The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-07-27

case.
Indictment Is Quoted.
Instructions as to the necessity fol
the clear and conclusive proof beyond
any reasona BILE doubt of every materia
fact were followed by the quoting Of
the indictment on which HAYWOOD, to.
gether with Meyer and Pettibone was
arrested. On this subject Judge Woot
said:
There are three counts in the in
dictment, but the substance of each OF
them is the unlawful, wilful, deliberate
premeditated and felonious killing OF
said Frank Steunenberg with malice
aforethought. The essential elements
OF the offense charged in the indictment
consist of the following features:
81 There must have been a kill
ing; second, that killing must have
been unlawful; third, it must have
been wiIfuI; fourth, it must have been
deliberated upon; fifth, it must have
been prem editated; sixth, it must
have been accompanied by malice in
the mind of the person or persons do
ing the killing; and unless these fea-
lures and each and everyone of
them are proven to your satisfaction
beyond a reasonable doubt, then the
defendant can not in any event be
convicted of murder in the first de-
gree"
The language of the statute is given
as to murder in the first and second
degree and voluntary and involuntary
manslaughtef.
Continuing, Judge Wood said:
1.-THE court instructs the jury that
under the law no jury should convict
a citizen or citizens of crime simply
because there is strong reason to be-
lieve that he is guilty, but before the
jury can lawfully convict they must
be convinced of the defendants guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt.
eff it is possible for you to recon-
cile the facts in this case upon any
reasonable theory consistent with the
innocence of the defendant, William
d. Haywood, it is your duty to do so
and find the defendant not guilty.
ct further instruct you, gentlemen
of the jury, that while proof has been
admitted of the commission of other
crimes by the defendant and his as
and tending to prove the
commission of such other crimes by
them, that it has only been admitted
for the purpose of showing the exis-
tence of a conspiracy to accomplish
certain objects, and that such crimes
and the crime resulting in the death
of Ex-Governor Steunenberg as well,
were all incidents of such conspiracy;
PENDANT is being tried for the murder
of Frank Steunenberg and for that
crime alone. But you are privileged
to take such other matters into con-
sideration as part of the evidence in
the case, and as incidents and cir |
cumstances bearing upon the ques-
ton of his guilt upon the charge of
the murder of Frank Steunenberg
Nothing But Steunenberg.
TT makes no difference, however. |
IN this case what crimes have been |
committed in Colorado, in the Occur |
D'Alenes, or elsewhere. or who is re-
sponsible for the commission of such |
crimes, If any there be. The defen- |
liant can not be convicted unless the |
state has established beyond a reas- |
~ 49, ~ l.,
,elonious killing of Frank Steunen-
berg.
"A conspiracy, within the meaning |
IF the criminal law, consists of a !
combination between two or more
persons for the purpose of accom-
olishing a criminal or unlawful OBJ |
ect. or a lawful object in an unlawful
manner. As applied to this case and |
lnder this indictment, proof of con-
pfracy is only proper insofar as it |
nay tend to show a common design
o encourage the particular murder
charged against the defendant, and |
t can only be introduced for the pur-
BOSE of establishing the position of
he members of the combine as ac-
'essories to the crime of murder
1T is not essential to the forma-
ion of a conspiracy that there should
De formal agreement between the
parties to do the act charged. It is
sufficient if the minds of the parties /
meet Understandings, so as to bring
lbout an intelligent and deliberate
lgreement to do such acts. and com
nit the crimes charged, although
uch agreement be not manifested byI
my formal words A conspiracy in /
he first instance may be esta bIished
~ evidence having no relation to the
defendant, by acts of different per-
ons at different times and places, or
" any other circumstances which
'roVe It's existence, if the state should
'rove beyond a reasonable doubt that
UGH conspiracy existed at the time
II the commission of the unlawful
-ct, and that the defendant on trial
vas member of such conspiracy. An
ct done by party to an unlawful
in furtherance thereof and
naturally flowing from the common
Iesign. is the act of each and all of
ne consp1rators. And where murder
committed as the result of such a
onspiracy, each one of the conspira-
ors. even though he was not present
t the place of the crime if he aided,
petted and encouraged the commits
ION or the unlawful acts resulting in
ne crime charged is guilty.
His Presence Not Necessary.
If the prosecution has failed to
rove these facts beyond a reason
DIE doubt, you should find the de-
endant not guilty. If, however, YOU
eheVe In this case from the evidence 1
eyond a reasonable doubt that the ,
efen dant, William d. HAYWOOD. aid
d, abetted, advised and encouraged
ne killing of Frank Steunenberg. !
hen the defendant is guilty, and it
Fould be immaterial whether he was
ctuaIly present at the time of the !
filing or not
The jury is instructed that the ]
'ltness, Harry Orchard, claims that he
as an accomDlice in the commission {
the onense charged in the indfct- ,
lent Under the statutes of this state :
person can not be convicted of a |
r1me upon the testimony of an ac-
on1pllce unless such accomplice is
orroborated by other evidence which j
itself, and without the aid-of the ]
sstimony of the accomplish tends to- ]
onnect the defendant with the com
hsslon or the offense charged and the
is not sufficient If IL