, 1907-07-27
CHARGES JURY
IN THE HAYWOOD CASE

guilty, and 1t would be 1mmateria
whether he was actually present a
the time of the killing of not.
Evidence Of Accomplish.
The law views with distrust The
testimony Of an accomplice on any act
or motive he may have for laying the
responsibility of his crime upon an,
other, when, by so doing, he may Sc
cure immunity for his own participa'
ton in the crime charged.
Needs Confederation.
For this reason, the law expects
confederation, and, although the jury
may believe the testimony Of an &C.
complete true, still the jury could not
convict the defendant upon such testi.
mony unless they further find that the
testimony OF the accomplice is cor.
r%oborated by other Independent evi.
dence.
"This corroborating evidence need
not be sufficient of itself to establish
the guilt of the defendant, but it must
tend in some degree to implicate and
| connect the defendant with the com
mission of the crime charged.
Duty Of the Jury.
"In order to ascertain whether or
not the testimony of an accomplice
is corroborated, as the law provides it
must be before conviction would be
warranted, the jury should eliminate
from the a the evidence of an ac-
complete and examine the evidence Of
other witnesses with a view to ascer-
tanning if there be evidence tending to
connect the defendant with the Of
tense.
Need Of Confederation.
IF there is, the accomplice is cor
roborated; if there is no inculpatory
evidence, there is no confederation,
though the accomplice may be cor
roborated in regard to any number of
facts sworn to by him.
Relies Upon Circumstantiai Evidence.
In this $ 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 &C.
complete, Harry Orchard.
Justification Of Evidence.
"In order to justify the inference Of
legal guilt from circumstantial evil
dence, the existence of inculpatory
facts must be completely incompatible
with the innocence of the accused up
on any reasonable hypothesis other
| than his guilt.
"If you believe from the evidence
that the witness, Harry Orchard, was
induced or influenced to become a
witness and to testify in this case by
any promise of immunity from prose,
| cution Or punishment or by any hope
held ont to him that If he testified
against the defendant he would not be
prosecuted or punished, then the jury
should take such facts into considera-
ton in determining the weight which
ought to be given the testimony SO
obtained.
To Be Taken With Caution.
Such testimony should be received
by the jury with caution inc scrutin-
lied with care, and if from the evil
dence it appears that any favors have
been extended by the authorities Of
the state OF Idaho to the witness,
Harry Orchard, and there is any prom.
Use, express or implied, relating to
further favors to be received by him
on recount of his testimony in this
case, then those are, proper matters
for the consideration of this jury, as
affecting the credibility of his testi.
mony.
Guilty or Not Guilty.
'In conclusion, you are to deter
mine the question whether or not the
defendant killed and murdered Frank
Steunenberg, as charged in the indict-
ment, or aided or abetted such killing.
If so, you should find him guilty; if
not, you should find him not guilty.
Degrees of Crime.
Under the indictment in this case,
the defendant may, if the evidence
warrants it, be convicted of murder
in the first degree, murder in the sec
ond degree, OF manslaughter."
In the Jury's Keeping.
Gentlemen of the jury, the court
now delivers this case into your
hands. 1t is your duty to consider II
and deliberate upon it without fear
and without favor. If the evidence
shows that any individual or individu
ais, any person in any private or of
fetal capacity, Or any class or classes
of people, are Interested in any way
in the conviction or acquittal of this
defendant, such fact or facts should
not be considered by you or have any
influence upon your declarations. YOU
are here to try and determine this case
between the state of Idaho and the de
PENDANT, William D. Haywood"