Show WEt VE WHITE HAIRED MEN LN TO SETTLE Hl fAT MU RETIRES TO RET I I R SOLEMN DUTY DUTYe i e of These nyc i Verdicts Can He De hed heth Murder Hurder in First or Second k ee Voluntary or involuntary r v Mank M Mini Man n inter hier or Acquittal Wood tells jurors that e testimony testimony-of pony an Orchard ard must be w weighed d very carefully before ved especially if they think any pr promise I ise of ims imas im- im as s given the witness T Tie e laws of Idaho do not eviction on the testimony of an a accomplice un- un orro borated of the strongest instructions s for the the prosecution not ot essential to the formation of f a conspiracy should be a formal en the the par par par- he act charged It is sufficient if the minds of meet s understandingly so as to l bring about an anand and deliberate agreement t to do such act and he crimes charged although such agreement be ested Sted by any formal Words wards BULLETIN Sf July 27 The 27 The Haywood reached a verdict yet Y JUDGE 27 JUDGE FREDAY FRE FRE- DAY DELIVERED id TO THE JUEY NRY INTO ING G WAS THE GIVEN ya LIAM IAM D. D HAYWOOD TREASURER OF THE FEDERATION OF MI- MI ED WITH THE MUE- MUE GOV FRANK FRANKG G OF IDAHO ITO TO THE JURY THE FIVE VERDICTS AS N ST THE FIRST DEGREE THE SECOND DETARY DETAEY DE- DE TARY ARY DT T GUILTY contained sixty six in in- adge Wood dwelt at length sj of conspiracy and the evidence given by an ac- ac views vi ws such evidence with d declared and it should i I d the jury with caution dt with great care And it that evidence appears RI have lave ve been extended by the ther Orchard and there is any anyn r n to further favors on they are prop- prop Ill r the jury to take into in 44 l s char charge e was lengthy ore re than words and case se from almost every elery t as regarded by both me fair If anything consensus Consensus of opinion that aed ed to the defense ithe the corroboration of Or Or- I I I 1 I I H I t I H- H 4 5 d f s The penalties penalties' allowed for the ther r r degrees of crime for which the r jury may y fi find Haywood aywood guilty 4 are d k F First First deg degree ee murder murder Death 4 S Second cond d degree ree murder murder murder-Im- Imprisonment Im- Im in the penitentiary d from ten years to life ie 4 4 Voluntary One manslaughter i to ten years years' imprisonment d 4 Involuntary m manslaughter manslaughter- d 41 r 4 One to ten years' years i imprison imprison- r 4 meat ment 4 r The only other verdict allowed 4 r under the instructions of the 4 4 court is Not guilty M u I chard Judge Wood said that the jury should test the value of such evidence by bJ eliminating ins his testimony with a aVIew aview aview view to ascertaining if there is independent independent inde inde- pendent testimony tending to connect the defendant with the offense This This corroborating evidence the court continued need not be sufficient of itself to establish the guilt of the defendant but it must tend in some degree degree de de- gree to implicate and connect the defendant defendant defendant de de- with the commission of the crime charged Further along in his charge Judge W Wood said paid If it is possible for you to reconcile recon recon- reconcile cile the f facts ets in this case upon any reasonable rea rca theory consistent with the innocence innocence innocence inno inno- cence of the defendant William D. D Haywood it is your duty to do so and find the defendant not guilty The jury is instructed that the flight of Pack Simpkins if you find such flight ht to have taken place standing standing stand stand- ing ing alone would not of itself be any evidence of the guilt nt of the defendant But if you ou find that Simpkins did af af- af- af Continued on page 9 4 x If 4 i J Ji i iY i r Y yr J a i 4 y v I V fi S x ADA COUNTY JAIL BOISE WILLIAM f WILLIAM D. D IS IN HIS CELL IN HAYWOOD Con Continued from page 1 tar ter er the arrest of Orchard flee or beGie be be- justice then that C Gie ilie a fugitive from fact act may be taken into consid consideration ration together with all the other facts of tho the case ase in determining whether or not SimpkinS' SimpkinS was a member of the conspiracy con con- piracy which the State has sought to prove and of which conspiracy it is claimed by the State that the defendant defendant defend defend- ant nt was a member The courtroom was but half balf filled when the jury filed in in shortly before 10 0 0 clock Haywood came in in smiling and nd bowed a salutation to his wife his mother his two dau daughters and sister the he entire family being present As s Jud Judge e Wood took the bench the twelve welve jurymen who sat directly in front rent of him wheeled in their chairs turned their backs upon the defendant and nd his and listened attentively atten- atten to the len lengthy thy charge Charge of the Court Before delivering his Instructions Judge Wood said Gentlemen of the jury the evidence in Inthe Inthe the he case h having been introduced and the argument of ot counsel being completed it itow devolves upon the court to instruct now ow you ou in relation to the law of ot the case but before before doing so BO I desire to Join with I counsel for the State and the defendant in congratulating you upon the approaching approach approach- ing termination of your our duties and I also wish to extend to you and each of ot