Los Angeles herald., 1907-07-28

the general duties of the jurors as to the
law and evidence, Judge Wood instructed
the jurors In accordance with his ruling
made some days ago after argument by
counsel as to the admissibiity of the evil
dence bearing on the connection of Steve
Adams with crimes committed in north.
ern Idaho
This evidence, and also that introduced
by the defense regarding deportations In
Colorado and the employment of Pinker-
ton detectives by the mine owners, Judge
Wood instructed the jury not to consider
on the ground that no proper connection
had been made in either case
Instructions as to the necessity for clear
and conclusive proof beyond any reasona-
BILE doubt of every material fact were
followed by the quoting of the indict-
ment on which Haywood, together with
Meyer and Pettibone, was arrested.
On this subject Judge Wood said:
There are three counts In the indict-
ment, but the substance of each of them
is the unlawful willful, deliberate, pre-
meditated and felonious killing of the said
Frank Steunenberg with malice afore-
thought The essential elements charged
in the indictment consist of these fea-
lures:
Elements of Indictment
There must have been klllingi sec
ond, that killing must have been unlaw-
full; third, 1t must have been willful;
fourth, 1t must have been deliberated
upon; fifth, 1t must have been premedi-
tated; sixth. 1t must have been accom-
panied by malice in the mind Of person
or persons doing the killing, and unless
these features, and each and every one
of them, are proven to your satisfaction
beyond a reasonable doubt, then the de-
fendant cannot be convicted of murder
in the first degree"
The language of the statute as given
to murder in the first and second degree,
and voluntary and involuntary man.
slaughter was then quoted.
Continuing, Judge Wood said:
''The court instructs the jury that un-
der the law no jury should convict citi-
zen or citizens of crime simply because
there Is strong reason to believe that he
Is guilty but before the jury can lawfully
convict they must be convinced of the de-
fendant's guilt beyond all reasonable
doubt
'If 1t be possible for you to reconcile
the facts in this case upon any reasona-
BILE theory consistent with the innocence
of the defendant. William D. Haywood,
it is your duty to do so and find the de-
fendant not guilty.
other Grimes Admitted
81 further instruct you, gentlemen of
the jury, that while proof has been ad-
mitted of the commission of other crimes
by the defendant and his associates and
tending to prove the commission of such
other crimes by them, it has only
been admitted for the purpose of showing
the existence of conspiracy to accom-
plish certain objects, and that such
fnar
death of former Governor Steunenberg as
we'll 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 that crime alone.
But you are privileged to take such
other matters into consideration as part
of the evidence in the case ana incidents
and circumstances bearing upon the ques-
ton of his guilt upon the charge of the
murder of Frank Steunenberg.
ut 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 responsible for
the commission of such crimes, If any
there be.
1.-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.
Meaning of Conspiracy
"A conspiracy, within the meaning of
the criminal law, consists of combina-
ton between two or more persons for the
purpose of accomplishing a criminal or
unlawful purpose or a lawful object in an
unlawful manner.
LAS applied to this case and under this
indictment. proof of conspiracy is only
proper insofar as it may tend to show
a common design to encourage the par
ticular murder charged against the de-
fendant and 1t can Oily be introduced
for the purpose of establishing the posi-
ton of the members of the combine as
accessories to the crime of murder.
'It is not essential to the formation
of a conspiracy that there should be
formal agreement between the parties to
do the act charged.
1T is sufficient If the minds of the par
ties meet Understandings, so as to bring
about an intelligent and deliberate agree
ment to do such acts and commit the
crimes charged, although such agreement
be not manifested by any formal words.
"a conspiracy in the first instance may
be established by evidence having no re-
lation to the defendant by acts of differ
ent persons at different times or places,
or by any other circumstances which
prove it's existence.
1T is sufficient if the state prove be-
ycnd reasonable doubt that such a con-
spiracy existed at the time of the COM
mission of the unlawful act, and that the
defendant on trial was a member of such
conspiracy.
Each Conspirator Liable
. IAN act done by a party to an unlaw-
| full conspiracy in furtherance thereof
and naturally following from the COM
mon design, is the act of each and all
| of the conspirators.
"And Where murder is committed as the
result of such a conspiracy each one OF
the conspirators, even though he was moi
present at the place of the crime if HI
| aided abetted and encouraged the com
mission of the unlawful acts resulting il
the crime charged, is to be held respon
sible for said murder.
"If the prosecution has failed TO Prov
! these facts beyond a reasonable doubt
you should find the defendant not guilty