Defendant's jury instructions (refused)

4

Refused Objected

In order to convict the defendant upon circumstantial testimony alone, the circumstances proved, must all concur to show that he has committed the crime charged in the indictment, and must all be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion, and must exclude to a moral certainty every every other hypothesis but the single one of the guilt of the defendant.

7

Refused

Object

In criminal cases, the party accused is always entitled to the legal presumption in favor of innocence, which in doubtful cases, is always sufficient to turn the scale in favor of the accused.

It is therefore a rule of criminal law, that the guilt of the accused must be fully proven.

The burden of proof is upon the prosecution. All presumptions are in favor of innocence, and every person accused of crime is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. If upon such proof there is a reasonable doubt remaining, the accused must be acquitted. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one, arrising [sic] from the doctrine of chances that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary, but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainity, a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. It is not enough that the evidence goes to show the guilt of the accused; it must go further and must be inconsistent with the reasonable supposition of his innocence, or you are bound to acquit the prisoner, in subserviency to that humane maxim of the law, which clothed in the language of that great and good judge Lord Hale, declares that "it is always better to err in acquitting than in punishing, on the side of mercy, than on the side of justice.

8

Refused

Objected To

The hypothesis contended for by the prosecution must be established to an absolute moral certainty, to the entire exclusion of any other rational probability of any other hypothesis being true, or the jury must find the Defendant not guilty.

10)

Objected To

Refused

The Court instructs the jury that it is incumbent on the prosecution not only to prove the killing, but it must also establish by proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the killing was done with malice prepense or aforethought, and without the concurrence of both, the crime cannot exist; and as every man is presumed to be innocent of the offense of which he is charged till he is proved to be guilty, this presumption must apply equally to both ingredients of the offense, ---to the malice as well as to the killing. Hence the burden of proof as to each, ---the killing and the malice--- rests equally with the prosecution, and the jury cannot imply malice from the mere killing.

13

Refused

Object

The defendant cannot be convicted unless the proof establishes a felonious killing of one or more persons of a party or company consisting of John Smith and several men women and children as one transaction; that one of the party was in fact named John Smith, and that the names of all the others were unknown to the Grand Jury that found the indictment. No such homicide having been established, nor any proof given tending to establish it, the defendant should be acquitted.