, 1907-08-01
Judge Woods CHARGE TO jury.

Haywood case were lengthy, making
altogether abou 10000 words.
After he customary instruction as
to the general duties of the jurors as
to the law n evidence, Judge Wood
instructed the jurors in accordance
with his ruling made some days ago
as to the admissibility of the evil
dence bearing 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 de-
tectfves by the mine owners, Judge
Wood instructed the jury not to con
slider. on the ground hat no proper
connection had been made in either
case.
Instructions as to the necessity for
the clear n conclusive proof beyond
any reasonable doubt of every mate
rial fact were followed by the quoting
of the indictment on which Haywood,
together with Meyer and Pettibone,
was arrested. On his subject Judge
Wood said:
here are three counts in the in
dictment, but the substance of each
of them Is the unlawful, wilful, DELHI
crate, premeditated and felonious kill
ing of the said Frank S~teunenberg
with malice ~aforethought. The essen
tial elements of the defense charged
in the indictment consists of the fol-
lowing features:
"First-There must have been a
killing; second, that killing must have
been unlawful; third, it must have
been wilful; fourth. it must have beer
deliberated upon; fifth, it must have
been premeditated; sixth, it must have
been accompanied by malice in the
mind of the person or persons doing
the killing. And unless these fea-
lures, and each and every one of them,
are proven to your satisfaction beyond
a reasonable doubt, then the defend
ant cannot be in any event convicted
of murder in the first degree.
THE language of the statute is CIV
en- as to murder in the first and second
degree and voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter." Continuing, Judge
Wood said:
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 hat he is guilty, but before the
jury can lawfully convict they must
be convinced of the defendants guilt
beyond all reasonable doubt.
IF 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.
Il further instruct you, gentlemen
of he jury. that while proof has been
admitted of the commission of other
crimes by the defendant and his asso-
ciates. and tending to prove the com
mission of such other crimes by them,
that it has only beer admitted for the
purpose of showing the existence of a
conspiracy to accomplish certain OBJ
jects, and that such crimes and the
crime resulting in the death of ex-
Governor S~teunenberg as well, were
all incidents OF such conspiracy; but
you must not forget that the defend
ant is being tried for the murder of
Frank Steunenberg and for the 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
on the charge of murder of Frank
Steunenberg.
1T makes no difference, however. in
this case what crimes have been com
mitted in Colorado, in the Occur
d'Alenes, or elsewhere, or who is re-
~ an - se~hA
crimes, if any there be.
THE defendant cannot be convicted
unless the state has established be-
yond 4 reasonable doubt that he is
guilty of the felonious killing of Frank
Steunenberg.
Defines Conspiracy Under Law.
"a conspiracy, within the meaning
of the criminal law, consists of a com-
kg.ntt-n Int.rann t.rn NV ~ A.,x-
for the purpose OF accomplishing a
criminal or unlawful object, or a law
full object in an unlawful manner. AS
applied to this case and under his in
dictment, proof Of conspiracy is only
proper in SO far as 1t may tend to
show a common design to encourage
the particular murder charged against
the defendant and II can only be intro
duced for h purpose of establishing
the position OF the members of the
combine as accessories 70 the crime
of murder.
1T is not essential to the formation
of a conspiracy that there should be a
formal agreement between the par
ties to do the act charged. 1t is suf-
fcient If the minds OF the parties meet
Understandings, so al to bring o
an intelligent and deliberate agree
ment to do such acts, as criminal he
crimes charged, although such agree
ment be not manifested by any formal
words.
A conspiracy in the first instance
may be established by evidence hav-
ing no relation to the defendant, by
acts of different persons at different
times and places, or by m other cir
cumstances which prove its existence.
n Ia SuffCfant pf tba Sfatn tn prnyp he
yond a reasonable doubt that such
cnnSnlracY existed at the time of the