The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-02-24

The question whether defendants IN Grim
inal cases should be- allowed To testify IN
their own behalf il now earnestly discussed
in England. Sir JAMES FlT2J AMfs SrFrnhN
and Mr.. ALFRED WILLS. q. G.. brought /,
prominently forward last autumn by arti-
clos in the magazines. More recently q bill
prov iding for the reception II the evidence
Of accused persons was introduced in the
House of Commons by Mr.. ASHLEY. A
few days ago this hill was passed 10
second reading by large majority and
referred to select committee. The tone
oi the debate, which was almost wholly con-
fined TO the more prominent lawyers vino
have seats in the House. leaves little doubt
that the law Of England viii lie uodliri 80
as To make the testimony of prisoners CON-
potent evidence ia their own defence
Three important objections are urged
against this change in legal procedure We
in New lorA are peculiarly 'nablcd to judge
Of the validity If these objections iuasnuch
~ accused pcr-ons have been competent
witnesses in this State since 1863. The
-tatut" II that year seems 10 be- generally
approved 10y lawyers of experience in the
trial Of criminal Causes. and "" do not be-
licvc it could he repealed. The practical APP
factory enough to indicate that II similar
measure would promote justice in England.
Ii is objected first, that in the case Of "a
person charged with crime, the privilege Of
tc-tifying really involves an obligation To
testify. The English till, like our own law,
provides that the neglect or refusal Of an
accused party to avail himself of the prvi-
legc shall not create any presumption
a..
does create presumption against him. Ju-
rors are certain to know that he can Ice n
witness II he likes, and his neglect to take
the stand will ordinarily increase the
chances Of conviction. This effect is not to
be regretted In cases OF guilt 1t is most
bancful, however in the case Of those who,
although innocent, would be likely 10 testify
in such manner as To prejudice the jury
against them. Sir JAMES FITzJAMEs STE
PHEN thinks there are many such persons,
who Of course are best protected by the
general disability of all prisoners To- testify;
for so long a. that disability continues no
uifavorable presumption can arise from
their unWllingnc-s to offer thomnclNc, a.
| witnesses.
The answer TO this objection Is that it OK
| aggcratcs the difficulties which are likely
tobcsct an innocent prisoner. II may bo that
| timidity y, or an unprcposscssing personal APP
| pearancc, or an unfortunate manner, will
| dctract from the effect of his statement.
| Nevertheless, he has the ono great and cs-
| soItial fact of innocence in his favor. With
| this and the advantage OF suggestion and
| advice from competent counsel, together
| with proper presentation of the case to tho
| jury we believe that wrongful convictions
would he fewer than they are in England
| now, when the law seals the lips of those
who in the very nature Of things must know
most about the alleged crime
The uniarncss of subjccting the accused
| to cross-ekamnaton by the prosecuting
| counsel was another objection raised in the
| House of Commons. The law reports In the
| London papers show that the license of
cross-examlnation lately tolerated in many
eases in England far exceeds that which is
expected or demanded by the bar in this
country But Judge ought to have no diff
| Guilty in keeping the cross-cxamination of
prisoner within proper limits. AS matter Of
| fact, we are informed that our courts gen.
spcct with duo regard to the rights Of the
prisoner. and We soe no reason why the
| English courts should not do the same.
| Tho third objection TO the proposed reform
relatcSto the examination OF the prisoner
under oath. Tho oath should be dispensed
| with, it Is argued, because the disposition
| tocxoncrate ones self from crime Is so strong
| that the sanction of an oath will 20 for
| nothing. But men who are undoubtedly