Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1913-09-05
CAM|NET1I WILL
SOON KNOW
VERDICT
JUDGE VAN FLEET DELIVERS HIS
CHARGE TO The JURY At NOON
TO-DAY, AND THAT BODY BEGAN
ITS DELIBERATIONS AT 2::30 THIS
AFTERNOON.
CHARGE VERY SIMILAR
TO THAT IN DIGGS CASE

| San Francisco. Calf. Sept. 5.-Th'
case of f. Drew Caminetti, charged
with violating the Mann white slave
traffic act, was given to the jury short
| ly after noon today.
! Judge Van Fleet in charging the
jury used for long passages the iden
teal language he employed in chars
ing the Diggs jury.
| In touching on the contention of the
! defense, that this whole case sim
mers down to a question of purpose
he said:
IF you find that these girls were
taken to Reno as testified to by them
and that while there the defendant
and his companion Diggs cohabiteo
with them, then you may find that they
were taken there with such purpose
and intent. That is, if the evidence on
behalf of the defendant as to his
actuating motive in taking these girls
with him on that occasion does not ac-
cord with his act, you may discard
that evidence, if it does not carry CON
viction in your minds and base your
findings as to his intent upon the acts
committed by him.
And even should you tnd that the
defendant and his companion Diggs
were actuated in their departure or
fight from Sacramento by fear OF
exposure or arrest, but that neverthe-
less in taking these two girls with
them. there existed the intention to
subject them to the immoral purposes
charged. then gou will be justified in
finding the defendant guilty.
IF that immoral purpose was one
motive inducing him to take these
girls with him. it would matter not
that he may also have been actuated
by his fears or other considerations
moving him to make that trip; he
would nevertheless be guilty
Marshall Woodwork took exception
for the defense to the charge as a
whole and in part, and to the refusal
tt give certain instructions request
ed by the defense.
The jury was allowed to go to
luncheon at 1880 and was to resume
it's deliberations at 2:30 p. m.
Given the same charges, the same
admissions, the same judge to make
the same rulings on virtually the same
evidence, and the same defense to
oppose il, the chance of verdict
different from that found against his
companion, Maury |. Diggs, lies in
the fact that twelve different men
are trying him.
As the defendants own brother put
It to the jury yesterday: This whole
case has simmered down to a single
what was the intent
and purpose of the trip to Reno? The
whole evidence tends to show that the
defendant left Sacramento because he
feared impending arrest and an ar.
ticle about to be printed in the news
papers. No one but a man crazed
and maddened by fear of arrest
would have gone on that crazy trip
none but lunatic.
I'VE do not claim that fright is a
defense for crime but when seeking
q motive. the state of mind must be
Said Theodore Roche. arguing for
the government:
THE contention of the prosecution
is not that Caminetti alone induced or
enticed the girls to leave Sacramento,
but that he aided in inducing and
them. There is plenty of
evidence to show that the girls did
rot want to go.
1T was Caminetti himself, how
ever, who suggested that the girls go
TO Reno together to be joined later
by Diggs and himself 1t was he who
dug down in his pocket and gave Lola
Norris $40 to pay her transportation.
The main points of the prosecution
cave not been denied by the defense
Dr by Caminetti when upon the stand.
Agitation or fright is not a legal
lefense for crime. The defendant
;hould have been frightened If he
vas not. He was not, however, too
to discriminate against the
our separate berths he might have
on the train to Reno instead
II the drawing room he chose, nor
90 frightened to rent bungalow in
'eno for thirty days and live there
With the girls
The most striking divergence in the
curse of the Diggs and Caminettl
rials was the unexpected appearance
If Anthony Caminetti, Jr,, as an ad- !
ocate in his brothers defense.
Young Caminetti had sat at coun-
,el's table with his brothers law
,ers throughout the trial, but it was
lot suspected that he formed part OF
heir strength. There was fiutter
VI surprise when he arose to make
he opening argument for the de-
ense. Young Mrs. Caminetti was not
present to listen. but the defendants
mother and Mrs. Diggs were.
There was strong reminiscence
II the shouting, passionate delivery