The Motion Denied

The following in Judge Kinne's opinión filed in the Hand murder case, denying a new trial, as published in The Daily Times : Tlïis motion is based upon the arguments of the counsel for the people. If I did not believe that the accused had had a fair and impartial trial it would be my pleasure as it would be my duty to set aslde the verdict in this r-an sp. There have been two trials of this case. At the last trial I think it was manifest that the counsel for the people sought to so conduct the proceedings that if a conviction resultad there sfiould be no ground for a reversal. In my opinión they succeeded in this attempt. No conviction is likely to stand unless some allowance is made for the ordinary infirmities of human nature and the natural beatings of the human heart. Absolute perfection can hardly be expeeted even in a court of justice. The law of the country surrounds the accused with every reasonable gafeguard and I am not aware that any Di-otection was withheld on this trial. The accused was represented by able and experienced kvwyers. No more alert and astute counsel can be lound at the bar of this state. All that elequent lips, faultless logic, keen reasouing, sagacious management and untiring devotion oan accomplish were liberally employed to secure the acquittui oL the defendant. Nothing likely to influence the jury was left unsaid or undone. It may be the opinión of some tnat the people should have no corresponding representation in this contest between guilt and innocence; that the counsel for the people should be bound and shackled. while the counsel for the defendant may be permitted to go on untrammeled; that zeal and logic and argument on behalf of the people Ehould be deemed error; that the counsel for the state should not reply to their adversarles, but content themselves. with a tame review of the timony stripped oí its legitímate tneuries and rational deductions. "When such practice obtains there can be but little hope that justice will overtake the criminal. To the poor dumb victim of a crime.it seems strange that the fallacy, the sophistry and the absurdity of alleged innocence may not be exposed and. the features of guilt fearlessly portrayea. It sometimes seems to be assumed that the 12 competent and impartial men to whom under the law of this state is committed the solemn duty of determining from the evidence the guilt or the innocence of the accused are mere automatons of counsel, utterly incapable of executing their oaths or of discriminating between the evidence submitted and the speech of counsel. The assumption that the jurors mentallv are but children of tender years and therefore they must be protected against the enthusiasm and extravagance of counsel is a poor compliment to, and in my opinión an unjust criticism upon, the intellieence of the jury. My observation leads me to conclude that such a view of the jury system is as mistaken in fact as it is indefensibie in theory. I am satisfled that the juries Ín the state do not base their verdicts upon the statements and asseverations of counsel which usually go lor wnaiever they are intrinsically and in truth worth and no more, but upon the evidence in the cause, which has reached their judgment and produced a conviction in their minds. In my opinión there exists no doubt but that the verdict in this case was rpached bv the jury through a careful, fearless and conscientious consideration of the evidence submitted at the trial, and in no other manner and for no other reasons. That if anything was said by counsel for the people which might otherwise be open to criticism the same finds full justification in the previous arguments of counsel for the defence. I think a readinr of my charge to the jury wïll cleariy aisuiu=e nu ii=fully the rlghts of the defendant were guarded. This question of innocence 'or guilt has been submitted to a jury who have determined the question and I know of no reason why I phould subvert their judgment. The motion must be overTMllpfi. June 28, 1894. Circuit Judge.