Anatomy of a Murder, the real story
The history of temporary insanity plea in the State of Michigan.
Case State of Michigan vs Peterson 1952
Place 25th Circuit court Marquette Michigan
Date Sept. 1952
Judge Charles O. Arch, Circuit court judge of Hillsdale MI. Sitting in for Judge Glen W
Jackson who was ill.
Prosecutor Edmund J Thomas, prosecutor Marquette County, Irving Beattie Asst Attorney General
State of Michigan.
Defense John D. Voelker
Charge 1st degree murder
Details In the summer of 1952, Charlotte Peterson had gone to the Lumberjack Tavern while
her husband Lt. Coleman Peterson USA napped the evening of the event. Mrs. Coleman
had accepted a ride back to her residence from bartender and former police officer
Maurice (Mike) Chenowith. Mrs. Peterson said that Chenowith had instead taken her
down a dead end trail and there committed rape. He then took her home dropped her off
and returned to the Lumberjack Tavern.
Upon returning home the battered Mrs. Peterson was met by her husband and told him
what had happened. Lt. Peterson knew the former police officer Chenowith kept
handguns behind the bar. Because of this the Lt. took a handgun of his own with him,
stating it was his intent to hold the man and turn him over to police.
Somewhere between the Peterson residence and the Lumberjack Tavern a change
occurred in Lt. Peterson. When Peterson walked through he door he immediately opened
fire emptying his weapon on Chenowith who died on the floor behind the bar.
He then turned and walked back out the door returning home. Once he was back home he
contacted authority's saying, “I think I just killed a man”.
These were the details when John D. Voelker was contacted and ask to defend Lt. Peterson. For anyone who ever watched the movie Anatomy of a Murder, it is easy to see the close resemblance between these events and the events of that movie. But what makes Anatomy so important is that it was the first time a plea of temporary insanity was used to acquit an individual. It set a legal precedent in the State of Michigan and the US.
Pleas of insanity had long been an acceptable and excusable reason for murder. However, the idea of a temporary state of insanity was hard to prove and had never successfully been used. Most people found it hard to conceive of the idea that a normal healthy individual could suddenly go insane, then just as suddenly return to a normal state.
What Voelker did know was that none of the acceptable excuses would apply to this particular case. It was not a justified homicide, it was not self defense or an accident. And he could in no way say Peterson did not do it, since there were a number of witnesses to the shooting. What the resourceful former prosecutor and University of Michigan graduate needed was a new kind of defense to have any chance of winning the case.
After talking with Lt. Peterson, Voelker saw a defense starting to form. In order to conceal his defense from the prosecution as long as he could, he tactfully had the defendant enter a plea of no contest at his arraignment. (no contest, neither guilty or not guilty)
The studious attorney then went into the old brown books seeking some precedent to connect his defense plan too. He found what he needed in an old Michigan case dealing with what it called, irresistible impulse. The Michigan Supreme Court had accepted irresistible impulse, stating that a person in the grip of an irresistible impulse could not be held responsible for their actions.
The question raised by the Peterson case is a simple one. Because of the circumstances (the rape of his wife) and the testimony of the US Army psychiatrist who had examined Lt. Peterson, the irresistible impulse defense succeeded in an acquittal. But could a person use this defense who was not truly in the grip of an irresistible impulse at the time he committed a crime?. Could someone use the defense to excuse a cold blooded murder?
As Jimmy Stewart said in the movie, “you never know about jury's”. The result of any trial rest in the hands of that honorable group.
