New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-05-11

I'm 9ld never VIII leave you ~ any othcr
obligation a human being can assume; ana En you,
gentcncr the time viii come when you VIII have II TO
to man go wien knew that he ought 20 be con,
viced1 Have consented 70 barter away my Inhhood
Gentlemen leave this case with You, trusting. hon
tee to the people and 10 the prisoner
EEcORER JACKETS CHARGE.
At the close OF DisrictAttorney Garvin's argument
the Court took for half hour. Upon rcassem
bling, at O'Clock, Recorder Haekett occupied fifty Two
minutes in delivering the following charge to the jury:
GHYTLEMEy OF THE JURY: To you and all others who
have assisted IA this trial it must be especial cause OF
eongraulation that it rapidly draws to close. All
which remains unfulflcd 10 the elaboration and
solemn conclusion which your duty a. Jurors enions
upon you In few hours this case, which has daily Dech
prominently presented TO the public eye during five
weeks will pass quietly from its gaze, only to be remem
bered for tie precedent which may be established ny
your verdict That this has been trial invested with
great public interest as You could only have noticed
from the throng daily beseging the Courtroom)
may properly be attributed to the fact that incidentally
well directly many notable personages have been
brought forward whose public positions and acts ana
sayings I'm conjunction with tho wife Of the accused for
various wears prior 10 tho shooting, had occasoned
extraordinary aud fuse comments.
must now ask your undivided attention whle assist
You in holding evenly the baancebeam nom which de-
pedd the scales of acquittal and conyetonscaes into
which such volume of evidence has been placed Inc
duty judge and jury always difficult at the end of
those cases in which unavoidable latitude has been given
evidence has been taken by the zeal OF counsel
consumed in eloquent addresses upon either side
Your duty becomes extraordinarily difficult under
the extreme latitude taken by evidence and counsel
during this trial. and proceeding from thc Pc
culiarities Of the defense. l can best liken
your labor to that OF the gold miner who il Obliged
to sft bushels Of sand in order To obtain few grains OF
gold; because really amid AL these Accommodations ol CYL
the issues for you determine few and eapa
bic OF being simpihed. II 1t had been possible NJ We
outset to have known what circumstances were clearly
admissible In evidence directly bearing upon tbe III,
sanity defense ths case might perhaps nave been closed
within week. -. - ,u,.o l.,
not to be nor upon te speeches
OF counsel acquitted upon sympathy for m or MS
the living or convicted because public policy may de
mand example. feel it my duty also TO remind you that
they have been material Illnesses ana tLeh only
their eredbty witnesses Oh tho trial Is to Dc cohSd
know that is constituted by the intimate re;
lation between his intellectual and affective or emotional
qualities that is difficult for him in any condition of
lie to keep sympathy or prejudice from WarphSJ uGS
men But In tic jurybox the juror must closely self
catechiss in to discover If he cam whether either
prejudice rsympathy exist in his mind IL ether mas
Impressed him whether from remarks OF counsel or
Judge from his creations that sympathy or pre-
judcc be sterny laid aside. sympathy is Just az
to 10 dismissed prejudice. and prejudice as much
rs sympathy. Only that you might If possible, FEoDe
the mind of the accused and find out what manner OF
man he was and certain uutoward circumstances
like tn impress that mind nalei0lsy or eAcsaby,
has much testimony been admitted or character
which, when disconnected from the foregoing inquiry,
becomes wholly irrelevant. .,
deem it my duty to more particularly caution you
against mixing the evidence ayorably orniayoIaDy
with counsel either side. At the close OF
long criminal trial it is difficult even Tor luagc ana
sometimes for lawyers who are engaged In the case
to remember whether an impression toward an accused
was derived from actual evidence or from te %
OF counsel upon evidence or from reinaits NIL
out evidence. | deem 1t my duty TO also particularly
of acts or specific Of counsel on either side 1t has
nothing do With your estimation Of the facts that one
counsel has LETT one side OF thc case, or that e1 cou
sci came to AID the prosecution Eftra counsel tOr Tue
people cannot come into criminal case without as
sent Of the court Says Bishop on Criminal o RI1
while conducting the cause may, with the con,
cuTence Of the court he assisted by other legal persons
To critcse Therefore the OF extra counsel
is crciso the action Of the Court Let me- however,
ecution defense is conducted Is legitimate subject OF
or tic, subject to the rules OF candor and taste In
The United states agt. arway e Wallace, jr 1891 the
Court approved OF counsel coming ny order OF me tiOV
counsel employed by the trends n the deceased
lion Of help NAV depend somewhat upon local usage"
The records Of this court show that there has seldom been
additional counsel Tor the people Some of the very
eases cited by the counsel for the defense show that
counsel other than the District Attorney and Attorney
General represented the people: In Great Britain, to
this day, nearly all prosecutions for the Crown are con-
The zeal OF the counsel for the defense has been cr
c5ed by the District Attorney deem It to be my duty
repeat the rule governing tho duty OF
a counsel: as laid down by Mr. Henry Brougham in his
Lord Chancellor aud lived believe, for ninety years,
and, the extract appears IN ms published works
posse when stated. 10 MOI say whether approve
or dfsapproye OF it state it as the extreme view, and
one which any counsel for defense might adopt with
attentions belief in it, IAN advocate, in the discharge
his duty knows but one person in AL the world and
that person his client To that client by all means
and expedient and at all hazards and costs Ia other
sons and among them himself, is his first and only
te alarm the torments the destruction which may
bring npon other separanG the duty 81 Parrot riot
sequences though 1t should be his unhappy late TO
involve hi. country in confusion"
But Judge and jury must al all events discriminate only
the evidence, amid Jealous means and Jealous eXpedi-
ens, II ever those eAist IN any case Juagg ana Jury
those distracng Issues which may nave nccn dragged
into eae and n the language o OF Mr. BI9lSnhm IN
ing torments brought upon them" Dismiss utterly
persons Who have not been witnesses Heed criticism
witnesses unless you find authorized by some
from your memory every fact circumstance in eyi-
dence which, in your estimation cannot illustrate the
question OF sanity or insanity or or malice, or when
does not bear upon the time place. mode aud act OF Kill
ing Let us begin with the first day.
as individuals, and yet Jurors, Daniel Mcfarland
was arraigned at this bar Tie indictment strppad OF
richardson intending to kin him. Includedin the direct
charge was an implied one that existed In al cases OF
ity. shall for breyy use the phrase state OF sanity
or state OF INSANITY continuously through this charge
do so because il is the statutory phrase No act done by
The Statute did not and no arbitrary statute
all Hence it is left to be interpreted by the courts
oiits s as meaning thereby th the state in
which the knows the act he is committing to be UNI
apply such knowledge and to be controlled by it.
In using the phrase, state OF insanity" am TO he
understood throughout meaning thereby, the state
under which is not accountable for an alleged
criminal act because he does not know that the act he IS
committing is unlawful and morally wrong, and has not
reason sufficient apply such knowledge and to be con-
trolled by it, The accused simply pleaded not guilty to
the charge That general denial as subsequent test
rnOny has shown you) really particular denial-a
denial that he killed with intention to KILL because he
was not legally capable OF forming an Intention to KILL
a. intention which recognized by the law TO be
criminal and thereby render him accountable TO human
law Practically by the evidence the physical act Of
killing (that Is often subject OF dispute Ia homicide
cases) has been admitted. But the mental character OF
the act legal accountability for the act were put in
issue.