AMERICAN JURIST.

NO. XXVII.

JULY, 1835.

ART. I.—MEDICAL JURISPRUDENCE. No. II.

EVIDENCE IN CASES OF HOMICIDE. WOUNDS.

From the MSS. of the late Professor Ashmun.]

In every trial for murder, or manslaughter, the first question to be settled, which forms a sort of basis for the whole proceedings, is, Whether the person, respecting whom the investigation is made, actually came to his death by violence? There have indeed been convictions, in some few instances, where this question has been left undetermined; and the few cases on record, in which individuals have been executed for murders that were never perpetrated, which occasionally make so distinguished a figure in the defence of criminals, were of this sort. But such proceedings would be considered irregular in the present state of legal knowledge and practice. It is now regarded as a settled principle of law, that, before a man can be convicted of these great crimes, it must be distinctly proved that a death has actually taken place, and that such death was the result of some species of violence done to the deceased person.

The determination of this question must generally, in a great measure, if not exclusively, devolve upon the physician who attended the deceased in the last portions of his life, or who was called to examine his lifeless body. In some instances the violence which is done is of such a character and degree as to leave no room for doubt or hesitation in regard to the cause of death. In others the effect of the violence is so doubtful, as to require all the wisdom, which professional skill can furnish, to determine satisfactorily how much to attribute to it. But the simple fact, whether death is caused by violence, is not all that is in most cases left to the physician to determine. He must ascertain and describe the particular nature of the injury, and point out its effects in producing the fatal termination; for it is by this means only that the crime can be traced to its true author. In the case of external injury, for example,-in most cases it is not enough to say in general terms that a mortal wound was given, by which the life of the deceased was destroyed;-there must be a careful examination of the wounded part, that it may be shown what organs are njured, and that the connexion between the injury and the result may be explained. Such an examination will also enable us in most cases to ascertain the nature of the instrument by which the wound was inflicted, and thus perhaps assist in detecting the author of the crime.

So also in a case of poisoning, it is not sufficient to say that the deceased person has swallowed poison, and was killed by it; the physician should be able, if possible, to show what was the poisonous substance, and to point out some of its particular effects upon the unfortunate victim. I do not know that a conviction might not take place, without having the medical testimony so complete as this: but the result of a trial in such a case could not be so satisfactory, nor can the defence of an innocent man be so easily accomplished, as where the medical testimony is required to be full and complete.

The first and most natural inquiry, in case of a death by violent means, would be,-If the body exhibited any external marks of injury? This leads us to speak of the medical evi

dence in cases of homicide by direct violence; in other words, by wounds and bruises.

In strict medical (or rather surgical) language, a wound is a recent division of some of the soft parts of the body: 'a recent solution of continuity in the soft parts, suddenly occasioned by external causes.'

But it is not necessary to confine ourselves to this definition; and it would be inconvenient to do so. It is sufficiently accurate for our present design, to include under the name of wounds, every species of external injury, where the effect on the system is the immediate and direct consequence of the violence done to it. This arrangement will embrace sudden injuries to the bones, and bruises of the soft parts, as well as divisions of these parts, or 'solution of continuity.'

The importance of a wound depends upon its severity; upon the nature of the instrument by which it is made; upon the part of the body in which it is inflicted, and the importance of the organs which are affected by it; upon the injury done to large blood vessels or nerves, which go to all parts of the body; and upon the state of the system at the time,-as being in health, or disposed to disease.

The nature of the instrument, by which it was inflicted, is to be taken fully into account, in estimating the consequences and probable result of a wound. In general, wounds made with a smooth-cutting instrument heal more readily than any others, and consequently are the least dangerous to life, in proportion to the importance of the parts affected by them. Wounds, on the contrary, in which the soft parts of the body are much bruised and lacerated, and, especially, if the contiguous bones are also injured, are the most difficult to heal. Hence it is that gun-shot wounds are peculiarly fatal; insomuch that when fire arms were first introduced into the art of war, these wounds were supposed, by the unfortunate victims, to be caused by poisoned weapons.

But it is not necessary to go more into the particular distinctions in wounds, which proceed from the nature of the weapon that gave them. This is a branch of knowledge,

which belongs to every man who undertakes the cure of wounds; and it is not my design to go to the consideration of subjects, which belong exclusively to physicians, and respecting which the professional bearing of every educated physician gives him a complete knowledge. It is sufficient to remark, that in every case where there is the least doubt in regard to the cause of death, it should be expected of the physician to explain, from the appearances of the wound itself, the nature of the instrument by which it was made, and the peculiar effects attributable to the particular character of the in

strument.

The effects of wounds of a similar character, when inflicted upon different parts of the body, are exceedingly various in respect to their danger to life. Indeed these effects, as applicable to the several parts, and in relation to the more essential organs of the body, form a very important portion of the subject before us. But before we proceed to the more particular consideration of them, it will be proper to take notice of some other circumstances which relate to wounds in general, and are liable to affect their mortality.

The first of these circumstances, which I shall mention, is the danger of injuring the large blood-vessels. It is familiarly known to every one that the blood is distributed from the heart to every part of the body by means of the arteries, which go off in large trunks, and continually divide and subdivide, as they approach the extreme parts. The reins, in like manner, receive the blood in small branches, and unite into larger trunks as they approach the heart. Every part of the body is, in this manner, fully supplied with blood. There is, therefore, no portion of any considerable extent, which is not provided with blood vessels sufficiently large to occasion a very serious hæmorrhage, if they happen to be wounded. The flow of blood from a wounded vein is much less profuse, and is more easily stopped than from an artery; because the circulation is much less rapid, and the sides of the vessel more readily collapse.

It is one of the striking marks of the wisdom and benevo

lence everywhere visible in the construction of the human body, that such important organs as the blood vessels are everywhere so managed as to be as little as possible exposed to injuries, either from violent motions of the body, or from the effects of external violence. Their course is always in the most protected part of the organs which they traverse. It results from this arrangement, that we do not often meet with a wound of a considerable blood vessel, that is not complicated with a very serious injury of the surrounding parts, so as to make the wound a very important one, independent of the danger of hemorrhage.

There are a few exceptions to this remark, particularly respecting the principal artery of the thigh, which is sometimes injured at one point without an extensive wound. It sometimes happens, also, that an artery, which in most persons is deep-seated and protected from injury, is, by a sort of lusus naturæ, in some individuals situated more externally, where it is more exposed.

There is scarcely any injury to which our frame is liable, in which so much depends upon the promptness and the judgment with which assistance is rendered, as in cases of wounded blood vessels. But it unfortunately happens, that there are few, if any, cases in which the assistance that is attempted is so little likely to be judicious. With very many persons, the mere sight of blood, flowing from a wound, is sufficient to destroy their self-possession, so that they are incapacitated from giving any effectual assistance. The confusion and agitation, excited by this alarm, does much to increase the flow of blood and to prevent its stopping spontaneously. In addition to this, the measures which are taken are often extremely injudicious, and are injurious rather than beneficial.

It is a remarkable circumstance in the animal economy (and it deserves to be mentioned as another example of the admirable wisdom of our organization) that, unless the vessel wounded be of the very largest class, before a sufficient quantity of blood is lost to be fatal, the sufferer faints, and the