New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1905-05-17

tnocent until ne is proven guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt by competent cyl
/, dence, and if the evidence in this case
leaves upon your minds any reasonable
doubt of the defendants guilt, then 1T
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-
| PENDANT, 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 a reasonable doubt within
| the meaning of the law? 1t is not
a mere possible doubt, because every
thing relating to human affairs, and de-
4 pending upon moral evidence, is open to
some possible doubt. A reasonable
doubt is that state of the case, which,
o1OSI VIII lHoii ttiN >o'i
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 a per-
/ aIa, with n,1t wi, bo
evidence establishes the truth of the
charge against the accused to a moral
certainty, a certainty That 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 a reasonable
y doubt; and III the consideration of this
+ case you should not 90 beyond the evil
5 dence to hunt for doubts, nor should
f you entertain doubts which are based
: upon groundless conjecture.
n Rules Of Law.
c The rule of law which throws around
It the defendant the presumption of limo
cence, and requires the state to estab-
Y fish, beyond a reasonable doubt, every
o material fact averred in the Indictment
is is not intended to shield those who are
n actually guilty from just and merited
J. punishment, but is humane provision
It of the law which is intended for the
n protection of the innocent, and to guard
10 as far as human agencies can guard
lie against the conviction of those unjust
ee " accused of crime
H. In order to truly ascertain what tn
j. facts are, whether this defendant i
+ guilty, or not guilty, you should tax
or into consideration, and carefully, fully
and dispassionately consider and weigh
ur all of the evidence introduced in thi
IN case, the testimony Of all of the wit
it nesses, those who testified on behalf O
ed the prosecution, and those who test
re fed on behalf of the defendant, an
ly you should endeavor to reconcile all c
ile | IiilS testimony IL Not l1ll ICoiScH6tbIN u
.y so, to the end that you may correctl
at determine the question of the guilt {
as innocence of the defendant
IN, In determining the questions Of fac
70 in this case, you should consider IL
Of entire evidence introduced before YOU
but you are at liberty to disregard tt
1m testimony of all such witnesses. if ur
ty there be, as have been successfully in
we peached, either by direct contradictio
The OF by proof of having made differel
lat and contradictory statements at 9th
to times, at variance with their test
a mony in this case, except so far as SUI
or. witnesses nave been corroboratcd
n.y. ether credible evidence, or by facts
our circumstances proved upon the trii
to One of the modes of impeaching d wi
if ness is by showing that he has ma
statements out Of court at varian
on with his statements upon the Witne
let stand; and if you believe from the e,
inc dence that any witness has made stat
ments at another time and place
en- variance with his testimony here,
the garding any material matter testii
it to by him, then it is your province
of determine to what extent this fl
Of tends to impeach, either his memory
lich his credibility, or detracts from t
nit weight which ought to be given to
testimony.
are Such impeaching testimony should
inc. received by you with great caution
acts that kind of evidence is subject to MI
and imperfection and mistake.
and The witness quoted may not h;
1urt clearly expressed his meaning or
Ger persons who have so testified may h;
dict misunderstood him. But it is the DIT
not incc of the jury to weigh all sucn t
your tlmony, and give it the considerat ton
YOU which it is entitled, in view OF all