The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1876-08-12
Testimony of Persons Accused of Crime.

A writer in the Gazette, himself engaged in the
practice of criminal and civil law, suggests doubts Of
the ~propriety of the proposed Act permitting parties
in both civil and criminal cases to testify for them
selves. In his view, although the change 10 desira-
BILE in civil cases, it will work injuriously for the in
nocent and, by promoting perjury, will tend to defeat
justice with the guilty. The presumption of inno-
cence will be of no avail in case the prisoner should
not testify, for his silence would surely operate
against him, and IS a witness he would in cross
examination often appear to bad advantage, and be
thought guilty from the confusion and self-contradic-
ton in which many q witness can easily be involved.
These are suggestions deserving of careful consid-
Grafton, for they evince reflection and research.
They are the more important, from the fact that the
proposed modification in the law ia not intended to
aid the prosecution, but rather to assist innocent
prisoners to avoid unjust convictions, and that mem-
bers Of the profession who defend alleged criminals
do not, at any rate in the above instance. seek the
change.
Undoubtedly the change ought not to be made un-
advisedly. The Constitution provides that I" no per-
son shall be compelled in any criminal case to be q
witness against himslf." The statutes give to every
person accused of crime the right to be presumed in
nocent until legally proved to be guilty. The result
of the proposed change would probably be, that the
defendants silence would work against him in the
minds of q jury, and that many an innocent defend
ant would make an unfortunate impression on a jury
from mere confusion and excitement, while the hsr-
dened villains might lefy all attempts to break down
their own false testimony and use the law as q safe
means Of escape from prosecution. A further result
to be feared might be that juries would become 80
habituated to hearing testimony which they regard
as worthless, that they would decide all cases regard
less of testimony, more from their personal feelings
than from evidence.
On the other hand, keeping in view the fact that
courts of justice seek to ascertain the truth, whether
it favor one side or the other, the ordinary mode Of
dealing with disputes out of court is 10 hear what a
party has to say for himself. Moreover, the person
who would perjure himself is usually prompt to
suborn others to testify falsely in his behalf. AS for
the legal presumption of innocence, I doubt if il has
the effect usually attributed to it, any more than
does the law requiring an ~acquittal if a reasonable
doubt of guilt exists. Juries hear the case. and
decide practically by the same modes in criminal as
in civil matters The honest defendant may appear
badly on the stand, and the guilty may appear to
pass the ordeal of examination with triumph. But
twelve men in a jury box know how to make allow
ance for a party's excitement while t~estifying, as
well as if they were elsewhere listening to his state
ments. A skillful prosecutor also will see the point
of weakness in the guilty witness and usually can
show him up sufficiently if he tries to nis-state. The
law certainly is not made to shield the guilty, and I
am inclined to think that I should always prefer to
my chances in defending s really innocent man
if he we're allowed to testify.
However, the change is so radical, that it might
be well frs; to try its workings in civil matters
ALFRED S. HARTwELL.