The state herald., 1907-08-02

SUCH conspiracy, tdCu oue VI wv
conspirators, even though he was not
present at the time and place of the
crime, il he aided, abetted and en-
couraged the commission of the un-
lawful acts resulting in the crime, IS
equally guilty.
Duty II Facts Are Sufficient.
"If the prosecution has failed to
prove these facts beyond a reasonable
doubt, you should find the defendant
not guilty. II, however, you believe
in this case from the evidence beyond
Il reasonable doubt that the defend
ant. William d. Haywood, aided,
abetted, advised and encouraged the
killing of Frank Steunenberg, then the
defendant is guilty and 1t would be i'm
material whether he was actually
present or not.
"The jury is instructed that the wit
ness Harry Orchard claims that he
was an accomplice in the commission
of the offense charged in the indict-
ment. Under the statutes of this
state n person cannot be convicted
of a crime upon the testimony of an
accomplice unless such accomplice is
corroborated by other evidence which
of itself, and without the aid of the
testimony of the accompllce, tends to
connect the defendant with the com
mission of the offense charged, and
the corroboration is not sufficient If
1t merely shows the commission OF the
offense or the circumstances thereof.
by corrobora,ive evidence is meant
additional evidence of different char.
acter to the same point.
THE law views with dlstrust the
testimony of an accomplice on ac-
count of the motive he may have for
laying the responsibility of his crime
upon another when by so doing he
may secure immunity for his own par.
ticipation in the crime charged. For
this reason the law eNacts such corro-
boration, and although the jury may
believe that the testimony OF an ac'
complice is true, still the jury could
not convict the defendant upon such
testimony unless they further find
that the testimony Of the accomplice
is corroborated by other and indepen
dent evidence.
As to corroborative Evidence.
This corroboratiye evidence nee,
not be sufficient Of itself to establish
the guilt of the defendant. but II mus
tend in some degree To lmplicate ant
connect the defendant with the com
mission OF the crime charged.
"In order to ascertain whether oi
not the testimony of the accompllce Is
corroborated. as the law provides Il
must be before a conviction would be
warranted, you should eliminate from
the cas- ethe evidence OF the accomplic6
and examine the evidence of the Other
witnesses with view to ascertain Il
there be evidence tending TO connect
the defendant with the offense. u
there is. the accomplice is corrobo
rated: II ther els no inculpatory eyl
donce there is no confederation
though the accomplicc may be corTobo
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 10 be proven by
the evidence taken In connection with
the direct testimony OF the accomplice
Harry Orchard,
In order TO Justify an Inference OF
legal guilt from circumstnniial evi
dcnce. the existence Of the inculpatory
facts must be absolutely Incompatible
with the innocence Of the accused
upon any rational theory, and incul
pablc OF explanation upon any reason
able hypothesis other Than that Of his
guilt.
III you believe from the evidence
that the witness Harry Orchard was In
duced or influenced to become n wit
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,
cuted or punished. then the Jury should
take such facts into consideration In
determining the weight which ought 10
be given TO testimony go obtained.
Such testimony should be received by
the jury with caution and acrutinizod
with great care.
Must contider Treatment OF Orchard.
And. II from the evidence II up,
pears that any fnyors have been cG,
tended by the authorities Of the state
Of Idaho 20 the witness. Harry or.
chard. and there IN any promise.
either expressed OF implied. relating
20 further fayofs 20 be- received by
him on account Of his testimony In
this case. then those are proper mat.
tors for the consideration Of this Jury,
aa affecting the credibili,y Of his ties.
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 10
participate In the oi1cnse charged IN
the Indictment and not Tor the purpose
Of establishing In any wise the com
mission Of such off"nse
"The jury N further instructed that
by statutory provision the defendant
In a criminal ease n made cOmpe
tent witness In hia own behalf. aud