The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1882-02-01
GUILTY !!
CHARLES J. CUI-
TEAU WILL DIE.
Last Dayof the Trial.
Charge Of the Court.
The Jury Find the Prisoner Guilty
as Indicted"
Charge Of the Court
cuARei or THE cornr.

ed TO deliver his charge to the Jury
He commenced by saying the con-
stitution provides that in all crimi
nal prosecutions the accused shall
enjoy the right of speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury, in the
State or district where the crime
shall have been committed &: thai
he shall be informed Of thu
cause and nature of the accusation
against him; that he shall be con
fronted with the witnesses agains'
him; that he shall have compulsory
process 10 obtain witnesses in hit
favor. and that he shall have thu
assistance of counsel in his defense
Those provisions were intended fol
the protection of the innocent from
injustice and oppression, and j,
was only by their faithful observ'
ance that guilt or innocence could
be fairly ascertained. Every accus-
ed person was presumed to be limo
cent until the'accusation was proved
With what difficulty and trouble
the law has been administered in
the present case the jurors have been
daily witnesses. 1t was, however,
consolation to think that not one
of these sacred guarantees of The con.
stitution rad been violated in the
person of the accused.
At last the long chapter of proof
was ended, the task of the advocate
was done, and it now rested with
the Jury to determine the issue be-
tween public justice and the prison.
er at the bar. No one could feel
more keenly than himself the great
responsibility Of his duties, and he
felt he could only discharge them by
close adherence to the law as laid
down by its highest authorities.
Before proceeding further he
wished to notice an accident which
had taken place pending the recent
argument. The prisoner had fire.
quently taken occasion to proclaim
that public opinion, as evidenced by
the press and correspondence, was
! in his favor. These declarations
could not have been prevented, ex-
cept by the process of gagging the
prisoner. Any suggestion that the
! jury could be influenced by such
lawless chattering of the prisoner
would have seemed to him absurd,
and he should have felt he was in
sulting the intelligence of the jury
| if he had warned them not 10 regard
it. The counsel for the prosecution
had fel, it necessary, however, in the
final argument. to interpose contra
diction to such statements, and ex-
ception had been taken on the part
of the accused to the form in which
that effort was made. For the pur-
ging the record of any Objectionable
matter ne should simply say that
anything which had been said on
either side in reference to public ex-
citement, or the newspaper opinion,
was to be disregarded by the jury.
The indictment charged the de-
fendani with having murdered
James 4. Garfield, and it was the
duty OF the Court to explain the ma
ture of the crime charged. Murder
was committed when "a person OF
sound memory al discretion nn-
lawfully killed "a r,ssonable being,
in the peace of the United States,
with malice aforethoakht. 1t had
been proved, first, that death was
caused by the act Of the accused,
an further, that it was caused with
malice aforethought. That did not
mean, however, that Government
had proved any i'll will or hatred on
the part of the accused toward the
deceased. Whenever homicide was
shown to have been committed
without lawful authority and delib-
e-ale Intent, it was sufficiently prov
ed to he malice aforethought, and
malice vas not disproved by showing
the accused had no p.rsonal-ill will
to the deceased. and that he killed
him from other motives. as for in
ancerobbery, or through installing
him for another, or Gas claimed in
this case) to public benefit. Ifit
could lie shown the killing occurred
in the heat of passion or under pro-
vocation, then it would appear there
was no premeditation, and therefore
no malice aforethought, and that
would reduce the crime to man
slaughter. 1t was hardly necessary,
however, to say there was nothing
of that kind in the present case.
The jury would have to say
either the defendant was guilty of
murder, or he was innocent. In or
der to constitute the crime of mur-
der The assassin must have a reason
ably sane Mind-in technical terms,
he must be ''of sound mind, memo
ry and discretion" An irresponsi
Bile, insane man could not commit
murder. If he was laboring under
disease Of the mental faculties to
such an extent that he did not know
what he was doing, or did not know
it was wrong. then he was wanting
in that sound mind, memory and
discretion that was part of the def
milton Of murder.
In the next place, every defend
ant was presumed innocent until
the accusation against him
was established by proof. In the
next place, Notwithstanding this
presumption of innocence, it was
equally true the defendant was pre-
sumed to be sane, and to have been
so at the time the crime was CON-
mitted. That is TO say. the Gov
ernment was not bound TO show
aflirmatively as part ofits proof that
the defendant was sane. As insani-
ty was exceptional, as the majority
of men are sane, the law presumed
the latter condition of every man
until some reason was shown to be-
lieve to the contrary. The burden
vas therefore, on the defendant, who
set up insanity as an excuse for his
crime, to produce proofs, in the first
instance, TO show that the presump-
ton was mistake, as far as it relat-
ed to the prisoner. The crime. there
fore, involved three elements, the
killing, malice and responsibility in
the murderer.