Albuquerque daily citizen. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1895-1903, 1902-03-28
MANSLAUGHTER
Was the Verdict in the Baca Mul.
der Trial.
CASES TRIED TO-DAY.

walton on November Ia, 1898, was thi.
morning declared guilty of manslaugh
ter by the jury. The penalty is from
three to ten years Imprisonment. The
usual motion for a new trial was made
A night session of court was held
last night and the case went to the
jury shortly before 10 o'clock. Judge
Baker surprised the jury and court of
ficers by the manner in which he car
ried the case to a rapid conclusion. Or
the conclusion of his charge Judge
Baker said:
L have been requested by the Jury
to send them to a hotel for the night
and permit them to begin deliberatine
in the morning. The court does not
believe he has the authority or the
the power to permit this. Nor does il
seem wise or expedient to grant such a
request. The jury will therefore retire
to its room and begin its deliberations
at once. | do not care how soon vol
get through"
The jury retired and elected ]. w.
Edwards as foreman. In a few mo.
ments Mr.. Edwards appeared and ask
ed that an interpreter be appointed.
There ought to be some one on that
jury" replied Judge Baker, "who
knows enough of both languages to
enable you to get along. The court
is strongly opposed to sending an in
terpreter into the jury rooms during
it's deliberations. You must make ev-
cry endeavor to get along without one
You deliberate without one until 8
o'clock in the morning and If at that
time n is absolutely necessary the
court will consider it. For the present
you must get along as best you can
without one. Adjourn court until 8
o'clock tomorrow morning"
At 8 this morning the verdict was
ready and the jury released. 1t was
made up of ten Mexicans and two
Americans.
On cross examination in the after.
noon Baca said he was sentenced to
four years in the penitentiary for burg
lark but vas pardoned by Governor
Prince. He was later sent to Jail
here.
Captain Reed. for the prosecution
laid great stress On the testimony of
Esquibel and said neither Baca nor
Densmore were to be believed. Mr..
Ortiz, for the defense, argued that
the shot Baca fired was not the ne
that killed Maxwell and that Baca
acueQ IN sell ue1enSe
United States Attorney w. B. Chill
ders did not speak until s o'clock last
evening. He discredited the testimony
of Baca and Densmore and made a
powerful argument. ~
Judge Baker at once charged the
jury. He said their oaths demanded
they perform their duty fairly and i'm
partially. They were accepted as fair
and impartial jurors and it was their
duty to repel all bias, passion. preju
dice or sympathy from their mind and
render a verdict in accordance with
the evidence. The court defined pur
posely, deliberately, ~premeditated and
malice, as used in denning murder
and explained on what the presump-
ton or malice is based. He said if
Baca killed Maxwell purposely, DELHI
erately, with premeditated malice, it
was nrst degree. If without malice, it
was manslaughter unless it was in self
defense. The rule of self defense.
Judge Baker said, was that il a man,
in the lawful pursuit of his business,
has reasonable ground for believing
his life is in danger or that he is in
danger of great bodily harm, he can
defend himself. There must be an
apparent danger and such a one as to
induce a reasonable person to believe
ne is in great danger. The jury must
consider what a reasonable person
would suppose, placed as the defend
ant was placed, knowing what he knew
considering all circumstances and the
actions of all parties at the time and
just prior. If he later assaulted his
antagonist from revenge or other mo
tive he is not exempt from punishment
The jury is to judge solely as to cred
Utility of witnesses. If Baca got the
J rifle to shoot Maxwell and Maxwell
shot at him, it would not justify Baca
in shooting as an assaulted party car
defend himself. The court defined 6
I reasonable doubt and said the Jury car
{ recommend clemency but the courr
I would fix the penalty. The jury theI
: retired.
5 This morning the case of u. S. VS.
} John Sherman, charged with sellins
( liquor to Indians at Gallup, was tried
5 Messrs. T. N. Wilkerson and II. p
owen appeared for the defendant. Th,
: witnesses for the United States test
fled that they watched several Navajo
Indians near the place where the de
PENDANT was working, saw them go il
a shed n later saw the Navajo ioir
his companions and draw from unde
his blanket a black botue. containini
a liquid, the bottle and liquid bein.
produced as exhibit and handed to tn,
jurors to pass judgment upon. From
the wry faces of the jurors 1t was evl
dent that a point had been gained 70
] the defendant. On conclusion of tn,
testimony for the government, on tn
motion of the defendant to dismiss tn
court held the evidence to be insufhC
e lent to be presented to the jury, an.
s instructed the jury to return a vel
S dict of not guilty.
In the case of the United States v.
q Dan Miller, selling nquor to Naval
Indians, the defendant withdrew pie
of not guilty and entered plea of guilty
whereupOn the court sentenced de
. fendent to ten months in the count
= Jail, he having already served 81
: months awaiting trial.
The case of the United States "
= Dad Benson. charged with selling !
: quOr to Indians, was set for trial tn
- / aFwaaA