|
52
AdU. The man who testifies to blood spots maybe mistaken, or may lie, and
the same So to any other facto,
Here then is the opening for an accumulation of error. We are always
drawing incorrect conclusions fromo
circumstances, an great is the number of innocent persons who have fallen
under such. conclusions.
There was he case of the uncle convicted and executed for the murder of his
niece. There the circum-
stances relied on were true. She was heard to cry out, " uncle don't kill
me." She disappeared ; was not
seen after that night. Inquiry was made, and he procured another girl of
similar appearance to personate
hsr, and thus turn away suspicion. This was fraud and was exposed, and. an
inference of guilt drawn from
it. But in the course of time the niece returned, and it then appeared that
she originally Red from her uncle,
to escape the chastisements he was in the habit of inflicting. So the rule
of law is t hat he who is found in
possession of stolen property shall account for it; and under that rule an
innocent man was executed. A
thief who had stolen a horse and was pursued, asked a countryman whom he
overtook on the road to take
charge of .it for him for a short time. He then fled the owner came up,
found the horse in possession of the
countryman, had him arrested, and he was convicted by a false inference
from circumstances. The expres-
sion is often used that circumstances cannot lie. This, so far from being
true, is totally false as a general
rule. In the original instance it was probably correct, and in consequence
had arisen almost to the dignity
of a proverb. But even if circumstances cannot lie, he witnesses hvho make
them out may lie, or at least
be mistaken.
Best, in his work on Presumptions of Law, comments on the dictum. He
expresses= that juries
should have been told from the bench, even in capital cases, that
circumstances cannot lie, and that they might
convict upon the violent presumption raised by them ; but, says be,
circumstances are not safe ground for
presumption of guilt so long as witnesses or documents may lie.
Circumstances do lie. They lied where a
servant, by means of a false key, put some stolen articles in a fellow
servant's trunk, and upon search they
were found there, and the innocent servant was convicted. Then there was a
murder fixed upon an inno-
cent man who had a quarrel with another. His knife was found by the slain
man, and the print of shoe&
going to and from the spot, and blood was found upon them. But yet, it
subsequently appeared that the
act was done by another, who used the other's knife and shoes, purposely
intending to involve him in the
suspicion, well knowing that a previous quarrel would clinch it. The
circumstances were there, but yet the
inference was fatally erroneous.
There was a tendency to exaggerate unimportant circumstances, both on the
part of witnesses and jurors.
There was both pride and vanity in wishing to be supposed capale of drawing
shrewd and sagacious con-
clusions from isolated facts. Then again there were constant attempts to
prove circumstances by circum-
stances. Here was danger upon danger. Weakness of psaof upon weakness of
proof: The court would
no doubt call the attention of the jury to the danger, and instruct them in
relation to it.
The first, the great rule of circumstantial evidence was this:-that every
circumstance relied on, must in
itself be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt; that is, after all the
evidence is in, for and against, he jaryp
must find each circumstance reliedon, clearly proved beyond reasonable
doubt. hus, in the present tsial,
the government bad undertaken to anchor their ease by a ehain of
circumstances; but if one link breaks,
the case falls. The circumstances proved must establish to a moral
certainty the fact intended to be prov-
ed. They must not only be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but also the
inference to be drawn from it,
or the byTothesis to be established. They must not only support that
hypothesis, but they must support no
other. They must exclude any and all hypotheses. There was much danger of
mistaking this position of
the law.
Most of the errors of the law have arisen from disregarding or not
intelligently applying the rule. They
must be such as to exclude, to a moral certainty, every hypothesis other
than that of the guilt of the ao-
eased. It is absolutely necessary to consider whether some other reasonable
hypothesis may not lie sustain-
ed by the circumstances. But before arriving at that question it was
necessary to be morally certain that
none of the circumstances relied on had been fabricatea, or otherwise
insufficiently proved.
He had still another fatal case, where a false inference had been drawn
from circumstances which were
true. A girl was tried for the murder of her mistress. The killing was
proved, and the question was by
whom! The only person in the house that night was the servant girl, and it
was clar that no one could have
got access to the house by any of the doors or lower windows, or had let
the house by them. The girl was eon-
victed and executed, but it was subsequently proved that he house was
entered by robbers, who committedz
the deed. The house was situated in a very narrow street, and by means of a
board the robbers passed
across from the upper window of the opposite building to a window in the
house in which the murder was
oommitfted. Here the jury did not stop to consider that notwithstanding the
doors and windows below
wore closed, the house might still be entered in another manner. The
circumstances did not exclude every
oth r reasonable hypothesis but the one adapted.
here ia, then, great danger in drawing absolute inferences even fnom
circumstances proved beyond a
doubt. The rule of absolute ?a;olusion should be strictly applied to the
case at the bar. The government
had presented one great liasiy of oircumstautial proof to surround the
defendant and crush him by its weight.
What wave the jury called upon to determine upon the evidence presented I'
First, that Dr. harkman had
come to his death by violence. Second, that the defendant committed that
violence. The first division of
the inquiry wss, what evidence w~ there of the death by violence ? The
government rely upon an estab-
lished tact, that he went into the 1~Iedieal College. That is admitted.
13at they go farther, and claim
tkat because he was not seen to come out, and has not been found after the
offer of rewards and diligent
search, that he never did come out, but came to a violent death within its
walls. The second division is,
that because he was known to be there with Dr. Webster, the violence must
have been committed by him.
That is their inference. Here is a want of clear proof. It does not follow,
that because he was not seen
to come out, that he did not come out. This is one of those dangerous
inferences which have proved so fa-
tal in other cases. But they go to the identity of the body, which rests
solely upon the identity of the teeth.
But when it comes to be shown that there was no great peculiarity in the
teeth, there wild appear to be
nothing great in that circumstance; nothing safe to act upon. And it will
not be pretended that they have
any other proof of identity. This, is, the view of the evidence as it now
stands; but, how will it be whem
rendered still more uncertain .by evidence yet to be introduced ?
Remember, the inference is not to be drawn until the evidence is all in;
that for the defence as well as
that for the government. , Then will be the time to think of conclusion.
hen will be the time to say that
the circumstances are all proved, every one of them, and that they exclude
every other hypothesis them
that set ap by the government. erhaps.it may be made to appear that the
facts will be found quite as
reconcilable with the hypothesis of his innocence, if not better than his
guilt.
Mr. Sohier now proceeded with the heads under which he expected to
introduce evidence. He said it was
|
