The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1894-06-08


proved, should be fully weighs by
the jury and treated like any other
evidence in the case.
If the whole is true it should be
acted upon as such. The jury may,
believe part of the testimony as to
given confession and reject the bal
ance II they see sufficient grounds in
the evidence for SO doing. The jury
are at liberty to judge of it like other
evidence in view Of all the circum-
stances OF the case as disclosed by the
evidence.
The ,Witness Empey testifies for the
state ana says that short time after
! the commission of the homicide in
question he had a conversation with
the defendant, Conway, concerning
it in which he made the admission of
guilt testified to by Empey.
! You will be careful to recall all of
Employs testimony and give it such
effect as you think it aught to have.
The witness Empey was critically
/ examined by the defense and his
whole examination should be con-
Sidered by you in weighing his evil
dence and it should be compared with
all the other evidence in the case and
fully considered in connection with it.
Now, did the defendant Conway
make the confessions or admissions
testified to by the witness Empey or
any OF them? This is one of the i'm
pOrtant questions in this case.
The defendant, William Conway.
has testified as witness in his own
behalf. This he had a right TO do, as
the law of this state makes defend
ant competent witness in his own
behalf. but in no way determines the
degree OF credit that should be given
to his testimony, and allowance should
be made fer the fact that he is deeply
interested in the result Of the trial.
But the jury have no right to disre-
gard his testimony On the ground
alone that he is the defendant and
stands charged with the commission
OF crime, and you should fairly and
impartiaily consider his testimony in
connection with all the other evidence
in the case, and give it such weight
and effect as in your judgment it
ought to have.
You are the exclusive judges of the
ness, and on determining the weight
to be given to his testimony you
should take into consideration not
only his interest in the result of the
trial, but you should take into con-
sideration his appearance upon the
stand, the reaSonableneSs of his testi-
mony and all the evidence and circum-
stances tending ty corrobOrate or con-
| pslH jpt in n 10 to-
You have heard all the testimony of
Empey on the stand as to this aSSum-
ed confession. You have seen his de-
meanor on the stand and you have
heard something OF his life and
character. You have heard the story
he told on the stand about his first
and subsequent connections with the
defendant Conway. In considering
the question as to whether or not the
witness Empey was truthful in his
story. You should carefully scrutiniZe
it to see whether or not it is reason
able that the defendant would make
such a confession as it is claimed he
did to Empey under all the circum-
stances of the case, and whether or
not it is corroborated by other proved
facts in the case material to the issue
involved.
Now whether any confession of
guilt was made by the defendant,
Conway, and if one WaS-what it was
and itS.impOrt-are all questions for
you upon the evidence in the case.
a full confession Of guilt proved
beyond reasonable doubt fully made
and unequivOcal is considered Weighty
evidence and it is somewhat in the
nature OF direct evidence, but testi-
mOny OF confessions Of guilt are to be
received with caution. by reason of
the danger of mistake which may be
made by the party who claims to
have heard the statements claimed to
'be confessions, and from the misuse
which the speaker may have made Of
words, and the fact that he may have
been misunderstood, and failed to eX-
press his meaning:alSo the character Of
person who gives evidence of confess
Sions should be carefully considered.
All these considerations you will ap-
ply to this case in considering what
are claimed to be the confessions of
the defendant in this case, not only
as regards the question whether or
not they were made, but as to their
force and effect if made at all.
Some evidence has been introduced
by the state which is purely circum-
stantial. instruct you that what is
meant by circumstantial evidence in
criminal cases is the proofs of such
facts and circumstances connected
with or surrounding the commission
of the crime charged as tend to show
the guilt or innocence of the defend
ant or party charged, and if these
facts and circumstances are sufficient
to satisfy the jury of the guilt of the
defendant beyond reasonable doubt
then such evidence is sufficient to war
rant the finding of verdict of guilty.
l instruct you as a matter of law
that when conviction for criminal
offense is sought upon circumstantial
evidence alone the state must not only
show by preponderance of evidence
that the alleged facts and circum-
stances are true, but they must be
such facts and circumstances as are
absolutely incompatible upon any
reasonable hypothesis with the inno-
cenSe of the accused, and incapable of
explanation upon any reasonable
hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused.
To authorize conviction or circum-
! Stantial evidence alone. the circum-