Friday, the fifth and last day of the trial, was ushered in by a
tempest of wind and rain, that drove the blinding sheets of sleet
against the court-house windows with the insistence of an icy flail;
while now and then with spasmodic bursts of fury the gale heightened,
rattled the sash, moaned hysterically, like invisible fiends tearing at
the obstacles that barred entrance. So dense was the gloom pervading
the court-room, that every gas jet was burning at ten o'clock, when Mr.
Dunbar rose and took a position close to the jury-box. The gray pallor
of his sternly set face increased his resemblance to a statue of the
Julian type, and he looked rigid as granite, as he turned his brilliant
eyes full of blue fire upon the grave, upturned countenances of the
twelve umpires:
"Gentlemen of the Jury: The sanctity of human life is the foundation on
which society rests, and its preservation is the supreme aim of all
human legislation. Rights of property, of liberty, are merely
conditional, subordinated to the superlative divine right of life.
Labor creates property, law secures liberty, but God alone gives life;
and woe to that tribunal, to those consecrated priests of divine
justice, who, sworn to lay aside passion and prejudice, and to array
themselves in the immaculate robes of a juror's impartiality, yet
profane the loftiest prerogative with which civilized society can
invest mankind, and sacrilegiously extinguish, in the name of justice,
that sacred spark which only Jehovah's fiat kindles. To the same astute
and unchanging race, whose relentless code of jurisprudence demanded
'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life,' we owe the
instructive picture of cautious inquiry, of tender solicitude for the
inviolability of human life, that glows in immortal lustre on the pages
of the 'Mechilti' of the Talmud. In the trial of a Hebrew criminal,
there were 'Lactees,' consisting of two men, one of whom stood at the
door of the court, with a red flag in his hand, and the other sat on a
white horse at some distance on the road that led to execution. Each of
these men cried aloud continually, the name of the suspected criminal,
of the witnesses, and his crime; and vehemently called upon any person
who knew anything in his favor to come forward and testify. Have we,
supercilious braggarts of this age of progress, attained the prudential
wisdom of Sanhedrim?
"The State pays an officer to sift, probe, collect and array the
evidences of crime, with which the criminal is stoned to death; does it
likewise commission and compensate an equally painstaking, lynx-eyed
official whose sole duty is to hunt and proclaim proofs of the
innocence of the accused? The great body of the commonwealth is
committed in revengeful zeal to prosecution; upon whom devolves the
doubly sacred and imperative duty of defence? Are you not here to give
judgment in a cause based on an indictment by a secret tribunal, where
ex parte testimony was alone received, and the voice of defence could
not be heard? The law infers that the keen instinct of
self-preservation will force the accused to secure the strongest
possible legal defenders; and failing in this, the law perfunctorily
assigns counsel to present testimony in defence. Do the scales balance?
"Imagine a race for heavy stakes; the judges tap the bell; three or
four superb thoroughbreds carefully trained on that track, laboriously
groomed, waiting for the signal, spring forward; and when the first
quarter is reached, a belated fifth, handicapped with the knowledge
that he has made a desperately bad start, bounds after them. If by dint
of some superhuman grace vouchsafed, some latent strain, some most
unexpected speed, he nears, overtakes, runs neck and neck, slowly
gains, passes all four and dashes breathless and quivering under the
string, a whole length ahead, the world of spectators shouts the judges
smile, and number five wins the stakes. But was the race fair?
"Is not justice, the beloved goddess of our idolatry, sometimes so
blinded by clouds of argument, and confused by clamor that she fails
indeed to see the dip of the beam? If the accused be guilty and escape
conviction, he still lives; and while it is provided that no one can be
twice put in jeopardy of his life for the same offence, vicious
tendencies impel to renewal of crime, and Nemesis, the retriever of
justice, may yet hunt him down. If the accused be innocent as the
archangels, but suffer conviction and execution, what expiation can
justice offer for judicially slaughtering him? Are the chances even?
"All along the dim vista of the annals of criminal jurisprudence, stand
grim memorials that mark the substitution of innocent victims for
guilty criminals; and they are solemn sign-posts of warning, melancholy
as the whitening bones of perished caravans in desert sands. History
relates, and tradition embalms, a sad incident of the era of the
Council of Ten, when an innocent boy was seized, tried and executed for
the murder of a nobleman, whose real assassin confessed the crime many
years subsequent. In commemoration of the public horror manifested,
when the truth was published, Venice decreed that henceforth a crier
should proclaim in the Tribunal just before a death sentence was
pronounced, 'Ricordatevi del povero Marcolini! remember the poor
Marcolini;' beware of merely circumstantial evidence.
