Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/180

 168 FEDERAL REPORTER. �do not design to do, it will not be binding on you, but you must draw your own conclusions from the evidence. �The instructions that have been given you import, in substance, that the true test of criminal responsibility, where the defence of insanity is interposed, is whether the accused had sufficient use of his reason to understand the nature of the act with vrhich he is eharged, and to understand that it was -wrong for him to commit it ; that if this vras the faot he is criminally responsible for it, whatever peculiarities may be shown about him in other respects ; whereas, if his reason was so defective, in consequence of mental disorder, gen- erally supposed to be caused by brain disease, that he could not understand vrhat he was doing, or that what he was doing was wrong, he ought to be treated as an irresponsible person. �Now, as the law assumes every one at the outset to be sane and responsible, the question is, what is there in this case to show the contrary as to this defendant ? �A jury is not warranted in inferring that a man is insane from the mere fact of his committing a crime, or from the enormity of the crime, or from the mere apparent absence of adequate motive for it, for the law assumes that there is a bad motive — that it is prompted by malice — if nothing else appears. �Perhaps the easiest way for you to examine into this subject is, first, to satisfy yourselves about the condition of the prisoner's mind for a considerable period of time before any conception of the assas- sinatio'n entered it, and at the present time, and then to consider what evidence exists as to a different condition at the time of the act eharged. �I shall not spend any time on the first question, because to exam- ine it at all would require a review of evidence relating to over 20 years of the defendant's life, and this has been so exhaustively dis- cussed by counsel that anything I could say would be a wearisome repetition. Suffice it to say, that, on one side, this evidence is sup- posed to show a chronic condition of insanity for many years beforo the assassination ; and, on the other, to show an exceptionally quick intellect and decided power of discrimination. �You must draw your conclusions from the evidence. �Was his ordinary, permanent, chronic condition of mind such, in consequence of disease, that he was unable to understand the nature of his actions, or to distinguish between right and wrong in his con- duct? Was he subject to insane delusions that destroyed his power ��� �