The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1867-02-15
CHARGE OF JUDGE TAPLEY.

Va SobHh "a bo4s
GEsrLENES or THE JuRY:
The prisoner nj the lar stands charge,
with the wiliul and deliberate murder q
her husband, on the 2:Ll of September
is6t, ut her own house in Kennebunk, il
this county. !, Is charged that this mur
der was accomplished by the Use ola dcall.
poison known by the name OF morphine
and that il was administered to him in |
quantity ut liquor.
The charge is SIMPLE, plain. specific AM
unambisuous, AMI IL now becomes my dur,
10 present TO you such rules Of law rs may IN
necessary OF application in the performance,
oithe duties deyolyiug upon YOU, and TO cal
y, ur attention To the material propositions
Of law and fact which have so ably been n,
yanccd upon the one side and the other
and propose To do IL In brief and as cN
plicii aud concise manner ~ l am able tC
do under the circumstances, foregoing al
conncn's upon the general and peculiar
characteristics Of the case-thcy are appar
cnt to you and wide range Of discussion
has taken place concerning them in your
hearing.
l shall in tho first place invite your nt'
tcntiou 10 some general propositions of LAW
applicable alike TO all criminal causes;
AMOUNT or EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN GRIN
NAL CASKS.
]. Incrininal causes the government mus
sustain all the material aud essential allcga
tons of the charge hy evidence that shall
leave no rrasonubl. doubt resting upon the
mind OF the juror, Of their truth. They
must prove everything necessary to be
proved, beyond reasonable doubt. The
rule which prevails in civil causes, that the
issue may he determined by mere pre-
pondcrancc Of evidence. is REGARDED, rs IN
safe in those eases where the life or the
liberty Of the citizen is involved. A high.
or degree Of proof is rrInire,l-a degree
that shall afford satisfaction of the truth
OF the propositions, and satisfaction in no
manner clou,led with reasonable doubts.-
Ii reasonable doubt exists the prisoner is
entitled To the benefit of il, although the
juror may have strong impressions amount
ing almost to conviction Of the guilt of the
accused.
To Justify juror in Withholding his YER
diet, however, upon the ground OF doubts
concerning the proof, the doubts upon
which bc relies must bc Of a reasonable
character, actually resting upon his mind.
They must not be mere imaginary posi-
bilitICs, having no foundation in reason or
in the evidence, but such doubts ~ leave
the mind Of the juror uncertain and unsat
isticd, acting US reasonable, intelligent,
impartial and unbiased individual.
Upon this point ! win call your attention,
to the statement OF the law in the case OF
Commonwealth vs.. Webster, as given by
Chief Justice Shaw. Tie thus defines a
reasonable ,loubt.-"lt is not mere posi-,
bic doubt because everything relating to
human affairs, and depending on moral ey-
idencc, is open tn some possible or iuag-
mary doubt. II is that state Of the case
which, after the entire comparison and
Of all the evidence, leaves
tho minds Of the jurors ~ that condition
that they cannot say they feel an abiding
conviction to moral certainty, OF tho
charge. The burden of proof Is upon the
prosecutor. AL the prescriptions Of law,
of evidence, are ia favor oi
innocence; and every person is presumed
TO be innocent until he Is proved to be
guilty. lf upon that proof there is rca-
sonable doubt remaining, he accused is en-
titled tn the benefit OF IL by an ncquital.
For II i mo-, sulI;c;,n, in establish n prol,a.
,;l;,y ,houyh a strong one. arising from the
of chances tina, the fac, charged
s more likely to be true than the contrary ;
bur the evidence must establish the truti,
Of the Tact To unreasonable and moral GER
taiuiy-a certainty that con, inces and di-
reefs the understanding, and satisfies the
reason and Judgment Of those who are
bound tn net conscientiously upon e. This
we take to be proof beyond reasonable
doubt; bcco,isc, IL the law. which mostly
depends upon considerations of a mOnl
nature, should 20 further than this and re-
quire absolute certainty. i would exclude
circunIstuntial evidence altogether
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
m or ,h;. r,,,,. ;,,,o.;,c ,h;.
,,nI., nn a.. ,o,.,,,,,.n, ,b,. law ,l.o
,s.s,,,., III. ,,;sonor ;nnor.,, mill sLc !.
pss n, :. % T., n,;n~ ill., ,'r,. u ~,
ihT 80 s,,hc,,,, e",,G, ,y a.. Cr,nJ
I I,'., "J L.. 49,, shanrr NH. stains Sh. nm.
VI - s LII 49,, a., Ia. ,,..
p i,...". sh. - no, ry;I,y mill the cv;,l.pc,
Ia. r.,.Il,J ,h., n,,,,,,nn,;on. ami es,aI,.
,;"h,J N ;,s s,c,d ,be. SATISFACTORY evidence
r,",,;r,.d ot' her guilt. Throughout the Fri.
n .n,I man every poin, in !, necessary jo,
n. ,"vrrnmen, 10 prove, this presumption
,,,.eds her. Although this is a proposition
..n;.h .o,nmenJs ;,srlf 10 the Judgment Of
VIZ ;'',;";',n.J an, ono ,rco,nn,ly o,,o,.
~ III ',n;..r",ilv Lnown !, neyrr,Lrlcss
r.o, % s""e rmic ctlan ot the mini IA
ocso", ;, H. ,r;snncr nm, ii,ll ben,lir of lis
M, nro,;';nnl
m. nr;san., = br,,,h, inn, ro,,r, in
ch,ry., " = ."r.,;J ill.,, oC,;c,r. nlacc,l
IN a srn, ,nro;n,.,, r., ,'r;so,sr.. Tho rLnrp.