Palestine daily herald. [volume] (Palestine, Tex.) 1902-1949, 1907-07-27
ON SURFACE THE INSTRUCTIONS
SEEM TO FAVOR DEFENSE,
BUT ARE REALLY FA-
VoRINe IDAHO LAW.
Must Decide By Evidence
Jurymen Are Asked to Not Let Pref
udiee or Other Consideration
Stand In Way of Verdict.
Tells Jury About Orch
ards Testimony.
Special to the Herald.

SUeCldi- 10 the f1tIdlus
Boise, Idaho. July 27-Judge Wood
instructed the jury this morning in
the courts complication of the law
in the case, and reduced it to the fact
that Haywood is not on trial because
he is an officer of the miners fedora
ton, or because there is anarchy in
Colorado, but for the murder of Gov
ernor Steunenberg OF Idaho.
On the surface the instructions
seem to favor the defense, but the
real fact is they favor Idaho law. The
instructions were perhaps the most
volumininous ever given in the Grim
inal history of the country. Sum-
ming up the fifteen thousand words,
it can be stated that Judge Wood in
sisted that the jury must convict, II
at all. after all reasonable doubt is re-
moved. Regarding the meaning of
reasonable doubt he said:
Even where the evidence is so
strong that It demonstrates the prob
ability of guilt, still IL It fails to es-
tablish beyond a doubt the guilt of
the accused, in form and manner. as
charged in the indictment, the jury
must render a verdict of acquittaL If
It is possible for you to reconcile the
facts in the case upon a reasonable
theory consistent with HaywOOds in
nocence It is your duty to find the
defendant not guilty"
Judge Wood said Orchards test
mony must be carefully weighed. The
combination and conspiracy. which
the Prosecution maintained was form
ed declared Judge Wood, cannot be
esablished on uncorroborated testi-
rnony Each Juror must be satisfied
a the defendants guilt before he as.
sft1F to a verdict of guilty. The jury
ni1,cted thal Orchard claims
X Tas III accomDlice in the 0ffense
charged In the indictment, that the
state statute declares a person can
not be convicted of crime on the tes-
timony of an accomplice unless such
testimony is corroboTated by other ev-
idence which is stronger than simply
TO show circumstances attendant up
on the commission of the crime. The
law views with distrust testimony of
an accOmplice on account of the mo.
tive he may have in securing immu-
nifty. Although the jury may believe
the accomplice's testimony is true,
still Il should not convict without in.
dependent evidence coTroborating the
accomplice's testimony. The jury was
also instructed that they are to en-.
/ tirely take into consideration all the
/ facts and circumstances so fas as re-
ceived in the evidence occurring sub
! sequent to the first witness Orchard.
If the jury believes from the evil
dence that there was a promise of
immunity made Orchard then this fact
should be taken into consideration as
affecting mis- credibility. He said the
jury in order to ascertain whether the
accOmplice's testimony is corroborat.
ed as the law provides should elimi.
nate the accomplice's evidence. and
examine the evidence of other wit.
nesses. to ascertain If there is evi.
dence connecting the defendant Hay.
wood with him. If there is then the
evidence of the accomplish is corrobo.
rated. Unless there is evidence show.
ing circumstantial connection of de.
/ PENDANT in the conspiracy. other than
Orchards testimony, there can be no
conviction.
Concluding Judge Wood said:
You are instructed that under the
Indictment the defendant may, If the
| evidence warrants. be convicted of
iluIutI III lHe llISl ueSIttt ulul uel III
the second degree or manslaughter;
or you may find him not guilty"
Haywood. surrounded by his fam
/ lily, looked nervous and perturbed
during the reading of the instructions.
The court room was crowded.
This case has been on trial since
| May 9.
The jury retired from the court
room to deliberate on its verdict at
1905.