Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1886-11-16

80
aeEsss aud i y1a have m1r1Er IN ths
4ilhzE pnEpczs o. malioe. o. both, zen
nef mannI sanhksE u nms kina 81 an
et1eF, unless fhe Killing IS efaraeteEiz q
- AS eanse q . Derfeo1 leGal ex-
Tha harden of proof u thfs case 4
upon the HE1zecnii1n thTooRnoul. OF
e0urss, q meFs ens1ioinu q guilt. how
ever EfrunR that nu8plcion might be.
would nos aFail % eonvist TIE defsnd-
AMI He Is " car ia9 pregumed inns
eaat enll1 be ii proved guilty ~ thak
0arxee and aulB0nt 81 0rnef whi1n the
Ian Fsquirss f1R eonYisfsnn u e criminal
cas-. This pFEs1mption 81 iunooencs
b an essential ana suhssantial part Of
The iau 81 tns land. and il Binding upon
you. that yoa may give him the full
banehf Of Il. Il fellows from this pre-
Bumpti1n that tha defendant Is nos re-
quirea % prove himEelf innocent, Bat,
0n TIE oDasEary, SO prosecution Il r.
uuired falls 90 pFovu 20 the laal aassntial
particular ehs defoBdantss gait. IL 8
civil ease & bare prepondarancs Of the
evidences Ia favor Of the PLAINTIFF si3e
q tie case IL sufi1ieni g authoFizs 9
finding against shs defendant Bat not
81 Ia q criminal oaas. Ii q criminal
case there can be no finding Of guilty
anlszs The jury are convinced of tie
defendants guilt beyond all reasonable
doabf. And this eanviuti0n must ariss
from she evidences produced before the
iuEy "a tie trial. entirely disEegArainR
al psrBanAl knowledge that tbs Jury
may have Of facts material "a the case.
and entireiy disreRaFdinR also al opia-
ions Of the iury as 10 such facts unless
indased By that eTidonce. II, altar G
careful aud thorough canvass and o1n.
Hidsration Of all the facts and ciEcnm-
stances IN evidences. yon shall And your
salves convinced from that evidenos.
and hey3nd al reasonable donbt, tha&
him guilty b. your verdict; hut ether
wis you via acquit him.
Bet che rule requiEinQ you to be salts
iea Of the Defendants guilt beyond
reasonable doabt il order 10 warrant
oonsialfon DIES not require that yoa
should be aafiadsd beyond q reasonable
doubt Of eaah sad all the circumstances
relied upon or put forward b. the pros
ocntion 20 establish the defendants
guilt; u Il snfaoisnt 70 warrant his con-
WESTON, II, taking ell the evidences To-
RsthaF, you are satisfied beyond all Fea-
souable doubt that the defendant 10
guilty.
In thIs ease, the prosecution, 20 far e.
fixing guilt on the DESCENDANT 10 oon-
osrned, Is seeking for oonvistion on
oirenmstantiAl evidence alone. By cir
cumstantial evidence, / mean evidence
Of sash facts and circumstances con
neoted with or surrounding the eommis-
sion Of the crime charged as tend 70
show the Rnilt or innocence Of the ao-
cused. Circaustantiaf evidence is legal
aad competent Ia all criminal Gases,
and II u u Of aueh q character a. 10
exoilde every reasonable hypothesis
o. her than that the defendant is guilty.
& is entitled 90 she same weight and
eject aa direct testimony, TO she Grim
iuai act; and II, In this case, the facts
and circumstances IN evidence are
encuRh 10 safety you Of tbs guilt Of the
/ defendant beyond all reasonable doubt,
/ then such evidence Il amply sufficient
to authorize you 10 find q verdict Of
| guilty. Bot where, az here, q conviction
/ Is sought upon eiFoumstantial evidence
alone, the prosecution must not only
show beyond every reasonable doubt
thai certain facts and circumstances are
true, bnt they must be such facts and
| circumstances as, taken all together,
are absolutely incompatible upon any
| reasonable hypothesis With the In
innocence Of the accused, and inoapa-
BILE Of exclamation HpOn any reasonable
hypothesis other than that OF the guilt
Of the accused; and In this case, II al
the IA cts and circumstances relied on
/ By the prosecution 20 secure q oonvto.
ton can be reasonably accounted for
upon any theory consistent uish the de-
| fendanfs innocence, then you should
and she defendant not guilty. And II
there is any single fact, proved in this
case BY q preponderance Of evidence
which fact IL inconsistent With the gull
Of the defendant, this 10 sufficient d
Faiss reasonable doubt Of hia guilt and
entitle him 10 an acquittal.
In & legal sense, q reasonable doubt Il
q doubt that has some reason for its
basia. The phrase reasonable doubt
does not mean a doubt from mere
caprice or groundlesa conjecture. 4
doubt for which no sensible reason can
be given Is not reasonable. No oFdin
aFily sensible and prudent man allows
bis conduct in bis most important AT Airs
70 be influenced By doubts that appe Z
10 him faneifal and Feas0nless. A rea-
sonable doubt, then, Ia such q doubt a.
a man Of ordinary prudence, sensibility
and decision, IN determining an issue OF
like concern and importance to himself
as the case before you Is 70 the defend.
ant, would ALLOW TO have any influence
whatever upon him or make him pause
or hesitate IN arriving at his determine
ton. Therefore. Ia considering this
case, you should not 20 through or be-
yend the evidence 10 hunt for doubts,
nor should 700 entertain such doubts IS
are merely chlmerioAl or based upon
eroundless conjecture. A doubt to
Justify an acqittal should be reason
able one arising from 3 careful. candid
and impartial consideration Of all the
evidences. II, after suoh consideration
Of ell the evidences, you can say and feel
that you are come 70 an abiding oonvie-
tion Of the guilt Of the defendant and
are thoroughly satisfied Of the truth Of
the charge against him, then you are
satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt
within the meaning and requirement Of
the Law and should bring in verdict Of
guilty.
The oredibility Of the witnesses Is q
question exclusively for the jury. In pass
ina upon Il, yen will bring % bear upon
ID ali the general experience yoa have in
human affairs and the motives that
actuats mankind. when q uambar Of
Witnesses testify directly opposite 20
eaea other, the Jury are nos bound to
regard tue weight Of evidences e. evenly
balanced. You have right 70 deter
mine from the ap earance of the Wit
nessos on the stand, and their manner
Of testifyina, and their apparent eandoF
snd fairness, and their apparent infslli.
eence or lack Of intcllieenca, and from
81 he other sufFoaadine circumstances
appearing % the trial. which Witnesses
are the more worthy OF credit, and 70
ave credit accordingly. Yon are not
bo1nd 70 take the testimony Of any Wit
ness, In whole OF In part aa ahsol1eeiy
true. and yeu shaald not do 90 &c %
ans particular vksrpin you are satisied,
from ell tbs facts aud circumstances
proved on the trial. that snch witness is
mistaken Or THAI for any other reason
bic testimony Il uBlrue or unreliable.
In determining she issues OF this case,
y0u sh0uid take into consideration the
whole Of the .idenos and al the facts
ard circumstance proved on the trial,
Gfvtng % the several pnFts af tue egi
| a