mott believed Lyons became “irrational or visionary because he only spoke of one thing.” The witness thought that, eventually, Lyons would forget the whole matter, but when he learned that Gurley died at the hands of the defendant, Mott knew that Lyons’s inability to overcome his own delusions proved deadly.31
Judge Chretien actually cleared the court after the defense witnesses gave their testimony to address a difficulty that may have led the jurist to declare a mistrial. The jury foreman, William Faust, expressed the desire to make a statement before the court. Faust stated that one of the jurors for the case conversationally stated to the rest of the jurors that if the State did not present better evidence, he had already formulated his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Henry Gebbauer, the last juror selected before the beginning of the trial, denied his statement at first, but when confronted by Faust, he finally admitted to the indiscretion. Gebbauer justified his statement when he iterated, “that the remark he had made was while discussing the progress made in the case,” and Gebbauer merely vocalized that if the case continued as well as it had, the jury would reach a verdict before the weekend.32 Gebbauer then apologized to the court for his remark and the bailiffs escorted the jurors out of the courtroom. Judge Chretien adjudged a recess with this development as he and the attorneys discussed the issue of the renegade juror.33
Later that day as the opposing sides prepared for a quick lunch before returning to the courtroom, a small, informal gathering saw the attorneys actually arguing in one of the hallways as to whether Judge Chretien should declare a mistrial based on the juror’s remarks (eventually, Judge Chretien joined the discussion). District Attorney Luzenberg argued that each of the jurors should be interviewed privately to determine whether each one had already formulated an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Judge Chretien interceded into the conversation and stated that, “the juror had not expressed any opinion, but simply said that the State would not make out a stronger case than they had, that he had formed an opinion.” Still, although Judge Chretien deduced that Gebbauer failed to express an opinion and therefore had no influence over the other jurors, he left the decision to the attorneys as to whether they would argue to continue the trial or file a motion for a new trial based upon the information regarding Gebbauer’s statement.34
Defense attorney Doyle believed that Gebbauer held the balance of a fair and impartial trial in his hands. If he voted against the other jurors, Gebbauer, according to Doyle, would only express anger at the ostracism he would receive for making his initial statement. On the other hand, Doyle reasoned, Gebbauer might vote with the lot of the jurors to gain their good graces. Either way, Gebbauer threatened the spirit of the law with his declarations.
Prior to the resumption of the proceedings, the attorneys for both sides met with Judge Chretien in his chambers to debate the issue further. The court stenographer, Sturgess Adams, recorded the conclusions of both sides in an effort to protect the record in the instance of an appeal. After the brief meeting in the judge’s chambers, the jurists made their way to the courtroom to resume the trial of State of Louisiana v. Lewis Lyons.
Once the court came to order, Judge Chretien informed the court of his decision and reasoning concerning Gebbauer’s remarks:
After having listened to the statement made by Mr. Faust and juror Gebbauer, the Court can see nothing in what has taken place which could possibly have prejudiced any member of the jury, and the Court charges the jury that, in considering this case they are not to consider the incident that took place between the jurors, the knowledge of which was brought to the Court by the statement of Mr. Faust, but you are to consider the evidence in the case solely.
After admonishing the jury, defense attorneys Generelly and Doyle took exception to the court’s ruling and hoped that they would be able to convince their client to request a Motion for a New Trial. Of course, the defense could take the issue up on appeal after the conclusion of the trial if a conviction resulted from the proceedings. With this charge in effect, the trial continued.
On the eighth day of the trial, on one of the most interesting days of the proceedings, the defense introduced into evidence the letters and notes Lyons wrote to Gurley. The amount of correspondence displayed covered the entire top of the defense table and attorneys Generelly and Doyle read each one aloud to the jury and the crowded courtroom.
In order to convince the jury that Lyons exhibited some sort of psychosis since losing the lawsuit, the defense called the judge in Lyons’s civil action, T.C.W. Ellis, Orleans Parish Civil District Court, to the witness stand. In addressing Lyons’s accusations of courtroom collusion against the plaintiff, Judge Ellis denounced the wrongs that Lyons envisioned in his letters and his actions as mere figments of the defendant’s imagination. Moreover, Judge Ellis maintained that Gurley conducted himself in the most professional of manners—without any breaches in integrity or ethics—during the trial.35
The defense then called Dr. Y.R. LeMonnier, a well-respected mental health professional, who gave his assessment of Lyons’s condition based upon the actions of the defendant in the five years before Gurley’s murder. Dr. LeMonnier supported the defense assertion that, “Lyons has been positively insane for from three to five years, and this was the result of great mental irritation because of the false charge” and the failure to prevail in his lawsuit against the detectives that perfected his arrest. At this point, no evidence introduced proved whether Lyons was insane at the time he murdered Gurley. Instead of producing any experts of their own, the prosecution only produced medical witnesses that testified to the physical condition of the defendant and the progression of his healing from his self-inflicted wound.
