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


structions delivered to the jury in the
Haywood case were lengthy, making
altogether about IL, 900 words.
| After the customary instruction as
to the general duties of the jurors as
to the law and evidence. Judge Wood
instructed the jurors in accordance
with his ruling made some days ago
as to the admissibility of the evil
dence bearing on the connection OF
Steve Adams with crimes committed
in northern Idaho. This evidence and
also that introduced by the defense
regarding deportations in Colorado
and the employment of Pinkerton de-
tectives by the mine owners. Judge
Wood instructed the jury not to con-
| slider, on the ground that no proper
connection had been made in either
case.
Instructions as to the necessity for
the clear and conclusive proof beyond
any reasonable doubt of every mate
rial fact were followed by the quoting
of the indictment on which Haywood.
together with Meyer and Pettibone.
was arrested. On this subject Judge
Wood said:
There are three counts in the in
dictment, but the substance of each
of them is the unlawful. wilful, DELHI
crate, premeditated and felonious kill
| ing of the said Frank Steunenberg
with malice aforethought. The essen
tial elements OF the defense charged
| in the indictment consists of the fol-
lowing features:
"First-There must have been a
killing; second. that killing must have
been unlawful; third, it must have
been wilful; fourth. 1t must have been
| deliberated upon: fifth. it must have
| cod ctv hau
| been accompanied by malice in the
mind of the person or persons doing
the killing. And unless these fea-
lures, and each and every one of them.
are proven to your satisfaction beyond
a reasonable doubt, then the defend
| ant cannot be in any event convicted
of murder in the first degree.
THE language of the statute Is CIV
| en- as to murder in the first and second
degree and voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter." Continuing, Judge
Wood said:
THE court instructs the jury that
under the law no jury should convict
citizen or citizens of crime simply
because there is strong reason to be-
Iieve that he is guilty. but before the
jury can lawfully convict they must
be convinced of the defendants guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt.
IF 1t Is possible for you to recon-
cile the facts in this case upon any
reasonable theory consistent with the
innocence of the defendant. William
d. Haywood, it is your duty to do SO
and find the defendant not guilty.
Il further instruct you, gentlemen
of the jury, that while proof has been
admitted of the commission Of other
crimes by the defendant and his asso-
@toN1 k.I 30, t.- - ha
mission OF such other crimes by them,
that 1t has only been admitted for the
purpose OF showing the existence of
conspiracy to accomplish certain OBJ
jects. and that such crimes and the
crime resulting in the death of ex-
Governor Steunenberg as we'll were
all incidents OF such conspiracy but
you must not forget that the defend
ant is being tried for the murder of
Frank Steunenberg and for the crime
alone. But you are privileged TO take
such other matters into consideration
as part of the evidence in the case,
and as incidents and circumstances
bearing upon the question of his guilt
on the charge of murder of Frank
Steunenberg.
TT makes no difference, however. in
this case what crimes have been COM
mitted in Colorado. in the Occur
d'Alenes. or elsewhere. or who is re-
sponsible for the commission OF such
crimes. II any there be.
The defendant cannot be convicted
unless the state has established be-
yond a reasonable doubt that he is
guilty of the felonious killing of Frank
Steunenberg.
Defines Conspiracy Under Law.
"A conspiracy, within the meaning
of the criminal law. consists Of a coIu-
bination between two or more persons
for the purpose of accomplishing a
criminal or unlawful object. or a law
full object in an unlawful manner. AS
applied to this case and under this in
dictment, proof of conspiracy is only
proper in SO far as 1t may tend to
show a common design to encourage
the particular murder charged agairst
the defendant and It can only be intro
duced for the purpose of establishing
the position of the members of the
combine as accessories 20 T." rhine
of murder, mi.
ut is MOI essential to the formation
of conspiracy that there should be
formal agreement between the par
ties to do the act charged. II is suf-
ficient If the minds of .he parties meet
Understandings, so as to bring about
an intelligent and deliberate agree
ment to do such acts. as criminal the
crimes charged. although such agree
ment be not manifested by any formal
words.
A conspiracy in the first instance
may be established by evidence hav-
ing no relation to the defendant. by
acts of different persons at different
times and places. or by any other cir
cumstances which prove its existence.
II is sufficient of the state to prove be-
yond a reasonable doubt that such
conspiracy existed at the time OF the
unlawful act and the defendant was a
member of the conspiracy at the
time.
An act done by party to an I'M
lawful conspiracy in furtherance
thereof and naturally flowing from the
common design, is the act of each and
all of such a conspiracy. And where
murder is committed as the result Of
such a conspiracy. each one of the
conspirators. even though he was not
DreSent at the time and place of the