The Idaho world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1864-1918, 1870-12-01
GRAND JURIEs.

decided repugnance to Sec 2U7 OF the Cfiliiin'
Practice Actof Idaho. He advises the urah
jury to disregard their duty under tha1 Pal
ticular section, except ain rare cases. au'
laws down as rule for their guidance the ia'
a. stated in Whartons American Crlmlna
Law "that it is improper and illegal to ex
anime witnesses on behalf of the deiendah
while the charge against him lies before tn
Grand jury" He further says that Justice
more likely to be done if the defendant is pu
upon his trial in open court"
Wharton's American Criminal Law Is al
excellent work, and where the rule as iai'
down by Wharton is not varied by statutor!
enactment, it is universally recognized, III thi
country at least, as standard authority. Inc
statutes of Idaho, however. vary the rule AM
consequently it is paramount to any law ial'
down by Wharton, Russell or any other write
on criminal law. Sec. POI of the Idaho Grim
inal Practic Act provides that though Crane
jury is not bound to hear evidence for the de
PENDANT vet. "when they have reason to believe
that other evidence within their reach will ex
plain away the charge, they should order suci
evidence to be produced" &c. The language
is quoted yerbatem from the statute but the
italics are our own. Under such section the
Grand Jurors alone are to decide from the ma
ture of the evidence already introduced as to
whether they have sufficient reason to believe
that other evidence within their reach will ex
plain away the charge against any defendant
and If they have reason to so believe, then, un
der the statute, it is their duty to order such
evidence to be produced before them. The
reason why the rule is thus changed Is appar
emit. Where Grand Jury follows the old rule,
and upon the evidence of the prosecution alone,
indict every person against whom a charge Is
preferred because, without any explanatory
evidence, the testimony for the prosecution Is
such, in their judgment, as To warrant con-
viction by the Trial Jury, it has been demon.
strated by experience that in nearly nine out
of ten, on an average, of such cases. the de-
PENDANTS are acquitted by Trial Jury who
hear the evidence on both sides. The result is
that immense bills of costs are cntailed upon
the county. ard the peoples money is thus
foolishly squandered in fruitless endeavors 10
convict persons Of alleged crimes. when il the
Grand Jury finding the indictments had heard
the evidence on both oides. no bills would have
been found and much Unnecessary expense
saved, Grand Jurics often do parties great in
justice in thus ignoring the evidence for the
defense and indicting them on er pdrte testimo.
ny. The fact of n man being indicted by n
Grand Jury, too often carries with it pre-.
sumption OF guilt, though the charitable theory
Of the law presumes every man innocent until
the contrary is shown.
This wholesale system of indictment is be-
coming an intolerable nuisance in proIonging
he terms of our courts, thus keeping the bust
less men OF the community, who are generally
selected as jurors, dancing attendance day al
er day, for weeks at I. time, to go through the
arce Of trying the cases Of men who would
lever have been indicted had all the evidence
'een heard by the Grand Jury. Jury service
5 thankless job to say the least OF it, and
he time occupied in clearing the criminal cal
'ndar, thus needlessly keeping men away FROM
heir business, entails upon tax payers heavy
nh.
~ compliance with the statute in regard TO
he prosecution of criminal offenders, aud the
luties and rights aud privileges of Grand
Juries