date

24 May 1804 B, Evidence
24 May 1804

B,

Evidence

2.

Forthcomingness

Ch. Extraction

§.2. Personal[?]. Party's

§ 2. Extraction of personal evidence - Party's defendant's evidence.

In the case of personal evidence - in that case centers all the difficulty: in this case it is but true that the legislator will find, be his sagacity what it may, a most perplexing choice of difficulties.

By One fundamental division /distinction/, the distinction between the evidence of a party, and the evidence of an extraneous witness, a considerable light will be thrown upon the subject in the first instance, and hence part of the difficulty will be seen[?] to be cleared away.

First let it be the evidence of the defendant, and the cause a non-penal one - Examine him - will he not speak? no matter: let him lose his cause. Reasons already given under another head. + By his refusal to answer he escapes furnishing direct evidence: but by the same negative act, actually he furnishes evidence: evidence which though but circumstantial, is as condusive as any direct evidence would be in the same case. In the case of the plaintiff, there is as little difficulty, or rather, if possible, still less: the falsity of the allegations on which his claim is founded is virtually acknowledged by himself.

(a) Bill taken per[?] confess.

+ B. Circumstantial

Ch. Non-re
Similar Items
  • Title: [25 May 1804 Evidence 3. Forthcomingness]
    Description: 25 May 1804

    Evidence

    3. Forthcomingness

    Ch. Extraction

    2. Personal - Party's

    In a penal cause, on the side /in the case/ of the defendant, the result is not in all cases, quite so clear of difficulty. Yes: if the fact of any species of delinquency has been already /designated and/ rendered portable[?], by other evidence, although it be but make shift evidence.

    But, suppose nothing more than a vague suspicion of delinquency to attach /has attached/ upon the defendant from any extraneous source so that not so much as the species of delinquency can from that source be ascertained, much /still/ less the individualizing circumstances of the act: - in this case [...?] the defendant cannot be convicted, since it can not be said of what he shall be convicted.

    In this case, supposing him really guilty of any offinse, the punishment he receives cannot be the punishment attached to the /belonging to that particular/ offense. It can only be the punishment, whatever it may be, which it may be thought fit to attach to the offence against justice - the refusal to render the commanded service - the wilful and perspicatious silence. In this case the situation of /a/ party - called upon for his evidence is not /[...?] [...?]/ distinguishable from that of an extraneous witness. of which presently.

    The case of a plaintiff in this same class of causes will also present but little difficulty. If the cause be of a compound nature, containing a claim of satisfaction to be rendered /afforded/ at the expense of the defendant, to the plaintiff in the character of a party injured as to so much the condition /situation/ of the plaintiff in this compound cause /coincides with/ is not to be distinguished from the situation of a plaintiff in a non-penal cause, as above.
  • Title: [18 Nov 1804 Evidence Circumstantial]
    Description: 18 Nov 1804

    Evidence

    Circumstantial

    Ch Probative force

    § Warning[?]

    5. Do not, from the observation of the non-existence of any direct evidence on either side, consider the body of evidence on that side (it being composed exclusively of circumstantial) as insufficient to warrant a decision on that side Consider how many sorts of facts there are which are every day proved to general satisfaction, although in their nature such that direct evidence in proof of them is seldom if ever[?] to be observed /adduced/.

    6. Do not, in consideration of the strength of the body of direct evidence adduced in proof of a fact, regard the production of circumstantial evidence as useless on that side, or unavailing on the other.

    7. Where from the same source, viz: the testimony of the same person from which you have circumstantial evidence of the testimonial kind - viz. of that sort which consists of general assertion - such as confession or accusation or assertion of right, in general terms - you can also have direct evidence, consisting in a circumstantiated relation or statement of the same fact, never[?] proved[?] upon the ground of the circumstantial alone, to the exclusion of the direct evidence.

    8. Never lose sight of the distinction between the question of admissibility and the question of conclusiveness, in regard to circumstantial, any more than in regard to direct evidence. Infer not of this or that article of evidence that because if admitted it would not be conclusive, therefore it ought not so much as to be admitted.

    These cautions /The above/, in proportion as they appear reasonable, will be apt to appear needless. Turn to practice, shall find them far from being in that case.
  • Title: [29 Aug 1804 Evidence Circumstantial]
    Description: 29 Aug 1804

    Evidence

    Circumstantial

    Ch.2

    §.1.

    There can be no circumstantial evidence without real evidence. But a lot of circumstantial evidence may either consist of a lot of real evidence alone, or of real evidence combined with personal[?]. If the source of real evidence in case of homicide for example, the [...?] dead body, or the supposed instruments of death be itself exhibited to the Judge, the circumstantial evidence consists in fact[?] /purely/ of purely real evidence. If, the source of evidence not being present to the sense of the Judge, his conception in relation to it, be /is/ derived from the report made to him of it by some /any/ other person, it may be termed reported real evidence - the lot of circumstantial evidence in question consists of reported real evidence.

    Real evidence comes to /before/ the Judge much more frequently through the medium of a reporting witness /in the state of reported real evidence/, than in a pure state and without any such intervention as above described.

    In all questions relative to the probative force of a lot of circumstantial evidence, if the state in which it comes before the Judge be that of reported real evidence, the truth of the testimony must provisionally be assumed. The truth of such testimony - the trustworthiness of such reporting witness will be matter of investigation and dispute like that of any other witness, whose evidence comes under the denomination of direct evidence with regard to the principal fact comes under the denomination /notion[?]/ of direct evidence. But the subject of any such dispute /discussion/ /the question relative to such trustworthiness/ will be altogether distinct from the discussion /question/ relative to the probative force of the probative fact, considered as constituting an article of circumstantial evidence. Suppose the trustworthiness of the witness objected to, the testimony /the evidence he gives/ is [...?] not in so far as it comes under the head of circumstantial evidence but so far as it comes under the head of direct evidence.