The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1911-06-14
DXORC|DE WILL PASS THE REMAINDER
OF HIS LIFE WITHIN PRISON WALLS


the instructions given you on that
subject, without considering what will |
be done with the defendant In the
event that he is found not guilty on
the ground of insanity.
The jury are instructed that the
defendant claims that he was insane
at the time of the commission of the |
act with which he is charged in the
indictment, and also claims that this
insanity commenced some time prior
to the commission of the act, and
continued up to and including the
time OF the alleged killing.
In determining the fact as to wheth-
err or not the defendant was insane at
the time of the alleged killing. you
should take into consideration his con-
duct, language and general appear
ance. not only at the time of the
killing, but for the period of his life
prior thereto during which he claims
to have been insane
The jury are instructed that all
men are presumed to be sane until the
contrary is shown, and this presump-
ton is prima facie proof of a sound
mind, and must stand unless there
is evidence tending to show the con-
trary A presumption is a conclu-
sion arrived at, which is based upon
the usual Or ordinary happenings of
events, and while the law allows you,
/ in cases of this kind to presume
! that the defendant is sane, on the
theory that most people are sane and
not insane, yet, at the same time, ii
i any direct or positive evidence of in
sanity is introduced then this pre-
sumption must fall, because it being
merely a conclusion, based upon the
usual happenings of things, cannot be
weighed against any measurable
amount of positive or direct evidence
of insanity.
! Presumption cannot stand up
against positive or direct testimony
i and in determining whether the de.
PENDANT was sane or insane at the
time of the commission of the offense
charged in the indictment, you should
observe the foregoing rules.
If the defendants insanity, at any
time prior to the commission of the
offense charged in the indictment, has
been established in this case, ther
it will be presumed that such insanity
if any, continued until such presump
ton of continuance is rebutted by
evidence introduced. or presumption
arising on the facts of the case suf
tficient to convince the jury that such
i prior insanity, if any, did not con
) tinue up to the time of the commission
: of the said crime, if any.
In determining whether or not it has
been established by preponderanct
Z of the evidence, or to the reasonable
: satisfaction of the jury, that defend
3 ant was insane at the time he sho
g the said Essie Samuels, if you fine
, that he did shoot her, you should Civ,
: such weight to such presumption yol
i, find such previous insanity existed
: as we'll as to all other facts and cir
: cumstances shown by the evidenc
t introduced by both the prosecution
: and the defense, as you find then
/ Justly entitled to, and you should de
4 termine the question in accordanc
Y with the weight and preponderance 0
e the evidence bearing on the subjec
t of the DEFENDANTS sanity or insanity a
e the time of the commission of the Of
a fence with which the defendant i
n charged by the Indictment in this case
t If the weight or preponderance Q
l. the evidence shows that the defendan
8 was insane at the time he shot sal
l. lsssie Samuels. if you find he did shoe
g her, then defendant cannot be cor
d victed, and if you SO find 1t will b
a your duty to return a verdict OF nc
o guilty on the ground of insanity. bu
+ if not so established by the evidence
then defendant cannot be excused c
s acquitted on the alleged ground of II
|. sanity.
IS AS before stated, sanity is presume
d until insanity is established by SUI
q fcient evidence to the reasonabl
If satisfaction of the jury, and the bu
d den of proof as to the defense
q upon the deendant to establish his il
@ sanity by preponderance of tn
d evidence. and if the jury find that til
T. alleged insanity of the defendant ha
$, been established by a preponderano
n of the evidence under the instruction
.. OF the court, then it is sufficient
a. raise a reasonable doubt of defen
n ants guilt and in such case the d
n PENDANT would be entitled to an a
p quittal even though it be establishe
ST by the evidence that he killed h
IS wife. But If the said alleged insanit
A. of the defendant has not been esta
" lished by the preponderance OF tt
d evidence under the law as defined
q these instructions, then he cannot
d acquitted on the ground of insanit
ID 1t i, not necessary in order to acqu
O. that the evidence upon the questie
h. of insanity should satisfy beyond q
h. reasonable doubt that the defendal
ID was insane, it is sufficient if upc
,e consideration OF all the evidence al
r. facts and circumstances disclosed
Of the testimony you are reasonably So
70 isfied that he was insane. If Il
lie weight or preponde-ance of the eN