The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-12

remembered 1t accurately, and who was capable of reporting 1t to you accurately2
 Another question for you to have in mind as regards each witness Is the question as to whether the story he has told you is plausible. Does 1t ring true, or are there in- constituencies in it2 How does 1t fit in with other evidence in the case which you believer Does 1t jibe with that evidence? In short, does the testimony which was given by the particular witness whose credibility you are considering seem to you to be plausible? In this connection, you may also bear in mind that if you should find that any witness has been deliberately falsifying on any one material point in his testimony you are privileged to take that fact into consideration in determining whether he has falsified on other points. Simply because you find that 8 witness has not repeated one fact to you accurately, 1t does not nec- essarily follow that he is wrong on every other point. A witness may be honestly mistaken on one element of his testimony and be entirely ac. curate and correct on the other points. A witness may even be de- liberately falsifying on one point and yet be entirely truthful on all other points. But if you find that a witness has deliberately lied on one material subject it is only natural that you should be suspicious of his testimony on all subjects, and under those circumstances you are entitled to disbelieve his whole testimony. Whether you do disbelieve 1t or not, however, lies in your own sound judgment.
 Another question you may well ask yourselves in passing on the credi- bility of any witness is as to whether that witness has any bias or inter- est in the outcome of the case, and If so, whether he has permitted that bias or interest to color his testi- mony. It of course does not follow simply from the fact that witness does have bias or does have an interest in the outcome of the case that his testimony is to be disbe- lieved. There are many people who, no matter what their interest in the outcome of the case might be, would not testify falsely. On the other hand a jury should always bear in minc that, if g witness has a decided bias or has an interest in the outcome Of the case, that bias or interest offers something of a temptation to shade his testimony in accordance with his bias, or sway him, to advance his own interest It may even be that his bias or interest has so operated on his mind that he has come to believe what he wants to believe and, therefore, he may testify false ly without, at the time, consciously realizing that his testimony is false. It is, therefore, obvious that if 1t should appear, as regards any wit- ness whose credibility you are test- ing, that he has some bias or some interest in the outcome of the case, that fact is one which the jury should take into consideration in weighing the testimony.
 In this connection, perhaps I should mention the fact that some of the accused have seen 1t to testify. Under the law they were not bound to testify. Any of them could testify or not, as he saw it. But, having elected to testify, his testi- mony must be weighed and tested as to credibility in just the same way as that of any other witness. In particular, 1t is obvious, of course, that he has a very vital interest in the outcome of the case, and in weighing his testimony that fact should be taken into consideration by you.
 I ought to say something with special reference to the testimony of Levy, Mackenzie, Williamson, and Horgan. Each of these men, except Williamson, 1t has appeared In evidence, has pleaded guilty Cor nolo contendere which is practical ly the equivalent of guilty. The first thing which I want to say with reference to these men is that the mere fact that each of them has 50 pleaded is no evidence that the oth- CT accused who are on trial are guilty of the crime charged. If Levy or Mckenzie or Horgan had not testified, the fact that they, re- spectively, had pleaded guilty would not have been admitted in evidence. It would not have been relevant on the question of the guilt of the men who are on trial. The only reason for admitting into evidence the fact of the pleas of guilty is that it may have bearing on their credibility as witnesses. Inasmuch as they have become witnesses you were entitled to know that they had pleaded gril- ty and that they had not yet been sentenced, so that you might make such use of these facts as you think warranted in determining how much credence you would give to their testimony. That, however, ts the only purpose for which you may use the knowledge you have that they have pleaded guilty. Except in that way. the fact that these foqr men have pleaded guilty does ndt prove or even tend to prove that aub of the other accused are guilty. \
 The second thing to be said abo,l
 the testimony of Levy, Mackenzit, Williamson, and Morgan Is this: o.a their own testimony each of the5 5e men it is claimed by the sta e. participated in the crime which (is charged against the accused vhc are on trial. They are, therefore, 4 N