Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-12-06

proved, malice may be inferred or implied
from the circumstances and facts.
The three petsons-Cammack, Williams,
n the defendant-have testified that
George Landphere was, on that day, killed
~ means Of . gun and = pistol. The skull
in evidence. Exhibits " such perforations or
bullet holes, corresponding to this part Of
their testimony. So far, aud as to the fact
OF 1.-THE killing and the means employed. they
all agree and % 10 this can there be any
doubt !?
But the two first named witnesses testify
that the defendant himself did the shooting
and killing; whilst, on the contrary, the
defendant ~testities that Cammack and viii.
llams did the shooting, the former with a
pistol and the latter with the gun. Here is
4 direct conflict Of evidence. You cannot
OF course believe that both these statements
are at the same tim true; for there is a
positive and an ~irreconcilable contradiction
between such statements.
IT therefore becomes your solemn duty
to determine, under the light of nil The
evidence in the case, which of thu two
statements is true. That is, ia the testimony
of the defendant true, that the others did
the shooting and killing; or is the evidence
of Cammack and Williams true. that The
defendant did it?
In determining this question, [ have said
that you are to be guided by the light at.
Storded from all the evidence in the case.
You are to make an entire comparison of
all the evidence, and to carefully consider
it all.
All the facts and circumstances are to be
%studiously reviewed und revolved by you /;
y among the others any confessions or adj.
missions that may have been made by the
accused. And l draw your attention to this
subject because l have been 40 requested to
do by the COUNSEL of the defendant and by the
U. S. attorney. And both sides agree that
the following propositions are applicable to
the case, and contain the law, and should
be given by the court Accordingly / give
them, and 80 instruct yousto-wit 90
For, the defendant, respectfully asks the
to charge as the law of evidence /:
/. Evidence of mere verbal admissions.
unsupported by any other evidence, should
be cautiously weighed by the iury.
because of their liability to be misunder.
stood, the facility OF fabricating them, and
the difficulty of disproving them.
=. The evidence of verbal confession of
guilt is to be received with great caution.
For, besides the danger of mistake, from
the misapprehension of witnesses, the mis-.
use of words, the failure of the party TO ex-
press his own meaning, and the intirmity of
memory it should be recollected that the
mind OF the prisoner himself is oppressed by |
the calamity of his situation, and that he is
often influenced by motives of hope or fear
to make an untrue confession.
The zeal, too, which SO generally prevails
to detect offenders, especially in cases of
aggravated crime, and The strong disposition
in the persons engaged in the pursuit of
evidence: to rely on slight grounds of
suspicion, which are exaggerated into sufi-
cient proof, together with the character Of
the persons necessarily called as witnesses,
in cases of secret and atrocious crimes, ali
tend to impair this kind of evidence, and
sometimes lead to its rejection.
8. Confessions or admissions of guilt.
both as to particular crime and the guilt OF
the accused, must be made voluntary, and
without hope or fear and the jury will dis
regard all verbal admissions and confess
sions which are not proven to have been so
made.
And further, the jury will disregard all
legally identified.
Legal identification means that the jury
must be satisfied from the evidence, that
" SOAAAScSkOn6 anu duIulSSlOu6 TplHLQ IN
the killing of the deceased, Landphere, and
the guilt of the accused, Beebe.
4. All reasonable doubts must be re-
solved in favor of the accused.
And the United States attorney asks the
following instructions to be given TO the
jury:
Subject to the legal caution as laid down
by the court, confessions of guilt are among
the most effectual proofs in the law.
1t Is to be presumed that a rational being
will not make admissions preiudicial to his
interest and safety unless when urged by
promptings of truth and conscience.
Confessions made voluntarily. without
duress, and not under the influence of either
threats or hopes held out to him az induce
ments, are at law received in evidence as
among proofs OF guilt.
Should you find therefore that the defen-
dant, voluntarily, made a confession that he
killed Landphere, TO Somera, and that this
confession was not obtained by the influence
of hope or fear, such confession is legal eyi.
dence, tending to show guilt.
Gentlemen Of the jury, you are the exclu.
sive judges of all questions of fact in this
case. The duty Of the court is, in charging
the jury, to state to them all matters of law
which it thinks necessary for their infor.
nation in giving their verdict. 1
You are, Of course. the judges Of the cred.
Utility of each and every witness. 1t is for
you to say which n you will believe and
which one you will discredit.
Every defendant in a criminal action is
presumed to be innocent until the contrary
is proved and in case ofa reasonable doubt
as to whether his guilt is satisfactorily
shown, he is entitled to be acquitted. A
doubt, based or founded on reason; is, of
a reasonable doubt. 1t must spring
from reason and the facts in evidence-not
from a mere wish to acquit irrespective Of
the testimony. Your verdict must be a true
one, according to the evidence produced.
Such doubt must be actual and substantial. |
mere possibility or speculation. 1t is
mere possible doubt; because everything,
perhaps, relating to human affairs, and de-
pending upon moral evidence, is open to
possible or imaginary doubt.
The mind of the juror is in a state Of
reasonable doubt. when, after an entire com
parison and consideration of the evidence.
IL, ~,sol - 1.fk - A. - sssw I'll