New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-19
THE METHOD or TIE PROSECUTION

IHE ME IHOD Of IEE NJ on 4 ii'-'s
The evidence on the Guiteau trial yesterday
was strictly i'll continuation of that of Thurs
day. 1t consisted in examining, one after
another all persons who witnessed the shoot
ing, or took any part in the arrest OF Gulteau
in the care and removal Of the wounded man,
etc. All details are carefully inquired for,
and there is evident cndcavOr to reconcile, If
possible, by sworn testimony Of eyewitness,
those discrepancies which have been detected
in the reports published at the time Guitcau
continued as ObsreperOus as ever, but counsel
OH both sides appeared to harmonic in the
general purpose of eliciting all the circum-
stances of the affair. There was little indica-
ton of effort so common i'll such trials, on
the part of either to head off the others
chosen line of examination, or to prevent the
fullest elucidatiOn of the facts the opponent
might desire to elicit.
According to some theories Of the way to try
a charge of murder when the defence is in
sanity, Colonel Corl,hill might content him
self at the outset with short and simple proof
of the killing; and might rest upon the pre-
sumption of law and common sense that every
man is sane and responsible for his actions,
until the defence should offer proof TO i'm
peach the prisoners sanity. Some Courts have
been of opinion that Gniteaus mental CON
dition is no part of the crime, but if he were
exempt from punishment 10y reason Of mental
disease that is matter of defence to be cs-
tablished in his behalf. We believe that cases
are on record going so far as to say that
prisoners counsel to obtain an acquittal on
the ground of insanity, must establish it be-
yOnd reasonable doubt. At the other eX-
IRENE stands the view that Guiteaus mental
capacity for crime is constituent part OF the
offence, and the Government must prove this
as vigorously as they are required to prove his
act of shooting. In other words, they must
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Guitcau
was a responsible being as well as that he
shot Garfield. And so far has this view been
carried that in one instance the jury returned
to the courtroom for additional instructions,
saving: awe find the prisoner sane Immediately
before and after the shooting, bat doubt his
sanity at the moment" ; and the judge told them
to give him the benefit Of that doubt, and
they then rendered a verdict of Not Guilty.
This question of the burden of proof relative
to the defence of insanity is one of the most
embarrassing aspects of that most pcrpleXinS
question.
Colonel CCrkLlll appears willing to assume
that the defence of insanity must he met,
sooner or later, and to shape his examination
accordingly. To use courtroom phrase, he
is anticipating and repelling the defence. Both
his opening address and bis line of questions
are adapted to dispel from the outset the idea
of mental disease by establishing ground for
believing that the act was inspired by revenge.
Thus the course taken has already brought
prominently forward the facts that Guiteau
was all through the spring persistent appli-
cant for office; that he wrote and spoke
favorably of President Garfield so long as
his hope to be appointed a consul sur
vived that when he was finally rebu1ed
he first began to ponder the idea Of "remOv-
ing" the President; and that it was not until
then that he conceived the idea of fguring as
"Stalwart" From the same general facts
defendants counsel apparently hope to con-
vince the jury that the long anxiety and final
disappointment leaving the man in hopeless
poverty, and acting on mind hereditarily
predispOsed to alteration, destroyed the mental
balance. The success Of their effort may,
evidently depend at last upon whether the
Judge shall require them to prove insanity