| Page 34833-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. | Page 34833-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. |
