Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Thriller Thursday - Wrapping Up the Villers Trial, Part 4

The Jamestown Weekly Alert
20JAN1898, pg1
OK. OK. I finally finished that discussion post for my Lighting class. It wasn't as bad as I expected either. Now I'm just waiting until my kiddos get home from school and until it's time to head out to caucus (it's Super Tuesday as I write this). So I'm going to pick back up where I left off and we're going to hear about the evidence that was presented in the case of North Dakota vs Martin J. Villers.


From the foregoing provisions of our code it will be noticed that the death of August Tromer must be established by direct proof. Evidence is of two kinds: direct and circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is the evidence of witnesses who either saw or head the facts about which they testify or otherwise perceived their exsistance (sic) by some of their senses. You will remember what the testimony is bearing upon the fact of the death of August Tromer and if you find from the direct proof in the case beyond a reasonable doubt that he was killed on or about the day charged in this information, the exact date being immaterial, then you will pass to the other question in the case as to whether or not this defendant Martin J. Villers, is the person who did such killing. And whether or not he had a premeditated design to effect the death of the said August Tromer.

The Jamestown Weekly Alert
20JAN1898, pg1
Before you can find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree as charged in this information it will be necessary for you to find from the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt that August Tromer was unlawfully killed about Sept. 14, '94 and that this defendant killed him in the manner charged in the information and further that at the time of said killing, this defendant had a premeditated design to effect the death of August Tromer and unless you find all of these facts to be true from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt you must acquit the defendant.

The fact that the states attorney of county has filed this information accusing Mr. Villers of the crime charged against him is no evidence whatsoever of his guilt and must not be so construed by you. The defendedendant (sic) comes into this court clothed with the presumption of innocence and this presumption continues throughout the trial until overcome by proof of hi guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." much for the actual evidence...this only defines it. I imagine they'll get into the actual evidence at some point. What this does do is let us know that the jury was supposed to only find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Still the same as today, but still nothing about that whole unanimous decision.  I'll keep it short and sweet and jump into at least one more section next week.

No comments:

Post a Comment