Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1893-09-30

y such rules Of iav - yoa she1A b IN
formed Of, applicable 10 The case. On tAat
Law and the evidence here peseenesd, With
lsach matters Of common knovledes and ex-
iperience relating 10 the common a4siss of
iifs and The Ordinary motives of human 60
ton, - intelligent jufors do mot rquise 70
BE- proved. and ~hich are never proved u
icoart. your verdict mnst b. based.
| itis fundamental and all-imroftant rule
which governs in all criminal tsials that the
accused mast BE- considered innocent until
be 10 proven to be guilty beyond . reason
liable deuht. Yeu observed the caution used
liza your selection a. Jurors, that oaly men
anpss JUDGED and unbiased BY any opinion
heretofore termed, that would prevent their
lrsnaering a verdict upon the Law and he
evidence here given, should act - the
tjndses Of the defendants case. Some Of you
stafed frankly thss you hal heard and reed
Of the ease aud few admitted that they
had forMed acme opinion upon What they
hsd heard aud read. But upon their oaahs
they stated that they held no opinion thas
weah prevent their rcndering juss verdict
upon the law and the evidence and they
were admitted TO seats. Nothing vhich
occurred previously to this Trial can prop
erly influence your Judgment. Neither the
proceedings before the coroner's jury
nor i,s resnit. il within your knovlelge.
nor the fac, that the grand jury has pre-
sen,ed this indictment. slouh have the
least weight or influence upon your mind,
in determining whether this man 10 guilty
or not. The presumption OF innocence 10
his constitutional shield. - Il 10
yours and nine, until IL 70 ovesborue
and stripped away BY legitimate evil
denee of guilt. II SCENE unnecessary ~
remind Maine jury further that they must
assiduousiy shut their ears and their minds
against any and all ouuidc opinion - to the
guilt or Innocence Of the accused. ltwouh
be monstrous and destructive Of oil justice
il such pressure we're allowed 10 encroach
upon the Jury box. Nor should juror be
Influenced BY an expression Of opinion OF
counsel upon the issue which they alone
sttentively 10 the legitimate argument OF
counsel. often Of great assistance, and the
Law allows them great latitude in address,
ing every fair argument and appeal to
the jury's intelligence and feeling. grow
ing OUT Of the evidence. but when II comes
to the question Of guilt or innocence which
the people through their laws have left
alone for the jufy's decision, any expres-
/
not be needed by the jury.
legation Of the indictment must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, before the ac-
cused can be found guilty. The meaning
Of the words reasonable doubt appears %
! plain that any attempt to simplify them
seems futile. should not think IL neces-
ssry here were il not for the fact that COM
ment has been made by counsel on both
sides upon their force and scope. They do
no, differ materially perhaps and yet you
may expect some Allusion to 1t BY me.
Without attempting any elucidation Of the
term Of my own, will give the vlews Of
Chief Justice Peters. speaking for the su-
preme judicial court:
He says: THE very term implies that
there may be doubts not reasonable. 1t
cannot be mere possible doubt, for any
thing relating to human sfairs may be in
some way subject 20 possible doubt. IL 10
! sn h an actusl and substantial and well
! founded doubt ~ would be entertained by a
reas enable and conscientious man; such a
| Doubt that the reason for 1t can be examined
and discussed"
| This case is submitted to you on circum-
| ets,tlal evidence. No one has testified to
| seeing the crime committed which is charged
! in the Indictment but the government has
presented here evidence CT certain facts
| from which it claims that the inference IL
T, irresistible aud conclusive that this defend
ant, either alone or with Wakefield, killed
| Blenn. Nov a person may be convicted Law
fully on circuu,.tant.al - well a. upon direct
evidence. Indeed it 10 the more usual kin
of evidence in criminal trials ~ II often hap
pens. than otherwise, that there are no
irnesses " ho testify that they have actual
and direc, knowledge Of the thing to be
proved. The force Of such evidence de-
| pepds on its character. Sometimes the in
! 7. renee to BE- drawn from n circumstance
is direct amounting to almost certain proof.
| For instance a house is robbed on q certain
night: a stranger ia cen fieeiug from the
! h ,usc on that Eight and he is subsequently
found with the stolen property in his pos
session. In tina. case in. the absence OF any
eontridotinS and controlling explanation,
! Jury mlgat sell infer with strong assurance
/ that tie man robbed the house. In other
/ rases the coDelu.ion is not 30 easy 10 dfas
| A man may have been seen fieeiag from the
! house, but bis hleutity may depend on de-
serption and numerous otner facts Which
I reLd, 1t more Gii.iegii 10 connect him With
the crime.
I Now verdict of guilty in this case must
/ be reached If ut all through inf,rences from
eiIcum.tances and other facta proved.
Ther.fore every fact that you believe to be
! 50 essential that without it you cannot reach
I The conclusion of guilt, must itself he
/ proved as conelusively and with he same
weight of evidence ss IL it were the msiD
I fat ia ssue--suoh facts mu.t, every one
/ be proved IL yond a reasonable doubt. IL
4 ftr IAN ttrI a
/ il il usual, and /. has been the case in this
/ trial, for many facts to be testified u not
I strictly necessary to prove the uaain fact
( but deeuei more or less reIevans and hav-
I lag some tsniency to rebat contrary pre-
sumption. Such facts, in 4 recent charge
/ to the jury in a noted case based on circum-
.taniial evidence, the Judge called helpful
: facts as distinguished from es-entisl fact.
/ II merely helpful facts should not be proved
hey ond reasonable doubt, that would Mt
| prevent yonr drawing . conclusion Of guilt
! from the other and essential facts il 10 your
, judgnen. they are sufficient and are satis-
factorily proven.
| Or TO illustrate further, suppose the
person mentioned in my illustration Vi not
! been seen nor ths ssolea property found on
| him but tracks had been discovered TO snd
| from q xiniow in the house robbed, which
, had been forced. This would prove moth
! ing ~ 10 identify. But suppose the ,,scis
! L, ne traced to and from the residence If
| A. and we're Of the sizs OF As boot. This
would raise an inference that the tracks
~sre Az. But il it were shown that
other persons were in bis house thst night
tha. would lessen the weight Of the inference.
| But IL i, were further shown thst As boot
bad q peculiar msrb on the ssle which II
ac,i, accounted for ike mark 10 the track
IL would strengthen the inference Of his
guilt. Yet II might be shown thst A. vss
| not out OF his house that night snd tbst his
boass had been stolen ont Of his room. This
would destroy the inference. This ilIus-
trs,es the necessity Of considerin9 all the
circum.tsnces ami facts In connection With
each other.
| In shis esse The main fact 70 be proven 10
yen, satisfaction, before you can ccncinds
/ th-t the defendant 10 9u,hy, 10 thst he.
sitter slone or acting with another, killed
Bl-nn unlavfuIly. TO estsblish this ces-
tai facts must necessarily h. shovn. II
nia.t appear, for instance. thas Bienn vss
killed unIasfuily. OF this the government
| is bound to convince you beyond ressonsbie
doubt. 1t il contenfed by defendant that
he was drowned by scciiens. The burden
d.es not shift 20 the Defendant. Il 10 not
for him TO prove beyond reasonable doubs
thas Bi-nn vss afsiientslly drowned, but
for the government TO prove that he VS. n,
t-sar- IL n. -. k~rA 49,