The Mankato free press., 1909-12-17

Mr.. ScnauDS argument was earnest
and forceful and he closed with elo-
quent expressions. He spoke for nearly
two hours.
Judge Instructs Jury.
A recess of fifteen minutes was
taken before Judge Pfau read his
charge to the jury.
The following charge to the jury
was delivered by Judge Pfau:
Gentlemen of the Jury: You have
been called as jurymen to try the case
of the state of Minnesota against
Frank Smith, case of the utmost i'm
portance.
You have probably never been called
upon to perform any services, nor here
after will be called upon to perform
any services involving upon you great
er responsibility than the matter now
to be left for your consideration.
You have duty to perform, not
only owing to the state, but one as
well owing to the defendant, for while
you should see to it that the dignity
of the state is maintained, to see to
it that the wilfull and unlawful TAX
ing of human life does not 60 unpun-
ished but that it meets with proper
retribution and punishment, that the
laws of the state are properly and vlg-
orously enforced, to the end that all
may have confidence therein, and that
all shall understand that the laws OF
your state canont be violated with i'm
punity; and it is as well your duty
to see to it that no innocent man shall
suffer punishment for the violation OF
law by another. That those who are
accused of wrong doing have the same
right to the protection of the law
as others, because of the very jeopardy
in which they are placed may by such
accusation they have the nearer and
more immediate need of the protection
of the law.
! 1t is your duty to see to it that
the people shall understand from your
verdict, not only that they who vio-
late the laws are brought to punish
ment in due time, but that the limo,
cent are safe in the hands of the law
so approach and proceed with your
work with the determination to dc
exact justice, and while you should not
endeavor to denude yourself of SYM
pathy but approach and proceed with
your work as human beings, do not
allow such sympathy on the one hand
or public sentiment on the other, to
swerve you from the line of your
duty.
! The defendant Frank Smith is on
trial before you charged in the IN
dictment found by grand jury OF
your county, with the crime of muir
der in the first degree.
Entered Not Guilty Plea.
To the Indictment the said defend
ant has entered his plea of not guilty
of the crime so charged, and it is fol
you to determine from the evidence
introduced before you and under the
instructions of the court, the question
of said defendants guilt or innocence
of the crime charged
At the outset the defendant is pre-
sumed to be innocent of the offense
with which he is charged, or of any
other public offense, and this presump'
tion remains with him until he is
proven guilty, and the fact that he
has been indicted by the grand jury
in no manner removes this presump-
tion of innocence. Before you can find
the defendant guilty you must be con-
vinced by the evidence introduced in
the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, OF
his guilt, and if the evidence fails to
so convince you beyond reasonable
doubt, then it is your duty to acquit
him.
1t is encumbent upto the state to
prove every material allegation OF the
indictment as therein alleged beyond a
reasonable doubt; for nothing is tO
be presumed against the defendant, fol
as | have stated, under the law he
is presumed to be innocent until he is
proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, by the evidence in the case
and if the death of Holland j. Led
better can be accounted for upon any
other reasonable hypothesis other than
the guilt of the defendant, then you
should so account for it and find the
defendant not guilty, even though you
should believe that it demonstrated the
probability of the defendants guilt, for.
as l have stated before, the evidence
must be such as to convince you be-
yond reasonable doubt, of his guilt,
but by this l do not mean a mere pos
sible doubt, for everything relating to
human affairs and depending upon
moral evidence is open to some possible
doubt.
A reasonable doubt is that state of
the mind which after the entire COM
parison and consideration of all the
evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors
in that condition that they cannot say
that they have an abiding conviction to
a moral certainty that the charges are
true.
Absolute certainty is not required in
order to justify conviction of a per-
son charged with crime, but when the
evidence establishes the truth of the
charge to moral certainty, to GER
tainty that convinces and controls the
understanding and fairly satisfies and
directs the mind and judgments of
those who are bound to act conscien-
tiously upon it, then the proof is be-
yond reasonable doubt. And in this
case you should not go beyond the evil
dence and hunt for doubts, or entertain
doubts, based upon groundless conjec-
ture. In short, as 1 have already stat
ed and instructed you, you should be
convinced beyond reasonable doubt of
the defendants guilt, before you find
the defendant guilty.
1t is not intended, however, by this
rule of law which envelopes the de-
1endant with the presumption of in
nocence and requires the state to estab-
lish every material fact of the indict-
ment beyond a reasonable doubt, to