New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-21

der 10 pu. cnmity INFO the word, and then use the
words thus charged with hostile meaning evidence
| that defendant committed the murder
| TIE TESTIMONY snOULD BIZ BALANCED.
! Again. portion OF the testimony should Be
estimated in tie light OF al the rest. What you wish
o. coarse, Is truc conception, truc conception Of
The state OF The mind Of tie dci,ndan. toward tc'
st.pmoher. year, ago. but later ard nearer the
Tine OF the Lomicdc: and 10 get such time conccp
ior you must no, ,"plr.tc Mr.. Giford'> testimony
from ali tie rest but consider also the evidence u TO
how they lived IN the family; whether. Mrs. Ray
mcnd. ! believe. said. they Scwcd together CT each
Others dresses whether they 70 church together.
sat together returned together. IN word The zen
cra tenor OF their nfc. lou will particularly recall
tie testimony Of Bridget sullivan and a.. defendant :
sister. Emma. Tearing The same subject. Weigh
carefully all III" testimony on the subject In conncc-
lion with The suggestions Of counsel. and then Judge
whether not there i, clearly proved such per
maneE, state OF mind the part Of defendant toward
her ,tepmo'her a> to justify yon in drawing against
her upon that ground differences uniavOTablc To her
limo cncc.
The law requires that before the defendant can
be found guilty. every material allegation In II shall
be proved beyond reasonable doabt. Now What
do the word, beyond reasonable doubt" mean
som" courts do not favor an attempt to define them.
thinking that the jury can judge well without
any suggestions. BAT ! am unwilling 10 att"mp'
any further explanation. and ! can In no way give
YOU 30 accurate Il description of their meaning IL
by reading to YOU extract from opinion OF the
court by whose views ii /, oar duty to he governed
The court says
WHAT CONSTITUTES REASONABLE rOCBT.
Proved beyond reasonable d3u'lt. is not beyond
all possible imaginary doubt, hut such PROOF -
krecudj, every reasonable hypothesis thcory
except that which il tends TO support II is proof
to Il moral certainty. n, distinguished from ab,o-
Lutte certainty A. applied t. Judicial Trial for
crime. the two phrases. beyond reasonable DOUBT,
and 80 moral certainty synon> nous ana
equivalent. They the same thing Each has
been used by eminent judges 10 explain the other
and each signifies such proof H. satisfies the JrIs
ment and cOr>cienc, of the jury as reasonable men,
and applying their rca on 10 the evidence b'ior'
them. that the cline charged has been committed
by the defendant. and satisfies them a. to leave
10 other rea,Onabc conclu,lon po be. In other
words. they must have a, clear AMI strong con
viciion in their oWH mind, Of the proof of That
concluion hey would require have in The proof
oil a conclusion BE- acted 10y thcW In matters
OF the highest importance to Themselves
Now you observe. gentlemen that the Government
submits h!s case - you upon circums lnnl evidence
No witness tc,iiicS to SEEING the defendant IN the
Of doing the crime charged. but the Government
seeks TO establish b. proof body Of facts and cir
cumstances Fl ON which y0n asked to infer con
cludc that the defend INT killed Nh and Mrs Borden.
This * legal and no, unusual way Of proving
criminal case. and IT is clearly competent for jury
to find person guilty of murder upon ccum-tantial
evidence alone.
HON TO TREAT CIECUM>TANTTAL EVIDENCE
The ciicf difficulty with hi, kind of evidence is !
that The witnesses may be- false mistaken. Will"
the nature Of the case may be- such that there arc
no means If discovering the fi>"hoo1 or mistake. !
Sometime, tire inference is dire t. an almost certain
In oher case, the facts from whch The conoluNi't
is sought to be drawn are numerous ami compile ,i"l
and the conclusion not 80 circlv connected with |
TIE facts or 50 ea>v 10 draw. This Is illustrated b.
III. trial here. Noa have got 10 20 thrpu'h |
q long aud careful investigation Ia ascertain what
facts proved. This Is the procc,, essentially
That yOu go through in dealing with direct evidence.
Then. after Won have determined what specific fact,
ire proved. you have remaining The important duty
y deciding whether not yOl are justified in draw
ne and will draw from these fact, the conclusion
# gull. Here therefore. Is a twofoll rbliiy g
first. in deciding upon The evidence what fact,
ire proved, and second. in deciding what Inference
n conclusion shall b" drawn hom III" facts. Th'
often the critical turning point In case rest
ng on circumslanlid evidence. The law warrant,
you In acting firmly and with confidence such
evidence but does require Won 10 exercise de-
ibcratc and sober judgment and ne great caution
lot TO form a ba>ty or erroneous conclusion.
FAILURE TO PROVE ESSENTIAL FACT.
Failure TO prove a fact essential 10 the conclusion
Of guilt and without which that conclusion would not
be- reached. /, fatal To the Government case. but
failure to prove a helpful. but moi essential fact
nay not be fatal. Now let illustrate. Take an
essential fact. All would admit that the necessity
establishing the presence Of III" defendant in the
house. when. for instance. her father hilei. T.
A necessary fact. The Government could not expect
hat you would find her quilts Of the murder Of her
father 10y her hani un"-, you satisfied HAT
She was where he when ho murdered AMI
he loft IN lp fp 1f
fact 50 vital. 50 absolutely essential In" Govern.
ncnt must fail Of s whatever NAV De- III" force
md Significance Of other fact,. that t.. far It
: claimed that She did the murder with her own
ands.
The counsel. in his opening. charcc4 deliberately
ipOn Tie defendant that She had told IA ~clICot In
cgard 10 the note she said her moiAcr had received
nd the learned DisrictAttorney In his closing ar
l'mcnt. adopts and reanim> that charge against the
defendant Now. what are The grounds which | I
he Government claims that that assertion i fals"
knowingly false? There three. ~ understand !
hcm-0nc that III" man who wrote II ha, not been
,und second. that the party who brought It has not
zen found. and third. that letter Ia, been found
nd substantially. If / understand the position
cctly, upon these three grounds yOu are asked 10
ind that essential fact. a deliberate fl,ohood on
he part of III" defendant, has been established. !
Now what answer reply /, mad" TO III, rharG" d
irst that the Gef'hdant Lad time TO think OF II. i
ie was not put IN position upon the cvidcnc"
here She compelled 10 make that statement
ithCut any opportunity for r'nccticn II, rs III"
overnmcnt claims, She had killed her st"pmothcr
me little time before. she had period in which
c could turn over the matter III her mind She
ust naturally anticipate. If she knew The facts,
lat the question at remote period would Dc "
kcd her whore Mrs. Borden Wa, II She knew
here She She might reasonably and naturally "
ipect that that question would arise. AGAIN. #
Ill be Urged IN hor behalf, what motive had She Ia ="
vent "A story like tbs Would IT not have answered
cry purpose have her say and would 1t not have
en more natural for her TO say. simply that her
cpmother had gone ont on an crrand or 10 make Il "
Il What motive had She 10 take upon herself :"
responsibility Of giving uttcrancc Ia ti, distinct
I'd Independent fact OF letter or note received -
It'll which she might bc confronted and which -
C might aftcrward find ii difficult; 10
plan If she knew That no sncb thing true "
rs 1t IL natural thing 10 say situated as they wcT'. ,