Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-07-10
this even stronger in favor Of the

statements of the accomplice's narrative.
After all, the rule laid down, only re-.
quires the Jury TO be reasonably satisfied,
that the sccomplice il telling the truth
and requires them to be 80 satisfied by
testimony confirming the narrative in 20
many parts as may produce this result,
and then leaves the effect of such on
6rmation to the consideration OF the Jury.
The result to be attained is the satisfac-
ton of the jury that the party Is telling
the truth. Now, If this satisfaction Is
reached fully, in the language of the Cir
cult Judge, by the story, manner, appear
ance, and department of the witness, and
that under the influence OF that severest
test that can be applied by our law, to the
credibility of q witness, q c-rosssexamina-
ton in open court, in presence of the jury
by able, acute, skilled and long-trsined
counsel, we do think that such result so
produced, Is as reliable IS confederation
can be. In fact, as we ave said, when
the jury Is fully satisfied, no higher result
can, in the nature of things, be attained, for
II nLLly satisfied, they can be more
than this, or reach a higher state OF GER
tainty than this from testimony of wit
nssses, though cumulsted indefinitely.
In addition to the authorities above re-
ferred to we quote
THE LANGUAGE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW YORK,
opinion by Judge Beardsly, delivered
in Is45 in case of People vs.. Cas-
tello, LIST DeniO's Reports, SO, he says, as
to whether q jury may convict "on testi-
mony of accomplice INCORPORATED"
though it has often been said by judges
and elementary writers, that no person
should be convicted on the testimony of
an accomplish, unless ~corroborated by
other evidence; still there is no such in
flexible rule of law. It Is a question for
the Jury, who may pass upon the CREDIBLE
ity Of an accomplish, as they must upon
that of every other witness. His state
ments are to be received with great eau
ton, and the court should so advise; but
after all, if this testimony carries convic-
ton to the mind OF the jury, and they are
fully cORUiaeed of its truth, they Mould
give the same effect to such testimony as
should be allowed to that of an unim-
peached witness, who Is in no respect i'm
| dictated in ths offense. Such a testimony
will authorize q conviction in any case;
and we add, no testimony can reach a
higher result than this, as we have before
said, than TO carry conviction to the mind
of the Jury, and fully convince them of
its truth"-and when this is attained all
the ends Of illegal investigation are attained
possible to be attained by human investi-
CATION; that is q full conviction that the
facts are as stated by the witnesses-and
when this is done the jury may we'll re-
num- on LQGlE OdbU6s bndb LA0 Issue is
proved, and they find the party guilty as
charged.
We add to these authorities the case of
State VS.. Harden, 2 Den & Bait, 407. PEG
pie VS.. Whipple, 9 Cow, 707, and some ten
or twelve other cases cited by Mr.. Whar-
tonlin Note l, to sect. 7S3 Of his work on
criminal law, vol. l.
As we have cited in the previous part
of this opinion, Mr.. Wharton
says, the prepondersnce of authority in
this country is. that q jury may convict a
prisoner on the testimony of N accom-
plice alone; and while he says, p. 1913, " it
may be improper to suggest that, after
ali, the wiser snd more humane rule is
always to tell the juryif the aceomplics
be uucorroborsted as to the person of the
accused, they must acQnit; yet be does
not pretend that this is b elaw, but leaves
the infernnce fairly that he did not so
consider it, by saying, ifthe question be
still OPEN" and by his previous state /
ment that the preponderance OF authority
in this country was the other way.
The judge, in,this case, confirmed sven
to this suggestion, for he advises them
not to convict without confederation OF
statement Of sccomplice, and that in the
most vital and essential point to the
prisoner.
As to the
OPINIONS OF THE JUDGES OF ENGLAND.
cited, they all coirm the view here
in taken, for G. Justice Jervis, says: 1t
is not a rule of law that an accomplice
be confirmed in order to a convic-
ten +" Parke says, he had all the time
laid down the rule as stated by Chief JUS
tIce Jervis, and told sjury they nag find a
prisoner guilty upon the unsupported
testimony Of an accomplish, but the
have been in the habit of advising
them not to act on such testimony unless
q nrrnhnrafaa - Thfa uuQd azaaflu WhaN |
His Honor, Judge Flippin, did in this
case, as we understand him. Wightman,
said in the above case: mthe paactice
to require confirmation as TO all the pri-
has not been universal, and SO all
the judges seem to have cOncurred. Will
lis, J. remRrking, a" this Is not q question
Of law, put one OF practice. See also the
case People VS.. Boyle, 2Ist New York
Court of Appeals, r. 579, decided 1850.
