The Springfield herald., 1911-07-07
JURY RETURNS VERDICT OF
MURDER IN SECOND
DEGREE.
ASKS FOR new TRIAL
AT REQUEST OF DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT is RESERVED
FOR TEN DAYS.

Court, read the verdict of the jurors
in the murder trial which has held
the attention of the city, the state and
almost the entire country for ten days,
while the throng in the court room and
hundreds gahered outside the building
listened breathlessly. The verdict
was reached in less than four hours
of actual deliberations:
I'VE, the jury, find the defendant,
Frank H. Henwood, guilty Of murder
in the second degree. as charged"
Henwood, sitting erect and out
wardly calm beside his attorney.
heard the verdict in silence. only a
slight twitching of his lips and brief,
rapid blinking of his eyelids to keep
back unbidden tears denoting that he
courtroom.
Mrs. George E. Copeland. widow of
the slain man, and her relatives, who
daily have attended the trial with her.
were not present when the Jury re-
turned It's verdict, court officers be-
ing unable to reach them. but Henry
Won Phul of Cripple Creek, cousin OF
Sylvester Louis Won Phul. at whom
Henwood was shooting when Cope
land was fatally wounded, was present
and listened to the verdict with an ex-
preston of satisfaction on his feat
ures.
Immediately after the verdict was
read the defense noted an exception
to the finding of the jury and asked
that the jurors be polled. Each of
the twelve men, in answer to his
name, then announced in low tone
that such was his verdict in the case.
On motion of defendent, the court
reserved judgment for ten days to
allow the defense to file a motion for
a new trial.
District Attorney Elliott arose and
asked the court to set the trial of the
Won Phul charges against Henwood
for July 5th, and this was done.
Judge Whitford thanked the jurors
for their attention and for fulfilling
their duty and discharged them. order
ing them to report July 5th.
Henwood returned to the county
jail under guard and for the time be-
ing the notorious "Henwood" case is
closed.
Hardly had court adjourned than
speculation became rife as to what
will be the ultimate outcome OF the
case.
That the Supreme Court will re-
verse the case on errors il an appeal
is taken appears to be the consensus
of opinion among the attorneys who
have been in attendance almost daily
at the trial. That there is sufficient
error in the record to Justify this be-
lief is the assertion OF Attorney Bot
tom and of almost every person who
paid particular attention to the trial
Should Henwood be acquitted in the
Won Phul case, which is considered a
possibility worth keeping in mind. Hen
woods counsel then would have
nice point in law to work upon. In
event of an acquittal in the Won Phul
case, prominent attorneys state, coun-
sci for Henwood then could raise the
point that, having been found not gull
ty on the main case, that of shooting
Won Phul, Henwood could not be incar-
cerated for an offense incidental to
the main case. A writ of habeas cor
pus must be granted by the Supreme
Court in such a case under the law
and according to noted precedents,
Of prin
The verdict in the case was reached
after less than four hours actual de-
liberation by the jury.
1t will be the contention of Hen
woods counsel that Henwood commit
ted but the one act, the killing of Won
Phul being that act. The fatal wound
ing of Copeland. counsel will argue. is
but a variation of that act. There was
but one intent, will be argued; Hen
wood believed his life to be in danger
and shot to protect his life. with that
one intent. That five shots were fired
Is immaterial, counsel will argue, the
five motions of Henwood's trigger
finger being in reality but one sus-
tanned motion and but variations of
the act, and, therefore, only one Of
fense.
When Henwood is brought to trial,
probably next week, on charge OF
first degree murder, for the shooting
of Sylvester Louis Won Phul, his coun-
sci will interpose plea that Henwood
cannot be tried on that charge, under
the constitution of fthe United States. He
will assert that Henwood, as citizen
of the United States, has the rights
granted every citizen and that the con.
stitution expressly states that mo
person shall be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy oil
life or limb"
Under these definitions the district
attorney holds, and he declares Su.
preme Courts have held likewise and
SO established precedents, that each
movement of Henwood's trigger finger
was an act against the law and, there
fore. a separate and distinct offense
punishable under the law.
The argument on this point Is ex-
pected to be made before Henwood's