The Redwood gazette. [volume] (Redwood Falls, Minn.) 1873-1940, 1890-04-17
The alleged. errors Of counsel fol-

The alleged errors of counsel for
state may be thus summarized:
l. Error Of Mr.. Madigan in stating
certain words objected to.
2. Error in stating to the jury IT, t
"Mr. Quarton put his foot into the clay
in the gully, and after reaching he
prairie there was clay of bright & lor
still on his SHOE"
Also "the county attorney told you
how easy it would be to pare down 9
4caibre ball" Also, "Slover + Id
Gale that VIM. Rose killed his I'm le.
Also, "that Matthews said he Was at
enmity with Aldrich."
Relative to instructions of court, er-
rors are alleged.
l. In instructing the jury that if
certain facts and circumstances salts
| fed their minds beyond q reasonable
doubt that defendant was guilty, that
he might be convicted upon such cir
cumstantial evidence.
2. In instructing the jury that they
might consider whether it was proba-
BILE that defendant left his work and
rode twelve miles, as he testified, for
80 trivial matter as to deliver box
of cartrid ges to his uncle.
8. In instructing that
ut is not necessary that each and every cir
cumstance should be proved. 1t is in vain
that we attempt to detect and p nish crime
unless we resort to circumstantial evidence.
Crime shuns the light of day, it seeks dark.
ness, it courts secrecy, 1t endeavors to escape
detection; the assassin moves stealthiiy upon
his unsuspicious or sleeping victim; he calls
no witness to see him strike the fatal blow:
he attempts to obliterate all traces Of crime;
! he seeks to cover up his tracks. Does the
thief take witnesses to see him steal? Or the
incendiary to see bin apply the torch7 You
must resort to circumstantial evidence or
crime must remain unpunished. II you wait
for an eyewitness to every crime, II you ex-
pect the villain to cali one to witness his Grim.
inality you at once grant immunity to crime
There may have been cases in which the in
nocent have been convicted. II this be 50, It
is reason for caution, for giving to each cir
cumstance its just and proper weight, not for
disregarding such proof or neglecting to give
1t proper consideration: but If men have been
convicted erroneously upon circumstantial
evidence SO have they on direct testimony;
but 10 that q reason for refusing to act upon
such testimony? Is 1t any more tho reason
for refusing to act upon circumstantial evi-
dence2 Assuredly not. The cases are few
and far between in which erroneous verdicts
have been found upon this species Of evil
dence, and they occurred under entirely differ
ent conditions from those Of our own time.
| Formerly tho prisoner was not allowed to call
| witnesses and to have them sworn, and was
not allowed to employ q counsel, and could
not be witness in bis own case. Now the
government summons his witnesses, and per-
mits him to be witness to explain If he can
every adverse fact. But the cases of err
| rOneOus verdicts are Of rare occurrence. The
wonder is that there are 80 few. Did you gen.
tlemen ever know or hear of one in this Slater
The stories told Of such Instances may or may
not be true, but Of their truth you have no
I proof. They seem resorted to for the purpose
of imposing upon tfmid jurymen the belief
that there should be no safe conviction upon
circumstantial evidence; that there IL infinite
! danger to inuocsnce If there IL such convic-
| ton. The cases referred to by council for de-
PENDANT In Phillips on Evidence" are mere
| anecdotes. They may not be true. 1t is said
| that the courts of England contain no record
of these alleged cases. They have nothing to
do with the case under consideration. This
you are to decide upon the evidence before
YOU and not hing else."