Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-12-11
from the President, for that fact

from the President, for that fact
would not tend to alter his convic-
ton or remove from his mind any
bias II might retain by reason Of his
former belief and practice. The
juror wIs clearly disqualified under
the lay and the denial Of the chal.
lenge was error.
In regard to the charge to the
jury that they were ssnot bound to
believe the testimony Of any wit
ness or any number Of Witnesses"
counsel contended, this was error.
The jury are bound 10 render . YER
dict according to the law and to the
evidence, and for judicial purposes
they are bound to believe the direct
and positive testimony Of unim-
peached and uncontradicted wit
nesses when the facts testified to
are not incredible on their face.
In the case OF Somer vs. Meeker
the New York Court OF Appeals
said;
"The positive testimony of an I'M
impeached, uncontradicted witness
cannot be disregarded by court or
jury arbitrarily or capriciously. They
are bound to believe, for judicial pur-
posse, such testimony, and it would,
in an instance like this, be the clear
duty OF the court 20 set aside the ver-
dict Of jury founded upon a disbelief
of clear, uncontradictsi and undis-
puted evidence"
In the case Of Robertson VS..
Dodge, 2s III. l63, the Supreme
Court Of Illinois said:
Can a jury, from mere caprice, en-
tirely disregard the testimony Of
witness unimpesched in any way?
This they cannot lawfully do, al
though they are the judges of the
credibiliiy Of witnesses. They must
judge ofthat fact, a. Of any other in
the case. from evidence. They cannot
disregard the testimony OF a witness
without some cause. They must have
some grounds for disbelieving him
before they are authorized to DO 20.
They must exercise their Judgment
and not siheir will when passing upon
the credibility Of witness
As under the instructions Of the
court witheut any cause or ground
for 70 doing, the jury wholly dis
carded the positive testimony Of
the alleged plural wife and that |
Of all the other witnesses for
the defense, and convicted
the accused on an alleged con-
fession, (which was testified TO |
by the former wife. when neither
the confession nor the wife's tcs-
timony were corroborated in any
way, the instruction of the court |
which iavited such a verdict was
grave and manifest error.
At the close Of the testimony the
lower court ove-ruled a motion to
dismiss on the ground that there
was no evidence against the defend
ant except has alleged admission to
wife, ami neither the con.
fession nor the testimony were cor
This, MIR. Richards ar
gued, was manifest error, and quoted
from Greenleaf on Evidence. vol. 1:
.-Sec;ion 2l7.-In the United States,
the prisoners confession, when the
corpus deficit is not Otherwise proved,
has been held insufficient for his con-
viction,
Also from Wharton, on Criminal
''Sec. 32--while voluuta ~ confess
sions NJ specific charges OF of incuipa-
tory fact, are always admissible. nn-
der the conditions above stated, they
cannot sustain a conviction, unless
here be corroborative proof of the
corpus deiicti.''
After urging the careful con-
.ideration Of the Court to these
grave errors, and asking for rever-
'ai Of the Judgment Of the lower
court, Mr.. Richards gave way for
COUNSEL for the Government.
Attorney-General Miller spoke for
nearly an hour in reply. He
that the bill Of exceptions
vas not properly in the record. The
av did not require confederation
u a confession. but he insisted
hat there were circumstances
n the record that showed corrobo-
alton. He said that other parts
u the charge caused the defect
complained of by the appellant. The
uror's pardon male him competent.
he insisted that the wife was a COM
'etent witness and quoted decisions
rom Iowa and Nebraska TO that
fleet, but could not produce any
to sustain the position that
he might testify to a confidential
In answer TO questions from the
'ench he admitted that such would
e dangerous rule. At the close
his argument he referred to Bas-
ett's belief in polygamy, and said
had been preached that p,lygamy
1as right ami salvation depended ;
pom it.
In his closing argument Mr.. y
richards disposed Of the Attorney.
reasoning and authorities, 1 ;
lany Of which did not cover this /,
round. As 10 the pardon of the /,
lror, 1t only relieved him Of the !,
Of breaking the law
sainst polygamy and restored his
vii rights, but did not affect his ),
privilege to be a juror. He !.
'inted out the fact that only two
:stes had held that q wife could
~, T. III