Gilded Age Legal Documents

833-C-I65 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA VS MONDAY McFARAND AND MARY SHEEDY.

ed to be paid a fair and reasonable fee for his services rendered therein; that said Hall is employed as counsel and attorney by Dennis Sheedy one of the heirs of John Sheedy, deceased; and further affiant says not. Lorenzo W Billingsley.

Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this 25th day of May 1891. M Donaldson, SEAL Notary Public.

E N D O R S E D:- State of Nebraska vs Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy -- Motion and Affidavid -- Clerk's Office, District Court, Filed May 26 1891. E R Sizer, Clerk Dist Court.

JOURNAL ENTRY

That on the 27th day of May 1891, (that being the 92nd day of the February A D 1891 term of said Court,) were had and done the following proceedings herein as appears upon Court Journal "W" at Page 74, to-wit:

The State of Nebraska -vs- Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy.

833-C-I65 Information for Murder in the First Degree and Accessories thereto before the Fact.

Now on this day again came the County Attorney on behalf of the State of Nebraska, and the defendants were brought into Court in the custody of the Sheriff, attended by their counsel, respectively, and the County Attorney, now on bejalf of the State of Nebraska, and the said defendants by their counsel respectively, each announcing themselves ready to proceed with the trial of this cause, the Court orders the Clerk to call the names of the persons constituting the Jury in this case, and thereupon came the said Jury in the charge of Grand McFarland, the bailiff in whose charge they were left at the adjournment of Court of yesterday, and each responds to his name as the same is called by the Clerk and takes his seat in the Jury Box.

And thereupon the trial of this cause proceeded, and after hearing the further argument of counsel in part, and the hour of adjournement being at hand, the said Jury are duly admonished by the Court and placed in the charge of W B Taylor, a bailiff of this Court, heretofore specially sworn to take charge of said Jury and bring them into Court to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock-to which time further proceedings in this case are continued.

DEFENDANTS INSTRUCTIONS REFUSED

1.-The Court instructs the Jury that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the law presumes every one innocent; and this legal presumption of innocence is a matter of evidence, to the benefit of which the accused are entitled. The burden of proof is on the State to satisfy the Jury of the guilt of the accused, even if they introduce no

833-C-I65 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA VS MONDAY McFARLAND AND MARY SHEEDY.

weight of preponderance of the evidence supports the allegations of the Information, or is it sufficient that uon the doctrine of chances it is a more probably that the defendants are guilty. To warrant a conviction of the defendants, or either of them, they must be proved to be guilty so clearly and conclusively that there is no reasonable theory upon which they can be innocent, when all the evidence in the case is considered together. R E F U S E D:

8.-The Court unstructs the Jury, that in criminal cases, even where the evidence is so strong that it demonstrates the probability of the guilt of the parties accused, stll if it fails to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the defendants, either or both of them, in manner and form as charged in the information, the it is the duty of the Jury to acquit any defendant of defendants, as to whose guilt they entertain such reasonable doubt. R E F U S E D:

9.-The Court instructs the Jury, that while the statue of this State provides that a person charged with crime may testify in his or her own behalf, be or she is under no obligation to do so, and the statute expressly declares that his or her neglect to testify shall not create any presumption against him or her. R E F U S E D:

10.-A verdict of not guilty means no more than this; that the guilt of the accused has not been demonstrated in the precise, specific, and narrow forms prescribed by law. The evidence, to convict the accused must not merely be beyond all reasonable doubt consistent with the hypothesis of his or her guilt, bit it must also be beyond all reasonable doubt inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence that can be reasonably drawn therefrom. R E F U S E D:

11.- Your personal opinions as to facts not proven cannot properly be considered as the basis of your verdict. You may believe, as men, that certain facts exist, but as Jurors, you can only act upon evidence introduced upon the trial, and from that, and that alone, you must form your verdict, unaided, unassisted and uninfluenced by any opinions or presumptions not formed upon the testimony. R E F U S E D:

12.- The Court instructs the Jury, that the character of an accused person is, in law, presumed to be good until the contrary appears from the evidence, and he or she is under no obligation to prove a good character until his or her character is, in some manner, attacked, and the Jury will not be justified in drawing any inference unfavorable to the defendants, from the fact that they have offered no proof as to good character in this case. R E F U S E D:

13.- The Court instructs the Jury, that upon the trial of a criminal cause, if a reasonable doubt of any facts necessary to convict the

833-C-I65 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA VS MONDAY McFARLAND AND MARY SHEEDY.

20.- The Court further instructs the Jury, that when the verbal admission of a person charged with crime is offered in evidence, the whole of the admission must be taken together, as well as that part which makes for the accused as that which may make against him, and if part of the statement which is in favor of the defendants, is not disproved and is not apparently improbable or untrue, when considered with all the other evidence in the case, then such part of the statement is entitled to as much consideration, from the Jury, as any other part of the statement. R E F U S E D:

22.- The Court instructs the Jury, that the confessions of a prisoner out of Court are a doubtful species of evidence, and should be acted upon by the Jury with great caution, [andunless?] they are supported by some other evidence tending to show that they prisoner committed the crime, they are rarely sufficient to warrant a conviction. R E F U S E D:

23.- The Court instructs the Jury, that they are the sole judges of the facts in this case, and of the credit to be given to the respective witnesses who have testified; and in passing upon the credibility of such witnesses they have a right to take into consideration their prejudices, motives or feelings of revenge if any such have been proven or shown by the evidence in this case, and if the Jury believe from the evidence, that any witnesses have knowingly and wilfully testified fasefly as to any material fact or point in this case, the Jury are at liberty, unless corroborated by other credible evidence, to disregard the testimony of such witness or witnesses in toto. R E F U S E D:

24.- If there is any one single fact proved to the satisfaction of the Jury, by a preponderance of evidence which is inconsistent with defendant Mary Sheedy's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and the Jury should acquit the defendant. R E F U S E D:

25.- The policy of our law deems it better that many guilty persons should escape rather than one innocent person should be convicted and punished; so that unless you can say, after a careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, that every material allegation of the information is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. R E F U S E D:

26.- The Court instructs the Jury as a matter of law that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish by the evidence every material allegation in the Information beyond a reasonable doubt; and if they have failed to do so the Jury must acquit the defendants either one or both, as the above rule of law applies to either or both.

