Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-07-27
JUDGES CHARGE
Jury In the Haywood Trial Given the Law Points In
 the Famous Case.
VERDICT VERY SOON

Boise, Idaho, July 27.-Judge
 Woods charge and instructions, de-
 livered to the jury in the Haywood case this morning, were lengthy, mak- ing about 12,0o0 words. After thank ing the jurors for the attentive man ner in which they have thus far per formed their duties and giving the cus- tomary instructions as to their general duties as to the law and evidence, Judge Wood instructed them il, accord- ance with his ruling made some days ago, after argument by counsel, as to the admissibility of the evidence bear ing on the connection of Steve Adams with crimes committed in northern Idaho. This evidence, and also that in- troduced by the defense regarding deportations in Colorado and the em- ployment of Pinkerton detectives by the mine owners, Judge Wood in- structed the jpry not to consider on the ground that no prior connection had been made in either case.
 Instructions as to the necessity for clear and conclusive proof beyond any reasonable doubt of every mater ial fact were followed by the quot ing of the indictment on which Hay wood. together with Mover and Pet tibone was arrested. On this subject Judge Wood said:
 There are three counts in the in- dictment, but tine substance of each of them is the unlawful. wilful, delib- crate, premeditated and felonlous kill ing of the said Frank Steunenberg, with malice aforethought. The essen- tial elements of the offence charged in the indictment consist of the follow ing features:
 ''1-There must have been kill ing; second, that killing must nave been unlawful; third, 1t must have been wilful; fourth, 1t must have been deliberated upon; fifth, it must have been premediatated; sixth, it must have ben accompanied by malice in the mind of the person or persons doing the killing; and unless these features, and each and every one of them are proven to your satisfaction, beyond a reasonable doubt. then the defendant cannot in any event be convicted of murder in the first degree"
 Continuing. Judge Wood said:
 "The court instructs the jury that if 1t is possible for you to reconcile the facts in this case upon ony reasonable theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant. William D. Hay wood. it is your duty to uo so and find the defendant not guilty.
 q further instruct you, gentlemen of the jury, that while proof has been admitted of the commission of other crimes by the defendanr and his as- soclates and tending to prove the com- mission of such other crimes by them, that it has only been admitted for the purpose of showing the existence of & conspiracy to accomplish certain ob.- jects. and that such crimes and the crime resulting In the death of ex-Gov- ernor Steunenberg as well, were all in- cidents of such conspiracy: but you must not forget that the defendant Is being tried for the murder of Frank Stunenberg and for that 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 upon the charge of the murder of Frank Steun- nenberg.
 Tt makes no difference. however, in this case what crimes have been in Colorado, in the Occur d'Alenes or elsewhere, or who Is re- sponsible for the commission of such crimes. if any there be. The de. fendant cannot be convicted unless the state has established beyond doubt that he is guilty of the felonious killing of Frank 
 Judge Wood then explained the term conspiracy under the criminal law and to what extent 1t should be for the state to go to prove that Haywood was a party to the charged in the present case.
 eff the prosecution has failed ta prove these facts beyond a reason able doubt" he continued. "yo1 should find the defendant not guilty. If. however, you believe in this case from the evidence beyond a reason able doubt that the defendant. Will 1 liam D. Haywood. aided. abetted. ao- vised and encouraged the killing of Frank Steunenberg. then the defend l ant Is guilty, and 1t would be imma- terial whether he was actually prea- l ent at the time of the killing or not. |
 The jury is instructed that the . Harry Orchard. claims that ] he was an accompliee in the com | mission of the offense charged in the . Under the statutes of his state. a person cannot be cor l Ficted of a crime upon the testimony l 1f an accomplice unless such accom- | ,lice Is corroborated by other evil | fence which of itself. and without 4 he aid of the testimony of accom- ,Iices, tends to connect the defend | mt with the commission of the of- ense charged. and the corroboration | 6 not sufficient if it merely shous he commission of the oTense or the thereof By corrob- ,rative evidence is meant additional ,vidence Of a different character ta f he same point
 The law views with distrmst the estimony of an secomplice on sc ount of the motive he may have f3r aying the responsibility of his crime lpon another when by 90 doing he nay secure immunity for his own participation in the crime committed Tor this reason the law exsfts such