Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-04-19
The Sickles Trial In Washington.

On Saturday, Mr.. Phelps resumed his
speech interrupted by the al Uurnmcnt OF
| the court or Friday. He denied that occuiar
demonstration was necessary to prove adnlte,
nv. lie recited the aggravated facts they oi'
fered to prove making up the provocatlon up
to Saturday night, and also the new provo
cation Immediately leading to the killing
lie insisted that there was Immediately be-
fore the killing. a new provocatlon. 1t 1t Is
necessary to show evidence Of provocatl"lI
and passion. it is necessary to show both
The Court occupied a position in this case,
which seldom fell to the lot Of a iudge-to ap,
NV an ANALYSIS of the law to the new aspects OF
the case now at issue. The defence offer to
prove the truth to the jury, and shall the
truth relevant to tine fact beexcluded! ltup.
on this point there should be any doubt in the
minds of the Court, that doubt should be III
favor of the prisoner.
Mr.. Graham followed on the same side.
The question was. whether the evidence
should be prejudgcd As to its effect before II
| had been received? The application Of the
defence was t. extend the line of proof. The
prosecution had experimental with the de-
fence, and when they found the avalanche
descending upon them, they asked the court
to exclude the evidence extending the evil
dence of the commission of the crime which
caused the killing.
The rule of evidence was that a chain OF
| circumstances directly leading to the points
in investigation was all that was necessary
to give justification for any act OF the hus-
band finding and pursuing this cham OF CIR
cumstanccs.
He submitted that the constitution OF the
United States broke up the old practice OF
special verdicts, and that anything tending
to show the provocation was admissible u
testimony.
If the court can legally circumscribe the
action of the jury, then the right to make the
verdict is taken from the jury and delegated
to the court.
He held that the court had decided in the
cases of Day and Jarboe that the Intention "t
the prisoner was To be shown i'll the causes
which produced that intention.
lie submitted that this trial was to develop
the state of Sickles's mind, and that every
fact going to show it was proper to go before
the jury.
Mr.. Ould replied for the United States
The questions of justification and pruvocatl"n
were legal questions. The language of the
law was that killing by the husband, on ind
ing the parties in the act, was manslaushter;
otherwise, murder.
The defence were wrong in insisting that
the prosecution claimed that the husbands
beholding the parties in adultery was neccs-
sary to mitigate the killing to manslaughtcr.
On the contrary. the finding the parties thus
engaged was the legal meaning OF the point
as commended for by the prosecution. Ii the
husband pursue the party and slew him from
revenge. the offence was murder.
The solitary question to be determined by
the court was whether the state Of facts pro-
posed to be disclosed by the defence was a le-
gal provocation tending to justification. For
some offences the law did not recognize any
provocation. Where malice. express MAJ
ice, existed, there could he no legal provoca-
ton.
Mr.. Ould gave way in order to permit the
| court To take some official action in the case Of
Chancellor Bib, and that actor. concluded,
the court Reconsideration.