OCR Text |
Show "GUILTY." That la tJie Verdict of tte Jury in llie Blilfs Case. Motion Fur a Ntw Trial Eatered. Bunds Fixed at $5,000. Fall Ttxt or the Charge. At the rueetiog of the Third district court yesterday mornicg Judge Emereon charged Ibe jury iu the Miles cuae as follows: Gentlcinc?i of the Jury: The defendar.t. John U Miles, is on tril charged with havwe violated a law of the United riiates pn hibiting b'Mray or polvfjamy in the territories or o'.bor pinca "over which the Uuited States has c x i' 1 u si vo jurir diction. The uccaiiar circuinsSanrea RUrround-irg RUrround-irg Iho case, and tbe trial gives to it more than ordinary interest, and have naturally Ci.u;ed Eome cicitt-ment. It will, tborer.ire, be your o?pecil and imperative im-perative duty to guard your minds ligint any uud ail outside influence, ai.d Lo try this case as calmly anddi&pns-sionately anddi&pns-sionately as ycu would any otcer, and to decide according to the evidence as produced pro-duced in open court, applying tt the facts the law as given you by the court, uninfluenced by any bias or prejudice rtpaio&t or sympathy for the defendant. Divest your minds, therefore, of any f-elirg and prejudice which may prevent vou from carefully and accuratoly weigh ing and giving a true and impartial verdict, ver-dict, just alike to Iho defendant and to government. liy a wise ncd humane provision of the law tbo defendant mutt be regarded cs inrocent until his guilt is established bevo d a rca'ouable doubt, and if tbo proccu'ion fail to establish by this full mefiiuro of proof any of the facta neces ary to constitute the crime charg d Hgainst the defendant, then the law mkes it your duty to give him the bt-nciit tf that doubt and acquit him. The law also oiakui you the sole judges of the facts tbo weight of the evidence, and iho credibility of the wUneseea. 1 have said the priionor'i guilt rnu.l bo established beyond a reasonable doubt. An important thing, therefore, fur you to understand is what is meant by a reasonable reason-able doubt, and what amounts to proof beyond a roasonab.e deubt. It is easier perhaps lo undtrtand tois, than it is to dctino it. A roasocabla doubt is such an ono as would arise in tho minds of reasonable rea-sonable men c-n any subject just such men as you nr, who are selected becau-c you are reasonably competent imn to try auch a question. Proof beyond a reasonable reason-able doubt is such as will produce an abidirg conviction iu tho luind to a moral certainty that 1L3 fact exists that is claimed to exist; lht tba tact to bd proved actually exists; such proof as produces an abiding conTiclion ia th mind cf moral certainty ibu the fct exists, to that you t'eel certain thtt it exists; a balauco ot proof is not BUtucient. In a civil case the balance of proof is sufficient. A balance of evidence is that which yculbiok is mo.-t likely to have been the fact; tho way that your mind preponderates upon a question of fact, iht 11-akes out a balance, but that will not answer here; you muit go hyond that. There must not only bo a balance of proof, hut there niuEt be this measure of proof 'which removes all reasonable doubt, all doubt that arises in your minds as reasonable men ai.d produces pro-duces an abiding conviction, to a moral certainly that the facts charged oxist, A juror in a crimin! casoought nott) condemn unl-ss tho evidence ot-cludo3 ot-cludo3 from b:a miod all reason bio doubt, as I hve, explained it, as to the guilt of tho accused. That is, unless ho bo so convinced by tho evidence, no matter mat-ter what the class of the evidence, of the defendant's guilt, that a prudutt man would feel safe lo act upon that conviction convic-tion in matters oflhe highest concern and importancoto his own dearest personal interests. Prcol" beyond a pes-ibility of doubt is uot requireJ. because such proof u-jvor can bo made. Iv is not to bo shown to you that it is not porsible that this respondent re-spondent is innocent, Lo show beyond all possibility of doubt that ho is guilty, bnt it is required of the government to produce pro-duce such evidence that when you look it over as reasonable men, no doubt arises in your mind; that is, no reasonable, fair doubt, as to any fact necessary lo be made out Lo establish tte crime charged upon the respondent. I have been thus particular in stating this to you to impress it upon your minds as the guide by which you are to bo gov- ! erned throughout this whole caso in your investigation ot the facts in controversy. Ko little hs Ixcn said in course of the ti ial and in tho arguments about circumstantial cir-cumstantial evidence, ai.d as to the forco and effect to bo given to such evidence, it is proper that I should sny to you that what circumstances will amount lo prot f cm never ba matter oi general detimtion. Tho legal lost is tbe siillieioi.cy of tho evidence evi-dence to satisfy the understanding and conscience of tho jury. On the oilier band, absolute ineupliysiol ai.d damon-t.ralive damon-t.ralive ceitainly is lo; te-ntnl to proof by circumstance. It is eullieient it they produce moral certainty t the exclusion ot every reasonable doubt, ilvon direct and positive te.timony dues not afford grounds of belief of a higher and superior nature. 