That in order to convict the defendants or either of them of the crime of poisoning as charged in the fourth and fifth counts of the Information in this case, the Jury must find from the evidence; First: That the deceased came to his death by poison. Second: That it was administered to him by the defendants either

833-C-I65 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA VS MONDAY McFARLAND AND MARY SHEEDY.

determine from the evidence outside and other than the statements and confessions alleged to have been made by the defendant Monday McFarland G I V E N:

T W E N T Y - F I R S T I N S T R U C T I O N: You are instructed that concerning the confessions alleged to have been made by Monday McFarland, it is for you to determine from all the evidence whether or not the confessions made, were made by the said defendant noluntarily, and whether or not they were the result of threats or induced by promises made to him by those having him in charge. The main question in determining as to whether or not the confessions of the defendant are admissible in evidence against him in.- Were the confessions the free and voluntary confession of the defendant; In this case the confessions of the defendant McFarland, naturally divide themselves into three parts or portions; Ist, that made to the officers on the night of his arrest, 2nd, that made in the presence of Mayor Graham Dennis Sheedy and others and taken in shorthand by the reporter Wheeler on the Sunday morning following his arrest. Third, that made before the Coroner's Jury. Any confession which is brought about through fear or by promises to a prisoner from those in authority and having him in charge, that his punishment would be less, in the event that he would confess, or any other improper inducement held out by the Officers having him in charge, would render confessions reuslting from such inducements improper and inadmissible against the defendant. In this case, if you should find from the evidence that upon the night of McFarland's arrest, and while in prison and in charge of the Officer, he was led to believe that a mob was being organized against him and that he was in danger therefrom, or if the officers held out inducements that his punishment would be less in the event of his making a confession connecting others with the crime, and that the confessions made upon said night were the result of such inducements of from fear aroused by the officers, then the confessions so made by the defendant McFarland would be inadmissible in evidence against him and you should not consider any confession obtained from his by such methods as evidence against him. On the other hand if the Officers in charge of the defendant McFarland on the night of his arrest, made no promises to him nor threats nor statements to arouse his fear, and which induced the confession, and if such confession were made to the officers freely and voluntarily, then they are properly admissible against the defendant and you should give such weight and credence to the confessions so made as you believe them justly entitled to receive. Coming to the second confession or the one made Sunday morning and taken by the reporter Wheeler, if it was a voluntary confession and entirely free from all fear of threatened punishement or hope or expectation of benefit, based upon the promises of the officers in charge or those to whom he made the confession, then the confession would be properly received as evidence against him unless you should find that the confession first made by Monday McFarland was obtained by hope of fear, such as would have rendered the first confession inadmissible, In that even though no immediate influence is shown to induce the second confession, the burden is upon the State to prove that such subsequent confession, or any confession made after the first, were not made under the influences which rendered the first inadmissible.

833-C-I65 THE STATE OF NEBRASKA VS MONDAY McFARLAND AND MARY SHEEDY.

found in many different ways, If you find both of the defendants not guilty, then your verdict should simply be a general verdict finding the defendants not guilty as charged in the Information. If you should find one of the defendants guilty and the other one not guilty, then your verdict should be a general verdict of not guilty as charged in the information as to the one, naming him or her, and guilty, as to the other, naming the person so found guilty. If you should find either one or both of the defendants guilty, then you should further find and set out in your verdict, upon what count or counts you find such defendant or defendants guilty, and should also determine and state in your verdict as to whether you find such defendant or defendants guilty of murder in the first degree, or murder in the second degree, or of manslaughter. Before you can find the defendant Mary Sheedy guilty of aiding and abetting as charged in the Third Count, or Monday McFarland guilty of aiding and abetting as charged in the Fourth Count, you would first have to find the principals in said crime guilty as charged in said Counts, that is, before you could find that Mary Sheedy was guilty of aiding and abetting Monday McFarland as charged in the Third Count you would have to find that Monday McFarland committed the crime as principal as alleged in said Third Count and in the fourth count before you could find Monday McFarland guilty of aiding and abetting Mary Sheedy as charged in said Fourth Count, you would first have to find that Mary Sheedy was guilty as principal as charge in said Fourth Count. If you believe from the evidence that the defendants or either of them are guilty upon only one count in the Information, then you should state in your verdict, what count you so find them guilty on, and if you find either one or both of them guilty as charged in more than one count, then you should state in your verdict and name the different counts upon which you find the defendants or either of them guilty. G I V E N:

T W E N T Y - S E V E N T H: Gentlemen of the Jury, This case is now about to be submitted to you for final determination, you will retire to your Jury room and there, after having carefully considered all the evidence that has been offered in this case, and the instructions as given to you, render such a verdict as under your oaths as Jurors and your obligations to society you believe to be just and proper as it concerns these two defendants. G I V E N:

E N D O R S E D: The State of Nebraska vs Monday McFarland and Mary Sheedy. --- Charge of the Court--Given-- Clerk's Office, District Court, Filed May 28 1891. E R Sizer, Clerk Dist Court.

JOURNAL ENTRY

That on the 28th day of May 1891, (that being the 93rd day of the February a d 1891 term of said Court,) were had and done the following proceedings herein as appears upon Court Journal "W" at Page 84, to-wit: