, 1907-08-01

NouIdeSu tue CpIuI1lSSlOH OF Ine un-
lawful acts resulting in The crime, is
equally guilty.
Duty If Facts Are Sufficient.
"If the prosecution has failed to
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
a reasonable doubt hat the defend
ant. William D.. Haywood, aided,
abetted, advised and encouraged the
killing of Frank Steunenberg, then the
material whether he was actually
present or not.
THE jury is instructed that the wit
ness Harry Orchard claims that he
was an accomplice in the commission
of the offense charged in the indict-
ment. Under the statutes of his
state a 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
NhiS oNioh 10 boi SbilitlchI IL
it merely shows the commission of the
offense or the circumstances thereof.
by corroborative evidence is meant
additional evidence of a different char
acter to the same point.
1.-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
ttnnn another urhnr hy p@ J1;ro hn
may secure immunity for his own par
%ticipation in the crime charged. For
this eason the law exacts such corro-
boration, and although the jury may
believe that the testimony of an ac-
complete is true. still the jury could
not convict the defendant upon such
testimony unless they further find
that the testimony of the accomplice
is c~orroborated 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 it must
tend in some degree to implicate and
connect the defendant with the COM
mission of the crime charged.
III III W dSCt ldlH "HtNIlti VI
not the testimony of the accomplish is
corroborated, as the law provides it
must be before a conviction would be
warranted, you should eliminate from
the cas- ethe evidence of the accomplish
and examine the evidence of the other
witnesses with a view TO ascertain If
there be evidence tending to connect
the defendant with the offense. II
there is. the accomplice is corrobo
rated; If ther els no inculpatory evi
dence there is no confederation
though the accomplice may be corrobo
rated in regard to any number of facts
sworn to by him.
I'm this Ease the state relies upon
circumstantial evidence to establish
the connection of the defendant witt
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 n 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 n to testify in this case by any
promise of immunity from prosecution
or punishment, or by any hope held
out to him that If 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 scrutinized
with great care.
Must Consider Treatment of Orchard.
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 Or
chard, and there is any promise
either expressed or implied. relating
to further favorS TO be received by
him on of his testimony in
this case, then those are proper mat
tiers 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 offense 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 a criminal case is made a compe-
tent witness in his own behalf, and
where he testifes, 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,