181 Page – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Here is the translated text as follows:

EDWARD D. WORRELL

The opinion of Lord Denman, as cited in 1 Archbold's Criminal Practice, sections 12, 10, and 11, is recognized as law by our Supreme Court in the case of State v. Hutting, 21 Mo. Rep. 464. The question of incapacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and to choose between good and evil, is a fact that must be affirmatively established by the defendant. It must be established so as to leave no doubt in the minds of the jury; for the mere possibility that the defendant might be insane is no ground for acquittal.

This, gentlemen, is a safe rule and one that will provide you with much assistance when you deliberate on your verdict. Can any man who has heard the evidence in this case suppose that at the time of the murder, the prisoner did not have sufficient mind to distinguish between right and wrong? Did he not know that he was violating the law of God and man? Or can any person suppose that he was acting under an influence which he was incapable of resisting? Does not his entire life, particularly the portion spent in the army, give such an idea a positive contradiction?

Lieutenant Robinson was stationed with the defendant at Fort Leavenworth in 1854, and during that year, he crossed the plains with him as far as Fort Union, New Mexico. Yet, he never observed any signs of epilepsy or unsoundness of mind in him. He further states that the position of orderly-sergeant is the most important in the company, with very arduous duties, and that no man can fill the role whose mind is even slightly impaired. Yet, the prisoner discharged these duties well and was considered the best orderly at the fort. It is also a regulation in the army to accept no man who suffers from mental or bodily disease. These are facts worthy of serious consideration. Despite being in the army for a considerable length of time, continually surrounded by arms and in daily interaction with similarly armed men, no instance is given in which he was seized with a sudden impulse to take the life of a fellow man. Is it not remarkable that this impulse should take possession of him at the particular spot where Gordon was killed? And is it not strange that this impulse should drive him to such an act?