The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-03-25
GUILTY OF MURDER
IN FIRST DEGREE
Continued From Page One.

continued from rage one.
upon the smallness OF Driskel's head
arms. hands and legs and attributed this
to the early and continued excessive use
Of drugs, placing no credence in Drls-
kells statement that he did not begin
the use OF dope" until five years ago
1t is believed that Imprisonment will do
much to cure Driskell OF his drug habit.
The conclusion OF the arguments
marked the close OF a strenuous and dra-
matte day. Driskell listened to his ar
raignment by the states attorneys with
the same complacency and fortitude that
he displayed In the arguments In his ia
vor by his own attorneys. Discrcditcd as
he was and standing In the shadow OF the
gallows. he evInced little or no evidence
Of emotion He greeted his cas-
tigation at the hands of the states at
torneys with his usual sardonic smile.
Possibly his chewing gum suffered more
punishment. but that was all.
Arguments Begin.
Mr.. Leatherwood. opening for the
the state, dwelt upon the fact that the
testimony for the defense In large part
had corroborated the states and pointed
out the discrepancies in Driskell's. story
from testimony Of his own witnesses In
this Mr.. Lcatherwood called attention 10
the fact that Driskell had left Riley with
Kennedy within a few feet OF Second
South and State streets when he looked
back from the east side OF the street
| after he had broken away from the Off
| Ger. while Ralph Poulton. the most cred
| table witness produced by the defense.
| had testified that he had seen Riley be-
tween two men in front OF the Stude-
baker building. 225 feet from Second
South street
Another discrepancy named was that
| Driskcll had said that he came back from
ogden 10 his old rooming house here. the
| Oaks, the day after the murder. and got
one OF his grips, whereas Mrs. w. y,
| Rector, the proprietor, had testified that
DrIskel took both the grips away the
| day he first left
Mr.. Leatherwood also pointed out that
George Lewis. porter at the Orpheum the
ater. who was an ye-witness TO the after
| part Of the murder, had testified that the
murdered wore a light suit and that Mrs
Rector had said that Driskell wore a light
| Leatherwood said. while they must be
disregarded IN directly determining the
| prisoners guilt, showed that his testi-
| mony absolutely was unreliable.
| Mr.. Parke. In leading of for the state.
made his maiden speech to jury. and
did well, handling difficult task with
flashes Of mastery The burden ur3,e OF M Mr.;
was present at the scene OF the muir
der OF Riley; that one man had broken
away; that DrIskell claimed to be the
| beyond reasonable doubt; that a white
man killed Riley, and that Kennedy was
white, man. The evidence, Mr. Parke
! finger at Kennedy as at Driskel.
Regarding Confessions.
| Mr.. Parke attacked Mrs, Vests iden-
| fification OF Drisltel as the murderer on
! the ground that ii was largely worn
| ans Intuition that led her To say Driskell
was the man. and charged Ollie Pierce.
testified that he had sent word TO Chief
Sheets OF his suspicious conce rnng
| Driskel Immediately after the murder.
"AlI hell can't shake a Niger liar" le-
from the truth, but not from a lie
Drislselrs confessions. II was main
tnined. were induced by cruelty fear and
1t was then Has o'clock and the court
In his argument. Mr. Thomas also at
mony. using Chief Sheets to show that
Pierce falsi6ed. Mr.. Thomas classed
Chief Sheets as one of the best tracers
OF criminals the state has ever produced.
He said that Driskell was excited when
he broke away from Riley and likely
underestimated the distance the officer
street when he looked back from the
other side OF the street. Mr.. Thomas s
! argument was an impassioncd plea. con-
suming one hour and forty-ive minutes.
Mr.. Loofbourows argument, which
| covered one hour. was review in de-
| tall OF the essential points OF tho state s
case. Mr.. Loofbourow. however, only in
| directly alluded to tho numerous confess
slons by DriskelI, although permitted to
| do this to show that the prisoner is q
| falsGer and in this he was disappont-
Ing.
In the course OF his argument Mr..
| Ioofbourow unintcntonally misquoted
| NIr. Thomas, which brought the latter 10
his feet with violent objection. In
which he classed Mr.. Loofbourow's state
| ment as "ungentlcmanly,'
W. ,.rty ynynC
tie standing room left. The immense
crowd expected an early verdict, for
most of IL remained for an hour after
the instructions were given, but in this