The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1882-02-04
GUITEAU GUILTY
Judge Coz Charges the Jury-Ten mihu'eS
DeIiberation and q Verdict of Murder IN
the First Degree.

wAsuISGroN ID. G., Jan. %.
The jury in the case OF the United ota'es
against Charles julius Guiteau, for the muir
der of james A. Garfield, returned verdict
of guilty as indicted" At the close OF Mr..
Porter's argun mt, Judge Cox proceedeu 70
deliver his charge to the Jury. He commences
by saying the Constitution provides that IN
all criminal pro, ecutions the accused shaii
enjoy the right of speedy and public tl1ai by
an impartial jury in the State or district
where the crime shall have been committed;
that he shall be informed of the cause ana
nature of the at Gu ,ation against him; mat nc
shall be confronted with witnesses against
him; that he shall hive compulsory process
to obtain witne> ses in his favor, and that nc
shall have the assistance of counsel in his de-
Tense With what difficulty and trouble the
Inv has been administered i'll the present case
the jurors hnya been daily wtnc SEES. IL was,
however a con-olat to think that not ono
of those sacred guarantees OF the Constitution
had bren violated in the person OF the &C
cused a. the last long chapter OF the proof
was ended No one could feel more keenly
than himself the great reSponslDlnty OF MS
dut es, and he felt that he could only dis,
charge them by n,lher. n G to the law as lara
dow n by its high est uthorit1es. before pro
cecding further he wished to notice an incl
dent which had taken rb place n,1 Pene
had frequently taken occasion TO pro.
claim that public opinion, as evidenced
by the press and correspondence, was in his
favor. These declarations could not be pre-
vented except by the process of gaggtng the
prisoner Any sug 2estion that the jury could
f. Be influenced by Such lawless chatteTing of
the prisoner would have seemed to him aD-
surd, and he should have felt that he was IN.
sulting the intelligence of the jury il he had
warned them not to regard it. 1heindictment
charged defendant with having murdered
James A.GaIfield, ana il was the duty OF the
Court to explain the nature of the crime
charged. Murder was committed where
person of sound memory and discretion nm
lawfully killed n reasonable being in the
DeaCe OF the United states with mallce afOfG
thought 1t had to be proved, first, that death
was caused by the act. of the accused. aud,
further, ii was caused with malice and afore-
thought That did not mean, however, that
the Government had TO prove any i'll
cused toward the deceased. Wherever
homicide was shown to nave Deeh
@it, d@5erae ntemt Il was sm
gently proved TO have becnd one with malice
aforcthought. and malice was not disprovcd
by showing that the accused had no personal
III will toward the deceased. and that he
killed him from other motives, as, for in
stance, robbery, or through mistaktng him
produce public benefit. If it could.bc shown
that the killing occurred in the heat of pas
pear here was no premeditated attempt, and
therefore no malice atorethought, ana
that would reduce the crime to man
slaughter. IL was hardly necessary, however,
to say there was nothing of that kind in the
present ease. The jury would have to say
either the defendant was guilty OF murder or
he was innocent. In order to constitute the
crime OF murder the ASA -sin must have
reasonably sane mi Id. In technical terms he
must be "of sound mind memory and discre
ton" An irrespons bly, insane man could not
commit murder ii he was laboring under a
disease of the mental faculties to such am
extent that he did not know what
he WAS doing, or know IL was wrong, then he
was wanting in that sound mind, memory.
and discretion that was part of the definition
of murder. In the first place. every defend
ant WIS presumed innocent until the accuse
ton against him was established by proof.
In the next pace. notwithstanding this pre-
sumption oil innocence, II was equally true
the defendant was presumed TO be sane, and
to have ben 50 at the time the crime was
committed, that l. 10 say, the Government
was not bound to show affirmatively. part
of its proofs. that the defendant WaS sane;
the burden of proof was thrown on the de-
lendant, @ho set mp insanity an excuse for
his crime. To produce proofs in the first i'll
stance il has To show that the presumption
was mistaken So Tar a. IL related to the pris-
encr The chine, therefore, involved three
elements; the killing, malice, and responsible
mind in the murderer. That the defendant
nred the shot at the deceased President was
AbundantlN proved. That the wound was
fatal has been testified to by surgeons compe-
tent to speak. and they were uncontradicted:
that the homicide was committed with malice
aiorethought iii defendant were capable OF
criminal intent or malicc) could hardly be
Rainsaid. 1t was not necessary to prove that
any special or express hatred or malice was
entertained by the accused toward the de-
ceased to ind little difficulty in reaching n
conclusion as to all the elements that made
up the crime charged in the indictment, except
that it might be rs 10 the one OF unsound
mind memory and discretion: but that
was only technical expression for
q responsible, sane man. Evidence
has been exhibited to the jury
tending to show that the dcfnuant limited
in his own handwriting that he had conceived
the idea of removing the President" as he
called ii, six weeks before the shooting; that
he had deliberated upon il. and come TO the
determination to do it, and that about two
weeks before he accomplished it he stationed
himself at certain points to do the act. but for
some reason was prev His preparation
for il by the purchase of n pistol has been
shown. All these facts came uD to the full
measure of proof required to establish what
the law denominated malice aforethought.
The jury would bear in mind that the man
did not become irresponsible by the mere fact
of his being partially insane, rs 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 were not warranted
in inferrng that he was insane from the mere
fact of his committing the crime, or from the
enormity of the crime, because the law pre-
sumes there is n bad motive and that the
crime is prompted by malice if nothing else
appears. The only safe rule was for the iury
to direct its attention to the one test of Grim
inal esponsibiiity-namcly, whether the
prisoner possessed mental capacity at the
time the act was committed 10 know it was
wrong, and whether he was deprived of that
capacity y mental disease. There was
one important distinction which the
Jury must not lose sight Of and
they must decide now, for it was APP
plicable to this case: that was the distinction
mental fncapac.ty to distinguish between
right and wrong, and moral insens. biIity to
that distinction. II you find from the whole
evidence that mt the time of the commission
of the homicide the prisoner was laboring I'M
der such defect of his reason that he was
incapable OF understanding what lie was do
ing, or seeing it was a 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 n responsible
condil ION OF mind. hut was object OF com
passion and should be acquitted; If, on the
"a fiTldl
dcuslon, but had possession of his faculties
anu had power 70 know his act was wrong
and OF his own free viii he deliberately con
ceivcd the idea and executed the homicide
then, whether his motives were personal vim.
dctiNeness, political animosiiy a desire 10
avengc supposed political WRONGS or morbid
desire Tor notorlety, or II YOU are unable to
discover amy motive at all, the act is simply
murder, and it lis your duty to find a verdict
OF guilty AS indicated, or if YOU find the pris-
onef is not guilty by reason OF insanity il is
your duty TO say so.
During the delivery of the judges charge
which was completed at 1 40 p M there
was perfect stiffness in the crowded court
room, ana even the prisoner kept absolutely
quiet. Wllh the exception OF one or two feeble
Interruptions. The jury Immediately retired
The crowd III the court room did not dis
pcrse at the announcements that the Court
would take recess for half an hour. but re-
manned seated. The Judge went to his pri-
Sate chamber, and Col. Corkhll, Judge Por-
ter and Mr.. David2e followed him. at 80
judge Cox re entered the room. and the
iuymen soon followed. The Clerk put the
question:
. Gentlemen, have You agreed upon ver-
diet2'
I've have" was the united response.
"What is it,
Guilty;
Before the remainder of the verdict WAS
heard the crowd began to cheer, and il was
only with the utmost eXertion of tho Court