Rocky Ford enterprise., 1907-08-02

present al the time and place OF tho
crime, IL he aided, abetied and en-
eouraged the commission Of the un-
lawful acts resulting in the crime. Is
equally guilty.
Duty IL Facts Are suff,eient.
III the prosecution has failed to
prove these facts beyond reasonable
doubt. you should fnd the defendant
not guilty. II. however. you believe
in this case from the evidence beyond
a reasonable doubt that the defend
ant. William d. Haywood. aided.
abetted. advised and encouraged the
killing Of Frank Steunenbere. then the
defendant ID guilty and II would be I'M
material whether he Was actually
present or not.
'.The Jury il Instructed that the Wit
ness Harry Orchard claims that he
was an aeeompiiee In the commission
OF the offense charged Ia the indiet-
ment. Under the statutes Of this
state person cannot bc convicted
Of a crime upon the testimony of an
accompiiee unless such aecompiice II
corroborated by other evidence which
Of itself. and without the aid of tho
testimony Of the aeeompiice. tends to
mission OF the offense charged. and
the eorroboTation In not sufficient u
IL merely shows the commission OF the
oifense or the circumstances thereof.
by corroboratiye evidence Is meant
additional evidence Of different char
acter to the same point.
'-Thc Law views with dlstrrst the
testimony Of an aecomplIce on ac-
x( E.. ha ms e
laying the responsibility OF his crime
upon another when by 80 doinx he
may secure immunity for his own par
ticipation In the crime charged. For
this reason the Law cxacis such corro-
boration. and although the Jury may
believe that the Testimony of an nc.
compiIce Is true. stiii III. jury eonfa
not convict the defendant upon such
testimony unless they further md
that the Testimony of the arcomplicc
In corroboraisd by other and indopcn.
dent evidence.
As to corroborative Evidence.
This corroboraiiyc cyldcncc need
not be Sufficient Of Itself tn establish
the guilt of the defendant. hut II must
tend In some degree To impiicn'" and
connect the dcfcndan, with the com.
mission OF the crime charged.
"In order To ascertain whether or
not the testimony OF the aecomplic. ih
corrobora,cd. rs the law provides II
must be before a conviction would DO
warranted. you should eliminate from
the cnH cth- evidence Of the accomplicc
and examine the evidence Of ihc other
witnesses with n view TO ascertain II
there be evidence tending To connect
the defendant with the ohcnsc. II
there II. the accomplicc In corrobo-
rated: II thcr els no inculpatory cvl.
dcncc there In no confederation.
though the accompiicc 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 accomplicc.
Harry Orchard.
In order TO Justify an Inference Of
legal guilt from circums'nn'ial owl
dcncc. the existence of the inculpatory
facts must be absolutely Incompatible
with the innocence of the accused
upon any rational theory. and incui.
pablc 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.
duccd or influence to become wilt
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 II he testified against
the defendant he would not be prose-
cutcd 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 scrutinixed
with great care.
Must Consider Treatment Of Orchard.
"And, II from the evidence II 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 70 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 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 criminal case is made a compe-
tent witness in his own behalf. and
where he t?stifles, 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-
finn the interest he may have In the