"To another instance I invite your attention. A devoted Scotch father
finding that his own child had contracted an unfortunate attachment to
a man of notoriously bad character, interdicted all communication, and
locked his daughter into a tenement room; the adjoining apartment (with
only a thin partition wall between) being occupied by a neighbor, who
overheard the angry altercation that ensued. He recognized the voices
of father and daughter, and the words 'barbarity,' 'cruelty, 'death,'
were repeatedly heard. The father at last left the room, locking his
child in as a prisoner. After a time, strange noises were heard by the
tenant of the adjoining chamber; suspicion was aroused, a bailiff was
summoned, the door forced open, and there lay the dying girl weltering
in blood, with the fatal knife lying near. She was asked if her father
had caused her sad condition, and she made an affirmative gesture and
expired. At that moment the father returned, and stood stupefied with
horror, which was interpreted as a consciousness of guilt; and this was
corroborated by the fact that his shirt sleeve was sprinkled with
blood. In vain he asserted his innocence, and showed that the blood
stains were the result of a bandage having become untied where he had
bled himself a few days before. The words and groans overheard, the
blood, the affirmation of the dying woman, every damning circumstance
constrained the jury to convict him of the murder. He was hung in
chains, and his body left swinging from the gibbet. The new tenant, who
subsequently rented the room, was ransacking the chamber in which the
girl died, when, in a cavity of the chimney where it had fallen
unnoticed, was found a paper written by this girl, declaring her
intention to commit suicide, and closing with the words: 'My inhuman
father is the cause of my death'; thus explaining her dying gestures.
On examination of this document by the friends and relatives of the
girl, it was recognized and identified as her handwriting; and it
established the fact that the father had died innocent of every crime,
except that of trying to save his child from a degrading marriage.
"Now, mark the prompt and satisfactory reparation decreed by justice,
and carried out by the officers of the law. The shrivelled, dishonored
body was lowered from the gibbet, given to his relatives for decent
burial, and the magistrates who sentenced him, ordered a flag waved
over his grave, as compensation for all his wrongs.
"Gentlemen of the jury, to save you from the commission of a wrong even
more cruel, I come to-day to set before you clearly the facts, elicited
from witnesses which the honorable and able counsel for the prosecution
declined to cross-examine. An able expounder of the law of evidence has
warned us that: 'The force of circumstantial evidence being exclusive
in its nature, and the mere coincidence of the hypothesis with the
circumstances, being, in the abstract, insufficient, unless they
exclude every other supposition, it is essential to inquire, with the
most scrupulous attention, what other hypothesis there may be, agreeing
wholly or partially with the facts in evidence.'
"A man of very marked appearance was seen running toward the railroad,
on the night of the twenty-sixth, evidently goaded by some unusual
necessity to leave the neighborhood of X--before the arrival of the
passenger express. It is proved that he passed the station exactly at
the time the prisoner deposed she heard the voice, and the half of the
envelope that enclosed the missing will, was found at the spot where
the same person was seen, only a few moments later. Four days
afterward, this man entered a small station in Pennsylvania, paid for a
railroad ticket, with a coin identical in value and appearance with
those stolen from the tin box, and as if foreordained to publish the
steps he was striving to efface, accidentally left behind him the
trumpet-tongued fragment of envelope, that exactly fitted into the torn
strip dropped at the bridge. The most exhaustive and diligent search
shows that stranger was seen by no one else in X--; that he came as a
thief in the night, provided with chloroform to drug his intended
victim, and having been detected in the act of burglariously
abstracting the contents of the tin box, fought with, and killed the
venerable old man, whom he had robbed.
"Under cover of storm and darkness he escaped with his plunder, to some
point north of X--where doubtless he boarded (unperceived) the freight
train, and at some convenient point slipped into a wooded country, and
made his way to Pennsylvania. Why were valuable bonds untouched?
Because they might aid in betraying him. What conceivable interest had
he in the destruction of Gen'l Darrington's will? It is in evidence,
that the lamp was burning, and the contents of that envelope could have
possessed no value for a man ignorant of the provisions of the will;
and the superscription it was impossible to misread. Suppose that this
mysterious person was fully cognizant of the family secrets of the
Darringtons? Suppose that he knew that Mrs. Brentano and her daughter
would inherit a large fortune, if Gen'l Darrington died intestate? If
he had wooed and won the heart of the daughter, and believed that her
rights had been sacrificed to promote the aggrandizement of an alien,
the adopted step-son Prince, had not such a man, the accepted lover of
the daughter, a personal interest in the provisions of a will which
disinherited Mrs. Brentano, and her child? Have you not now, motive,
means, and opportunity, and links of evidence that point to this man as
the real agent, the guilty author of the awful crime we are all leagued
in solemn, legal covenant to punish? Suppose that fully aware of the
prisoner's mission to X--, he had secretly followed her, and
supplemented her afternoon visit, by the fatal interview of the night?
