The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-02

around man charged with such ser
ious crime and his guilt must be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the
prosecuting attorneys are uncertain as
to the manner of the commission of the
alleged crime. In the information the
county attorney charged the killing in
three different ways. One charge is that
the deceased was choked to death and
drowned; another that he was killed
with an instrument unknown to the
county attorney. and another is that he
was killed with a stone. If the county
attorney. with all his prejudices, is un-
certain, how could the unprecedented
jurors say that they were convinced be-
yond a reasonable doubt that Patrick
l.. Reagan was killed in the form and
manner alleged in the information. If
the jury is in doubt as to one link in the
chain of circumstances, said Mr. Hin
ke. they must ,acquit the defendant.
If the jury has a theory that is con-
sistent with innocence that is the
theory. the law says, the jury must
have. The prosecution went on a the
DRY that the defendant was guilty, and
started out with that theory. If the jury
starts out with the same theory they
can build up case from circumstances
against the defendant. but the pre-
sumption of innocence is with the de-
PENDANT The jury has no right to pre-
sumo that the defendant did not go to
Anaconda. as he claimed he did, for the
purpose of seeing his friend, Rogers,
and paying him 81 which he owed him.
Mr.. Hinkle said the evidence was that
Lucey knew that Reagan did not draw
his money out of the bank and that he
had to borrow $25 for the trip. 1t was
therefore unreasonable to presume that
Lucey took Reagan down into Silver
Bow canyon for the purpose of killing
no la
man seen with Reagan, so far as the
testimony is concerned. Two men were
seen at Rocker late that evening. That
is one of the links in the chain of cir
cumstances that must be proven be-
yond a reasonable doubt. The two men
were in saloon at that place and were
seen there by several men. The state
introduced in evidence two photographs
of Patrick l.. Reagan, and one of the
witnesses testified that one of the pho
tographs resembled the smaller of the
two men. and that the other photograph
looked like the defendant. That shows
the uncertainty of the ability of a man
to identify another whom he had seen
only casually. Both witnesses were
asked if they could identify Lucey as
one of the two men who were in the
Rocker saloon, and they said they Were
not positive Another point in favor Of
the defendant is that he had charge of
in the saloon had valise. Reagan
was, however, identified as one of the
men seen in the saloon there, and the
other man must have been Gilligan, the
mythical Gilligan," so called by Mr..
Kelley. That theory is a reasonable
one, for Gilligan was the last man seen
with Reagan in Butte.
Mr.. Hinkle argued that it was i'm
possible for any ordinary man to have
crushed Reagans head with the rocks
that We're introduced in evidence, be-
cause one of them was too small and
the other too large The large one
could not have been used on the head
after the body was lying on the
ground unless the back of the head,
which was in contact with the ground,
was also injured, and the testimony
was that the back of the head was not
injured. The first thing to be deter
mined by the jury is that Patrick L.
Reagan came to his death at the hands
of some human being, and the jury
must be convinced on that point be
yond a reasonable doubt. The jury
cannot be certain, from the evidence,
how Patrick Reagan came to his death.
Mr.. Hinl-le said more plausible the
DRY as TO how Reagan came to his
death was that a train came along and
struck him and knocked him out upon
the rocks which were found covered
did Reagan's head strike the rocks or
did the rocks strike his head? The
fury must first find out whether Rea-
gan was murdered and not start out
with the theory that Dan LuCey did
it. The states testimony was that
the blood spurted from Reagan's head
and that While he was so bleeding
Lucey picked up the body and car
ried it to the creek, but there is no
evidence that there was a drop of blood
on the clothes of Lucey. That fact is
one of the strongest presumptions of
the defendants innocence. Mr.. Hin
kle also argued that there was an en-
tire absence Of testimony as to a mo-
tive for the murder. He said 1t was
shown beyond any question that Lucey
knew that Reagan had no money. The
attorney said he did not doubt that the
blood and hair on the stones were
those Of Patrick L. Reagan. He also
told the jury that 1t was not material
whether Lucey lied to the peo-
pie at GregsOn or not regard
ing his movements and other
matters. The fact remains that he re-
NAMED there until after the body of
Reagan was brought down. He said he
did not know what he did with his
satChel and did not remember buying
a ticket for Butte or that he started to
walk in the opposite direction, and re-
|
| to- the next morning at Stuart. Mr..
| Hinkle said that was nothing uncom-
mon in drunken man. He was so
| full that he didn't know what he was
! doing. 1t is entirely inconsistent with
| the acts of a murderer to go to a pub
| lie place like Gregson, right after the
! commission of the horrible crime, and
wake up the people there and furnish
| them with evidence against him. Mr..
! Hinkle referred to the testimony of
| Nh Finley Of Anaconda, who said he
| handed Lucey copy of the Butte In
| ter Mountain containing an account of
| the murder and that LuCey read it.
| The attorney said that during the ex-
| animation of Finley the county attor-
ney showed him a copy of the paper
| of that date and that Finley said that
| was not the paper or account which
! he read. Mr.. Connolly corrected Mr.
| Hinkle and said he was mistaken. and
Mr.. Hinkle denied that he misstated
| the facts. Look up your record" he
! said.
You are mistaken" said Juror
| White to Mr.. Hinkle, and the latter
! then said if he was mistaken it was
an honest mistake. and only showed