"But that was entirely unnecessary."

"No matter, it is a ground of appeal. Further: 'Second. Maslova's
attorney,' he continued to read, 'was interrupted while addressing the
jury, by the justiciary, when, desiring to depict the character of
Maslova, he touched upon the inner causes of her fall. The ground for
refusing to permit him to continue his address was stated to be
irrelevancy to the question at issue. But as has often been pointed
out by the Senate, the character and moral features generally of an
accused are to be given the greatest weight in determining the
question of intent.'--Two."

"But he spoke so badly that we could not understand him," said
Nekhludoff with still greater surprise.

"He is a very foolish fellow and, of course, could say nothing
sensible," Fanirin said, laughing. "However, it is a ground for
appeal. 'Third. In his closing words the justiciary, contrary to the
positive requirements of section 1, chapter 801 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, failed to explain to the jury of what legal
elements the theory of guilt consisted; nor did he tell them that if
they found that Maslova gave the poison to Smelkoff, but without
intent to kill, they had the power to discharge her.' This is the
principal point."

"We could have known that. That was our mistake."

"And finally: 'Fourth,'" continued the lawyer. "'The answer of the
jury to the question of Maslova's guilt was made in a form which was
obviously contradictory. Maslova was charged with intentional