But prosecution attorney Luzenberg did call Dr. J.A. Danna to the witness stand, an attending physician at Charity Hospital where Lyons convalesced after the shooting incident. The prosecution asked the physician one question: “Did Lyons during any of the conversations you held with him when you were attending him speak irrationally at all?” Dr. Danna responded that Lyons never spoke irrationally in his presence. Luzenberg stated he had no further questions for the witness. On cross-examination, Dr. Danna testified that being the attending physician he merely concerned himself with the physical well-being and healing of the patient. Several oculists (eye doctors) testified as to the nature of Lyons’s wound, but failed to provide any exculpatory evidence determining whether the defendant could qualify as sane or insane.
After the examination of Dr. Danna, DA Luzenberg realized that in order to defeat the affirmative defense of temporary insanity forwarded by attorneys Generelly and Doyle, he needed an expert to dispel the defense theory. DA Luzenberg found that expert in Dr. A.G. Maylie, visiting professor of diseases of the mind at Touro Infirmary Hospital. Dr. Maylie held a well-established pedigree having practiced medicine for more than twelve years and studied mental illness as a specialty. DA Luzenberg requested that Dr. Maylie conduct a detailed examination of the defendant and then provide his impressions of the defendant to the prosecution.
Called to testify on the ninth day of the trial, Dr. Maylie asserted that he thoroughly examined the defendant physically; reviewed his family history, both with Lyons and other members of his family, including, but not limited to, his brother, sister, and mother; and asked Lyons questions about his religious views and other opinions. Dr. Maylie stated that Lyons’s disclosures appeared forthright, with the exception of one question that Dr. Maylie asked but Lyons would not answer: “I asked him whether Gurley shot at him, or he at Gurley, first, but he would not answer me.”36
Dr. Maylie wanted to broach the subject of Lyons’s arrest and the lawsuit at first, but not until the second examination did Dr. Maylie question the defendant regarding the incident. Lyons believed that Gurley should have either offered to pay Lyons the money he expended for the prosecution at the conclusion of the lawsuit or given him some suggestions as to an employment opportunity where Lyons could have recouped the losses he suffered during the arrest and lawsuit. Dr. Maylie then asked the defendant why he had not sued Gurley. Lyons stated that he believed, because of Gurley’s reputation and connections within the city government, he could not find another attorney to pursue the case against Gurley. Lyons firmly believed that he had the right to take the law into his own hands, given the circumstances.
Dr. Maylie concluded his direct testimony in saying that he considered Lewis Lyons to be completely sane, and “he was sane on the 20th of July when he killed Mr. Gurley; that he knew the difference between right and wrong [and most importantly]… Suicide is not conclusive evidence of insanity….” On cross-examination, the defense called Dr. Maylie’s credentials into question even though the physician had vast experience testifying in criminal trials as an expert witness. In qualifying his credentials, Dr. Maylie stated that he spoke with Dr. M.V. Richard, the coroner, and the two readily agreed that Lyons expressed no tendencies toward insanity, temporary or otherwise, and just because he wrote several ranting letters to Gurley, that did not suffice to uphold a finding of insanity. After cross-examination, the court excused Dr. Maylie and adjourned for the day after all witnesses had testified.37
The following day, November 19, 1903, before closing arguments began in the case of State of Louisiana v. Lewis W. Lyons, the court recalled Dr. Maylie who repeated his expert assertions that Lyons had never been insane nor was he insane at the time of the Gurley murder. After hearing several other witnesses who witnessed the aftermath of the shooting and not the shooting itself, Judge Chretien prepared the court for closing arguments.
