The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1934-06-14

the evidence.
If they are innocent-say so!
IF they are guilty-say sol"
Using post office robbery to illus
trate his point, the Judge continued
IL under Section 81 Of the statute
two or more persons conspire to rol
the post office, all the government ha
to prove would be that they did con
sptre and would rob the post offic
and some one or more did something Il
carry out the object Of the conspirac.
that Is, one went down to see wher,
the doors were and came back to re-
port. -
Nov, the purpose of this statute =
like the purpose of all public statutes
the result Of experience and necessity
The government must protect persons
and property. There are some often
ses against persons and propert,
which cannot be committed by on,
person, that Is, one person cannot b,
guilty Of riot. But riots some time!
result in destruction Of valued prop
erty and destruction Of human life
Therefore, q conspiracy statute i
necessary to the end that variou.
persons who plan and carry out tn,
plans can be reached.
Can Reach Originator
Again. the purpose Of this statut,
Is important because of provision!
that the originator Of some unlawful
criminal plan, often carried out b,
subordinates, may be reached. TIL.
originator himself rarely gets out il
the open but, through secret instruc.
ton to his subordinates and thos,
subject to his will, the unlawful
scheme Is carried out"
Another purpose of the statute
the judge described as follows: 1.-THE
government Is more interested in pre.
venting crime than it is in punish.
ing it-at least equally interested
and under the statute, two or more
persons who have conspired to com.
NIT an unlawful act may be discover.
ed before the conspiracy has done an,
great amount of damage. BY provid-
ing that conspiracy is unlawful
when some overt act is done, the
government is often able to thwart i.
almost at the beginning"
Before the crime charged in the
indictment is clear, the Judge explain.
ed. some one of these conspirators
must be shown to have done some act
tending to advance the object Of the
conspiracy.
In this indictment" he said, II,
is alleged that the defendants did dc
various and diverse acts to carry out
the alleged conspiracy" He briefly
summarized the contents of overt acts
and went on to say, lin this indict-
ment the defendants pleaded not
guilty and that plea puts in issue
every material allegation in the in
dictment and before convicting them
the government must prove beyond q
reasonable doubt every material alle-
CATION"
May Try Erickson Later
He pointed out that the defendants
g. A. Hample, Joe A. Kinzer and Paul
Yeater, named in the indictment had
been acquitted on direction Of the
court and further stated that Though
the defendant Oscar E. Erickson is
not being tried before this jury, he
may be tried before some other jury
and in the indictment is named as
a conspirator though he is not on
trial."
The material allegations contained
in the indictment, the court defined
as follows:
81. That at some time during the
life of this alleged conspiracy-be.
tween January, 1888, and March 4
1034-these defendants or some two
or more Of them, did enter into q
conspiracy as charged in the indict-
ment.
20. That one or more overt acts
charged In the indictment was COM
mitted in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy.
IS. That conspiracy was entered
into and an overt act committed, that
some two or more Of these defendants
were parties to the conspiracy and
that one or more of the defendants
did commit one or more Of the overt
acts charged In the Indictment
The law, he explained. presumes
that each defendant IS innocent and
was when they came before the jury.
That presumption remains" he
declared, until evidence was-if it
was-introduced convincing you be-
yond a reasonable doubt that they
are guilty. Then the presumption no
longer existed"
Defines Reasonable Doubt
I've told you," he continued fur
Their, that the defendants must be
proved beyond a reasonable doubt to
be guilty if they are found guilty. A
reasonable doubt is a doubt based on
reason and which is reasonable in
view Of all the evidence, an honest,
substantiated misgiving, generated by
absence Of doubt-nM q doubt UNI
warranted by the testimony or born
Of sympathy or mercy"
He told the jurors If they believed
that any witness had testified falsely
they had right to throw out all that
that witness had said-unless, he
added, 1T was colToborated by others
testimony. You gentlemen are the
sole judges of the credibility Of each
witness"
Regarding witnesses credibility, he
advised the jury to take into consid-
Grafton their appearance. their intel
ligence, their demeanor on the stand
and whether or net they impressed
you as being candid and honest,
whether they were relying on hear
say and what interests they had at
stake In the trial."
Here the judge entered into his
summation Of the government theory
Of the case-"the highlghts of EVIL
dence upon which the government
relies"
The governments theory" he began,
rs that sometime in January, 1898,
LANCER, who had been elect
I'd governor, found himself in need
,; q newspaper for the purpose Of
his own political interests
md disseminating the PHILOSOPHERS Of
p1AA NnSa - 40 rp,sn 0vR>A <v@,,><s~a