017

Page 17

Twenty First

The Court erred in Instructing the Jury on
its own behalf-in using the following language
"The admission of accomplices is fully Justified
by the necessity of the case-and there was
not and could not have been any objection
to their introduction."
Because the law knows no more of
necessity-than necessity knows of the law-
and necessity cannot be claimed as a Justification
for a departure from the well settled rules of
law, in the trial of any person charged with
crime-because the defendant stands
before the law as innocent until proven
guilty by compenent evidence, and necessity
cannot change that well settled and human
principle of civilized Jurisprudence-And because
the necessity of the case does not Justify the
conviction of the defendant upon the unsupported
evidence of confessed accomplices-or of the
Jury believing the evidence of such accomplices
and the same mislead the Jury and prevented the
defendant from having a fair trial herein.
That by reason of the error contained in the
charge and instructions of the Court, the whole charge became
and was erroneous. It does not correctly state the law.
It tended to and did mislead the Jury and
prevented the defendant from having a fair and impartial trial.