Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-23

| in matter of form, but the usual ones raised
| by the defense in murder trials and includ
| ed the right of the prisoner to the benefi
of anv doubt that might arise, and the cor
| related axiom of law that where severa
persons are charged with the commission Of
a crime, but it is uncertain which is guilty,
all must be acquitted. Mr.. Patterson ar.
gued at length against the tendency of some
of these points, though he said he objected
to none as it stood in ITSELF Among other
arguments he advanced were these!
The common intent of the crowd on the
shore at Homestead was to resist the Pink
ertons till the death. The certainty of the
identity of the prisoner with the particular
person who fired the shot is not necessary.
There is no necessity to prove that the pris-
nors, or that any of the crowd had, but if all
of them had common design to resist vio-
lently lawful proceeding they were ac-
countable for the consequences As to will
ful premeditation, can there be any doubt
that the evidence has been produced to show
that there was careful preparation to bring
about the very state of things that was
brought about, namely, riotous, violent re-
slStance in which those who opposed the de-
fendant were to be killed?
Presumption of the Intent to Kill.
The intent to kill can be presumed under
the law when a deadly weapon is discharged
against vital part; it can be inferred from
the deliberate preparation for the crime re-
sulting. Otherwise the only way to prove
the intent would be by the prisoners con-
fession. admit that any reasonable doubt
must be construed in the prisoners favor
but it must not be used as a refuge for a
jury which wants to avoid q disagreeable
dCtv. need not comment upon the law
discussed and presented in yesterdays
opening. i notice that none of the law so
stated has been embodied in the points SUBJ
mitted. If these arguments are repeated in
f1na PlooS # col k1,ad dafo &1,o
Court and the counsel for the Common
wealth will attend to them then.
Mr.. Marshall said: 'Tn reply to the
Commonwealth counsel as to the intent to
kill, they have not tried even to prove the
intent would like to know what the
evidence is that our client went down to the
river bank and melted people to shoot.
There is no proof of Critchlow's having had
any intent to kill or of having urged or
prepared others to commit murderous at
tack.
As to a Reasonable Doubt
ftOn the question of doubt, 1 contend
that a reasonable doubt is the honest failure
of the mind to come to certain conclusion
from the evidence. The doubt of one rea-
sonable man should outweigh the certainty
of the other IL" Mr.. Marshall went over
his points at some length, and then sat
down.
The question then arose, how much time
would counsel on both sides require for
their closing addresses to the jury? Dis
trict Attorney Burleigh showed a very gen.
erous disposition in this matter, suggesting
that as far as he was concerned the counsel
for the defense could have all the time they
wanted. Three hours would suffice for the
Commonwealth. Judge McCluDg, when it
was urged by the defendants attorneys that
they might require more than four hours,
the outside limit mentioned, reminded
counsel that the jury mad been out of their
own beds for a week, and were entitled to
some consideration. So four hours for each
side was appropriated for oratorical pur-
poses, and the court adjourned for an hour
at 11:50 to prepare for the ordeal