DEMONSTRATION OF THE KILLING, SEPTEMBER 27, 1923

(as reprinted in the New York Daily News on September 28, 1923)

Holding Ward's gun, the black automatic of .38 caliber, in his left hand--the defendant is
left-handed--Sherman faced Special Deputy Thomas J. O'Neill, who assumed the role of Peters. In
O'Neill's right hand was the old-fashioned revolver of .32 caliber, which Ward contends was used by
Peters.
With one foot on the rung of his chair (Ward said Peters had one foot on the running board of
his car and the other on the ground when he shot him) O'Neill raised the hand, grasping the revolver,
and leveled it at Sherman.
The Attorney General's right hand shot up and seized O'Neill's right wrist (as Ward said he did
with Peters). There was a click of the hammer as O'Neill pulled the trigger of his weapon, the muzzle
of which had been thrown toward the ceiling by Sherman's action.
The Attorney General whipped the automatic downward and into line of O'Neill's heart. But he
did not pull the trigger. Prosecutor and assistant stood motionless. Then Sherman slowly turned his
head to the jury in a silence of deep significance.
For if he had fired a shot in this attitude the bullet would have had to penetrate his right
forearm before entering the body of O'Neill.
Sherman twisted to one side and then to another, as Ward said he struggled with Peters. But
no matter which way he swayed or aimed the automatic, his own arm was interposed between the
grim muzzle of the gun and the heart of O'Neill.
"Men," exclaimed Sherman to the jurors, "Ward must have lied. You have seen with your own
eyes the impossibility of his story. How could he have shot Peters that way? His right arm holding the
hand of peters would always have been in front of his gun!"

EXCERPTS FROM SHERMAN'S SUMMATION

If this is the gun that Cody gave him, if this is not Peters's, if it is a plant, isn't he as guilty as
they make them? He says, 'After I killed this man I drove a mile and turned around and decided to pick
up Peters's gun.' He said he thought if he had left it there the Coroner would decide that Peters had
killed himself. Isn't that pitiable?
We have a right to believe that Ward lied and that the gun is a plant. But I'm going to clinch it
for you. Cody, you know, testified that it looks exactly like the one he gave Ward.
If Walter Ward still had the gun that Cody gave him, it would be here in court and it would
have been shown to Cody when he was on the stand. If the State was wrong, that gun would have been
shown the Chief and he would have been asked: 'Chief Cody, isn't this the gun that you gave Walter
Ward?'

[Mills and Campbell object, asking to have the statement stricken from the record]

Why, if the State charged you with planting this gun, with giving to the authorities your own
gun, what would you do if you still had that gun? You would say, 'Why, that is ridiculous. I still have the
gun that Cody gave me. Here it is.'
I do not think you would hesitate in coming to the conclusion that Walter Ward has lied for a
reason, the reason being that he is guilt of murder in the first degree because he killed an unarmed
man ten or twelve years younger than he is, smaller than he is and lighter than he is.

[Sherman reads Cunningham's affidavit implicating Ward as a blackmailer]

Ward didn't swear out a warrant for the arrest of the blackmailers. Why? His lawyers brought
him in with a statement that they had come to make complaint against a gang of blackmailers. But
they wouldn't wear out a warrant for their arrest.
They didn't do that because those blackmailers were Ward's friends--he was their pal.
Ward's father made an investigation of it himself. Is it because he found that his son was
blackmailing him that he has run away from here so he couldn't be called upon to testify?
They fooled the authorities for a few days. But is it to be wondered at that the authorities woke
up and decided that these people were trimming and lying--lying right to the last minute but not
daring to produce witnesses who will lie on this stand before you and subject themselves to
cross-examination?

[Sherman explains Cunningham could not be called as a witness, that the jury should
not sympathize with Ward because he is vilifying Peters, and admitted that they cannot
produce a motive for the killing. Sherman presents his own theory]

Suppose Ross and Rodgers met Peters in Philadelphia on May 15, as they motored toward New
York from the Bowie race track. Peters was penniless and would be glad for a chance to ride.
They wanted to scare Ward and to get money from him. Did they introduce Peters as a
detective in the employ of Ward's father? Did they pose Peters as a man who knew all about the plot to
extort money from the father? Did Ward in a blind rage and a desire to conceal his act shoot Peters
down?

[Sharman accuses Mills of using propaganda instead of a defense]

[Challenging Mill's theory that Peters was hired by the blackmailers]

Can you imagine a gunman who did not have a gun? The blackmailers, according to Mills, had
to give him one. They were out to kidnap Ward, says Mills. Imagine them trying to kidnap a man of
Ward's physical dimensions.

[Sherman says Peters would have been found on the left side of the road and not the
right, insinuating Ward placed him there. He discusses Ward's broken windshield and
then challenges Ward for not going to the police immediately]

Would an innocent man think twice about going to the nearest authority? But this man lies. He
didn't kill in self-defense; he's guilty of first-degree murder. If Peters had not been identified he would
never have surrendered. He would have permitted him to go to his grave unknown.

[Sherman declares the story of Peters leading Ward to the crime scene false as Peters
would not know the roads well enough]

Let us get back to this imaginary blackmailing. Why would two blackmailers who are
expecting to get $75,000 out of Ward and who were themselves armed, hire a gunman? Why should
they hire someone in order to share with him part of this fine melon of $75,000?

[ ... ]

I have listened to the criticism of myself and my staff and to the wholly irrelevant matters that
were submitted as an answer to the State's damaging evidence. Of course, when a lawyer has no
defense he must seek propaganda, a smoke screen, or camouflage. But I'm here to talk to you, as he
challenged, about facts--evidence, cold, hard facts. I'm in Westchester County, and I am confident that
Westchester County wants justice, clean justice, fair to the man on trial.
I am not here by virtue of circumstances that I created. I am not here because I want to be
here. When I came to the conclusion that Walter S. Ward should be brought to trial on the evidence
against him, it is true that I did then recommend so to the Governor. But remember that prior to that, a
year before that, a Grand Jury of your own fellow citizens in this county decided that Ward should be
brought to trial.
This man is guilty of murder in the first-dregree. His story is still unexplained.
 I deny that there is no new evidence. There is more evidence, conclusive evidence. I've been
criticized here for failing to bring all of the Grand Jury witnesses before this trial jury. Judge Mills
knows as well as I do that some of the witnesses were for rebuttal only, and could only be used in the
event that the defendant put in some sort of defense. That defense is not here.
What is the issue before you? It is: Did Walter S. Ward, with this gun, fire a shot through the
heart of Peters, striking him dead? Did he do that? It is conceded that he did.
It is conceded that he did.
Sometimes a jury, on circumstantial evidence, hesitates to convict. Is there anything
circumstantial about this gun? His attorneys have admitted that their client pulled the trigger that sent
Peters to his death--that is established beyond reasonable doubt.
The only issue here is: Did Peters have a pistol against Ward's side as he claimed? Is that a true
or untrue statement? We have his story, but it has been changed, changed and changed again before
you in this court.
Where else is that blackmail? Nowhere else. There is no other proof of it. Ward did not take
the stand: that's all right. But as his counsel gave some explanation of it, I am permitted to comment
upon it. Ward was free to bring in proof of this blackmail, but where is it? Where is the proof of it?
You don't want to know the details of that secret, and neither do I, but don't you want some
proof of how these alleged blackmailers operated; don't you want to see some of these terrible letters
he says they wrote to him? He simply says, 'I've been blackmailed; you've got to take that as a fact.' If
this had been going on for months, why didn't he produce his checks and his bank accounts? They
could have shown something.

[Campbell objects]

Isn't there some evidence about the blackmail that you'd like to see? Who else besides Ward
ever saw the blackmailers?
If I can convince you that this gun was a 'plant' and not Peters's, will you know that Walter
Ward lied? Let's take his story:
'After I drove a mile I decided to come back.' That was after the killing. Why would a man
come back to the scene of crime at dead of night--to pick up a pistol? Is that credible, can that be
accounted for? How does his lawyer account for it? Why, on the ground that Ward was afraid that the
Coroner, finding the revolver, might issue a certificate that Peters was a suicide.

[ ... ]

I charge that Ward killed an unarmed man and lied about it.

[ ... ]
 We have this charge of coaching witnesses, and I don't resent it. I am calloused to it, this
vilification started months ago. Judge Mills wants to see you believe that I went into a Grand Jury
room and browbeat a Grand Jury. He insults not me but the members of these two Grand Juries. I
stand with Colonel Weeks on that; he didn't apologize and neither do I.
The Ward detectives, who couldn't produce a single witness, had lunch near two State's
witnesses and report that they talked about the case. That's the 'bulldozing' they speak about. Well,
Judge, I hope you never do worse. If that is the only bulldozing you can establish, Judge, you are
welcome to it.
In view of the damaging evidence we have produced, I cannot ask you for anything but a
verdict of murder in the first degree. Either he is exonerated or he is guilty of first-degree murder.