The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-01-13
ARGUMENT FOR DEFENSE.
Charles w. Smith Opens with a Gem
crnI Plea Of Self Defense.

craI Plea of Self Defense.
Attorney Charles w. Smith commenced his
argument with a few words to the jury
upon the duty they owed themselves in
trying a. mar for a crime so serious as the
present one. The accused stood charged
with murder in the first degree and they
would have to determine whether or not he
was guilty of murder in the first or sec
ond degree. or manslaughter. Continuing
he said:
II will now proceed to offer as best ] can
What constitutes the crime of manslaughter.
Gle read the section pertaining to man
slaughter from the statutes).. There comes
the law will not only excuse him but Will
Justify. the act. The law clearly recognizes
are ensendered. The law ~n taxes o into account Account
our infrmities and says that, when In the
heat OF passion one man kills another, Il IL
an assault and battery may be sufficient
propagation, and the lazy recognizes y as
such circumstances the law does not find
him guilty"
Attorney Smith read from the case of
Miller against the State, 81 md, page ATS.
where the courts said 1t was clear that
when a homicide was committed in the
heat of passion. without malice, 1t must be
called manslaughter. Then he continued:
"sometimes Il is said that q deadly
must ucptnu ent1rely upon the clrcum-
combat, when the blood IL heated, u man
NJ may S,s intend nsnsaa to p,d XII ar another ,am v1 hut ~ because ;au,s
malice to the deadly weapon used. The
accused has pleaded not guilty TO this
that every element OF some one OF the
crimes or there can be nc conviction. The
ne'' crime, n ana '"s the ev snSs ne II has 'i surely ~
shown that. There are cases where
e., H. law says 2 MN man does right II killing
~ that when a. man In where he has a
right to be. and Is sat upon by, another,
his. life, and IL " IL In self-defense that he
Kills his assailant he Is not guilty OF
says the killing IL no crime. The law does
battered and ehoked 10 death: i says
VIII be injured. the right of self-defense
arises. and II In that defense he kills the
head SeeI'aG Wh sea Droo or not ne uP this ' aefe asaa m~ Mas
In danger of harm IL to be Judged by the
circumstances under which he was placed.
When q man Is suddenly set upon, II he
crate, the law of self-defense would be
fault II he brings on the difficulty. He is
responsible for his own wounds. ! want
TO read to You. gentlemen. from the law
II is the law speaking to you and not my
self out of my zeal for my client"
THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE.
Reading from the 18th Ind. Mr.. Smith
went on: "This quotation ! have just read
Is on the law OF self-defense and the law
OF a case similar to this one. To deny a
man the right to act promptly is to take
away the law of self-defense. Was the
prisoner guilty OF murder in the first de-
gree? Was he guilty of murder in the Sec
ond degree? Was he guilty of man.
slaughter or was he justified In the eyes
OF the law In killing Mr.. Thomas? Was
he in a place where he had right to be. and
was set upon and viciously assaulted? If
he defended himself and the assailant came
TO griet. we can only say that the as
sailant brought the misfortune on him
self, and we are sorry for the result. There
come down through the centuries. The
nrst proposition is hat the law presumes
the accused to be innocent of the commits
sion OF any crime. The fact that there Is
an Indictment against him raises no
presumption whatever that he has been
benefit OF that presumption in your minds,
through this case from the beginning to the
this this' p ans nmere car an pc nsa no conviction until
evidence in the case has convinced YOU
beyond q reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
we are entitled to start in. with the
presumption of innocence. That stands by
the accused throughout the case. ] say to
you ana each one of You, that the doctrine
OF a reasonable doubt must be considered
in~d,viaualiy and as a panel. If one of you
juror violates his oath if he Yields that
reasonable doubt to the other eleven men.
In This case, II the jury entertains any
reasonapie douDt OF the defendants guilt.
II should acquit him. Each Juror should
feel the responsibility resting ON him as a
reasonable doubt? Doubtless many of you
nave served on criminal .juries, and some
oil you IN Sivl cases, but the rule is differ
ent reaarulng this court. In "a. criminal
ease It Is not sufficient that the preponder-
an appce Of testimony should be in the favor
OF the accused. lt goes further than that,
You must have no reasonable doubt. You
are not compelled to come to a verdict.
moral c~ertainty-every doubt rernovede,nt n,
you teei that you are acting in a matter OF
Hita, Importance 70 yourselves. You must
is SOC "' '"'
~Gentlemen of the jury. I have tried to
70 the evidence. All the accused shall ask
at any time will be "a right conclusion ac-
there can he no sV da e u seems to me
sion IN this case. Knowing the measure OF
proof hat must be required before this
let us see II the evidence can show that
/ Srime beyond a reasonable doubt. The
state says that he has been guilty of muir
innocent, Then. have not we the right to
say fhat w ,wSlll try this case BY the
found guilty on any hint or insinuation on
the part OF the counsel for the state. be-
cause. forsooth. they have found this case
weak when they expected to nnd Il Strongly"
DISCUSSES THE EVIDENCE.
At this point attorney Smith took up
the evidence. carefully dlssecting the tes-
tlmony OF each witness for the state.
Continuing he said.
II take II that the deceased when In his
normal and natural condition. was "a gem
tleman. He comes from a good family,
he mar. led into, a good family. lie was n
man OF large means and able business quail
iiicatlons. | shall not willingly say any
thing harsh against him. In point OF fact.
4 think | shall not say one word that his
friends present Will not. after this matter
~ over, justify me in saying. Unfortunate
~, on thus fatal. night, w, Il.
Thomas was not la his normal condition,
lie was not, ! regret To say, Western y.
Thomas. the gentleman. we do not know
where he spent that night until : o'clock
IN the morning. We know he was with
his friends In the Imperial saloon at that
hour and that they were drinking beer.
At 3 o'clock he and his friends started
10 Brighton Beach; for what purpose we
can only conjecture. ON the other hand
this Defendant had spent that night in
dissipation as well rs Mr.. Thomas. and
We oner no excuse for him.
Certain 1. Is that Thomas and his friends