The Last Public Execution in America

by Perry T. Ryan

---

CHAPTER 17

THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL

On July 10, 1936, Stephen A. Burnley and C. Ewbank Tucker, two of Bethea's new Louisville attorneys, mailed a motion to the Clerk of the Daviess Circuit Court, asking the trial judge to grant a new trial. Burnley also mailed a letter with the motion, asking the clerk to acknowledge its receipt. On July 11, the motion was received by Ben S. McCormick, the clerk of the court.

As requested, upon receipt of the motion, the clerk acknowledged its receipt, but Judge Wilson promptly denied the motion. In accordance with Section 273 of the Kentucky Civil Code of Practice, a motion for new trial had to be filed before the end of the court's term, which by its special order, ended on July 4, 1936. The motion was filed seven days too late, so Judge Wilson summarily denied it. The motion set forth several grounds for a new trial and stated as follows:

Daviess County Circuit Court

Commonwealth of Kentucky

vs. Motion and Grounds for a New Trial

Rape

Rainey Bethea

Comes now the defendant by counsel and moves the court to set aside the verdict rendered in the above styled case and grant him a new Trial to wit:

1.That the verdict is against the evidence.

2.That the verdict is flagrantly against the law and evidence.

3.That the defendant was denied his constitutional right of benefit of proper counsel and that even though three [sic four] attorneys were appointed by the court to defend him, not one question was asked of the Jury--the first twelve men being accepted by the Defense, that the defendant was not even put upon the stand to explain his side of the case, that no questions were propounded to any witness by defense counsel and that further said defense counsel never spoke a word to the Jury on behalf of defendant and that while counsel were present in body--they were absent in spirit.

4.That the defendant was denied thereby a fair trial as is guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Kentucky and the United States.

5.That said purported confession was the result of intimidation and coercion on the part of certain officers in whose custody said defendant was placed.

6.That the court erred in properly instructing the Jury on the whole law of the case.

7.That the court erred in his instructions to the Jury.

 /S/ C. Ewbank Tucker

/S/ Stephen A. Burnley

Attorneys for the Defendant