Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1859-10-07

the law and common sense both required
that they should find that he was aware OF
the purpose of Mcdonnell to commit muir
der. before they should convict him; his
presence merely was no aiding and alettlng.
They had been told that they must
make an example Of Mcdonnell for the rude
boys of arlington; they needed lesson I'M
doubtedIy, and such punishment as Melon
nell deserved must be melted out TO him.
But is it necessary that you should hang him
for such lesson? That widow and father
less family have been alluded to. Do they
demand that you should cut off this young
life? You cannot transtuse the blood OF
Mcdonnell into the veins of McKeen, and
bring him back to life, and are there no 9TH
er wives and mothers, and families t. be
thought of? In closing Mr. Roberts bid the
jury beware how they guessed away the lie
of any man, and expressed his conviction
that the Law and their duty demanded at
their hands no further sacrifice of life.
October Sd.
FIFTH DAY.
Court opened at quarter past nine O'Clock,
and the jury took their seats. Some other
business was transacted, and the jury having
answered to their names, States Attorney
Hard proceeded to make the closing speech
for the prosecution substantially as follows ::
Mr. HARD's ARGUMENT.
l feel very much exhausted, Gentlemen Of tue
Jury, by my labors in this case and doubtless you
10 also. And were not the case one Of so great
importance | should not tax your patience with
it any longer. But my duty is imperative. and
ID, - a
cutting Attorney, i must devote some time to It.
| shall be as brief as possible for know that
you wearie as my self.
| wish to speak of two things before entering
en- examination Of the testimony The gentlemen
VINO opened the on the other side took one
position to which it Is painful to Inc TO refer the
lack of any evidence of guilt in the countenances
OF these young men Their condition is uniortn-
nate enough il is true, but II is weak argument
L. use where the gentlemen NUT know that the
counsel for the proseruton is prohibited from re-
plying to il. If were NJ liberty to do so, II
would be very unsatisfactory evidence to produce
Another thing Mr. Chittenden said W. had failed
t. show any stain on the character Of the prison
ers previous To- tue l4th of May. Gentlemen we
had no ri ght to show any. The law shields the
prisoner this pint. Absence Of motive was
urged by the defence; they say. y may 5 arch
all the evidence through and not find any, and
I there was never an instance Of CONVICTION where
the Jury could not a motive. Motive is a
very difficult thing To prove. Suppose the parties
had met before and quarreled, there being no wit
nesses TO pr We it.
One of the counsel says that there are no indi-
cations Of guilt from what took place afterwards.
from flight. The stimony is too fresh, they did
fee from the scene of murder. Can any body pre-
tend that they came and surrendered themselves
| There was not an acre Of ground in the neighbor
hood but what had somebody the lcok out for
thsm. They taken by compulson. (C0HTt.
T,r, % . baf, We Of hafn ba fhar xuas
found at home abed.
This is c first time in all the Ct trial for
murder that ever knew Of, in which the defence,
while protesting to rely the law and your con-
cluSOn therefrOm, have omitted TO cite authorities
They tell you you above the Court. You are
so, and have power to trAmple on authorities and
disregarI the instructions of his Honor, but if you
do so, the compliment paid TO your intelligence
and fairness Will be unmerited. / said they had
quoted no authorities, they have they took up in
seeming triumph one of these "Dusty books,
from which Mr.. French had read, but laid it down
with less satisfaction | think. (Mr. Hard stated
the cited from Russell on Crimes
Did Mcdonnell SNOW what he about was
he able to appreciate the consequence Of his act
III Sht ten hours afterwards, when in Jail, he re-
cites what happened. If he tn n understood so
well what he had done. he must have known when
he used the knife. And does he make any justI-
ication Of his act The crime, taking into con-
1t is a very common thing to speak Of
the consequences of conviction, the dis
grace, anxiety, suffering, dc. dismal
picture of the gallows ia drawn with
its corpse swinging by the neck. II is right
that the attention of the jury should be drawn to
the consequences Of conviction both TO the GRIM
inal AMI his friends; but il is unnecessary. No.
body in this Court Room has more sympathy with
them than I, and would gladly spare them if it
were consistent with my duty.
The counsel for the defence says that you know
what murder is what malice is express or implied,
we'll anybody; if that is so, without any
disrespeet TO him, you know more than he. But
you do not know this and many other things, for
you are not jury Of lawyers. You don't know
what reasonable doub is, perhaps If on look
ing the testimony over, not TO If there may
not possibly be a doubt, but impartially. you are
not FULLY satisfied of the guilt of the prisoner he
is all to have the benefit of that doubt. II
may be indeed that Mcdonnell is entirely inno-
cent, he may have been insane. If there is a ra-
tional not merely possible, doubt of guilt it will
suffice to reduce the crime to manslaughter.
Mr.. Roberts argues if the government were
attempting to guess these boys to death. GEN
tlemen if 1t were possible | wouldn't have you do
it. | should despise jury that could, it would
be higher crime than Mcdonnell S. l, is a fear
full thing to DO tried convicted and con-
demned, but how much less would
the criminal be worthy Of comiseratiun
than the people of the State, if a clear case of
murder III uld be acquitted, on such arguments as
these. Counsel on the other side seem to have
forgotten that community has much at stake in
this matter that the lives of other people too are
valuable. Do they not think it Of much conse-
quence if our streets are to be unprotected from
violence and peaceable men are to be insulted and
stabbed?
Mr. Hard proceeded at considerable length Z,
fha M viz Of ha 1our orl ~.
theory of the case, presented in the open
ing argument OF Mr.. Preach, and to analyze the
testimony at length. He said that the statement
of the defense that the doctrine of implied malice
was modern HEREsY, proved either that they did
not understand the principles of Criminal Juris-
prudence, or wIshed to misrepresent them to the
jury. lie argued from the testimony that express
malice towards Mckeen was shown, and that there
was nothing to reduse the killing to manslau ter
Surprising Mckeen did strike Mcdonnell the blow
was not a severe one, for IL lett no mark If ac.
cident did foresta his purpose and drive the knife
home a second before he would have done it, that
would make no difference. But there was no evil
denee of blow on McKeen's part, and he believed
that the knife was held by Mcdonnell. in front of
him as they met, was struck into the breast of
McKeen, and was driven into his heart by the
weight of McDOnnelPs body in the fall He de-
Tended the witnesses for the State said that thew
were young men OF good character, that they an
peared on the stand as any four selected from the
entire audience could and it was Incredible that
they could have combined TO swear away the lives
of the respondents with whom they were not even
acquainted
He argued further that if the respondents or anv
them went to Nckeen's door, for tbe nnrnosa of
doing an unlawful act, and any one was killed IL
was murder. lie contended from the testimony.
and from the circumstance that the same things
were done on both evenings. that it was Balm and
Mcdonnell who made the disturbance at McKeen's
door on the i4th and on the 2lst of May, and
characterized their conduct as immden,
insulting, unlawful and outrageous as it could be
short of actual violence He maintained that thew