Show THE LEE TRIAL judge horemans charge to tho the 1 aury jury neaver BEAVER 3 at hair half past 2 tills this afternoon judge boneman boreman commenced charging the tho jury in the iee jee cise case ease the court room was crowded with spectators who manifested the most excited and intense interest judge boreman sud wild gentlemen of the ary J uny ury the introduction tro of testimony for the prosecution and defense dereuse being now a ai an end the duty does lay upon me rne in order to tor aid you cu in arriving at a correct conclusion in your verdict to instruct you upon the law applicable to tile the cae and to give you yun such suggestions tidus and advice a the tho lecessi ties of tho the case seem to require what I 1 say upon questions of law jaw is upon you but what I 1 state respecting fact is not obligatory upon you the court is the tho sole judge of the law of the case but you are the sole judges of the facts and also of the credibility of witnesses the I 1 mountain meadow massacre which this case has caused for the finst first time to be investigated vesti gated was a crime of appalling magnitude magid tude planned and carried carri earni etl eil out with demon like ferocity un paralleled in modern days or among civilized people and it is of or widespread interest by reason of its enormity and its iong concealment there I 1 is no bisp dispute lite tite as to the cacti facie of the ma at ai the time and place specified sped nned fled it is charged liw hw ever that this derenda defendant fit was a participant and anti leader in this bloddy work antl anil upon this charge he ia is i 1 ow 0 W upon his ills arld tr at before yuu you ou the prisoner boner honer atthe at the tho liar iyar john D lee let is charged with this crIme with V ff damo dame isaac 0 07 haight john M higbee george adair jr li llott wilden samuel jukes philip it smith and W C stewart but only the defendant lee la Is nw n w ubon upon trial rial and andt it is no concern of this thia J jury juny ury uny whether any or all of the other defendants be arrested aud arit d or not but it ia Is only reasonable reasonable to suppose that the ethein will be dr arrested and tried as speedily as lei iii itis iti ita a possible to be done you lou you have haeg only to do with the Juno innocence cence or guilt of this thid defendant in order to reah ivah h the truth in regard to the tha prisoners gilt or innocence atia it is perhaps the tho athral the massacre itself not being disputed to inquire first ils its to whether there was waa any ank cam combination bi nation of parties in plan plau planning ning and executing ting this terri ble uie deed aladj and if it there was waa such auch ji a bombin combination and joint action thep whether the tiie part parties les lem or of any of them indicted with the pr prisoner were in in this combination if J f so q thien then was the deren de defendant dant daut a party to su such sueh ch combination if from the evidente evid onre enre ou lind flud the there e was such a concert of action aud cooperation operation co among par ties tiet t charged or a number of them themi themy and thit the prisoner wagi wag jointly acting with tile ilie them in lie is guilty gull y even though ft might not appear that iio ilo alth his hia own hande haude did dij any y h killing if ifo anly atoo guilty who did the shooting shoot iak lai and killing with their own hands then in but few case cases eases of bf this kind could the leaders be reached the rank and file alone would suffer it is 13 not nee necessary emary to be shown that defendant iid ild lid did with his own hands any lluy of the killing but if the killing was done hy by those with whom he was gas operating cooperating co though his part was not to do any of the killing lie he is guilty and if it has been in your opi opinion 10 iou shown by evidence thit abit he actually did any of the killing that fact will be taken into consideration if however you find from the evidence that there was no combination or agreement to joint action then no net act of any of the jbf other parties would be the defend auts ania unless it was done hy by ill hi own lii Ill direction or consent in ascertaining whether such combination existed it is not necessary that the evidence should show any express agreement it ii isu sufficient fent that the acts cause caust and cone cono conduct act of the parties ar charged showed that an under er standing existed and that hey were operating jointly for the accomplishment ment of home some end and if the evidence evid evio ence in your judgment shows others than those charged acted and operated cooperated co with those then the prisoner would be held responsible for their acts as they would bufor be for his acts in pursuance pursuance ot their dibir lommen lommon purpose the work of ail all any y was the work of all and if the parties engaged were to differ ent parts in the accomplishment of their joint purpose some bome to do one thing some another some to stand guard gu ard some to drive wagons home come I to kill hill and some to do other part of the common work all are guilty they all operated to secure one end the slaughter of a number of human being beings men women and children if you believe from the evidence that the prisoner was at the massacre ma acre