Huntsville gazette., 1882-02-04

sumption OF innocence, 1t Was e,iTalr,S ,.,t,,-
~ tllg ueIendant was presumed to be sane, and
! ~ nave Deen SO at the time the crime was
| committed; that Is to say, the Governments
was not bound to show afiirmatively, as part
| u ~ lts proofs. that the defendant was sane :
| the Suruen OF proof was thrown on the de
iehdant, who set up insanity as an excuse for
MS crime, To produce proofs in the first in
stance 1T has to show that the presumption
was mistaken so far as it related to the pris-
Oher The crime, therefore, involved three
elements; the killing, malice, and responsible
Inhd IN the murderer. That the defendant
hled the shot at the deceased President was
ebundantly proved That the wound was
fatal has been testified to by surgeons compe-
tent to speak. and they were uncontradicted:
tnat the homicide was committed with malice
lorethought III defendant were capable of
criminal intent or malice) could hardly be
gainsaid. 1t was not necessary to prove that
any special or express hatred or malice was
entertained by the accused toward the de-
ceased 70 find little difficulty in reaching d
conclusion as to all the clements that made
upthe efime charged in the Indictment except
that 1t miGhtbe as to the one or unSound mind,
memory and discretion; but that was only
atechnica3 expression tor responsible sane
man. fyidehce has been exhibited to the jury
tending to show that the defndant admitted
In hls own handwriting that he had conceived
the idea of removing the President" as he
called it, six weeks before the shooting; that
ne had dellberated upon it, and come to the
denomination to do it, and that about two
weeks before he accomplished it he stationed
himself at certain points to do the act, but for
for it by the purchase of pistol has been
shown. All these facts came up to the full
measure OF proof required to establish what
the law denOninated malice aforethought
The Jury would bear in mind that the man
did not become irresponsible by the mere fact
OF his being partially insane, the law as
sumed every one at the outset to be sane
and responsible The question was, what
was there in this case to show the contrary as
to the defendant. They weIe not warranted
in inferring that he was insane from the mere
ha lima or from hal
enormlty OF the crime, because the law pre-
sunes there is bad motive and that the |
crime is prompted by malice if nothing else |
appears. The only safe rule was for the jury |
to direct its attention to the one test of Grim
nal e5ponsibiity-namely, whether the |
prisoner possessed mental capacity at the /
time the act was committed to know it was |
wrong, and whether he was deprived of that /
capacity sy mental disease. There was
one important distinction which the
they must decide now, for it was ap-
picable to this case; that was the distinction
between mental and moral Obliquity, between
mental 1ncapacity to distinguish between |
right and wrong, and moral insensibility to
that distinction. If you find from the whole
evidence that at the time of the commission
of the homicide the prisoner was laboring un-
der such defect OF his reason that he was
incapable of understanding what he was do
ing, or seeing 1t was q wrong thing to do, as
for example if he were under an insane delu-
sion that the Almighty had commanded him
to do the act, then he was not in q responsible
of mind, hut was an object of com
passion and should be acquitted. If, on the
other hand ,iyou find he was under no insane
but had possession of his faculties
and had power to know his act was wrong,
and of his own free will he deliberately con-
ceived the idea and executed the homicide
then, whether his motives were personal vim
dictiveness, political animosity, desire tc
avenge supposed political wrongs, or morbid
desire for notoriety or if you are unable to
discover any motive at all, the act is simply
murder, and it is your duty to find verdict
of guilty as Indicated, or if you find the pris-
oner is not guilty by reason OF insanity, it il
your duty to say so.
During the delivery of the judges charge, |
which was completed at A.: 40 D. m, there
was perfect stiffness in the crowded court
room and even the prisoner kept absolutely
quiet, with the exception of one or two feeble
The jury Immediately retired,
At 5 80 Judge Cox re- entered the room, and
the juryrnen soon followed. The Clerk put
the que stiOn:
Gentlemen, have you agreed upon yer.
dict?"
eve have" was the united response.
"What is it!'
Guilty.
Before the remainder of the verdict was
heard the crowd began to cheer, and 1t was
only with the utmost exertion OF the Court
and officials that silence was secured. The
Clerk then read from the back OF the charges.
We. the jury, ind the prisoner guilty, ac-
,ording to the Indictment"
With this Gu4teau cried, Blood will be on |
he heads Of thsf Fury"