Page 3

OverviewTranscribeVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Incomplete

by the Grand jury, and on trial before the petit jury. The probability is that the evidence of Woodruff would have mainly to be relied on by the prosecution for a conviction. Suppose he should Illegible swear most positively to the commission of the crime by Wilson; would not his evidence be confronted on the part of the [?] by his contradicting statements, made under oath, before the Grand jury which has already investigated this matter. I am not a lawyer, but I [apprehend?] the effect of showing such a contradiction in the evidence of Woodruff on the two occasions would be to put him before the petit jury as a witness discredited by his own sworn statements.

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the rules of evidence in criminal prosecutions before civil tribunals to give a positive opinion whether this position is correct. I therefore entrust it for the consideration of your Excellency, with the request

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page