Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-07-14
Jury, d.scu..,ns the conspiracy phase,

jury. discussing the conspiracy phases
men for an evil purpose. An agree
ment between two or nor persons to
Commit a crime in concert; a plot. A
conspiracy may be proved as other
facts are proved. by circumstantial ev-
idence and persons performing dis
connected over acts all contributing
to the same result and the consumma-
circumstances and their general con-
nection or otherwise satisfactorily
show the c~onspirators n confedcr-
ates In the commission Of the offense.
"a common design is the essence of
the charge and this may be made to
pursue the same object whether acting
separately or together, by common or
different means all leading to the same
unlawful result
Tart Design.
Proof Of m agreement actually en-
tered into is net essential. The mere
tacit understanding between c%onspfra-
tors to work to a common purpose Is
all that is essential to an actionable
the state to prove a formal agreement
to effect a purpose, but the onspira-
cy may be regarded As proof that the
parties were pursuing the common
purpose whether acting separately or
together by common or different
you are further charged that
where two or more persons enter into
conspiracy to accomplish some unlaw-
full act, any act lone by one Of them
in pursuance Of the original conspira-
cy is in contemplation of law, the act
Of both.
"1f the proof shows a previous
meeting or meetings and a concert of
action, each of the parties doing some
act contributing to accomplish an un-
lawful purpose, you are justified in
finding that they are conspiring to-
gether to accomplish that purpose.
The concurrence Of mind, essential
to a conspiracy, may be proved by
! direct or circumstantial evidence. or
both. and the facts may be inferred
when the parties are apparently pur-
separately or together by common or
different al all leading to the
same unlawful purpose"
Reasonable Doubt.
Judge Dean was very careful in in
structing the Jurors that they must
consider the question of reasonable
doubt and convict unless there
was no reasonable doubt in their
minds.
Nicholas Addresses jury.
Prosecutor e. H. Nicholas, in his
argument to the Jury, at the outset,
described the general crime Of con-
spiracy. He said in part:
i Conspiracy is crime whereby two
or. more persons unite together in q
common enterprise for the purpose of
violating some law of the state.
That conspiracy may be entered
into by words or mutual-understand-
Ing and 1T is not necessary for the
state to show that the men came to-
gether or to prove when or where the
conspiracy was entered into because
conspiracy is a secret crime, a mental
crime. So the courts. generally. have
actual entering into the conspiracy
but have held that 1t may be shown
from circumstantial evidence, from
the things that these men did, and If
you are all Of the opinion after hear
ing all the evidence in the case that
these men did unite to do an unlaw-
full thing, it matters not what particu-
gagged in to carry out the unlawful
enterprise. .f.
Overt Act Necessary.
IAN overt act Is to prove
conspiracy. Did n Of these defend
ants come into this county and COM
nit an overt act which under the law.
is the act Of both? The acts of
Joseph Gilbert At Lakeheld, II unlaw-
full, and what he did at Lakefeld,
would be Also the acts Of his co-con-
spirators. for which every ver act
the conspiracy Is renewed.
IF Freitag was an agent Of these
defendants and was sent into this
county, his conduct would be one OF
the overt acts for which both Of the
I defendants would be responsible.