The ADA Samuel Montgomery stepped to the podium to pre-sent the closing argument for the prosecution. ADA Montgomery merely emphasized that Lyons, beyond a reasonable doubt, proved sane and murdered J. Ward Gurley through premeditated means and with malice aforethought. Warren Doyle, arguing for the defense, stated that Mr. Lyons’s rantings, writings, and his lack of remorse during the early part of the trial demonstrated the defendant’s lack of understanding between right and wrong; therefore, no one, not even the most highly trained mental health experts, could testify as to what went through Lyons’s mind as he both planned and executed the murder of Gurley. Doyle alleged that Lyons had no felonious intent with committing the murder. Several documents offered into evidence by the defense on the last day of trial attested to the insanity of the defendant, but the prosecution succinctly proffered witnesses that discounted the chronicles. The defense concluded closing arguments and then rested.38
Judge Chretien charged the jury:
Every man is presumed sane and possesses a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crime. Therefore, while the State in making its case must establish the guilt in making its case of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, yet, where insanity is set up as a defense for a homicide, it must be established by the defendant to the satisfaction of the jury…. If the evidence satisfies you that the prisoner became insane after committing the act, but does not satisfy you that he was insane at the time of the commission, such insanity will not shield him from legal responsibility.39
Judge Chretien concluded to the talismen that if they believed, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused committed the murder with malice aforethought and the knowledge of right and wrong, then the assertion of the defendant’s sanity should not be a question in their deliberations.40 In one of his final assertions, Judge Chretien stated that if the jury found Lyons guilty of Gurley’s murder, the sentence would automatically be death; the jury could also find Lyons guilty without capital punishment; guilty of manslaughter at which time the defendant could be sentenced to twenty years at hard labor; not guilty; or not guilty by reason of insanity. Judge Chretien excused the jury that afternoon at approximately 2:10 PM, and recessed the proceedings for a late lunch.41
After a short lunch, when Judge Chretien, accompanied by Dr. LeMonnier, returned to the court, a bailiff informed the two men that the jury had reached a verdict—Lewis W. Lyons was guilty. Defense attorneys asked for a poll of the jury’s votes and each of them stated that they voted for conviction. In a trial that lasted less than two weeks, the jury viewed the evidence, heard the testimony, listened to the arguments of counsel and reached a unanimous decision that Lewis W. Lyons murdered J. Ward Gurley and did not suffer from any homicidal psychosis. Judge Chretien sentenced the defendant to death by hanging. As Lyons left the courtroom, his head hung low, but still he showed no emotion over the verdict or the sentence.42
As he awaited his execution, Lyons sought medical treatment for the eye he injured after Gurley’s murder. With his treatment, Lyons appeared more calm about the jury’s decision and put his faith in his attorneys, Generelly and Doyle. The two jurists filed a motion with Judge Chretien’s court to provide a new trial in their client’s case. Generelly and Doyle both affirmed that Lyons, if not insane before, exhibited some form of insanity now and it became incumbent upon the court to order a new trial. In February of 1904, after careful consideration, Judge Chretien denied over fifty bills of exception, but granted the defense motion filed for the establishment of a commission de lunatic inquirendo. A month later, Judge Chretien rescinded his original order, but in an emergency appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court, defense attorneys Generelly and Doyle received a favorable ruling from that august body to assemble the finest minds in mental health to evaluate the convicted murderer. In the interests of justice, Judge Chretien eventually concurred with the emergency ruling and believed that Lyons should not be executed if found to be not of his right mind.
On May 13, 1904, the commission submitted its completed report to Judge Chretien where the learned gentlemen adjudicated:
After a careful examination of the condition of the prisoner, including visits of the members, individually, to the Parish Prison for the purposes of observation…. While he (Lyons) appears and acts as one deeply affected by a sense of great wrong suffered, and profoundly moved by a feeling of strong resentment, Lewis W. Lyons is not insane, and is in a mental condition of full responsibility.43
On May 18, Judge Chretien reaffirmed the decision reached by the jury and sentenced Lewis W. Lyons, saying, “Considering the verdict of the Jury and the law bearing on the case, I now sentence you to be hanged at such time as the Governor may fix in his warrant, until you are dead, and may God have mercy on your soul.”44
The defense still held one last card to play. Defense attorneys Generelly and Doyle filed a suspensive appeal with the Louisiana Supreme Court to save their client’s life. The appeal contained more than thirty assignments of error for the court to consider. However, in rendering their opinion, the Supreme Court denied the appeal and maintained the lower court’s ruling that Lyons was neither insane, nor did the trial court commit any reversible errors. The execution would proceed as adjudicated. The defense then filed motions with the Supreme Court for Mandamus to compel the trial judge, Judge Chretien, to grant a suspensive appeal on behalf of their client, but the Supreme Court refused. Subsequently, Judge Chretien refused to entertain any further motions from the defense.45
Governor Newton C. Blanchard signed Lyons’s death warrant affixing his execution for March 24, 1905. On March 23, the sheriff’s deputies who worked at the Orleans Parish Prison moved Lyons to the death row cells where he would receive his last meal, make any last requests, and be prepared for the final moment. Lyons made a final request to the captain of the guard that he have no more visitors from the press, but would appreciate any visits from family members. The captain promised he would try his best to grant Lyons’s wish. Later that day, the brother and sister of the condemned man visited with him for more than three hours. Sheriff of Orleans Parish, Matt Long, refused requests from various entities to sell tickets to the execution. Sheriff Long sought to maintain some sense of dignity for the condemned man, while at the same time exhibiting professionalism in exercising his sworn duties against morbid curiosity seekers.
