"While the law presumes every man innocent until proven guilty, yet it is not such a presumption as to rebut evidence. Presumption simply stands up before you and says: Before you can convict this man he must be proven guilty. And as the evidence is given to you step by step the presumption stands as a guard between innocence and the evidence that is being given, until at last, when your mind is satisfied, when your judgment has come to the conclusion that the men are guilty, the presumption is wiped out, and you are no longer to presume the man innocent.
"When you stated that you would not convict these men except they were proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it simply meant this—that, after hearing the evidence, if you are satisfied of the truth of the charge; if you are satisfied, as jurymen sworn to do your duty, that the men on trial are guilty, then you have no right to go digging around for doubts; you have no right to hunt around for an excuse to refrain from doing that which the law makes it your duty to do. A reasonable doubt means a doubt that is reasonable. I mention these facts because the learned counsel for the defense, which was proper and right, were anxious to impress on your minds that before you could convict anybody you must believe them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You have taken an oath in this case and are sworn to try it upon the law and the evidence. The oath taken is that you will well and truly try this case and the verdict render according to the law and the evidence. That means that there is an issue to be tried. The men at the bar are charged with the crime of murder on the one hand; that on the 4th of May, in this county and State, they did maliciously, wickedly and feloniously kill and murder Dr. Cronin. That is the charge made in the indictment. On the other hand, these prisoners at the bar say they are not guilty. That issue is what you are sworn to try. It is as to whether these men on trial killed and murdered Dr. Cronin. What is murder? may be asked. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. Before you can convict these men it becomes the duty of the people to prove every material allegation in the indictment. What are the material allegations in the indictment? First, that Dr. Cronin was killed; next, that he was killed in this county and State; next, that these defendants killed him without provocation or excuse. These are the material issues to be proven in this ease.
"If you believe from the evidence that he was murdered and that these men killed him, as charged in the indictment, then the question is settled. Then you have the law as to murder to govern you, and you are the judges of the law and the evidence; and if you find that these defendants killed him, and that he was murdered, then the statute fixes the punishment, or leaves it to you to fix the punishment. That is the law in the case, except what you may get from his honor on the bench. I apprehend that the learned counsel for the defense will not contest the fact, if it is proven that Dr. Cronin was killed, as we have charged—that he was stricken to death, as we can prove—I don't apprehend that they will contend then it was any other homicide than that of murder. So you will have that question to settle. If we prove that Dr. Cronin was killed as we allege he was killed, there will be no question as to whether it was murder or manslaughter; it will be admitted by the learned counsel for the defense that it was murder or nothing.
THE EVIDENCE MAINLY CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
"Now, gentlemen, this is the issue that you are to try. His honor from the bench has pronounced every one of you a qualified juror in the case; and as now we approach the evidence, I desire to call your attention to something that was talked of a great deal while we were selecting this jury. You have by this time learned that most of the evidence of the case will be that of a circumstantial character. There are two kinds of evidence, as you have learned—circumstantial and direct evidence—and yet, after all, nearly all evidence is circumstantial. You may not have read it, but any lawyer at the bar will remember reading of the incidents or illustrations by Wharton and other writers, in which they say that nearly all evidence is circumstantial. Even if you are looking at a man holding a pistol, and see him fire it at another, and see the man drop—that is all circumstantial. You see the man holding the pistol; you hear the report; you see the other man drop, and you are satisfied that he is shot, and yet you don't see what killed him. The bullet is found in his brain; you saw the man pointing the pistol, and these are the circumstances of that case, although you saw the acts that brought about the circumstances which led you to believe he was killed by the bullet. That is one way of illustrating circumstantial evidence." Here the State's attorney gave another illustration on the same line, and proceeded: "That is circumstantial evidence. Circumstances are truths. Nearly every case that comes into court rests almost exclusively upon circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is direct evidence making up the circumstances, but after all, the crime itself, the act itself, is proved by the circumstances in the case.
"So that, while we must rely upon the circumstances in this case, yet we propose to show to you evidence enough to convince your minds thoroughly upon the question of the guilt of these accused. We shall prove this by circumstances just as much as if there had been an eye-witness of the scene. You stated, gentlemen, as I said before, that you would not convict unless your minds were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, of the guilt of these defendants. You stated further that if you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt—every man of you satisfied—that the crime was of such a character as to deserve the highest penalty you would then have no conscientious scruples against capital punishment—that you were not opposed to capital punishment. It does not matter whether your minds are satisfied by circumstantial evidence or direct evidence as to the guilt of the men on trial—you stand pledged on your oaths to execute the law as you believed it ought to be executed in the case.
"On the night of May 4th, soon after seven o'clock, was the last time that Dr. Cronin was ever seen alive, except by the men who assassinated and beat out his life. Until the 22d day of May his body was not seen by his friends or any one except those who thrust it into the catch-basin in Lake View.
"We claim in this case that the murder of Dr. Cronin—as we shall prove it was a murder—was brought about by a conspiracy. These men are charged with having murdered Dr. Cronin. The evidence that we shall introduce will show a conspiracy to murder Dr. Cronin, and we shall show that the conspiracy was formed and carried into execution, and having been carried into execution, terminated in the killing of Cronin, and that these men are liable for the murder."
From this point Judge Longenecker went through in detail the entire record of the case as it affected the defendants collectively and as individuals and then continued:
"I believe I have gone over the main points of the evidence. Of course, there will be evidence here and there showing conclusively that this conspiracy was well planned, and showing conclusively to your minds before you are ready to render your verdict that these defendants are guilty. I said that this was a conspiracy. Any one who looks at the evidence can see very readily that the acts committed of themselves are conclusive that the murder was the result of a conspiracy. When Dr. Cronin's body was found the head was cut in a dozen places—from behind and on the temple—showing that they had killed him by giving him lick after lick until his life was beaten out. All that will be described by the doctors; the condition of the body shows that the blows were dealt from behind.