The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-18

I1f80yen6Q 0tt8O8s Au0 u fS&4y @SeDs. ants. b. B. Cooper and Robin Cooper. | thus approached him and hefnrsd the first shot or shots under these oond1- tons and circumstances and they r9 turned the fro, either oAe or bcta or them, and took his life and caussd his death, in that event gsntlemeu the oe- fsndsnts could not avail themselves or the right of seif-defsnss, unless there was something to show the dsceased' sithsr by words or actiQns. that they had abandoned their purpose If they tver had any, aud did not mean to car " the alleged threats into execution.
 '.But whether there was or was not an overt act on the part of the de- fsndants D. B. Cooper and Robin Coop l CT is a matter for you to determine m the light of all the proof which the court has perimtted the witnesses to state in your hearing for your con sideration. t
 Self Defenss or Net.
 "In other words. If you believe from the facts that the defendants. D. B: Cooper and Robin Cooper. approacneo Senator Carmack on q mission Of peace and for the purpose of heving con versa ton and for no other purpose and there was nothing in their conduct to indicate any other purpose, or that there was no overt Act pr word usec on their parts which would warrant the conclusion that they intended to attack him. take his life oe do nim any great bodily harm--in that event. they were attacked by the deceased, they would have right to use sucn means as were in their power for their own self defense as above set out ana described.
 "But if they intended. as above stat ed. to talk to the deceased and 1T difIiculty ensued on account Of the con versation and If they intended to take
 the life of the deceased If he mace any
 resistance--in that event the plea o.
 self defense would not be available ana
 they would be guilty, and you wouia
 be warranted in finding them suiity or
 murder in the first degree, as aooVs
 set out and described.
 ,"The defendants deny this theory. insofar as it duplicates either of them in any criminal offense: they do nov
 deny that E. W. Carmack. whose name appears in the indictment IS aeao, noi fhat he came to his death in this. DaW- idson County, on the date set out ln the indictment. as the result of three
 nistol shot wounds inflicted upon nm bv the defendant, Robin Cooper, put inc defendants. D. B. Cooper ana NOD Tn Cooper insist that the shooting was done in their lawful self-defense wnicn has heen S0I out Ahu that they had reasonable grounds 10 beIieye that 1t was absolutely neces- sary for the defendant. Robin cooper to Are the shots which resulted In the death Sof the deceased at the time they were fired. to save himself ana Do-
 fendant D. B. Cooper. either one or both. from having their lives taxen or
 being done great bodily injury. my insist that the shooting which resuie- ad in the killing grew out of ana oo- cured under the following conoitiohs and circumstances"
 Theory of Defense.
 Judge Hart next ,recounteo m eVery
 detail the theory of the defense. nor
 emitting the testimony of a single wit, nesx.-~ F ' "Now, gentlemen of the jury charze you that if in view or all sn eyidence in the case you are satisneo thet the killing occurred under these circumstances, or have in your minds l a reasonable doubt as to whether " occurred under these circumstances o' l not then the defendants would De en.
 titled to the benefit of that doubt. ano your .verdiot. should be as to all oS these defendants not guilty:
 "Remember. gentlemen Of the Jury
 that the above are merely the insisten- i cies of theN State and Of Che de-
 fendants which they claim as reas-
 onabIe and fair deduction from all the
 nroof as insisted on by both the State
 and by the defendants; but remember
 further that they are merely the in-
 sistencies of the State and of the ue. | fendants and that you. a0 judges oi
 hoth inc law and the facts. are not
 hound 10 accept either or any part of
 them. but may reject any portion or all of either or both of these insist | encies and it,is your duty 10 oo so
 insofar as you believe. If you do. that
 they are not supported by the proof as
 deposed to by the witnesses, put 1T you
 are satisfied that the States theory ts lair and reasonable deduction from J all the evidence when taken as
 whole. and that when so taken It es' tahlishes the defendants guilt, pe- 1 vond A reasonable doubt. as to eithet one or more of them. it would De your duty to so find. but if one or ooth ol them or more of them, you should givs them the benefit of the same and no' l-rutlty. should be your verdict
 As To yharp's Fate.
 GAS to the defendant Sharp, the Stats does not insist that the proof Is sut Acient to warrant @ conviction or mn
 under the second count of the indict
 ment. that is. an accessory before th'
 fact. which is charged in said count. "The court further charges you Una ,,or may. as the proof may warran under the rules as has been hereto fore laid down for your guidance, mn either one or more of the defendant gniitv. either one or more of them no guilty, find some of them suhty 70 one grade of offense. and others guilt . of another grade of offenss. or yo may acauit all of the defendants. , vou may think warranted by the proc . under the rules laid down for you guidance. n, .r. .h 3 case take the evidence of each an . every witness and give to each an n every portion of the same c fair an v an impartial consideration under tf r rules heretofore laid down for yo. 6 guidance. ... vou cannot arbitrarily set aside u f testimony of any witnesses but ye |. will apply the rules above mention' if and set out to the evidence. and loe la at it in the light of reason al if Judgment and. after having done n give it such weight as you may thiI n it deserves
 .o You may accept all the testtmol v of any witnesses. you may reject "a all. you may accept portion and r