New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-07-28

in the and incidents and circumstances
bearing upon the question Of his guilt upon the
charge Of the murder Of Frank Steunenherg.
OTHER CRIMES NOT MATERIAL.
1T makes ~ difference. however, IN this case
what crimes have been committed in Colorado in
the CmUr d'Alenes or elsewhere, or who is respon-
sihle for the commission OF such crimes, if any
there be. The defendant cannot be convicted
less the state has established beyond reasonable
doubt that he is guilty OF the feionOus killing of
Frank SteUnenberg.
"A conspiracy within the meaning Of the crini-
nal law, consists of a combination Of two more
persons for the purpose Of accomplishing crimi-
nal or unlawful Object, lawful object in an
lawful manner As applied to this case and under
this Indictment proof of conspiracy Is only proper
in so far as it may tend to show common design
to encourage the particular murder charged against
the defendant. and It only be introduced for
the purpose of establishing the position Of the
members of the combine accessories to the
crime of murder
1T is not essential the formation Of con
Spiracy that there should be formal agreement
between the parties to do the act charged. 1t is
sufficient If the minds Of the parties meet under
standingly. to bring about an intelligent and
oehberate agreement 70 DO such acts and commit
the crimes charged. although such agreement he
not manifested by any formal words. a conspiracy
IN the first instance may be established by evil
dence having relation to the defendant. by acts
of different persons at different times and places,
or by any other circumstances which prove its ex-
istence 1t is sufficient if the prove beyond
a reasonable doubt that such conspiracy existed
at the time of the commission of the unlawful act
such conspiracy. An act done by a party TO an
unlawful conspiracy in furtherance thereof and
naturally flowing from the common design is the
act or each and all OF the conspirators; and where
murder is committed as the result Of such a
spiracy, each one Of the conspirators ever though
he was not present at the place of the crime. is
guilty. if he aided. abetted and encouraged the
commission OF the unlawful acts resulting in the
crime charged.
IF the prosecution has failed TO prove these
facts beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find
The defendant not guilty If however you believe
cas- from he ovid md raaS 20
bic doubt that the defendant, William u, Hay
wood. aided. abetted. advised and encouraged the
killing OF Frank Steuuenberg then the defendant
is guilty and II would be immateTial whether he
was actually present at the time of the killing or
not
TESTIMONY OF AN ACcoMPLIcE.
The jury Is instructed that the witness Harry
Orchard claims that he accomplice in the
commission of the offence charged in the indict-
ment. Under the statutes of this state a person
cannot be convicted Of a crime upon the testimony
Of an accomplice unless such accomplice is
roborated by other evidence which. of itself and
without the aid Of the testimony OF accomplces.
tends to connect the defendant with the commits
sion OF the offence charged. and the confederation
IS not sufficient II II merely shows the commission
Of the offence or the circumstances thereof.
by cOrrOborative evidence IS meant additional
evidence OF different character to the same pont
The law views with distrUst the testimony OF
an accomplice on account of the motive he may
have for laying the responsibility Of his crime
upon another, when by doing he may secure i'm
munity for his own participation In the crime COM
mitted. For this reason the law exacts such cor
roboration and although The jury may believe that
the testimony of accomplice is true, still the
jury could convict the defendant upon suCn tes-
timony unless they further find that the testimony
OF the accomplish is cOrroborated by other and in
dependent evidence
This corroborating evidence need not be suf-
cient OF Itself 20 establish the guilt Of the defend
ant but it tend in some degree TO implicate
and connect the defendant with the commission ~
the crime charged
in order TO ascertain whether or not the testi-
mony OF the accomplish is corroborated, the law
provides il must be before a convection would be
warranted you should eliminate from the case the
evidence of the accomplish and examine the eEi-
Gence OF the other witnesses with the view OF as
certaining If there be evidence tending connect
the defendant with the offence. If there IS the
complete is corroborated; il there is ucupatory
evidence there is no corroooration, though the
complete may be corrooorated IN regard TO any
number of facts sworn 10 by him
In this case the state relies upon circunstantaI
evidence TO establish the connection Of the defend
ant with the conspiracy sought 10 be proven by
the evidence taken in connection with the direct
testimony Of the accompiice, Harry Orchard.
In order TO justify an inference of legal guilt
from crcumstantial evidence. the existence Of the
incupatory facts must be absolutely Incompatible
with the innocence Of The accused upon any ra-
tonal theory, and incapable OF explanation upon
any reasonable hypothesis other than that Of his
guilt.
If you believe from the evidence that the Wit
ness. Harry Orchard. induced or influenced
TO become witness and to testify in tlis case by
any promise Of immunity from prosecution or pun
ishnent, or by any hope held - him that IL he
testified against tina defendant he wouId not bs
prosecuted or punished, then the Jury sbould tako
weight which ought TO be given to Testimony so
obtained Such testimony should he received f,.
the jury with caution and scruunlzed with a-re.,t
80
As TO FAVOR TO ORCHARD
And II from the evidence IT appears fhat am.
favors have been extended By the authorities 81 the
State Of Idaho to the witness Harry Orchard ana
there Is any promise. either express or implied re-
Iatlng 10 further iaYors 20 be received nv him on
account OF his testimony in this case, then those
are proper matters for the consideration Al this
jury as affecting the credIbility OF his testimony
Certain articles have been received In evidence
from THE Miners Magazine for the sole n1,r,osa
az determining whether or not any motive existed
upon the part Of the defendant participate in tn
offence charged in the indie and not for tbo
purpose Of establishing N any wise the commission
Of such offence.
The jury Is further instructed that BY statutory
provision the defendant IN criminal case Is made
q competent witness in his own behalf and where
he testitcs as in this case. becomes the same IN
all respects other witness and his testimony
must he tested By the same rules that are
applied to other witnesses. and the Jury NAV tala
into consideration the interest that ne ma. -,