The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1912-10-25


this clearly and beyond reasonable
doubt before you can find such
verdict
1T remains" Justice Golf continued,
for you to determine whether Beck
er designed and premeditated the
murder of Rosenthal. If you find he
had time to reconsider his design, but
did not reconsider, that shows design
on his part.
'It is not necessary for you to go
into the evidence of generalization
The state contends that the defendant
in the latter part of June expressed
desire to have Rosenthal killed,
which continued until and eliminated
in Rosentiaps death. If the defend
ant repeated these desires to Jack
Rose, that constituted generalization.
TT matters not whether the hand
that killed Rosenthal was the hand
or Becker or not. If you find that
Becker gave instructions to Rose that
resulted in Rosenthars death, then
Becker is guilty of murder in the
first degree.
Justice Golf read to the jury what
he termed "a brief skeleton" of the
evidence adduced by the state.
There is no question that Rose,
Weber and Vallon were accom-
plices," Justice Golf continued.
Justice Golf narrated in detail
Becker's movements on the night of
the murder, as testified to by wit
nesses.
81 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
evidence.
ONE POINT NOT PLAIN.
"1t is not plain why the gunner
killed Rosenthal at Becker's COM
mand
There is no question that Rose
Weber and WALTON were Becker's &C
complices,'' he continued. AS t.
Schepps, there is a question. | must
say am in doubt on this point my
self, and therefore 1 decline to in
struct you that he was an accom-
pliee You must determine that your
selves There is a suspicion that he
was; but suspicion is not proof.
"You cannot convict on the testi-
mony OF accomplices, and one accom-
plice cannot corroborate another. The
point you must determine yourselves
is whether Schepps' testimony saal
be considered as that of corrobor'
ating witness or an aceomplice. 1ol
alone must decide that
TT is hard to prescribe as to JUS
how far a jury may consider testi'
mony of accomplices, but there mus
be other testimony to mix with 1t
The law says such testimony must o.
received. and II is the intent of the Law
that such testimony shall be CAREFUL!
considered and weighed.
"There is, therefore, no inhibition
upon YOU from considering as true tn
testimony of Rose and WALTON ant
| Weber.
There is nothing in law to pre-
vent you from giving fair ana Jus
| consideration to the testimony of thes
| witnesses and If it impresses you WIZ
its truthfulness, you are bound 10 90
| lieve It."
| "As to Rose, you can ask yourseise
| is it within the limit OF pronaohtae
| that he could eoncoct this scheme
| sending Becker to The electric chalr
You may consider whether 1t is with
in his mentality to devise this con
| spiracy, unaided, to save ms oWl
| life.
IF his story impressed you as haV
ing no foundation in truth, as con
| coetion, then the case OF the stat
will have to fall and you will hay
to acauit the defendant
TT has been contended that Rosen
thai was unpopular and that othe