The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-03-23
GROVES jury DIsAGREE;.
Judge Jordan Gives them Special Instruc.
lions In Win,

-
Judge Jordan Gives them Special lnstruc.
lions In vain.
AL day yesterday tho jury in the for
gerry case OF William Groves, cx.supcr-
%intendont OF tho Metropolitan insurance
c%ompany's office here, elaborated oil
the evidence, to no avail, and at 8
o'clock last night Judge jordan reluc.
family dismissed it. Thus the third
tedious hearing OF the case results in Il
miJtrial. What farther steps will be
taken cannot no au.horitaliycly stated.
Each triHI is worry costly to tho state:
At tho noon hour yesterday Judge
Jordan read to the jury tho following in.
struCtions:
Gentlemen Of tho jury, the only
mode provided by IL constitution und
laws for deciding questions OF fact in
criminal cases 10 by the verdict OF q
jury. In u large proportion Of cases ab.
soIute certainty cannot be attained or
expected. Although 4 verdict TO which
a juror agrees must OF course be his
own verdict, tho result OF his own con-
viCtions and not n mere aCQuicsancG in
the conclusions OF his fellows, yet in or.
der TO bring twelve minds to a umau.
imous result. you must examine the
questions submitted TO you with can.
dor and with 4 proper regard and defer
enco to the opinions OF each other. You
should consider that the case must at
some timo DO decided; that you are
selected in the same manner, and from
the same source, from which any fu-
turc jury must be. and there is no rea-
son to suppose that the case will ever be
submitted to twelve men more intelll-
gent, more impartial or moro compG-
tent to decide it. or that more or clearer
evidence will be produced on the n
side or the other. And with this in
view, it is your duty to decide the case,
ii you can consciGntiously do so.
In order to make n decision more
practicable, the law imposes the burden
OF proof on one party or the other in all
cascs. In the present case, the burden
OF proof is upon the state to establish
every part oil it beyond 4 reasonable
doubt; and il in any part Of it you arc
LETT in doubt, the deiendent is entitled
TO the benefit Of the doubt md must
be acquitted. Bat in comforting to-
gether you ought to pay proper respect
to each others opinions, and listen with
Il disposition to DO convinced to each
others arguments. And on the other
the hand, i! much tho larger number OF
panet are for 4 conviction n dissenting
juror should couaider whethera doubt in
his own mind is Il remarkable ono which
makes no impression upon the minds OF
so many men equally honest, aqually
intelligent with himself, and who have
heard the same evidence with the same
attention. with m equal desire 20 arrive
at the truth, and under the sanction OF
the oath. And on the other hand. il q
majority are ior acQui:tal, the minouty
ought seriously ask themselves whether
they may not reasonably, and ought not,
to doubt the correctness OF Il judgment
which is not concurrcd in by most oil
those with wlIono they are associated,
and distrust tile weight or s%utllcency OF
that evidence which fails 10 carry on
viction to the minds OF their fellow
jurors.
The jury room ia surely no place for
pride OF opinion or for espousinG and
maintaining in the spirit OF contro-
versy either side OF n causN. The single
object to be tl:nrc effected is to arrive at
q true verdict, aud this can Only be
done by elaboration. mutual conccs-
sion and n due dciorcuco to the
opinions OF each other. BY such means
and such only III a body where una
nimi:y is required can safe and Just re-
suits be attained. and without them the
trial by jury, instead OF being an oasen-
tial aid in the administration OF justice.
would become 4 most etIeclual obstacle
10 it. You will now retro to your room
to further deliberate on the cane"