Anarchy and Anarchists / A History of the Red Terror and the Social Revolution in America and Europe; Communism, Socialism, and Nihilism in Doctrine and in Deed; The Chicago Haymarket Conspiracy and the Detection and Trial of the Conspirators

by Michael J. Schaack

“It is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt every material allegation in the indictment, and unless that has been done, the jury should find the defendants not guilty.

“The burden is upon the prosecution to prove by credible evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment of the murder of Mathias J. Degan; it is the duty of the jury to acquit any of the defendants as to whom there is a failure of such proof. The jury are not at liberty to adopt any unreasonable theories or suppositions in considering the evidence in order to justify a verdict of conviction.

“A reasonable doubt is that state of mind in which the jury, after considering all the evidence, cannot say they feel an abiding faith, amounting to a moral certainty, from the evidence in the case, that the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment.

“The rules of evidence as to the amount of evidence in this case are different from those in a civil case; a mere preponderance of evidence would not warrant a verdict of guilty.

“Mere probability of the defendants’ guilt is not sufficient to warrant a conviction.

“Your personal opinions as to facts not proved cannot be the basis of your verdict, but you must form your verdict from the evidence, and that alone, unaided and uninfluenced by any opinions or presumptions not founded upon the evidence.

“The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, and in passing thereon may consider their prejudices, motives or feelings of revenge, if any such have appeared, and if the jury believe from the evidence that any witness has knowingly or willfully testified falsely as to any material fact, they may disregard his entire testimony, unless it is corroborated by other credible evidence.

“If one single fact is proved by a preponderance of the evidence which is inconsistent with the guilt of a defendant, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt and entitles him to an acquittal. In order to justify the inference of legal guilt from circumstantial evidence, the existence of the inculpatory facts must be absolutely incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory.

“The witnesses Gottfried Waller and Wilhelm Seliger are accomplices, and while a person accused of crime may be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, still the jury should weigh it with great care and caution, and convict upon it only if they are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of its truth.

“If you believe from the evidence that the witnesses Gottfried Waller and Wilhelm Seliger were induced to become witnesses by any promise of immunity from punishment, or by any hope held out to them, that it would go easier with them in case they disclosed who their confederates were, or in case they implicated some one else in the crime, then you should take such facts into consideration in determining the weight to be given to their testimony.