Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1888-10-12

ly il must be reasonably and morally Ger.
tain The evidence must produce "A moral
certainty Of guilt and exclude any other
reasonable hypothesis. This point will be
alluded to more fully in another connection.
Each fact necessary TO the conclusion must
be distinctly aud independently proved 10y
competent evidence. But it is not ALWAYS
true that every fact proved or attempted
TO be proved is necessary to the conclu
sion of guilt
In case depending on circumstantial
evidence 1t is common TO attempt 10 make
out facts not necessary TO the conclusion of
guilt but to make the case stronger and
more certain, or to meet some phase Of the
case, or some inference that might exist
without it. The failure TO make out such
facts may not break the chain Of evidence
but the case would lack that particular cor
roboratiOn which such facts, if proved,
might afford have said that each fact
necessary TO the conclusion must be dis
tinctly proved | mean by that that they
must be fully established by proof. They
are the facts woven and linked together
from which the main fact is to he inferred
and they are TO be proved by competent
evidence aud by the same weight aud force
Of evidence as if each one were the main
| fact in issue. That is, every circumstance
relied upon as material is to be brought to
the test Of strict proof. Should you rea-
sonably doubt the existence of any fact,
that is, not be satisfied of it beyond a rea-
'onable doubt, you should exclude it from
| your consideration as a circumstance against
| the respondent. You will also remember
that the evidence in support of a fact con
stituting a circumstance may be the result
Of perjury or mistake. Such evidence is to
l l.. ,I.t. 81 ,tl l,ar
evidence.
Another rule, before partially alluded to,
applicable 10 a case standing on circum-
stantial evidence, is that all the circum-
stances combined and taken together should
be Of a conclusive nature and tendency,
leading on the whole 10 satisfactory con
clusion, and producing reasonable moral
certainty that the accused, and not anoth-
er, committed the offence charged. 1t is
not sufficient, as perhaps before suggested,
that they create probability, though a
strong one. However clearly they point TO
guilt, still, if they are reasonably explana-
hle on a theory that excludes guilt, explain
able on the theory Of innocence, they are
insufficient They must be so certain and
unequivoca in their nature as TO exclude
all reasonable doubt of guilt The facts
should be consistent with guilt and incon-
slstent with any other rational conclusion.
If the facts established can reasonably be
accounted for ON no hypothesis which cx
cudes the respondents guilt, and if they
are harmonious and consistent with the
theory of his guilt, and they point to it SO
clearly and distinctly as to satisfy you Of it
beyond reasonable double then they are
sufficient.
Alusion has been made in the course Of
/ . h.. ka # h..
spondent both before aud after being
charged with the offence In nearly all
criminal cases evidence showing the con
/ duct is introduced, not 50 much to show the
act itself, but as indicative of a guilty
mind. In weighing such evidence the jury
should exercise caution aud care. The
rule is for the jury to apply honestly their
/ experience. and to draw such differences as
/ experience indicates in matters of the
gravest Importance. Counsel have indi-
Gated the inference they drew from Dodge ;
conduct on different occasions and which
they ask you to draw and make Now ap-
ply the above rule. Exercise care. Ap-
/ ply honestly your experience. Remember
the circumstances and situation as shown.
| Remember this is a matter of the gravest
Importance. Draw such inferences as ex
perience has taught you are safe and Just
IN matters of such gravity and Importance.
The burden # overcoming this presump-
ton of innocence and all evidence of the
respondent, and establishing the fact of
guilt is on the state, and this continues
throughout the trial, and it is to be estab-
lished by the measure of proof stated that
is beyond reasonable DOUBT. The term rea-
sonable doubt is often attempted to be eX-
planned in order to make its meaning plain,
Int | bat r., th. lusif hot l..
better understood without explanation than
with it that it explains itself, to use an
expression not uncommon. | think the
mind only begins to get confused over 1t
when we begin to talk about it and try u
make its meaning palmer. The words are
common and well understood, and together
Indicate the meaning of the term. If one
should use this term in common conversa
ton about some ordinary matter of discus
sion, | doubt If 1t would occur to you thai
you did not understand the meaning of it.
The trouble with all the definitions is that
they contain words and terms not as plain
as these are, and that require explaining
and defining just as much if used. | think
there are no words palmer than the words
reasonable doubt, and none more exact t,
the idea meant. 1t has been judiciallv helC
that it is not whimsical or vague doubt ol
conjecture, not mere possible doubt he
cause everything relating TO human affair
and depending on moral evidence is opeI
TO some possible or imaginary doubt If
upon all the evidence in the case, fairl!
weighed and considered. there be reasona
bile doubt remaining as to the respondent
guilt, he is entitled to the benefit of it b.
an acquittal.
In this state, in criminal cases the jur,
md, Of he lou Rf
facts. But this rule does not absolve tn
court from the duty of telling you wha
the law Of the case is, and of laying dow
the rules to guide you with all the particu
larity required in civil case where tn
jury are judges only of the facts. The Oh
ject of this is, | suppose, to enable you I
decide the case upon the the evidence aC
cordiug to law. If | make a mistake IL
stating the law to you the respondent VA
have a remedy by an exception. If yo
should disregard the rules that | give yo
} and the respondent should suffer thereby
5 he would have no remedy For any mis-
take of the court the respondent has a rem
edy but he has none for any mistake q
the jury. ] think the safest and wises
course for jurors is to take the evidenc
! solely from the witnesses and law solel
from the court.
1t is not my purpose to repeat or atteml
' to restate the evidence, or discuss 1t pr
and con as to its weight. That has bee
done by respective counsel. shall PR
= sent to you the general grounds, not tn
I details. upon which the state relies for
, conviction and the same upon which Il
i defendant relies for an acquittal. No
: will notice that said the general ground
+ mean Just that, and shall undoubted
haf n
d have been discussed But you are not
r omit them from your consideration If {
not allude TO them, my purpose and duty b
ing only to get your attention 10 the geuer
features of the case in a summary wa
IS after these many days of hearing aud e
IS tend ed discussion of counsel.
QUESTIONS FOR THE JURY To DECIDE.
is The first question as | explained early
e these instructions, which you have to ta
IS up and decide upon the evidence, is that
Y the corpus deficit. have stated the rule
respect to that The state rests upon t
v testimony of the on-medical witness
10 evidence tending to show by them /
marks upon the person of this woman abo
er the neck and head They have also intl
Iy luced the evidence tending to show the |
re sition of the body when it was found the
m dead, and also the condition and appearan
nd of her hat and other garments. All Il
in is fresh in your minds, both as the evlden
" was given and as it has been recalled
u your attention by the counsel. You "
1n recall the arguments which the counsel
w the state claim in that respect. The sti
as also relies upon medical witnesses which
mt has introduced to show that this crime "
III committed, and these medical witnes
re- have testified what marks of violence th
ed found upon that body They have testit
it, to you at length in regard to their p
ed mortem examination of that body, a
ir- what il disclosed, and then they have a
ce given you their opinion as 10 what eau
x the death of this woman-whether it '
ci- violence or something else-and they h'
EN- expressed 10 you, in substance, what ia