The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-07-28

the plaintiff relies upon such advice
and encouragement 40 having been gtveiIg
by the defendant to the actual perpetrutor E.
Of the offence prior to it's commission, In
such case a defendant IN define 10 be an
sccessory before the fact and the burden
Is upon the Sthte to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that he did give euch
advice and enooura cement to the ono who
committed the acts before he can in any
degree be considered guilty thereof.
"rbs State has attempted, by the evidence
which IL has offered and which has been
rcec.-cd, TO establish the defendants con-
nec,;on with the general conspiracy 10 Kill
and murder those opposed TO the plans and
PURPOSES Of the Western Federation OF
Minsra and the leaders thereof and that
the offence which ia here charged in this
Indictment is one of a series OF offences
perpetrated in pursuance Of that general
conspiracy. You are charged that there
Is bu. one ofence for which the defendant
is on tIsil in this court and in tins case,
and that evidence of other offences, II
any should have hsen shown. has been
received for the sole purpose OF
whether or not such general conspiracy
existed and particularly whether or not
the offence charged III thc indictment was a
DHt anu IHTCfl q lldb 4tAFtlH NOAioPiA"Ny'
Il makes no difference in the case whAt
crimes have been CONF United in Colorado,
In the gpur d'Alenes or elsewhere or who
il ,espon, ible for the commission OF such
crimes. n any there he. The defendant
cannot be convicted unless the State bases
tablished beyond Il reasonable doubt that
he is guilty Of the crime charged in the
indictment 70 wit. tho teloniols killing
of Frank Steuncnberg."
The subject of conspiracy. the vital
point OF the States case, was thus dealt
with
1T il not essential to the formation u a
conspiracy that there should I've " formal
agreemcn. between the parties TO do the
act charged. IL is sufficient IL the minds
of the parties meet UNDERSTANDINGS so as
TO bring about an intelligent and deliberate
agreement to do such acts and commit the
crimes charged. although such agreement
be not manifested bv any formal words A
conspiracy, in the first instance, may be
.establsL.ed by evidence having no relation
TO the defendant 10y acts of different. per-.
sons at different times and places or 10y
any other circumstances which prove its
existence. but the prosecution are not re-
quired to prove the particular crime upon
which tie conspiracy was formed.
at l. sufficient IL the state proves beyond
a reasonable doubt thai such a conspiracy
existed at the time of 'he commission OF
the unlawful act and that the defendant
on trial was "A member OF such "a conspiracy.
Therefore, in this case, 1t lie. incumbent
upon the state TO prove beyond u %re.soii-
sble doubt that IA continuation and a CON
'spirccy wa formed. that ia to say. that the
defendant and others co,.spirad to xii men
who bad heon prominent IN putting down
STRIKES or l. had in any mannerogposed the
plan and purposes Of the Western Fedora
lion Of Miners and that by virtue Of q com.
r,.p laataTt Al A,lgh rAnGnIrlrV the KllInU nf
Frank Steuucnberg YVES InCident thereto.
~The burden of establishing this fact is
'unon the prosecution throughout and never
'shifts TO the defendant. and If the prose-
.cution havc failej To Irove these FACES
.heyonta sseEahledoubtyou viii find fhe
defendant not guilty. II. however. you
believe in this case from the evidence Le-
,yond a reasonable doubt thai The dsfencant,
William d. Haywood, aidetS aticttet. art--
vised and encouraged the killing of Frank
,Steugenberg as charged in the Indictment,
then the said defendant is guilty, ana It
would be immaterial whether he was ac-
tually present at the time OF the Killing
or not.
the Jury is instructed that the witress
Harry Orchard declared that he was an
a~ccomplice in the commission OF the offence
charged in the indictment. The law views
with distrust the testimony of an accom-
plice on account of the motive he may have
Tor laying the responsibility of his crime
upon another when by so doing he may
secure immunity IOT ulh OWu DdIuIIDdllO1
in the crime charged. For this reason the
law esscts such corroboration and although
the jury may believe that the testimony
OF an accomplice Is true and that the de-
PENDANT on trial aided, assisted and abetted
such witness in the commission OF the Of
fence charged, still the jury could not con-
viot the defendant upon such testimony
unless they find further that the testimony
OF the accompllce is corroborlted by Other
and independent evidence as above stated.
This corroborating evidence need not
be sufficient of itself to establish the guilt
of defendant. but it must tend In some
degree to implicate and connect, the de-
PENDANT with the commission If the crime
committed, The provisions of the statute
requiring the corroboraiion OF an accomplish
are fulfilled il there be any corroborating
evidence which Of itself tends to connect
the defendant with the committing of the
offence charged The statute does not
require hat the a~ccomplice should be COR
roborated in respect 10 every material
fact but only in respect TO such OF the ma
terial factS as constitute a necessary ele-
ment in the crime charged
The jury is instructed that where in a
criminal prosecution the State relies upon
circumstaptial evidence for a conviction
sAoh circ,imstantial evidence must be in
cence and consistent only with the evidence
Of his gull. Ii you believe from the cvi-
dence herein that the witness Harry
Orchard was induced or influenced TO be
yin a NiNil'cD hlsA W NrAihg III AiA' NthpN y
any promise of immunity from prosecution
or punishment or by any hope held out to
him that the testified against the defcn-
liant he would not be prosecuted or DUN
ished. then the Jury should take such facts
into consideratioh in determining tho weight
which ought TO lie given to testimony 80
obtained. Such testimony should be re-
ceivcd by the jury with caution and scruii-
nized with great gre.
tine court lnstruCts the jury that Icy
are the sole Judges OF the credit 10 he given
to the respective witnesses who have testi-
fed. and in passing uron the Credibility
Of such witnesses they have the right to
lake into consideration their prcjudioes-
motives ar feelings of revenge, If any such
nave keen proved or shown by the evidence
in thisc case; and II the jury believe from the
evidence that any witness or witnesses
have knowingly and wilfully testified
falsely as To any material fact or point in
this case, tho jury are at liberty, unless
corroboraied Ivy other evidence, 10 dis
regard the entire testimony Of such wit
ness or witnesses.
The jury is further instructed that by
statutory provision tho defendant in a