New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-21
THE JUDt,ES' CHARGE TO TIE JURY.
A CLEAR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE LAW AM
THE rEsriMoNY-JuDGE DEWEY DELIv-
FRS THE OPINlO.

THE rESriMONY-JUDGE DEWEY DEL1V
FRS THE OPINION.
New Bedford June 90 cal)-When Mr.
kn3wlton had concluded Judge Mason turned L
the jury and said there still was further wor.
70 be spoken to them before the case was finally
Submitted for their verdict For their conv1nienc,
not less than for the court a would b,
taken until quarter of o'clock. At that
hour the court rcconvened, and after the prisoner
had been afforded opportunity to address the
Jury, which she did with simple prote>tation OF
Ter innocence, Associate Justice Dewey in behalf
Of the court delivered tho charge. lie stood dur
ing his remarks. which occupied an hour and a
half in their delivery. The jury also stood a,
G,st. but after he had spoken a few moments he
invited them 10 resume their seats. Ills charge
almost in full follows:
You have listened with attention to the evidence
I'm this case and 70 the arguments OF the defendant
counsel aud of the Dstrict-luorney. 1t now remain,
for me- acting in behalf OF the court TO give you
such aid toward proper performance OF your duty
rs I may b. able to give within the limits Tor ju-
dcal action prescribed by law: ana to prevent any
erroneous impression it may be well for to bring
IN YOUR attention at the outset The fact tha, IL j.
provided BY a statute of this State TINT the Court
,hall not charge juries with respect matters Of
Iaci. lat may state the testimony and the law. With
ont attemptn, to define the scope OF TIL,
state, IL l. not 10 ne uONptu Vie" vi 'ApoStiol>
made by ii by court of last resort that it WIS in
tended TO prevent the judges prc,din.
at the trial from expressing
opinion as - the credibity OF Witnesses
OF the strength Of evidence. while 1t does not pre-
dude them from defining the degree Of weight which
the law attaches a whole class Of testimony. eiv-
ing 1t the jury TO apply the general rule TO the
circumstances of the
NAV perhaps Illustrate this distinction In the
course OF remarks. but speaking comprehen-iveN
! may now say TO you that ii will be your duty in
considering and deciding the matters of fact necessary
10 rendering your verdict not 10 allow your judgment
TO be affected By what you NAY suppose believe
10 be the opinion OF the Court upon such matters OF
fact. The law places upon the Court the duty ana
responsibility of furnishing you with correct stat"
ment OF such rules and principles OF law applicable 10
the case as YOU need to know. and places upon yOu.
and you only, the distinct duty and responsibility
OF decdln. all questions OF fact involved in the Issue
between the Commonwealth and the defendant. and
your decision properly rest only on the law ana
The evidence given you, together with those matters
Of common knowledge and experience relating TO the
ordinary affairs OF life. and the common qualities OF
human nature and motives Of action which are never
proved in court, but which. jurors, you are ex
pected 10 bring with you to this investigation
no FORMER PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERED.
! will here add that nothing in the prior official
proceedings In this case neither the inquest nor the
hearing trial in the District Court at Fall River.
nor the action OF the Grand Jury in finding the in
dictment, can properly Influence your judgment In
this case. In connection with those proceedings by
the usual legal formalities the IS brought before
you for inquiry. and 1t Is independent of any official
action that has gone before 1t is stlll more plain
that neither the defendants confinement In prison,
her coming here In the custody OF an officer nor
the legal restraint under which she manfesy is raises
against her any presumption OF guilt. The Govern
mcnt claims that the killing OF Mr.. and Mrs Borden
murder in the first degree and that II was done
ly the defendant In considering the evidence with
regard TO this issue you will need 10 have certain
legal principles in mind and to use them as guides
Ono such principle Is the presumption OF law that the
defendant is innocent. This presumption begins with
her at the outset OF the trial. and continues with
her through all It's stages until you compelled Icy
The evidence TO dvest her OF H.
The law does not undertake to fix or measure the
force this assumption In this case BY any formal
or arbitrary rule, but leaves it TO your just and
intelligent Judgment 1t may vary In different cases,
is force benS strengthened among other things, by
he character and previous way OF life of the de- |
cndant. | understand the Government TO conccje |
hat the defendants character has been good; that
Il has not been merely negative and natural one
hat nobody had heard anything against, but one Of
positive, OF active benev0lencc In religious and char
table work The question is whether the defendant.
being such as she was. did the acts charged upon |
her. You are inquiring into the action OF some |
imaginary being, but into the action Of real person.
he defendant with her character. with her habits with
her education with her ways Of life as they have been
disclosed In the case. Judging Of this subject as
reasonable men, you have the right TO take into con
.deration her character, such IS admitted or mp
parent.
MOTIVE FOR THE CRIMES.
II is competent for the Government TO show TINT
thc defendant had motives to commit the crimes
with which she IS charged, and evidence has Deem
Introduced from which you are asked 10 ma tla'
She had unpleasant relations with her stepmo'her,
tho deceased. and also that her father Andrew JACK
Borden. left an estate Of the value OF from FOO
900 To $500 900, and that far as Is known 10 III"
defendant he died without having made n. VIII. II
bis wife died before him. 1t Is not disputed mat nc
left the defendant and her sister as his only heirs
Taking the facts as you find them to be estab-
ished by the evidence. and taking the defendant as
'ou find her 10 be- and judging according to general
y pcricnce and observation, was the DEFENDANT under
real and actually operating motive TO XIII her
ntler and his wife?
Imputns motive 10 defendant does not prove that
lc had H. i understand the counsel for the Gov
10 claim that defendant had toward her
tepmother strong feeling OF ill-will, nearly " not
mite amounting 10 hatred. And Mrs. Ghord's testl'
nony TO with defendant In the early
pring OF 500 is relied upon largely as basis for
hat claim, supplemented b. whatever evidence there
, 10 defendants conduct toward her stepmother.
shall say something before ! have done on the |
aution 10 be used In considering testimony as 10
conversations. But take Mrs. Chords jus, as she
ave ii. and consider whether or not it will fairly
mount 10 the significance attached It, remembering
hat II Is the language OF young woman and not
philosopher. or iurist. What, according 10
omnion observation. Is the habit Of young women in
nc OF language Is II not rather that OF in
'nse EXPRESSION whether that Of admiration dis
he Consider whether not they do not often
Sc words which, strictly taken. would 60 far beyond
lcir real meaning. Would 1t be Just mode Of :