Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 15.pdf/375

 334

IV. 10), not blood, but bloods, to teach us that by killing his brother Abel, Cain be came guilty of shedding the blood, not only of his victim, but of all his possible progeny. God first created Adam alone, in order to teach us that he who causes the destruction of one life is as though he had destroyed a world, and he who saves a single life is as though he saved the whole world. You must not, however, on account of these con siderations be deterredi from testifying to what you actually saw, for it is written, 'And a witness, whether he hath seen or known of, it, if he do not tell it, he shall bear his iniquity' (Lev. V. i.) Nor need you scruple to become the instrument of this man's death, for it is written "In the destruction of the wicked there is joy' (Prov. IX. 10.)" After this solemn exhortation, the exam ination of the witnesses was commenced. If their testimony agreed in all important de tails, and no protest was raised against the eligibility of any of them, and no other wit nesses came to confute the first or to prove them guilty of collusion, the deliberations of the judges commenced. The defendant was first encouragingly addressed by the court in the following words: "If thou hast not committed the alleged crime, thou needst not tfear." While his testimony against him self was not regarded, clue attention was given to any argument he might offer in his defence. Until the accused was duly tried and convicted, he was in the eyes of the law regarded as innocent, and the burden of proof rested entirely upon the prosecutors or the witnesses. Then the court began the discussion. If all agreed for an acquittal, the case was im mediately disposed of and the culprit set free. Strange as it may seem, the unanimous ver dict of guilty found on the day of trial had also the effect of an acquittal. If there was a difference of opinion among the judges, each one, beginning with the youngest, pro nounced his decision and the arguments upon

which he based it, and the scribes carefully recorded them. As soon as all had expressed their opinions, the votes were counted and announced. A majority of one was sufficient for acquittal, but for conviction a majority of at least two was necessary. If two or more of the judges, holding the same opinion, advanced the same arguments for their op inions, although each one derived his from a different Scriptural passage, they had only one vote. If no majority for acquittal could be obtained on the same day, the court ad journed until the next day and the prisoner was led back to his cell. The judges ate but Sittle food and were not permitted to drink any wine during the remainder of the day. Either by themselves or in company with their colleagues, the judges would spend the day and the night in deliberation and discus sion over the case. Each one felt the grave responsibility resting upon his shoulders, and with sincerity and earnestness tried to find arguments in defence of the accused. On the next morning, the judges rose very early, and without partaking of any food returned to their seats in the court-room, and each one restated his opinion and the reasons for it. Any one who had the preceding day ex pressed himself for conviction might change his judgment and offer his reasons for such a change, but he who voted for acquittal was not permitted to revise his opinion. If no verdict could be obtained, for instance, when there were twelve for conviction and eleven for acquittal, two additional judges were added from the first row of disciples. If a majority of two against the defendant was then obtained, he was convicted, and if not, the process of ihcreasingi the number of judges by twos continued until the requisite majority was obtained, or until their num ber reached seventy-one. If after reaching that number, there were still thirty-six for conviction and thirty-five for acquittal, the case was reargued until one of those who were for conviction changed his opinion in