The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-05-05
said Mr.. Key, be is not guilty Of any offence

prayers are granted. The ninth reads thus:
Of the prisoners mind - TO the capacity 10 do.
eide upon the criminAlity 81 the particular act
In question. the homicids.-at the MON On,
when II occurred"
To this prayer the Court responds thus
II is for the Jury TO say what was the state
Of Mr.. Sickles' mind as to the capacity to
decide upon the criminalty Of the homicide,
receiving the law as given to them in rels
ton TO the degree Of insanity, whether it
will, or will not, excuse, they THE jury
finding the fact Of the existence or n0n-exis.
teDce Of such degree Of insanity. The best
Of this prayer is:
"And what was the condition Of tho parties
respectively a. TO being armed or not At the
| same moment.
These are open questions for the Jury, o.
are any other questions that may arise upon
| the consideration Of the evidence, the whole oil
which 10 10 DO taken into Wow BY the Jury"
SO much OF the instructions az have
now read l grant without qualification
The tenth prayer reads thus
"The law does not require that the insanity,
which sbsolves from crime, should exist for
moment when the Get occurred with which the
accused stands charged
That instruction IL granted. The time
when the insanity Is to operate Is the mo-
ment when the crime charged upon the
party was committed, II committed at oil.
The eleventh and last instruction asked
reads this way:
"If the Jury have any doabt In the case.
either 10 feferance TO the homicide or tho
question Of sanity, Mr.. sicklss should be &C
quilted"
This instruction, ~ ! mentioned Ia refer.
ing to prayer four Of the United States, will
be answered In conjunction with IL. II reads
10 this way:
Every person 10 presumed TO be Of sound
mind until the contrary 10 proved, and the bur.
den Of rsbutting this presumption rests on the
prisoner
1t does not appear to be questioned that
II doubt IL entertained by the Jury the
prisoner is to have the benefit of it, As to
the sanity or insanity Of the prisoner at the
moment Of committing the act charged. ii
IL argued by the United States that every
man being presumed to be sane, this pre-.
sumption must be overcome by evidence
satisfactory to the Jury, that he was insane
when the deed was done. This 10 not the
first time this inquiry has engaged my at.
tention. The point was made and decided
at the June Term, 1858, In the case Of the
United States versus Devlins, when the
Court gave the following opinion, which I
read from my notes Of the trial. This
prayer Ia based on the idea that the Jury
must be satisfied, beyond all reasonable
doubt, Of the insanity Of the party for whom
the defence Is set up. Precisely as the
United States are bound to prove
the guilt Of defendant to warrant a
conviction. am we'll aware, and it has ap-
pcared on this argument, that it has been
held by Court OF high rank and reputa-
,on, that there must be preponderance OF
evidence in favor Of the defence OF insanity
to overcome the presumption of law that
every killing is murder and that the same
Cont has said that il there il an equlib-
rum, including, suppose, the presumption
mentioned OF evidence, the presumption OF
the defendants innocence, makes the prepon
derance in his favor. Whether u man Is
insane or not is matter of fact what de-
gree of insanity will relieve him from re-
sponsibili,y is matter Of law, the jury find.
ing the fact OF the degree TOO Under the
distraction of tho Court, murder can be
committed only bya sane man. Everybody
is presumed TO be sane who Il charged with
a crime, but when evidence il adduced that
prisoner il insane, and conflicting testimo-
ny makes question for the Jury. they are
10 decide il like every other matter Of fact,
and il they should say or conclude that there
is uncertainty, that they cannot determine
whether the defendant was or is not 70 10.
sane ~ to protect him. how can they render
verdict that sane man perpetrated the
crime and that no other cam Nor is this
plain view Of the question unsupported by
authority, In the case Of the Queen against
Icy. in is4O, Lewins G. c. p. 239 on pre-
liminary trial TO ascertain whether defend
ant was sufficiently sane to go before petit
jury on an indictment, bullock, b., said TO
the Jury q" II there be Q doubt IA to the
prisoners sanity, and the surgeon says it is
doubtful, you cannot say be 10 in tit state
TO b. put on trial This opinion was up.
proved in The People vs.. Freemsn, Vol. 1
Denio's Report. p. 9. This is . strong case.
for the witness did not say the prisoner was
insane, but only tina, Il WAS doubtful whe
Their il Was so or not. The humane aud.
will add. just doctrine, that . reasonable
doub, should avail q prisoner. belongs to .
defence Of insanity ~ much, in my opinion
- to any other matter of fact. believe.
gen,lemen, that that answers all the ques-
tlous.
A the Judge delivered his decision not u
word OF it was lost on the Jury, counsel or
audience. Every one in the crowded court
room seemed to drink In every word OF il,
and gancs OF intelligence, now betokening
satisfaction and now dissatisfaction, passed
from countenancc rs Q point seemed to be
decided Tor or Agains, the prisoner As
the Judge eosied. Mr.. Brady stepped from
bis position uear the dock and whispered q
word IN Mr.. Chiffon car.
Mr.. Chiffon ro~e and said II i, please
the Court. rise 10 reuew tho proposition
which Ne made on Friday last, 10 submit
this case 10 the jury without further discus