The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-01-19

! a.
but to give a small .pecuniary advantage
difficulties. H. s.. ~ = '~''.
~. Evidence Of Brooks. -.
T. tsIf Brooks was not mistaken. it is
conclusive evidence that the defendant
IS not the man wanted, and it is the
not guilty. - =, ,s@"e - - +.
!. But it is also the duty of the Jury
to. determine the. truthfulness Of tho
witness and so to decide thesvalue Of HIS
testimony. The defendants relatives
have also testified, and the. fact that
they are his relatives does not make It
probable that their testimony is false.
point and: SO give the testimony its
proper weight. s7.- = = + :;
.sln considering the question as to tho
alibi, the jury must take into considera-
tion the liability Of witnesses to err
both as to the time Of the homicide and
as to the time the defendant arrived
home. A few minutes in. the time in
this case would change its whole aspect.
Value Of Circumstantial Evidence.
cit is vain that we attempt to de-
to :, circumstantial evidence. Crime
shuns the light Of day. It seeks dark
ness. It courts secrecy. It endeavors
to escape detection: The assassin
moves stealthily upon his unsuspicious
or sleeping Victims He calls no witness
to see him strike the fatal blow. He
attempts to obliterate all traces Of
tracks. Does thief take a witness to
see him steal, or the incendiary, to see
him apply the torch9 .'.'.
GU must resort to circumstantial
evidence or crime. must remain I'M
punished. @ If you wait for an eye
witness to the crime; if you expect a
felon to call one to witness his GRIMM
atty, you at once grant impunity to
crime. There may have been cases in
which the innocent have been convicted.
If this is SO, it is a reason for caution,
for giving to each circumstance it's lust
and appropriate weight; not for disre-
garding such proof OF. neglecting to give
it proper consideration. a.. - - >.
Few Innocent Men Convicted ~
elf men have been convicted erro-
neously on circumstantial evidence, so
have they on direct testimony. But is
that a reason for refusing to act upon
such testimonys Is it any more or bet
ter reason for refusing to act upon cir
cumstantial evidencef Assuredly not.
The cases are few and far between in
which erroneous verdicts were found
Il upon this species Of evidence, and they
/ occurred under entirely, different cir
i cu1nstances from those Of our time.
i NFormerly the defendant was not al
a lowed to call WITNESSES and have them
sworn. He was not allowed to employ
j counsel. He could not be witness in
his own case. But now the accused has
!. not only the right to introduce wit
nesses in his own behalf, but also to
Ecompulsory process at the expense of
the state to compel their attendance,
behalf to explain, if he can, every adj
verse fact. ~. ..s..
"The cases Of erroneous verdicts now
are of rare occurrence. The wonder is
that they were so few. Did You,. gen
tlemen, ever know or hear Of one in
this stateq The stories told of such
instances may or may not be true, but
of their truth you have no proof. They
are resorted to for the purpose of i'm
that there should be no safe conviction
upon circumstantial evidence; that
there is infinite danger Of innocence if
there is such conviction. They have
nothing to do with the case under con
sideration. This you are to decide upon
:: the evidence before you-upon nothing
else.' S., 6:
Requests by the Defense. So, /.
The judge then took up the requests
made by the defense that certain things
be included in the instructions. Several
OF these were granted, but number
I was refused. Among these granted were
instructions that if the jury found the
!, word :. sample, on the bottle Of poison
!. was not written by defendant, that they
must disregard all evidence as to the
L poison. The same instruction was given
! relative to the typewriter address or
| the box. 80 .
4 The jury was also instructed that il
determining the guilt Of the defendant
1t should take into consideration The
:; fact that an unknown man was seer
entering the stairway shortly before the
i crime was committed, also that the de
PENDANT is not required to prove an alb
more than beyond reasonable doubt.
,; The Judge further instructed at The
! request Of the defense that even if The
! jury should find that. the defendant; usec
/ the language claimed against the muir
, dered man, it Is no proof Of an intent tc
3. kill, also that if there was any reason
able theory as to who killed Gerhard ad
J. vanced, other than that the defendant
did it, the jury must find him not guilty
Il, Following. the charge Koch Is attor
, neys made their exceptions, and the jury
was allowed to go into seclusion.
! Plan FOR SEED
WHEAT BUREAU