Doubtless he had intended escorting her home, but when the frightful
tragedy was completed, the curse of Cain drove him, in terror, to
instant flight; and he sought safety in western wilds, leaving his
innocent and hapless betrothed to bear the penalty of his crime. The
handkerchief used to administer chloroform, bore her initials; was
doubtless a souvenir given in days gone by to that unworthy miscreant,
as a token of affection, by the trusting woman he deserted in the hour
of peril. In this solution of an awful enigma, is there an undue strain
upon credylity; is there any antagonism of facts which the torn
envelope, the pipe, the twenty-dollar gold pieces in Pennsylvania, do
not reconcile?
"A justly celebrated writer on the law of evidence has wisely said: 'In
criminal cases, the statement made by the accused is of essential
importance in some points of view. Such is the complexity of human
affairs, and so infinite the combinations of circumstances, that the
true hypothesis which is capable of explaining and reuniting all the
apparently conflicting circumstances of the case, may escape the
acutest penetration: but the prisoner, so far as he alone is concerned,
can always afford a clue to them; and though he may be unable to
support his statement by evidence, his account of the transaction is,
for this purpose, always most material and important. The effect may be
to suggest a view, which consists with the innocence of the accused,
and might otherwise have escaped observation.'
"During the preliminary examination of this prisoner in October, she
inadvertently furnished this clue, when, in explaining her absence from
the station house, she stated that suddenly awakened from sleep, 'she
heard the voice of one she knew and loved, and ran out to seek the
speaker'. Twice she has repeated the conversation she heard, and every
word is corroborated by the witness who saw and talked with the owner
of that 'beloved voice'. When asked to give the name of that man, whom
she expected to find in the street, she falters, refuses; love seals
her lips, and the fact that she will die sooner than yield that which
must bring him to summary justice, is alone sufficient to fix the guilt
upon the real culprit.
"There is a rule in criminal jurisprudence, that 'presumptive evidence
ought never to be relied on, when direct testimony is wilfully
withheld'. She shudders at sight of the handkerchief; did she not give
it to him, in some happy hour as a tender Ricordo? When the pipe which
he lost in his precipitate flight is held up to the jury, she
recognizes it instantly as her lover's property, and shivers with
horror at the danger of his detection and apprehension. Does not this
array of accusing circumstances demand as careful consideration, as the
chain held up to your scrutiny by the prosecution? In the latter, there
is an important link missing, which the theory of the defence supplies.
When the prisoner was arrested and searched, there was found in her
possession only the exact amount of money, which it is in evidence,
that she came South to obtain; and which she has solemnly affirmed was
given to her by Gen'l Darrington. We know from memoranda found in the
rifled box, that it contained only a few days previous, five hundred
dollars in gold. Three twenty-dollar gold coins were discovered on the
carpet, and one in the vault; what became of the remain ing three
hundred and twenty dollars? With the exception of one hundred dollars
found in the basket of the prisoner, she had only five copper pennies
in her purse, when so unexpectedly arrested, that it was impossible she
could have secreted anything. Three hundred and twenty dollars
disappeared in company with the will, and like the torn envelope, two
of those gold coins lifted their accusing faces in Pennsylvania, where
the fugitive from righteous retribution paid for the wings that would
transport him beyond risk of detection.
"Both theories presented for your careful analysis, are based entirely
upon circumstantial evidence; and is not the solution I offer less
repugnant to the canons of credibility, and infinitely less revolting
to every instinct of honor able manhood, than the horrible hypothesis
that a refined, cultivated, noble Christian woman, a devoted daughter,
irreproachable in antecedent life, bearing the fiery ordeal of the past
four months with a noble heroism that commands the involuntary
admiration of all who have watched her--that such a perfect type of
beautiful womanhood as the prisoner presents, could deliberately plan
and execute the vile scheme of theft and murder? Gentlemen, she is
guilty of but one sin against the peace and order of this community:
the sin of withholding the name of one for whose bloody crime she is
not responsible. Does not her invincible loyalty, her unwavering
devotion to the craven for whom she suffers, in vest her with the halo
of a martyrdom, that appeals most powerfully to the noblest impulses of
your nature, that enlists the warmest, holiest sympathies lying deep in
your manly hearts? Analyze her statement; every utterance bears the
stamp of innocence; and where she cannot explain truthfully, she
declines to make any explanation. Hers is the sin of silence, the
grievous evasion of justice by non-responsion, whereby the danger she
will not avert by confession recoils upon her innocent head. Bravely
she took on her reluctant shoulders the galling burden of parental
command, and stifling her proud repugnance, obediently came--a fair
young stranger to 'Elm Bluff.' Receiving as a loan the money she came
to beg for, she hurries away to fulfil another solemnly imposed
injunction.
