Western Reserve chronicle and weekly transcript of the times. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1854-1855, 1855-04-18
WHOLE NO. go11


nave been wIlh the intention of doing the
INJURY charged, in the one case, and in
the other that it was prepared with this
intention. q
Ii you will recur to the principles l.
nave given, you win see that all this is
embraced in them. For of course, the
more heinOus a crime is, the more re.
Pugnant it is to our nature to believe that
1t has been committed: but this does not
change the rule. have said there must
be sufficient evidence to establish the fact,
and when established beyond the exist
ence of doubt it is the Jury's duty to
md It so, no matter how heinous it is
l do not know as it is necessary for,
me to say anything more to you in gener-z
al upon the nature of the law applicable
Othis case, only TO admonish you to look
well to itin all its several parts. -.
Perhaps I ought for the purpose of H.
lustration to refer again to the first charge
onthat of administering poison to Homer
M. Leet. 1t is claimed by the prosecu.7
ton that they have proven this. On the
other hand the defendant by his counsel
claims that beside having shown that the
prosecution have failed to establish this,
they have shown that the symptoms of
Homer NJ Leet may be accounted for in
another way. Now, if when you come
to compare the evidence upon this point,
when you inquire whether Homer NJ
Leet had really taken strychnine, il viii
be your duty carefully to, scrutinize the
evidence. I only speak of this to illus
trate what will be your duty in every
other part Of the case, and if it should r
turn out that you have strong suspicious
that it was strychnine he was laboring
under in. those days of August or that
that was the occasion of his malady, yet,
if the evidence on the other hand is such
as to give you an equal suspicion that it
was disease andnot poison which affected
him, it will then be your duty further to
consider all the other circumstances in
the case, and see if they are reconcilable
upon no other hypothesis than that it was
strychnine he was suffering from. Is
! there such evidence to show that it had
been administered to him as to support
sufficiently The idea that if really was
strychnine? If it may be explained to
your minds that all these symptoms could
be consistent with some other hypothesis,
. it will be your duty to reconcile thom. -
So as to the intention with which it
was administsred-you should be thor
oughly satisfied of that. If you shall
be satisfied that Homer NJ. Leet had in
fact taken strychnine as charged,-that
it had been administered to him by some
one,-or if upon the other offence, Elsie
A. Leet takes the strychnine,--it will
not be sufficient for you 10 inquire who II
was that did administer or prepare il, but
you are confined to the inquiry whether
you can say that RolliB Il. Leet was the
person who administered or prepared it,
as the case may be. 1t will not do to say
if it must be fastened upon some one, it
may as well be upon one as another
= You have no such task The question
is, if the crime was committed did Rolhn
: A. Leet commit it. If the evidence does
: not eonUie kia, he should be acquitted,
: he may be innocent, and then the propo-
. sition would be that any other innocent
l person may as well be convicted as he.
t But while make these remarks, if
: you shall find that all the circumstances
f go to show that Rollin A. Leet is the
! guilty person, it will be your duty so to
+ say. -+
The law is such that the crime must
Y be established and must be brought home
= TO the prisoner so as to leave no reasonable
s doubt in your mind. @
!, That may not be misunderstood upon
S this will say, this rule does not mean
i that you shall have no doubt at all, but
that you shall have no rational doubt upon
: the truth of the given propositions, and
: therefore upon the guilt of the party
; charged. 1t means that you shall arrive
e at so great degree of certainty that af-
), ter examining all the evidence, and weigh
5 ing both that on the part OF the prosecu.
n ton and that on the part of the defence,
u you have no longer reasonable doubt,
n or uncertainties. If then the evidence
e leaves on your mind such an uncertainty
/ as to whether the crime has been commit
|. ted or whether Rollin A. Leet has COM
it mitted it, you should aequit. IdOes not
/ mean if you have doubt that is got up
n upon mere speculative conclusions, but it
II means reasonable doubt. If you come
9 to such degree of certainty as have
referred TO you should bring in verdict
IT of guilty; if you have such doubts, you
l. should acquit.
e Under this indictment, gentlemen, there
1t are seven counts. 1t will be necessary
r r. L