Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1912-10-24
BECKER CASE NOW
IN HANDS OF Jury
Prisoner Appears Anxious as
Judge Goff Delivers
Charge.

doubt before you can find such ver-
Dict
Justice Goff cited cases in which
superior courts held that 1t was not
necessary for the defendant to have
seen the act of murder committed to
establish his guilt.
1T remains" Justice Goff continued,
for you to determine whether Becker
designed and premeditated the murder
of Rosenthal. If you find he had time
to reconsider, but did not reconsider,
that shows design on his part.
1T is not necessary for you to go
into the evidence of generalization.
The State contends that the defend
ant in the latter part Of June ex-
pressed a desire to have Rosenthal
killed, which continued until and
eliminated in Rosenthal's death. IL
the defendant repeated these desires
to Jack Rose, that constituted pre-
meditation"
he should define manslaughter to the
jury.
I'VE make no such request" Beck
er's lawyer replied, and the court
omitted the definition.
"It matters not" the justice re-
sumed, whether the hand that killed
Rosenthal was the hand that killed
Becker or not. r. you find that Beck
er gave instructions to Rose that re-
Becker is, guilty of murder in the
first degree"
Justice Goff read to the jury what
he termed "a brief skeleton" of the
evidence adduced by the State.
Justice Goff narrated in detail
Becker's movements on the night of
the murder, as testified to by wit
nesses.
II instruct YOU" said the justice.
in concluding his reading, that the
events referred to in this recital of
the States case do not exclude from
your consideration any other events
which come within the scope of the
evidence.
'It Is not plain why the gunmen
killed Rosenthai Mt Becker's COM
msnd. 1t IN plain that he directed
the death of Rosenthai."
Justice Goff then read the statute
governing the testimony of accom-
plices and told the jury that every
person who aided. abetted or partici-
pated in any way must be considered
an accomplice.
There is no question that Rose,
Webber and Vallon were Becker's ac-
complices,' he continued. LAS to
say that I am in doubt on this point
myself, and therefore I decline to in
struct you that he was an accom-
plice. You must determine that your
selves. There is a suspicion that he
was, but suspicion is not proof
IT do mott find any testimony that
will obligate you to decide that
well as of law, a oo-conspirator with
Rose, Vallon and Webber.
.You cannot convict on the testi-
mony of accomplices, and one accom-
plice cannot corroborate another. The
point you must determine yourself is
whether Schepps's testimony shall be
considered as that of corroborating
witness or an accomplice. You alone
must decide that.
1T Is hard TO prescribe an iron-
clad rule as to how far a jury may
go in considering the testimony of ae-
completes. but there must be other
testimony to mix in with it. The law
says such testimony must be received,
and it is the intent of the law that
such testimony shall be carefully
considered and weighed by the Jury.
There is. therefore, no inhibition
upon you from considering as true
the testimony of Rose and Vallon
and Webber.
There is nothing in law to prevent
you from giving fair and just consid-
GRAFTON TO the testimony of these
witnesses, and IL it impresses you
with its truthfulness you are bound
to believe 1t.
''As to Rose. you can ask your
selves: rs ii within the limit of
probabilities that he could concoct
this scheme of sending Becker to the
electric chair?' You may consider
whether 1t is within his mentality TO
devise this conspiracy, unaided, to
save his own life.
III his story impressed you as hav-
ing no foundation in truth, as con-
coction, the case of the State will
have to fall and you will have to ac-
49,