procedure. The Clerk wrote: “Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the Court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here on September 3 so as to correct errors and omissions therein and he attaches hereto a copy of said proposed amendment. Then comes Wayne B. Hanek speaking for and in behalf of the defendant John Charles Sledge and opposes aforesaid amendment on the grounds that the newly proposed wording is not fully implied by previous evidence acquired by lawful procedure. Judge M. Garnold sets date of September 10, 1939, to decide on ruling.”
On September 10, 1939, John Charles was again in court. The County Attorney, his first amendment being overruled, offered a new amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information which included the words “specific intent to kill.” Wayne B. Hanek objected to this amendment on the grounds that it established a degree of crime not yet substantiated by lawfully begotten evidence. Judge M. Garnold set the date September 11, 1939, to decide on the ruling. County Attorney Vendermarken then moved that a special assistant, Peter Lynch, be appointed to help compile evidence for the County of St. Louis. Wayne B. Hanek objected on the grounds of non-impartial treatment but was overruled.
“September 11, 1939. Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here September 3 so as to correct errors and omissions therein, proposing that the words ‘specific intent to kill’ be inserted after the second ‘with’ in County Attorney’s True Information, omitting the words ‘intent’ and ‘thereof,’ thus allowing the County Attorney’s True Information to read: ‘. . . did on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, A.D., unlawfully, feloniously, and with the specific intent to kill, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.’ ” Wayne B. Hanek objected to this amendment on the grounds that it was not substantiated by legally begotten evidence and the objection was sustained.
All of this is necessary — important to see precisely how these men go about their living — how they do what they do.
“September 12, 1939. Comes now Howard Vendermarken, County Attorney of St. Louis County, Missouri, and for and in behalf of the State moves the court to permit him to file an amendment to the County Attorney’s True Information filed here on September 3 so as to correct errors and other omissions therein, proposing the words ‘designedly and with malice aforethought’ and a comma (,) between the words ‘designedly’ and ‘and’ be inserted into the County Attorney’s True Information, thus allowing the said statement to read: ‘. . . did on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, A.D., unlawfully, feloniously, designedly, and with malice aforethought and with the intent thereof, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.’ ” Wayne B. Hanek violently objected to the above amendment on the grounds that the particular wording was in no way a description of a crime as stated specifically by the Missouri Penal Code. Judge M. Garnold overruled this objection and passed the amendment, after which Hanek, reading from a piece of paper extracted from his briefcase, demanded (in behalf of his client, John Charles Sledge) that the County Attorney acting for and in behalf of the State of Missouri:
1. Show how the defendant did, on or about the twenty-second day of August, 1939, murder Mrs. Hermie Sledge, his wife.
2. Show how the defendant did murder feloniously.
3. Show how the defendant did murder with the intent thereof.
4. Show how the defendant did murder designedly.
5. Show how the defendant did murder with malice aforethought.
6. Show how the defendant did murder unlawfully.
7. Show how the defendant, if guilty of the above, has specifically committed an act in violation of the Missouri Penal Code.
Two days later John Charles stood before the court and in counsel with his lawyer asked to be allowed to stand on a demurrer. Judge Garnold denied this and asked John Charles for his plea. John C. again stood on a demurrer and was taken back to his cell under a bond of twenty-five thousand dollars. Asked by the press what this meant, Hanek answered: “Standing on a denied demurrer is essentially a plea of guilty, though not necessarily.”
The trial was set for November 3, 1939. John Charles requested a guitar brought to his cell which he played and sang to himself. The St. Louis Daily was allowed an interview with him and he consented to pose with his guitar. “I’ve been in hard scrapes before,” he said. John Charles seemed to be winning.
On October 15, 1939, “the defendant was served with a Notice of Additional Testimony in criminal case Number 1131 by the County Attorney, consisting of forty-three typewritten, single-spaced, legal-sized pages, covering the testimony of sixty-seven witnesses.” Attorney Wayne B. Hanek appeared before the court and asked that the trial be postponed in order that he and his client might have time to go over the Notice of Additional Information. The County Attorney argued that the material was not unexpected and was even common in cases of this sort. That objection was overruled and due to the extremity of the case the trial was postponed twelve days.
On November 12, 13, and 14, while John Charles sat playing his guitar in his cell, Hanek sat in the courtroom with the County Attorney and his assistant, selecting members of the jury.
“Your name,” the Judge would ask.
“Steve McMorgan.”
“Occupation?”
“I run a gas station on lower Manchester.”
“Have you formed any opinion whatsoever concerning the upcoming State vs. Sledge trial?”
“No, Sir.”
“Are you for or against advocating the death penalty in cases of this nature?” And depending on the answer to this question one of the two attorneys would object and the proposed jury member would be eliminated. This continued until 10:32 A.M., November 14, when Judge M. Garnold informed Wayne B. Hanek that he had reached his limit of objections. Out of the next eighteen persons the County Attorney picked twelve. John Charles was allowed another interview with the press. Twelve character witnesses were subpoenaed by Wayne Hanek and waited outside the courtroom to be called: Ivan Norice, Richard Irwin, Lawrence Owens, Susan Pugh, Jack Ruimer, Dorothy Hammer, Chester Lutz, Mrs. Chester Lutz, Edwin Elder, Jr., Donna Erickson, Loren Burr, and Ken Butters.
John Charles’s trial began with the presentation of three exhibits by the County Attorney; a shotgun with a damaged barrel, People’s Exhibit A; a small handful of Number 4 shot, People’s Exhibit B; and three enlarged pictures of Hermie Sledge, one before and two after the explosion, People’s Exhibit C. Wayne B. Hanek objected to the pictures, calling them “pure sensationalism with no judicial value,” but was overruled. The County Sheriff was called to the witness stand by Vendermarken and related John Charles’s confession following the thirty-six-hour interrogation. Hanek, cross-examining, asked when a charge had actually been made against John Charles. To this he answered two days following the confession. Hanek moved that the evidence be stricken from the record or be labeled “circumstantial” on the grounds that the evidence had been obtained in such a way as to be a violation of legal procedure. The motion was overruled and the County Attorney called the State Coroner to the witness stand. He told of the dynamite burns on Hermie’s body and further substantiated the confession. When cross-examined, the Coroner, in answer to the question of the mental condition of the defendant at the time of this confession, stated that he was told by John Charles Sledge himself that he was of “sound mind.” The next witness, Bill Gordon, day bartender at Dirty John’s, testified that John C. and Hermie had come into the bar on August nineteenth and John C. had asked
