Reading Time: 3 minutes [367 words]

LEO M. FRANK. 405

where a man’s character is put in evidence, and in the
course of the investigation any specific act of misconduct is
shown, this does not go before the jury for the purpose of
showing affirmatively thet his character ia bed or that he is
guilty of the offense with which he stands charged, but is to
he considered by the jury only in determining the credibility
and the degree of information possessed by those witnessed
who have testified to his good character.

‘When the defendant has put his character in issue, the
state is allowed to bring witnesses to prove that his general
character is bad, and thereby to disprove the testimony of
those who have stated that it is good. The jury is allowed
to take this testimony, and have the right to consider it along
with all the other evidence introduced on the subject of the
general character of the defendant, and it is for the jury
finally to determine from all the evidence whether his char- .
acter was good or bad. But a defendant is not to be con-
vieted of the crime with whieh he stands charged, even
though, npon a consideration of all the evidence, as to his
character the jury believes that his character is bad unless
from all the other testimony in the ease they believe that he
is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

‘You will, therefore, observe that this is the rule you will
be guided by in determining the effect to be given to the evi-
denee on the subject of the defendant's character. If, after
considering all the evidence pro and con on the subject of the
defendant’s character, you believe that prior to the time of
Mary Phagan’s death he bore a good reputation ‘among those
who knew him, that his general character was good, you will
consider that as one of the facts in the case, and it may be
sufficient to create a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s
guilt, if it so impress your minds and consciences, after con-
sidering it along with all tha other evidence in the case; and
if it does you should give the defendant the benefit of the
doubt and acquit him. However, though you should believe
his general character was good, still if, after giving due
weight to it as one of the facts in the case, you believe from

Related Posts