The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-13
CASE GIVEN TO
JURY AT NOON
Continued from First Page.

Continued from First Page.
reasonable doubt; and in the cohsidera-
ton of this case you should not go be-
yond the evidence to hunt for doubts,
nor should you entertain doubts which
are based upon groundess conjecture.
=
In order to ascertain truly what the
facts are, whether this defendant is
guilty or is not guilty, you should take
into consideration, and carefully, fully
and dispassionately consider and weigh
all the evidence introduced in this case,
the testimony of all witnesses, those who
testified on behalf of the prosecution
and those who testified 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 determine correctly the question of
the guilt or innocense of the defendant.
AS to Impeached Witnesses.
In determining the questions of fact
in this case, you should consider the en-
tire evidence introduced before you, but
you are at liberty to disregard the tes-
timony Of all such witnesses, if any there
be, as have been successfully impeached
either by direct contradiction or by proof
of having made different and contradic-
tory statements at other times, at vari-
ance with their testimony in this case,
except so far as such witnesses have
been corroberated by other credible evil
dence, or by facts or circumstances
proved upon the trial.
One Of the modes of impea ching wit
ness 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 evidence that
any witness has made statements at an
other time and place. at variance with
his testimony here, regarding any mate
rial matter testified to by him, then it is
your province to determine to what ex-
tent this fact tends to impeach, either
his memory or his credibility, or de-
tracts from the weight which ought tc
be given to his testimony.
Such impeaching testimony should be
received by you with great caution, as
that kind of evidence is subject to much
imperfection and mistake. The witness
quoted may not have clearly expressed
his meaning, or the persons who have sc
| testified may have misunderstood him
But it Is the province of the jury tt
weigh all such testimony and give it the
!. consideration to which it is entitled, il
view of all the other evidence in thu
case
The Defendants Admissions.
| There has been some testimony givel
before you as to statements Or admis
sions made by the defendant Koch, as t.
| tot f> f11 iec,,
now being tried before you. Such testi
mony should be received by you wit
great caution, as that kind of evidenc
is subject to much imperfection and mis-
take. The defendant may not hav
clearly expressed his meaning, or tn
persons who have so testified may hav
misunderstood him. But it is the prov
ince of the jury to weigh all such test
mony and give it the consideration
which it Is entitled, in view of all tn
other evidence in the case.
The defendant has testified as a wit
ness, and you should weigh his testimon
as you weigh that of any. other witness
consider his interest in the result of tn
case, his manner and the probability c
inprobability of his testimony, and
order to test its truthfulness, apply I
| IL jill Ol LlS leStS "II1Cl you Apply " IL
testimony of all other witnesses WI
have been sworn before you.
There have been called in this ca!
certain witnesses commonly called ar
; known as detectives
In weighing the testimony of these d.
. tectives, greater care should be used ths
in case of some other witnesses, becau!
of their natural bias, or their inclinatic
to secure a conviction or acquittal, {
account of their employment, or the
desire or ambition to prove themselV
successful in their calling.
You are not necessarily required, hov
ever, to disregard their testimony Ell
tirely; you should take into considerable
their office, or calling or employmer
you should consider their demean
! aNhile on the stand, their fairness
: want Of fairness, whether they are CO
roborated by other witnesses, or by CT
! cumstances appearing from the evidenc
, what interest they have, if any, in Il
T result Of the trial as shown by the ev
dence, and after considering all of the
things, you should give their testimol
such weight as you deem it justly e
titled to. You are the sole judges
the credibility of each and every witne
) who has been sworn before you.
/ Circumstantial Evidence.
;. This is a case where very many Of t
n material facts at issue rest entirely up
circumstantiaI evidence. The sta
: claims to have proved certain facts, al
f then asks you to infer from such fac
g the further fact of the guilt of the
e PENDANT.
9 Circumstantia1 evidence Is the proof
n such facts and circumstances connect
: with or surrounding the commission
/, the crime charged, as tend to show t
= guilt or Innocence Of the party charge
Circumstantial evidence is legal and col
;, petent in criminal cases, and if it is
!, such a chara cter as to exclude eve
h reasonable hypothesis other than that
: defendant is guilty, then it is entitled
d the same weight as direct testimor
g And If these facts and circumstances a
d sufficient to satisfy the jury of the gu
r of the defendant, beyond a reasonal
doubt, then such evidence is sufficient
Y authorize the jury to find verdict
n guilty.
!, Circumstantial evidence may carry CO
y viction to the mind as positively as
. rect and positive evidence, and when C.
" |eumstantial evidence is as convincing
! positive evidence, it should be relied up
: and acted upon to the same extent.
II But where conviction of crimir
off is co,1oIf 1,yoYo cir 10 oil a,