The San Francisco call., 1895-11-04

record from beginning to end. Judge
Murphy made enough errors to allow OF
ten new trials being granted. | could no,
specify just what our reasons will be for q
new trial until l have the record to pro-
ceed upon"
The impression Mr.. Deuprey conveyed
was that the bill of exceptions would be a
voluminous document.
"Judge Murphy erred from one end to the
other" said he; "from the motion for a
change of venue to Mr.. Barnes argument
1t would take me three hours to begin to
go into particulars, ana l am not able to
specify all our exceptions off-hand. AS
say would have to have the official record
before me.
.It seemed as if the newspapers, the
community and the court labored under
the idea that the burden of proof was on
Durrant instead of on the prosecution.
Under our system the accused is to be
presumed innocent until proven guilty,
and the task of proving guilt lies entirely
with the prosecutor. We do not have to
establish innocence, though the popular
idea seems to be that the defendant is
under that obligation. 1 believe the time
will come when the community and the
press will realize that great wrong has
been done this poor fellow and his fam lily.
"Now, l contend that the evidence does
not prove Durrant guilty; that the mind
OF the public was preiuoiced against him
by the newspapers; that it was practically
newspaper-tried case; that the court
erred in its rulings from beginning to end
that the structures of District Attorney
Barnes were uDcalled for, and our objec-
tions to them should have received proper
judicial consideration; that some of our
instructions as to circumstantial evidence,
allbi and character and condition of wit
nesses, which we asked the court to in
clude IN his charge to the jury, were
wrongly omitted by Judge Murphy, and
that from beginning to end we have been
compelled to labor at the greatest of dis
advantage and expected to do just what
the law does not ask US to do.
81 believe our client to be limo cent, and
yet l am not very much surprised that we
failed to convince twelve minds of that
fact when l consider that almost every
mind i'll the community appeared to be
set against US. AS a matter of law do
not believe that the evidence was strong
enough and OF character to convict, and
we shall insist upon the full recognition
by the courts of the rights of the accused
The established theory of law is that a
mans innocence is to be asSumed-he is
hot required to prove it-but the practice
in the case just ended would lead one to
believe that the contrary is the rule. The
prosecution has not proved, and cannot
prove, Durrant guilty man"
Mr.. Deuprey will stick fast to this posi-.
tion in defending his client in the Will
lamS case, namely, that the burden OF
proof rests entirely on the prosecution. II
every suspected man had to prove his in
nocence, he reasons, where would it end Z
And any man, he argues, might be the
victim of circumstances that would point
the finger of suspicion at him and he still
be innocent. Such evidence as the court
admitted In the Lamont case, Mr.. Deuprey
thinks, might have influenced the jury to
convict any other man, save that he does
not believe that it was convicting at all
and he will so contend in the higher court
if the motion for a new trial be denied by
Judge Murphy.
He did not deny that the first step in the
Williams case would be motion for a
change Of venue.