New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1877-01-31

the evidence, as to whetherHSolinge ger ia de-
ceased, aud whether she was unlawfally
killed. If she were, then her killing was
teIOnieus and mansl auRbter, and you will
proceed to inquire if she were killed by the
accused or either of them.
The court cen not touch the evidence.
The jury alone can pass upon the CREDIBLE
ity of the witnesses. Bat the jury should
not be influenced by anything outside of tie
evidence actually IN the case admitted by
the court. Impressions, no matter of what
degree, existing upon your minds before
you were empanneled to try this case,
should be utterly discarded by you, and al
lowed to have no influence in your deter
mination. You have no right to permit
yourselves to be affected by anything that
may have appeared on previous trials of
this case, or by any Endorsements upon the
Indictment which you will take to the jury
reoD, showing the result of the previous
trials. Your minds should be as free from
bias as if the case had never been tried be-
fore, as if you had never known of
its existence before you were sworn
as Jurors to try it. And l further charge
you on this head. that you are not to find
a verdict in accordance with any belief of
innocence or guilt. You are to be guided
solely by your honest convictions after care
FULLY weighing the evidence actually intro
duced. and with due regard to the courts
instructions as to the law.
In considering the evidence You will dis
tinguish between that offered as to one, and
that offered as to the other, and govern
yourselves accordingly in your conclusions.
To convict a iperson of crime on eircum-
stantial evidence is to adiudge him guilty
without direct proof, as OF an eye witness,
that lie committed the crime. but upon evil
denoe of facts tending, as circumstances, to
establish the fact of his guilt. In some in
stances these circumstances assume the
character of irresistible evidence" ii How.
st. Tr. 1924.
1.-THE fret question ought to be, is the
fact possible. If so, are there anv circum-
stances which render it impOssiblel If the
facts are impossible the witness ought not
to be credited" l Stark. Ev. sos.
If the facts, thus sifted could not exist
without the accused person being guilty as
charged, the jury should find him guilty.
II the jury find that they may be reason
ably accounted Tor on another hypothesis
than the guilt of the accused, they are not
sufficient without the presence of some di.
rect evidence to warrant conviction.
Previous good character of the accused
need not be established. As to the present
accusation the prisoners stand before the
court and in the eve of the law as though
their previous histories had been wholly
without blemish. Previous trials and pre-
viOus convictions do not affect this position
preiudicially.
Ii you entertain a reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused, or either of them,
you are bound to return verdict of not
guilty es to the subject or subjects OF such
doubt; but this doubt must be serious-the
conscientious, sensible doubt of a reason
able mind, existing after due consideration
of the law and the evidence.
The jury will not take into account, in
deciding upon their verdict, the penalty i'm.
posed by the law and to be decreed by the
court. The responsibility resting upon the
jury is confined to the answer to the ques-
zion: Are the accused guilty as ohargedi
The court and the executive will see to
what remains in case the jury decide the
case against the prisoners
Gentlemen, the case is with you. Do
your duty to the State and to the accused
without prejudice toward either, and under
the solemn sanction of your oaths.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 81, 1877.