you ou the thanks of the court for the attentive formed manner your in which duties We you yu as r jurors have st thus in St this far r la case performed performed per per- i You have been selected to this responsible responsible responsible i sible position and for the performance of j this important duty from a aery ery very large number b of your citizens fellow l o after a along along I ro long painstaking al and most thorough l 0 ex examination cx- cx by able counsel The oath which you took as jurors s when h sworn to I try this h cause Imposed upon you the most solemn duty that devolves upon any an- I citizen that of sitting in judgment upon your fellowman Pats Fats Them on the Back You have been called here at the busiest bust busi est season of the year e a and perhaps when perhaps when ht many of you g could I not t well tf afford to be absent from your respective avocations but the duties Imposed here are necessary necessary sary and essential under our system stem of government and if any of you u uc c consider the performance a of this duty ua a burden or a hardship you should feel fully recompensed recompensed recompensed rec rec- rec- rec in the fact that your selection to try this cause from the very large number of jurors examined is a splendid testimonial to your citizenship ft and that t you should u will be give accepted ci this case as that a t guarantee conscientious consideration which the law imposes upon you when you OU take it with you to your for final action thereon After the customary Instruction 8 as to the general duties of the Jurors as to the law and evidence Judge Wood Instructed the Jurors in accordance with his ruling made some o days ago after argument r by h te counsel e as to the admissibility I of the evidence evi dence bearing on the connection of Steve Ste Adams with crimes committed in northern northern north north- em ern Idaho Must Forget This Thill This evidence and also ahio that introduced by the defense regarding deportations in Colorado and nd the employment of Pinkerton Pinker- Pinker ton detectives by the mine owners Judge Wood Instructed the Jury not to consider on the ground that no proper connection had been made in either case Instructions as to the necessity for the clear and conclusive proof beyond any reasonable doubt of ot every material fact were followed o d by the e quoting of f the in indictment indictment in- in g on which hl J Haywood d dt t together t with Moyer and Pettibone was arrested On this subject Judge Wood said There are three counts in the Indictment indictment indict Indict- ment merit but the substance of ot each of them themIs Is the unlawful willful deliberate premeditated premeditated premeditated pre pre- meditated and felonious killing of the said Frank with malice aforethought The essential elements of ot the offense charged In the indictment consist of ot the following features First there must have been a killing second that killing must have been un unlawful unlawful unlawful un- un I lawful third it must have been willful fourth it must mut have been deliberated I upon fifth it must have been premeditated premeditated premeditated sixth it must have been accompanied accompanied accompanied by malice In the mind of the person person person per per- I son or persons doing the killing and ulless unless unless un ul- un- un less these features and each and everyone every everyone everyone one of them are proven to your satisfaction satisfaction tion beyond a reasonable doubt then the I defendant cannot in any event be convicted convicted convicted con con- of murder in the first degree Must Be Very Careful The language of ot the statute is given as to murder in the first and second degree degree degree de de- de- de gree and voluntary and involuntary man man- slaughter Continuing Judge Wood said The court instructs the jury that under under under un un- un- un der the law no Jury should convict a citizen or of crime simply be because because be be- cause there is strong reason to believe that he is guilty but before the jury can lawfully convict they must be convinced of ot the defendants defendant's guilt beyond all reasonable reasonable rea rea- doubt If it is possible for you to reconcile the facts in this case upon any reasonable reasonable reasonable ble theory consistent with the innocence of the defendant William D. D Haywood it Is your duty to do so and find tind the defendant defendant de de- de- de not guilty I further Instruct m t you gentlemen nad of the j Jury that while tp p prod proof g t has been ad admitted admitted ad- ad of ot the commission of ot other crimes by the defendant and his associates and tending to prove the commission of ot such other crimes by them that it has only been admitted for tor the purpose of at showIng showing show show- ing fog the existence of a conspiracy to ac accomplish ac certain objects and that such crimes and the crime resulting In the death of at ex as well were all incidents of such conspiracy but you must not forget torget that the defendant Is 18 being tried for tor the murder of Frank and for that crime alone But you are privileged to take such other matters into consideration as part of ot the evidence in the case and as incidents and circumstances s bearing upon the question of his guilt upon the