Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-04-19
Continued from third page.l
Judge Whieehouse's Charge.


The following is an abstract of the charg
a to the jury
: GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY: You have n,
f failed to be admonished, feel sure, by tn
e unusual care, deliberation and solemnit
+ which have governed the conduct of thi
l. trial, that duty of no ordinary characte
has been resting upon us all. The dut
= which has devolved upon the counsel ha
now been discharged with distinguished Il
deity, ability and power upon both sides
The duty imposed by law upon me viii
presently be discharged and the burden nov
resting upon ME rolled away. There vii
then remain the sole responsibility resting
upon you, TO determine the momentous issu
presented by the charge and the evidence il
this case. And You will perceive at one,
that it is of the utmost importance that upol
the very threshold of your inquiry yo,
should clearly and accurately understand
what is required of you-what your dutie
are; and to this end il is equally essential a
the outset that you should correctly under
stand what is required of the court.
Under our judicial system and methods OF
administering justice, it is doubtless a matter
of common knowledge with you that il is the
duty of the jury to decide what the facts are
while it is as distinctly the duty of the court
TO decide what the law is. Neither should
infringe upon the province of the other
The court is prohibited by the statute of the
State from expressing any opinion upon
issues of fact; but is required by the statute
to determine the questions of law for this
purpose of trial. The jury are prohibited
from attempting to determine questions of
law. 1t is their sole responsibility to deter
mine issues of fact. Gentlemen, | shall
leave to you the great responsibility in this
important case, to determine the issue of
fact. | shall not comment upon testimony
only SO far as may be necessary to make
plain the application of such rules of law as
are involved in the investigation, or to place
the testimony in its just and clear light and
illustrate its tendency as proof in this case.
Under the constitution of this State no man
can be held TO answer to a capital or infa-
nous crime until the grand jury have pre-
sented an Indictment against him; and no
man can be deprived of his liberty except by
the judgment of his peers or the law of the
land. The State leaves to every citizen a
pillar of security in the right to go unpun-
ished not only until he has committed "A
crime in the popular judgment, but until he
has been convicted of that crime according
to the forms and precedents which have been
| upheld from time immemoria for the pro-
| lection of private rights; until he has been
convicted of it by legal and competent tes-
timony, after making all the defence in his
power. The State lays careful hand upon
all the violators of its authority The more
aggravated the crime, the more carefully the
government proceeds, as the consequences
of conviction are more serious to the offend
er.
The prisoner at the bar is charged with an
offence involving the highest possible injury
which one person can do TO the rights of
another in this world. He is charged with
the highest crime known to the laws or ma
ture and civilized society; and the counsel
upon both sides have apparently exhausted
all language of graphic description and char
acterzation in attempting to picture the
moral turpitude and depravity of a person
who could be guilty of the crime charged i'll
this Indictment under the testimony as it
has been disclosed. For it is said that there
are exceptional features of infamy and de-
pravity in the fact that the victim here was
the prisoners own father, the father by
whose side he-had walked from totterny
childhood to the years of his majority, the
father who had at least discharged with av-
erage fidelity his obligations as imposed by
nature and society. The counsel, say
have We'd with each other in painting the
enormty of the crime. And indeed it is re-
corded that one of the greatest nations of
antiquity in the days of its greatest power
and glory had no decree that spe
ciaily provided for the punishment of
the paracide, because in the exalted
minds of that people it was not
deemed possible or conceivable that
such a crime could be committed But how
ever enormous the crime with which the
prisoner at the bar stands charged, he comes
here clothed with the presumption of inno-
cence. In its anxious regard for the rights
and liberties of its citizens, the State throws
around every one wall of protection in this
presumption of innocence, a wall which it is
incumbent upon the government to break
down before it can touch him by way of pun
ishment. 1t is a maxim of the law, cry stall
lied from the facts of human experience,
that every man is presumed to be innocent
until proved to be guilty A majority of
men, it is believed, are innocent of crime;
therefore when anyone is charged with vio-
lation of the law he shall have the benefit of
the presumption which belongs to the ma
jority. 1t is not for the prisoner to prove his
innocence, but for the government to prove
his guilt The burden is upon the govern
ment to establish his guilt by competent
evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
In the trial of controversies between man
and man in relation to the rights of properly
it is only incumbent upon the plaintiff who
sets up claim, to establish his case by pre-
ponderance of evidence, greater weight of
evidence. But in the trial of criminal cases.
in view of the more serious consequences of
conviction, something more is required of
the government. 1t must prove the charge
beyond a reasonable doubt, Il doubt that is in
harmony with reason. But the reason of
one man is not necessarily and always pre-
cisely the reason of another man. Every
me mber of the panel has his own mental pro
cesses and reasoning faculties peculiar to
himself 1t is therefore personal question
addressed to the mind and conscience of
every member of the panel. He
can determine for himself better than
philosophers or jurists can determine for
him when he has reasonable doubt. 1t is
not a mere possible or imaginary doubt; for
everything in human affairs depending upon
moral evidence may be subject to some
imaginary or possible doubt. And by moral
evidence, | mean that evidence which is
employed about and relates to the conduct
and customs of men in their relations to each
other. Therefore when you seek in court
of justice to establish proposition concern
and wrong, you must avail yourself of the
appropriate evidence, such as the nature of
the subject is capable of, such as relates to
the subject matter. Mathematical demon
stration is not possible or practicable in a
court of justice. Courts OF justice seek to
discover aud declare the truth. That is the
great purpose for which they are maintained
and for which the people cheerfully bear the
burdens of taxation. But courts act through
human intrumentalities. They are subject
to the inhrmities of human nature. Mis-
takes are sometimes committed. But, gem
tlemen, You are here as reasonable, practical
men to apply your judgment to the moral
evidence that is produced, the kind of evi-
dence, and the only kind, that is available to
establish propositions in court of justice
| Therefore when the evidence is in harmony
with your reason, your experience, your
observation of the conduct of men, your
knowledge of the usual course of nature,
then you may say that there is a probability
that this is true, and when that probability
1 IL strong rpmpye all rezsnuaii 10