Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1859-04-26
The Siokles' Trial in Washington.

Inc oloRleS lrlal In WaSnluBLon'
On Saturday. Mr.. Carlisle asked the cour,
Ia grant the Instructions prayed for on Friday
by the United States, with the following ad'
ditional ones:
IF the Jury believe from all the evidence
that the deceased was killed by the prisoner
bv means of a leaden bullet discharged from
"A pistol, such killing implies malice in law,
and is murder. That the burden of rebuff
ting all presumption of malice. by showing
circumstances of alienation. excuse. or iusti,
~iication. rests OH the prisoner. and il Is i'll
cumbcnt on him To make out such circum-
stances 10 the satisfaction of the jury, unless
they arise out of the evidence produced
against him. That any person is presumed
To be of sound mind until the contrary is
proved. and all burden of rebutting this pre-
sumption rests Oh the prisoner.
If the jury believe. from the evidence,
thar the deceased, previou, to the day of his
death. had adulterous intercourse with the
wife of the prisoner, and further that the
deceased on the day Of his death. shortly be-
fore the prisoner left his house, made signals
inviting 10 a further act or acts Of adultery.
which said signals or Il portion OF them were
seen by the prisoner. and that, Influenced 10y
such provocation, the prisoner took IN" life
of the deceased. such provocatlon does not
Justify the act. or reduce such killing from
murder To m~anslaughter.'
Mr.. Brady here rose and read the points
Of law on which the defence proposed 10 rest.
They are a. follows:
First. There is IA" presumption ct malice
in this ease. if any proof Of "Hsr'at'on, ex-
cuse. or justification ARISE out of the evidence
for the prosecution.
Second. The existence of malice is not
prcsuInable in this case. if on any rational
theory consistent with all the evidence. the
homicide was either iustitiabl", cXcu>able,
or an act of manslaughter.
Third. II. on the whole evidence presen-
ted by the prosecution, there is any rational
hypothesis consistent with the conclusion
that the homicide was iustitiable or excusa-
bic. the defendant cannot be convicted.
Fourth. If the Jury believe that SickIeS.
when the homicide occurred. intended h ktH
hey. he (SickiesJ rannot be convicted Of
manslaughter.
Fifth. 1t is for tn" jury to determine. un-
der all the circumstances of the case, whetll-
cr the act charged upon Sicklcs is murder
or iustitiable homicide.
Sixth. If the jury find that Sickles killed
Key while the latter was in criminal inter-
course with the wife Of the former, Sickles
cannot be convicted of either murder Or
manslaughter.
Seventh. If from the whole evidence the
Jury believe that Sickles committed the act.
but ut the time of doing 50 was under the
,,1,,,.,.r a. l;a-,J ,,;,l and ur.. rno ~
unconscious that he was committing II crime,
he is not in law guilty Of murder" Days
Case Pamphlet, page9.
Eighth. II the jury believe that from any
predisposing cause Sicklcs's mind was I'M
paired. and at the time of killing Key he
became or was mentally incapable Of gov
crning himself in reference to hey as the
debaucher Of his wife. and at the time OF his
committing said act was. by reason OF such
cause, unconscious that he was committing
a crime as to said Key. he is not guilty of any
offence whatever.
Ninth. 1t is for the jury to say what was
the state of Sickles's mind az to capacity to
decide upon the criminality of the particular
act in question (the homicide at the moment
it occurred. and what was the condition OF
the parties respectively, either As 10 q scuttie
Or as to being armed or not at the same mo-
mcnt. These are open questions for the
jury, as are any other questions that may
arise upon consideration of the evidence,
the whole of which is to be taken into view
by the jury.
Tenth. The law does not require that the
insanity which absolvcs from crime should
exist for any definite period, but only that
it exist at the moment when the act occurred
with which the accused stands charged.
Eleventh. If the jury have any doubt as
to the case either IN reference to the hOmi-
eide or the question of sanity, Sickles should
be- acquitted"
The propriety of tn" several instructions
asked was argued by Mr.. Carlisle on the part
of the United States. and by Mr.. Stanton for
the defence: and at the conclusion of the lat
ter argument, the court adjourned. ro1Sti-
yyjj,u