Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1907-08-01


There are three counts in the indict-
mont, hut the substance Of each Of them
Is the unla wful. wilful, deliberate, pro-
meditated and felonious killing Of the
said Frank Steuenberg with malice
aforethought The essential elements OF
the offense charged in the indictment
consist Of the following features:
First, there must have been kill
ing; second, that killing must have been
unlawful: third, It must have been will
f,,l; fourth, II must have been deliherat-
cd upon: firth. It must have been pre-
eti:ated sixth. II must have been ac-
comra,,icd by malice In tho mind Of the
person or persons doing the killing; and
..nlesi these features, each and every
one Of them are proven 70 your satisfac-
ton beyond a reasonable doubt, then the
defendant cannot in any event be con-
victed OF murder in the first degree"
ONLY ONE CRIME CONSIDERED.
Continuing, Judge Wood said:
"rhe court instructs tho Jury that If it
is nossblc for YOU to reconcile the facts in
this case upon any reasonable theory con-
sistent with the innocence Of the defend
ant, William y. Haywood, 1t Is your duty
to do so and find the defendant not guilty.
II further instruct you, gentlemen OF
the Jury. that while proof has been admit
ted Of the commission Of other crimes by
tho defendant and his associates and tend
ing to prove the commission of such other
crimes by them, that 1t has only been ad-
mitted for the purpose OF showing the
existence Of a conspiracy to accomplish
certain objects. and that such crimes and
the crime resulting in the death of cx-
Governor Steunenberg as well, were all
incidents OF such conspiracy; but YOU
must not forget that the defendant is be-
ing tried for the murder Of Frank Steun-
enberg and for that crime alone. But You
are privileged to take such other matters
into consideration as part Of the evidence
in the case and as incidents and circum-
stances bearing upon the question or his
guilt upon the charge of the murder OF
Frank Stcuncnberg.
at makes no difference, however. in
this case. what crimes have been commit
ted in Colorado, in the Cour d'Alenes or
elsewhere. or who is responsible for the
commission of such crimes, If any there
he The defendant cannot be convicted
unless tho State has established beyond a
| reasonable doubt that he Is guilty of the
| felionious killing of Frank Steunenberg.
EXPLAINED CONSPIRACY.
Judge Wood then explained the term
! conspiracy under the criminal law and
| to what extent 1t should he necessary
for the State to go to prove that Hay
wood was a party to the conspiracy
! charged in the present case.
"If tho prosecution has failed to
prove these facts beyond a reasonable
doubt" he continued. you should find
the defendant not guilty. If, however,
you believe In this case from the evil
dence beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant, William p. Haywood,
aided abetted, advised and encourag ed
the killing OF Frank Steunenburg, then
the defendant is guilty, and it would
be immaterlal whether he was actually
| present at the time Of the killing or not.
THE jury is instructed that the wit
ness, Harry Orchard claims that lie
was an accomplice in the commission
of the offence charged in the indict-
ment Under the statutes of this State,
a person cannot be convicted vf a crime
upon the testimony of an accomplce
| unless such accomplice is corroborated
by other evidence. which, Of itself, and
without the aid of the testimony Of ac-
complies tends to connect the defend
ant with the commission of the offence
| charged, and the Confederation is not
sufficient If 1t merely shows the COM
| mission of the offence of the circum-
stances thereof.
by corroborative evidence is meant
additional evidence of a different char.
| acter to the same point.
The law views with distrust the test.
mony of an accomplice on account OF
the motive lie may have for laying tn,
responsibility of his crime upon anothe
when by so doing he may secure i'm
munity for his own participation in the
crime committed. For this reason. tn,
Law eXacts such confederation, and al
though the jury may believe that tn,
testimony of an accomplice is true. still
the jury could not convict the defendan
upon such testimony unless they furthe
hnd that the testimony Of the accom-
picc is corroborated by other and in
dependent evidence
SHOULD TEST ORCHARDS TEST.
MONY.
| IF you believe from the evidence tina
the witness, Harry Orchard. was ir
duced or Influenced to become witnes
and to testify In this case by any prom
Use of immunity from prosecution
punishment. or by any hope held out
him that IL he testified against the d,
PENDANT he would not he prosecuted {
' punished, then the jury should tax
such facts into consideration in dete
mining the weight which ought to /
given to testimony so obtained. Sue
testimony should be received by the tur
with caution and scrutinized with gref
. care
:. And. If from the evidence, it appear
!, that any favors have been extended +
;, the authorities OF the State of Idaho
the witness, Harry Orchard, and the
? Is any promise, either express or in
, piled. relating to further favors to
received by him on account 81 his te
timony in this case, then those a.
= proper matters for the consideration
u this jury, as affecting the credibility
his testimony.
THE jury Is further instructed that |
statutory provision the defendant in
u criminal case is made competent wi
p ness In his own behalf. and where
y testifies, AS in this case, becomes Il
u same In all respects as any other wi
ness. and his testimony must be test,
r ty the same rules or tests that are a
n piled to other witnesses. and tho tu
II may take into consideration the intere
c that he may have in the case in d
= termng the weight to be given to h
" testimony.
= Under the indictment in this cas-