The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-04-03

mind is induced by sure and certain
death, to speak the truth.
Such situation is considered as Great
ing an obligation equal.to that imposed
by positive oath properly administer
ed I'm a court Of Justice.
You will give this testimony such
weight as in your judgment it is en-
titled to.
/ have been instructed to instruct you
toching the matter of circumstantial
evidence in such cases as this. What
is meant by circumstantial evidence
in criminal cases is proof of such facts
connected with or surrounding the
commission of the crime charged as
tend to show the guilt or innocence of
the party charged.
If these facts and circumstances are
sufficient to satisfy the jury of the
guilt of the defendant beyond a reason
able doubt then such evidence is
sufficient to satisfy the jury in find
ing verdict of guilty.
To authorize conviction on circum-
stantial evidence alone the circum-
stances should not only be consistent
with the prisoners guilt but they must
be inconsistent with any other rational
such as leave no reasonable doubt in the
mind of the jury of the defendants
guilt.
Crcumstantial evidence is legal and
competent in criminal cases If it is of
such character as to exclude every reas-
enable doubt 1t is entitled to the same
weight as direct testimony.
Some testimony was offered tending
to impeach the witness A. b. Winnett
by contradictions and by testimony
tending to show that his general reputa-
tion for truth is not good.
l will say to you that If you believe
from the evidence that A. b. Winnett
is a person of bad reputation for truth
and veracity in the neighborhood where
he resides then as a matter of law this
fact tends to discredit his testimony and
you may disregard IL except in so far
as he is corroborated by other credible
testimony, or by facts and circumstan-
ces proved on the trial. Yet / will say
that If you believe that the witness,
Winnett, gave a candid, truthful and
honest statement of what he claims to
have heard from the lips of Henderson
you should not disregard his testimony
but should give it such faith and credit
as in your opinion it is entitled to.
You are the sole judges of the weight
to be given to it.
The defendant has offered testimony
tending to prove an alibi.
| want to say touching the question
of alibi that the defendant under the
plea of not guilty as an Independent
defense claims that he was at another
place and therefore could not have COM
mitted the crime described in the in
dictment. This Is termed in law an alibi.
Alibi is a latin word signifying else
where, and in law means a defense in
terposed by the defendant by which he
attempts to prove that at the time of the
commission of the offense he was at
some other place than where it was
committed. An alibi is legitimate and
proper defense to make. and IL salts
factorily made is conclusive. 1t is
obviously essential to the satisfactory
proof of an alibi that it should cover
the whole of the time OF the transac-
ton in question, or so much of 1t as to
render it impossible that the accused
could have committed the crime. If
the defendant was not at the place of
the commission of the alleged crime as
matter of course he could not have
committed the crime himself by his
own hands. Whether or not the de-
fendant has proved an alibi is question
of fact for you to determine; and in
doing so you should look to and con-
slider all of the testimony upon that
subject and which in any way tends
to prove or disprove it,
! will say further to you on this sub
ject that it is not required that the
defendant prove this defense beyond
reasonable doubt nor by the prepon-
derance of the evidence to entitle him
to an acquittal; it is sufficient If he
raises a reasonable doubt of his presence
at the time and place of the commission
of the crime charged. Or in other words
you must determine from the whole
evidence whether it was shown beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the crime with which he is
charged, or participated in it's commits
sion.
have been requested to define to you
what is meant by a reasonable doubt
Much has been said upon that sub
ject and it is proper that I should so
define to you what is meant by that
expression, reasonable doubt"
Inc dttuSeu Dt con-
victed unless the evidence establishes
his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
What then is a reasonable doubt? A
verdict of guilty can never be returned
without convincing evidence. The law
is too humane to demand a conviction
while a rational doubt remains in the
minds of the jury. The jury will be
justified, and are required to consider
a reasonable doubt as existing If the
material facts, without which guilt cam
not be established, may fairly be recon-
ciled with innocence. In human affairs
absolute certainty is not always attain
able. From the nature of things reas-
enable certainty is all that can be at
tanned on many subjects. When a full
and candid consideration of the evidence
produces a conviction of guilt, and
satisfies the mind to a reasonable
certainty, mere captious or ingenious
artificial doubt is of no avail. The jury
must look TO the evidence. and IL that