The night before his execution, although he never proclaimed to be that religious, Lyons received communion through the prison chaplain, the Rev. J.O. Miller, of the Trinity Church in New Orleans. Lyons’s sister, Katty, as well Lyons’s estranged wife visited the condemned man in his cell. Mrs. Lyons requested of Sheriff Long that she be permitted to kiss her husband goodbye; Sheriff Long granted the request and the relatives left the prison. When asked what he wanted for his last meal, Lyons stated he was not hungry, but did partake of a shot of whiskey offered to him by Sheriff Long. Lyons appeared restless the night before his execution, tossing and turning into the wee hours of the morning.
Lyons sat up in his bunk at 4:30 AM, and proceeded to dress in the clothes purchased for the execution. One of the deputies staring into Lyons’s cell heard the condemned man whisper to him, “I know, boys, it’s a hard road to go, but I’ll go it without faltering.” After Lyons dressed, Sheriff Long asked Lyons what he wanted for breakfast. The condemned man stated that he wanted a warm glass of milk. The milk came from the kitchen and Lyons quickly downed it. Sheriff Long also had a small glass of whiskey brought to Lyons; he downed that with the same gusto as the milk. Lyons then fell into a deep sleep at approximately 8:00 AM.46
Around 10:00 AM, sheriff’s deputies woke Lyons. At 11:00 AM, the Reverend Miller returned to the prison to grant the prisoner absolution and then provide a spiritual escort for the condemned man to the scaffold in the yard of the prison. When the two men arose from praying, Lyons made his way to his cell door which was promptly unlocked by one of the deputies. Another inmate waiting for his execution, Sam Sparo, an Italian, approached Lyons and quietly whispered to the prisoner in broken English, “Bea strong!” Lyons acknowledged the other condemned man’s words of encouragement and walked past Sparo to meet the executioner.47
Accompanied by Sheriff Long, the Reverend Miller, and three other deputies, Lyons made his way through the long corridors and steps that led into the prison yard where the gallows and the hooded executioner awaited. Lyons walked through the yard and mounted the seventeen steps to the hangman’s noose. The hooded executioner walked Lyons to the trap door beneath the noose, reached into one of the pockets of his hooded motif and brought out three small lengths of rope. The executioner tied Lyons’s hands behind his back and his legs together at the ankles. Lyons showed no fear or emotion as Sheriff Long read the death warrant aloud. Approximately fifteen newsmen waited in the courtyard below the gallows to record the event for their respective papers. Sheriff Long asked Lyons if he had any last requests and the condemned man responded, “Nothing at all.”
The Reverend Miller stood next to Lyons with a reassuring hand on his shoulder as the executioner placed a black hood over the prisoner’s head. Next, the hangman fixed the noose around Lyons’s neck to insure that death came instantaneously. (The knot under the left ear insures that the neck vertebrae will break under the weight of the falling body.) The hangman fixed the hood and stepped back toward the rear of the scaffold. Lyons and the Reverend Miller prayed aloud and then as the last “Amen” could be heard from under Lyons’ hood,
The steel in the descent flashed in the afternoon sun. The cord was parted, the trap doors flew apart and fell with a smothered clang against the trusses of the straw, and Lyons tumbled with sudden velocity through space. His body was stayed in its flight with a quick and awful jerk, the neck seemed to stretch to an unnatural length, and the head, with the noose’s knot sinking deeply into the flesh of the left jaw, inclined toward the right shoulder with the chin slightly raised.48
At 12:14 PM, Dr. Joseph O’Hara, the Orleans Parish Coroner, pronounced Lyons dead. Lyons’s body hung for at least twenty minutes before sheriff’s deputies cut it down. After an autopsy, Dr. O’Hara determined that Lyons’s neck had not broken, but the spinal cord severed when the body reached the end of the drop. Coroner attendants placed the corpse into a wooden coffin with a plaque on the lid that read, “At Rest.” Lyons had picked out a plot at an undisclosed location the week before his execution and the Reverend Miller recited the funeral service at the graveside.49
The Lewis Lyons case proved to be an interesting study regarding the line between perceived insanity and just virulent frustration with the judicial system. Lyons convinced himself that he lost his civil suit due to a perceived, widespread conspiracy within the system and blamed Gurley for functioning as one of the main instruments of that conspiracy. Gurley’s reputation demonstrated a man of integrity who lost Lyons’s case because his client had no cause of action from the onset. And yet, Lyons committed the most heinous act against someone because he refused to take responsibility for his own actions. Taking into consideration the reasons Lyons gave for Gurley’s murder and understanding the machinations, a rational man would not have carried his frustration to its ultimate, tragic end.