New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-10-25
Need Not Accept Testimony.

I
Need Not Accept Testimony.
As before instructed you, 1t is within
! your power 70 refuse or accept his tes-
! timony II II impressed you es truth
! ful or If, on the other hand, II Inn
| pressed you as untruthful, consider II
II il does not impress you as truthful
you must hold it untruthful, and you
! must acQuit.
In view OF the environments OF this
| man. In view of all the circumstances
! IL is for you and your minds to decide
| on the truth Of this mans testimony
| You are the supreme power IN Judging
| his testimony, and YOU are the ones 10
| give the last the final words.
! II has been said that Rosenthal, because
| OF certain traits OF character, had aroused
! the gamblers and that the gamblers killed
| him In considering that argument there
are questions which suggest themselves
/ ] instruct YOU that # Rose, Weber or any
other persons were so antagonistiC as TO
I threaten death 10 that man that does not
! excuse Becker. If a combination or con-
/ spiraCy for murder exists. and stranger
| creates IL for MS own purpose, he becomes
! its principal
| Reference has teen made here as to
! wherever direct proof can be obtainable.
| and in such a case motive becomes very
/ small fact
| Hc~e the prosecution claims 10 have
| direct testimony Of the relations Of the
| defendant with Rose and Rosenthal ana
| his direct connection with the murder.
The motive which = alleged in the case
| is the apprehcn'ion Of exposure. A lieu
| tenant OF police, commanding a special
squad for the su, preston OF gambling
was placed I'm a rCCuiia" position. The
| dread OF exposure Ct his connection with
/ q gambling house and with gamblers fur
! nished the motive for the homicide.
II is evident that he entered in part.
nership with Rosenthal; that because OF
Becker's orders from his superiors, he
claims he made raid.
The prosecution claims he asked Rosen
thai to stand for II, in order that Becker
could retain his position, and that the
| raid was eventually framed
1t is alleged that the gambler became
] FESTIVE, refused TO be raided. and feeling
| that the raid was a breach Of faith on the
| part of Becker, determined to give TO the
public the situation I'm the gambling
| world He determined 10 give 10 the pub
| lie the relationship Of the police TO the
| gamblers on the line Of protection. The
! District Attorney had announced his in
| tention to call Rosenthal before the grand
| jury. The defendant. recognizing his
| perilous position and the elimination OF
matters, wanted to kill Rosenthal and
| still his voice so that ne could retain his
| position on the police force.
Acting under that motive, he re.
sorted to what is known in this city as
qangmen. Tho evidence Is that he used
| Rose as an instrument TO secure the in.
struments, and commit the crime. The
evidence shows that the sanesters were
| paid by Rose for the commission OF the
crime. When you remember all these
circumstances and have ia your mind
the narrative Of them you have the
| case clear.
| The defence has made certain conten-
tons concerning the case OF the prosecu-
| ton
The term "circumstantial evidence" II
frequently misunderstood Evidence may
| be divided into two heads-direct or cir
| cumstantial. Direct evidence is that or
eye witnesses, circumstantial evidence ls
! evidence that is not seen by any eve Wit
| ness but consists OF facts or circun-
stances that happen and which are be-
lieved to have a bearing upon the case.
| II is the evidence that Is practically
| Furnished by Inference.
Justice Gof then read several extracts
from law defining circumstantisl evidence
and It's weight in determining a case.
| Continuing, he said:
| Counsel for the defendant has handed
me some charges There are ia OF them
and they reached me last night after the
| adjournment OF court. II would be i'm
1
| on some OF them that l have allowed.
Justice Goff then charged that the bur
] den OF proof was upon the people that
specific intent for the killing Of Rosen-
| thai must be established beyond a reason
able doubt or the defendant must be ac-
| ouitted He then charged them on the tes-
timony Of WALTON and Schepps, saying their
| motive must be considered. He charged
| them that a suspicion the defendant
was guilty was not SUFFICIENT: that because
| the defendant was frequently in confer
ence with the men was not sufficient 10
| convict; that IL three or more accomplices
testified against the defendant IL required
the same Confederation as II only one
testified. other charges were made to the
| Jury on similar lines as requested by MI
| Hart In all the court charged on ony
| twenty-five OF the IA requested, the
| others being ruled out.
Justice Con then spoke Of the character
witnesses for the defence, saying the de-
PENDANT was a police officer and his duty
was to maintain peace and preserve order'
He said a good character was no excuse
| for the commission OF crime
Gives No Personal Opinion.
| In charging on one OF the requests oil
the defence, that the case be decided On
! evidence and not on any arguments or
opinions expressed by the court or coun-
sci, the justice said he would do So add
ing that he had not personally expressed
any opinion.
1t is for you. gentlemen of the jury
10 decide If you have thought have
expressed the slightest opinion of the quit
| or innocence of this defendant, 1 ask you
| to dismiss II from your mind"
| He then ended as follows:
There is one more thing and am zone;
/ 7 have Instructed you as TO the rights OF