Los Angeles herald., 1907-11-30
SMILES AS
SHE RETURNS
7OHER CELL
PROSECUTIONS EXPERTS SAY
WOMAN is SANE
PASTOR TEsTIFIEs REGARDING
THREATS AGAINST BROWN
Long Strain Is Over in Murder Trial
and Prisoners Fate Will Now
Rest with the
Jury
tcontinued from PAGE one.l


sonable," as used in the Instructions, is
meant that the state of the case which,
after the entire comparison and consid-
Grafton of all evidence, leaves the minds
Of the jurors In that condition that they
cannot say that they feel an abiding con-
viction to a moral certainty of the truth
Of the charge; a certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and satis-
flies the reason and judgment of those who
are bound to act conscientiously upon it.
g. The court instructs the jury that in
this case the law raises no presumption
against the defendant, but that every
presumption of law is in favor OF the in
rocence of the defendant.
A. Police officers-The jury is instructed
that in determining the. weight to be
given to the confessions alleged to have
been made by the defendant to the police
officers they shall take into considera-
tien al the facts ana circumstances sur
rounding the defendant at the time of
making the alleged confessions, ard If
rpoi all the evidence bearing upon this
roint they shall find that the alleged
confessions were not voluntarily made,
then it is their duty to disregard them.
3. Lay witnesses-The jury in determin-
ing the weight to be given the opinions
of lay witnesses upor the question of the
sanity of the defendant shall look to the
facts stated by witnesses upon which the
said opinions were based and shall con-
slider the facts stated in determining
what weight is to be given to such
opinions.
"Should Acquit Her"
g. The jury is instructed that if it be-
lieves from the whole evidence that at
the time of committing the acts charged
in the Indictment, the defendant was suf-
fering from such a perverted and de-
ranged condition of her mental ard moral
faculties as rendered her incapable of dis
tinguishing between right and wrong, or
unconscious at such time of the nature
of the acts charged in the Indictment
while committing the same, or where.
though conscious of them and able to
distinguish between right and wrong and
TO know that the acts were wrong, yet
her will, the governing power of her
mind. was otherwise than voluntarily so
completely destroyed that her action was
not subject to It, but beyond her con-
troll II would be their duty to acquit the
defendant. and in such event their ver-
oict should be not guilty.
Z. Reasonable doubt of sanity-The jury
are instructed that il on consideration
of the whole evidence they have a reason
able doubt as 10 the sanity of the de-
fendant, it is their duty to resolve that
doubt in her favor and render verdict
of not guilty.
s. Mere preponderance not sufficient
The jury are instructed that mere pre-
ronderance of the evidence in favor of
the prosecution is not sufficient to con-
Wet the defendant, but before she can be
convicted each juror must be conv inced
Of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Asks for AequittaI
O. One leading to innocence--The jury
are instructed that the defendant is pre-
sumed TO be innocent of the crime
charged. and If after consideration of all
the evidence in. the case it can be recon
ciied upon the hypothesis Of the innocence
of the defendant, then it is their duty to
DO so and render a verdict of not guilty.
10. The jury are instructed that if they
a reasonable doubt as to the
"soundness of mind" of the defendant at
the time of the commission of the alleged
acts she is entitled to the benefit of that
doubt. just as much so as to any other
material fact in the case and if the jury
shou.d have reasonable doubt upon this
element of the case then their verdict
should be not guilty.
II. Good character a factor in the case
The jury are instructed that evidence of
peace and good oraer. when proved is a
factor in the case to be weighed and con-
sidered by the jury in determining her
guilty or innocent, and that proof OF good
character when considered with all the
other evidence in the case may create a
reasonable doubt, In which case it would
be the duty of the jury to render ver-
dict of not guilty.
r. The jury are instructed that the de-
fsndant is presumed to be innocent until
her guilt is established by such evidence
as will exclude every reasonable doubt.
Therefore the Jaw says that no person
shall be convicted of a crime until each
and every one of the jury is satisfied OF
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and il
any one of the jurors. after having duly
considered all the evidence and after con-
sulting with his fellow Jurors, should en-
tertain such reasonable doubt, the jury
cannot in such case find the defendant
guilty.
Reasonable Doubt"
IS. The jury are instructed that even
though they believe from the whole evil
dence beyond a rea-onab.e doubt that the
defendant threatened and menaced the
deceased with a loaded pistol for the
purpose of compelling him to marry her.
or for any other purpose. and while so
threatening and menacing the deceased.
said pistol was unintentionally or acci-
dentally discharged, and the deceased re-
ctiNeu lntIeITOIu lne WOunQ from Wnlcu
he died, still the defendant would not be
guilty of any degree OF crime unless the
jury shal. be further satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant was
at that time of sound mind and able to
distinguish between right and wrong.
Justice Stafford Just before adjourn
ment announced his decision with regard
20 the prayers offered by both Sides He
granted all but No. 2 of those submitted
allowed Nos. /. s. 6. Z. s, 8. TO- 1S; he re-
fused II and Il; he will use his own Lam
guase as TO No. 2. and will grant num-
bers 4, and with certain notifications.