The killing of Frieda L. Lesser on July 4, 1919, and the prosecution of Harry S. New Jr. represent one of the most closely followed homicide cases in Los Angeles during the immediate post–World War I period. The case drew sustained national attention because of the explicit confession by the accused, the public claim of political parentage, and the extensive courtroom battle over criminal responsibility. Unlike many crimes of the era that faded quickly from public view, this case remained active in newspapers for more than a year, allowing historians to trace the full arc from homicide through conviction and imprisonment.
Frieda L. Lesser was twenty-one years old at the time of her death. Contemporary reports identified her as engaged to Harry S. New Jr., a young man living in California who worked intermittently and had no prior public criminal record. On the afternoon of July 4, the couple traveled together by automobile into Topanga Canyon, a sparsely populated area northwest of Los Angeles. According to New’s own statements to police, the two argued during the drive. Newspapers consistently reported that the dispute centered on marriage plans, including a postponed wedding and objections from members of New’s family. During this argument, New shot Lesser at close range. Medical examination later confirmed a fatal gunshot wound to the head.
After the shooting, New did not flee the region. Instead, he placed Lesser’s body in his automobile and drove to Los Angeles Police Headquarters. Upon arrival, he informed officers that he had killed his fiancée and surrendered without resistance. Police described his confession as voluntary and detailed. This act of self-surrender became a defining feature of the case and was highlighted repeatedly in headlines across the country. The police detained New immediately and transferred him to jail, where he was held without bail pending formal charges.
Within hours of his arrest, New told officers and reporters that he was the son of Harry Stewart New, the United States senator from Indiana. This assertion dramatically changed the scale of the story. Senator New responded publicly within days, issuing a firm denial and stating that he had never married the defendant’s mother and had no such son. Newspapers printed both statements prominently, often placing them side by side. Although no evidence supported the claim of parentage, the allegation raised public concern about whether political influence might affect the case. No such influence was demonstrated during the legal proceedings.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney charged Harry S. New Jr. with murder. Preliminary hearings focused on the confession, physical evidence, and witness testimony regarding the relationship between New and Lesser. Witnesses confirmed the engagement and described tension surrounding the planned marriage. No evidence suggested the involvement of third parties. Prosecutors presented the killing as intentional and deliberate, while defense counsel began preparing an insanity defense.
The trial commenced in late 1919 in Los Angeles Superior Court. From the outset, the central legal issue was New’s mental state at the time of the killing. The defense argued that he suffered from mental instability that rendered him incapable of understanding or controlling his actions. Several medical experts testified on his behalf, describing symptoms consistent with insanity as defined by contemporary psychiatric standards. These experts based their opinions on examinations conducted after the arrest and on descriptions of New’s behavior.
The prosecution countered with its own medical witnesses and lay testimony. Doctors called by the state testified that New appeared rational, coherent, and capable of understanding his actions. Additional witnesses, including acquaintances and members of the victim’s family, described New’s conduct during his courtship of Lesser as normal and purposeful. Frieda Lesser’s mother testified, offering a personal account of her daughter’s relationship with New and reinforcing the prosecution’s argument that the killing resulted from a conscious act rather than mental incapacity.
Throughout the trial, newspapers reported daily on testimony, frequently emphasizing the emotional weight of the proceedings. Coverage described the courtroom atmosphere, the reactions of spectators, and the demeanor of the defendant. Despite the defense’s efforts, the jury rejected the insanity plea. In early 1920, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of second-degree murder.
The court sentenced Harry S. New Jr. under California’s indeterminate sentencing law, which allowed flexibility in parole decisions. Newspapers consistently reported the sentence as ten years to life imprisonment. Following sentencing, New was transferred to San Quentin State Prison. Reports from early 1920 confirmed his incarceration there and described him as a convicted murderer serving an indeterminate term.
The case did not immediately disappear from public view after sentencing. Newspapers continued to publish follow-up stories concerning New’s condition in prison and legal maneuvers connected to the case. In March 1920, reports noted that New signed affidavits from his San Quentin cell, related to renewed claims and legal strategies tied to his conviction. These developments did not alter the verdict or sentence but contributed to the case’s prolonged visibility in the press.
The historical significance of the Lesser murder lies in its detailed documentation across multiple stages of the criminal process. The case illustrates how confession shaped early twentieth-century criminal narratives, how claims of political lineage intensified public interest, and how insanity defenses were contested in American courts. The jury’s rejection of psychiatric testimony in favor of observable behavior and confession reflects prevailing legal standards of responsibility during the period.
The case also reveals the role of newspapers as both record keepers and amplifiers of public drama. Editors framed the killing as a moral tragedy, the trial as a scientific and legal contest, and the sentence as confirmation of justice. Frieda Lesser’s identity in the press centered on her youth, engagement, and death, while Harry S. New Jr. was portrayed through confession, alleged lineage, and courtroom demeanor. These portrayals shaped public memory of the event.
In conclusion, the 1919 killing of Frieda L. Lesser and the conviction of Harry S. New Jr. provide a clear, fact-driven example of early twentieth-century American homicide prosecution. The case progressed from a confessed killing in Topanga Canyon to a highly publicized trial and a life sentence at San Quentin. Its enduring historical value rests in the specificity of its record, the clarity of its legal outcome, and its exposure of how crime, media, and public trust intersected in postwar America.
References / More Knowledge:
California Digital Newspaper Collection. “Insanity Plea Entered in New Murder Trial,” January 3, 1920.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/
California Digital Newspaper Collection. “Harry New Convicted and Sent to San Quentin,” March 10, 1920.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/
Library of Congress, Chronicling America. “Senator Harry S. New Denies Slayer’s Claim,” July 6, 1919.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/chronicling-america/
Georgia Historic Newspapers. “Slayer of Girl Says He’s Senator’s Son,” July 10, 1919.
https://gahistoricnewspapers.galileo.usg.edu/
Indiana State Library, Newspapers Collection. “Convicted Slayer Begins Sentence,” February 26, 1920.
https://newspapers.library.in.gov/