Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-01-26

+ lection Of the innocent from injustice an
oppression, and it was only by their faithful
: Observance guilt OF innocence could be fairl
q sscertsined. Every accused person was pre-
5 sumed to be innocent until the accusation
q was proved. With what difficulty au'
5 trouble the law has been administered in tn
e present case the jurors have been daily Wit
nesses- 1t was, however, consolation t.
: think that not one of those sacred guaraD
E tees of the constitution had been violated il
: long chapter of proof was ended
l "the task OF the advocate was done,
and it now rested with the jury
, 10 determine the issue between pRbiic justice
and the prisoner at the bar. No one could
, feel more keenly than himself the great re-
sponsibility OF his duties, and he felt that he
could only discharge them by close adher-
authorities. Before proceeding further, he
wished to notice an incident which had
taken place. Pending the recent argument
the prisoner had frequently taken occasion to
proclaim that public opinion was evident,
by press and correspondence, in his
favor. Those declarations could not
be prevented except by the process
gestion that the jury could be inlu-
enced by such lawless chattering of the
prisoner would have seemed to him absurd
and he should have felt that he was insult
| ing the intelligence of the jury if he had
warned them not to regard it. Counsel for
| the prosecution had felt it necessary, how
ever, in the final argument to interpose con-
| tradlction to such statements and exception
had been taken on the part of the accused to
| the form in which the effort was made. For
the purpose OF purging the record of
| any Objectionable matter he should sim
| ply say that anything which had been
said on either side in reference to public
excitement or to newspaper opinions, was
not to be regarded by the Jury. The indict-
ment charged the defendant with the murder
of James A. Garfield, and it was the duty
OF the Court to explain the nature of
the crime charged. Murder was COM
mitted where n person OF sound memory
and discretion unlawfully killed a reasonable
being in the peace Of the United Statss with
malice aforethoughf."
Judge Cox then explained at length the
nature of the crime charged.
In regard to the plea of insanity, Judge
Cox said: 1.-THE defendant was presumed to
be sane, and to have been SO at the time the
crime was committed; that is to say the gov
eminent was not bound to show affirma-
lively as part of its proofs that the defendant
was sane, as insanity was an exception, and
as a msjOrity of men are sane, the law
presumes the latter the condition of every
man until some reason was shown to believe
to the contrary. The burden was therefore
on the defendant, who set up insanity as an
excuse for the crime; to produce pr 5ofs in
the first instance, and show that the pre-
sumption was mistaken SO far as it related
to the prisoner. The crime, therefore, in
volved three elements, the killing, malice
and responsible mind in the murderer"
The question of reasonable doubt was then
taken up, and explained at length, after
which the insanity plea was disposed OF.
Judge Cox closed as follows:
THE jury would bear in mind that the |
man did not become irresponsible by the
mere act of his being partially insane. The
law assumed that everyone at the outset |
was sane and responsible. The question vas,
what was there in this case to show the
contrary as to defendant. The jury was not
warranted In lnferripg a man was insane |
from the mere fact of his committing crime,
or from the enormity of the crime because !
the law presumed there is bad motive, and |
that the crime is prompted by malice if |
nothing else appears. He had dwelt |
upon the question of insane delusion |
simply because the evidence relating to that |
was evidence touching the defendants power |
or want of power, from mental disease, to |
distinguish between right and wrong as to |
the act done by him. This was a broad |
question for the jury to determine, and was |
what was relied upon by the defense. |
The only safe rule, however, was tor |
the jury 10 direct its attention to the one |
test of criminal responsibility, namely: |
Whether the prisoner possessed mental ca
pacty at the time the act was committed to
know that it was wrong, or whether he was
deprived of that capacity by mental disease" |
There was one important distinction which
the Jury must not lose sight OF, |
and they must decide how far it was applica-
BILE to this case. That was the distinction be-
tween mental and moral obliquity, between
mental incapacity to distinguish between
III g.
that distinction. The judge, in conclusion,
said: "And now, gentlemen, to sum
up all have said to you, if you find from
the whole evidence that at the time of the
commission OF the homicide the prisoner was
laboring under such defect in his reason
that he was incapable of understanding what
he was doing, or seeing it was wrong thing
to do, as for example, if he were under an
insane delusion that the Almighty had COM
manded him to do the act, then he was not
responsible for his condition of mind but
was an object OF compassion, and should be
acquitted. III on the other hand
you find he was under no insane
delusion but had possession of his
faculties and had power to know his
conceived the idea and exc
cuted the homicide; then, whether his mo.
tives were personal vindictiveness, political
desire of revenge, supposed
political wrongs, or a morbid desire for
notoriety, or, if you are unable
to discover any motive at all, the act is SIM
ply murder, and it Is your duty to find ver-
dict Of guilty as indicted, or latter a sug-
yestion from ScovilIe to that effect il you
End the prisoner is not guilty by reason of
insanity it is your duty to say so. You will
now retire to your room and consider your
verdict"
During the delivery of the judges charge,
which was completed at lao o'clock, there
perfect stiffness in the crowded court
room, and even the prisoner kept absolutely
lniet, with the exception OF one or two fee
Die Interruptions. The jury Immediately
retired, and many of the specta ors left the
room.