The Waterbury Democrat., 1939-08-12

case. The sort of questions which a Grand Jury decides are quite differ ent from those which a trial jury such as you has to decide, and in any event, every accused person Is presumed to be innocent, irrespec- tive of what Grand Jury may do about him. In the same way, the fact that the special states attorney was appointed in this matter and the fact that he has decided to file an information charging the defen- dants with crime and proceed with the trial should have no weight with you in passing on the guilt or inno- cence of these defendants. Such an information is not evidence. It is only an accusation. In short, so far as you are concerned, each of the accused is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged against him until the evidence produced before you here in court satisfies you of his guilt.
 From the fact that 8 man is pre- sumed to be innocent, the next prin- cipal follow, namely, that the bur- den of proof is upon the state. That is to say, it is incumbent upon the State to carry the burden of prov ing its case in all its essential ele- ments before a verdict of guilty may be rendered. The accused has no burden to prove that he is not guilty. It is not necessary for him to prove that he is innocent. Some- times, 1t is true, we speak of de- lenses by the accused. We do not mean by that, however, that any burden rests upon an accused to es- tablish affir1natively any defense. All we mean is that in such so- called defenses he advances certain reasons why he claims the state has not maintained its burden of proving his guilt.
 The third principal which is ap- plicable to all criminal cases is that, before tine jury may render 8 verdict of guilty, the state must prove every essential element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. This phrase, reasonable doubt, has no technical or unusual meaning. You get the real meaning of the phrase if you emphasize the word reasonable" A reasonable doubt Is a doubt for which a valid reason can be assigned. It is a doubt which is something more than @ guess or sur1nise. A reasonable doubt is not such 8 doubt as is raised by one who questions simply for the sake of argument. It is not a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel which is not warranted by the evidence. A reasonable doubt is a real doubt; an honest doubt; a doubt which has its foundation in the evidence offered in the case, or in the absence of evidence. It Is such doubt as, in affairs which concern yourselves; that is, serous affairs, you would pay some heed to Absolute certainty in the affairs oi life is almost never attainable, and the law does not require absolute certainty on the part of a jury be- fore 1t returns verdict of guilty What the law does require, how. ever. is that if, after hearing al of the evidence, there is something in that evidence or lack of evidence which leaves in the minds of thu /! jury, as reasonable men, 8 reasona. ble doubt of the guilt of the accus. ed, then the accused must be giver the benefit of the doubt and ac. quilted.
 /: To summarize 1t all briefly: The , jury is not to return a verdict ol guilty of any crime as to any of the essential clements of which there exists a reasonable doubt, but 1t is ] bound to return a verdict of guilty of any crime charged when 1t is sat. istied beyond a reasonable doubt {, that all of the essential clements o1 that crime have been proved to ex- ist. And let me say that whenever in this charge, I have said or will say in substance that the State must prove the existence of suct and such fact or element, or that you must be satisfied as to suci and such a fact or element, I will mean proved beyond 8 reasonabl, doubt, or satisfied beyond a reasona' ble doubt.
 Another general principle of lav which applies in nearly every crim
 inal case and certainly applies 1, this case is that, in order to be gull
 ty of crime a person must have {
 criminal intent or guilty knowledge This means that before a mal should be found guilty of a crime
 1t must appear and be found be yond Q reasonable doubt that in do
 ing the acts complained of he ha.
 a guilty mind or, as 1t is sometime
 stated, an intent to do evil. If, i
 doing the act complained of, h
 has no evil intent, he is not guilt
 of crime.
 For instance, if e man is honestl
 mistaken as to the existence of cer
 tain facts-if without gross negli
 gence on his part he honestly be
 lieves that certain facts exist tn
 act charged against him would ap
 pear to be entirely moral, then tn
 act with which he is charged is nc
 a crime even though it would be i'm
 moral in the light of the true fact
 There, you see, the act charged
 not a crime, because the man com
 hitting the act. had no evil inten
 Tn the same way, if the accused ha
 done the act complained of accl
 dentally, the act is not . crime be
 cause 1t was not done with an ev
 intent.
 ! RUBBISH FIRE