The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1876-12-28
lconeluaed from Pinth Paso.)

eAtly satisfied, ana not convinced 10
moral certainty Of the guilt of theaccused.
A reasonable doubt is an honest uncer-
tainty existing in the mind Of an honest,
impartial, reasonable man, after a full and
careful consideration of all the evidence,
with desire to ascertain the truth. But
a reasonable doubt, is to be distinguished
from a mere captious doubt, mere arbi-
trary and speculative doubt. The law
does not require that the proof shall sat
isfy the minds of the jury all possible
doubt but only beyond a reasonable
doubt. And while it is true that the law
deems it better that many guilty persons
should escape for want Of adequate prooi
of guilt, rather than that one innocent
should be convicted and punished upon
insufficient evidence, yet absolute, une-
quivocal certainty is not required in any
case. And it is rarely attainable. Posi-
Bile and contingent doubt hang over all
human affairs. You will be justified In
considering.a reasonable doubt as exist
ing, and should acquit the prisoner, ifthe
testimony and circumstances existing in
the case may fairly be reconciled within
.necence, for the hypothesis, or inference
of guilt, should flow naturally from the
facts proved, and be considered with
them all, and the evidence must be such
as to exclude to moral certainty every
hypothesis or theory but that of her guilt.
II the evidence satisfies you of the pris-
oner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
you should 30 find your verdict. But II
a reasonable doubt remains in the mind
of the jury, or the mind Of either of you,
as TO the guilt of the prisoner, you can
not convict her of either of the grades of
crime charged in the indictment as to
which such reasonable doubt may remain,
even although you may think there are
strong probabilities of guilt.
As to the testimony, 1 will say, it may
either be positive or circumstantial. Ifa
witness sees, knows, and testities to the
commission of the ultimate fact to be
proved, that is positive or direct evidence.
But it is not always possible, and espe-
cially in criminal cases to establish guilt,
or make out special defence by direct
and positive testimony, nor is it neces'a-
ry. The safety Of life and property, and
the reasonable security cf those charged
with crime require, and the law provides
or allows that circumstantial evidence
alone, where sufficient, shall justify con-
viction or establish a defence, even in
capital cases. Circumstantial evidence is
proof Of facts standing Or existing around
the ultimate fact or facts to be proved,
and having such relation to 1t or them,
that such ultimate fact or facts may be
inferred, or deduced from suchsurround-
ing fact, or facts, by a process of reason
ing.
The credibility of the witnesses who
have testified in the case, as well as the
weight and effect of the circumstances, or
evidentiary facts, which may be estab-
lished are solely for your consideration
and determination. Andin weighing the
testimony of witnesses you should take
into consideration the reasonableness and
of the story they may tell,
heir manner on the witness stand, the
strength of their memory and their judg-
nent when giving their opinions, wheth-
,r they are contradicted or sustained by
INV reliable testimony in the case, any |
interest arising from relationship, or 9TH
" cause which any witness may have, or
eel, in favor of the party calling him, or
Ter, and any other proper consideration
developed by the testimony which may
id you in arriving at just conclusion.
A large portion of the evidence, con-
lists of testimony tending to show con-
-ersations in which either the deceased or
he prisoner, or both, as well as others,
participated. No class Of testimony is
more unreliable, and a more frequent
ause Of error in courts of justice than
he narration of declarations, or CONVEX
ations, real or pretended. The meaning
nd intention of person in conversa-
ion, often depends upon gesture, mode of
Expression, or peculiar attending circum
tances, known perhaps but to few pres
MT. A conversation may not be fully
card by the witness, it may be imper-
sctly recollected, ,orinaccurately repeated,
yhen the omission or addition Of single
yord, or the substitution of the language
( the witness under color of bias or eX-
ltement, for the words actually used
light change the sense Of an entire con-
ersation. This is apparent from the
contradictions daily mani
,sted in the narrative of the same con-
ersation from the mouths of different
illnesses. l make these observations to
aution you that in considering this class
( testimony, you should, before deter
aiming its just weight, view it with great
nd deliberate care and scrutiny.
The State has introduced testimony
ending to show declarations of the pris-
ner admitting that she shot the deceased,
nd at the same time stating that she did
0 after he had assaulted and cut her with
razor, and shot her in her left side with
revolver, and also stating other partic-
lars of the alleged transaction.
These statements having been given in
vidence against her, the exculpatory
arts thereof, or parts thereof in her JUS
as we'll as those which import
uilt, are to be received and considered
y yon as evidence, and it is your pro-
ince, in the light of all the evidence in
he case, to decide upon the truth or false
ood of such exculpatory parts, or state
1ents in her own favor.
The State has introduced testimony
ending TO show threats Of the prisoner,
rior to the death of the deceased, to take
LIS life, or do him personal injury.