The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1917-04-03

ILLS WIS, tuab D5lug arrested himself.
i he feared something might happen t.
his brother, whom he wanted to shield
He denied having a mask at any time
) At this point Mr.. Savage wanted t,
ask some questions which the Judg,
, said must be preceded by examination
of Mile, so she was sent for. She wal
asked ibid you say Joe, your lawye
came to see you? Did you say any
! thing against me r. which the girl de
MED. The next question was Did you
tell Iraco that he did not have to say
anything against you, and not to le
you be condemned, for if you were no
condemned you would, when you ge
out make the case be repeated, SO yor
would be set free2" The answer to THU
was in the negative. Trace then re
slmed the stand and said that Mile
had said all she had denied.
He was then put under cross-exami
nation which did not do anything but
make the man repeat what he had
said on his direct examination and did
not get him very far away from the
auto at Atsion. The impression was
that the cross-examination was quite
weak.
Constable Clarence Horner vas call
ed to tell Of being at the jail frequently
during the last three months. He had
heard Millie and Trace talking to each
other from their cell windows, he could
not tell what they we're saying as they
spoke in Italian.
This concluded the testimony.
THE JUDGES CHARGE
Friday morning Justice Kalisch de-
livered his change to the jurV He re-
counted the circumstances of the trag-
| edy and said it was an undisputed
fact that murder was committed,
that ten or twelve men held up the car
which the Riders were occupying, and
/ there was undisputed testimony that
about so shots were fred. That such
an occurrence could happen in civil
lied community in broad daylight was
difficult to believe, and it was very
natural that public sentiment should
be aroused, but he warned the jury
that it was its solemn duty to disre-
gard any personal feeling. and not to
permit the audacity or outrageOusness
OF the act to influence the finding. The
law seeks to secure conviction to pun
ish criminals and to protect the public.
The views of counsel or even of the
court are of no account, but the jury
is bound to accept the law and apply
the facts. The jury is the sole body in
command of this part. He said the
state must convict beyond a reasonable
doubt. A defendant is innocent until
proven guilty and he ID still innocent
until the jury has returned its verdict.
It is not for him to prove his innocence
but it is incumbent upon the state to
prove his guilt. The killing is not de-
MED, neither is the charge that there
was intent to rob. The sole question
hinged upon whether the defendant
was at the scene of the murder at the
time it was committed and was one of
the persons engaged in the CRIME. If
he was not actually present but had
stationed himself at some distance
from the scene that he might be able
TO render assistance to the others, and
had knowledge that the crime was to
be committed, he could be convicted
as principal.
Or he might be miles away and not
render any assistance or do anything
directly connected with the crime, but
if he had knowledge Of the affair in
advance he could be convics as an
accessory before the fact, and if he
gained the knowledge afterwards and
aided in any way to get the persons
away he would be guilty as an access
sorry after the fact. The Judge then
asked if there was any proof that the
man was at the place where the shoot |
ing took place. On this point the state |
relied upon the testimony of the occu-
pants of the automobile. They were |
excited. They said the man had |
mask on. The Judge said his own ex-
perience was that it was impossible to I
recognize person with mask on and I
that there would be great danger in /
positively identifying this man under /
that circumstance. He did not want |
the jury to understand that the Occu- I
pants of the car did not believe that I
they fully identified Trace, for they
were inspired to tell the truth, but the |
jury must take the great excitement |
they were in and the fact of trouble to /
identify a masked person into con-
sideration when considering this testi-
mony. While this evidence was weak, |
the state had the right to prove, by |
circumstantial evidence, that Iraco |
was with the band that committed the |
murder.
There was very little variance be-
tween statements of illnesses for the |
state and the defence, but there were
interested persons on both sides. IC is |
a dangerous practice to convict a per-
son on the evidence of an accomplish,
and there was testimony given by |
several who are themselves under in
dictment for the same offence. Whether I
the state had corroborated this evidence |
remained for the jury to determine.
The defendant conceded much that the |
state was trying to prove. From the |
time that he went to Newtield until |
he got back to Philadelphia where he l
hired car for which he paid; going at |
a very early hour to Atsion with Mile |
DeMarco and others, was all admitted |
by the defendant. He said the car
was stopped off of the public road and |
that Iraco was, after the shooting |
Joined by Camarro, whose hat and |
mask were found at the scene OF the |
shooting, are all circumstances to be
considered. Did Iraco satisfactory
ly explain why he went to Atsion /
He seems to have gone at the instance !
of Mile DeMarco and if that was so |
she might have been the prime mover
in the affair. Another point to be
taken into consideration was whether
it took FIVE or six persons to go to
Atsion to look at farm. Whether
Millie told the truth or not on the
stand must be considered When
persons who are indicted and give
evidence against those who are jointly
indicted with them it is fair topresume
that they do so with some hope of
benefit by going on the stand. Re-
ferring to the statement made by the
defendant the court said confessions of
that character are not really confess
sions OF crime. Trace had made state
nients but had not said anything in
which he admitted taking part in the
murder. He said he was near the
scene for entirely different purpose.
1t was for the jury to decide whether
he was or was not telling the truth
1t might be that, with his ignorance
of the English language and the diff
| ference in dialect of the Italian Ian
guage, he did not understand the state
ments admitted by him. The law does
not require any prisoner to tell the
truth in making statements secured by
officials, which are designated voIun-
tary statements. That he gave his
brother a different name in one place
and his true name under oath, were
two entirely different matters. He was
privileged to say what he pleased in
his voluntary statement. But such
statements could be compared with
his testimony. Mile DeMarco told a
good story but it must be remembered
that she was contradicted by the de-
PENDANT, and it must also be remem-
bered that he was interested because
he was being tried for murder. The
two stories must be given consider
ton.
So that the whole case hinged upon
a single point. Was the defendant at
the scene of the shooting and if in the