Omaha daily bee., 1907-05-07
,OURT LISTENS TO THE ARGUMENTS
State Does Not Want TO Disclose Evidence
in Advance Of Trial
NO IDAHO STATUTE COVERING CASE
Defense Pleads for Information as Matter
of Right.
Matter ia Taken Under Advisement In
AfternOon-Judge Wood says lie
VIII Announce Decision 10
n. m. Wednesday.

| BOISE, Ida May 6.-JudEe Fremont
Wood will on Wednesday next decide II on
the eve of his trial for the murder OF
former Governor Frank steunenberg VIII
liam Haywood is entitled TO receive at the
hands of the state a bill Of particulars
| 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 CON
clusion of the discussion the court an
nounced that It would make a decision at
the time stated.
The prisoner, under guard OF Sheriff
Hodgin and two deputies, was brought into
court for the argument and Frank Rich
ardson of Denver and Clarence Darrow OF
Chicago pleaded in his behalf. Senator
Borah alone spoke In behalf Of the state,
although James H. Hawiey his associate
was in the court room when the proceed
fngs began. The discussion, always ear-
nest, was characterized at times by deep
feeling and dramatic intensity.
Mr.. Richardson, who opened the argu-
ment contended that tho indictment was
lacking particularly, that It left the de-
PENDANTS in the dark as to the nature of
the case to be presented against them, and
the defendants were entitled to a more
specific showing Of the case. He submitted
an extended brief citing a great number of
authorities and precedents in favor of his
contention.
Mr.. Borah in reply declared that the de-
fense was seeking disclosure OF the proof
in the hands Of the state rather than more
perfect pleadings, and asserted that the
reports contained no single authority that
would support such a contention.
DaFrOw Closes for Defense.
Mr.. Darrow. who closed the argument.
began by saying that it was the purpose
OF the defense to secure disclosure Of
the evidence in the hands of the pros
ecution, and asked why the defense was
not entitled TO such a showing. He made
a spirited attack upon the attitude of the
prosecution toward its witnesses and evil
dence, describing II mysterious. unfair
and unjust He asserted that the only
question involved was one of fairness and
Justice to the accused; laid stress on tho
difficulty of securing testimony from dis
tant points and the danger to the defense
of surprise testimony and passionately
asserted that the rights of the prisoners
were as much In the hands OF the pros-
ecution as in the keeping of the defense.
In answer to Judge Wood Mr.. Darrow
said that the defense was not ready TO
go to trial but Mr.. Richardson interrupted
, him to make the qualification that the de-
fense was ready as 1t ever could be
in the circumstances where the OF
the state was withheld from It. He said
that in all other respects the defense was
ready.
Mr. Richardson, responding in brief 10
the argument of Mr.. Borah said that the
counsel for the state made distinction
In his arguments between the overt acts
which the state would seek 10 show
against the prisoners and the evidence by
which It would seek to show the commits
sion of the alleged overt acts. The de-
fense wished to know what the overt acts
were.
: Mr Borah closed the discussion with
spirited speech in which he defended sec
recy in obtaining witnesses. instancing the
loss of two in Chicago yesterday, dis
avowed a desire for any mans blood un-
Justly and avowed the purpose OF the
state to do its duty
No Law for BiII.
The motion for the bill Of particulars re-
cites the absence OF the defendants from
Idaho at the time the crime was COM
mitted and that the indictments contains
/ no information that would show the overt
: acts by which the state hopes to prove
the guilt of the accused.
When Mr. Richardson. counsel for tho
, defense had finished reading the motion,
Judge Wood interrupted TO say:
p "You know. Mr.. Richardson, that our
state mas no blatute ptoNlulu6 AoI a bAAA
Of particulars in such cases"
IT know that such Is the case" replied
Mr.. Richardson. 'and ! also know that
the supreme court of Idaho has had its
attention directed TO the subject but once.
Such a motion, however, as your honor
well knows, always directs itself 10 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 the information sought
, by the motion. He quoted and explained
a number OF authorities in support Of his
contention that under the general rules
OF law the defendants are entitled to have
particulars where indictments do not
clearly set them. forth The defendants
being out OF the state at the time Of the
crime, the prosecution must have evidence
10 connect them by conspiracy or other
wise with the actual killing. This evidence
e the defendants were entitled to have in
: order that they might prepare TO meet It.
e Indictment Not Plain.
y Mr.. Richardson declared that the indict-
- ment did not charge either specific con-
e spiracy or a general conspiracy and did
, not show whether II was alleged that the
{ defendants had conspired 10 murder only
9 Governor steunenberg or TO murder a num-
n Der Of persons The accused, he said, was
n therefore left in the dark.
The list OF precedents and authorities
quoted scores Of cases, including the fam
Gus cases Of Tnton against Beecher. the
people OF New York against Tweed and the
, | Chicago anarchist cases.
Mr.. Richardson reviewed the only Idaho
precedent available and contended as to
the time Of making the motion that Il was
proper at any day before the trial. The
/ court asked II the case had not been ready
s for trial about a year.
e Mr.. Richardson replied that nearly a year
z ago the defense had demanded trial Mr..
I Richardson after a pause continued. saying
that Haywood had just drawn his attention
:, to the fact that last year the defense had
d been peremptorily refused permission TO his
any pleading because Of the appeal TO the