The Indianapolis leader., 1882-01-28
JUDGE Cox,s CHARGE.
The Instructions OF the Court TO the Jury
to Govern Them I'm Making Their ver-

The Instructions Of the Court TO the Jury
to Govern Them I'm Making Their Yer
dict.
Judge Cox at 3:I5 p. m. proceeded to deliver his
charge to the Jury. He commenced by saying the
Constitution provides that in all criminal prose-
cuons the accused shall enjoy the right of speedy
and public trial by an impartial Jury Ia the State
or District where the crime shall have been COM
mitted; that he shall be Informed of the cause
and nature Of the accusation against him; that he
shall be. confronted with witnesses against
him; that he shall have compulsory
and he sSs have Of 70
in his behalf Those provisions are intended
fer the protection of the innocent from injustice
and oppression, aud IL was only by their faithful
observance the guilt or Innocence could be fairly
ascertained. Every accused person was pre-
sumed to be Innocent until the accusation was
proved. With what difficulty and trouble the
law had been administered in the present case
the Jurors had been daily witnesses. 1t was
however, consolation to think not one of those
sacred guarantees of the Constitution had been
violated in the. person OF the accused.
was ended. The task OF the advocate
was done" aud IL now rested with the Jury to de-
termine the issue between public justice and the
prisoner at the bar. No one could feel moro
keenly than himself the great responsibility OF
them by a close adherence TO the law laid down
by its highest authorities.
Before proceeding further he wished to notice
n
recent argument. The prisoner had frequently
taken occasion TO proclaim that public opinion
was evident by the press ana the correspond
could not be prevented, except by the process Of
gagging the prisoner Any suggestion that the
Jury could be Influenced by such lawless clatter-
absurd and he should have felt he was insulting
the intelligence OF the jury II he had warned
them not to regard it. Counsel for the prosecu-
ton had felt necessary, however, in final argu-
ment to interpose contradiction to such state
menis and exception had been taken on the part
Of the accused. To the form in which the effort
was made, for the purpose OF purging the record
OF any Objectionable matter, he should
simply say anything which had been
to public or opens wss
not to be regarded by the Jury. The indictment
charged the defendant with having murdered
James A Garfield. and 1t was the duty of the
Court to explain the nature of the crime charged
murder committed, where q person of
sound memory and discretion unlawfully killed
States with malice sforethought. 1t had to be
proved first that the death was caused by the act
of the accused and, further that 1t was caused
mean. however, that the Government had
to prove any i'll will or hatred on
Wherever homicide was shown to have been
committed without lawful au lhority and with
deliberate intent, it was sufficiently proved
TO have been done with malice aiore-
thought and malice was not dispr0ved by show
ing the accused had no personal i'll will toward
the deceased and that he killed him from other
motives. as for instance, robbery or through mis-
easel TO produc, public benefit. II it could be
shown the killing occurred IN the heat Of
P%oS% OF under there %sS
tated attempt, aud therefore no malice
aforethought, and that would reduce the crime to
To Was nothing OF Sss IN he
case The Jury would have to say either the de-
erdant was guilty Of murder or he was inno-
cent
In order to constitute the crime of murder the
assassin must have been reasonably sane In mind.
In technical terms he must be Of sound mind.
memory and discretion" An irresponsibly insane
under disease Of the mental faculties to such an
extent that he did not know what he was doing
or know 1t was wrong. then he was wanting In
was part of the definition of murder. In the next
place every defendant was presumed innoc MT
unul the accusation against him was
place. So.wsSsan8Ds this Presumption es aSas
Of innocence 1t was equally true the defendant
was presumed e a. be sane and to have been 80 O., at
| that Is to say, the Government was not bound
| to show anirmatively as q part of its proofs
tns' n sae Csienosns d was ssns a. insanity
sane. The law presumed the latter the condition
Of every man until some reason was shown to be-
o. ses hs burden
proofs in the irst instance to show
s 70 Ss c.ne M 4
volved three elements, the killing, malice and
responsible mind In the murderer After all thu
bearing IN mind both of these presumptions
that II, tEat the defendant Is innocent till he Il
proved guilty. snd that he Is sane till the contrar!
abe doubt on any ground. or, as to an!
Of the essential elements Of crime
then the defendant was entitled 70 the benefit 0