The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-08-21

have under consideration tt appears that the instruction
that given b the court Was taken substantially from Sackett
in his Instructions ures I'd Ed)p 90. and from exam
n-teu 81 le authorities tcl by The author clearly Of
the opaaion lat they lo support the text
In Greeneai Evidence 18th E) VOL 5 20 the learned
author SAYS
"a distinction Dc noted between civil and criminal cases
respect the degree quantity evidence necessary JUS
ty the jury finding their verdict for the government In civil
cases their duty weigh the evidence carefully and find for
the party whose favor the evidence prponderas although
be not free from reasonable doubt But criminal trials
party accused is entitled the benefit OF legal presumption
IN favor OF innocence which doubtful always sufficient
to turn the scale his favor 1t is therefore rule of criminal
law that the guilt OF the accused be fully proved Neither
mere Pepondrance OF evidence nor any weight OF peponder
ant evidence sufficient the purpose unless generate full
belief OF the fact to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt
The other authority cited by Sacke the case Of Common
Sccath Webster, Cush (ass POS s. Am Dec IN which
the celebrated Webster which Chief Justice Shaw m
defining the degree Of proof the following language
Then what reasonable doubt It is term often used
probably pretty vel understood ut easily defined II
mere possible doubt that state o the which after the
entire comparison and consideration Of all the evidence leaves
the minds of jurors that condition that they they
fee an abiding conviction o nota certainty. OF the truth OF
the charge The burden proof upon the prosecutor All the
presumption, o law independent oil evidence M favor OF
and every person presumed be innocent until he
proved guilty n upon such proof there reasonable doubt
manning. the accused is entitled to the benefit OF By acutal
For Is not sufficient to establish probability though strong
one arising the doctrine al chances that the charged
than the the evidence
establish the truth ol the fact a reasonable and moral certainty
certainty that convince, and directs the understanding and
satisfies the and Judgment Of those who bound
cunsceutiou, upon IT, hi, take be proof beyond
able doubt because ii The aw which mostly depends upon
,lcratons o moral should 50 further than this and
require ah ute certainty would cNcludc crcumsanta ey
Till, instruction BY Chief Justice Shaw has been approved by
ue Supreme court ii ON4hona Territory III the Of Pafe
ad 4. Juaai S.ats ONa. l}l 5l ac 45S and by all the
l,..ta.. courts ai the country.
This .uu, question la, be.n before the Supreme Court 8.
iowa \u instruction a a.oo, NE identical language was dis
approved m e case of State ob1 IoS Iowa EOS, 1S n W.
S5- rs Ann ST. Rep Fl B. where was held that IN n>truc-
tim fntae reasonable doaht that the jury able to
give reason r crroucous effect placing The burden on
defendants Is furnish reasons or acquittaI And where it was
also further held Iat: Am instruction defining reasonable
doubt than the jury able give reason or is crro-
ucous requiring jurors give for their conclusions
wd IN This HE speaking BY Mr. Justice Ladd uses the
Nor can We approve he dnh instruction safe definition
X reasonable doubt by reasonable doubt as herein instructed
meant doubt such reasonable might entertain, after
careful review of all the evidence the to the guilt Of
the defendant In cga sense reasonable doubt which
has for its basis does not mean doubt from
caprice gromde conjecture a reasonable doubt Is
such doubt the able to give reason ior e last
clause the to which exception taken WI" shall deter
uuc whether able give and what kind Of reason
will suffice 10 whom shall be given Onc Juror may declare
he does believe the defendant guilty Under tins instruction
another may demand his for thinking Indeed each
Juror may in turn be held BY his fellows give his reasons for
acune though tho better rule would require these ior
coyictng The burden oi finding for not finding quit
established thus the defendant whereas IS on the state
omakc cNcudme all reasonable doubt Besides jurors
are mon bound ID aNe reasons ~ DINERS 'T 'c o"00'o"
reached
In gh4r. lmie I5} Ind ozz.5 .55 3. 4 6Sr. the Supreme
ourt o Indiana held fiat: III 10 instruct the jury
h,t \ fa-onab, loubt -uch doubt 1c jury able to
Give Il reason Ion la State Aau1 }S >lun $50 3 n w
M >r luic, Mitchell alo delivered the opinion Of the court