charge of ot the murder murder murder mur mur- der of ot Frank Defines Conspiracy It makes no difference however Inthis Inthis in inthis this case what crimes have been committed commit commit- ted in Colorado in the Coeur or elsewhere or who is responsible for forthe forthe the he commission of such crimes if It any there be The defendant cannot be convicted convicted convicted con con- unless the State has established beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the felonious killing of Frank A within the meaning of ot the criminal law consists of a combination between two or more persons for the purpose of accomplishing a criminal or unlawful object or a lawful object in an unlawful manner As applied to this case cases and under this indictment t e proof o of conspiracy conspiracy con con- a ff s a Is only proper g in so far as It may tend end to show a common design to en encourage encourage encourage en- en courage the particular murder charged against the defendant and it can only the of ot establishing be e Introduced for tor purpose lishing the position of ot the members of the combine as accessories to the crime of ot murder It is not essential to the formation of ofa ofa ofa a conspiracy that there should be a formal for tor- mal nial agreement between the parties to do dohe dothe dothe the he act charged It is sufficient if it the minds of ot the parties meet understandingly understanding understanding- ly 15 go 50 as to bring bring- about an intelligent and nd deliberate agreement to do such act and commit the crimes charged although such agreement be not manifested by any formal word j H i-H-i- i J. J 4 t 1 A conspiracy In the first in- in 4 4 4 i 4 i stance may be established by evl- evl 4 4 dence having V g no relation to the de- de 4 1 sr tt iet re rep i I 4 bv by acts of different p persons per per- 4 4 sons at different times and places 4 4 T or or by any other circumstances t tT i T which prove its existence 4 I I H- H It is sufficient if the State prove be beyond beyond beyond be- be yond a reasonable doubt that such a conspiracy conspiracY conspiracy con con- existed at the time of the commission commission com corn mission of the unlawful act and that the defendant on trial was a member of such An act done by a party to toan toan toan an unlawful conspiracy in furtherance thereof and naturally flowing from the common design Is the act o of each and al aI l of 1 the nc conspirators t And where murder d dIs is committed as the result of such a conspiracy each one of the conspirators even ven though he was not present at the place of ot the crime if It he aided abetted and nd encouraged the commission of the unlawful acts resulting In the crime charged That Reason Reasonable ble Doubt If It the prosecution has failed to prove these facts beyond a reasonable doubt you should find the defendant not guilty If however yo you believe In this case from the evidence beyond a reasonable reasonable reasonable reason reason- able doubt that the defendant William D. D Haywood aided abetted advised abetted advised and encouraged the killing of Frank Prank enberg then the defendant Is ill guilty and it would be immaterial whether he was actually present at the time of the killing or not The Jury is instructed that the witness witness wit wit- ness Harry Orchard claims that he was an accomplice in the commission of the offense charged in the indictment 4 I 4 l- l 4 i Under the statutes of this 4 1 State a person cannot be convicted t i 4 of a crime upon the testimony m of tl 4 i- i ian an accomplice c II fo unless nl such t 4 i is corroborated by other evl- evl 4 T i dence which of Itself and nd with- with 4 I t out the aid of the testimony of ot the thea I or 4 a accomplice tends to connect the T Tor i or 4 defendant with the commission of T TT 4 z the offense charged and the corroboration cor- cor 4 T is not sufficient if It it 4 1 merely shows the commission of I 4 the offense or the circumstances 4 thereof I H I I I I I i i I X M-X-M-K- I I rT By corroborative corroborative evidence Is meant additional evidence of a different character charac charac- ter to the same point Distrusts Accomplices The law views views' with distrust the testimony of an accomplice on account of the motive he may have for laying the responsibility of his crime upon an other when by so doing he may secure Immunity for his own participation in inthe inthe inthe the crime charged For this reason the law exacts such corroboration and although the jury jUlY may believe bellee that the testimony te of ot an accomplice pi e Is S tl true es still the jury could not convict convict convict con con- vict the defendant upon such testimony unless s they t further e find that a the testimony testimony mony 0 of tim the accomplice Is aoi corroborated oi to ci by by other r and independent d evidence rc This f elge c corroborating b evidence I e need d not be sufficient of ot to establish the guilt of the defendant but it must tend in some degree to implicate and connect connert the defendant with the commission of the crime charged In order to ascertain whether or not the testimony of the accomplice i is II corroborated corroborated cor cor- cor- cor as the law provides it must be before a conviction would be warranted war war- ranted you should eliminate |