The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-10

OlECuIuStanllal evidence is JUST as legal
I and just as effective as any other evil
/ dence, provided, the circumstances are of
such character and force as to satisfy
the minds of the jury of the defendants
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The jury are instructed that where the
prosecution rely upon circumstantial evil
dence alone for conviction the jury must
be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt
that the crime has been committed by
someone, in manner and form as charged
! in the information; and then they must
not only be satisfied that all the circum-
I, stances proved are consistent with the
! defendants having committed the act,
/ but they must also be satisfied that the
facts are such as to be inconsistent with
any other rational conclusion than that
the defendant Is the guilty person; and in
this connection l charge you that if there
is any one single material fact necessary
to establish a complete case for the peo-
pie about which you have a reasonable
doubt, you must lind the defendant not
guilty.
In order TO convict the defendant upon
the evidence OF circumstances it is neces-
sary that not only all the circumstances
concur to show that he committed the
crime, but that they are inconsistent with
every other rational conclusion. 1t is
not sufficient that the circumstances
proved coincide with, account Tor, and
therefore render possible the hypothesis
or theory sought to be established by the
prosecution, but they must exclude to a
moral certainty every other reasonable
hypothesis or theory but the single one
OF guilt, or the jury must find the de-
PENDANT not guilty.
When the evidence against the defend
ant Is made up of chain of circum-
stances, and there is a reasonable doubt
as to the existence of any one OF the
facts essential to establish guilt, it is the
duty of the jury to find the defendant
not guilty; il is for the jury to decide
whether or not any special piece of evil
dence or circumstance is necessary link
in the chain.
Every witness is presumed to speak
the truth, and the jury should remember
such presumption in determining the
facts submitted to you for your consider
alton. But this presumption is a dis
putable one, and is not conclusive upon
you. GU are the sole judges OF all
questions Of fact and of the credibility OF
witnesses. You may believe the whole
or any part of the evidence of witness,
or may dlSbelleve the whole or any part
OF it, az may be dictated by the exercise
OF your sound judgment as reasonable
men.
The court instructs the jury that if they
believe from the evidence that any wit
ness has willfully sworn falsely to any
material TACT or circumstance in this case,
then the jury are at liberty to disregard
his entire testimony excepting SO far as it
has been corroborated by other credible
evidence, and l further instruct you in
determining whether witness is testify
Ing truthfuliy or not you may take into
| consideration his actions while upon the
stand, the manner III which he gives his
testimony, the interest he may have in
the verdict being a certain way, any con-
Trajectory statements he may make, or
any circumstances i'll the case which may
cast suspicion upon the witness testi-
| mony.
You should carefully scrutiniZe all the
testimony given, and, in doing SO, con-
| Slder all the circumstances under which
each witness has testified. his degree OF
| Intelligence, his manner while on the
wltness-stand, the relation he bears to
the case and the manner in which he
might be affected by the verdict; his APP
parent desire to contine himself to the
truth or TO color his statements; his ap-
parent tenacity or lack of memory; the
extent to which he Is contradicted or cor
roborated by other evidence, if at all;
and any other considerations that tend to
throw light upon the question OF his
veracity or creGibility; and determine
| the amount OF credence to which each
witness and each statement is entitled at
your hands, as reasonable and intelligent
| men.
Ii, from the whole of the testimony
! given in this case, there is such evidence
| as viii create in the minds of the Jury a
reasonable doubt OF the defendants guilt
| of the otfense charged, the jury should
find the defendant not guilty; and, gen.
tiemen of the jury. it can make no differ
| ence whether this doubt is the result of
evidence on the part of the defendant
tending TO show his innocence or from
other evidence coming from the defense
| or prosecution. The well-settled rule
that a defendant shall not be convicted
/ AVlGnnpp ha-
| yOnd a reasonable doubt applies to the
! whole and every material part of this
case, no matter whether it is as to the acts
of the derailing of the train or the reason
for or the manner of its commission, or
| the person who did it,
The court iustructS the Jury that it is
| presumption OF law that evidence will
| fully suppressed would be adverse, if
produced; therefore, if it appears that the
prosecution or the defense in this case
have willfully suppressed at the trial
| thereof any testimony which being
proper and admissible, would have
thrown light upon the case, or would
prove more fully anv material circum-
stance in the case, the jury may lawfully
presume that such testimony was so sup
pressed because the party suppressng it
! believed it to be against him, and that it
would be adverse to his claims. But this
instruction must not be construed as APP
pllca bic TO the defendant himself.
He is under no obligation to be sworn
as witness; or to call witnesses in his
defense; that is a matter left entirely to
his own volition or CHOICE and the fact
that he elected not to be sworn, and was
not sworn as witness, is not to be con-
| sidered by you against him, nor in any
wise to prejudice his case in your eyes for
it is his privilege and he must be allowed
to exercise the option OF whether he will
be sworn or not, without risk of iniuri-
ously affecting his case because he chose
not To testify.
The jury are not at liberty to adopt I'M
reasonable theories or suggestions in
considering the evidence to justify con-
| viction of the defendants: but, if any
| reasonable view of the evidence is or can
be adopted which admits of a reasonable
conclusion that the defendant is not guilty
as charged, or which raise reasonable
doubt of his guilt, it is the duty of the
jury to adopt such view of the evidence,
and nnd the defendant not guilty.
The jury are instructed that the law
presumes the defendant innocent in this
case and not guilty as charged in the in
formation, and this presumption should
| continue and prevail in the minds of the
jury until they are satisfied by the evil
dence, beyond all reasonable doubt of
| the guilt of the defendant, and acting on
this presumption, the jury should acquit
! the defendant, unless compelled to lind
| him guilty by the evidence convincing
them OF his guilt beyond all reasonable
doubt and TO a moral certainty.
| q Ia connection with this presumption of
| innocence which the law induIges i'm
| favor OF the accused, you will bear in
mind that the burden OF proof is upon
the prosecution to overcome this pre-
sumption by the production of evidence
81 q will IGfu d,