Year: 1876

exclude every reasonable hypothesis, but
that of his guilt of the offense imputed
to him, or in other words the facts prov
ed must be all consistent
with and point to his guilt only,
but they must not be inconsistent
with his innocence-lf the evidence can
be reconciled either with the theory OF
innocence or guilt, the law requiring the
Jury to give the accused the benefit oi
the doubt and to adopt the former. The
burden of proof does not shift IN criminal
cases, it falls on the prosecution to estab'
lish the defendants guilt by the
evidence and in criminal cases the de-
fendant not being permitted to testify
cannot be called upon to explain Or pro
duce any proof until the prosecution by
the evidence it actually produces estab'
fishes the defendants guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. The defendant by the
policy Of our law cannot be compelled
nor permitted to testify. AS substitute
for this deprivation the law clothes the
defendant with presumption
of innocence which attends and
pEOttCLS ~ 10 OfClSOhO W hSS-
timony which proves his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt which means that
the evidence of his guilt as charged,
uust be clear, positive and abiding, fully
satisfying the minds and conscience OF
the jury. 1t is not sufficient in a crimin-
al case to justify verdict of guilty that
there may be strong suspicion, or even
strong probabilities of guilt, nor as in
civil case n p.eponderance Of evidence in
favor of the truth of the charge against the
defendant, but what the law requires is
proof by legal and credltable evidence
of such nature that when it is all con-
sldered by the jury, giving 10 it its
natural effect, they feel. when they
have weighed and considered it all, q
clear, undoubting and entirely satsfac-
tory conviction of the defendants guilt
This, and this only, Is required. If thus
proved, the jury should convict, but ii
not, they should acquit,


We trust, gentlemen, it is unnecessary
to remind you that neither partisan feel
ing or outside views should have the
slightest influence on your minds as
Jurors. In every FREQ government it i.
not only the right but the duty of every
citizen to form and express on all suita-
BILE occasions his convictions and
opinions as to governmental policies
and party organizations. 1t is meet and
proper for him to join such party as
most nearly accord with his views, bu!
such views and party associations should
remain entirely outside OF the jury box.
No popular or partisan clamors, no ex-
traneous wishes or consideration, or
thoughts other than which pertain to
strictly impartial justice, can be permit
ted to invade the sanctity of the jury
room, or bias. or warp, or even shade
its deliberations, without the des-
truction of the safe guard Of life liber-
ty and property furnished through
trials by Jury. 1t has been often and
forcibly said that SO long as trials by
jury retain their full force, impartislity
and purity, the liberty and rights of the
citizen are alike safe against despotism
and anarchy. IT popular clanor usurps
the Judgment seat, the era of Ma-ats and
Robespi will return and frenZied





factions will sweep away all justice
and right. So will justice be gradually
undermined, if outside influences are
suffered inslduously to enter within that
threshold, where nought should be
known, save the sworn evidence in the
case and the rules of law as pronounced
by The Court rule, which the experience
and wisdom of ages have demonstrated
to be essential to the ascertsnment
of truth. 1t will be sad and shameful
day for this country when courts and
juries, having lost their Independence,
will lit simply to register the verdict OF
popular opinion, to acquit this man or
convict that one. Thus we commit this
case, with all It's issues, TO your decision,
and NAV the Good Father of us all give
you the light to see and the grace to dis
charge your duty.