St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-03
GR~~ y 5@1a7a Ar11
M. l. COUNTRYMAN.

1t is impossible to say, in the gen.
eral terms of the question, whether
too much reliance is placed upon
circumstantial evidence in criminal
cases. There is no rule of law pre-
scribing the probative value of any
circumstance in evidence. The jury
is in all cases the exclusive judge
of the weight and conclusiveness of
all the evidence offered to prove guilt
or innocence, whether it be circum-
stantial or direct. The single test
the law requires the jury to apply
is: Does the evidence as whole
satisfy our minds beyond a reason
able doubt that the defendant COM
mitted the crime charged?
The pertinent question is not what
degree of reliance the judge or pros
ecuting attorney is inclined to place
upon circumstantial evidence. If
that question were material, the an
swer to it must be that the profess
sional mind admits the significance
and Importance of circumstances, but
does not pretend to decide in the
abstract what circumstances are
sufficient. Each case depends upon
its own aScertained facts, and of
these the jury alone must judge.
Probably some jurors attach too
much Importance to the circum-
stances of a particular case. Prob
ably others attach too little. But
jurors generally are like other men,
and IF in thoiT~ nririnn oil
stances proven against the defend
ant show beyond reasonable doubt
that he is guilty, that opinion would
be Endorsed by intelligent men in
general.
Hence there can, in the nature of
things, be no rule by which to deter
mine what degree of reliance is to
be placed upon circumstantial evil
dence, save that humane rule of the
common law that the circumstances
must be of such character as to
convince the minds of reasonable
men beyond reasonable doubt. 1t
might be easy to express the opin-
ion that too much reliance had been
placed upon the evidence in a par
ticular case, but no opinion covering
all cases or all kinds of circum-
stantial evidence would be worth
anything.
1t is undoubtedly true that the
average memory is sometimes unre-
liable as to petty details. But it is
comparatively seldom that an honest
witness will be positive about such
details unless they are so fresh and
so clearly impressed upon his mind
that the chance of his being mistak-
en- is reduced to a minimum The
honest witness undertakes to tell
what he saw or what he heard; and
if he processes no doubt as to the
accuracy of his recollection, the
chances are fifty to one that he is
right.
So far as my own practice and OBJ
servation go, it is not true that the
most truthful witness will uncon-
SciouSly contradict himself in details.
srOf course that sometimes happens,
but not generally, or as a rule So
long as witnesses are human they
will sometimes err, but they do not
make practice Of erring while tell
ing of things within their own knowl-
edge. Contradictions occasionally
slip in, but they are in many cases
the result of embarrassment from
being on the witness stand, rather
than of poor memory. These con-
tradictionS it is the business of the
counsel to straighten out by putting
the witness more at his ease, or to
make more serious and conspicuous.
as the case may require AS to
lengthy testimony without flaw or
contradiction being generally sus-
picious, you would have great diff
Guilty in making judges or juries in
dorse the proposition. A plain tale,
plainly told, whether it be long or
short, is apt to hold together like
the links of chain. The testimony
that is likely to develop flaws under
careful examination is the kind
that is manufactured. 1t takes a
very good liar indeed to steer clear
of flaw every time
All that can be said of this cues
ton is that the man who can cast a
criminal character upon any rather
complex proceeding, however hon
orable or innocent, by ingenious
handling of circumstantiaI evidence.
must be very ingenious indeed Shar