The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-12
Jury Advised To Look Carefully at estimony
(Continued from Page D

rom Page D
 the sate's claim is correct what is known in the law as accomplices, and under the law an accomplice who testifies Is in @ somewhat dif- ferent position from other wit nesses. It used to be the rule that 8 jury could never accept the tes- timony of an accomplice unless 1t was supported or corroborated by other testimony in the case. That, however, is not the rule in this state today. It no longer is absolute ly necessary that the testimony of an accomplice be corroborated before it is accepted as true by the jury. However, in weighing the testimony of an accomplice it must be borne in mind that he is a self-confessed criminal, and, everything else being equal, you would not believe the testimony of man who has com mitted 8 crime involving moral turpitude as readily as you would that of a man of good character. Also, when you are listening to the testimony of a self-confessed &C., complice who has not yet been sentenced, you are entitled to bear in mind the possibility that he may, in his own mind, be looking for or hoping for some fsvors in the dis position of his own case, and that, therefore. he may have such an interest in the outcome of the case on trial that his testimony may have been colored by that. For those reasous. the law now is that the jury must look with particular care at the testimony of an accomplice and scrutinize 1t very carefully be- fore they accept 1t. Indeed, in most cases 1t would be unsafe to rely upon the testimony of an ac- complice alone which was uncor- roborated. But whether the jury, in any particular case, requires cor- roboraton before :t accepts the testi- mony of an accomplice, and if the jury does require corroboration, the amount of c.orroboration which 1t requires, rests entirely in the sound judgment of the jury.
 Incidentally, 1t is contended by the defense that the witness Purcell himself is an accomnlice. This, of course, the state does not agree to-. If on all of the evidence you should find that Purcell himself was at any time Q member of the conspiracy. that is, if you should find that he concealed any of the acts of the conspirators in aid of the con- spiracy, then if you find that, you have found that he was an accom-. plice and what I have said with ref- erence to the testimony of accom- plices applies to his testimony. Of course, if you do not find that Pur- cell was an accompiicc, his testi- mony is to be taken on the same basis as that of any other witness. There Is one more thing which oc- CUTS to me to say to you as bearing upon your function of deciding the facts of the case. It is this. None of the defendants whom you now have in charge except Alderman, Kingsley and Meany took the stand to testify. Under the Constitution no person accused of crime may be compelled to testify, and under the law as 1t is today an accused per- son may either testify or not, as he sees 1t. In considering the ques- ton of the guilt or innocence of an accused person, however, the jury may take into consideration the fact that the accused did not testify and thereby, among other things, sub- init himself to cross-examination. From the fact that the accused has either neglected or refused to testify, the jury may draw any inference as to his guilt which is reasonable un- der the circumstances. In doing so, however, the jury should bear in mind, that, as I will explain to you in a moment, no burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused is on the state. And in case like this, where there are sev- eral accused, no inference against anyone may be drawn from the fail- ure of the others to testify. If one of several accused who are being tried together fails to testify, that fact may be taken into considera. ton by the jury and any inference as to his guilt or innocence which is reasonable may be drawn there. from by the jury, but no inferenct as to the guilt of the other accused raay be drawn, because of course one accused cannot compel another accused to testify.
 Now there are three principles ol law which are applicable to al criminal cases, and, of course. art applicable to this case. The first | what Is called the doctrine of thu presumption of innocence. The sec. ond is the doctrine that the burder of proof is upon the state. and thu third is the rule that the stat. must prove its case beyond Q req sonable doubt before a verdict O. guilty can be brought in.
 The doctrine of the presumption of innocence. in 6 few words, is tha
 the accused is presumed to be inno. cent until his guilt Is established That Is, at the time this trial started the accused appeared before yol with . clean slate. Nothing whicf you might have known or stirmiset about any os them, if there were an, such, may be considered by you iz arriving at your verdict.
 For instance. 1t is no part of thu evidence in this case that ( Grand Jury made any finding or repor with reference Co this eases but, h