Bisbee daily review., 1907-07-28
HAYWOOD JURY HAS
 FOUND NJ VERDICT
Up to An Early Hour This Morning No Word Has Come From the Twelve Men Who Have the Life of Defendant in
 Their Keeping-Some Prospect for Agreement.
CHARGE OF JUDGE WOOD IS FAIR TO BOTH SID
At Late Hour Jury Sends for Some of the Evidence in the the Case, Which Is Taken to Mean That Only Few
 Points Will Decide Some Kind of Verdict.

ability of evidence bearing on the con. nection of Steve Adams with the
 crimes committed in northern Idaho.
 This evidence. and also that intro
 duced by the defense regarding de-
 portations in Colorado, and the em-
 ployment of Pinkerton detectives byI
 the Mine Owners, Judge Wood in structed the jury not to consider, on
 the ground that no proper connection
 had been made in either case.
 Instructions as to the necessity for clear and conclusive proof, beyond any
 reasonable doubt, on every material fact, was followed by quoting the in
 dictment on which Haywood, together
 with Mover and Pettibone, was ar
 rested. On this subject Judge Wood said:
 There are three counts in the in
 dictment, but the substance of each of
 them is the unlawful, willful, deliber- ate, premeditated and felonious killing
 of said Frank Steunenberg, with ma lice aforethought. The essential ele- ment charged in the indictment con
 sists of these features: There must
 have been a killing; second, that kill ing must have bee1 unlawful; third. it must have been willful; fourth. it|
 must have been deliberated upon: fifth, it must have been accompanied
 by malice in the mind of the person or persons doing the killing. Unless
 these features, each and every one of them, are proved to your satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt. then the de fendant can not be convicted of mur-
 der in the first degree"
 Language of the statute as given to murder in the first and second degree and voluntary and involuntary man.
 slaughter, was then quoted. Continu- ing. Judge Wood said: The court instructs the jury under
 the law that no jury should convict d citizen or citizens of crime simply be-
 cause there is strong reason to believe
 ne Is guilty: but before the jury can
 lawfully convict they must be con- Flnced of the defendants guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. If it be possible for you to reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable theory con sistent with the innocence of the de. fendant Haywood, it is your duty to dol
 so and find the defendant not guilty T further instruct you. gentlemen of' the jury, that while proof has been admitted of the commission of other crimes by the defendant and his as sociates. and tending to prove the commission of such crimes by them that 1t has only been admitted for the purpose Of showing the existence of a conspiracy to accomplish certain Ob- Jects, and that such crimes, and the crime resulting from the death of ex overnor Sreunenberg, as well. were all. incidents Of such conspiracy. But you must not forget that the defendant is being tried for the murder of Frank Steunenberg, and for that crime alone But you are privileged to take such other matters into consideration as part of the evidence in the case and the incidents and circumstances bear ing upon the question of his guilt upon the charge of the murder of Frank Steunenberg,
 Tt makes no difference. however. in
 this case, what crimes have been com
 mitted in Colorado, in the Occur dAlenes Or elsewhere, or who is re- sponsible for the commission Of such
 crimes, if any there be-"
 The defendant can not be convict ed unless the state has established be- yond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the felonious killing of Frank
 Steunenberg. Gentlemen of the iury
 the court now delivers this case into your hands. It is your duty to con- sider it and deliberate upon it without fear, and without favor. If the eyi- dence shows any individual or indi- yidusls, any person in any private or official capacity, or any class or classes of people interested in any
 way in the conviction or acquittal Of
 the defendant, such fact or facts l should not be considered by you orI
 have any influence upon your delibera. tions. You are here to try to deter
 mine the case between the State of
 Idaho and the defendant, William D. Haywood.
 T herewith submit for your consid-
 eTation appropriate forms of verdict suitable to any conclusion you may reach Conspiracy within the meaning l Of criminal law consists of comDina-
 tion between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a crim- inal or unlawful purpose or a lawful object in an unlawful manner As ap- piled to this case, under the indictment proof of conspiracy is only proper in-
 solar as it may tend to show common
 design and encourage the particular
 murder charged against the defendant. | It can only be introduced for the pur-
 pose of establishing the position of
 members of the combine as accessor-
 ies to the crime of murder. It is not essential to the formation of conspir- acy that there should be formal agree
 ment between the parties to do the
 act charged. It is sufficient if minds
 of the parties meet understandingly.
 so as to bring about an intelligent
 and deliberate agreement to do such
 acts and commit the crimes charged,
 although such agreepent be not
 manifested by any formal words. Con spiracy in the first instance may be established by evidence having no re- lation to the defendant. by acts of
 different persons at different times or I places, Or by any other circumstances which prove its existence.
 Tt is sufficient If the state prove be-