It’s interesting to speculate what may have happened in the jury room, given that eight of the jurors were leaning toward an innocent verdict. We don’t know what was said in the final arguments, but there were some discrepancies in the testimony that may have raised doubts. One of the officers testified that Hanna had opened the door to his room to allow entry. Another testified, however, that they had to force the door and found Hanna still in bed. Two officers stated that he had agreed to the search, but Hanna claimed he had not given permission. There appeared to be no evidence from the scene of the crime that connected to Hanna. The use of fingerprint evidence was still relatively new in 1906, and there was no indication that the Dover PD was equipped for such investigations. It’s not entirely certain that justice prevailed, but no question that Attorney Pierce did a fine job for his client.

Which brings us to an almost instant replay. A second trial began on Monday, March 5, with the same parties in attendance: Solicitor Hall and Attorney Pierce, and Judge Pike, but here an interesting wrinkle, certainly something that doesn’t happen every day: “In the selection of jurors for the case the panel was exhausted and several were called from the spectators by Sheriff Parker and finally the sheriff went outside the building” and summonsed several additional people off the street, one of whom actually ended up serving as a juror.

The testimony was close to that of the first trial. Hughes was first on the stand again, but this time there was more focus on the amount of money taken. The State’s case was based in large part on the claim that the money found in Hanna’s room–$26–and the specific denominations corresponded directly to the amount missing from Hughes’ desk, so Attorney Pierce, in cross-examination, questioned Hughes’ memory as to how much and which bills, and further to describe the nature and extent of damage to the cash register… was there actually a match with Hanna’s screwdriver, or perhaps more with a steak knife that was found on the floor of the store where the damage occurred.

This was followed by Deputy Wilkinson, who described the entry and search of Hanna’s room, stating again that Hanna had given permission. Officers Young and Cornell testified as they did in the earlier trial, as did Marshall McKone regarding his efforts to match the marks on the cash register to the tools found in Hanna’s room. Sheriff Parker then testified about the circumstances of the jailbreak. He said he could not state that Hanna was directly involved in sawing the bars. He knows only that the tools were brought into the jail by a woman who gave them to John Rogers. Then — not clear what prompted this — but Parker is quoted as saying, “I feel as kindly toward Hanna as I do toward any man of his caliber; I don’t particularly love him; I don’t want an innocent man convicted.” Officer Fody wrapped up the testimony, acknowledging that Hanna “was going away from where the break took place when I saw him”. The State rested its case.

This time around Hanna did not take the stand. Mr. Van Ness, Albert Locke, and a third person… Dennis Labonte… all talked about having contact with Hanna and confirmed that he appeared to have substantial ready cash well before the break-in. A young man named Dennis Demers testified, in the seeming role of an expert witness, that he was employed in a local shoe shop. Although he was not acquainted with Hanna, he could say that it was “a general thing for an operator to furnish his own tools”, which would explain the presence of the screwdriver and pliers in Hanna’s room. Finally, George Bernard testified regarding his contacts with Hanna in the poolroom, his knowledge that Hanna often had money on hand, and the time he left the premises on the evening of the Hughes break-in.

The case was given to the jury about 6:15 p.m. They remained in deliberation all night, and at 10 a.m. the following morning reported that they had been unable to agree on a verdict. The jurors were dismissed, and the reporter noted that they all went directly to a local bank where they received payment for their services. Solicitor Hall allowed that he was unsure if he would pursue a third trial but would be willing to do so, “if agreeable to the Court.” He pointed out that there was still a second indictment for the breaking and entering of the residence of Frank Plummer, but no specific date had been set for trial.

So what to do with William Hanna? Except for his brief period of freedom following the escape, he had been behind bars since the date of his arrest on Nov. 7. The Plummer indictment may have been pending. Still, it appears that no charges had been sought for the robbery of the woman on the Littleworth Road, or the alleged assault on the railroad tracks by Silver Street. No charges had been brought against Hanna or Rogers (who was doing his time at the State Prison for the Christmas Day hen theft) for their escape from the jail. Following the two hung juries, a decision was made to release Hanna on bail, which occurred on March 31. He remained in Dover for a week or more and then traveled to Haverhill, Mass., on April 17. And what would you guess happened next?

(more to come)