then the question arises was he lie there for an innocent purpose e at and i d why did he go there aud and if you believe from the evidence 01 that olit it lie participated to an any y extent in the abe the mcconn accomplishment ment meat of of the common object it is for foi you to tb say from the evidence why he so participated it is claimed for the defendant that the indians were very much incensed at those emigrants ir it this be true and that a great num beb her of indian indiana were engaged with the whites in the massacre mur mua saure saeno and there ia Is no doubt that very many indians did participate it is no defense to the whites for their participation there is no evidence that any lorce loree force was med led to compel any white man to join in ilithe the murder nor it 14 it shown that any white man mas had any ju at t cause for engaging in these mur murden murder derr derm and the only pretended leason reason is that the indians were greatly incensed at the emigrant but that is not a valid reason for the whites engaging in the massacre nor does the evidence evidente show any good ground for the indians engaging in the massacre but as to that question quest lon ion you are not called upon to decide if from the evidence you believe the indians were co operating and acting in concert with the whites in the accomplishment of the destruction of the emigrants it but makes a more vivid picture of the en enormity and brutality of the anbu inhuman man work the char charge in this cale cal cae calv v is murder but it is h not kotonly only the killing of a human being that is murder besides the two degrees of murder thee there is manslaughter and iso justifiable MIA hio hlo hie or r excusable homicide homice de mulder is the killing of any human being with malice aforethought either elther express or implied malice is a revengeful act donn dona intentionally and without good cause ore or excuse x if iff therefore you believe from the evidence that the killing din lin this instance deliberate r etland anu and premeditated thau that tho the hilling kitling ituk w was in pum PUN pursuance design or purpose to b ich com corn mote purpose ohe the wasi abo rao party hes his ia guilty of fik the filst degree and you youl will eo so julid RI ilice the killing to of mu d r bulmas abts 1 irm iro pd imm from thi the t f ther flier partie parties f an fn mol mot case mallee malice ce fa J ilot t ti susceptible le of or dire ct hut but may be established k by inference e or less lew strong tty try 1 0 be drawn ge jeur r we fawe fate anul anui editn ul am stances connected with w the killing hilling and which indicate the disposition or state of mind with which the killing was done if ir Ilo llo however wever you could find from ibe the evidence that the killing was dono with malice aforethought either expressed or implied in p ed but bui was not wilful deliberate and premeditated abed it if would woud be murdel murder in the second sec ond degree and if the killing was unlawful but you find from the evidence that there was malice mailee the offense is i s of a higher grade than manslaughter and if there thee the e was malice mailee and the act was wilful deliberate and premeditated it can cannot not be murder in the second ec ond end degree but is 13 of a higher krado krade still and is murder in the tile first degree then in that case iti atif itla 4 murder in the first degree or nothing that is if wit it be not murder in the first degree feg reft it can only be justifiable or excusable homicide to be justifiable homicide it first arisen from unavoidable n necessity without any wilar or desire and without any inadvertence in the tho party killing and therefore without blanie blame as for example the execution according to law jaw of a criminal who has been lawfully sentenced tu to be hanged or second it must have been committed for the advancement of public justice nur fur example ex if an du officer is assaulted t and resi resl resisted sted and should kill his assailant assal asani lant laut there Is no evidence which could be cias clas classed under either elther if f these heads beads of justifiable homicide A homicide can be excused only in two ways ti t rab rat when the act is le what is called mi misadventure that is ls 14 i where in doing 4 a lawful act the the party without any intent to hurt urt unfortunately kills another second when a party acting in self defense kills another person niem diem is no evidence that these were killed whilo while their assailants were doing a lawful fact noris there any evidence that those who did the tho killing were acting in self seir de fe rene fene fendor or in defence of their daml iles ilet or property if therefore as I 1 have stated you find from the evidence that tila ilia he killing vias veas was done wilfully de alix bately and pro premeditatedly meditated ly and with malice aforethought you juwill will find the deren defendant darit guilty and if you find from the evidence that it was not done wilfully deliberately and and with malice aforethought louwill sou you will acquit the prisoner pra eona the burden of proof of the defendants guilt jests rests upon the prosecution and it is for you to bay say whether whet fier they have made out a case or og nor not in rn reaching a conclusion