Evening star., 1932-01-12
Fair Trial Pledged in Massie Case


reach your conclusions herein solely
upon the basis of the evidence adduced
in this trial and upon the law applicable
thereto as set forth in these instruc-
items.
"I instruct you that, if you shall
find as a fact and beyond reasonable
doubt that the complaining witness
promptly after the alleged crime made
complaint either to the police or to
other persons, that Is competent evi-
dence for you to consider as affecting
the credibility of the testimony of the
complainant.
"I further instruct you that, in cases
of this nature, it is not essential that
the complaining witness should be cor
roborated by the testimony of other
eyewitnesses as to the particular act
constituting the offense. And If the
jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt
from the testimony of the complaining
witness and by other facts and cir
cumstances testified to by other wit
nesses, that the defendants did commit
the offense as charged, then you should
find the defendants guilty as charged.
You are instructed that you have
no right to disregard the testimony of
the defendants, merely on the ground
that they are defendants and stand
charged with the commission of a.
crime. The law allows defendant to
testify in his own behalf, and you
should apply to such testimony the
tests given you in these instructions
with reference to the credibility Of wit
nesseS.
Rights Explained.
ST instruct you that a defendant In
any criminal proceeding may give evi-
dence on his own behalf, and there
upon be subject to crosS-examination
in like manner as any othe- witness,
but in case any such person shall
neglect or decline to offer himself as
witness no inference shall be drawn
prejudicial to such accused by reason
of such neglect OF refusal, nor shall
any argument be permitted tending to
injure the defense of such accused per-
son on account of such failure to offer
himself as a witness.
Certain witnesses have been called
by both the prosecution and the de-
fense to testify as to prior statements
of other witnesses different from the
testimony of such witnesses in court.
If you find that certain witnesses have
made prior statements different from
their testimony here in court, you may
consider such statements in weighing
the testimony given by such witnesses
in court, but such statements are not
of themselves evidence in the case.
That is to say, prior inconsistent state
ments may diScredit the testimony OF
a witness, but they do not prove or dis
prove the truth of such statements
themselves.
"The court further instructs you gen.
tlemen Of the jury, that you are the ey-
elusive judges of the credibility of the
witnesses, of the weight of the eV-
dence, and Of the facts in this case. 1t
is your exclusive right to determine
from the appearance of the witnesses on
the witness stand, their manner of tes-
tifying, their apparent candor or frank
ness. or lack thereof, which witness or
witnesses are more worthy of credit,
and to give weight accordingly.
Demeanor Counts.
ain determining the weight to be
given the testimony of the witnesses,
you are authorized to consider their
relationship to the parties if any; their
interest, If any, in the result Of this
case; their temper, feeling or bias, If
any has been shown; their demeanor on
the witness stand, their means and op-
portunity Of information, and the prob
ability or improbability of the story told
by them.
eff you find and believe from the evi-
dence that any witness in this case has
knowingly and fully sworn falsely to
any material fact in this trial or that
any witness has knowingly and wilfully
exaggerated or suppressed any material
fact or circumstance in this trial for
the purpose of deceiving, misleading or
irnnncinU thaT1 houa
right to reject the entire testimony of
such witness, except in so far as the
same Is corroborated by other credit
able evidence or believed by you to be
true.
II further instruct you that the
burden of proof is upon the Territory;
and the law, Independent Of the eVi-
dence, preSumeS the defendant to be
innocent, and this presumption contin-
ueS and attends him at every stage of
the case until 1t has been overcome by
evidence which proves him guilty to
your satisfaction and beyond reason
able doubt And in this connection,
instruct you that the doubt which will
entitle the defendant to an acquittal
must be reasonable doubt, not a con-
Jured up doubt, such a doubt as you
might conjure up to acquit friend, but
q doubt that you could give reason
for.
Cites Real Question.
"a reasonable doubt is not possible
doubt, not a conjectural doubt, not an
doubt, not doubt of the ab-
solute certainty of the guilt of the ac-
cused, because everything relating to
human affairs and depending upon
moral evidence is open to conjectural
or imaginary doubt, and because abso-
lutte certainty is not required by law
'The real question is whether after
hearing the evidence and from the evil
dence, you have or have not an abiding
belief, amounting to a moral certainty,
that the defendant is guilty; and if you
have such belief so formed, it Is your
duty to convict, and if you have not
such belief so formed, it is your duty
to acquit. You should take all the tes-
timony and all the circumstances into
account and act as you have such abid-
ing belief the fact is.
IT further instruct you that you may |