The Mankato free press., 1905-08-04


tv of the otfense with which he is
charged, tor of any other public of
Tense lesser in degree), it must appear
by the evidence introduced upon the
trial, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
and if the evidence fails to satisfy your
minds as reasonable men, of the de
fendants guilt, beyond reasonable
doubt, then it is your duty to acquit
the defendant.
1t is incumbent upon the prosecu-
tion to prove every material allega
ton of the Indictment as therein charg
ed, beyond reasonable doubt; nothing
is to be presumed against the defend
ant; notwithstanding the fact that he
has been indicted, the law presumes
him innocent until he is proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt by competent
,vidence, and if the evidence in this
rase leaves upon your minds any rea
Sonable doubt of the defendants guilt,
then it is your duty to acquit him.
If it is possible to account for the
death of the deceased Louis A. Gebhard
lpon any reasonable theory or hypo-
thesis other than that of the guilt of
he defendant, then it is your duty to so
account for it. and find the defendant
not guilty, even though the evidence
is so strong, that it demonstrates the
probability of the guilt of the defend
mt.
What is a reasonable doubt within the
meaning of the law?
1t is not mere possible doubt be
"ause everything relating to human af
fairs, and depending upon moral evi-
lence is open to some possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is that state OF
the case. which, after the entire com
carlson and consideration of all the
evidence. leaves the minds of the Jurors
in that condition. that they connot say
hat they feel an abiding conviction to
I moral certainty, that the charges
made are true.
Absolute certainty is not required in
order to Justify the conviction of per
on charged with crime, but when the
evidence establishes the truth of the
'harge against the accused to a moral
'artainty, certainty that convinces and
lirects the understanding, and fully sat
SIZES the reason and Judgment of those
Who are bound to act conscientiously
lpon it, then the proof is beyond 6
reasonable doubt and in the considera
ion of this Sc you should not 90 be
yond the evidence to hunt for doubts
lor should YOU entertain doubts which
IRE based upon groundess conjecture.
The rule of law which throws around
he defendant the presumption of in
1Ocence, and requires the state to es
ahlish, beyond a reasonable doubt, ev.
Try material fact averred in the indict-
ment is not intended to shield those who
IRE actually guilty from Just and merit
ID punishment, but is humane pro
vision of the law which is intended for
he protection of the innocent and to
guard as far as human agencies can
guard. against the conviction of those
lnjustly accused of crime.
In order to truly ascertain what the
acts are, whether this defendant is
;uilty, you should take into consider
Ition, and carefully, fully, and dispas-
ionately consider and weigh all of the
evidence introduced in this case, the tes-
timony of all of the witnesses. those
Who testified on behalf of the prosecu-
ion, and those who testified on behalf
If the defendant, and you should en-
leavor to reconcile all of this testi-
mony, if you can reasonably do so. to
he end that you may correctly deter
mine the question of the guilt or in
1ocence of the defendant.
In determining the question of fact in
his case, you should consider the entire
violence introduced before YOU. but
on are at liberty to disregard the tes-
imony of all such witnesses. if anv
here be, as have been successfully i'm
)eached, either by direct contradiction
Dr by proof of having made different
md contradictory statements at other
ines, at variance with their testimony
this case, except so far as such wit
lesses have been corroborated by other
'reditable evidence, OF by facts or cir
'umstances proved upon the the trial
)ne of the modes of impeaching wit
less is by showing that he has made
statements out of court at variance
With his statements upon the witness
stand: and if you believe from the evi
ence that any witness has made state
nents at another time and place at var
,ance with his testimony here, regard
ng any material testified to by him
then it is your province to determine
o what extent this fact tends To i'm