Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1875-11-12
Amendments to the Criminal Stat

Judge Wilson, in his charge to the
Grand Jury at the last term of the
District Court in Dubuque, makes the
following allusion to certain needed
changes in criminal procedure as laid
down by the new Code:
"My experience for years connect.
ed with the administration of Grimm
al law in this State proves it to be
very expensive, with all the odds in
favor Of the defense. The dictates
of humanity require that this should
be so to some extent, but whether it
is wise to have the chances so largely
as exists in this State is question of
great doubt. These reflections, as
you are doubtless aware, belong prop
erly to different forum, the law.
making power rather than yours. In
looking calmly and quietly over the
system Of criminal procedure as it
exists and has existed for years here,
l can see no good reason why the
General Assembly should require the
names of all the witnesses to be ex-
amined before the Grand Jury to be
endorsed upon the back OF the indict-
ment, or three days notice given to
the defendant that such witnesses
would be introduced on the trial.
This provision often defeats juctice.
If the object of the law is to deal out
justice to all offenders, then its pur-
pose would not be thwarted by any
such provision. 1t often arises in the
administration of the criminal laws,
that 1t is not until the public are
aroused in the trial Of some grave
offensc that they take any interest in
it, and then for the first time the pub
lie prosecutor learns Of facts and
evidence that would often convict
the defendant, but by the above pro-
vision he is entirely cut off from
them and debarred from using. This
experience is too common, and it
stamps those provisions containing
such requirements as most unwise
and absurd.
Then again, there is no good reason
why the statutes OF Iowa should re-
quire the names of the witnesses to
be placed upon the indictment and
their evidence to be filed with the in
dictment. This enables defendants
to quietly plot to obtain the absence
of such material witnesses as will de-
feat the State, and thus send Grimm
ais, VIGOROUSLY believed to be guilty,
forth upon good citizens, there to
prey again upon their rights. No
valid reason exists for any such pro-
vision. 1t should be repealed by our
next General Assembly as impractic-
able. No such absurdity is commit
ted in civil cases and there should
not be in the criminal causes. Then
again, the provision of our statutes,
which requires the State to pay all
the expenses of the witness for the
State should be limited. AS it now
exists it is greatly abused. A large
number of witnesses are now sub
prnad by the defendants and kept
IN attendance and then never called
to the witness stand, and yet all their
expense must be paid by the county.
Then frequently large number of
witnesses are often called upon the
very same point. This provision
should be limited. so that the court
should have the names of the witness
es set forth in an affidavit showing
their materiality, and how many
could testify substantially to the same
subject matter, and no witness should
by examined unless ordered by the
court. This would limit this great
expense to the counties-place the
matter substantially as it is now in
New York, where it is found to have
most salutary effect"