The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-28
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Walsh Makes Another
Move in Sheppard's Behalf.
AS SERVED HIS NOTICE
Grounds Upon Which New Trial Will
= Be Asked For Are Set Out in
Full - Errors in the
Previous Trial.

~ Attorney y. j. walsh, counsel Tor
s-Charles Sheppard, who was convicted OF
81 murder in the second degree week ago
I to-day for the killing of John Benson,
ss.has made another move in the case.
: Mr.. Walsh yesterday served on Mr..
duffy, the county attorney, notice of
! motion for a new trial. This is the
second notice that Mr. Walsh mas
J, served, the former notice being brief
sRnd stating only few of the grounds
/. upon which a new trial would be asked
{ for. The notice served yesterday is long
land includes about all of the points
~supon which an attorney can request a
= new trial for his client.
- The notice is as follows:
.Sr."To J. Fl. Duffy, County Attorney of
20 Deer Lodge County, Montana, Attor-
~ ney for the State, and L. J. Corcoran,
Clerk of the Above Entitled Court:
~ "You are hereby notified that the
defendant Charles Sheppard, intends
to move the court to set aside the ver-
dict of the jury in the above entitled
cause, finding the said defendant guilty
of murder in the second degree, and
grant the defendant new trial, upon
the following grounds and for the fol-
lowing reasons, to-wit:
'First-That the verdict of the jury
in this case is contrary to law, in this:
that 1T is contrary to and in conflict
with instructions numbered 6, 10, IA, Is,
16, II, 1S and 10.
''Second-That the verdict is contrary
to the evidence, in this: That there is
no evidence direct or circumstantial in
this case to establish the cause of death
of the said John Benson; that there is
no direct or circumstantial evidence in
This case which proves that the crime
Charged in the information was ever
committed; that the prosecution in this
case relies entirely upon circumstantial
evidence to establish the guilt of the
defendant, and that the only proof as
to the manner Of death of said Benson
is circumstantial evidence; that the
prosecution has failed to show any mo-
tive for said crime; that the prosecu-
ton has failed to show malice, express
or implied; that the prosecution has
failed to connect the defendant with the
cause of death of the said John Benson;
that the prosecution has failed to prove
by competent evidence that the de-
ceased, John Benson, did not die from
natural causes; that the prosecution
failed to show that the death of John
Benson was caused by a wound infiict-
ed upon his person by the defendant
with malice aforethought or otherwise;
that there is no proof in this case to
GSldDllSl lLe UaeuSe charged III the
information, as required by section 1858
of the penal code of the state of Mon
tana; that there is an entire absence
of evidence, direct or circumstantial
that the deceased came to his death at
the hands of the defendant.
II Third-On account of errors of law
occurring at the trial and excepted to
by the defendant: The court erred in
permitting the witness Powell. over the
objection of the defendant, to testify
to the alleged confession of the defend
ant, without first requiring the state
to establish the competency of such
testimony, and that the same was q
voluntary confession; that the admis-
sion of the testimony of the witness
Powell before the jury was prejudiciaI
to the rights of the defendant and mis-
conduct upon the part of the county
attorney in offering the same in this:
That the county attorney knew and had
it within his knowledge that the said
witness Sheffield had procured the al
legged confession to be made by unlaw-
ful means, and under such circum-
stances as to render the same incompe-
tent as evidence, and that at the time
said statement or confession was made
to the said witness Powell the same
was made under the influence of the
promises made by the said Sheffield, and
that the evidence of the said Sheffield
shows that the same was made to the
said Powell Immediately after the same
was made to the said Sheffield, and that
the said Sheffield was then and there
present when the same was made TO
the said Powell, and that the permitting
of such confession to so to the jury
created in the minds of the jurors such
prejudice, Notwithstanding the order
to strike out the same, as to prevent
the defendant from having a fair and
impartial trial: the court erred in over
ruling the motion Of the defendant to
instruct the jury to find the defendant
not guilty.
'Fourth-Because of new evidence
discovered material to the defendant
and which he could not with reason
able diligence, have discovered and pro-
duced at the trial.
''Fifth-That there are other grounds
for new trial than the foregoing.
THAT said motion will be made upon
bill of exceptions and statement of the
case and affidavits hereafter to be
served.