Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1882-01-27

loio ~ dCCOooa1y, uOW0fCA, in oho
final argument, to interpose
contradiction to such
statement, and an exception
had been taken on the part of the
accused to the form in which that
effort was made, for the sole purpose
of purging the record of any OBJ
iectionable matter. He should sim
ply say that anything which had
been said on either side in reference
to public excitement or to newspaper
opinion, was not to be regarded by
the jury. The Indictment charged
the defendant with having murdered
James A. Garfield, and it was the
duty Of the court to explain the
nature of the crime charged. Muir
der was committed when a person of
sound memory and discretion un-
lawfully killed a reasonable being in
the peace of the United States, with
malice aforethought. 1t had to be
proved first that death was caused
by the act of the accused, with malice
aforethought. That did not mean,
however, that the government had to
prove any ll-will Or hatred on the
part of the accused toward the de-
ceased. Wherever homicide was
shown to have been committed with
out lawful authority and with deliber
ate intent, it was sufficiently proved
to have been done with malice afore
thought and malice was not disprov.
en- by showing that the accusedhad
no personal i'll will to the deceased,
and that he had killed him from
and other motives, as for instance,
robbery, or through mistaking him
for another, or, as claimed in this
case, to produce public benefit If it
could be shown that the killing oc-
CURED in the heat of passion or un-
der provocation, then it would ap-
pear that there was no premeditated
attempt, and therefore no malice
aforethought, and that would reduce
the crime to manslaughter. 1t was
hardly necessary, however, to say
that there was nothing of that kind
in the present case; the jury would
have to say either that the defends
ant was guilty of murder or that he
was innocent. In order
to constitute the crime of murder,
the assassin must have a reasonably
sane mind in technical terms. He
must be in sound mind, memory and
discretion. An irresponsibly insane
man could not commit murder. If
he was laboring under disease of the
mental faculties to such an extent
that he did no5 know what he was
doing, or did not know it was wrong,
then he was wanting in that sound
mind, memory and discretion. That
was part of the definition of murder.
In the next place, every defendant
was presumed innocent until the
accusation against him was estab-
lished by proof In the next place,
Notwithstanding this presumption of
innocence, it was equally true that
the defendant was presumed to be
sane apd to have been SO at the time
the crime was committed-that is to
say, that the government was not
bound to show affirmatively, as part
of it's proof, that the defendant was
sane. AS insanity was an exception,
and as the majority of men are sane,
the law presumed the latter condi-
ton of every man until some reason
was shown to believe to the con-
trary. The burthen was, therefore,
on the defendant, who set up insanity
as an excuse for crime, to produe
proof, in the first instance, to show
that that presumption was mistaken
so far as it related to the prisoner
The crime, therefore, involved three ele-
ments-killing, malice and RESPONSE
BILE mind in the murderer, after all
evidence was before the jury. Ii the
jury, while bearing in mind both
of those presumptions that is, that
the defendant is innocent till he is
proved guilty, and that he is sane till
the contrary appears, still entertained
what is called reasonable doubt on
any ground, or as to any of the es
sential elements of crime, then the
defendant was entitled to the benefit
of that doubt and to an acquittal.
At 4:40, the jufy retired, and
came into the court again at s. 36 and
rendered a verdict of guilty as in
dicted.