American citizen. [volume] (Butler, Butler County, Pa.) 1863-1872, 1867-04-17

any time during that period without the
witnesses, who were there, having seen
him strike
These inquiries are for you, and you
alone. Nothing we should say-if we
were to take up, in detail, the facts
which have been proven to you've do
not believe would aid you in coming to
result. If-after the len4thy and able
arguments OF eight counsel, tor the last
two days, celebrating the facts and pres
sing their conclusions upon you-they
| will not assist you in discovering tho
truth in this case, any remarks from the
| Court would, in our Judgment, be entire,
" unayailing; and, therefore, we shall
! leave the facts entirely with you. And
as the character and reliability Of eircum-
stantial evidence has been 50 fully dis
cussod, in the argument of the cause, it
may be proper-as well 0s proftable-to
address you on that question. We will,
therefore. read to you the opinions Of
! some Of the most profound and eminent
Judges of this country upon the import
ant question of circumstantal evidence ::
.'Ihe distinction, then" says Chief
Justice Shaw in the Welster case, be
tween direct and circumstantial evidence
is this: Direct or positive evidence is
where witness can be called to testify to
the precise fact which is the subject of
the charge in the trial that is the Iiom-
tcitle that the party accused dit cause the
death of the deceased Whatever may
be the kind, or force Of evidence, this Is
the fact to be proved. But suppose no
person present on the occasion OF the
death. and of course no one can be called
10 testify. to il, is it wholy unsuscePt'ble
of legal proof? Experience does show
ths circumstantial evidence may be Off
cred in such case, that is, the body OF
facts, quite as strong and certain as that
on which discreet men are accustomed
TO act in relation to their most important
concerns. 1t would be injurious 10 the
best interests of society, if such proof did
not avail in judicial proceedings. If it
were necessary always to have positive
evidence, how many criminal acts com.
mitted in the community Obstructive Of
its peace and suhversye OF its order and
security, would go wholly undett cted
and unpunished The necessity, there's
fore, of resorting to circumstan:.al evil
dcnce-it it be a safe ard reliable pro-
ceediug--is obvious and absolute. Crimes
are secret. Most men conscious Of crlm>
inal purposes, and about the execution Of
criminal acts, seek security Of secrecy
and darkness. 1t is. therefore, necessa>
ry to use all other modes of evidence be
side that Of direct testimony, pr0Uided,
such proofs may be relied on as leading
to safe and satisfactory concusions-and. F..
thanks to benifcent Providence-th the
laws of nature, and the relations ofthings
to each other, and SO linked and combin>
ed together that a medium of Yroot is
often furnished, leading to infcrences
and conclusions as strong as those aris-
ing from direct estimony."
Chief Justice Whitmire said. in charg-
ing a jury in a case otgreat interest, CIR
cumstantial evidence is stronger, often,
and more satisfactory than direct, be
cause it is not liable to delusion or fraud" !"
"The eye of Omncience," said Mr..
Justice Parker, "can alone see the truth
in all ses-circumstantial evidence is
there out of all question-but clothe as
we are with the inirmaties of human
nature, how are we to get at the truth
without cOncatauation Of circumstances?
Though in human judication imperfect
as it must be, it sometimes happens, per.
e h1ps, in the course ofone hundred years,
that few solitary instances, owing t.
the minute and curious circumstances
which sometimes envelope human trans
actions, error has been mmitted from
reliance on circumstantial evidence yet
this species of evidence, in the opinion
Of those who are most conversant with
the administration of justice, aHd most
skilled in judicial proceedings, is much
more satisfactory than the testimony of
single individual who swears that he
has seen fact committed"
And the late distinguished Chief
Justice Gibson, said,. (Com. VS.. Horton
4, Bar 269,) Circumstantal evidence
in a capital case is, in the abstract,
nearly, though perhaps not altogether.
as strong as positive evidence in the
concrete it may be infinitely stronger. A
fact positively sworn to is net Sc satis--
tactorlly proved, as fact which is the
Necessary consequence of chain of other
facts sworn to by many of doubtful cred
ibility. Indeed, scarcely know whether
there is any such thing as evidence pos
tive. The only difference between pos
tive and circumstantia evidence is that
the former is more immediate, and hi Q
fewer links in the chain of connection
between the premises and the conclusion.
All evidence is more or less circupastdn-
tiat, the difference being on in the de-
gree and it is sufficient for the purpose
when it exclu lies disbelef--that is, ac-
tual and not technical disbelief; for he
who is to pass upon the question, is not
at lit erty to diSbeiieGe as juror while
he believes as a man. 1t is enough that
his conscience is clear"
As the facts and circumstances in each
particular case, in some respects neces-
sarily are peculiar, aud differe Mt from all
othels, it is difficult TO lay down general
ules for the guide Of jurors in each case.
There is one rule ought never to be de-
parted from, it is said aud that is no one
should be convicted of murder on cir
= Il