The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-09-15
ARGUMENTS Of ATTORNEYS
IN BEATT|E MURDER CASE
Case Expected To Go To Jury Late Friday
Euening- Carter Makes Bitter Attack On
Character of Paul Beattie---Instruc-
tions of Presiding Judge FAVOR
able to Defendant

inconsistency OF Pdul' S story. The one
explanation which he offers for Paul's
course of action was the fact that
Paul did buy a shot gun for use on
the place where he works, as a weapon
and being of weak mind was alarmed
four days later at the possibility that
the crime might be traced to his door
He gave no explanation of how the gun
got into the hands of the alleged high
wayman and gave no intimation of
charging Paul with the crime, for he
Iclung steadfastly to the story of the
defendant of the six foot highwayman
of stubby beard who stepped from the
darkness. But the instructions of the
court declare that on the defense did
not rest the burden of finding the ac-
tual murderer. Its case was concerned
with establishing the innocense of the
accused and the young mans impeach-
ment of Paul upon whose story he de
clared the prosecution had built it's
entire case. Mr.. Carter spent little
time on details of the crime
His speech was a steady and un-
broken attack on Paul Beattie and to-
day it is expected that Harry M.
Smith, Jr, chief counsel for the de-
fense will continue the fire along the
line of his colleague.
Chesterfield Court House, Va, Sept.
IS.-Judge Watson read his instructions
to the jury He pointed out that the
burden of proof in murder in the first
degree was on the commonwealth and
if the degree is reduced to manslaugh-
ter then the defense would have the
burden of proving that there was no
balice and pre-intent.
ITO bring a verdict of not guilty"
he pointed out, "such doubt should
exist in the minds of the jury as rea-
sonable men would consider not fimsy
but certain
In eircumstantial cases, the proof
!, of guilt must be so strong that there
must be no fact inconsistent with the
contention of the commonwealth that
the accused is guilty. Every reason
able hypothesis of guilt must be es-
tablished before a verdict of guilty
can be reached.
AT this juncture, Judge Watson or
dered Sheriff Gill to request all wo-
men except those connected with the
press, to leave. There were more wo-
men present WIN court convened than
at any previous time during the trial.
Continuing his instructions, Judge
Watson declared that a confession out
| of court was doubtful evidence and
the jury should not convict on this
alone.
Evidence of the defendants good
, character might be the means of Gre
ating reasonable doubt that a man of
peace-loving nature could have done
such a brutal murder" he said.
Judge Watson's charge to the jury
was of fairness to the prisoner. The
charge was short and to the point,
! consuming less than half hours time.
The court placed the main burden on
the commonwealth, saying:
"The killing of a human being with
malice aforethought, is murder and
deliberate, wilful and premediated kill
: ing is murder in the first degree. But
, it is not necessary that the premedita-
: tion should have lasted any stated
time. If you believe that the accused
perpetrated this crime, you should find
him guilty, but the entire burden OF
the proof rests upon the common.
wealth
''If any reasonable doubt exists as
to the guilt of the prisoner, it is your
duty to find him innocent"
Beattie, nattily dressed followed the
instructions closely and both he and
his lawyer regarded them as strictly
favorable to the defense
"In this case, where the evidence
is largely circumstantial, based large
ly upon the testimony of Paul Beattie
the benefit of every doubt should be
given to the prisoner" continued the
judge.
''In the case of an alleged confes
sion, such as the prisoner is said tc
have made to him, and which if made
at all was made out of court, nut lit
tie consideration should be given tc
it."
Character evidence was then discuss
ed by the Judge. who said;
Before the jury can convict the de
fendant in this case, it must be showr
conclusively that the defendant ant
not some one else committed the
crime. The jury has no right to dis
regard the testimony of the defendant
because he is the defendant. Eacf
juror must be satisfied in his owr
mind, of the guilt of the defendant be