The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1882-04-13
DEATH DECREE.
OPINION OF THE SUPREME
COURT In THE CASE OF
". ". REA.
FULL EXPOSITION OF THE LAW AND
THE FACTS OF THE GREAT
TRAGEDY.

lNH0CUII
The following is the full text o.
the opinion of the supreme court il
the case of w. w. Rea, to be hanged
in Pulaski April 21st inst. 1t will
be of thrilling interest to the CITIZEN
readers:
The prisoner has appealed in
error from the verdict of jury, and
the judgment of the trial court
thereon, convicting him of murder
in the first degree.
The evidence was circumstantial.
and the trial Judge, after properly
defining the various grades of homi-
eide included in the Indictment, and
explaining to the jury what it was
necessary for the state TO prove in
order to make out either offense to
their satisfaction "beyond a reason
able doubt, ;" continued his charge
thus: "a reasonable doubt is diff
cult to define with any pre-
cision. Of course it is not every
possible doubt, but it is that doubt
engendered by an investigation of
the whole PROOF, and an inability
after such investigation to let the
mind rest easily upon the certainty
of guilt or innocence. In other
words, it is an honest misgiving as
to the guilt of the accused upon the
proof, which the reason entertains
and sanctions as substantial
doubt" J." Then, after stating the
different positions of the state and
the defendant in reference to the
effect or result of the proof, his
honor said: "In order to convict a
person of crime on circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances must
not only be consistent with the guilt
Of the accused, but must exclude
every reasonable hypothesis, but
that of his guilt. In other words,
the proof must exclude the idea
that the deceased might have come
to his death in a manner inconsis-
tent with the guilt of the accused.
Or, at least, the circumstances must
be sufficient to convince the mind
and conscience of the jury of the
guilt of the accused beyond a reason
able doubt"
His honor further said: ''The de-
fendant's counsel rely upon an ati6i,
that is, that at the time of the kill
ing, the prisoner was, in point of
fact, elsewhere, in some other place
that he was in his own house.
The defense of an dlibi is very con-
elusive, if clearly, fully and certain
ly established. 1t is a defense,
however, so liable to abuse when a
design exists to practice fraud
upon the state, and even when the
design does not exist, by ignorant
mistakes as to the particular hour
and lapse of time, that it requires
great strictness and caution ON the
part of the jury to avoid being mis-
led by it. The defendant is not re
quired to prove an abb beyond a
reasonable doubt, but you will take
the proof touching the alb in con
nection with all the other proof in
the cause, and if it produce in your
minds a reasonable doubt as to the
prisoners guilt, your duty is to ac-
quit him.
The defendants counsel asked
the Judge to charge the following
five propositions, which he declined
to do, upon the ground that he had
already charged upon the subject
matter of all of them, viz:
list. This being a case of cir
cumstantial evidence, the curcum-
stances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency. Such evi-
dence is always insufficient, when
assuming all to be proved which the
evidence tends to prove, some other
hypothesis may still be true. For
it is the actual exclusion of every
other Hypothesis which invests mere
circumstances with the force of
proof. Whenever, therefore, the
evidence leaves it indifferent which
of several hypothesis is true, or
merely establishes some finite possi-
bility in favor of one hypothesis
rather than another, such evidence
cannot amount to proof, however
great the probability may be, to
convict the defendant.
2nd. 1t is essential that the cir
cumstances should be a moral GER
tainty, excluding every hypothesis
but the one proposed to be proved,
to wit, the guilt of the defendant.
For, in the language of the law, it
is better that ninety nine guilty men
out of hundred should escape than
that one innocent man should be
convicted.
3rd. That it is the duty of the
jury to inquire with the most
scrupulous attention what other
hypothesis there may be, which may
agree wholly or in part with facts in
evidence. And if any other hy-
pothesis agrees with the evidence,
the jury should acquit the defend
ant.
4th. In criminal cases, the state
ment made by the accused is, in this
point of view, of the most essential
Importance, and should be carefully
considered by the jury.
9th. The jury ought not only to
acquit the accused unless the evi-
dence excludes from their minds all
reasonable doubts, as explained to
you, of his guilt, but in no case
ought the jury to convict a man Ol
crime, where his life is at stake
when the circumstantial evidence
does not satisfy their minds as fully
as they would be satisfied from the
positive swearing of one credibl,
witness that he saw the defendant
hre the gun which took the life o.
the deceased" "
These propositions, it will bt
noticed, are not charges upon the
particular facts of the case befor,
the court, but merely proposition.
of the law applicable to any case o
circumstantial evidence. The,
undertake to formulate the law OF
the subject in a shape deemed 10y
the learned counsel most favorabl,
TO the accused. But clearly tn,
counsel Of the defendant cannot b,
permitted TO select the words of :
charge of the law.nor. of course {,