| Show I 1 richardson MA MAKES KES ELOQUENT PLEA I 1 IN N defendants haywoode Hay woods counsel growl grow very dramatic in arguing a motion for a verdict of acquittal bolso baiso idaho june 21 1 I mr rich ardson opened his argument by reading from tho the statutes of the state which says that a conviction cannot ho be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence which by itself and without the aid of the testimony ot of the accomplice tends to connect tho the defend defendant int with the commission af of the crime he took the testimony of miss cora peabody as an instance of the failure on the part of 0 the state to in traduce evidence which independently of the evidence of the accomplice was sufficient to permit of an inference that the defendant was connected with the offense charged he drew attention to the fact that miss bliss peabody merely testified that she had seen two men near her carriage on a certain night orchard had fiad said he lie was there hut but there was said mr richardson absolutely no independent corroboration the two statements taken together might create an inference but miss peabodys ys evidence was worthless without orchards testimony richardson mentioned ether other testimony for the state as having utterly tailed failed to connect IT haywood aywood with the tile commission of the crime later he quoted from two idaho cases where there was reversal because of the failure ur of the state to convict on testimony of an accomplice taking up lip thel san Pran francisco cisco witnesses he went over the testimony of each witness from mrs airs sadie swan the tile servant in the tho bradley house to the dairyman who sold the milk and arid the chemist who found poison in it and at the end of each ruling of the evidence richardson said there may appear some repetition in my statements to your honor but I 1 will repeat because I 1 desire to impress upon your honors mind beyond a shad aw of a doubt that in all this mass of matters there is no basis for the statement that this evidence connects haywood with the murder of taking up the drafts issued by haywood in favor of jack simpkins richardson said these were innocent transactions he dwelt at some length on the draft dated december 21 1905 in favor of simpkins this tills too was wa an innocent transaction and only orchard pro proves any y connection you are obliged to leave orchard out at this point mr lur richardsons Richard sons argument remained centered for a a long time he traced the draft and concluded that the evidence was useless as showing haywoode Hay woods connect connection I 1 on hero richardson changing his man maw it ner raised bis his voice 1 I would say to your honor hp I 1 shouted that if haywood was gui guilty I 1 t of the blowing up lip of the vindicator which ho lie is not dot it if haywood were guilty of the conspiracy upon gabbert which be he is not it if haywood were guilty of the tho conspiracy on the life lite of peabody Pc which he is pot it if he killed kille d wally which he did nov no it lj he planned to kill bradley which he dl hiir not even it if all these things were true which they are not all this would be insufficient to connect him of a crime on the body ot of St steinen eunen berg these were all crimes committed ted in states the state of idaho and this man haywood stands charged with b a crime committed within the borders of the state ot idaho 1 enve we come therefore to the proposition bv kv whom does this man mail stand connected with the murder of sheun onberg except by the mouth of the antan who sit a in that witness chair and whose unsupported word is not worthy of belief by any living person here forthe for tor the first time richardson reached the point of declamation he turned to the witness chair and shook his clenched hand at the place where orchard sat for near nearly I 1 y a we week ear under his cross examination As be tic referred to orchard he be hissed the words and turned from the chair with a gesture expressive of the utmost contempt governor peabody came here he has been interviewed everywhere in this country and through many states and has announced things ha he would testify to when ho he got here when he gets here what does be he do he lie tells us that after giving up office he went to his home in canon city and commenced to re remodel moziel his house and that some one pointed out to him a man named thomas hogan all from witness to witness richardson passed continuing his review nf df their testimony and in each case asserting that there was noth nothing ing to conned connect haywood with the murder taking up lip the evidence of G INI stewart wart who testified yesterday to having heart heard haywood criticism criticise critic crit ielse ise and den denounce ounce in 1899 during the troubles in the coeur calenes dA lenes richardson said why your honor we can find ten thousand men in idaho who are ire guilty of the murder of enberg it if a denunciation of made a man guilty of that murder here was II aywood whose brothers were oppressed and imprisoned without trial and harshly treated and in strong language he be criticised criticized and denounced the action of the man who was responsible for the condition then existing this tills was in 1899 and enborg was killed wiled in 1905 evv why hy your honor are we going to accept such language at such a time as evidence on which to hang this roan man 9 in conclusion mr Richard richardson bon said now your honor I 1 have shown you the law jaw and I 1 have given you the facts as to the evidence I 1 have presented this case with all candor this case has been discussed from one end of this country to the other by the newspapers and by all people until wo we find extreme difficulty in getting a jury it seems to me that to leave this case to a jury tor for this community is to leave it to passion and prejudice when the rules of law ought to dispose of it here and now it this were an ordinary case I 1 believe no court t would be slow to act along the lines of the tile motion we have filed here but your honor ia is only human as all of us are human an I 1 ask your honor to separate the judge from the huni humanity anity that controls us all hero here la Is the flattest case over ever presented to a court of law if wo we leave out the testimony of orchard the criminal crinnin al whose test testimony mony shows him to be the greatest criminal in all the tile ages before hero here Is a caso case that has fallen flat without orchard and arid all the testimony falls to the ground without the ild of this foul fiend ot of murdering crime and this is all the Pink pinkertons ertons can produce to us alter after more than a year of work 1 I ask your honor to ins instruct the jury to sign up lip a verdict acquitting this defendant judge wood immediately announced his big decision refusing the motion the court is thoroughly satisfied that this cause be submitted to the jury jur it if I 1 felt differently I 1 would not hesitate to so rule the court then explained that he would not review the evidence in a written opinion because there were two more defendants to be tried later court then adjourned until 10 on monday morning |
