Burton Abbott Trial: 1955

Defendant: Burton W. Abbott
Crimes Charged: Murder and kidnapping
Chief Defense Lawyer: Stanley D. Whitney
Chief Prosecutors: Frank Coakley and Folger Emerson
Judge: Wade Snook
Place: Oakland, California
Dates of Trial: November 7, 1955-January 25, 1956
Verdict: Guilty
Sentence: Death

SIGNIFICANCE: Shrewd advocacy and the marshaling of highly charged emotions overcame evidential limitations in one of California's most sensational murder trials.

On April 28, 1955, 14-year-old Stephanie Bryan failed to return home after school in Oakland, California. Apart from finding a school textbook, the police had little to go on. A statewide search proved fruitless until July 15, when Georgia Abbott reported that she had found some of Stephanie's personal effects—a purse and ID card—in the basement of her Alameda home. When police searched the basement more thoroughly the next day, they dug up yet more books belonging to Stephanie, also her spectacles and a brassiere. Neither Georgia Abbott nor her 27-year-old husband, Burton, an accounting student, could explain how the effects came to be there. Burton Abbott told police that at the time Stephanie disappeared, he was en route to the family's vacation cabin, 285 miles away in the Trinity County mountains. On July 20, the battered body of Stephanie Bryan was found lying in a shallow grave, just 335 feet from Abbott's cabin. Soon afterwards he was charged with murder and rape.

Emotion over Evidence

When Abbott's trial got under way November 7, 1955, his guilt seemed a foregone conclusion. Certainly the Bay Area newspapers thought so, judging from the virulent campaign they had waged against the defendant all summer long, but it was soon clear that the case against Abbott was purely circumstantial: not one direct piece of evidence existed to link him to the death of Stephanie Bryan.

Fully aware of the shortcomings in the state's case, yet determined to secure a death verdict, District Attorney Frank Coakley opted for emotion over evidence. He ran into immediate opposition. Prosecution efforts to introduce a particularly gory photograph of the victim brought defense counsel Stanley D. Whitney to his feet, protesting that it was presented "for no other reason than to inflame the jury and raise prejudice against the defendant." Judge Wade Snook sided with Whitney on this point but did allow Coakley to show clothes taken from the dead girl's body. The stench from these unwashed clothes, which had been kept in a closed box, was so bad that several spectators hurriedly vacated the courtroom. The jury, denied any such opportunity, was forced to endure the ordeal, but the effect on them was palpable.

Amused Defendant

Just about the only person unaffected by these antics was the defendant himself. Throughout the trial, Abbott maintained an air of detached amusement. A man of some refinement—he played better than average chess, enjoyed crosswords and created haute cuisine dishes—Abbott didn't bother to stifle his contempt for all that was happening. He displayed that same cockiness on the witness stand, openly scoffing at prosecution charges that he had first attempted to rape Stephanie Bryan and then killed her when she resisted. It was all a "monstrous frame-up," he said, reiterating the stance he had taken from the beginning. As for the articles found in his basement, Abbott said that in May the basement served as a polling station. Dozens of people would have had access to it. Any one of them could have planted the incriminating evidence.

The subject of rape was one which Assistant District Attorney Folger Emerson pursued stridently. Sidestepping earlier pathological testimony that advanced decomposition made it impossible to determine if sexual assault had taken place, Emerson declared,

I think it time to say from the evidence in this case that the original intent of the defendant when he kidnapped Stephanie Bryan was to commit a sex crime.… I think that what happened to Stephanie before she was killed was worse than death itself.… If ever there was a crime that fitted the punishment of death, this is it.

Emerson then concluded with one of the strangest and most garbled appeals ever to a jury:

The state endeavors to take a life in the most humane way possible. Wouldn't it have been a blessing to Stephanie that if she had to die that she could have died that way than the way she did?

Coakley's syntax was less tangled and more effective. Brandishing the dead girl's brassiere and panties, he shouted, "You've heard the defense counsel ask 'What is the motive for this crime? What is the reason? Why? Why? Why?'" He offered the underwear in mute reply, branding Abbott a "typical psychopath and a pathological liar."

The only surprise after this was that it took the jury seven days to reach their verdict: guilty of first-degree murder. But in that delay were perhaps sown the seeds of the future doubt that would assail this case. After Judge Snook passed sentence of death, Abbott was taken to San Quentin to await execution. For more than a year his lawyers fought for commutation, but on March 15, 1957, Abbott was strapped into the gas chamber. Just minutes later a stay of execution was phoned through to the prison, but by then it was too late. The cyanide fumes were already creeping up around Abbott's face. Minutes later he was dead.

The manner and circumstances of Burton Abbott's execution sparked a renewal of the debate over whether society has the right to take life, especially on circumstantial evidence alone. It is an argument that shows no signs of abating.

—Colin Evans

Suggestions for Further Reading

Crimes And Punishment. Vol.16. England: Phoebus, 1974.

Gaute, J.H.H. and Robin Odell. The Murderers' Who's Who. London: W.H. Allen, 1989.

Marine, Gene. The Nation (May 19, 1956): 424-426.

Newsweek (February 6, 1956): 29.

Time (March 25, 1957): 25.