We approve these authorities, and think
hey state the rule Of law correctly, and
rs yet we have been pointed to no adiudi-
5ation of any court of last resort, where
contrary doctrine has been decided to be
.hs Law, nor do we believe that any case
IAN DO fOund in England or America, q
where a revising court has reversed the :
action Of an inferior court for telling the /
ury that they might cOnvict on the uncor- :
-oborsted statements of an accomplice, If !
ully satisfied Of the truth of his story, :
Ifter giving the caution to the jury, as is
oven by the Circuit Judge in this case.
may be mistaken, and such case may
70 found, but we only say, in our judg-
nent no such case has been presented. !
We hold, then, that the charge of his I
Honor was correct on this question, and r
a accordance with the great preponder- $
nee of authority, both in this country c
nd in England; and we do not feel that q
We should extend the rule or make a 8
rlanAnAk - Nkrn aa1a nTh rnlaa wun hn4n
tied commend themselves to our judy
Is being soundly based on the
PHILOSOPHY OF -
nd the theory OF u system ofjury trial, :
nd we do not feel hat we can with safety
epsrt from them, or lay down q different
without q departure from GUN prin- o
iple. o
The reason in favor of them is much o
in this State than In England, for b
ere it is held that the jury are both the
of the Law and the facts, and II this
as any meaning at all it surely cannot be
to trust these Judges with the =,
uestion of the proper weight to be given -
testimony Of an accOmplice, It being
ways held hat the Jury is to Judge /.
nd are the peculiar triers Of the facts of "
case in all trials at common law, b.
neither criminal or civil. We make y
lueh boast of the advantages OF the right
I 40 10 Jul 3 AAA AnRAshnAAy 6kOoA VI a -,
!, the great bulWsrk provided by u "
7stem for the protection of the citizen n
/ mis- liberty, against the attempts at OPP "
ression on the part of the government,
seems to US TO compOrt but i'll with this -
past, If they cannot be trusted to protect "
] accused party, when he is sought to
, convicted on the testimony OF one VINO
an acknowledged felon, when the Judge
lis them he advises them not to do so, .
Mess he is confirmed, and gives them IS ca
reason why he should be so confirmed, "a
10 strong temptations he Is under to OF
,6ak falsely, by reason OF his peculiar
"Reminiscences. having the hope Of q par Fl
N held out to him as the reward for tes-
lying against his confederstes in guilt. =
our juries cannot be safely trusted in cli
oh q case as this, then our boast OF this ey
Is but idle words, empty sound, ar
no meaning, consistency, or basis q
the facts of its practical workings, and Cl
Q institution should be allowed quietly ar
go into disuse, and be consigned to the
lsty receptacle of tbs worn out and USE :
IS machinery Of past ages. sc
We add only one other matter, that Is, Sh
hitting the rule to be that no convic- 10
can stand, unless testimony OF &C tel
Is c~orTobOzated, yet If you admit q
as competent, and it goes to the j1rys
W can this or any other court deter Sd
ne whether the jury a decided
d found their verdict on the state
o. the accomplice alone, or :
those statements as influenced us
the co~rroborsting testimony present sn
? Ifthis be impossible, then, after all, Or
4 MATTER IS LEFT To THE JURY AT ye
Last
10 can convict on the testimony OF the ~
1omplico alone, and no tribunal can ~
ssibly revise their action in this re- 81
BET unless they shall be required 20 say -
their verdict upon what evidence it ~
g founded, 9 proposition for which no III
8 will contend or maintain. I
n ali this, We have made no allasion to .t
fact OF this ease, nor have they ven &c
IN present In our mind TO influence us ~
the sliRhtest In our Judgment. We