The Mankato free press., 1905-05-19

nocent until ne is proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt by competent evil
dence, and if the evidence in this case
leaves upon your minds any reasonable
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. Geb-
hard, upon any reasonable hypothesis
other than that of the guilt of the de-
fendant, 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
ant
What is reasonable doubt within
the meaning of the law? 1t is not
a mere possible doubt, because every
thing relating to human affairs, and de-
pending upon moral evidence, is open to
some possible doubt. A reasonable
doubt is that state of the case, which,
after the entire comparison and con-
sideration of all the evidence. leaves the
minds of the jurors in that condition
that they cannot say that they feel an
abiding conviction to moral certain
ty, that the charges made are true.
Absolute certainty is not required in
order to Justify the conviction of per-
son charged with crime, but when the
evidence establishes the truth of the
charge against the accused to moral
certainty, certainty tnat con-
vinces and directs the under
standing, and fully satisfies the
reason and Judgment of those who are
bound to act conscientiously upon it,
then the proof is beyond reasonable
doubt; and in the consideration of this
case you should not 60 beyond the evi-
dence to hunt for doubts, nor should
you entertain doubts which are based
upon groundless conjecture.
Rules of Law
The rule of law which throws around
the defendant the presumption of inno
cence, and requires the state to estab
lish, beyond reasonable doubt, every
material fact averred in the indictment,
is not intended to shield those who are
actually guilty from just and merited
punishment, but is humane provision
of the law which is intended for the
protection of the innocent, and to guard,
as far as human agencies can guard,
against the conviction of those unjust
ly accused of crime.
In order to truly ascertain what the
facts are, whether this defendant is
guilty, OF not guilty, you should take
into consideration, and carefully, fully,
and dispassionately consider and weigh,
all of the evidence introduced in this
case, the testimony of all of the wit
| nesses, those who testified on behalf of
the prosecution, and those who testi-
fled on behalf of the defendant, and
you should endeavor to reconcile all of
this testimony, if you can reasonably do
so, to the end that you may correctly
determine the question of the guilt or
innocence of the defendant
In determining the questions of fact
in this case, you should consider the
entire evidence introduced before YOU;
but you are at liberty to disregard the
testimony of all such witnesses, if any
there be, as have been successfully i'm
peached, either by direct contradiction,
or by proof of having made different
and contradictory statements at other
times, at variance with their testi-
mony in this case, except so far as such
witnesses nave been corroborated by
other credible evidence, or by facts or
circumstances proved upon the trial.
One of the modes of impeaching wit
ness is by showing that he has made
with his statements upon the witness
stand; and if you believe from the evil
dence that any witness has made state
ments at another time and place at
variance with his testimony here, re-
garding any material matter testified
to by him, tnen it is your province to
determine to what extent this fact
tends to impeach, either his memory or
his credibility, or detracts from the
weight which ought to be given to his
testimony.
Such impeaching testimony should be
received by you with great caution as
that kind of evidence is subject to mucn
imperfection and mistake
The witness quoted may not have
clearly expressed his meaning, or the
persons who have so testified NAV have
misunderstood him. But it is the prov
ince of the jury to weigh all sucn tes-
timony, and give it the consideration to
which it is entitled in view of all the
other evidence in the case.
In determining the weight to be Civ
en- to the testimony of the different