Reading Time: 3 minutes [337 words]

EDWARD D. WORRELL. oT

the ease made by the prosecution, and to shadow forth the
grounds of the defense.

The defense will be embraced under two general heads:

I. I shall consider first (on the supposition that Worrell
is to be treated as a responsible being—a rational creature,
having control over his action—a man, amenable to hia Maker
and to government) whether the State haa proved the
charges against him as they are set forth in the indictment.
‘We have in Missouri two kinds of murder—one takes life, the
other only liberty. Has the proof affected the prisoner with
the Killing of Gordon? Has the circumstantial evidence ex-
eluded every hypothesis but his guiltf May all that has been
proved be true—and yet Worrell not kill the deceased? If
so, the circumstantial evidence is insufficient for conviction.
There is no positive evidence in the cause—all is ecircumstan-
tial. No human being, from the proof, knows the cireum-
stances under which Gordon came to his death. We have to
reach conclusions from circumstances only, and they are in-
safficient to establish the fact that Worrell killed Gordon.
Every fact proved may be true—and yet Worrell may not
have killed him. This is the legal text of insufficiency. It is
an indispensable legal quality of circumstantial evidence,
that the supposition of the guilt it seeks to establish is the
only thing that can explain the facts proved. It is not my
purpose now to analyze the testimony offered; but in spite
of what has been said by way of estoppel of the defense, by
my friend, Mr. Coalter (who comes into this tribunal as the
employed agent and representative of the friends of the de-
ceased), to him, to the worthy officer of the law, Mr. Gale—
to my other excellent friend, Mr. Bay, whose position is not
defined, whether adjunct representative of the friends of the
deceased, railroad attorney or patriotic volunteer—to ail
this array, I present propositions of law and fact, touching
their case which may demand their joint attention. In the
beginning you were told, by Mr. Coalter, that the killing of
Gordon by the defendant would not be denied. This was
before the proof. Now after the State has exhausted its evi-

Related Posts