"Gentlemen, is there any spot out yonder in God's Acre, where violets,
blue as the eyes that once smiled upon you, now shed their fragrance
above the sacred dust of your dead darlings; and the thought of which
melts your hearts and dims your vision? Look at this mournful, touching
witness, which comes from that holy cemetery to whisper to your souls,
that the hands of the prisoner are as pure as those of your idols,
folded under the sod. Only a little bunch of withered brown flowers,
tied with a faded blue ribbon, that a poor girl bought with her hard
earned pennies, and carried to a sick mother, to brighten a dreary
attic; only a dead nosegay, which that mother requested should be laid
as a penitential tribute on the tomb of the mother whom she had
disobeyed; and this faithful young heart made the pilgrimage, and left
the offering--and in consequence thereof, missed the train that would
have carried her safely back to her mother--and to peace. On the
morning after the preliminary examination I went to the cemetery, and
found the fatal flowers just where she had placed them, on the great
marble cross that covers the tomb of 'Helena Tracey--wife of Luke
Darringtun.'
"You husbands and fathers who trust your names, your honor, the peace
of your hearts-almost the salvation of your souls--to the women you
love: staking the dearest interest of humanity, the sanctity of that
heaven on earth--your stainless homes--upon the fidelity of womanhood,
can you doubt for one instant, that the prisoner will accept death
rather than betray the man she loves? No human plummet has sounded the
depths of a woman's devotion; no surveyor's chain will ever mark the
limits of a woman's faithful, patient endurance; and only the wings of
an archangel can transcend that pinnacle to which the sublime principle
of self-sacrifice exalts a woman's soul.
"In a quaint old city on the banks of the Pegnitz, history records an
instance of feminine self-abnegation, more enduring than monuments of
brass. The law had decreed a certain provision for the maintenance of
orphans; and two women in dire distress, seeing no possible avenue of
help, accused themselves falsely of a capital crime, and were executed;
thereby securing a support for the children they orphaned.
"As a tireless and vigilant prosecutor of the real criminal, the
Cain-branded man now wandering in some western wild, I charge the
prisoner with only one sin, suicidal silence; and I commend her to your
must tender compassion, believing that in every detail and minutiae she
has spoken the truth; and that she is as innocent of the charge in the
indictment as you or I. Remember that you have only presumptive proof
to guide you in this solemn deliberation, and in the absence of direct
proof, do not be deluded by a glittering sophistry, which will soon
attempt to persuade you, that: 'A presumption which necessarily arises
from circumstances,--is very often more convincing and more
satisfactory than any other kind of evidence; it is not within the
reach and compass of human abilities to invent a train of
circumstances, which shall be so connected together as to amount to a
proof of guilt, without affording opportunities of contradicting a
great part, if not all, of these circumstances.'
"Believe it not; circumstantial evidence has caused as much innocent
blood to flow, as the cimeter of Jenghiz Khan. The counsel for the
prosecution will tell you that every fact in this melancholy case stabs
the prisoner, and that facts cannot lie. Abstractly and logically
considered, facts certainly do not lie; but let us see whether the
inferences deduced from what we believe to be facts, do not sometimes
eclipse Ananias and Sapphira! Not long ago, the public heart thrilled
with horror at the tidings of the Ashtabula railway catastrophe, in
which a train of cars plunged through a bridge, took fire, and a number
of passengers were consumed, charred beyond recognition. Soon
afterward, a poor woman, mother of two children, commenced suit against
the railway company, alleging that her husband had perished in that
disaster. The evidence adduced was only of a circumstantial nature, as
the body which had been destroyed by flames, could not be found.
Searching in the debris at the fatal spot, she had found a bunch of
keys, that she positively recognized as belonging to her husband, and
in his possession when he died. One key fitted the clock in her house,
and a mechanic was ready to swear that he had made such a key for the
deceased. Another key fitted a chest she owned, and still another
fitted the door of her house; while strongest of all proof, she found a
piece of cloth which she identified as part of her husband's coat. A
physician who knew her husband, testified that he rode as far as
Buffalo on the same train with the deceased, on the fatal day of the
disaster; and another witness deposed that he saw the deceased take the
train at Buffalo, that went down to ruin at Ashtabula. Certainly the
chain of circumstantial evidence, from veracious facts, seemed
complete; but lo! during the investigation it was ascertained beyond
doubt, to the great joy of the wife, that the husband had never been
near Ashtabula, and was safe and well at a Pension Home in a Western
State.
"The fate of a very noble and innocent woman is now committed to your
hands, and only presumptive proof is laid before you. 'The circumstance
is always a fact; the presumption is the inference drawn from that
fact. It is hence called presumptive proof, because it proceeds merely
in opinion.' Suffer no brilliant sophistry to dazzle your judgment, no
remnant of prejudice to swerve you from the path of fidelity to your
oath. To your calm reasoning, your generous manly hearts, your
Christian consciences, I resign the desolate prisoner; and as you deal
with her, so may the God above us, the just and holy God who has
numbered the hairs of her innocent head, deal here and hereafter with
you and yours."
