The San Francisco call., 1895-11-02

TO know the facts OF which they testify; while,
on the other hand, this direct proof may be
rendered worthless by mistake interest or the
| perjury OF the Witness Clrcumstantial eyi-
| dence has this great advantage that various
! circumstances from various sources, ali tend
! ing 10 the same conclusion, are lot likely to
be fabricated. The principal disadvantage of
1t is, that the inference drawn from the cir
| cumstances may be erroneous. The proper
| administration OF justice renders q reliance
upon circumstantial evidence necessary. for
crimes seek concealment, and justice must
sort TO such evidence, or criminals may so un-
| punished. 1t is, therefore, resorted to and
relied upon; all that is necessary is that it
should satisfy the mind of the jurors beyond
all reasonable doubt. The rules that should
| govern you in the examination OF this kind of
evidence are:
The rules OF that
kind of eUideRce.
First-Each and all of the facts ana circum-
stances from which you would be authorized
TO infer the guilt of the defendant must be
| proved beyond all reasonable doubt; each
material, independent fact or circumstance
necessary to complete the chain or series of in
dependent facts tending to establish the guilt
| OF the defendant should be established to the
same degree OF certainty as the main fact
/ Wnlch these independent circumstances taken
together tend to establish; that is to say, each
essential, independent fact in the chain or
series OF facts relied upon to establish the fact
| OF the guilt must be established to a moral
certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt, or
you must acquit the defendant
Second-The facts must be consistent with
each other TO make the chain of evidence com.
plete, and must all tend to the same conclu-
sion, viz: the guilt of the defendant.
| Thrd-They must all be consistent with the
fact to be established. and must all tend to the
same conclusion and be incons istent with any
other reasonable hypothesis, Therefore, when
a criminal charge is sought to be proved and
established by circumstantial evidence, the
| proof must be not only consistent with the
prisoners guilt, but inconsistent with every
RAJ and hi tl,acfc
essential fact must be proved, they must be-
I consistent with the conclusion to be arrived
they must establish the guilt of the accused
| beyond q reasonable doubt. Great care and
caution should be used by you in drawing in
! ferences from proved facts.
The Supreme Court on
that subject.
1t is not sufficient that the circum stances
proved coincide with, account for and there
fore render probable the hypothesis sought 10
be established by the prosecution, viz: the
guilt of the defendant, but they must exclude
TO moral certainty every other hypothesis but
the simple one OF guilt, or you must find the
In conclusion, on this subject I can use no
better and more appropriate words than those
approved by our own Supreme Court in the
case of The People VS.. Morrow, in which the
following language is used:
There are two classes of evidence recognized and
admitted in courts OF Justice upon either OF which
lurles may lawfully hnd an accused guilty OF
crime. One is direct positive testimony of an
eyewitness to the commission OF the crime and
the other Is PROOF by testimony OF n chain of cir
cumstances pointing sufficiently strong to the com
mission OF the crime by the defendant and which is
known as clrcumstanttal evidence. Such evidence
may onsist of admissions by the defendant, plans
laid Tor the commission of the crime such as put
ting himself In position TO commit IL; in short, any
any acts, declarations or circumstances admitted
in evidence tending to connect the defendant with
the commission OF the crime. There is nothing in
the nature Of circumsantal evidence that renders
it any less reliable than other classes of evidence.
A man may as well swear falsely to absolute
|
from which, if true, the facts which the guilt or
innocence depends must inevitably follow.
No human testimony is superior to possible
doubt and all that is required if under the forego
ing rules the testimony is sufficient to convince
you, as reasonable men, a moral certainty and
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the act charged in the information,
then charge you 1t is your duty to convict.
Cases recited By counsel to be
1reighed
! 1t frequently occurs in the trial Of criminal
cases that the counsel for the defendant reads
! and recites cases wherein it is claimed that
convictions have been sought and had upon
strong circumstances of guilt proved against
! the accused in those cases, and afterward it
! has transpired that the accused was innocent
| Notwithstanding the strong circumstances
| against him; and some like intimations we
have had in this case These cases read and
recited are extreme cases and probably occur
very seldom in cases decided upon circum-
| stantial evidence, and if much search be made
| ii might be found that O. greater number of
cases could be cited wherein improper con-
victions have been had from direct positive
evidence through inattention or perjury of
| witnesses. All human testimony is fallible,
but jurors in their decision must take and con-
slider circumstances and ii sufficient act upon
them, although the main fact is proven by no
| eyewitness.
l am requested by the defendant to charge
you, and do charge you that the mere asser-
lions of counsel are not evidence; but in con-
sidering this case you may look at and con-
slider the theories advanced by the respective
counsel claimed TO be based upon the evidence
and give them such weight as you think they
/
the evidence you have before you.
From generaIities to
| the case an hand.
Heving thus given you in charge these gen.
eral rules and PRINCIPLES of law that should
! guide you in considering and weighing the ev-
| idence in the case, it becomes my duty TO call
your attention to the particular offense with
| the commission of which the defendant stands
accused. AS l understood the theory and
claim of the prosecution it is that the de-
ceased, Blanche Lamont, met her death in the
| Emmanuel Baptist Church in this City and
| County during the afternoon of the Sd day of
| April last as the result of the unlawful and
felonious act of the accused; and in order to
| convict the defendant OF this charge you must
! be satisfied OF the truth of this to moral GER
| tainty; therefore it becomes important for you
| to understand what constitutes the crime of
| murder and its essential elements As before
stated, the charge against the defendant, Will
liam Henry Theodore Durrant, Is murder, and
| that charge is specifically set forth in the in
| formation which has been read to you.
Murder is defined by our Penal Code as the
unlawful killing OF u human being with malice
| aforethought. Such malice may be expressed
| or implied; 1t is expressed when there is mani
! tested a deliberate intention unlawfuIly to
take away the life of q fellow-creature. 1t is
! implied when considerable proyocation
! appears, or when the circumstances attending
the killing show an abandoned and malignant
heart. All murder which is perpetrated by
! means OF poison, or lying in wait, torture, or
| by any other kind of wiilful, deliberate and
! premeditated killing, which is committed
in the preparation or attempt to perpeuate
arson, rape, robbery, burglary or mayhem, is
| murder OF the first degree, and all other kinds
! of murders are of the second degree.
In dividing murder into two degrees the
deserving of greater punishment, all murders
! OF cruel and aggravated character; and to
| the second all other kinds of murder which