## Facts

- Captain Joseph White, an elderly and wealthy Salem merchant, was killed in his home by bludgeoning and stabbing after entry through a window allegedly left unsecured as part of a planned attack.
- The Commonwealth alleged a murder-for-gain plot in which John Francis (“Frank”) Knapp and his brother, Joseph J. Knapp, Jr., procured Richard Crowninshield to commit the killing, with possible involvement by Crowninshield’s brother.
- Crowninshield, alleged to be the actual killer, died by suicide in jail before he could be tried.
- Frank Knapp was tried in a capital prosecution for White’s murder; the trial court made multiple rulings concerning counsel, jury selection, witness sequestration, and the admissibility of statements attributed to Knapp.
- During events surrounding potential confessions, a family member told Frank Knapp that Joseph intended to confess and sought Frank’s consent; in that discussion, it was stated that if Joseph were convicted “there will be no chance,” but if Frank were convicted he “may have some chance for procuring a pardon.”
- On review, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts considered whether the trial rulings were correct, including (1) whether Crowninshield’s suicide could be treated as evidence of his guilt and (2) whether Knapp’s statements were inadmissible because of a “hope of favor.”

## Issues

1. Whether a juror exposed to pretrial reports and expressing prejudice or uncertainty about impartiality is challengeable for cause, and whether peremptory challenges remain available when cause is not shown.
2. Whether a capital defendant is entitled to additional procedural protections, including qualified assigned counsel and access to the list of grand-jury witnesses examined in the case.
3. Whether the court may exclude witnesses from the courtroom during testimony in a capital trial.
4. Whether a confession or other incriminating statements must be excluded when made after a “hope of favor” (such as a suggestion of possible pardon), and what showing permits admission.
5. Whether the alleged principal’s suicide while awaiting trial may be treated as probative of the principal’s guilt in a way that supports liability of another alleged participant.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s handling of the case and upheld Knapp’s conviction.
- The court approved challenges for cause where jurors acknowledged prejudice from news accounts or had formed an opinion and could not say it would not influence them.
- The court stated that even when a juror is not challengeable for cause, the defendant may still exercise a peremptory challenge.
- The court held that if a juror mistakenly believed he had been sworn only on voir dire, the juror should be sworn again “in chief” to remove doubt about the oath.
- The court approved exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom, on motion, except the witness under examination.
- On confessions, the court recognized that statements made under a “hope of favor” are generally excluded; however, it allowed admission where it was found the inducement did not influence Knapp because he neither assented nor refused and the later statements were not actually prompted by the prospect of pardon.
- In discussing proof of Crowninshield’s guilt, the court treated his jail suicide as behavior consistent with a confession or acknowledgment of guilt, supporting an inference of his participation relevant to the Commonwealth’s theory.

## Legal Principles

- A juror may be removed for cause when the juror’s stated prejudice, pretrial opinion, or uncertainty about being influenced shows a lack of impartiality.
- Peremptory challenges remain available even when a juror cannot be disqualified for cause.
- Courts may take steps to ensure the validity of the juror oath; if a juror misunderstands having been sworn for trial, the juror may be sworn again.
- Upon motion, a trial court may exclude witnesses from the courtroom during other witnesses’ testimony to reduce the risk of influenced testimony.
- A confession is inadmissible if induced by threats or promises, including a “hope of favor”; admission may be permitted when the evidence shows the inducement did not operate on the accused’s will and did not cause the statement.
- A participant’s suicide while facing prosecution may be treated as circumstantial evidence consistent with consciousness of guilt, supporting an inference of the deceased participant’s guilt for purposes relevant to another defendant’s liability.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a capital conviction while articulating early rules on juror impartiality in the face of pretrial publicity, courtroom management (oaths and witness exclusion), and confession voluntariness in the presence of suggested leniency, and it endorsed treating a suspect’s jail suicide as circumstantial evidence consistent with an acknowledgment of guilt.


Commonwealth v. Knapp, 9 Pick. 496 (Mass. 1830)