The Ordway new era., 1907-08-02


couraged the commission n, ,ha IN.
lawful acts resulting in tho ,r,r, =.
equally guilty. "'' -
Duty II Facts Are Sufficient
III the prosecution has ta,,.a IN
prove these facts beyond a reasonahIo
doubt, you should find the defondart
no, suiity. IT, however. you believe
:" .n's case from the evidence beyond
reasonable doubt that the defend
an', Wiliam ID. Haywood, aided,
aDet'ed, advised and encouraged the
killing OF Frank Steunenberg. then the
defendant Is guilty and 1t would be i'm.
material whether he was actually
present or not.
me Jury is instructed that the wit
ness Harry Orchard claims that he
was an accomplice In the commission
OF the onense charged In the indIct.
inent. Under the statutes of this
state person cannot be convicted
OF 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 onense charged, and
the confederation is not sufficient II
II merely shows the commission OF the
oncnse or the circumstances thereof.
by corroboratiye evidence Is meant
additional evidence of different char
acter to the same point.
The law views with dlstrust 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 couli
not convict the defendant upon such
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 ii must
tend in some degree to implicate and
connect the defendant with the com
mission OF the crime charged,
"ln order to ascertain whether or
not the testimony of the accomplice is
corroborated, rs the law provides II
must be before a 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 10 ascertain II
there be evidence tending to connect
the defendant with the Ofense. II
there is. the accomplice Is corrobo'
rated; II 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.
"In this case the state relies upon
circumstantial evidence to establish
the connection of the defendant with
the conspiracy sought to be proven by
the evidence taken in connection with
the direct testimony OF the accomplice
Harry Orchard.
In order TO justify an inference oi
legal guilt from circumstantial evil
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 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 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 tC
he given to testimony so obtained
Such testimony should be received Dy
the iury with caution and scrutinized
with great care.
Must Consider Treatment of Orchard
"And. if from the evidence ii ap
nears 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 oy
him on account of his testimony III
this case, then those are proper mat
tors for the consideration of this jury
ms 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
NV statutory provision the defendant
in n criminal case is made a compe.
tent witness in his own behalf, ana
where he testifies, as in the case, pe-