A Lawyer’s Story
[Philadelphia Times]
“I never would convict a man on circumstantial evidence if I were a juror—never! never!”
The speaker was a distinguished criminal lawyer of nearly forty years’ active practice and whose fame extended far beyond the limits of his own State.
We had been discussing a recent cause celebre in which, upon purely circumstantial evidence, a man had been convicted of an atrocious murder, although many of those most familiar with the circumstances of the case entertained the gravest doubts about the justice of his conviction, and had been swung off into eternity, protesting his absolute innocence with his latest breath and calling upon God to send his soul straightway to hell if he was not telling the truth.
As most of our party were lawyers the conversation, naturally enough, drifted into a discussion of the dangers arising from convicting accused persons whose own mouths were closed upon purely circumstantial evidence in the absence of any direct and positive proof of guilt, and case after case was cited in which, after conviction and execution, the entire innocence of the supposed culprits had been clearly demonstrated. Most of the laymen present agreed with the distinguished lawyer whose very positive expression of opinion had been quoted, while the majority of the lawyers contented, with that earnestness for which lawyers are noted when advocating their own side of any question, that justice could never miscarry when careful judges guard against the possibility of unsafe verdicts by refusing to permit a conviction except when every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence had been established beyond doubt and the whole chain been made so perfect and complete as to leave no room for any consistent hypothesis of innocence.
“The first murder case I tried,” said one of them, “was stranger than fiction, as… Read More