en, the prosecution's case is rendered so fragile that the
gentlest breath of a zephyr must blow each separate link to a
different quarter of the globe. Now, that is what I shall endeavor to
demonstrate; that, from the chief facts claimed by the prosecution,
you may deduce innocence rather than guilt.

"First, we have the accuser, Dr. Meredith. He aids the prosecution's
claim of poison by relating the symptoms of poisoning, which he says
he observed before death. Now, even granting that this is a true
statement of facts, observed by an unprejudiced mind,--of which,
gentlemen, you can readily judge, when you recall the abundant
testimony as to an existing animosity,--but, even granting its
absolute truth, what does it show? Simply that morphine had been
administered, in a dose large enough to have produced _ante-mortem_
evidences of its presence. But what of that? Does it show that the
drug was administered by any particular person? By Dr. Medjora, as the
prosecution have claimed? If so then I am ignorant, and ill informed
as to all the rules of logic. It shows that morphine was present, and
it shows no more, and no less. Now that fact we freely admit. The
Doctor himself told you how the drug was taken, and there has been
nothing whatever offered, that even tends to disprove his assertion.
Thus, as his testimony is all that we have upon the subject, and as it
has been unimpeached, you are bound to accept it as the only evidence
available. I may also remind you at this point, that in this country,
where the God-given liberty of one man is as much cherished as that of
the whole people, a man is to be considered innocent until after he
has been adjudged guilty. He therefore goes upon the witness stand, as
unsullied as any other witness, and his evidence is entitled to the
same credence. I may also interject a momentary remark as to the
difference between juridical and common judgment. You may see a man
commit a crime and if accepted upon the jury which tries him, although
you know that he is guilty, you are bound to bring him in innocent,
unless the evidence introduced against him proves his guilt, entirely
aside from your own prejudices or prejudgment. You must give a
juridical opinion only. So that if you have imbibed any prejudices
against Dr. Medjora,--which is scarcely probable, for he must have
impressed you as favorably as he has every one else who has seen him
in court,--but if so, you are to set that all aside, and