Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1908-02-24
DEFENSE MUST
PUT IN TESTIMONY
CONTINUED from page oneD 1.
talking at 1905 and was finished
1l:05, an hour TO the dot.
LnoFRouROw BRIEF.

| visit of Bell and McSvhirter to the
| chiefs office. Under the testimony
| he argued. perfect understanding be-
tween the chief and Bell and others
has been shown; CorroooIaloh is
| confirmation. Bribing is u crime COM
mitted I'm secret and must be proved by
| circumstantial evidence: by events
preceding and leading up to the crime
itself"
By reading bits of the elder McWhir-
ters testimony Atty. Loofbourow
sought 10 show the understanding ex-
listing between Sheets and Bell, which
he held crime inasmuch as 1t showed
agreement to abide by bribery
WHERE SHEETS FAILED.
ut was the duty OF the chief to
arrest anyone guilty of violating the
laws of the state and Bell certainly
stood in arrestable form when Nc
Whirter told his story to the chief.
From beginning to end the testimony
is corToborated. We do not pretend to
have brought out outside evidence re-
garding the payment of the bribe, but
we have proved everything leading up
TO it." Mr.. Loofbourow concluded at
this juncture asking that the motion
be denied.
HANSON, TO THE POINT.
County Attorney Hanson then took
the floor My brother. Judge Thur
man, said Sheets had no cause to ar
rest Bell. When the younger Nc
Whirter said he feared for his broth
er, who was around town somewhere.
Sheets said, We'll, they might lead him
to the outskirts of the city and do
him HARM Yet when Bell, one of the
gang as MoWhirter told him. came
TO his office, what excuse was there
for not arresting or at least holding
Bell? If he felt the gang might harm
one of the brothers. how was he so
innocent as to see no reason for hold
ing Bell?
MAKES STRONG POINT.
What more of q confirmation Of
Bells testimony would one want than
the chiefs statement to McWhirter
that Bell had proposition to make
Doesn't that show for one thing that
understanding existed and for another
that a conference had been held IN
the hall with Bell? I refer you to the
cases of People VS. Lee and others 10
show why the motion for dismissal
be denied" After making strong points
In few words Attorney Hanson sat
down and Judge Thurman arose to an
swer the state.
QUOTES HAYWOOD TRIAL.
In this final appeal Judge Thursman
put special emphasis upon the statute
of Utah demanding confederation of an
accomplice's testimony. He referred
to the Haywood case in which verdict
for acquittal was brought in over Or
chard's confession because he was an
accomplice and his testimony uncor-
roborated. In this the court read to
the jury the Idaho statute which IS
identical with that of Utah. 'In that
case the crIme--the blowing OF Gov.
Steunenberg to atoms--was physically
evident; in this case (Utah VS. Gcorge
A. Sheets) no crime has been proven;
no commission of an offense mas been
committed"
WHAT WOOD SAID.
Judge Thurman then read the instruc-
lions of Judge Wood to the jury in tho
Haywood case, which were as follows:
THE Jury is instrcted that the wit
ness, Harry Orchard, claims that he
was an accomplish in the commission
of the offense charged In the indiot-
ment Under the statutes of this state
person cannot be convicted of q
crime on the testimony OF AN accom-
plioe. unless such accomplish is cor
roborated by other evidence which of
Itself and without the aid of the testi-
mony of the accomplice, tends TO CON
meet the defendant with the commits
sion of the offense charged, and the
confederation is not sufficient if it
merely shows the commission OF the
offense or the circumstances thereof
by corroborative evidence Is meant
additional evidence of a different char
acter to the same point.
The law views with distrust the tes-
timony of an accomplish on account of
the motive which he may have for lay
ing the responsibility of his crime upon
another when by so doing he may Sc
cure immunity for his own participa-
ton in the crime charged. For this rea-
son the law exacts such confederation
and, although the jury may believe that
the testimony of the accomplice is true,
still the jury could not convict the
defendant upon such testimony unless
they further find that the testimony OF
the accompllce is corroborated by other
and Independent evidence.
This oorroborative evidence need
not be sufficient of Itself to establish
the guilt of the defendant. but 1t must
tend In some degree TO implicate and
connect the defendant with the com