That magnetic influence, whereby the emotions of an audience are
swayed, as the tides that follow the moon, was in large measure the
heritage of the handsome man who held the eyes of the jurymen in an
almost unwinking gaze; and when his uplifted arm slowly fell to his
side, Judge Dent grasped it in mute congratulation, and Mr. Churchill
took his hand, and shook it warmly.
Mr. Wolverton came forward to sum up the evidence for the prosecution,
and laboriously recapitulated and dwelt upon the mass of facts which he
claimed was susceptible of but one interpretation, and must compel the
jury to convict, in accordance with the indictment.
Upon the ears of the prisoner, his words fell as a harsh, meaningless
murmur; and above the insistent mutter, rose and fell the waves of a
rich, resonant voice, that surrounded, penetrated, electrified her
brain; thrilled her whole being with a strange and inexplicable
sensation of happiness. For months she had fought against the singular
fascination that dwelt in those brilliant blue eyes, and lurked in
every line of the swart, stern face; holding at bay the magnetic
attraction which he exerted from the hour of the preliminary
examination. Of all men, she had feared him most, had shrunk from every
opportunity of contact, had execrated him as the malign
personification, the veritable incarnation of the evil destiny that had
hounded her from the day she first saw X----.
Listening to his appeal for her deliverance, each word throbbing with
the fervent beat of a heart that she knew was all her own, an exquisite
sense of rest gradually stole over her; as a long-suffering child spent
with pain, sinks, soothed at last in the enfolding arms of protective
love. That dark, eloquent face drew, held her gaze with the spell of a
loadstone, and even in the imminence of her jeopardy, she recalled the
strange resemblance he bore to the militant angel she had once seen in
a painting, where he wrestled with Satan for possession of the body of
Moses. Disgrace, peril, the gaunt spectre of death suddenly dissolved,
vanished in the glorious burst of rosy light that streamed into all the
chill chambers of her heart; and she bowed her head in her hands, to
hide the crimson that painted her cheeks.
How long Mr. Wolverton talked, she never knew; but the lull that
succeeded was broken by the tones of Judge Parkman.
"Beryl Brentano, it is my duty to remind you that this is the last
opportunity the law allows you, to speak in your own vindication. The
testimony has all been presented to those appointed to decide upon its
value. If there be any final statement that you may desire to offer in
self-defence, you must make it now."
Could the hundreds who watched and waited ever forget the sight of that
superb, erect figure, that exquisite face, proud as Hypatia's, patient
as Perpetua's; or the sound of that pathetic, unwavering voice?
Mournfully, yet steadily, she raised her great grey eyes, darkened by
the violet shadows suffering had cast, and looked at her judges.
"I am guiltless of any and all crime. I have neither robbed, nor
murdered; and I am neither principal, nor accomplice in the horrible
sin imputed to me. I know nothing of the chloroform; I never touched
the andiron; I never saw Gen'l Darrington but once. He gave me the gold
and the sapphires, and I am as innocent of his death, and of the
destruction of his will as the sinless little children who prattle at
your firesides and nestle to sleep in your arms. My life has been
disgraced and ruined by no act of mine, for I have kept my hands, my
heart, my soul, as pure and free from crime as they were when God gave
them to me. I am the helpless prey of suspicion, and the guiltless
victim of the law. O, my judges! I do not crave your mercy--that is the
despairing prayer of conscious guilt; I demand at your hands, justice."
The rushing sound as of a coming flood filled her ears, and her words
echoed vaguely from some immeasurably distant height. The gaslights
seemed whirling in a Walpurgis maze, as she sat down and once more
veiled her face in her hands.
When she recovered sufficiently to listen, Mr. Churchill had risen for
the closing speech of the prosecution.
"Gentlemen of the Jury: I were a blot upon a noble profession, a
disgrace to honorable manhood, and a monster in my own estimation, if I
could approach the fatal Finis of this melancholy trial, without
painful emotions of profound regret, that the solemn responsibility of
my official position makes me the reluctant bearer of the last stern
message uttered by retributive justice. How infinitely more enviable
the duty of the Amicus Curiae, my gallant friend and quondam colleague,
who in voluntary defence has so ingeniously, eloquently and nobly led a
forlorn hope, that he knew was already irretrievably lost? Desperate,
indeed, must he deem that cause for which he battles so valiantly, when
dire extremity goads him to lift a rebellious and unfilial voice
against the provisions of his foster-mother, Criminal Jurisprudence, in
whose service he won the brilliant distinction and crown of laurel that
excite the admiration and envy of a large family of his less fortunate
foster-brothers. I honor his heroism, applaud his chivalrous zeal, and
wish that I stood in his place; but not mine the privilege of mounting
the white horse, and waving the red flag of the 'Lactees.' Dedicated to
the mournful rites of justice, I have laid an iron hand on the
quivering lips of pity, that cried to me like the voice of one of my
own little ones; and very sorrowfully, at the command of conscience,
reason and my official duty, I obey the mandate to ring down the black
curtain on a terrible tragedy, feeling like Dante, when he confronted
the doomed--
"'And to a part I come, where no light shines.'"
So clearly and ably has my distinguished associate, Mr. Wolverton,
presented all the legal points bearing upon the nature and value of the
proof, submitted for your examination, that any attempt to buttress his
powerful argument, were an unpardonable reflection upon your
intelligence, and his skill; and I shall confine my last effort in
behalf of justice, to a brief analysis and comparison of the hypothesis
of the defence, with the verified result of the prosecution.
"Beautiful and sparkling as the frail glass of Murano, and equally as
thin, as treacherously brittle, is the theory so skilfully manufactured
in behalf of the accused; and so adroitly exhibited that the ingenious
facets catch every possible gleam, and for a moment almost dazzle the
eyes of the beholder. In attempting to cast a lance against the shield
of circumstantial evidence, his weapon rebounded, recoiled upon his
fine spun crystal and shivered it. What were the materials wherewith he
worked? Circumstances, strained, well nigh dislocated by the effort to
force them to fit into his Procrustean measure. A man was seen on the
night of the twenty-sixth, who appeared unduly anxious to quit
X--before daylight; and again the mysterious stranger was seen in a
distant town in Pennsylvania, where he showed some gold coins of a
certain denomination, and dropped on the floor one-half of an envelope,
that once contained a will. In view of these circumstances (the
prosecution calls them facts), the counsel for the defence PRESUMES
that said stranger committed the murder, stole the will; and offers
this opinion as presumptive proof that the prisoner is innocent. The
argument runs thus: this man was an accepted lover of the accused, and
therefore he must have destroyed the will that beggared his betrothed;
but it is nowhere in evidence, that any lover existed, outside of the
counsel's imagination; yet Asmodeus like he must appear when called
for, and so we are expected to infer, assume, presume that because he
stole the will he must be her lover. Does it not make your head swim to
spin round in this circle of reasoning? In assailing the validity of
circumstantial evidence, has he not cut his bridges, burned his ships
behind him?
"Gentlemen, fain would I seize this theory were it credible, and
setting thereon, as in an ark, this most unfortunate prisoner, float
her safely through the deluge of ruin, anchor her in peaceful security
upon some far-off Ararat; but it has gone to pieces in the hands of its
architect. Instead of rescuing the drowning, the wreck serves only to
beat her down. If we accept the hypothesis of a lover at all, it will
furnish the one missing link in the terrible chain that clanks around
the luckless prisoner. The disappearance of the three hundred and
twenty dollars has sorely perplexed the prosecution, and unexpectedly
the defence offers us the one circumstance we lacked; the lover was
lurking in the neighborhood, to learn the result of the visit, to
escort her home; and to him the prisoner gave the missing gold, to him
intrusted the destruction of the will. If that man came to 'Elm Bluff'
prepared to rob and murder, by whom was he incited and instigated; and
who was the accessory, and therefore particeps criminis? The prisoner's
handkerchief was the medium of chloroforming that venerable old man,
and can there be a reasonable doubt that she aided in administering it?
"The prosecution could not explain why she came from the direction of
the railroad bridge, which was far out of her way from 'Elm Bluff'; but
the defence gives the most satisfactory solution: she was there,
dividing her blood-stained spoils with the equally guilty
accomplice--her lover. The prosecution brings to the bar of retribution
only one criminal; the defence not only fastens the guilt upon this
unhappy woman, by supplying the missing links, but proves
premeditation, by the person of an accomplice. Four months have been
spent in hunting some fact that would tend to exculpate the accused,
but each circumstance dragged to light serves only to swell the dismal
chorus, 'Woe to the guilty'. To-day she sits in the ashes of
desolation, condemned by the unanimous evidence of every known fact
connecred with this awful tragedy. To oppose this black and frightful
host of proofs, what does she offer us? Simply her bare, solemnly
reiterated denial of guilt. We hold our breath, hoping against hope
that she will give some explanation, some solution, that our pitying
hearts are waiting so eagerly to hear; but dumb as the Sphinx, she
awaits her doom. You will weigh that bare denial in the scale with the
evidence, and in this momentous duty recollect the cautious admonition
that has been furnished to guide you: 'Cosceding that asseverations of
innocence are always deserving of consideration by the executive, what
is there to invest them with a conclusive efficacy, in opposition to a
chain of presumptive evidence, the force and weight of which falls
short only of mathematical demonstration?' The astute and eloquent
counsel for defence, has cited some well-known cases, to shake your
faith in the value of merely presumptive proof.
