Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1884-02-14

ton, and battery is the actual infiic
ton Of such violence upon the person
You will determine this from the evi
dence, and 10 convict, must be satisfied
/, beyond a reasonable doubt.
When the plea ofnot guilty Is entered
by the defendant, the burden of prov
4 ing everything essential TO defendant'i
guilt lies on the prosecution. This rul,
follows from the humane principle o.
the law that every person accused o.
crime is presumed to be innocent until
the contrary is proved. The rule O
law is that the defendant cannot be law
fully convicted unless evidence estab
fishes his guilt beyond reasonblt
doubt.
A reasonable doubt Is defined to bt
that state of the case which, after the
entire consideration and comparison o.
all the evidence, leaves the minds o.
the jurors in that condition that they
cannot say they feel an abiding convic.
ton to moral certainty of the truth Of
the charge. Such doubt should be ac,
tual and substantial, not merely posi-.
BILE and imaginary, because everything
relating to human affairs and depend,
ing on moral evidence is open to some
possible or imaginary doubt. If full
and candid consideration of the evil
dence produces conviction of guilt
and satisfies the mind to q reasonable
certainty, mere captiOus or factious
doubt cannot avail.
To state it i'm another form: The law
requires the facts proven to be consis.
tant with the defendants guilt, and i'm.
cOnsistant with any other rational con-
clusion. The reasonable doubt contem-
plated by the law must arise out of the
facts proven, or want of sufficient proof,
and not from any eXtrinsic matter OF
thing not arising or existing in the
case.
Therefore, il after carefully examin-
ing the testimony your minds are fully
satisfied, and you are able to say that
each fact and element necessary to con-
stitute any crime charged against the
defendant in the indictment is true,
then the defendants guilt of that crime
is proved beyond reasonable doubt,
and you will find him guilty of such
crime. But if the testimony, after care
full consideration and examination, on
ly satisfies and convinces you that the
circumstances are very suspicious and
such as to render the guilt possible or
even strongly probable, you must find
him not guilty of such crime.
In addition to time and place, which
are questions easily determined from
the evidence,a criminal charge involves
two distinct propositions: ~ that the act
itself was done: ~ that it was done by
the person charged. In other words,
proof of the corpus deficit and of the
identity of the prisoner. 1t is very fire.
quently the case that one or the other
and sometimes both of these PROPOSE
tions cannot be proved by direct testi-
mony, and therefore the fact may be
established by eircumstantial evidence,
provided it be satisfactory. Whichever
is resorted to, should be of such a nature
as to convince the understanding. Cir
cumstantial evidence may be the most
convincing. 1t is difficult to fabricate
the connected links in chain of cir
cumstances, so as to preserve the SEM
blance of truth. All the evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, should
be deliberately weighed with care and
caution. fs.a-
In order to warrant conviction on
circumstantial evidence the facts neces-
sary to the conclusion sought to be es-
tablished must be proved by competent
evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
The facts must be consistent with each
other, and with the main facts sought
to be proved; and the circumstances ta-
ken together must be of a conclusive ma
ture, and leading to satisfactory con-
clusion, and producing in effect a rae
sOnable and moral certainty that the
accused committed the offense charged.
When the mind is so convinced from
circumstantial evidence. the conclusion
of guilt arrived at is as we'll established
as if direct testimony had produced the
same result.
Gentlemen, there is but little contro-
versy but what the body of the crime is
proved. Nevertheless, it is for you to
find what is the fact, and state it in
your verdict, as also the degree of the
offense. The principal question is, did
the accused, who is now on trial, COM
NIT the act which resulted in the death
of Isabella E. Williams. The whole of
this element of the case rests upon cir
cumstantial evidence. This makes it
necessary to some extent to consider
this kind of evidence. Circumstantial
evidence is the evidence from facts
which stand around the main fact to be
proved. Direct evidence is evidence
pointed directly to the establishment of
the fact. Direct evidence, as has been
stated is evidence from the sight, or
some of the senses, of the very fact i'll
controversy; but when such evidence is
gone, we resort, in criminal trials as in
all the business of life, to WHAT is called
circumstantial evidence; that is we re-
sort to those inferences which the mind
draws from surrounding circumstances,
and it is stronger or weaker according
to the nature of those circumstances
their nearness in relation to the fact to
be established, and their concurrence
with each other towards one and the
same conclusion. If you find all the
facts which are developed in regard to
a transaction or in regard to person
to indicate one line of results, then you
draw from. those facts an inference as to