Leon Reporter, Leon, Iowa
Thursday, May l, l902

'Ira Hammond on Trial at Mt. Ayr for the Murder of Miss Maude Stone.'

Final Instructions to the Jury:

It is no defense to the crime charged that the woman consented to a miscarriage. If you find, in the case at bar, that the said MAUDE STONE consented, or even desired and arranged for an unnecessary abortion, such facts, if shown, would be no excuse or justification to the defendant, if he is shown to have in any manner aided and abetted in such unlawful act.

Much of the evidence relied on by the state as showing the defendant's guilt is what is known in the law as circumstantial evidence. It will be proper for the court to instruct you as to the nature and character of such evidence, and of its value in the ascertainment of truth.

Circumstantial evidence is that class of evidence wherein the principal fact in issue is to be inferred, or deduced, from other facts proven. It is thus called because it is composed of circumstances, or related facts, connected in some manner with the ultimate fact to be determined.

Circumstantial evidence is legal evidence, and is not to be discredited merely as such. Its value, and, indeed, its necessity in the ascertainment of the truth is unquestioned. Nothing in the nature of circumstantial evidence renders it less valuable than other evidence. Indeed, it has been said that in many cases a verdict on circumstantial evidence alone is more satisfactory as being a true and just verdict than one founded on direct evidence. The value of circumstantial evidence depends in large measure upon the clearness of the connection between the fact shown and the fact to be inferred. Circumstantial evidence must be founded on reason and experience, establishing a connection between known and true facts and the facts sought to be proved. It will be observed that in such evidence not only must the related facts be established, but just conclusions must be drawn from them. It is manifest that in such case it calls for close observation and high intellectual discrimination and judgment on the part of the juror than in cases of direct testimony. In direct testimony a fact alone is to be determined; in circumstantial testimony not only is the fact, or many facts, to be determined, but just and true conclusions are to be drawn therefrom.

In the first place, each related fact from which an inference is asked to be drawn must be distinctly and independently probed by competent evidence, and no inference should be drawn from a fact not proved.

In the second place, great care should be exercised in drawing inferences from proved facts. It must be a fair and natural, and not a forced or artificial conclusion, and, if an any case a conclusion is reasonably consistent with innocence rather than guilt can be given, such conclusions should be drawn.

In order to justify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone, the ultimate fact to be deduced, or inferred, viz: The guilt of the accused, must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. And not only must the circumstances concur to show that the defendant committed the crime charged, but they must be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion. The circumstances, taken together, should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, and producing in effect a reasonable and moral certainty that the accused is guilty. Absolute, demonstrative certainty is not required, not need it be so conclusive as to exclude every possibility of an error. It will be sufficient if it satisfy the understanding of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the case at bar, the jury should consider and carefully weigh the circumstantial evidence offered under the rules given. If, in connection with the direct evidence offered, of if independently the jury believe the facts and circumstances shown are inconsistent with any other rational and reasonable conclusion than the defendant's guilt, then it would be your duty to so find and return.

If, however, such facts proved can fairly and reasonably be explained upon the hypothesis of the defendant's innocence, and if such facts do not exclude every other theory than that of guilt, then it will be your duty to give the innocent rather than the guilty interpretation and return a verdict of not guilty.

Evidence has been introduced touching the reputation for truth and veracity of the witness JOHN WOODARD. Such evidence may be considered by you as affecting the credibility of the witness, and for no other purpose.

The evidence of various witnesses who have testified is sought to be impeached by the testimony of other witnesses who testified to contradictory statements made outside of court. Such evidence may be considered by you as affecting the credibility of such witnesses, and the value of their testimony, and may be given such weight as you think it entitled to receive.

The jury are instructed that they are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses. In determining their credibility you have a right to take into consideration their appearance on the stand and manner of testifying; their candor and fairness or lack of those qualities; their intelligence; or want of intelligence; their knowledge of the matters of which they testify, or lack of knowledge, their interest in the event of the case, or want of interest; the relationship of the witnesses to the parties to the case, if any is shown; their temper, feeling, bias, or prejudice, if any is shown; and to give each witness such credit as in your judgment, under all the circumstances, such witness has shown himself entitled to receive.

The jury are instructed that they are the sole judges of the weight of the testimony. In determining what weight should be given to the testimony before you, you should consider the whole of the evidence, and all the facts and circumstances proved on the trial, giving to the several parts of the evidence the weight to which they are entitled. And it is your duty, if possible, to reconcile all the different parts of the testimony and, if the evidence is conflicting, to carefully examine it in all its parts, in the light of these instructions, for the purpose of determining the very truth of the matters at issue. And in determining any of the questions of facts presented in this case, you should not indulge in any speculations or conjectures as to which might have been proven, or what might have been shown to be true; and all conclusions drawn by you should be based solely on the evidence before you and not upon conjecture or speculation.

Your verdict should be in writing, signed by your foreman, and should be in one of the following forms, to-witt:
The State of Iowa,
vs.
Ira Hammond.
We, the jury, find the defendant guilty.
.......................................Foreman.

OR

The State of Iowa,
vs.
Ira Hammond.
We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty.
.......................................Foreman.

To Be Continued -- " THE VERDICT. . ."

Copied by Nancee(McMurtrey)Seifert
"With permission from the Leon Journal Reporter"
December 23, 2002