The San Francisco call., 1895-11-02
1t is not a question
Of number of 9citReSsss.

OF nuna6eT Of acttReSses.
You are not bound to decide in conformity
with the declarations of any number of wit
nesses which does not produce conviction in
your mind, against a less number, or aga inst a
presumption of law or other evidence satisfy
ing your mind: in other words, it is not the
greater number OF witnesses that should con-
troll you where their testimony is not salts
factory to your minds, against less number
whose testimony does satisfy your minds and
produces moral conviction that they are tell
ing the truth. 1t is upon the quality OF the
testimony rather than the quantity, or the
NUM- Der of witnesses you should act, provid-
ing il produces in your mind this moral con-
viction and satisfies you of its truthfulness.
All witnesses are presumed3 to speak the
truth. This presumption, however, may be
repelled and overcome by the manner in which
y testify, by the nature and character of
their testimony or by contradictory evidence.
4 witness may be impeached by the party
against whom he is called by contradictory
evidence or by evidence that his general repu-
tation for truth, honesty or integrity is bad. A
witness may also be impeached by evidence
that he has made at other times statements in
consistent with his present testimony.
witness willfully false in one part of his
testimony is TO be distrusted in others, and
you may reject the whole or any part of the
testimony OF any witness, If such there be in
this case, who has willfully sworn falsely to
any material fact in the case.
All the presumptfons Of tGw
in Jdu0r Of Innocence.
All the presumptions of law, independent of
evidence, are in favor of innocence, and every
person accused of crime is presumed to be in
nocent until his guilt is established to q moral
certainty and beyond all reasonable doubt.
This is substantial right given by the law to
every person accused of crime, and this de-
fendant is entitled to this presumption of in
nocence until your minds are convinced OF his
guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
You have observed that have dst used the
term reasonable DOUBT" and l charge you
that these words mean just what their Ian
guage import. The term reasonable doubt
does not mean a mere possible doubt, a con-
lectural doubt; nor does 1t mean q doubt
which is merely capricious. 1t does not mean
a mere speculative or possible doubt, having
no warrant, no reason or foundation in fact,
because the issues dependent upon moral evil
dence cannot be proved in many cases so that
there cannot be some possible doubt but it
means that the evidence must be such that it
will satisfy the mind, conscience and Judgment
OF the juror, and satisfy him of the guilt OF the
party TO moral certainty, and beyond this
charge can be proved beyond the possibility of
q doubt or error, or TO a perfect certainty.
Moral certainty is all the law requires to prove
any TACT The prosecution must prove to this
moral certainty, and beyond this reasonable
doubt, all and every material fact and circum-
stance upon which they rely for the conviction
OF the defendant. In the words of our own
supreme Court, a reasonable doubt is that
state of the case which, after an entire COM
parIson and consideration OF all the evidence,
leaves the minds of the jury in that condition
that they cannot say they feel an abiding con-
viction to g moral certainty of the truth of the
charge.
The prosecution not bound
to proUe guilt
The prosecution is not called upon or bound
to prove the guilt of any person accused OF
crime to demonstration, to an absolute GER
talnty and beyond the possibility OF a doubt,
1or, as | have just stated, such evidence is
rarely, II ever, attainable; as before stated,
moral certainty OF guilt is all that the law de-
mands. such certainty as satisfies and directs
the mind of those that are bound to conscen-
tiously net upon it. Our Supreme Court says
that when the jury is satisfied to a moral
certainty and beyond reasonable doubt that
then they are entirely satisfied. mere pre-
ponderance OF evidence against an accused
Rh Rbfty Is not suf1cient TO warrant conviction
Inc true medium, as have just stated to you,
Is tnat In order to warrant conviction the
evidence must satisfy you to q moral certainty
ana beyond q reasonable doubt OF the guilt Of
the defendant.
A different rule, however, applies to q de-
iendant accused OF crime and on trial. A de-
icndant may establish any fact necessary for
MN 10 establish by a preponderance of evil
oence and is not obliged to establish such fact
IN his defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
ms means that any fact or proposition sought
may De established by preponderauce of cvi-
dence in his favor, that is, that the evidence
IN favor OF the fact sought to be proved is in
some slight degree greater and of more weight
than that which is against it. This rule is not
applicable 10 the defense or question of alibi,
as VIII hereafter be explained.
As to the testimony Of
the defendant.
The defendant has offered himself as a wit
ness, and mas testified in his own behalf. This
Is ms legal right, and you are not permitted
uhoer the law to discredit or reject his testi-
mony SIMPLY on the ground that he is the ac-
cusea ana on trial on criminal charge.
defendant In criminal case, testifying as
witness in his own behalf, occupies a posi-
tlon to the case different, perhaps, from that
occupied by the other witnesses; and in con-
Siderlng the weight and effect TO be given to
ms ms testimony as witness you should notice
MS manner upon the stand. his relation to the
case, the probability or improbability of his
testimony. taken in connection with all the
other evidence in the case; how far the same
is supported or contradicted by other testi-
lhoiy IN the case. You may also consider the
consequences TO him resulting from tn is trial;
you should treat his testimony fairly, weigh it
careiutiy and give it such weight and credit as
You DeiieVe II entitled to.
Ihese Same tests, so far as they are applica-
Dle, ana such others as may properly suggest
themselves m TO your mind you should apply to
all the witnesses in the case in weighing and
determining the amount of credit and reliance
you VIII give to their testimony; and in view
ing and weighing the testimony OF each and all
OF the witnesses in the case you should con.