The Detroit times., 1912-10-25

! testimony, Justice Con laid stress
on the allbi furnished for Becker by
Edward Hawley, a reporter. He called
the jury's attention, ht@eyer, 20 the
fact that the testimony Of the lieu
tenant OF police on duty at the police
J station the night OF the murder, dif-
(ered materially from Hawley's.
The court reviewed I'm detail, al
most minute by minute. the move
ments of Becker on the night OF the
murder as outlined BY the state. He
quoted Witnesses who corroborated
these movements. but he told the jury
that they were not to let his telling
OF the story sway them, as he was
merely reviewing the testimony TO re-
fresh their memory
He drew the attention of the jury
TO the fact that the state was seek
ing to prove merely that Becker in
spired the murder.
IF you believe there is q certainty
OF this" he added, then, gentlemen.
the defendant Is guilty as an acces-
sorry before the fact, which under the
common law, makes him a principal
in the crime.
The main witnesses against Beck
er, are what are called accomphces
There is no question about their be-
ing accomplices.
There Is a question about Schepps,
but | charge you that Rose Webber
and vallon are accomplices. With re-
gard to Schepps. must say that |
an in such doubt that l decline TO In
struct you that he Is an accomplice.
Gentlemen, II Is for you TO determine
from the fact whether or not Schepps
is an accomplice."
The court declared there was no
direct testimony to convict Schepps
OF being an accomplice. HIS rels
tlons with the gamblers, he said, laid
him open TO suspicion. But the fact
that he had suspicious OF the ap-
preaching crime, did not OF itself
make him an accomplice.
Merely as point OF law bearing
upon the case, the court instructed
the jury that one accomplice cannot
corroborate another.
There must be some difinterested
Witness" he said
"As to the suficiency OF evidence
as corroboration, Justice Con told the
Jury that II was impossible to lay
down n hard and fast rule. Every
case rested upon Its own Bottom.
But remember this" he said, the
defendant cannot be convicted entire
ly upon the evidence OF accomplices.
There must be other evidence. What
evidence the prosecution offered u
for the jury TO decide"
curing the time Justice Con wae
talking on the subject OF accomplices,
Penker appeared unusually interest
cd: almost eager. He leaned forward
IN his chair and kept his hand behind
his ear In an effort not to lose
s.n2le word. His counsel now anf
then looked at each other smiling.
There is no inhibition resting on
y2u. gentlemen" the court declared
",o believe In the truth OF the testi-
mony of Rose, Webber and Valloh.
Rrt there is no law TO prevent you
from believing the testimony OF ac-
cnnplices. and, IL you believe 1t. you
are bound TO return verdict accord
insly."
Referring to Rose, Justice Con said
that the jury in considering his testi-
IRONY. was at liberty to take into con-
s'deration his glibness on the stand,
his appearance, his life and the dis
,r;ed effect OF that life on his mind
The same with the other witnesses.
The liability OF the gamblers
FRAMING up on Becker to escape the
electric chair was another element
TO be considered, the court ruled. II
Roses story was true in the jury's
opinion, they must so consider II, he
said. but IL they considered It built
or lies, then the peoples case falls.
Dealing with motive, the court de-
elared that proof OF that was not
necessary where PROOF OF the design
or conspiracy was circumstantiated.