Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-07-27
Admissibility Of Evidence.


ms on the connection of Steve Adams with
crimes committed in northern Idaho. This
evidence and also that introduced by the
defense regarding deportations in Colorado
and the employment of Pinkerton detect
ives by the mine owners Judge Wood in
structed the jury not to consider on the
ground that no prior connection had been
made IN either case.
Instructions as to the necessity for clear
and conclusive proof beyond any reasona-
BILE doubt of every material fact We're fol-
lowed by quoting Of the indictment on
which Haywood. together with Meyer and
PcttihoHe, was arrested. On this subject
Judge Wood said:
There are three counts il the indictment,
but the substance in C&ch is the unlawful
wiI'fIi. del berate. pramed.cated and felo-
NOUS killing of the said Frank Steunen-
berg with malice aforcthought The es-
sertial clements Of The ofIrnsc charged in
the indictment consist of the following fea-
lures:
y. There must nave been killing: sec
ond. that the killing must have been uniaw-
ful; tniTd il must have been Wiiifui: fourth.
u must h4v" Ieou deIiherated upon; fifth.
it must have been rremcditated; sixth. 1t
must have been accompanied by malice IN
the mind Of the person or persons cong
the killing; and unlass thcs" features and
eaci and every one OF them are proven to
Your satisfaction beyond 4 reasonable doubt
| then TIE defendant cannot In any event be
convicted Of murder in the first degree.
instructions of the Court.
Tn :an2;agc Of The statute is given as to
the murder in the lirst and second degree
and voluntary and Involuntary manslaugh-
ter.
Continuing. Judge Wood said:
The court fnstruc;s that under the law
10 jury should convict a cit2en of crime
simply because there is strong reason +" be
lieve that he is guilty. but before the jury
can lawfully convict they must he con
WINGED Of the defendants guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt"
IF i; is pos .ble for you to reconcile the
facts IN this case upon any reasonable
theory consistent with the ctfe2se OF the de
fendint it is your duty to do 50 and IND
the defendant not guilty.
II further instruct you, gentlemen of the
Jury that while proof has been admitted
of the commission of other crimes by the
defendant and his associates and tending
to prove the commission of such other
crimes 10y them, that it has on Y been ad-
mitted for the purpose of showing the ex-
istence of conspiracy to accomplish Ger
tain objects and that such crimes and the
! crime resulting in the death Of eX-Gov
Sirnnenbarg as well. were all incidents of
I such conspiracy: but You must not forget
/ that the defendant Is being tried for the
! murder of Frank Steunenhcrg and for That
I crime alone. But you are privileged TO
take such other matters into consideration
as part of the evidence in the case and as
/ Incidents and circumstances bearing upon
! the question of his guilt upon tIe charge
/ Of the murder of Frank SteunenberS.
| StiiN ioi SPNNAAN SNSS'
! IT makes no difference, however, in this
| case what crimes have been committed in
| Colorado, in the Occur d'Alenes or else
where. or who is responsible for the COM
mission Of such crimes. If any there be. The
| defendant cannot be convicted unless the
! state has established beyond reasonable
| doubt that he is guilty of the fe!onlous KILL
ing OF Frank Steunenberg.
las applied TO this case and under this in
Gict!nent proof of conspiracy Is only proper
! in so far as It may tend to show common
; design 10 encourage the particular murder
I charged against the defendant, and II can
, only be introduced for the purpose of es-
{ taLIsh.Lg the position of the members OF
, the combine as accessories to the crime OF
| murder.
1t is not esscntiol to the formation of q
I conspiracy that there should be a formal
! agreement between the parties to do the act
/ charged Il i sufficient If the minds OF the
: parties meet undsrstandinGly, 50 as to bring
/ about an intelligent, ana deliberatod agree
, ment TO do some acts and commit the
! crimes charged. although such agreement
] IS not manifested by any formal words
! conspiracy in the first Instance may be es-
3 ;abIished by evidence having 10 relation to
/ the defendant by acts of different persons
, at different times or places or by any cir
! cumstanCcs which prove It's existence.
Conspiracy Defined.
1T is sufficient If the state prove beyond a
! reasonable doubt that such a conspiracy
existed al the time of the commission OF
the unlawful act and that the defendant on
trial was a inenSer of such conspiracy.
An act done by party 20 an unlawful con-
! snIracy In furthcrance thereof and natural
~ flowing from the common design IS the
act Of each and all Of the conspirators. and
where murder is committed as the result OF
such a conspiracy each one OF the con-
spirators even though he was not present
al the place of the crime Is guilty IL he
htded, aOetted and encouraged the cornnis-
I crime charged
IF the prosecution has failed TO prove
| these facts beyond reasonable doubt Won
should find the defendant not guilty. If
however. you believe in this ca Sc from the
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant. William ID. Haywood aided
| abettcd. advised and encouraged the killIng
of Frank Stcuncn5erg, then the defendant
is guilty, and il would he immaterial
whether he was actually present at the
killing or not.
The Jury Is Instructed that the witness
Harry Orchard claims that he an &C
conplice in the commission OF the offense
charged in the Indictment. Under the stat
utes of this state person cannot be con-
v.cted of a crime upon the testimony of an
| accompliCe unless such accomplice is cor
roborated by other evidence which of itself.
and without the aid of the testimony of &C
| completes tends to connect the defendant
, with the commission of the offense charged
and confederation Is not sufficient IL II
merely shows the commission of the offense
or the circumstances thereof
Corroborative Evidence.
BY corroboratory evidence is meant ad-
ditional evidence of different nature to
the same point.
THE law looks with distrust to the testi-
mony Of an accomplce because of the mo-
tive he may have to lay the responsibility
of his crime upon another when by so doing
he may secure immunity for his own par
ticipation in the or me committed. For this
reason the law exacts such confederation
and although the jury may believe that the
testimony Of accOmphce is true, still the
jury could not convict the defendant upon
, such testimony unless il further finds tina,
the testimony OF the accompl!ce is cor
Continued on Sixth Page)