Gentlemen, let us now come to the case.  Your first inquiry, on the evidence, will be, Was Captain White murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy, and was the defendant one of this conspiracy?  If so, the second inquiry is, Was he so connected with the murder itself as that he is liable to be convicted as a principal?  The defendant is indicted as a principal.  If not guilty as such, you cannot convict him.  The indictment contains three distinct classes of counts.  In the first, he is charged as having done the deed with his own hand; in the second, as an aider and abettor to Richard Crowninshield, Jr., who did the deed; in the third, as an aider and abettor to some person unknown.  If you believe him guilty on either of these counts, or in either of these ways, you must convict him.

It may be proper to say, as a preliminary remark, that there are two extraordinary circumstances attending this trial.  One is, that Richard Crowninshield, Jr., the supposed immediate perpetrator of the murder, since his arrest, has committed suicide.  He has gone to answer before a tribunal of perfect infallibility.  The other is, that Joseph Knapp, the supposed originator and planner of the murder, having once made a full disclosure of the facts, under a promise of indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a witness.  Notwithstanding his disclosure and his promise of indemnity, he now refuses to testify.  He chooses to return to his original state, and now stands answerable himself, when the time shall come for his trial.  These circumstances it is fit you should remember, in your investigation of the case.

Your decision may affect more than the life of this defendant.  If he be not convicted as principal, no one can be.  Nor can any one be convicted of a participation in the crime as accessory.  The Knapps and George Crowninshield will be again on the community.  This shows the importance of the duty you have to perform, and serves to remind you of the care and wisdom necessary to be exercised in its performance.  But certainly these considerations do not render the prisoner’s guilt any clearer, nor enhance the weight of the evidence against him.  No one desires you to regard consequences in that light.  No one wishes any thing to be strained, or too far pressed against the prisoner.  Still, it is fit you should see the full importance of the duty which devolves upon you.

And now, Gentlemen, in examining this evidence, let us begin at the beginning, and see first what we know independent of the disputed testimony.  This is a case of circumstantial evidence.  And these circumstances, we think, are full and satisfactory.  The case mainly depends upon them, and it is common that offences of this kind must be proved in this way.  Midnight assassins take no witnesses.  The evidence of the facts relied on has been somewhat sneeringly denominated, by the learned counsel, “circumstantial stuff,” but it is not such stuff as dreams are made of.  Why does he not rend this stuff?  Why does he not scatter it to the winds?  He dismisses it a little too summarily.  It shall be my business to examine this stuff, and try its cohesion.