The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-23

entire consideration of all the testi-
mony in this case, you can exp ain such
testimony on any reasonable ground
consistent with the innocence of the
defendant, or consistent with any rea-
sonable doubt of his guilt, you should
find him not guilty.
A REASONABLE DOUBT.
All the Prescriptions of law and in
dependent of evidence are in favor of
innocence, and every man in presumed
to be innocent until he is proved
guilty beyond a, reasonable doubt, and
in case of a reasonable doubt, he is en-
titled to an acquittal.
The jury is instructed that reason
a BILE doubt which entities an accused
to an acquittal is a reasonable doubt of
guilt arising from all the evidence in
the case. The proof is to be deemed
beyond a reasonable doubt when the
evidence is sufficient to impress the
judgment of ordinarily prudent men
with conviction on which they would
act without hesitation in their most
important concerns or affairs of life.
You should not go beyond the evidence
to hunt for doubts, nor should you en-
terrain such doubts as are merely CHI
merica1 or based upon groundless con-
tai must be reasonable and arise from
candid and impartial consideration of
all the evidence in the case. If, after
a careful and impartial consideration
of all the evidence in. the case, you can
say and feel that you have abiding
conviction of the guilt of the defend
ant and are fully satisfied of the truth
of the charge, then you are satisfied
beyond a reasonable doubt. In other
words, the doubt which juror is al
lowed to retain on his own mind and
under the influence of which he should
frame a verdict, must be a reasonable
one. A doubt produced by undue SEN
sibility in the mind of any juror in
view of the consequences of his YER
dict, is not a reasonable doubt and a
juror is not allowed to create sources or
materials of doubt by resorting to triv-
ial or fanciful suppositions and remote
conjectures as to a possible state of
facts differing from thatz Established by
the evidence; you are not at liberty to
disbelieve, as jurors, if you believe as
men; your oath imposes on you no OBJ
legation to doubt when no doubt would
exist if no oath had been administered.
CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.
You are the sole judges of the facts,
the weight of the evidence and the
credibility of the witnesses; you are
not bound to believe all the witnesses
may have said, nor are you bound to
believe the testimony of any witnesses;
you may believe one witness against
many; or many against one.
In this case, as in every criminal
case, all of your number must agree
upon a verdict. When you have re-
turned to your jury room you. will Sc
lect one of your number as a foreman,
and when you have agreed upon a
verdict your foreman will sign it and
return it to the court. There are but
two forms of verdict: 1--WE, the jul
rors impaneled in the above case, find
the defendant not guilty." Or, I'VE,
the jurors impaneled in the above case,
find the defendant, Joseph r. Morris,
guilty of felony as charged in the in
dictment."
JURY RETIRES.
1t was 1925 when the jury retired to
their room, and court took a recess till
2 o'clock. At that hour the only news
from the jury room was that the jul
rors had been out to lunch in charge of
two bailiffs, and had returned, and
were celebrating in the privacy Of
their chamber About 2:30, by agree
ment with counsel on both sides, a
messenger was dispatched to the jury
room with a request from the court for
the jurors to state when they would
be ready to report The reply was that
they thought they would be in readi-
ness about o'clock, but to give them
ample time court took a recess until
o'clock, and attorneys and the public
left the court room.
The defendant was exceedingly I'M
easy, and for a time walked up and
down the corridors with a look of great
concern on his face. He, however,
kept a bold front, and said he felt con-
fident the verdict could not be other
than an acquittal.
At exactly o'clock word came from
the jury that they had agreed, and
were ready to render their verdict.
Telephones were in demand and the
judge and the attorneys were appris-
ed of the news, and an air of interest
and expectancy was noticeable around
the corridors, and among the few peo-
pie who remained in the court room.
Twenty-Five minutes later Judge Ro-
lapp took his seat on the bench, and
the jurors marched into court and took
their seats in the box.
Have you agreed upon verdict p"
asked Judge Rolapp.
1--WE have, your honor replied Fore
man Foster. And the piece of paper
deciding the fate of the defendant was
| handed to Deputy Clery LOOMS, who
slowly and deliberately unfolded it and
read:
1--WE, the jurors impaneled i'm the case
of the state of Utah VS.. Joseph r. Nor
,,;e, md of 40, mob
Mr. Morris, who was sitting near the
clerks desk, heaved a sigh of relief,
and a smile lit up his countenance. He
almost Immediately rose and walked
rapidly out of the court room, smiling
as he went.
| Judge Powers remained and received
the congratulations of his friends on
! the victory he had won. Neither Coun-
/ ty Attorney Whittemore nor Mr.. Var
ian were present, but the prosecution
was represented by Attorneys Nye,
/ Pratt and Waite, and all three looked
very glum as they slowly retired to the
county attorneys room. So ended one
/ of the most famous cases ever tried in
this state.
HOW THE JURY STOOD.
The jurors, when they re-
tired to their room, elected w.
| r. Foster foreman. The next
! proceeding was to take an informal
| ballot before any discussion on the
case was had. This resulted in seven
| for acquittal and one for conviction,
( that one being the foreman. W. R. Eos
ter The testimony was discussed and
according to the report of the jurors
Mr.. Foster soon became convinced that
| the evidence did not warrant a convic-
1 ton, and the next ballot, which was
| taken at o'clock, resulted in a unan-