Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-05-13

case. Never was there q case where the wit
nesses seemed so determined to hang . man
They were all ready to go farther than the
questions warranted. Wilson swears there
was scufle on K street, and saw defendant
jump out to the edge of the walk. He swears
too, that the crowd was excited, and at the
alley did cry out "Shoot him." No one has
. right to shoot without due warrant of law.
| Lansing in his dying ststement did not say
that he said 3 word to Raten. Dyer is the
| only witness who swears he saw Raten, after
shooting Lansing, hold up his pistol and face
| the crowd and act as if to say, II am the
| chief" etc. No other witness saw that, and
Dyer, when he so testified, testified falsely,
and he knows it. In the Oliver case
the arresting; party was not an Off
Ger. aud had no authority, and after
warning not to advance, was shot,
and the killing was held to be murder in the
second degree. Counsel cited cases of like
character, where the defendant, if 80 assaulted
as to have reasonable fear for his life,
may kill his assailants. Rsten did fear tor
his life The pursuit. the interception by
two men on Fourth street, the crowd and its
cries. Lansing's sudden rushing out, all con-
stituted single circumstance to cause that
fear in the defendants mind. At the worst
defendants act did not constitute the crime
of murder in the first degree. Counsel made
a bitter attack upon capital punishment, and
held that its maintenance does not subserve
the best interests of society, nor advance the
ends of good government. When punish
ment becomes revenge, it violates the social
compact which constitutes government by
consent of the governed. He cited recent
case where Judge benson refused to sentence
convicted man to be hanged, on the
ground that society would not be benefited
by his execution, and so he imposed q
life sentence. Counsel appealed to the jury
to put its verdict on record against hanging
BY the law, and in favor of the certainty
rather than the severity of the law. Had
justice been accorded Raten by officers of the
law Lansing would be alive to-day. Counsel
revie we'd defendants difficulty with Erick-
son, and the refusal Of the police authorities
to give defendant remedy against him. Raten
had no intention to kill Lansing, for he had
lost control of himself. He should not have
allowed himself to go to that point-but he
reached it and was craZed and was void of
malice toward James Lansing.
c. t. JONES
Closed the case for the People. He asked
the jury to treat the defendant as it would
the best and most prominent citizen if at the
bar. The defendant is not one of any of the
class exempted by law from the legal results
of crime. Raten did not go for the warrant
for Erickson in a proper, sober condition.
He was properly refused warrant. The
Chief of Police cannot and never does give
warrants. He could not arrest or order the
arrest for misdemeanor rot committed in the
presence of the officer. Raten has sup
piled the missing link - malice - and
because he could not get a warrant
,,oa& a,,t nv, fho sfroat Nth pourdor in hio
heart. Suppose he had killed Erickson
would it not have been deliberate, cold
blooded murder? There is no question but
that Raten knew what he was about. Lam
sing had the same right to arrest as any Of
ficer. People are mistaken on this subject
They see crimes committed, and make no
effort to stop it. They have the same right
and power as an officer When the latter can
act without warrant. Raten knew he should
stop. He heard the call to stop. He re-
fused. Lansing came out, but while turning
away from Raten, and while he had his hands
up to show he was unarmed, defendant shot
Lansing. Why then did he kill him? If
that is not murder let the people know it now
and risk life no longer to aid justice. Raten
threw his pistol away. Why? Because, as
he said in prison afterwsrd, be could claim
There was no pistol found on me. I
didn't shoot him." That shows the
reasoning in his mind and dissipates
all idea of irresistible impulse, for in such
case the criminal never denies the crime.
Ratep's acts show he had an abandoned and
malignant heart, had no regard for human
life; saw Lansing before him, had the weapon
of death in his hand, and used it in all the
abandonment of his malignant heart. There
he stood. after the murder, and waved his
pistol and beat his breast, as if to say, "Come
on! l am the chief !" Where is there
mitigating circumstance in the case? Where
is there thing to call for mercy's hand to be
extended, 1t was cowardly and fearful
assassination. A good citizen shot down in
doing his duty. Don't punish this man, and
then when there is 8 cry of stop thief"
when the Midnight shout is heard when the
officer pursues and you can aid, cover at
home, for fear you may be shot down in aid.
ing the authorities, and society shall say,
"Oh, he had no malice against you, and it is
no crime to kill you I" The law is all one
way; there is no question about it, and he
felt he was insulting the jury to longer ad-
dress it. He would call attention to the fact
that no measurable time is needed to form
the intent. As Judge Sanderson said from
the bench of the Supreme Court. it may be
formed as quickly as thought follows thought,
and man is presumed to intend the reason
able and probable result of his act. He cared
nothing about the Erickson difficulty-it cut
too small figure in the case to demand much
attention. He concluded by asking the jury
to inflict the highest penalty, as this is ex.
actly one of the cases where the death penalty
yond the possibility of again preying upon
his fellow.mes.
THE CHARGE OF THE COURT.
Judge benson then arose, and standing.
charged the jury. The charge ss to burden
of proof, reasonable doubt credihility of
witnesses and the definitions of murder, was
by this Court. On other points the Court
charged in substance that insanity must be
proved by preponoerance of evidence that
defendant at the time Of the act was laboring
under such defect of reason from disease of
the mind as not to know the nature or quality
of the act, or had not by reason of insanity,
sufficient control of his will to resist the i'm.
pulse to commit the act. One of unsound
mind may yet be punishable for his crime,
and the Court illustrated how this may be.
Where insanity is relied upon. the burden of
its proof is on the defendant. If the jury
on the evidence conclude that it is more
probable that defendant was insane than
that he was sane ct the time of
the commission of the crime, the jury
should find he was insane Ordinarily, ex-
perience teaches that the majority of men are
sane, aud it is to be presumed, until the con-
trary is shown by q preponderance of evi.
dence, that defendant was sane at the time
of the commission of the act. A private
person may arrest another for a public Of
tense committed or attempted in his
presence when the person arrested has COM
mitted felony, although not in his presence;
when felony has been in fact committed,
and he has reasonable cause for believing the
person arrested to have committed il. The
crime of an assault to murder is a felony. 1t
is the right of, and is expected of all good
citizens that they aid in the capture or arrest
of any person who has committed felony.
Malice aforethought is any formed de-
sign Of doing mischief, whether aris-
ing from hatred or revenge. If malice
exist for any period of time, how.
ever brief, before the killing, and at the
ms ant of the killing, it is malice sfore.
thought. Such malice may be express or i'm
piled. 1t is express when there is manifested
deliberate intention unlawfuIly to take
awav the life of n felloU creafure IT. ia i'm.