The Lamar register. [volume] (Lamar, Colo.) 1889-1952, 1907-07-31

HiSSioh vi the OneHSe CudIS dut
the confederation is not sufficient II
it merely shows the commission of the
offense or the circumstances thereof
BY corroboratiye evidence is meant
additional evidence of a different char
acter to the same point.
1.-The law views with distrust the
testimony of an accomplice on &C
count of the motive he may have for
laying the responsibility of his crime
upon another when by 30 doing he
may secure immunity for his own par
ticipation In the crime charged. For
this reason the law exacts such zorro
boration, and although the jury may
believe that the testimony of an &C
complete is true. still the jury could
not convict the defendant upon such
testimony unless they further find
that the testimony of the accomplish
is corroborated by other and indepen'
dent evidence.
| As to corrobor alive Evidence.
| This corroborative evidence neet
not be sufficient of itself to establish
the guilt of the defendant. but 1t must
tend in some degree to implicate and
connect the defendant with the com
mission OF the crime charged.
| III OTueT TO ascertain WuttHei vi
not the testimony of the accomplice is
corroborated. as the law provides II
must be before a conviction would be
warranted. you should eliminate from
the cas- ethe evidence of the accomplish
and examine the evidence of the other
witnesses with a view to ascertain II
there be evidence tending to connect
| the defendant with the offense. II
| there is. the accomplice is corrobo-
rated: If Their els no inculpatory EVIL
dence there is no confederation,
| though the accomplish may be corrobo
rated in regard to any number of facts
sworn to by him.
In this case the state relies upon
circumstantial evidence to establish
the connection of the defendant with
the conspiracy sought to be proven by
the evidence taken in connection with
the direct testimony of the accomplish
Harry Orchard.
I'm order to Justify an inference Of
legal guilt from circumstantial EVIL
dence. the existence of the inculpatory
facts must be absolutely incompatible
with the innocence of the accused
upon any rational theory. and incul
pable of explanation upon any reason
able hypothesis other than that of his
guilt.
IF you believe from the evidence
that the witness Harry Orchard was In
duced or Influenced to become wit
ness and to testify in this case by any
promise of immunity from prosecution
or punishment, or by any hope held
out to him that If he testified against
the defendant he would not be prose
cuted or punished, then the jury should
take such facts into consideration In
determining the weight which ought to
be given to testimony so obtained
Such testimony should be received by
the jury with caution and scrutinized
with great care.
Must Consider Treatment Of Orchard
And, II from the evidence 1t ap
pears that any favors have been ex
tended by the authorities of the state
OF Idaho to the witness, Harry Or
chard, and there is any promise
either expressed or implied, relating
to further favors 20 be received by
him on account Of his testimony in
this case. then those are proper mat
tiers for the consideration OF this jury
as affecting the credibility of his ties
timony.
Certain articles have been received
in evidence from the Miners Magazine
for the sole purpose of determining
whether or not any motive existed
upon the parf OF the defendant &c
participate in the offense charged in
the Indictment and not for the purpose
of establishing in any wise the com
mission of such offense.
THE jury is further r~'ructed thai
by statutory provision the defendant
in a criminal case is made compe
tent witness in his own behalf, and
where he testifies, as in the case, be
comes the same in all respects as any
other witness, and his testimony must
be tested by the same rules or tests
that are applied to other witnesses
and the jury may take into considera
tion the interest he may have in the
case in determining toe weight to be
given to his testimony.
IN conclusion, you are to determine
the question as to whether or not the
defendant killed and murdered Franz
Steunenberg as charged in the indict
ment. or aided and abetted such kill
ing. IL go. you should find him guilty;
If not, you should find him not guilty
Under the Indictment in this case
the defendant may, If the evidence
warrants 1t, be convicted of murder o.
the first degree. murder of the secont
degree, or manslaughter."
What Former Gov. Peabody Thinks
Canon City, Colo.-Former Governor
James II. Peabody, when interviewed
on the Haywood verdict. said:
Il was very much surprised at al
verdict of acquittal. ] had scarcely
looked for a conviction. for believed
that in case covering so much test
mony as this 1t would be impossible
to get verdict, and that hung jury
would result.
Il believe the case was ably con
Quoted on both sides. Judge Wooc
was very fair to both the prosecution
and the defense. and | cannot make
any criticism of his decision or the
manner in which he conducted the
case.
1.-THE jury from my observation wa.
a splendid one The men were above
the average in intelligence. conserva
tive and fair-mnded. | know nothing
of the reasoning by which they ar
rived at verdict of acquittal. and
until I hear more about that part OF
the case | would not care to express
an opinion.
Il have not a word of criticism to