Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1907-07-27

laying The responsibility of his crime
upon another when by so doing he
may secure immunity for his own par.
tlclpaton in the crime charged. For
TINS reason the law eXacts a corrobor.
alton and although the jury may be-
leve the testimony Of the accomplice
IS true. still the jury could not con
vict the defendant on such testi-
mony unless they further find that
the testimony of the accomplice Is
fully corroborated by other and inde.
pendent evidence.
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.
Value of Testimony of AccompIice.
In order to ascertain whether or
not the testimony OF accomplice is
corroborated as the law provides it
must be before a conviction would be
warranted, you should eliminate from
the case the evidence of the accom-
plice and examine the evidence of
other witnesses with a view to ascer-
tanning if there be any evidence tend
ing to c meet the defendant with the
offense. If there is, the accomplice
is corroborated, if there is no inculpa-
tory evidence, there is no corrobora,
ton, though the accomplice may be
corroborated in regard to any number
of facts sworn to by him.
"In this case the state relies upon
the cips ssasfantial evidence to estab
lish the connection of the defendant
with the conspiracy sought to be
proved by the evidence taken in con
nection with the direct testimony OF
the accomplice, Harry Orchard. In
order to justify the inference Of legal
guilt from the circumstantial evidence
the existence of inculpatory facts must
be completely incompatible with the
innocence of the accused upon any
reasonable hypothesis other than his
guilt.
'If you believe from the evidence
that the witness Harry Orchard was
induced by any inuhence to become a
witness and to testify in this case by
any promise of immunity from the
prosecution or punishment, or by any
hope held out to him that if he testi-
fed against the defendant he would
not be prosecuted or punished, then
the jury should take such facts into
consideration in determining the
weight which ought to be given the
testimony so obtained. Such testi.
mony should be received by the jury
with caution and scrutinized with care
"And if from the evidence it ap-
pears that any favors have been ex-
tended by the authorities of the state
of Idaho to the witness Harry Orchard
and there is any promise, express or
implied, relating to further favors to
be received by him on account of his
testimony in this case, then those are
proper matters for the consideration
Of this jury as affecting the credibil-
ity of his testimony.
Conclusion of Charge.
I'm conclusion, you are to determine
the question whether or not the de-
fendant 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.
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 or manslaugnter.
Gentlemen of the jury, the court
now delivers this case into your hands
1t is your duty to consider it and de-
liberate on 1t without fear and without
favor. If the evidence shows that any
individual or individuals, any person
in any private or official capacity, OF
any class or classes Of people are in
terested in any way in the conviction
or acquittal of this defendant, such
face or facts should not be considered
by you or have any influence uIpn
your deliberations. You are here tc
try and determine this case between
the State Of Idaho and the defendant
William D. Haywood"
Haywood Hopes for Acquittal.
Haywood listened with his cnarac
teristic stoicism to Judge Woods
charge and after the jury retired he
went back to his cell with conf
dent smile. Before he left the court
room his gray+haired mother rushed
lup and kissed him. The Jury may