The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-07-26

be. The defendant cannot be convicted
unless the state has established beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the
felonious killing OF Frank Steunenberg''
Judge Wood then explained the term
conspiracy under the criminal law, and to
what IL should be necessary for the state
to go to prove that Haywood yas a party
to the conspiracy charged In the present
case.
IF the prosecution has failed to prove
these facts beyond reasonable doubt"
he continued. you should find the de-
fendant not guilty. III. however. you be-
lfeve In this case from the evidence be-
yond a reasonable doubt. that, the defend
ant. William ID. Haywood. aided, abetted,
advised and encouraged the killing OF
Frank Steunenberg, then the defendant is
guilty. and II ~oud be immakerial wheth-
er he was actually present at the time OF
THE jury is instructed snat the wit
ness. Harry Orchard. claims that he was
ap accomplice In the commission of the
offense charged In the indictment. Under
the statutes OF this state. a person can
not be convicted OF crime upon the tes-
timony OF an accomplice. unless such ac-
complice is corroborated by other evi-
dence. which of itself and without the
aid OF the testimony of accomplices tends
TO connect the defendant with the cam
mission of the offense charged and the
corroboration Is not sufficient IL IL merely
shows the commission of the offenee or
the circumstances thereof.
by corroborative evidence Is meant ad-
ditional evidence OF different character
to the same point.
VIEWS WITH DISTRUST
THE laws views with dlstrust the tes-
timony of an accomplice on account OF
the motive he may have for laying the
responsibility of his crime upon another
when by so doing he may secure immu-
crimes committed For this reason. the
law exacts such corroboration, and al
though the jury may believe that the tes-
timony of an accomplice 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 independent
evidence.
"If you believe from the evidence that
the witness. Harry Orchard. was induced
or Influenced TO become a witness and to
testify in this case by any promise OF
immunity from prosecution or punish-
ment, or by any hope held out to him
that II he testified against the defendant
he would not be prosecuted or punished.
then the jury should take such facts in
to consideration by determining the
weight which ought to be given to tes-
timony so obtained. Such testimony
should be received by the jury with eau
ton and scrutnized with great care
And IL from the evidence. II appears
that any favors have been extended by
the authorities of the state of Idaho to-
the witness Harry Orchard and there -
any promise. either express or implied. re-
lating to further favors to be received by
him on account Of his testimony in this
case, then those are proper matters for
the consideration of this jury as affecting
the credibility of his testimony.
"The jury is further instructed that by
statutory provision the defendant In a
criminal case is made a competent witt
ness In his own behalf and where he testi-
fies as in this case. becomes the same in
all respects as any other witness ana
his testimony must be tested by the
same rules or tests that are applied to
other witnesses and the Jury may take in
TO consideration the interest that he may
have in the case in determining the
weight to be given to his testimony.
Under the indictment In this case, the
defendant may IL the evidence warrants
IL. be convicted OF murder Of the first de-
gree. murder of the second degree. OF
manslaughter."
Continued on Page Six)