as to the prisoners guilt or innocence it is not necessary that it should be shown that all oia ofa or a great greab number of pr par persons were killed but bia it id is sufficient clent if from the evide evidence neg nep yott find that one human biang bein was lill killed ledi provided vi ed the killing shall have been done dofie by combination nor is it necessary that the name or names of those killed should be b shown abut but bub if any y of them thera were in manner and form a ch charged it is sufficient before t vou you can find the prisoner guilty yo you u must from the evide evidence rico rice believe bellev e beyond a reasonable double doubt that the prisoner is guilty and tak lak edg inythe iho whole evidence together it must exclude every other ether hypothec si iq buethe bub but the guilt gf the tho prisoner A reasonable doubt is 14 only villy such a one as A s would arise dilse in til th f minds of 0 I 1 rea men sucha puch n q you are ari who are anre selected because it itcy jo supposed and expected that you are aro two able men and compelled to try such a question proof beyond the tho possibility hibi lity of a doubt is not required bebau because 0 o elch proof never can bt made it ii Is nop nel nol nc esary to show to you that it Is 11 not possible that the prisoner I 1 is innocent to show beyond all po of bc a doubt that he is guilty but hut it that the proW prosecution cution produce mleh evidence that when you look it over olef as sis reasonable meli mell you dd not doubt the prisoner s guilt that tho the evidence produces producer in iu your minda an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of tho the guilt of tho tha defendant proof b J ada pda u apa anable doubt ia Is some shihi the preponderance of or a akrc pond poud eranee of or n ac ivil wilt 40 to a verdict in fila a civil cato cate c tte ite but aut not so irra firs crim lam il bedau case ease you inu lit tw ja au arb from nl 1 b 1 den ddn ac beyond any fair reasonable doubt of the i defendant lg guilt you musi must hayo haye an abiding conviction to it a moral certainty lorhn of his guilt or you should acquit him but absolute certainty of guilt Is not noc necessary moral certainty is sufficient jurors are ag asi I 1 have before stated the tho sole judges of the credibility of witnesses arid and it is for you to say upon your oaths what degree of credit is due to the testimony of each witness wit riess and it Is for you to say upon your oaths whether you deem deeni the testimony of any witness un worthy 0 y of be belief bellef lief ilef in order t the he more s specifically idec to give the law to you I 1 w will 11 read the instructions given first such instructions as are asked by the prosecution asi as I 1 have allowed first to rd au authorize 1 the jury to find the prisoner guilty his guilt must be pt oved beyond a reasonable doubt mid wid proof which convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously tl upon on it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt if it leaves in the mind an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of tha tho truth of the charge the other instructions we condense as follows second that mere possible doubt Is not a reasonable doubt third that it is not necessary to prove proved lee leo actually killed any anyone one of the emigrants with his own hand but if he was present presents and aided and abetted the killing it is sufficient fourth the jury must utterly disregard the ruled out testimony mony MODy fifth I 1 it t is not necessary to prove that a person named john smith was killed at the massacre in order to convict lee if it the jury believes there here was one or more of the enli emi grants killed by lee or that he aided and abetted in tile the killing of ha the emi emigrants grants granta whose names are unknown sixth one may be a principal in a murder wit without doing the deed with his own hand it is enough if he ie aided and abetted the act BO so if the jury bel bei believe belleve levei level beyond a reasonable doubt that either lee or any of the defendants acted jointly and with malice aforethought then the I 1 ju iury jury must nind find a verdict of bf murder in the first degree the burden burderi of proving that tiie the killing was wilful ess ress upon tho the prosecution which it must show beyond a reasonable doubt in determining these facts the iho he jury should work to tho fact of tho killing 9 in connection with the attending facts as by the evidence the instructions for fou the defense were given which we condense as follows first thero there must be a union or joint operation of the act andin audin and intention or criminal negligence second the presumption of in inocence prevails and Is to be des strayed by such an amount af pf evidence of guilt as Is calculated to produce the opposite belief third the i circumstance circum stance must exclude to a moral amoral certainty every hypothesis but that chatot 0 t guilt gull t fourth defining at length m what hat ia is a reasonable doubt fifth the establishment of a erlma a facie case merely does not take away the presumption of innocence sixth the charge of ot combination of the defendant with other persons to commit tho the crime crimo is a question of ot fact to be found by the jury bel believe evo eve tb |