Witnesses who are bro’t into a court of justice, while their veracity is not impeach’d, stand equal in the eye of the judge; unless he happens to be acquainted with their different characters, which is not presum’d--The jury who are taken from the vicinity, are suppos’d to know the credibility of the witnesses: In the late trials the witnesses were most if not all of them either inhabitants of this town or transient persons residing in it, and the jurors were all from the country: Therefore it is not likely that they were acquainted with the characters of all the witnesses; and it is more than probable that in so great a number of witnesses there were different characters, that is, that some of them were more, others less creditable. If then the judge, whose province it is to attend to the law, and who, not knowing the characters of the witnesses, presumes that they are all good, & gives an equal credit to them, it is the duty of the jurors who are sovereign in regard to facts, to determine in their own minds the credibility of those who are sworn to relate the facts: And this in a trial for murder requires great care and attention. I would just observe here, that in the last trial there were not less than eighty- two witnesses for the jury to examine and compare, which was an arduous task indeed! And I will venture further to observe, that some of these witnesses who swore very positively were not so creditable as others, and the testimony of one of them in particular, which was very precisely related & very peremptory, might have been invalidated in every part of it. I shall not at present suggest what I take to be the reason why it was not done. These matters will no doubt have their place in the history of the present times in some future day, when the faithful recorder it is to be hoped will, to use the language of our courts of justice, relate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.