Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1897-04-01

naturally tending to bloodshed, the
killing will be murder.
The word "willful" as used in
the indictment in this case and in
these instructions means intention
al, that is, not accidental. The
word deliberate" means in a cold
state Of blood, that is, not in the
heat of passion. 1t does not mean
brooded over, considered or re-
flected upon for a weeks day or an
hour, but IL means an intent to kill
executed by the defendantin a cold
state of blood in furtherance Of a
formed design to crafty feeling
OF revenge or to accomplish some
other unlawful purpose. The
word "premeditated" means
thought of beforehand for any
length Of time however short
The word "malice" as used in
these instructions and in the in
dictment in this case does not
mean mere hatred or i'll will as it
commonly does, but it means the
intentional doing Of a wrongful
act. If the killing be done in the
prosecution of a design or an at
tempt to commit the crime OF rob-
berry, burglary or larceny, such
killing will be murder, and the law
implies malice in such cases.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
The charity of the law and its
solicitude for the safety OF the in
nocent are such that a presumption
of innocence attends a person &C.
cused Of crime throughout every
stage of the trial until such pre-
sumption is overcome by that de-
gree of proof to which your atten.
ton will be called hereafter. This
presumption is in the nature Of
evidence in behalf Of the accused
and its strength is not overcome by
a mere preponderance Of the evil
dence, nor by any weight of pre-
ponderant evidence; but il stands
as the shield of the accused until
it is overthrown by evidence pos
sessing such a degree Of probative
force that it satisfies the minds Of
the Jurors, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that the accused is guilty of
the crime charged. The burden
of proof in this case is upon the
government to establish every ma
terial allegation of the indictment,
beyond a reasonable doubt.
REASONABLE DOUBT.
In regard to the quantum of de.
gree of proof required in criminal
cases to convict, the law may be
thus briefly stated: Full and sat
isiactory proof is required. No
mere weight Of evidence is suffi-
cient, unless it excludes all reason
able, not unreasonable, doubts, as
to the guilt of the accused. The
proof of guilt as disclosed by the
evidence must be inconsistent with
any other rational theory. The
doubt that entities to an acquittal
must be real, not captious or i'm
aginary. 1t must not be forced
or artificial doubt, manufactured,
so to speak, by the sympathy Of
the jury. But it must be a doubt,
which, without being sought after,
fairly and naturally arises in the
mind, after comparing the whole
evidence and deliberately cOnsid-
ering the whole case. If, upon
such comparison and consideration
the minds and conscience of the
jurors are not abidingly and firmly
satisfied OF the defendant'0 guilt,
charities Of the law and the pre-
sumption of innocence concur in
requiring the jury to give the de.
fendant the benefit of the doubt
thus arising and TO acquit him.
But this charity and presumption
ought not to be perverted as they
not unfrequently are, TO justify an
acquittal Of those Of whose guilt no
reasonable doubt exists. The
proof is sufficient If it establishes
the guilt to a moral certainty
such certainty as firmly and fully
eonvinces the understanding OF the
jurors. A reasonable doubt Is not
a mere possibility Of doubt; be-
cause everything relating TO human
affairs and dependent upon moral
evidence is open to some possible
or imaginary doubt. II must be
reasonable aud substantial, q
doubt fairly deduced from the evi.
dence considered as a whole. A
mere possibility that the defend
ant may be innocent will not war
rant a verdict Of not guilty.
oRzDIBILITr or WITNESSES.
The jurors in this case are the
sole and exclusive judges Of the
facts which are necessary TO estab.
lish the guilt Of the accused.
They are the sole and exclusive
judges Of the credibility of the wit.
nesses and the weight TO be at.
tached TO their testimony. II will
be the duty Of the jury IN this case
to reconcile any conflict which they
may find In the testimony so as ID
give credit 10 the whole Of il II
they can; bot If they cannot they
may credit the whole or any par
OF the testimony Of any witnes: