Newspaper Page Text
12
THE COUNTRYMAN.
TURNWOLD, GA., JANUARY 10, 1865.*
The Trial of Joseph Ashlield, Jr.,
(Charged with the Offence of Arson) at
the March Term, ]«56, of the Superior
Court of Putnam Co., Ga. : Containing
the Testimony in the Case, and the
Speech of J. A. Turner, in Defence of
the Accused: Embracing a full Expo
sition of the La v, and Philosophy of
Circumstantial Evidence.—Countryman
Print: Turnwold (near Eatonton) Ga.,
1864.
The State, 1
vs > Arson.
Joseph 1 shfield, Jr. )
SPEECH OF J. A. TURNER.
(continued.)
Then, gentlemen, even if I admit, as I
must do, that it would have been better
for us to have proven an alibi, in order to
relieve you of the trouble of listening to
my argument, or going out of your tnx
to consider this case, I confess, frankly,
befor: you, that it was out of our power
to prove that Joseph Ashfield was absent
from the burning, for the reasons I have
already intimated. Like many of you,
he is a single man, and has no wife, bv
whom to piove his whereabouts, even out
side of a court of justice Like many of
you, doubt!e-s, he occupied a bed-room to
hims-K, as appears by the testimony of
Mr. Sturdivant; and hence, if in his bed
asleep, he bad no room-mate, nor bedfel
low, by whom to prove himself reposing
in the arms of Morpheus, at the time of
the burning. And if he found the arms
of some other person, more congenial to
his repose, than those of the god of sleep,
on the night of the burning, it is altogeth
er probab 1 \ from what Dr. A 'ams has tes
tified of nis habits,th'at the testimony of bis
beloved was, to all intents and purposes,
as much of a sealed book, in this court, as
the testimony of Morpheus himseli. I say,
then, gentlemen oi the jury, that, from
the <vidence before you, Joseph Ashfield
was either sleeping alone in his bed-room,
during the burning, or else was enjoying
the amours of some one who might have
said to him, as did the daughter of Pha
raoh to Solomon, “ I am black', but come
ly.” Anri, in either event, the proof of
an alibi, by him, was impossible.
I say nothing of the guilt, or innocence
of my client, with regard to his worship
in the temple of his Ethiopian Venus,
provided my latter supposition be true.
I don't intend to argue this point, any
more than I will the case of Solomon,
referred to, and recorded in Canti
cles. These matters do not come before
us—with them, we have nothing to do.
Oa** thing is certain, gentlemen of the
jury—that in all ages, and in all
countries, the king upon his throne,
as well the peasant in his hut, has
lound it a very difficult matter to keep
the seventh commandment. It is a com
mandment lor whose violation there aie
many temptations. You read this upon
the page of history, sacred and profane.
You iearn it from your own observation,
and lrow t-b© suggestions ©f your own ex
perience. I am not, therefore, going to
lecture Solomon because he violated the
seventh commandment, nor will I enter
into a homily because Joseph Ashfield
has not proven so virtuous as Joseph of
old, and has not, like his name-sake, been
impervious to the blandishments of some
Mrs., or Miss Potiphar, Ethiopian though
she may be. All that I have to say L,
“ let him that is without sin, cast the fin-t
stone” at this Joseph. You are not to
consider whether he is a virtuous young
man, or not.- This is a que c tion for another
tribunal. The question for you to decide,
is, did my client burn Dr. Adams’s house.
That’s the issuf*, and the only issue.
I have spoken of these things, gentle-
men of the jury, in order to show you
why it was that we did not prove an alibi.
But this was a work of supererogation, on
my part. It was no business of ours to
prove an alibi, no" - to prove anything else.
The burden of proo f falls upon the pros-
ecution It is their business to prove the
accused guiltv. Until this is done, the
prisoner is, in the eye of the law, inno
cent. He comes before you, gentlemen,
so far as you are to know, in the trial of
this issue, as free from the crime of arson,
or any other crime, or fault even, as is
this sheet of writing paper, which I hold
in my hand, free of any spot or blemish.
It is for the prosecution to write words ol
guilt upon his character. They allege ar
son against him. Have they proven it ?—
To the law, and fo the testimony.
And, first, as to the law. May it please
the Court, the solicitor-general has read,
in your Honor’s hearing, a portion ot a
decision made by our Supreme Court,
which he thinks bears upon this case, in
his favor. The decision alluded to, is
found in the case of Giles vs. The State ol
Georgia, reported in 6th Georgia Reports,
page 276. That portion of the decision,
which concerns us, is as follows:
“ Now, it is conceded, that, in all
criminal cases, whatsoever, it is essential
to a verdict of condemnation, that the
guilt of the accused should be fully
proved; and that neither a mere prepon
derance of evidence, nor any weiguc of
preponderant evidence, in the language of
Mr. Starkie, is sufficient for the put pose,
unless it generate full belief of the fact,
to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt.
Still, absolute mathematical, or me aphy -
sical certainty is not essential, and, be
sides, in judicial investigations, it is.
wholly unattainable. Moral certainty is
all that can be required. The proof
should be such as to control, and decide
the conduct 06"men in the highest, and
most important affairs of life,, and not a
mere vague conjecture, a fancy, a trivial
supposition, a possibility of innocence.
To acquit upon such doubts, is a virtual
violation of the juror’s oatn, and an of
fence, of great magnitude, against the in
terests of society, directly tenuing to a
disregard of the obligation of a judicial
oath, the hindrance, and disparagement of
justice, and the encouragement of male-
tactors. 1. Starkie, 514. We consider
this to be the fair import of the language
used by the court.
“ I would add that great judges have
held, that there is no difference between
the rules of evidence, in this particular,
in civil, and criminal cases ; that if the
rules of evidence prescribe the best course
to get at the truth, they must be, and are,
the same, in all cases, and in all citilized
countries; and Lord Mansfield, ifl the
D.iuglas case, gives the reason for thisi
‘As it seldom happens that absolute cer
tainty can be attained in human affairs,
therefore reason, and public utility require
that judges, and all mankind, in forming
their opinions of facts, should be regulat*
ed bv the superior number of probabili
ties, on one side, and on the other.’
“ While I am not prepared to sub-cribe
to the principle here suggested, still I have
deemed it my duty to intimate that it may
be going quite too far to say, that even in
criminal eases, the guilt of the accused
must always be established by demonstra
tive, and irrefragable evidence. It is
enough that the evidence, whatever be its
character, whether positive, or presump
tive, direct, or circumstantial, satisfies the
understanding, and conscience of the
jury.”
The parts of this decision Opoti which 1
the solicitor-general relies are those in
which it is said, that in judicial investiga
tions, “absolute mathematical, or meta
physical certainty is not required:” ‘‘Mor
al certainty is all that can be required:”
“The proof should be such as to control,,
and decide the conduct of mtn, in the
highest, and most important affairs of life,
and not a mere vague conjecture, a fancy,
a trivial supposition, a bare possibility of
innocence;” “It may be going quite too
far to say, that even in criminal cases, the'
guilt of the accused must always be estab-,
lished by demonstrative, ana irrefragable
evidence. It is enough that the evidence,
whatever be its character, whether posi
tive or presumptive, direct or circumstan^
tial, satisfies the undeistanding and con
science of the jury.”
These are tlie dicta of the Supreme
Court, upon which my brother Lofton de
pends, to make the evidence adduced, by
the State, sufficient to condemn the ac--
cused. It is very evident, may it please
the Court, and you, too, gentlemen of the
jury, since you are judg s of the law, as-
well as oi the facts, in this case, that the
prosecution is paving the wav to make a
little evidence go a great way. Satisfied
01 then- want of testimony, to convict the
prisoner, their policy is to narrow down,
to an infinitessimal quantity, the amount
of evidence which is necessary to answer
their ends. They are practising upon the
homeeopathic principle, their design being
to operate upon you with the most minute
doses of evidence. Hence I am not sur
prised that the prosecution hold, in effect,
that you need not be absolutely certuu of
the guilt of tlae accused, before you bring
in a verdict against him, but all that is
required of you is, that \ ou be nearly cer
tain—tolerably well satisfied in your own
minds—that he plied the torch to Dr. Ad
ams’s dwelling, before you find him guilty
of the charge ol arson.
Such, may it please the Court, and gen
tlemen of the jury, is not the doctrine of
the Supreme Court. And I want no bet-