The San Francisco call., 1907-06-14
Courts Charge All That
Defense Could Ask For
Judge Dunno Includes Speci-
hcations Framed by the
Schmitz Lawyers


which was conceded by even the sttor-
. neys for the defense TO have been ex-
, tremely favorable 10 theZ accused
mayor. was delivered in 35 minutes.
the court beginning his remarks at
5.45 o'clock. After Heney had finished
his address to the jury a recess OF
nearly a half hour was taken, which
the panel spent in the rear room OF the
temple. During that time Judge
Dunno sat on the bench, finally re-
viewing the points Of the two sets of
in nstTUctions supplied by the opposing
counsel At $40 o'clock Elisor Biggy
was instructed TO bring the jury to the
box. The men took their places and
the court moved his chair TO the edge
or the altar nearest the box and READ
TO the jurors from the typewriter
sheets which ne held in his hand.
The defense had given TO the judge
SO points o. Instructions. of which
Judge Dunno eliminated 10. These
points had been prepared by Charles
Fairall of Schmitz' counsel who is
recognized throughout the state as an
authority on criminal law. The state
advanced only a fourth as many points.
prepared by District Attorney Langdon
and ]. J. DV-yer. These were first read
by the court At the conclusion of the
reading Of The two sets of prepared
instructions Judge Dunno added
few remarks. which he delivered with
out consulting his notes.
These closing instructions were an
impartial presentation OF the rights Of
the defendant and the assumptions TO
which the people were entitled. Dunno
pointed out especially that the jurors
were the sole judges Of the evidence
and should weigh the evidence pre-
seHted and decide on the credibility of
each witness, forming their opinion
with regard 10 the conduct. appear
ance and demeanor of the witness on
the stand and the interests OF the wit
ness which might have been involved
IN the case. lie cautioned the jury
that it was its province to consider
only such evidence as had been regu-
s1srly admitted by the court and not to
consider evidence which had been
stricken from the records. In conclu-
sion he said:
1T is your duty as jurors. you must
understand, TO consider the evidence
dict without fear or favor or sympathy.
now leave the verdict in the case,
gentlemen. with YOU
In opening his remarks, Judge Dunno
said, reading from the instructions pre-
pared by the district attorney.
The defendant. Eugene f. Schmitz,
IS Jointly charged with Abe Ruef on
s1I75 from Joseph Malfanti, Charles
Ksib and Lafranz On arraignment
the defendant pleaded not guilty, there
by putting at issue every material point
IN the case"
The court read to the jury sections
5ls and SIG of the penal code of the
state, which defines extortion, and con-
tinued:
I charge you that there are three
constituent parts in the crime: First,
the instance Of obtaining the property
OF another with his consent by the
exercise of fear; secondly, the exercise
OF fear to do harm TO the property of
the person threatened, and thirdly, the
exercise OF a threat to do unlawful in
jury to the property of the person from
whom the extortion is made. The
threat need not be be one of violence,
nor made personally but the mean
ing Of the word implies a menace.
"An persons charged in the crime,
whether directly acting or who abetted
the act, are equally principals before
the law. The prosecution claims that
there was a conspiracy between
Schmitz and Ruef TO commit this ex-
tortion and IL it is proved that one
committed the crime and the other
a.betted it both are guilty 1t is COM
petent TO prove that the defendant was
a party to the crime by circumstantial
The court reviewed the law relating
10 the quality Of the threat which might
be made to deprive the complainants
OF their license, and said that It would
have TO be proved that if money were
paid by them il was paid under duress
OF fear OF an unlawful injury being
done their property
III the money were paid" said the
court, land the payment was forced by
the exercise OF fear or the conspiracy
of both parties both are guilty, no mat
ter what division was made OF the
snoney- or IL any division was made of
IT. II it is proved that Malfanti paid
-s1,1z5 through fear of losing HIS license
and that thereafter the license was
granted, instruct yeu that the verdict
must be guilty"
The Instructions asked for by the de-
1endant's counsel. which were read by
the court almost in full, made much of
the law that to prove the crime of ex-
.tortion II had to be shown that threat
was made or an acquittal must be
voted
Your verdict must be Not guilty IL
you believe the defendant did not know
of any threat" read the court from the
defendants instructions; "or, If you
md that the defendant or any one act
sng for him did not approach Malfanti,