1 ho rulo, even in a capital case, is that should the circumstances be sulli-eicni. sulli-eicni. to convince the mind and remove every rational, reftsonsbie doubt, the jmy is b'-und ;o place as much relUnco on Mich tircum-tatico- a! on direct and positive pos-itive prcof, for facts ar.d circumstances cannot lie, but each cf tho circumstances . essential W ihe conclusion should bo fully j eitab'.ishod, in tha same m inner aed to tho same extent as if the whole issue rcsUd upon it. It is sometimes thought and sometimes stated that jun rs in tnis verdict swear: thnt tho pritoner is guihy or not guilty. Tho jury are sworn to n such llnrg. Thfv declare, in rendering a vvrdivl, ihe roiii't of the c m iction of thir minds, Itr.un thi evidence producM, Having previously sworn to give a truo verdict 1 according lo iho evidence. I The following special charges, sub- , mitted by the pro; edition, wire slo given : The statute under which the defendant is indicted, ar.d wuich tbo goviT.imer.; charges lie violated, is section rio'J of tho Kcvi;edti:atutesof the United states, and rends as follow;; Section '; Everr rrson havira huj-btd huj-btd or wife liviEK, tho marries aoothor, irhotlior mainoJ or ii. kIo. in t r.-uorj or o:tter r!co cvcr "hi'h iha I aitcd 5;atos have iHu'ivo iurisdiction. is Euiltr of bigny. acd iftall bo i.-jmscoJ bj a uno ol en tcore lha five huclred ao.Iir. a.d by im rriM'ZUcBt lor a terra o; cot mro 'hso fivoyosri; but t his section ;hill no; citcnj lomiyierfon byrca;oa&!acy former ira:- rio wti'J hu'tftnJ rr ti'c b ruir . riase i' ihjeot tcr i.vo !ac:(!.:;vi jm i,:.(I j n to; knon t ' u;h ro- For. to bi living, c. r 1 le as? icr:. nbr reason of an forn.crmtr-' riiori;chh!' tcoodiiaclvtJ bdecrceuf a ci'tLitttnt court; lo nj per a by r;asco 0' r.y torrter cirr ;iOwticb b8 oe?n prriio-ECc vliJ by de-reo oi c.-ni-p.tnt ccur i 03 1 ho grcut J ol nalhiy Ol tho aii!riic con'.rie:. It bo ohs'Wi-J thit inord'Tto c,i:iv;cl the d-fr.d".r,t of l'ii-3 e-;i:C;e clurf.-d 1.0 p.',:e rriist -h'w: F;iV.-Tn;tl the difen.hr.t, Mile-, hid ;fe iivrj an.'i i:.at that w .fe ws s:-e w;;j in Hi; tntt is ca'lcd K:r.i.y tipon- S"C.ir.il T!;-i h irirg livir g w'fi ho.li!. wr.b;nlhi. UTr,t--iy. nr.i within M;;s Carole O "on. Ar.d if y.-u shou'd t!r, 1 that thso twj pr- p,-s:ti"-is h-w-j bT' pr.-v.,-i L yo:.d a rn r.-bi lij.ibt, ;h -n ar.J in tV. it ce ou; verdict sto.i.d be gu'.ity As h'Vt'o f.-o t-lci, it is ir.curr.hor.l up m ti.e p:. .-v..i jh to p-r.v-'; Fi;st Ir.it i..e .:-!'.:. a:.:. Mi, hvi i i'. ir g v.:''' at t'1 tin-,.' r.e :irri.-J M .-i L'0 i .e ile .: o. i'l.'i t : i. wor.U, t;,.j iri,'ie ion r i- s-v- ;hM. t:? ,1 :rr. i-ar.t i-ar.t had ;v.:.rriMl Mi.-i Kuii'y p.T.ct-r, and that af.crwards, and no matter how soon afterwards, if the next minute, if it was a separate and d:tinct act; and while Emily Spencer was ttiil living and bis wife, he married MiiB Caroline Owen. In order, however, to prove this fid, it is not necessary that the prosecution shou'd prove all the aetu-d marriages by one who was an eye-witness of the ceremony, cere-mony, but proof that the prisoner lias declared himself and has been epuled to be married is all that ii Decessary aud wilt support a conviction. "In all criminal prosecut:on3, the con fessions of a parly, his admissions and acts amountiBg to confessions or admissions admis-sions are not onlv admissable, but ollen the strongest evidence eg linsL him," and this is true in a prosecution for bigamy as well as in every other casa. Mr. Greenleaf, a standard authority, ssys, and I chargo you that it is the iuw : and applicable to this case: "Any rtcogniiion of a person s'-.nding in a given relation lo others is prima facie evidence against the person making such recognition lhat such relation exists, and if thu defendant bas solemnly a-d sei iously admitted the marriage, it will bo received as sufficient pool of the fact," And, flgiin, tho sumo author says the marriagd of ono indicted for bigamy may bo provod ' by Ihe deliberate ad-tnissbn ad-tnissbn uf the prisoner hiimeif." 