"I offer for your consideration, an instance of the fallibility of
merely bare, unsupported denial of guilt on the part of the accused. A
priest at Lauterbach was suspected, arrested and tried for the murder
of a woman, under very aggravated circumstances. He was subjected to
eighty examinations; and each time solemnly denied the crime. Even when
confronted at midnight with the skull of the victim murdered eight
years before, he vehemently protested his innocence; called on the
skull to declare him not the assassin, and appealed to the Holy Trinity
to proclaim his innocence. Finally he confessed his crime; testified
that while cutting the throat of his victim, he had exhorted her to
repentance, had given her absolution, and that having concealed the
corpse, he had said masses for her soul.
"The forlorn and hopeless condition of the prisoner at this bar,
appeals pathetically to that compassion which we are taught to believe
coexists with justice, even in the omnipotent God we worship; yet in
the face of incontrovertible facts elicited from reliable witnesses, of
coincidences which no theory of accident can explain, can we stifle
convictions, solely because she pleads 'not guilty'? Pertinent, indeed,
was the ringing cry of that ancient prosecutor: 'Most illustrious
Caesar! if denial of guilt be sufficient defence, who would ever be
convicted?' You have been assured that inferences drawn from probable
facts eclipse the stupendous falsehood of Ananias and Sapphira! Then
the same family strain inevitably crops out, in the loosely-woven web
of defensive presumptive evidence--whose pedigree we trace to the same
parentage. God forbid that I should commit the sacrilege of arrogating
His divine attribute--infallibility--for any human authority, however
exalted; or claim it for any amount of proof, presumptive or positive.
'It is because humanity even when most cautious and discriminating is
so mournfully fallible and prone to error, that in judging its own
frailty, we require the aid and reverently invoke the guidance of
Jehovah.' In your solemn deliberations bear in mind this epitome of an
opinion, entitled to more than a passing consideration: 'Perhaps strong
circumstantial evidence in cases of crime, committed for the most part
in secret, is the most satisfactory of any from whence to draw the
conclusion of guilt; for men may be seduced to perjury, by many base
motives; but it can scarcely happen that many circumstances, especially
if they be such over which the accuser could have no control, forming
altogether the links of a transaction, should all unfortunately concur
to fix the presumption of guilt on an individual, and yet such a
conclusion be erroneous.'
"Gentlemen of the jury: the prosecution believes that the overwhelming
mass of evidence laid before you proves, beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the prisoner did premeditatedly murder and rob Robert Luke
Darrington; and in the name of justice, we demand that you vindicate
the majesty of outraged law, by rendering a verdict of 'guilty'. All
the evidence in this case points the finger of doom at the prisoner, as
to the time, the place, the opportunity, the means, the conduct and the
motive. Suffer not sympathy for youthful womanhood and wonderful
beauty, to make you recreant to the obligations of your oath, to decide
this issue of life or death, strictly in accordance with the proofs
presented; and bitterly painful as is your impending duty, do not allow
the wail of pity to drown the demands of justice, or the voice of that
blood that cries to heaven for vengeance upon the murderess. May the
righteous God who rules the destinies of the universe guide you, and
enable you to perform faithfully your awful duty."
Painfully solemn was the profound silence that pervaded the court-room,
and the eyes of the multitude turned anxiously to the grave countenance
of the Judge. Mr. Dunbar had seated himself at a small table, not far
from Beryl, and resting his elbow upon it, leaned his right temple in
the palm of his hand, watching from beneath his contracted black brows
the earnest, expectant faces of the jurymen; and his keen, glowing eyes
indexed little of the fierce, wolfish pangs that gnawed ceaselessly at
his heart, as the intolerable suspense drew near its end.
Judge Parkman leaned forward.
