Year: 1870

him almost from his childhood down to the present ma
ment have not objected to any etiaehSsb sbect but
in'oS / have enc BEEN Denounced here day ~ day
doing my duty in d SaHs tn ,den mn obliged Ri to do
II he had been fortunate enough to have been secSu @
when he for this office which now ,Tom noh time i S
memorial as private counsel and yet he talks as u y was


to prosecute man who had been gty o aan in


his dying agony in the court Of last resort ny learned Ecu
mnrder"yes for murder Was there anything wrong in
thal No, sir! He had right to do IT, ana & ns @
fayofable to Rogers, and Rogers went To his
death on argument Of the counsel on the other su


show That Ills man has stood in the position that
and nv associate stand In to-day don't object 10 ths
10 tSey gease But what have they shown They attempt
show that this man Is not responsible because ne we
insane when he fired this pistol and gave this fatal shot
eqd question s having exhausted their PROOF on tt
subject have we right to repy HOW uO nhey n,,e


tons acts conduc-oyerythng which came to his knowl
edge and might have helped to create he condo VOL S1
have a right to answer, and In answering ,,, we
have right to show his oonyersat9ns % aDoh amy h
mind Is there any doubt about it Why u the rule con
to defend man accused Of murder to produce what
evidence you can OF his insanity ana the t
cannot It, There Is no such rule Ana wat soIt
Of reply you make to defense Of INSANITY except
to prove that the accused Is not insane AZ shoS oy ms Us
which he alleged to have been insanei was at tho
Mcleod trial and the great question there was whether
the evidence offered repcatory evidence or evidence
the presumption that the prisoner Is sane: they nave
tried show that he was insane and that we nave
right to answer. Judge Gridley did make the decision
by my friend but subsequently two witnesses were
admitted who testified on that very point In taat She
they had to show that the prisoner was present dg
and assisting in the murder They showed an atol on
the other side, and the question argued was wBetn
not that was not substantive fact to be shown at the
outset. II show that this prisoner was sane sy
! ia a complete 10 the case they nave nadr anu
the Jury will say The question II: Is tnIs ~
competent and properi Fit U.s. your Honor VIII SC noo


Mr Graham-My idea of a case Of murder Is conyie,
ton fastened on ths defendant IN the Pes IN Of
all rules Of all deceney of All proprety OF an IN y
full gang behind them and if they can accomplish their
designs they will surely murder this man. Ihere ~ one
o our arglments but our proof through set
of people, don't Of course lncude tne t th o
the stand whom have the highest regardout they


mean to do 1t by set OF people who am satisfied Only
want TO what the prosecution want To prove, 70
have high regard for him, and do not question IN any
way his integrity the purity OF his motives But tho


Recorder Hackett~I have doubt about the rule, but
| / have great doubt about its application here. ,


| Mr. Craham-The only evidence which your Honor can
receive this rule, that which has single effect
II the evidence establishing the sanity OF Mr. Mcfarland
also establishes his guilt 1t must be excluded The ques
ton for this Court is this DO the prosecution say a
s newly acquired T9eh 1r tGey m bey Rc
pretend that this Is case Of excusabe omission or mad
on 3l hre us Tot we az gu
ticians We have drawn out the of the defense and
now we stand ready to crush them " If this evidence
has double effect to throw light the sanity Of the
prisoner and at the same time to impute InaiGe 10 @
be sas 70 Se SeOw other mr ect
showing that he was malicious and intended tSsn to
fsh T. not to b' be- adaitted do not see and speak
got around circumvented The higher you rise In
with all respect how this haowed rule of evidence can
the grade OF responsibility, the more prone and willing
witnesses to commit perjury Its the experience OF
every judge and every lawyer that man Is more ready
10 make light of his conscience where his perjury may
lead to the efluson of blood than in cases cases in IN,
yolying trining consequences Knowing what may
come IL is my duty to stand here and raise this shield
the prisoner and the evidence which may have
overwhelming facts OF this defense so far the prose
cuton batter down this defense OF insanity trust @
Honor will give them the widest scope but IL tey
try to dig down this mountain Of proof 6y getting III
and tend to overwhem the most conscientious Judgment
1t duty to ask your Honor to interpose ana arrest


turned to my valued associate when this prosecution
rested, and SAID "If these men mean rostv taet,eS
to days, in thIs Court prGseeu,pg Z, r.t,as Officers
was familiar with Ogden Hoffman, saw the Late Mr.;
Re tactics %f are nST ow sought to put IN rea


stion against this defendant. know that have become
Court wiz greatly shorten the trial and hasten the time
when this important Issue may be S committed Tite to tins
offered must be purely repcatory II they have any
negative facts TO demosh evidence OF insanity they
admitted This witness IS called to detail con
versation, which is called for by the people, and which
| your Honor has right to limit III the defense nau
called for it, then Honor might probably be entitled
i to rule they desire; but inasmuch as they have
brought it into the your Honor Is bound to exclude
the evidence which they offer every thing not essen-
| tial to sustain the replcaory case.


Recorder HackettIThe question proposed by the Dis
trictAttOrney is did the prisoner tell you thing
about the shooting and, II he did state 1t ~ The coun-
for the defense objects that this evidence should be
given by the prosecution when the opened IT
impossible for the prosecution 10 oresee what would
be tho specific character of this defense. 1t not
known to the Court and assume could not properly be
known any but the counsel for the prisoner. 1t was
therefore, In view, only incumbent the prOsecu
| ton to establish the mere circumstances OF the
killing the bare facts which support the indictment
The law regards all men and the plea Of insanity
| il nterpOsed by the defense. To sustain It, evidence
is adduced by 81 witnesses the greater portion OF
whom have been called TO testify to the acts CONVERSE


ons, and appearance of this prisoner par
tculary the last three III IL be
tent the part the defense to show this mans in
sanity by all these witnesses Is 1t not fair Is II not just
that the prosecution should be permitted To give In evil
| dence conversations had with Others, which, in the
opinion OF the prosecution, would tend to show that this
| mans mind in sound condition, and that he
| actuated only by vengeance would not permit
at this time, evidence such ordered under
ordinary defense of not guilty. but as It's think am
entirely justified, and feel it to DO my duty to admit
| this question, and il il admitted.


An exception noted to this ruling, at Mr. Graharns
request and the Court adjourned until IL o'clock this
| morning.