1 thereforo charge you in ti-is case lliat it is competent for the pro-cu'.ion -to prove tbe marrisgj of ihe de andant lo AlUs Emiiy tipeneer by tho admi:ijn of Lhe dulendant; and if you hud in tlrs case that tho prcsecution hive proven i hid lirst marriage, by tho admission of the defendaLt or otherwise, and that while said fcmily, his wife, was living, he manied Miss Caroline- Owens, limn the p-o;ecution have made out thtir case charged in the indiclmsnt, and your verdict should be guilty. The ubove was modified by (tie court, as follows: "The declarations of the prisoner and the fact that n bas recognized, or reccg-nized reccg-nized and cohabited with the woman allowed to ba his wife, is only evidence evi-dence lending to prove an actual marriage, mar-riage, and it is for you to decide whether the facts proven aro sutlicient to warrant you in rinding that tbe prisoner was in fact marrieJ to llie alleged wife, and unless you so believe you should acquit, although you may believe the prisoner recognized and cohabited wi.h her as his wilo " The fact that the dafer.dant married' Mise Emily Spencer may be proven like any o her fact in tho case, by lhe admissions ad-missions of the defendant or by circum-staniiil circum-staniiil evidence. It is not necessary that it be proven by wiLnessess who were present at tho ceremony. Therefore, in tbis case, if you tind f.om all lhe facts and circumstances proven in lhe oas, and from tbo admission of lhe defendant, or f.-cm eitter, that the defendant, Miles, married tmily tJpcncer, and, while she was yol living and his wife, ho married Carolino Owens, as charged in the indictment, in-dictment, your verdict should be guilty. A legal wife cannot testify against her buabaud, but when it appears in a case lhat iho witness is not a legal wife hut a big-mousor plural wife Uien she may testify against the bigamous husband. And her testimony diould have just as much weight with tho jury as any other witness if tho jury believo her statj-monts statj-monts to ho true. And her evidence may bo taken like the evidence of any otter witness to prove either tho first or the second marriage. And so in ibis case you are at liberty to consider the testimony testi-mony of Miss Caroline Owen if you Dud from all lb evidence in the case Lhat she is a second and plural wife, and give it all the weight you think it entitled to. And may usu it to prove iho first marriage mar-riage alleged, to wit: Tho marrioga of defendant and Emily .Spencer, or any other feet which in youropinion i3 proven by her testimony. In short, she would in lhat case stand like any other witness in tho case and yu miy take her testimony testi-mony if you believe it as you do the testimony testi-mony of any other witness to prove any fact about which sto has tustilied. Following was given at the request of lhe defeuee: Beyond the fact of a valid marriage, tho jury must also lind (rom tho evi dence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that tbe alleged marriago with Emily Spencer, if at all, was the first marriagii, ai.d was entered into prior to the alleged marrisgo with Caroline Owens, otherwise other-wise tho defendant is entitled to a voidict of not guiity. Following ia by the court: Now, gentlemen, 1 have gone over all the points of law lhat 1 now doom applicable ap-plicable lo the cbs3. The facti are entirely en-tirely and Folely with you. Tho entiro responsibility of the case ia now given into your keeping, and probably no words of mine could add to this feeling of responsibility, and I only mention it bo that you will bo careful to do your duly on account of ibis responsibility This is not a government of men, hut a government of laws. What 1 say to you here is because I am required to instruct in-struct you as to the law as applied to the Cftie; that is the part of my duty under tho law of the land. What you do, you do not as men, but as jurors under : the law. The court ha h--en sworn to j administer ihe law si it finds it, and you I should do Iho same Uiing. You iluuld l not shrink from dirg your duty manfully man-fully and carefully. Your duly to iho prisoner requires this. Your duty to lt!o government requires thesama thing You should ba careful to bo right. You need r,ot fer anything except 13 ho wrong. Therefore, you are now to take this c-ise nnd look it ovor with all the care of which you aio pojsesfcd.and bring lo lis consideration tho be:t powers ot mind and tho best judgment you have, with a stern desiro to do your duty in ro-gard ro-gard to it. If you come to the de!er-tai de!er-tai nation that tho respondent is guilty, convict him, and if ho is not guilty, or if yo have reasonable doubt of his guilt, acquit him. The iustruciionB submitted by tbe defense, and asked to be charged to the jury, were rejected by tha court, wilb the above single exception. The de;enie excepted to the charge, and nlan in tliri rplnsal nf lhe onurt In cive the instructions submit led by them. After reading the charge tho jury retired to its room and had only teen ! out a abort time when it returned and i rendered a verdict ol guilty. The 1 members oflhe jury wtro then dig-! dig-! charged. Notice uf a motion for ft I new tri.il wag given, wnicb if to be ; made on Friday, BnJ tbe eetilence was suspended in consequence, lhe district attorney wanted the bil fixed I at $10,000, but thinking it too much, Judge Erncreon et it at $-3,000, The i amount w.ia given and Miles retains i his hteriy. |