Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1882-01-05

slap you in the mouth. = he snarled At him
threat into execution At smother time he
said to him, lyon are nothing hut miser-
able underling, while speak to fifty million
people when talk"
When Judge Cox had finished his remarks
upon Mr.. Scoville's motion, Guitesu insisted
upon expressing his opinion That's first
class decision, Judge. That's all l want to
get before the jury. what said at that time
relative to the causes that impelled me upon
the President. As for the rest don't care
snap; wouldn't give fifty cents . bushel for
this expert testimony. If ] had money
enough could get fifty of the best experts
in the country to swear that am as crazy as
| loon, that's just how much that part Of the
evidence is worth.
Scoville introduced letter written by the
prisoners father. in which he spoke of the
prisoner and expressed an opinion that he
was insane.
Guiteau called out, sneeringly, Was the
| object of reading that letter to show that my
| father was a crank or that l am? You're the
biggest jackass, Scoville. ever saw. If you
! can't learn any sense / shall have to shake
you in public.
Mr.. Davidge, on behalf of the prosecution,
then requested that the defence make known
! the Law points upon which they desired the.
ruling of the court.
| Mr. Scovils replied that his time had been
so occupied that he had not been able to ar
range them in proper form. If, however. 1t
was the practice in this court to settle the
points of law before going to the jury, he
would like a little time for proper prep
aration of this part of the case
Mr.. Davidge said he was decidedly in favor
,rapfinu ~ hate fime MIGHT he reauirqd
by the defence for this purpose. The prose-
cation had already prepared their statement
| OF law points upon which they would rely,
and he would be pleased to give the defence
the benefit of them. He then read as fol-
lows:
| First-The legal test of responsibility
where insanity is set up a defence for the
alleged crime is whether the accused, at the
| time of committing the act alleged, knew the
| difference between right and wrong in re-
spect of such act. Hence in the present
case, if the accused, at the time Of commit
ting the act charged, knew the difference be-
tween right and wrong in respect of such an
act, that is if he knew what ne was doing,
and that hat he was doing was contrary to
the law of the land. he is responsible.
| Guiteau-I didn't because my free agency
was destroyed.
| SecOnd--If the accused knew what he was
doing, and that what he was doing was con-
| trary to the law of the land it constitutes NO
| defence, even if il were true; that when he
committed the act he really believed he was
thereby producing public benefit, or carrying
out an inspiration of Divine origin or ap-
prevail, such belief would not afford any ex-
cuse, nor would such excuse be afforded by
the fact that in the commission of the act
he was impelled by depraved moral sense.
| hor 70 mr. apuuirad mr. nv evil
sion or indifference to moral obligation.
Guiteau-All of which is false.
| Third-Insanity would, however, consti-
tute defence, if by reason of disease the
accused at the time Of committing the act
charged, did not know what he was
doing, or if he did know it, that what he was
doing was contrary to law.
Guiteau-I had no choice in the matter.
Fourth-The only evidence in the present
case, tending to show an irresistible impulse
to commit the homicide. is the claim of the
accused that his free agency was destroyed;
by his alleged conviction that the death of the
President was required for the good of the
American people, and was Divinely inspired,
but such conviction, even if it really existed
could not afford any excuse when the party
knew what he was doing. and that it was con-
trary to law. No mere delusion or error of
judgement not even fixed belief that what
is prohibited by the law is commanded or
approved by Divine authority.
Guiteau-God's law is higher than mans
law.
Can exempt the accused from the respon-
sibility for breaking that law. To such an
effect the commission of the act charged must
have been the result of an insane delusion,
which was the product of disease, and of such
force as to deprive the accused of the degree
of reason necessary to distinguish between
right and wrong in respect of the act, SO that
at the time of committing the act he either
did not know what he was doing, or if he did
that the act was wrong or contrary to the law
of the land.
just before one, Scoville stated that the de-
fence has closed its case, and the prosecution
presented to the court its prayers for instruc-
tions. The court adjourned until Saturday.