Child abuse cases were uncommon and rarely given much attention during the 19th century, much less a trial. The case of State vs. Rehberg was unique in that it did away with the common mentality of not bothering to go after child abusers. This trial opened the eyes of many, yet provided too many unanswered questioned to a never before seen, interesting case. Based on the evidence suggested in the court transcripts, the accused, Edward Rehberg, was found to be not of guilt by our group for the 19th century and the 21st century trials.
In the 19th century trial, a part of our evidence which we used to come to our verdict was the dying declaration by Clara Rehberg. Another important key piece of evidence was the testimony made by Emma Rehberg, Clara's sister, stating that Edward Rehberg, the father, was working in the field with a helper, Joe Tiebow, the whole time. The defense provided witness testimony that Edward Rehberg never had the time to inflict the punishment upon his daughter which the prosecution tried to convict him of. Added to this is the fact that Louisa Rehberg, Emma and Clara’s step-mother, was kept from testifying on the stand. This may have been because Edward wanted to keep Louisa from incriminating herself and end up being put in jail. It seemed as though almost all of the evidence pointed to Louisa as being the one who killed Clara, but since Edward was the one on trial, he may have been trying to protect his wife from being prosecuted. Edward Rehberg may have already known he had a good chance of getting off because the dying declaration made by Clara clearly stated that he did not beat her. A dying declaration years ago was held in a higher regard and trusted as being the truth more so than today.
In a 21st century trial today, we still fell that Edward Rehberg would have been found not guilty because there still remained too many unanswered questions that would not have given the jury proof beyond a reasonable doubt which is needed to convict someone. The lack of evidence in the trial left our group wondering if Clara accused her step-mother of beating her, then why wasn’t the step-mother put on trial? Also, who was the strange man that Emma claimed she saw eating dinner with her dad and Joe Tiebow? Why wasn’t he questioned about the beating? These relevant questions added to the idea that this case was not tried to the full extent of the law and that the prosecution rushed in its investigation and may have wrongly pointed the finger at Edward Rehberg as being the guilty party.
Summarizing both the 19th and 21st century trials, there remained important questions that were left in the air. The jury back then had a different mindset than a jury today, but either one would have based its verdict based on the evidence. However, back then they would have taken more interest in the testimony of a child because in the 19th century people believed that lying was wrong and immoral and it was less common than today. More stock would have been placed in the hands of witnesses and a dying declaration. Nowadays, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is needed to convict someone of a crime and more people don’t feel as compelled to tell the truth on the stand. Based on all this, our analysis of this case led us to believe that the verdict should be not guilty for both the 19th and 21st century trials.
Comments