Evening star., 1935-10-10
TEXT OF DECISION
SUPPORTS STATE
Weight of Evidence Lies
With Prosecution, Court
Declares.
(Continued From Fourteenth Page)

S81) that there was no foundation
whatever in the testimony for a GER
tain stated assumption of facts.
But on page 1886 the late Justice
Beasley said: 1T has already been
said that it is competent for the
Judge presiding at crime trial to
lay before the jury for their consid-
Grafton his own views and inferences
from the proofs, and that such ex-
presSions, no matter how i'll advised
or erroneous, can be reviewed on
motion for a new trial, but not on a
writ of error, but the defect in this
case is that story is imputed to
this defendant and put in her lips
which she never uttered, and thus a
fact of utmost Importance is, 4y un-
guarded expressions, imported into the
testimony, and the introduction among
the proofs of such foreign admixture
must of necessity be held to constitute
error in law"
Some later cases are Engle VS.. State,
30 Id. 272; State VS.. Simon, II Id 142,
where the comments on the judge
were conspicuously argumentive in
character, and State VS.. Hummer, 73
Id. TIA, where at page 719 the late
Justice Garrison quoted from the
opinion by Chancellor zabriskie in
Castner VS.. Sliker, Supra, and added:
"The notion that it is any part of our
judicial system that the jury, whether
in civil or criminal cases, must be
kept in ignorance of the impression
made by the testimony upon the mind
of the trial judge is absolutely devoid
of foundation. What our judicial sys-
tenn does require is not that jurors
should be kept in ignorance of the i'm
preston made by the testimony upon
the mind of the judge but that they
should be informed that it is their
right and duty to decide for themselves
all disputed questions of fact accord
ing as the weight Of the testimony
appeals to them" Getting several OF the
above cases., and continuing:
In view of these expositions OF the
law, it must be obvious that legal
error cannot be based upon the COM
ments in question, and that even
under the broader scope of the pro-
ceedings before us they cannot be
deemed to be an abuse of judicial
discretion for which a reversal can
be had"
The same ruling was made III the
Supreme Court in Stage VS.. Warady,
II Id. 348, affirmed here on this point
on the opinion Of that court in 78
Id 687.
Rule Held Never Violated by Court.
A number of other cases are cited
In the brief for the State, but we
deem it unnecessary to multiply au-
thorities on a point so concluSively
settled. A careful examination OF the
charge will show that this rule was
never transgressed by the trial Judge.
This whole charge shows signs of
having been prepared with great care
and without waste of words. 1t
pointed out, and properly, features of
the evidence which by the court were
deemed important for their considera-
tion in getting at the facts. He indi-
Gated in some cases his individual
view. but in no case was that view
so placed before the jury as to re-
quire them to consider themselves
controlled by it. On the contrary,
the court was careful at all times
to reserve to them the ultimate deci-
sion on matters Of fact.
The second branch of the Point 10
we deem equally without merit. Two
paragraphs in the charge are quoted
in brief. On the question of circum-
stantial evidence the writer Of the
brief insists that the criterion Of
the proof engendered by circumstan-
tial evidence violates the fundamental
laws of this State and upsets each
legal postulate hitherto imbedded in
our system of criminal jurisprudence.
1t is destructive of the definition Of
reasonable doubt and it imposed upon
the defendant the burden of prac-
tically establishing his innocence to
the satisfaction of the jury"
All that we can say in reply to this
Is that the criticism appears to be
utterly and absolutely unwarranted,
and that the omission of the con-
nected passage of the charge on the
subject Of circumstantial evidence
and of reasonable doubt has caused
some confusion which will readily be
cleared up by reading this portion of
the charge as whole. 1t seems un-
necessary to say anything further on
this point.
Hand Writing Comment
Declared Legitimate.
Point IL is based upon language
of the charge on the subject of ex-
pert evidence respecting the hand
writing of letters claimed to have
been written by defendant. The
language Of the charge is as follows:
"A very important question in the
case is, did the defendant Hauptmann
write the original ransom note found
on the window sill, and the other ran
som notes which followed. Numerous
experts in handwriting have testified,
after exhaustive examination of ran
som letters, and comparison with gen.
uine writings of the defendant that
the defendant Hauptmann wrote every
one Of the ransom notes, and Mr.. Os-
born, senior, said that the conclusion
was irresistible, unanswerable and
overwhelming. On the other hand, the
defendant denies that he wrote them,
and a handwriting expert. called by
him, so testified. And so the fact be-
comes one for your determination. The
weight of the evidence to prove the
genuineness of handwriting is wholly
for the jury"
The sentence beginning numerous
experts" and ending with "overwhelm-
ing" Is selected for specific attack,
which seems to consist Of the PROPOSE
ton that the court unduly and errone-
ously emphasized the value and effect
of the handwriting testimony by re-
ferring to and quoting from the testi-
mony of the elder Mr.. Osborn (here
follows the sentence in question:. We
fail to see in this anything but legiti-
-