The Winslow mail., 1923-03-02
JUDGE BLFDSOE'S INSTRUCTIONS
TO FEDERAL JURY IN TRIAL


testimony in proof of chain of cir
cumstances pointing sufficiently
strong to the commission of the
crime by the defendant, and which is
known as circumstantial evidence.
That is the sort of evidence upon
which the Government relies in this
case. Such evidence may consist of
admissions by the defendants, plans
laid for the commission of the crime;
in short, any acts, declarations, or
circumstances admitted in evidence
tending to connect the defendants
with the commission of the crime.
Where the evidence is entirely cir
cumstantial, yet is not only consistent
with the guilt of the defendant but in
consistent with any other rational
conclusion, the law makes it the duty
OF the jury to convict.
The law, out of its humanity and be
nignity no less than it's wisdom, pre-
sumes a defendant charged with crime
to be innocent until he shall have
been proven guilty beyond a reason
able doubt, and this is merely a state
ment in another form, and applicable
to criminal trials particularly, of the
general rule that man, in the alb
sence of other information is presum-
ed to do or to have done that which it
bis his duty under the law to do or to
have done; and this presumption OF
innocence remains with the defendant
and of itself avail to acquit him un-
less it be overcome by proof of his
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and
if you can reconcile the evidence be-
fnr
thesis consistent with the defendants
innocence you should do so, and in
that case find the defendant not gull
ty. So also, if the evidence relating
to any circumstances or set of Cir
cumstances is, in view of all of the
evidence, reasonably susceptible of
two interpretations, one of which
would point to a defendants guilt and
tho other of which would admit of his
innocence, then it is your duty in con-
sidering such evidence to adopt the
Interpretation which will admit of the
defendants innocence, and therefore,
vote to acquit him.
You are further instructed that
reasonable doubt is doubt based on
reason and which is reasonable in
view of all of the evidence. And if
after an impartial comparison and
consideration of all Of the evidence,
Or from a want of sufficient evidence
on behalf of the Government to envin-
ce you of the truth of the charge, you
can candidly say that you are not sat
isfed ,.of the defendants guilt, you
have reasonable doubt with respect
to such defendant and you should ac-
quit him; but if, after such impartial
comparison and consideration of all
the evidence, you can truthfully say
that you have an abiding conviction of
the defendants guilt, such as you
would be willing to act upon in the
more weighty and important matters
relating to your own affairs, then you
have no reasonable doubt, and with
respect to such defendant you should
convict him.
By such reasonable doubt you are
not to understand that all doubt is to
be excluded. 1t is impossible in the
determination of these questions to be
absolutely certain. You were not out
there in Needles during the month of
August, and if you had been you
could not then nor can you now read
the minds of these men, or know why
they acted as they did act out there.
You are required to decide the ques-
tion submitted to you upon the strong
probabilities of the case, and to justify
a conviction the probabilities must be
so strong as not to exclude all doubt
or possibility of error but as to ex
clude reasonable doubt AS long as
you have reasonable doubt of de-
PENDANTS guilt you may not convict
him.
Then, weighing all the evidence,
you have an abiding conviction and
belief that the defendant is guilty, it
is your duty to convict and no sym
pathy for him or for his family or for
his plight, or even for his cause, juSti-
fies you in seeking for doubts by any
strained or unreasonable construction
or Interpretation of evidence or facts.
The statutes of the United States
under which this prosecution is had
are three in number, substantially.
The first one is the section of the
Penal Code which defined the crime
of which these defendants stand
charged, and is to this effect:
either to commit any offense against
the United States or to defraud the
United States in any manner or for
any purpose, and one or more of such
parties do any act to effect the sub
ject of the conspiracy, each of the
parties to such conspiracy shall be
punished as may be provided by law.
The charge here is not the defraud-
ing of the United States, but the char
ge is the conspiring to commit often
ses against the United States, and the
offenses mentioned are two: One, de-
fined in Section 201 of the Penal Code
of the United States, reads as follows:
Whoever shall knowingly and will
fully obstruct or retard the passage of
the mail, or any carriage, horse, or
driver, car, steamboat, or other con-
veyance or vessel carrying the same"
shall be punished as provided by law.
a section of the law of the United
States that has received a great deal