Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-09-27

lass Vi teSt!mony-a Species OF eyi-
uence-taken as a whole. is a proper
subject of comment and instruction BY
the court, giving general rules which
the jury may apply to the circum-
stances. You VIII therefore not look
Tor any intimation of opinion from me
on any matters of fact essential TO
your verdict nor allow your judgments
70 be influenced by what you may sup
pose to be my opinion upon such is
sues Of fact. on YOU alone the law
places the responsibility of determine
ing the facts in issue. on me the duty
of stating correctly such rules of law
rs you should be informed of, appli-
cable to the case. On that law and
the evidence here presented. with such
matters Of common knowledge and ex-
perience relating to the common af-
fairs of life and the ordinary motives
of human actions. as intelligent jurors
do not require 70 be proved, and which
are never proved in court, your YER
dict must be based.
1t is fundamental and all-important
rule which governs in all criminal
! trials that the accused must be con-
sidered innocent until he is proven to
be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
You observed the caution used in your
selection as jurors, that only men UNI
pTejudiced and unbiased by any opin-
ion heretofore formed, that would pre-
vent their rendering a verdict upon
the law and the evidence here given,
should act as the judges Of the de-
| fendant's case. Some Of you stated
| frankly that you had heard and read
| Of the case. But upon their oaths
| they stated that they held no opinion
| that would prevent their rendering Il
| just verdict upon the law and the evil
dence and they We're admitted to seats
| Nothing which occurred previously to
| this trial can properly influence your
! Judgment. Neither the proceedings
| before the coroner's jury or its result
| il within your knowledge. nor the fact
| that the grand jury has presented this
| Indictment. should have the least
weight or influence upon your mind,
! in determining whether this man is
guilty or not The presumption OF
! innocence is his constitutional shield
rs it is yours and mine, until it is
| ovcrborne and stripped away by le-
Ultimate evidence of guilt 1t seems
! unnecessary TO remind n jury further
that they must assiduously shut Their
| ears and their minds against any and
| nh outside uriniOn as to the guilt or
| innocence Of the accused. 1t would
be monstrous and destructive Of all
| Justice if such pressure were allowed
| TO encroach upon the jury box. MOI
should jurors be influenced by an eX-
| preston of opinion of counsel upor
the issue which they alone are to d.
| termine. The jury should listen Pr
| tentiveIy to the legitimate argureht
| Of counsel. often of great assistance
and the law allows them great latituoe
| in addressing every fair argument ana
anueal to the jury's intelligence ana
| feeling. growing out Of the evidence,
nut when it comes to the question: OF
guilt or innocence which the people
through their laws have eft alone Tor
the jWy's decision. any expression Oh
| counseTs opinion as to that should hot
be needed by the jur''
The iaw REQUIRES mat every material
allegation of the Indictment must be
,,-o,.ld i,avaud :, reasonable doubt be
| fore tn, l,cuse6 can be found guilty
Tho n.eaninc Il the words reasonable
.lo7ht~ anpe"-s 50 plain that any at
! ta,nrt IN simplify them seems ful:ie-
.bo,iId xot think it necessary here
were II ,0t for the fact that comment
b.s ba,n made by counsel on both
! xi,las lpon their force and scope. They
40 MT differ materially perhaps. and yet
VA may expect some allusion TO Il
! i-v IRE. Without attempting amy elu-
! cidation Of inc term Of my own. 1 VIII
| give the views Of chief Justice Peters
speaking for the supreme judiciai
| court:
ae says: THE very term implies
| that there may be doubts not reason
ABLE. 1t cannot be 4 mere possible
| doubt. for anything relating TO human
affairs may be in some way subject
! 10 possible doubt. 1t is such an actuai
land substantial and Well-founded
doubt VA would be entertained by
reasonable ana conscientious man.
| such !: doubt that the reason for II
Fan be examined ANA discussed.
This c,sa is submitted to you on sub
StantialIv circumstantial evidence. The
state claims that Heselton WAS
tdhbrd. M witness has testified thut
h,. actually saw \ knife in Granger
hand or saw a knife. thrust into HeSei-
| tons person but the government relles
upon certain facts testified to'and con
tends thlt the inference from these
facts IL irresistible ana conclusive maj
| the defendant Killed Hesetton.
Now Y person may be convicted law
| ullv on oirrumetantial as wen as upon
direct evidence. Indeed it is the more
usual kind of evidence in criminal
trials as il often happens, than other
| Mise. that there arr PA witnesses Who
ta Vim thA- they have actual and direct
| lu1wl.dl. of the thing to be proved.
! The, fO.cp Of such evidence depends on
! its character. Sometimes the inference
to- he drawn from circumstance is d.
lect amounting % almost certain pro..i-
! l1or instance \ house IL robbed on Z
| certain nilht. i stranger is seen heeng
| from the house on that night ard he IS
subsequently found VITA the stolen
| property in his possession. In that case
| in the absence Of any contraoictInS ana
controlling explanation, 4 jury m!ght
We'll infer Win strong assurance thar
the man robbed the house. In other
| eases the conclusion is not so easy To
| draw. man may have been seen iie'-
ing from The house. but his identity may
| depend on description ard numerous
| other facts which render i more diiTl-
| cult to Connect him with the crime
] l. u So