The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-05-28

James Hart guilty o. manEaughter.
If you believe from the evidence be-
YOnd a reaSOnah bic dOubt that the de
fendant IS guilty OF murder YOU VIII
find him guilty as charged IN the in.
dictment.
If, however, You find him guilty of
manSlaughter. your verdict will be:
we. the jury, find the defendant
guilty OF manslaughter'' But if You
find that he is not guilty. OF either Of
these Offenses, then your verdict viii
be; We. the jury, find the defendant
not guilty
The court charges YOU that the law
presumes the defendant innocent. IN
I'll proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt: that if you can reconcile me
evidence before YOU upon any reason
able hypothesis consistent with tho.
defendants innocence, yOu should do
so, and in that case find him not
guilty. You are further instructed
that You cannot find the defendant
guilty, unless from all tho evidence
You believe him guilty beyond a reas-
enable doubt. The court further
charges You that q reasonable doub,
IS doubt based on reason. and which
IS reasonable il view of all the evil
dence; and if after an impartial COM
parlSOn and consideration or all the
evidence you can candidly say that
yOu are not satisfied with the defend
ants guilt, YOU have Il reasonable
doubt. But if. after such impartial
comparison and consideration of all
the evidence you can truthfuIlv say
that You have an abiding conviction
Of the defendants guilt, such as you
would be willing 10 act upon IN more
weiShty and important matters relat-
n !
reasonable doubt
Reasonable Doubt.
Courts have found much difficulty
in defining reasonable doubt: it is per
haps easier to comprehend than to
explain. 1t is never an unreasonable !
doubt, that is to say by a reasonable |
doubt you are not to understand that
all doubt is to be excluded: it is i'm |
possible in the determination of the
issue to be absolutely certain You
are only required TO decide the uueS- |
ton submitted to You upon the strong
probabilities of the case. but the prob |
abilities must be so strong as not to |
exclude all possibility of error. but |
as TO exclude every reasonable doubt. |
The government in this case relies |
partly upon cirCumstantia1 evidences.
The value of such evidence depends
mainly on the conclusive nature of |
the circumstances relied on to estab- |
lISh the cOntrOverted fact Where cir |
cJnnStalceS are relied on ENTIRELY to
Justify a conviction, the circumstanc
must not only be consistent with guilt
but inconsistent with innocence: lust
what state of circumstance will
amount to proof can never be a mat
ter of general definition. That circum-
Stantial evidence is not legal evidence
and proper to be considered .by YOU
but a well connected train of circum- |
stances Is as mach conclusive or a |
fact as the greatest array or direct !
evidence; the true test always of such |
evidence is the sufficiency and weight /
of the evidence to satisfy your minds /
and cOnscienceS to the exclusion OF /
every rea sOnairle doubt of the de- /
PENDANTS guilt. Absolute or mathe- /
NAUTICAL certainty is not essential 10 |
fcient if the circumstances with other
q moral certainty as 10 the truth Of
the charge.
You are the sole and exclusive 4
Judges of the cEedibilitv Of the vii Il
neSses and the weight to be given Il
their testimony If there is a conflict y
inthe testimony You should reconcile i
that conflict if you can but if Won I
cannot then YOU are a liberty to dis
card that which YOU may believe 20 i
he unworthy of credit. and believe
that which cCngpOrts best with rea-
son and common sense and the strong
proba bilities of the case. When YOU