Reading Time: 3 minutes [372 words]

88 X. AMERICAN STATE TRIALS.

Now, jurors, let us inquire if every possible hypothesis
but the one sought to be proved is satisfactorily negatived
in this case. Gordon died from a single shot wound in the
head; it was in the back part of the head. If the locality
of the wound excludes the hypothesis of suicide the wound
itself exeludes the hypothesis of two actora. There
was but one shot; that shot might have been accidental. There
may have been by the person who shot no intention to kill
at the time of the shot. All that is proved may have been the
result of afterthought. The idea of appropriating the prop-
erty of the dead may have arisen after the accidental death and
led to the hiding of the body and every subsequent step. Re-
member, the State assumes that two horses had already been
appropriated and one of them sold the day previous. If a
man had been found dead on the road, his horse near him and
his watch on his person, the State has gone far to satisfy ua
that the property would have been taken. You see that the
hypothesis of death by the accidental discharge of a pistel in
the hands of either Bruff or Worrell and the subsequent ap-
propriation of the property of Gordon, will explain all the
circumstantial evidence in the cause. You do not know
whether the shot was intentional or accidental. You can’t
Know. You are reasoning to find ont by deductions from
what you do know how the fact was. You are reasoning on
circumstantial evidence. ‘The fourth rule tells you, as is
told the jury in the ease of the girl, that every hypothesis,
but the one sought to be proved, must be exeluded to a moral
eertainty before you can convict. How can you exclude to
a moral certainty the bypothesis of an accidental shot and
subsequent appropriation of the property? It explains the
evidence and establishes guilt (if Worrell can be held respon-
sible), but not the guilt of murder.

I stop a moment, jurora, here, to ask what you will say to
this hypothesis, the hypothesis of an accidental shot and a
subsequent appropriation of the property? You tell me it
is not 80 probable as that the shot was intentional. You tell
me ‘‘an intentional shot is much the best solution of the
cireumstances.’”? Granted! Be it so! But what then? Aro

Related Posts