The Elbert County tribune., 1907-08-01
Duty IL Facts Are sufhcient.

prove these facts beyond a reasonable
doubt, you should find the defendant
not guilty. II. however. you believe
in this case from the evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that the defend
ant. William ID. Haywood. aided.
abetted, advised and encouraged the
killing of Frank Steunenberg. then the
defendant is guilty and it would be i'm
material whether he was actually
present or not.
THE jury is instructed that the wit
ness Harry Orchard claims that ne
was an accomplice in the commission
of the offense charged in the indict-
ment. Under the statutes of this
state person cannot be convicted
of a crime upon the testimony of an
accomplice unless such accomplice is
corroborated by other evidence which
of itself and without the aid of the
testimony of the accomplice, tends to
connect the defendant with the COM
mission of the offense charged. and
the corroboration is not sufficient II
1t merely shows the commission of the
offense or the circumstances thereof.
by corroborative evidence is meant
additional evidence of different char
acter to the same point.
THE law views with distrust the
testimony of an accomplice on ac-
count of the motive he may have for
laying the responsibility of his crime
upon another when by SO doing he
may secure immunity for his own par
ticipation in the crime charged. For
this reason the law exacts such corro-
boration, and although the jury may
believe that the testimony of an ac-
complice is true, still the jury could
nt fof he. IAfa u,,N
testimony unless they further find
that the testimony of the accomplice
is corroborated by other and indepen-
dent evidence.
As to Corroborative Evidence.
This corroborative evidence need
not be sufficient of itself to establish
the guilt of the defendant, but 1t must
tend in some degree to implicate and
connect the defendant with the COM
mission of the crime charged.
'In order to ascertain whether or
not the testimony of the accompllce is
corroborated, as the law provides 1t
must be before conviction would be
warranted, you should eliminate from
the cas- ethe evidence of the accomplice
and examine the evidence of the other
witnesses with a view to ascertain IL
there be evidence tending to connect
the defendant with the offense. II
there is. the accomplice is corrobo-
rated; IL ther els no inculpatory evil
dence there is no corroboration,
though the accomplice may be corrobo-
rated in regard to any number of facts
sworn to by him.
I'm this case the state relies upon
circumstantial evidence to establish
10 ,f hn dnfa do nj With
the conspiracy sought to be proven by
the evidence taken in connection with
the direct testimony of the accomplice,
Harry Orchard
I'm order to justify an inference of
legal guilt from circumstantial evi-
dence, the existence of the inculpatory
facts must be absolutely incompatible
with the innocence of the accused
upon any rational theory. and incul-
pable of explanation upon any reason
able hypothesis other than that of his
guilt.
"If you believe from the evidence
that the witness Harry Orchard was in
duced or influenced to become a wit
ness and to testify in this case by any
promise OF immunity from prosecution
or punishment, or by any hope held
out to him that IL he testified against
the defendant he would not be prose-
cuted or punished, then the jury should
take such facts into consideration in
determining the weight which ought to
be given to testimony SO obtained.
Such testimony should be received by
the jury with caution and scrutinlzed
with great care.
And, II 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 Or
chard, and there is any promise,
either expressed or implied, relating
to further favors to be received by
him on account of his testimony in
this case. then those are proper mat
ters for the consideration OF this jury,
as affecting the credibility of his tes
timony.
Certain articles have been received
In evidence from the Miners Magazine
for the sole purpose of determining
whether or not any motive existed
upon the part of the defendant to
participate in the ofrense charged in
the indictment and not for the purpose
OF establishing in any wise the com
mission of such offense.
THE jury is further instructed that
by statutory provision the defendant
in criminal case is made a compe-
tent witness in his own behalf. and
where he t1stifies, as in the case, be-
comes the same in all respects as any
other witness, and his testimony must
be tested by the same rules or tests
that are applied to other witnesses,
end the jury may take into considera-
ton the interest he may have in the
case in determining the weight to be
given to his testimony.
"In conclusion, you are to determine
the question as TO whether or not the
defendant killed and murdered Frank