St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-09
GROWING TRIUMPH of JUSTICE.

cases, 1t becomes necessary to resort
to circumStantial evidence. Criminal
acts are usually performed in secrecy;
evidence should not be discredited be-
cause 1t is eircumstantial. 1t is often
more reliable than the direct testimony
of eye witnesses, when 1t points ire
sistibly and exclusively to the commits
sion by the accused of the crime. A
verdict of guilty in such cases may
rest upon a surer basis than when
rendered upon the testimony of eye
witnesses, whose memory must be re-
lied upon, and whose passions or pref
udiceS may have influenced them. Cir
cumstaptial evidence, to be entitled to
credit, must be corroborated by direct
testimony, or must rest upon facts
which, to prove the truth OF the charge
made, must collectively tend to prove
and establish the guilt of the accused.
All that should be required of circum-
stantial evidence is that there be posi-
tive proof of the facts from which the
inference of guilty is to be drawn, and
from which no other reasonable infer
ence can be drawn. When all of the
circumstances arising from proven fac s
point to the one direction of guilt, and
esis, 1t constitutes the higher form of
evidence which the law demands when
the life or liberty of the accused is at
stake, and which courts and jurors
Should accept and not disregard.
In this case the state is not relying
alone on circumstantial evidence to
convict; but relying on 1t as corrobora-
tive of other and positive evidence, not
only as to the claim that Blixt killed
Miss Cling, but that the defendant in
duced and procured him to kill her.
The state relied on the positive testi-
mony of Blixt that he killed her, and
the testimony of Adry Hayward that
the defendant told him. a few days be-
fore the murder, that Blixt was going
to kill her; and all the facts relating to
where the body was found, the condi-
ton of the body, the character of the
wounds and many other circumstances
relating to the conduct of Blixt that
night, which he has testified to, which
may be considered as corroborative Of
Blixt's testimony. You have a right to
consider all these circumstances, and
others, If they appear to you from the
evidence in connection with the testi-
mony of Blixt and Adry, and determine
whether they are corroboratiye of their
testimony or not; and say, when they
are all considered and weighed to-
gether, whether they constitute suf-
, flcient proof to satisfy your minds be-
yond a reasonable doubt that Blixt
killed Catherine Cling, as alleged in the
Indictment. If they do not so satisfy
your minds, you need not consider the
case any further, but return a verdict
of Not guilty" But if you are salts
fed, beyond a reasonable doubt, from
all the evidence applicable to that
branch of the case, that Blixt did kill
her, then you will proceed further and
determine from the evidence whether
the defendant commanded, induced or
procured Blixt to do the act.
To establish this branch of the case
the state is not relying upon circum-
stantial evidence alone. 1t claims that
there are many more circumstances
corroborative of it's direct testimony
than on the other branch of the case.
The state claims that it has the direct
testimony Of Blixt that the defendant
procured him to kill Miss Cling, and
the direct testimony of Adry that the
defendant told him a few days before
will remember which, procured Blixt
to kill her. 1t claims that the direct
testimony is supported by many cir
cumstances, some based upon disputed
facts and some on disputed matters,
the truth or falsity of which you will
be called upon to determine from the
evidence
Whenever you find a circumstance
established from evidence which tends
to an inference either as to the guilt
or innocence of the defendant. you
will make its proper application and
give it such weight as original or cor
roborative evidence as it is entitled to-
There has been a large amount of tes-
timony introduced in this case; more
than 100 witnesses have been sworn
and examined over fifty ON behalf of
the state and a few more than that
number on behalf of the defense. Only
one of them, Claus A. Blixt, giving di-
rect testimony as to the perpetration
OF the crime and the defendants con-
nection Herewith. aside from the evil
dence of Adry Hayward as to the
declarations of the defendant that he
was going to procure Blixt to kill her.
The testimony of all the others relates
to- matters, if established as facts.
Continued on Third Page.