Bisbee daily review., 1907-07-27

the knowledge that would free Glass from his crime. and that would not harm Zimmer?"
 Heney concluded his argument with an appeal for conviction, barring req | sonable doubt.
 The following are a few of the more important sections Of Judge Lawlor's
 charge to the jury:
 Tt is not required that there should be direct evidence of any expressed ! agreement of alleged conspiracy. It i is competent to prove that the de l fendant was a party to the conspiracy ] for the commission of crime by cir cumstantial as well as by direct evil | denCc."
 Common design is the essence of conspiracy. This may be made to ap- pear when the parties readily pursue | the same object, when acting separate ly or together. by common or different
 means. all leading to the same unlaw- , ful result.'
 While corrobOrating evidence must | create more than mere suspicion, 1t is not required it be absolutely cOnvinc- l ing. It is sufficient if standing alone
 it tends to connect the defendant with
 the crime
 i "The prosecution must prove beyond l Q reasonable doubt: First, the bribing
 of Boxton: second. the connection of 1 the defendant with the giving of the
 bribc. Even if the bribing of Boxton 1 is proved to your satisfaction, still Il
 the prosecution has failed to prove the
 connection of the defendant with the l crime. your verdict should be not
 guilty The jury can not find the de fendant guilty without proof beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly and Intentionally paid or participated in the paying of bTibe to BoXton, anC it is not enough to show suspicious cir cumstances. showing that the defend ant knew such bribe was paid, or wa' intended to be paid, by others, unless
 it is satisfactorily shown that he par ticipated in the act or advised and en couraged its commission. It IS no Tsufficient for the prosecution to prove Il that bribery may have been commit |, ted and that the defendant may have , had reason to suspect it at the time
 or afterwards, or that he acquised II , it and derived any advantage from 1t r directly or indirectly. Mere proof O knowledge that a crime is being com mitted or about to be committed, | } not in itself proof of the guilt of tn,
 person having such knowledge. 4 5 person commits no legal offense b,
 merely refraining from preventing tn j. crime of bribery, of-the commission O - the intended commission of which h 5 has knowledge"
 2 Failure of Glass to testify is no g to be taken by the jury as the slight
 est evidence of his guilt"
 I It is not incumbent upon the dt -- fendant 50 prove his innocence. nor -- it incumbent upon him to explai r suspicious circumstances. He has tn e right to stand mute and demand tha i. the people make case against hiI
 beyond a reasonable doubt" a Judge Lawior instructed the depute | to lock the jury into a suite of room l. at the hotel and allow no one to al Q proach the doors of the suite, nc Q even the sheriff himself. The jury el Q tered upon itr deliberations at and . 7:3O were given dinner. At 9:3O a 2. torneys and Q large crowd were sti II waiting, but no word had been r ' ceived from the court or bailins
 charge of the jury.
 Judge Lawlor went home at mi
 night and the jury retired for tf
 night Deputy Sheriff Holland too Q Glass to hotel.