"Gentlemen of the jury: before entering that box, as the appointed
ministers of justice, to arbitrate upon the most momentous issue that
can engage human attention--the life or death of a fellow creature--you
called your Maker to witness that you would divest your minds of every
shadow of prejudice, would calmly, carefully, dispassionately consider,
analyze and weigh the evidence submitted for your investigation; and
irrespective of consequences, render a verdict in strict accordance
with the proofs presented. You have listened to the testimony of the
witnesses, to the theory of the prosecution, to the theory of the
counsel for the defence; you have heard the statement of the accused,
her repeated denial of the crime with which she stands charged; and
finally you have heard the arguments of counsel, the summing up of all
the evidence. The peculiar character of some of the facts presented as
proof, requires on your part the keenest and most exhaustive analysis
of the inferences to be drawn from them, and you 'have need of
patience, wisdom and courage'. While it is impossible that you can
contemplate the distressing condition of the accused without emotions
of profound compassion, your duty 'is prescribed by the law, which
allows you no liberty to indulge any sentiment, inconsistent with its
strict performance'. You should begin with the legal presumption that
the prisoner is innocent, and that presumption must continue, until her
guilt is satisfactorily proved. This is the legal right of the
prisoner; contingent on no peculiar circumstances of any particular
case, but is the common right of every person accused of a crime. The
law surrounds the prisoner with a coat of mail, that only irrefragable
proofs of guilt can pierce, and the law declares her innocent, unless
the proof you have heard on her trial satisfies you, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that she is guilty. What constitutes reasonable
doubt, it becomes your duty to earnestly and carefully consider. It is
charged that the defendant, on the night of the twenty-sixth of
October, did wilfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly murder Robert
Luke Darrington, by striking him with a brass andiron. The legal
definition of murder is the unlawful killing of another, with malice
aforethought; and is divided into two degrees. Any murder committed
knowingly, intentionally and wantonly, and without just cause or
excuse, is murder in the first degree; and this is the offence charged
against the prisoner at the bar. If you believe from the evidence, that
the defendant, Beryl Brentano, did at the time and place named,
wilfully and premeditatedly kill Robert Luke Darrington, then it will
become your duty to find the defendant guilty of murder; if you do not
so believe, then it will be your duty to acquit her. A copy of the
legal definition of homicide, embracing murder in the first and second
degrees, and of manslaughter in the first and second degrees, will be
furnished for your instruction; and it is your right and privilege
after a careful examination of all the evidence, to convict of a lesser
crime than that charged in the indictment, provided all the evidence in
this case, should so convince your minds, to the exclusion of a
reasonable doubt.
"In your deliberations you will constantly bear in memory, the
following long established rules provided for the guidance of jurors:
"'I.--The burden of proof rests upon the prosecution, and does not
shift or change to the defendant in any phase or stage of the case.
"'II.--Before the jury can convict the accused, they must be satisfied
from the evidence that she is guilty of the offence charged in the
indictment, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient that they
should believe her guilt only probable. No degree of probability
merely, will authorize a conviction; but the evidence must be of such
character and tendency as to produce a moral certainty of the
prisoner's guilt, to the exclusion of reasonable doubt.
"'III.--Each fact which is necessary in the chain of circumstances to
establish the guilt of the accused, must be distinctly proved by
competent legal evidence, and if the jury have reasonable doubt as to
any material fact, necessary to be proved in order to support the
hypothesis of the prisoner's guilt, to the exclusion of every other
reasonable hypothesis, they must find her not guilty.
"'IV.--If the jury are satisfied from the evidence, that the accused is
guilty of the offence charged, beyond reasonable doubt, and no rational
hypothesis or explanation can be framed or given (upon the whole
evidence in the cause) consistent with the innocence of the accused,
and at the same time consistent with the facts proved, they ought to
find her guilty. The jury are the exclusive judges of the evidence, of
its weight, and of the credibility of the witnesses. It is their duty
to accept and be governed by the law, as given by the Court in its
instructions.'
"The evidence in this case is not direct and positive, but presumptive;
and your attention has been called to some well known cases of persons
convicted of, and executed for capital crimes, whose entire innocence
was subsequently made apparent. These arguments and cases only prove
that, 'all human evidence, whether it be positive or presumptive in its
character, like everything else that partakes of mortality, is
fallible. The reason may be as completely convinced by
circumstantial--as by positive evidence, and yet may possibly not
arrive at the truth by either.'
"The true question, therefore, for your consideration, is not the kind
of evidence in this case, but it is, what is the result of it in your
minds? If it has failed to satisfy you of the guilt of the accused, and
your minds are not convinced, vacillate in doubt, then you must acquit
her, be the evidence what it may, positive or presumptive; but if the
result of the whole evidence satisfies you, it you are convinced that
she is guilty, then it is imperatively your duty to convict her, even
if the character of the evidence be wholly circumstantial." Such is the
law.
"In resigning this case to you, I deem it my duty to direct your
attention to one point, which I suggest that you consider. If the
accused administered chloroform, did it indicate that her original
intention was solely to rob the vault? Is the act of administering the
chloroform consistent with the theory of deliberate and premeditated
murder? In examining the facts submitted by counsel, take the
suggestion just presented, with you, and if the facts and circumstances
proved against her, can be accounted for on the theory of intended,
deliberate robbery, without necessarily involving premeditated murder,
it is your privilege to put that merciful construction upon them.
"Gentlemen of the jury, I commit this mournful and terrible case to
your decision; and solemnly adjure you to be governed in your
deliberations, by the evidence as you understand it, by the law as
furnished in these instructions, and to render such verdict, as your
reason compels, as your matured judgment demands, and your conscience
unhesitatingly approves and sanctions. May God direct and control your
decision."