Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-03-26
IN JURY'S HANDS NOW
Closing Act in the Trial Of
Patrick.
FOR MURDER 0F RICE.
EXPECTED THAT A VERDICT
WILL SOON BE FOUND.
Judge Instructs the Jury at Length
as to What Evidence
to Consider.

NEW YORK, March 26.-The Patrick
case was given to the jury at 1;54 pm.
The trial Of Albert T. Patrick on an in
dlctment charging him with the murder of
VIM. NJ. Rice was continued today. The trial
was begun on January 20, and when court
opened today it was believed a verdict
would be agreed upon by this evening. The
addresses of counsel were finished yester-
day and today Recorder Goff began his
charge to the jury. He said the defendant
was not obliged to prove his innocence: it
was for the prosecution to prove his guilt
and he was entitled to the benefit Of every
reasonable doubt. The jury, he said, was
to Judge for itself of the credibiiity of any
witness. The only thing for them to decide
was the guilt or innocence Of the defend
ant OF the charge of murder; they should
not concern themselves with any other
charge made against him.
The Recorders Instructions.
The recorder instructed the jurors to dis
regard all evidence stricken from the record
even though such evidence must have made
an impression on them. He explained the
degrees of homicide and said premedita ton
must be shown to Justify a verdict of mur-
der In the first degree
\. mere are three main propositions in
TINS case, the recorder said, and il they
fall OF satisfactory proof the whole fabric
Of the prosecution fails. The proposif,ons
are: First, did Charles F. Jones on Septem-
. per - 1900, with the intent to kill, place
a towel cone with a sponge saturated with
chIoroform over the face of VIM NJ Rice;
second, did Wm NJ. Rice die from the effect
OF chloroform and from no other cause;
third, did the defendant with the intent to
procure the death Of VIM. NJ Rice counsel
and induce Jones to place the chloroform
over his face
IT you flnd." he continued. 'fhat Pat
nd th4<
did Kill Mr.. Rice the guilt of the defendant
Is not lessened because Patrick was not
present. Neither shall you deem it lessened
If you find that Jones was easily induced
to do the murder.
THE fact that Jones is a self confessed
murderer the court said, does not make
him an incompetent witness. But the evil
dence of such an accomplice should be re-
ceived with great caution. The law SAYS it
shall not be accepted unless it is corrob-
Grated This does not mean that there
must have been an eyewitness to the
crime. 1t means that either direct or cir
cumstantlal evidence pointing to the same
end shall convince YOU of the truth of the
testimony.
Jones' Manner to Be Considered.
"You must take into consideration Jones
manner on the stand, his apparent capacity
to remember details, his admission that ne
made previous statements that were un-
- ~ eiA AIS oppoaeilI AidihHeaS III Telling
of his own part IN a treacherous murder
Then you will ask yourselves: Was he ac-
tuated by motive to sacrifice Patrick to
save himself? If so, why did he select Pat
rick?
"The prosecution claims" the recorder
went on, Ito have traced to the possession
Of the defendant the general assignment
and other forged documents. II you believe
that has been proved I charge that you
may hold that the failure of the defendant
to produce these papers may be taken as
evidence that if produced they would be
harmful to the defense"
The recorder said further that If the jury
believed that mercury or other poison mad
been given to Mr.. Rice for the purpose of
fastening his death they might take into
consideration his weakened power of resist
ing the chloroform.