Reading Time: 3 minutes [370 words]

i

74 YY. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

and premeditation to make it murder in the first degree. This
forms the legal definition of malice: the concurrence of these
states of mind and intention. On hearing this, I suppose your
minds are prepared to investigate an analysis of this case.
If you find there was express malice, you must find the pris-
oner guilty of murder in the first degree. If express malice
be not proved clearly to your minds, you must find in the
second degree. Defendant’s counsel read to you from Whar-
ton to show that intoxieation would reduce the grade of mur-
der to the second degree. It cannot do so. When a murder
is committed for an object, it does not evidence a very insane
man, Intoxication then is no defense when it is ahown that
an object is manifest in the commission of the fatal deed. A
sane man will kill with an object. It may be from prejudice,
or for purposes of robbery or other criminal purpose. An in-
sane person has no object. If whoever killed Gordon had an
object in view, it only tends to show his sanity. Maj. Wright
I admit to be most learned in medical jurisprudence. But
doctors disagree. The two medical witnesses in this ease are
referred to. But the authors of all books on this yet unset-
tled and misunderstood subject are all theorists. Dr. Bas-
sett in his profession seems never to have observed any pat-
ticular effect of epilepsy on the mental faculties. Other phy-
sicians the reverse. Medical men never have agreed. This
is peeuliar to their profession. They do not possess any
fixed unity of views. With them, their systems are all the-
ories, Therefore, I caution you against such learning and
such opinions, delivered here orally or from books. De-
fendant’s counsel will bring in authors most favorable to his
present purpose. There is something peculiar and astonish-
ing in the conduct of this defense. We looked to hear testi-
mony tending to show hereditary insanity—when none such
was proved, the defense suddenly shifted to epilepsy. It is
not for me here to discriminate as to the authors which will
be quoted for the defense. I cannot anticipate them, and
leave that therefore for the counsel who will conclude this on
the part of the State. I then come to two results: First, a
mnurder was committed; second, it was committed by Wor-

Related Posts