Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-10-25

should define manslaughter to the jury.
I'VE make no such request" Becker's
lawyer replied, and the court omitted the
definition.
1T matters not" the justice resumed.
whether the hand that killed Rosenthal
was the hand of Becker or not. If you
find that Becker gave instructions to
Rose that resulted in Rosenthal's death,
then Becker is guilty of murder in the
first degrees''
Justice Golf read TO the jury what he
termed "a brief skeleton of the evidence
adduced by the state.
He summed 1t up in chronological order
from the first complaint against Rosen-
that's gambling house in March to the
arrest of the defendant, and included all
the evidence given by Jack Rose, Harry
WALTON and Sam Sehepps.
He narrated in detail Beeker's move
ments on the night of the murder. as tes-
titled to by witnesses.
Il instruct you" said the justice, In
concluding his reading. that the events
referred to in this recital of the state
case do not exclude from your consider
ration any other events which came with
in the scope of the evidence.
ut is not plain why the gunner killed
Rosenthal at Beeker's command"
Justice Golf then read the statute gov
erning the testimony of accomplices ana
told the jury that every person who and
ed, abetted or participated in any way
must be considered as an accomplish
There is no question that Rose, Val
Ion and Weber were Becker's accom-
plices." he continued.
"As to Schepps there is question.
must say that [ am in doubt on this
point myself and therefore / decline TO
instruct you that he was an accomplish
You must determine that yourselves
There is a suspicion that he was out
suspicion is not proof
81 do not find any testimony that VIII
obligate you to decide that Schepps was,
as a matter of fact as well as law, CO.
conspirator with Rose. yallon and Web
Der.
you cannot convict on the testimony
| of accomplices and one accomplice can
not corroborate another. The point you
| must determine yourselves is whether
| Schepps' testimony shall be considered
| as that of a corroborating witness or an
| accomplice. You alone must decide that.
ut is hard to prescribe an ironclad
rule as to how far a jury may go in
considering the testimony of accomplices'
but there must be other testimony to
mix in with it. The law says such tes-
| timony must be received; and II is the
| intent of the law that such testimony
shall be carefully considered and weigh
ed by the jury.
"There is. therefore, no inhibition upon
you from considering as true the testi-
mony of Rose and WALTON and Weber
"There is nothing in law to prevent you
! from giving fair and just consideration
! to the testimony of these witnesses. and
i If it impresses you with its truthfulness
you are bound to believe it.
| at has been eontended that Rosenthal
was unpopular and that other gamblers
/ killed him, that they are now seeking 70
! rid themselves of Becker. instruct you
| that that situation would not excaise the
defendant If he made use of 1t for his
own purposes. If he intended murder hs
becomes the principal in the act. and II
the men he caused to commit murder
were also impeIled by other causes tc
their deed, the defendant is. nevertheless
/ as guilty as If his, directions We're the
only cause of the gunmen's act.
Justice Golf said that during the
trial there had been made "A requests
for charges on various points. He then
took up these points. seriafim.
The court dealt rapidly with these
requests. grouping numbers OF them
under one head. Nearly every request
the court said. covered a minor point
On requests that he charge the 5ur,
that Sam Schepps was an accompllc'
of the murderers. Justice Golf refused
to charge.
Where eireumstantial evidence couif
be construed in two ways the justic'
instructed the jurors that they should
find in favor Of the defendant.