The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-05-07
HAYWOOD DEMANDS
SPECIFIC CHARGES
Motion for Bill of Particulars
of Alleged Overt Acts
Argued at Length.
:!
COURT WILL ANNOUNCE
DECISION WEDNESDAY
State Is Denounced for Keeping
Defense in the Dark as
to Testimony.

BOISE, Ida, May 6-Judge Fremont
Wood will on Wednesday next decide if,
on the eve of his trial for the murder
of former Governor Frank Steunenberg,
William Haywood is entitled to receive
at the hands of the State a bill Of par.
ticulars, specifying the overt acts
charged against him. The motion Of
the defense for this disclosure Of the
case of the State was argued at length
today and at the conclusion of the dis.
cussion the court announced that 1t
would make decision at the time stated.
The prisoner, under guard of Sheriff
Hodgin and two deputies, was brought
into court for the argument and of his
counsel, both Frank Richardson of Den
yer and Clarence Darrow of Chicago,
pleaded in his behalf Senator Borah
alone spoke in behalf of the State, al
though James II. Hawley, his associate,
was In the court room when the pro-
ceedings began. The discussion. al
ways earnest, was characterized at
times by deep feeling and dramatic
intensity.
Holds Indictment Lacking. ~
Mr.. Richardson who opened the argu-
ment, contended that the indictment
lacked particularly, that it left tho
defendants in the dark as to the nature
of the case to be presented against
them, and the defendants were entitled
TO more specific showing of the case.
lie submitted an extended brief citing
a great number of authorities and pre-.
cedents in favor of his contention.
Mr.. Borah in reply declared that the
defense was seeking a disclosure Of the
proof i'll the hands of the State, rather
than more perfect pleadings, and assert
ed that the reports contained no single
authority that would support such
contention,
Mr.. Darrow, who closed the argu-
ment. began by saying that it was the
purpose of the defense to secure a dis
closure of the evidence In the hands of
the prosecution and asked why the de-
tense was not entitled to such n show
ing He made spirited attack upon
the attitude OF the prosecution toward
It's witnesses and evidence, describing
1t AS mysterious, unfair and unjust. Ho
asserted that the only question involved
was one of fairness and justice 10 tho
accused laid stress on the difficulty of
securing testimony from distant points
and the danger to the defense Of ''sur-
prise' testimony, and jmpaesionately
asserted that the rights of the prisoners
were as much in the hands Of the pro-
secution as IN the keeping of the de-
fense.
Defense Cannot Be Ready.
In answer TO Judge Wood. Mr. Dar-
row said that the defense was not
ready TO 90 TO trial, but Mr.. Richard
son interrupted him 10 make the quail
6cation that the defense was as ready
as 1t ever could be in the circumstances
where the case of the State was with
held from II, He SAID that in all oth-
er respects the defense was ready.
Mr.. Richardson, responding in brief
10 the Argument of Mr. Borah. said
that the counsel for the State made no
distinction in his arguments between
the overt acts which the State would
seek 90 show against the prisoners and
the evidence by which il would seek
to show the commission of the alleged
overt acts. The defense wished to
know what the overt acts were
Mr.. Borah closed the discussion with
a spirited speech. in which he defended
secrecy in obtaining witnesses, in
stancing the loss Of TWO IN Colorado
Yesterday, disavowed a desire for any
man s blood unlustly. and avowed the
purpose of the State to do its duty.
What the Motion Sets Out.
The motion for the bill of parttcu-
lars recites the absence of the defend
ants from Idaho at the time the crime
was, committed. and that the indict-,
ment contains no information that
would show the overt acts by which
the State hopes TO prove the guilt of
the accused.
When counsel had finished reading
the motion Judge Wood interrupted to
say:
''You know, Mr.. Richardson that our
l..
bill of particulars in such cases.
- know that such is the case re-
Piled Mr.. Richardson, "a and I also
know that the Supreme Court of Idaho
has had its attention directed to the
subject but once. Such motion, how
ever. as your honor we'll knows. always
directs itself to the sound discretion of
the court.
Mr., Richardson again drew attention
to the absence of Haywood from the
State at the time of the murder and
argued that he was entitled TO tho IN.
formation sought by the motion. He
quoted and explained n number of al.
thorities in support of his contention
that under general rules OF law the de-
PENDANTS are entitled to have particu"
lars when indictments do not clearly
set them forth, The defendants being
out of the State at the time of the
crime, the prosecution must have evi-
dence to connect them by conspiracy
or otherwise with the actual killing.
This evidence the defendants were en-
titled to have in order that they might
prepare 10 meet it,
Are Left in the Dark.
Mr.. Richardson declared that the
Indictment did not charge either a
specific conspiracy or general CON
spiracy, and did not show whether
it was alleged that the defendants
had conspired TO murder only Gov.
Steunenberg, or to murder a number
Of persons. The accused, he said waA