The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1885-07-31
JUDICIAL ERRORS.
A Chapter on the Value Of Circum-
stantial Evidence.

There is a common but most unrea-
soning feeling in the public mind that
circumstantial evidence is the least
trustworthy of all on which to base the
conviction of one accused of crime. So
strong is this prejudice that many skill
full advocates make successful use of it
in their arguments for the defense, and
actually succeed in compelling juries to
return verdicts contrary to their own
settled convictions, lest they should be
misled by circumstantial evidence. But
the actual fact is that very large ma
jority of convictions necessarily result
from circumstantial evidence; and while
some errors have arisen, their number
is so small in proportion to the vast
mass of just verdicts, that they are
hardly worthy of consideration, except
as parts of the history of the curiosities
of law, or as warnings for the cautious
use of all classes of testimony in reach
ing conclusion.
In order to get a clear understanding
of the subject in discussion IT is neces-
sary first to start with something like a
definition of what is meant by circum-
stantial evidence. After that, the cases
quoted below will supply the argument.
A most lucid statement of the point is
briefly made in s'Ram on Facts. "a book
well known to law students, and one
which is written in a clear and enter
tanning style that would make it as &C
ceptable to the ordinary reader as the
latest novel. were it not that the forbid
ding sheep-skin binding and the name
s.Law-book" prevents any but profess
=sional men looking within its covers.
For that matter, there is much enter
tainment, as well as instruction, to be
found in the pages of every well-written
legal textbook; but the general public
seems bent on shutting its eyes to the
. fact. This probably is fortunate fol-
the lawyers. Ram says: "These facts
1.-THE testimony ranged in their pro-
per places, as time and other incidents
require. form story. Often there is
evidence of every part of the story; to
complete the tale there is not wanting
direct evidence of any fact. In other
cases the facts proved by direct evidence
form an incomplete story; the chain OF
facts composing it is imperfect; to com.
plete the chain there is wanting evidence
of some link in it. In q case Of this sort
the missing fact can sometimes be sup
piled by the facts proved by direct
evidence; from these facts the one miss
ing may be inferred. The circumstances
proved by the direct evidence supply
the inference; they are thus themselves
evidence, although not direct, of the
fact wanting; and they, united with the
inference, constitute what is called cir
cumstantial evidence. To draw the
inference is the province of the jury"
1t would be difficult to find anywhere.
or for the most accurate thinker and
writer to phrase anew, q more perfect
definition of what is meant by the legal
phrase circumstantial evidence. Take
the Maxwell-Preller case for instance.
and see how the definition applies. In
order to do this we must suppose that
Maxwell is here and upon his trial; that
the body found at the Southern Hotel
has been fully and completely identified
as that of Preller; that Preller was
murdered; that Maxwell was the las;
man known to be in his company when
he was alive; that Maxwell, in his flight,
carried away valuable personal proper
ty known to have belonged to Preller,
and that the amount of the valuables so
carried off would, in consideration OF
the proven action and character of the
accused, have furnished probable mo-
tive for the commission of the crime.
All these points, except the last, which,
as is the case in judging all human mo-
tives must be matter of inference, are
subject to direct proof or disproof. II
proven beyond doubt. then the infer
enee viii be irresistible that Maxwell
committed the murder, and all taken
together, the direct testimony and the
final inference on which all viii hinge,
win comprise one mass of circumstan'