The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-05-15
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS.

cused Of crime should have fair and i'm
partial trial, and that every facility should
be given TO enable him to make a full de-
Tense, we stated that the accused had the
same aid from the state that the prosecu-
ton did. We go farther, this morning,
and say that greater privileges are extend
| ed an accused than to the state In the trial
of such causes. 1t must be borne in mind,
that no village, city, town or county, or
any state, county, town or village officer,
or board of officers has, under our laws,
any power or authority to offer q reward
for the arrest and conviction of person
accused of crime. If such a reward is Of
fered it is illegal and invalid and does not
bind the taxpayers Of the city, town, vii
lage, county or state. There is the same
power to offer q reward for the discovery of
evidence that will prove an accused inno-
cent, as there is for the arrest and convic-
ton of guilty party. Both offers are
equally illegal, invalid, and without bind
ing force. This is not matter of theory,
but one of judicial decision and of well
settled law.
So, far the state and the accused stand on
an equal footing. The legislature alone has
the power to offer rewards, and it can offer
one in the intereet of the accused to the
same extent that It can for the arrest and
conviction of guilty person. If we re-
member Alright. the lee stature has never
exercised the power or offering rewards,
neither has y authorized such an offer by
airy town, c-sy, village or county, or by any
officer or board of officers. We are in
clned to think that our laws are faulty in
this matter, and that the power TO offer re-
wards and employ detect res should be
lodged somewhere. Perhaps the British
detective system is the best tha. can be de-
vised. There, detectives are employed and
paid by the government. Private parties
have nothing to.do with them. Their SER
vices are as often called in requisition in
aid Of an accused person as otherwise
their duty being to detect the perpetrators
of crime, not to convict particular per-
son. Perhaps some such system would be
an advantage to Vermont-and if legal and
constitutional obligations continue to sit as
lightly as in times past, and the verdcts of
juries and the decisions of courts continue
to be withoutiforce or effect, we shall need
some kind of detective force for self pro-
lection.
But we are wandering. As we have said,
in the matter of employing detectives, the
state and the accused stand on an equality.
When we come to the matter of witnesses,
we find that an accused person has the ad-
vantage. We know of no statute that au-
thorizes the payment of more than nominal
legal fees to witnesses for the prosecution,
but power is given to the court to order as
many witnesses summoned for an accused
person at the expense of the state as the
court shall judge necessary to secure to
the respondent an impartial trial." And
in this matter, the respondent is not con-
fined to his witnesses residing within this
state, nor is the expense restricted to the
nominal legal fee, but the court has full
power to order the payment of witnesses
coming from without the state such CON-
pensation as will fully remunerate them fol
their time and expenses. 1t is a matter en-
tirely in the discretion of the court-they
can order witnesses for the respondent tc
be so remunerated, or they can refuse it
The full power is in the court.
In all criminal prosecutions, the state il
required to produce its witnesses in oper
court, and to confront" them with the &C
cused; while the prisoner can require o
the court commission SO that witnesses
can be examined in his behalf in Massa
, chusetts, Rhode Island, New York or else
where to the same effect as if they wer
present In open court. The right of per
emptory challenges to jurors is another ed
vantage which the accused has over tn
state. We will not pursue this subjoc
further, this morning, but will close b.
putting one or two conundrums to thos
who are complaining in reference to tn
: unfairness with which Phair wa
treated.
: %. If he was 80 friendless and destitut
as is claimed, why did he not apply to tn
court for an order on the state treasure
o with which to pay such witnesses fror
i Rhode Island and Massachusetts as wer
necessary to 'secure" him an impartia
trialp
r (2). If these witnesses refused to come
8 and the laws of Rhode Island and Masss
o chusetts would not compel them to come
y by the laws of Vermont, witnesses can
9 compelled to go from this state for the pui
q pose of testlfying il behalf of an accuse
% person in the courts of other states on ii
; payment or tender OF their nominal leg
% fees-whv did he not apply to the court ft
= a commission so that tuey might be e:
J amined at home, and their dispositions use
n in his behalf fore ?
"a a. If he vas innocent, and testimor
e, was being manufactured against him, WI
y did he not appear IN the stand, testify
p his own behalf, explain the circumstanc
I'd which bore so heavily against him, and co
D. flute his accusers2
10 Surely il his unveriied statement hi
y, such tremendous effect upon Boston al
g. st. Adams gentlemen, his sworn testimol
BY might have had some little weight with &
ut jury. 1t may be possible to so answ
IL IN In u