Daily Republican. [volume] ([Wilmington, Del.]) 1874-1890, 1882-01-26

created by sCi6ntific demonHtratsoii:
The only certainty that The jury could
have WAS - moral certainty, depend
inc on the, confidence OF the jury
i'm the integrity Of the witnesses and ID
thsis capacity and opportunity 10 know
the truth. n for example, facts not
improbable in themselves were attest
ed by numerous witnesses, credible and
uucont radictcd, and who had every Op.
portunity to know the truth, y reasona-
bic or moral certainty would be in
spired by that testimony. In such a
case doubt would be unreasonable, or
imaginary or speculative. 1t ought
not TO be doubt ~ whether the party
might not be innocent In the face Of
strong proofs of his guilt, but must be
q sincere doubt rs to whether he had
been proved guilty.
Even where tn, testimony was con.
tra.' ictOry, and where 10 much more
credit should be given 20 one side than
the other, the same result might be
produced. On the other hand the op-
posing proofs might m 70 balanced
that the jury might justly doubt on
which side, under all the rircumstsh'
ces the truth lay and in such case the
accused party was entitled to the bent.
fit of the doubt. ALI that jury could
he expected to do was to be reasonably
and morally certain of the facts which
thew declared to be their verdict. In
illustration of this point Judge Cox
quoted the charge OF Chief Justice
Shaw, of Massachusetts, in the case OF
the Coumon wealth VS.. Webster. With
reference to the evidence in this case
very little comment was required by
the court except upon one question
the Others being hardly matters OF dis.
pute, That the defendant fired at, and
shot the deceased President was abun-
dainty proved. That the wound was
fatal has been testified " ny the saI-
peons who were competent to speak,
and they were uncontradicted. That
the homicide was committed with NAL
ice a,orethought (if the defendant wer.
capable of criminal intent or malice)
could hardly be gainsaid. 1t was not
necessary TO prove that any special or
express hatred or malice was enter
tanned by the accu 1ed toward The de
ceased. l.: was sufficient to prove that
the act WAS done by deliberate intent,
| as distinct from AL act done under a
certain impulse; in the heat OF blood
and without previous malice. Evi-
dcnce had been exhibited to the Jury
tending to show that the defendant ad-
| mitted in his own handwriting that ne
had conceived the idea OF removing
the President" rs he called II, Nix
weeks before the shooting that he had
deliberated upon 1t, and came to a de
termination to do it, and that about
two weeks before he accomplished II,
he stat: himself at certain points
to do the act, but for some reason was
prevented. His preparation TOR 1t by
the purchase of the pistol had been
shown. All these facts came up to the
full measure of the proof required to
establish what the law denominate'l
malice aforethought. The Jury would
find little difficulty in reaching n con
clusIon Az to all the elements that made
up the crime charged in the indict
meLt, except, it might be, AZ TO the one
of sound mind, memory and discretion
but that was only a technical expires
sion for responsible sane nian. ne
now approached that difficult question
He had already said that a man who IL
insane, in the sense that makes him lr
RESPONSIBLE, cannot commit crime
The defense of insanity has been 81
abused az to be brought into great dis
credit. 1t was the last resort in cases
of unuuestioned guilt. 1t had been a,
excuse for .uries to bring i'll q verdict o
acuuittal when there was public sym
+, pa;hy for the accused, and especially
where there was provocation for th'
, HON eide according to public sentimen
, but not according to law For tina
reason the defense Of insanity wa
viewed with distavor and public sentl
ment was hostile TO 1t. Nevertheless
if insanity were established 10 degree
/. necessary, 1t was a perfect defense 10
/ an Indictment tor murder and must b.
allowed ful! weight.
: 1t would he observed that in this cas-
there was no trouble with any question
. about what might be called total III
sanity, such an raving mania, or a5So
) lutte imbecility in which all exercis
!. of reason is wanting and where ther
1 is no recognition Of persons or things o
: their relations But there was de
r batable border line between sanity ant
r insanity; and there was often a grea
r difficulty in determining on which sid'
! of this line party was to be put. Their
were cases in which mans menta
, faculties, generally, seemed to be i
r full vigor but where on one single sui
+ iect, he seemed to be aeranged. A ma
4 was possessed perhaps by a belief c
i something absurd which he could ne
i. be reasoned out OF (what WAS called a
;. insane delusion), or he might hav
y some morbid propensity, seemingly l
q Harsh dscord with the rest of his ir
a telectuai and moral nature. Thos
II were cases which, for want of bette
i. term, were called partial insanity
n Sometimes its existence and sometime
n its limits were doubtful andiundatnabl'
Il and in those cases 1t was difficult
determine whether the patient ha
4 passed the line Of moral or legal a.
r. countability for his actions.
= The jury would bear in mind that
1t man did not become irresponsible b
,t the mere fact of his being partially il
Is sane, Such man did not take leay
y of his passions by becoming insane. II
le might retain as much control over thel
% as In health. He might commit otial
0. ces, too, with which his intirmity ha
L. nothing to do. He might be sane as
4. the crime he committed, might unde
it stand It's nature and might be governt
t. by the same motives in relation to 1t I
20 other people; while, on other snhjec
d having no relation whatever to IL
Mt crime he might be the victim of dell
a sion. Wherever this partial insanit,
lt was relied on ~ defense it must appei
D. that the crime charged was produ
re of the delusion or other morbid cond
n lion, and connected with it as effe
III and cause and that 1t was not tho \
he suit of sane reasoning which tho part
d might be capable Of notwithstandi'
Sc his limited and circulnscribed disorde
st Assuming that iniirmity of mind ha
IN a direct influence on crime the Diff
he Guilty was to fix the character OF Il
ed disorder which fixed responsibility
I'D responsibility in law. The outgoing
II. of the judicial mind on that subje