The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1894-01-17

Judge Noron' proposition entirely destroys and removes the
laws presumption that the accused is innocent until proved
guilty This presumption in the "A B. c." Of the criminal
law
The law pesumes to be innocent until the contrary
Proved appears from stronger presumption Roscoes
Cr. Ev, II.
His Honor would to have confused the burden Of proof
with the weight of evience the following authorities will
show.
Every presumed to be innocent until contrary
proved and if there any reasonable doubt his guilt
jury give him the benefit of such doubt This Is
sumption of law presao u which the law makes arbitra
y in all cases. but which; unlike the es,nptoes u7s de
e may be rebutted by evidence Between civil and criminal
there is in this respect important distinction in the for
the jury weigh the testimony and after striking fair ball
must be such as satisfy the jury beyond rational doubt that
the prisoner is guilty of the charge alleged against him In the
indictment, or it is their duty to acqut
We frequently hear that after pra aeis case on one side
the burden of proof shifted the other side and this shifting
of the burden of proof which doubt takes place after
rna is conounded with the question of the degree OF
proof necessary verdict The questions entirely separate
defendant may often have the burden of proof imposed
But when the to the jury there no
able doubt .ss+S5a. 81
The rule of the 5, of proof cannot be made to depend
upon the order of proof upon the particular mode In which
the evidence in the is introduced make difference
in this respect whether the evidence comes from one OF
other" $sss
Wharton Homicide, 9th ed9 Secs GAG 6,-7,---8.s
"No doubts that the defendant admits his guilt either
absolutely for the purpose of the trial. and sets by plea
such matter of defence former conviction pardon
jury his plea of Abatement the burden
of proof is with him. On the other hand, where the issue
whether the defendant committed 0ense the
by indictment information aveng that he did, and
by his plea not guilty denying it, principle Of reason
and requires that the proof of guilt including every ee
it, shall from the party making the charge. .,
"The government taking thus the burden of proof required
in the first instance to make out only ra case against
the defendant. 49,. .13sS
When the prma acie established defendant liable
be convicted unless he meets by something in rebut And
judges in language not nicely accurate speak OF this
ofrebu by the defendant his having the burden proof
upon him. 1t is exact and it the better doc
ne, say that the pa ae showing does not change the
burden of proof which remains with the prosecuting power to
the end jury to he authorized to.convic being required
take the account all the evidence both Sides including
the presumpons and to be rmativey satisfied from it, with
the certainty demanded by law of the defendants guilt
Whaever be the doctrine in civil it would be wide
departure from the humanity of the criminal law to eompa
jury by technical rule convict Of whose guilt upon the
whole evidence they had reasonable doubt.
"And would 1.-THE presumption of innocence, as well
one circumstances another to hold defendant guilty.
unless taking the burden himself he could amavey etab
sh his innocence.
"vidence properly be considered in detached par
but as whole One to be guilty Of crime must have commit
ted the whole it. The government to be justified in furnishing
him. must prove whole In reason therefore, this whole and
ndvisbe thing burden proof must be borne by the
ernment throughout the entire trial."
1Bish. Cr Proc, (ard. ed), Secs lo4s,-51.
criminal the burden of proof Shifts before
conviction be had the jury must be satisfied from the evidence
beyond reasonable doubt of the affirmative OF the issue pre-
sened the accusaon that the defendent guilty. in the
manner and form charged in the Indictment"
2 Amer. and Eng Encyc of Law, $751;
In note page the following In every criminal
case the burden throughout upon the prosecution Whatever
course the defense prudent to ake in order explain
suspicious facts doubts yet is incumbent
ecuton to show all the circumstances their
own case unless admitted shown by defense that there
innocent theory possible which WILL without violation of rason
accord with the facts.'
|. People o. AiUard, SO Mich. 6S,
In criminal cases burden of proof is the prosecutor to
show that the accused guilty the oense charged Butwhen
the accused relies upon any substantive DISTINCT separate and
ndependen matter Defense which outside Of and does not
necessarily constitute part Of act transaction with which
he is charged such the defense of insanity etc., then de-
wolves upon him establish such special and foreign matter by
preponderance evidence 1t not to instruct in such
that the burden proving such deense devove the
accused"
Amer. and Eng. Encyc. flaw, S44-5.
In the notes on page 85 we find the following The claim of
seleense merely of the malice which the prosecution
bound to establish beyond reasonable doubt Accordingly
some cases hold that the defendant entitled to acqua
upon the evidence doubtful whether the homicide or assault
was malicious or was in selfdefense." Ceases citedD
While hold that the defendent must make out case
of sefdefense by prepondeance of proof" Citing two Ohio
cases9
Notethat Ohio do not hold did Judge Norton,
the defendant must prove his innocence by prepondeance
of the testimony but mildly must make out case of
selfdefense."
tho is