The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1886-11-04
WEBSTER MURDER TRIAL.
Continued from Page Q.

tulo aAlcS6u Oubu5b Wdb COmmlLIeO, anu
~ Arthur Battles going in the diree-
tiOn of the residence Of said Perry Har-
ringt0n. In considering the testimony
OF witnesses as to their recognition of
the defendantOn the night of the alleged
homicide, you are permitted to take into
consideration and consult your own
knowledge and experience. as to the
certainty or want Of certainty with
which the question of identity may be
determined, and In determining the
value of the testimony Of the witnesses
As to recognition of the defendant, you
should examine into the facts upon
which such witnesses base their tes-
timOny You should inquire as 70 the
opportunities which such witness or
witnesses had of knowing and recogniz-
ing the defendant-what means the
witness had of seeing and knowing the
c0untenance and person Of the defend
ant, the previous acquaintance which
such witness or witnesses had with the
defendant; whether such acquaintance
was casual or otherwise; whether tie
witness was at the time of the alleged
recognition dispassiOnste, collected and
O0seTYant or otherwise. Familiarity
with the person sought to be identified,
though not essential to competency,
may be Of much Importance In deter
mining the weight to be given to the
testimony of witness testifying to the
Identity of another. In determining the
weight Of this class of testimony, you
will fully consider all the circum-
stances surrounding them or either of
them at the time; the interest, If any,
they may have In the result of this trial;
their appearance and cRndOr, or want
thereof, upon the witness stand, and all
facts which the evidence In the case es-
tablishes and which may tend In your
judgments to increase or diminish the
liability of mistake on the part of said
witnesses, or either OF them, as to the
identity Of the defendant.
The State also claims that there Is evil
dence before you tending to show that
the witness Mrs. Brakeman made state
ments, outside Of court, contrary to the
testimony given by her in court. Any
statement which may have been made
by this witness or by any other witness
before the grand jury or elsewhere, not
In the presence and hearing Of the de-.
fendant, are not to be received by you as
evidence that the facts are or were In
accordance with such statements. This
evidence, If there be such found, was re-
ceiVed ouly for the purpose of enabling
you to datermine how much weight and
credit the testimony Of such witness
should receiveIat your hands.
In criminal cases, the evidence may
be either direct or circumstantiRl, or
both. If witness sees, knows and tes
titles to the commission of the ultimate
fact TO be proven, that Is positive or d.
rect evidence. But 1t is not always pos
siOle in criminal cases to establish guilt
by direct and positive te3timOny, nor Is
it necessary, and the law provides that
ciTcumstantial evidence alone, where
sufficient to satisfy the mind beyond q
reasonable doubt, shall justify cOnVic.
tion. CiTcumstantial evidence is proof
of facts standing or existing In such re-
latiOn to the ultimate fact or facts to be
proven that such ultimate fact or facts
may be inferred or deduced from such
surrounding fact or facts. However, 1t
must be remembered that before there
can be any legal conviction Of the de-
fendsnt In this case, the evidence,
whether 1t be direct and ciTcumstantial
Va OAluuAoVOuVAol ChlOLOS hudV NO pO
clear and convincing as to exclude from
your minds and from the minds Of each
one of you all reasonable doubt Of the
guilt of the defendant. Each and every
circumstance or fact from which an in
ference Is sought to be drawn against
the defendant must be proven beyond
the existence of reasonable doubt
before such inference can be drawn
therefrOm and the hypothesis Of guilt
should flow naturally from the facts
found and be consistent with them all.
Before such inference can be drawn
therefrOm and such fact relied upon as
the basis of any legal inference against
the defendant, 1t must be strictly and
indubitably connected with the main
! charge, tO-Wit: the killing Of the de-
cea ed by the defendant. II the eYi-
\ dence in the case can be reconciled with
the Innocence Of the accused you should
so reconcile 1t. 1t is not sufficient to en-.
title the jury to render verdict of
guilty that the facts and circumstances
established by the proof coincide with,
account for and therefore render prob
bile, the hypothesis Of guilt, but such
proof must exclude to moral certainty
every other reasonable hypothesis than
that of guilt.
As | have already had occasion to say
you cannot convict, unless you find the
prisoner guilty beyond the existence of
"a reasonable doubt. This rule applies
30 every ma, erisl element Of the crimes
charged in the indictment. What then
is meant in law by proof of guilt beyond
| the existence of reasonable dOubtp By
he expression reasonable doubt is meant
actual, substantial doubt. 1t Is that
state Of the case which af or c0mpari-
son and consideration Of all the eVi-
dance in the case, evidence introduced
by the State, together with that intro.
ductd by the defendant, leaves the
! minds Of the jurors, or any one of them,
| in that condition that they cannot say
they feel an abiding conviction Of the
guilt of the defendant and are satisfied
to moral certainty Of the truth Of the
charge. The law does not require that
the proof should satisfy the minds of the
jurors beyond all POSSIBLE doubt. POesl-
ole and contingent doubt hangs over all
human affairs. By reasonable doubt is
not meant mere arbitrary and specu-
latiVe doubt. You will be justified In
considering a reasonable doubt as exist
ing and should acQuit the prisoner, If
the testimony and circumstances exist
ing In tue case may fairly be recOnciled
wit innocence, and should convict
only when the evidence Is such as to ex
cnde to a moral certainty every reason
able hypothesis or theory except that Of
guilt. If the evidence satisfies you of
the prisoners guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, ycu should not hesitate to 80 find
IN your verdict. but if reasonable doubt
rem ,ins IN the mind of the jury, or In
he mind Of any juror, as to the prison
er's guilt Of either or all Of the grades
of crime charged In the indictment, you