Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-05-06
Brought into Court to Attend on
Hearing on Motion for Bill
Of Particulars.
PRISONER WAS NOT MANACLED
Richardson Opened for Defense,
Contending Was Entitled to
Information.
Senator Boroh Follows. Saying De-
Tense Did Not Seek Standardization
But Possession OF Evidence.

But Possession of Evidence.
Boise. Idaho, May G--Thn argument
on the motion or the defense for a bin
Of particulars in the case of William ID.
Haywood charged with tho murder of
former Gov. Steuuenberg. was COM
menced before Judge Fremont Wood at
1915 this morning. by direction
of the court Haywood WINS brought up
from the county Jail below. 10 attend
the hearing on the motion.
Sheriff ShAd Hodgn and two deputies
brought the noted prisoner into The
room and gave "a seat at TN. table of
his counsel He was not handcuned
Senator Borah represented the state
ana Messrs, Richardson and Darrow The
prisoner. Mr.. Richardson opened the
argument for the motion in the prison
er's behalf Mr.. Richardson opened his
argument by reading the indictment OF
Haywood, Meyer Pettiboue. Orchard
and Simpkins charged with the mui lar
OF Gov. SteUnenberg
Immediately before the openinr OF
court for the hearing OF The motion for
bill OF particulars, Clarence barrow.
or counsel for the defense said to the
correspondent OF the Associated Press
Under the laws ana Constitution.
Meyer, Haywood and Peitibone are 10
be tried In court by a jury OF their
peers. The forum is the state court of
Idaho. Under these facts I do not see
what there is Tor the president to do
All be have a right. or desire to ask
either of him or any other citizen is 70
leave the courts and juries to admins
ter the law fairly and without preju-
dice and without influence from the
outside"
WHAT BILL RULES.
The motion for the bill Of particulars
recites the absence Of the defendant
from Idaho at the time the crime was
committed, and that the Indictment
contains no Information that would
show the oVertacts by which the state
hopes 10 pr1ve the guilt of the accused.
When counsel had finished reading
the motion Judge Wood Interrupted to
say:
You know, Mr. Richardson, that our
state has no statute providing for bill
OF particulars in such cases."
Il know that such is the case" re-
piled Mir. Richardson. and | also know
mat 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
TO the sound discretion OF the court
MIR. RICHARDSON'S ARGUMENT.
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 in
formation sought By the motion. He
quoted and explained a number of au-
thorities in support OF his contention
that under general rules of law the
defendants are entitled TO have particu-
lars when indictments do not clearly
set them forth The defendants being
out Of the state at the time of the
crime. The prosecution must have evil
dence to connect them by conspiracy or
otherwise with the actual killing. This
evidence the defendants We're entitled
TO have I'm order that they might pre-
pare TO meet it,
Mr.. Richardson declared that the in
dictment did not charge either specific
conspiracy or general conspiracy and
did not show whether il was alleged
that the defendants had consUred 10
murder only Gov. Steuneuberg or to
murder "a number of persons. The ac-
cused, he said, was therefore left in
the dark by the indictment.
The list OF presidents and authorities
quoted include the famous causes of
Iilton vs.. Beecher the People Of New
York against Tweed, and the Chicago
Anarchist cases
Mr.. Richardson reviewed the only
Idaho precedent and contended as -
the time OF making the motion that II
WAS proper at any day before the trial
The court asked IL he case had not
been ready for trial for about "A year.
Mr., Richardson replied that nearly a
year ago the defense had demanded
trial
MI Richardson after q pause, con-
tmuiue. said that Haywood had Just
drawn his attention to the fact that
last year the defense had been per-
emptorily refused permission 10 file
any pleading because Of the appeal to
the supreme court OF the United States
pending
Mr.. Richardson contendod that the
Indictment only showed that GOV
Steuuenbcrg had been Killed by n
bomb that Haywood was charged with
couspiriuE 90 have Steuncnberg muir
dored and That Haywood was charged
with being prcseGt ana actually com
hitting the crime, Am assertion that
everyone knew TO be untrue. MI
Haywood said the attorney, knows
an that he dii O all times but he does
here aud testify. He is entitled 20
know the overt act charged against
him Tho indictment gave HE prison
or absolutely uu Information as TO the
nature OF tho charge AGAINST him" |
MI Richardson concluded az li2j |
o'Cloct
SENATOR BORAHs REPLY.
senator gorah who began at once
Tor the state said hat tho defense was /
not seekiug D. pnrtculari2ati0u of the I
indictment hut possession Of the rvi- /
drncc by which the state hoped ~ prove /
its case llr then explained that tho |
..t.....,. o II II4tltgtd tVuu lf fH4I.I.tf.U ]