Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1882-01-26
JUDGE cox's CHARGE.

tuition provides that in all criminal pros
cutions the accused shall enjoy the riel
OF speedy and public trial BY an inns
tiai jury in the State or district where N
crime shall have been committed; that
I shall be informed of the cause and natul
OF the accusation against him that he sha
be confronted with the witnesses again,
him; that he shall have compulsory prC
cess to obtain witnesses in his favor, an
that he shall have the assistance of couns
IN his defense. These provisions were ir
tended for the
Protection of the Innocent
from injustice and oppression, and ii wa
only by their faithful observance, tha
guilt or innocence could be fairly asce,
tanned. Every accused person was pre-
sumed to be innocent until the accusation
was proved. With what difficulty an,
trouble the law had been administere,
in the present case, the jurors have bee,
daily witnesses. 1t was, however, a conso
lation to think that not one of these sacre,
guarantees of the Constitution had beer
violated in the person of the accused. A
last the long chapter of proof was ended
The task OF the advocate was done, and i
now -rested Nj fl the i-~-s.sS.Iese-r.;on-. .h4
Public Justice and the Prisoner at tn,
Bar.
No one could feel more keenly than him
self the great responsibility OF his duties
and he felt he could only discharg,
them by close adherence to the
law as laid down by its highest
he wished to notice the incident
which had taken place pending the recent
argument. The prisoner had frequently
taken occasion TO proclaim that the public
opinion, as the evidenced by the press and
correspondence, was in his favor. These
declarations could not have been prevented
except by the process of
Gaggfng the Prisoner,
and suggestion that the jury could be in.
fiuenCed by such lawless chattering of the
prisoner would have seemed to him alb.
surd, and he should have felt that he
was insulting the intelligence OF the iury
if he had warned them not to regard
it. Counsel for the prosecution had felt it
necessary, however, in the final argument,
TO interpose contradiction 10 such state.
ments, and an exception has been taken on
the part of the accused to the form in which
that effort was made. For the purpose of
purging the records OF any Objectionable
matters, he should simply say anything
which had been said on either
side, in reference to the excitement, or to
newspaper opinion, was not 10 be regarded
by the Jury. The indictment charged de-
fendant with having murdered James A.
Garfield, and it was the duty of the court
to explain the nature of the crime charged.
Murder was committed where person of
sound mind and discretion
UnIawfuIIy Killed
a reasonable being in the peace of the Uni
ted States, with malice aforethought. IL
had to be proved first that the death was
caused by an act of the accused, and fur
ther, that il was caused with malice afore-
thought. That did not mean, however,
that the Government had to prove any ill
vii! or hatred on the part OF the accused
toward the deceased. Wherever
4 homicide was shown to
have been committed without lawful
and with deliberate intent, it
was sufficiently proved TO have been done
with malice aforethought, and malice was
not disproved by showing the accused had
no personal i'll will to the deceased, and that
be killed him from other motives as for
instance, robbery, or through misiak;ns
him for another aS nI.;. nhiSlaklnB
n''u iV' "''o'i'V'' aS "'-..mcd in this case to
Produce a Public Benefit.
Il it could be shown that the killing occur
red IN the heat OF passion, or under provo
;3llr4ni ;ldrs then it would appear there was no
Inn TO manslaughter. Ifwas hardly 7heo.
kind i'm LAY there was nothing OF that
Nave @ to to !afe lhe present case. The iury would
,IGIty of murder or he was InnUceut. IN
1rlcr to constitute the crime OF muruel,
Inc assassin must have REASONABLY saht
mind. In technical terms, he must oe
,ound mind, memory and discretion. al, an
irresponsible insane man Coulu NOT colI'nis
:urder. and ii he was iaooring unJer "a
!; Ii sense o. the mental taculties 10 s"en u"
extent. he did not
Know what iie Vas Doing
nr did not know it was wrong, then he was
wanting in that sound mind, memory and
i;scrn,:Sn, that was a part Of the definition
&C mnrjer In the ne4t place, every de-
fenJant was presumed innocent until the
,crusation against him was established oy
hroof In the next place, notwithstanding
his resumption of innocence, 1t was
equally true the defendant was
Presumed 10 be Sane,
md to have been so at the time the crime
was committed, that is to say, the govern
,nrnt was not bound to show, attirmatlvely
80 a ,,srt of it's proof, the defendant, was
Sanc "a insanity was exceptional, and as
maturity of men are sane, the law presume.1i
the latter condition over man uni.
some reason was shown TO belieVe
tho contrary. The burden was there
fore. ON the defendant, who set up.
Insanity as an Excuse
for the crime, to produce proof, in the hrst
instance show that the presumption was
mistaken. as far as it related to the prls-
nncr's crime. Therefore it involved three
Siements. The killing, malice, and re,
snonsibility in the murderer. After all
he evidence was through the jury, II the
Jury. while bearing in mind p1th
these presumptions, that Is tnss
the defendant is innocent VII ne ne
i. proved guilty and that ne is sane! vi
tbe contrary appears, still entertarneu ~
IL, ;s called a reasonable doubt on any
S,nnnd or as 10 any of essential elements
sh the crime then the defendant was en-
~ t;.,eI tothe benefit of that doubt and to an
aa"nn;ttaI II was important to explain To
.hd ;ury here, in the best way that the
court could, what is
Reasonable Doubt
he could hardly venture to give an eAac
definition of the term, for he did not hho"
of any successful attempt to do so. A U
the questions relating to human anails
knowledge of which is derived from tesu
,nony, ii was impossible to have in sane
ND certainly. That Is created by scien
fife demonstration only. Certainly ths
;urv could have was a normal certainty
aenending of confidence, which tne lul,
had in telling witnesses and in their ca
naeity and opportunity 10 know the truth
II for instance, facts not improoaole II
themselves were attested by numerou
w;tnesses, creditable and uncontradicted
and who had every opportunity l" AHo'
the truth, a reasonable or
moral Certainty
,vould be inspired by that testimony. II
such a case doubt would be unreasonane
or ;maeinary, or speculative. 1t ought NO
- ha a doubt as TO whether party migh
~ hs Innocent in the face Of strong proc
of his guilt, but it must De a slnceIe ;S,, uG
whether he had been proved gum,
Even where the testimony was contrary |
tory and where so much credit shoula "
siven IN one side that was not gwen 70 th
99tber fbe same result might be .produce|
| a. The other hand, the opposing proc
| ,,;oht be so balanced that jury migt
;nS;Ir doubt on which side, under all u
circumstances. the truth lay, and in sue
| a case, the accused party was emitted
To the Benefit OF the Doubt.
All that the Jury could be expected 70
wos 70 he reasonably and morally certa
4 of the facts which they had declared 70
tbsir verdict. In the illustration OIL u
noint Judge Cox quoted the charge
| n I,,.Goa Shaw Of MaSSaCn nuScl'