Bill of exceptions of John D. Lee

Page 16

Nineteenth

The Court erred in instructing the Jury that the testimony of the witnesses "who were participants in the massacre should be taken with great caution if uncorroborated in a material point by other evidence." In this that the said witnesses who were participants in the massacre were wholly incompetent to show the guilt of defendant unless supported and corroborated by the evidence of competent witnesses who were not accessories to the crime charged in the indictment.

Twentieth

The Court erred in instructing the Jury as follows. "Were said parties unworthy of belief the law would not allow them to be put upon the witness stand." Because It takes from the Jury the right to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and in effect instructs the Jury that every person sworn and testifying before them is entitiled to full faith and credit and when taken in connection with the other part of the charge "that the evidence in this case is overwhelming" against this defendant. It leaves nothing whatever for the Jury to determine, except the wording of the form of their verdict for murder in the first degree. Thereby depriving the defendant of the right of a fair and impartial trial.

Page 17

Twenty First

The Court erred in Instructing the Jury on its own behalf-in using the following language "The admission of accomplices is fully Justified by the necessity of the case-and there was not and could not have been any objection to their introduction." Because the law knows no more of necessity-than necessity knows of the lawand necessity cannot be claimed as a Justification for a departure from the well settled rules of law, in the trial of any person charged with crime-because the defendant stands before the law as innocent until proven guilty by compenent evidence, and necessity cannot change that well settled and human principle of civilized Jurisprudence-And because the necessity of the case does not Justify the conviction of the defendant upon the unsupported evidence of confessed accomplices-or of the Jury believing the evidence of such accomplices and the same mislead the Jury and prevented the defendant from having a fair trial herein. That by reason of the error contained in the charge and instructions of the Court, the whole charge became and was erroneous. It does not correctly state the law. It tended to and did mislead the Jury and prevented the defendant from having a fair and impartial trial.

Page 18

Also the said charge and instructions of the Court so given upon its own motion is erroneous because it does not pretend to separate the facts from the lawnor can it be derived from said charge what portion is given as law and what is given as a recital of the alleged facts in said case-and the facts and law being mixed and mingled as they are-makes the said charge and each and every part thereof defective, objectionable, and eroneous-and the same taken as a whole mislead the Jury, and tended to and did prevent the Defendant from having a fair trial in said cause.

Wm. W. Bishop J. C. Foster and Wells Spicer Attorneys for John D. Lee, Defendant

Page 19

The People of the United States In the Territory of Utah vs. John D. Lee. indicted with William H. Dame. Isaac C. Haight John M. Higby George Adair, Junior Elliott Wilden. Samuel Jukes Phillip K. Smith and William C. Stewart

In the District Court of the Second Judicial District of Utah Territory-Held in Beaver County

It is hereby stipulated and agreed that the evidence in the above entitled cause as taken and reported by A. S. Patterson official Reported in the said Court and Cause shall when written out by said Reporter be attached to the Statement on Motion for New trial and Bill of Exceptions in the above entitles cause and stand for and constitute the evidence taken as the trial of said cause, and the same is hereby consideres as settled and agreed to as being correct, and to contain all of the evidence in the said action.

Beaver, Utah September A.D. 1876. WW Bishop. J. C. Foster and Wells Spicer Attorneys for Defendant Sumner Howard. U.S. Atty. Pres. by [D???y] Assistant.

No. 31 114 In the District Court of the 2nd Judicial District of Utah Territory Held in Beaver County

The People of the United States In the Territory of Utah vs John D. Lee Indicted with others

Bill of Exceptions of John D. Lee. Defendant

Filed Spetember 28, 1876, James R. Wilkins, Clerk

W. W. Bishop, J. C. Foster and Wells Spicer Attorneys for John D. Lee

Overruled Sept 28, 1876 James R. Wilken, Clerk