The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-27
HAYWOOD'S
FATE NOW
WITH JURY


the crimes charged. although such agree
ment be not manifested by any formal
works. A conspiracy in the first instance
may be established by evidence having no
relation to the defendant. by acts of diff
ferent persons at different times and
which prove its existence. 1t is sufficient
If the State prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that such a conspiracy existed at
the time of the commission of the unlaw-
full act and that the defendant on trial
was a member of such conspiracy. An
act done by a party to an unlawful con-
spiracy in furtherance thereof and
naturally flowing from the common de-
sign Is the act of each and all of the con-
spirators. And, where murder is COM
mitted as the result of such n conspiracy,
each one of the conspirators, even 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 in this case from
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that
the defendant. William ID. Haywood. aid
ed, abetted, advised and encouraged the
killing of Frank Steunenberg. then the
defendant Is guilty, and II would be i'm
material whether he was actually present
at the time of the killing or not.
The jury is instructed that the witness
Harry Orchard claims that he was an ac-
complice In the commission of the offense
charged III the Indictment. Under the
statutes of this State a person cannot be
convicted of a crime upon the testimony
OF an accomplice unless such acompllce
is corroborated by other evidence which
of itself and without the aid OF the tes-
timony of aecomplices tends to connect
the defendant with the commission of
the offense charged and the corroboration
is not sufficient IL II merely shows the
commission of the offense or the circum-
stances thereof.
"By corroboratlve evidence Is meant adj
dltlonal evidence Of a different character TO
the same point. The law views with dis
trust the testimony of an occomplice on
account of the motive he may have for
aging the responsibility of his crime upon
another when by so doing he may secure
immunity for his own participation in the
crime committed. For this reason the law
exacts corroboration, and, although the
jury may believe that the testimony of an
convict the defendant upon such testimony
unless they further find that the testimony
of the accomplice Is corroborated by other
and Independent evidence
This corroboratlve evidence need not be
sufficient of itself to establish the guilt OF
the defendant, but II must tend In some de-
gree to implicate and connect the defendant
with the commission of the crime charged.
I'm order to ascertain whether or not the
testimony of the accomplice Is corrobora-
ted, as the law provides II must he before
a conviction would be warranted, You
should eliminate from the case the evil
dence of the accomplish and examine tho
evidence of the other witnesses with the
view to ascertaining If there be evidence
tending to connect the defendant with the
offense. II there is, the accOmplice Is cor
roborated; If there is no inculpatory evil
dence there is no confederation, though tho
~accomplice may be. c~orroborated in regard
to any number Of facts sworn to by him.
"In this case the State relies upon cir
cumstantial evidence to establish the con-
nection of the defendant with the con-
spiraey sought to be proven by the EVIL
dence taken In connection with the direct
testimony of the accomplish, Harry Or
chard.
I'm order to Justify an Inference of legal
guilt from circdmstantial evidence. the
existence of the inculpatory facts must be
absolutely Incompatible with the innocence
o. the accused upon any rational theory,
and incapable of explanation upon any rea-
sonable hypothesis other than that Of his
guilt.
III YOU believe from the evidence that
the witness, Harry Orchard, was induced
or Influenced to becGme n witness and to
testify IN this case by any promise OF i'm
munity from prosecution or punishment,
or by any hope held out to him that II he
testified against the defendant he would
be prosecuted or punished. then the jury
should take such facts into consideration
In determining the weight which ought TO
be given to testimony so obtained. Such
testimony should be received by the Jury
with caution and scrutinlzed With great
care.
And II from the evidence II appears
that any favots have been extended by
the authorities Of the State Of Tdaho to the
witness, Harry Orchard. and there is any
promise. either express or emplied, relnt-
Ing t. further favors to he received by
him on account Of his testimony In this
case, then tho@e are proper matters for the
consideration Of this Jury, as affecting the
cfedihilitv Of his TESTIMONY.
Certain articles AVE been received in
evidence from the Miners Magazine for
the sole purpose of determining whether
or not any motive existed upon the part
nf tho 1BTpnHDntE IN ma Vtfpfnntn In thn
offense charged In the Indictment and not
for the purpose of establishing in any
wise the commission of such an offense,
The Jury Is further instructed that by
statutory provision the defendant in a
criminal case Is made a competent witness
In his own behalf, and where he testifes.
as In this case, hepOr0es the same i'm all
RESPECTS as any other witness, and his
testimony must be tested by the same
rules or tests that are applied to other
witnesses. and the jury may take into con-
sideration the interest that he may have
In the case in determining the weight to
be given tothis testimony.
I'm conclusion you are to determine the
question as to whether or not the de-
PENDANT killed and murdered Frank Steun-
enberg as charged. In the Indictment. or
aided and abetted such killing. If so, you
find him not guilty.
"under the Indictment in this case, the
defendant NAV. If the evidence warrants it.
be convicted of murder of the first de-
gree. murder OF the second degree or
m~anslaughter."
At the close of Senator Borah's adj
dress and the adjournment of court,
the Senator was surrounded and con-
graduated by nearly everyone in the
court room. including counsel for the
defense.
Clarence Darrow said:
Senator Borah's speech to the jury
was the fairest and the ablest l have
ever heard from counsel in a great
murder trlal. Mr.. Rorah might have
said more without going outside the
record, but it was noticeable hat he
omitted some things in order t avoid
the slightest tinge of unfairness."
Mr.. Darrow also paid a tribute to
the conduct of the case throughout.
When Haywood reached his cell at
the county Jail after the adjournment
of court, he said, speaking TO the
deputy sheriff in charge of the jail:
well, / have heard the best of them
in the country, but Borah beat them
ALL