Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-02-27
LAWYER AND CLIENT.

| oN4AttNA Ii s4l45 S7lI 44E DA1u WEOLA
ply has been defending is old, rich, and
charged with most serious offense, namely,
tampering with young girls. The defense
has attempted to show that the accusation
was blackmailing movement, and that
officer Moroney, who was the prosecuting
policeman, had concocted it in order to
bleed the defendant. Now it would be
scarcely possibly to bring more serious
accusation than this against az officer, and
to bring such charge falsely would be
crime SO black that the accused person
could hardly be blamed for doing anything,
however desperate, in retaliation. There
are lawyers who have persuaded themselves
that it is legitimate, we will not say to
commit fiat perjury in case of this kind.
out to attempt to mislead the jury by
basing the most serious charges upon the
most insufficient and worthless evidence
Knowing perfectly well that they cannot
sustain their allegations, and expecting that
their pretense of proving what they allege
will be ruled out of the Court, they yet
calculate that the jury will be Influenced
more or less by the calumny, and that
therefore i. viii not be wasted.
0le of the commorest msthods adopted
for this purpose is that of injurious impli-
cations. A hostile witness, for example.
win be asked in suspicious tone if he was
ever arrested, or if he ever resided in Aus
tralia and if he admits that he has been
in that colony the counsel forthwith con.
veys to the jury his conviction that the
witness is "Sydney duck" that is to
say, an x-convict. This kind of thing has
become 50 habitual with many criminal
lawyers that they now regard it as one OF
their special privileges. But they have no
such right to insult witnesses. 1t is only
when they have positive information justi-
flying the belief that the record of witness
Is vulnerable. that they are warranted in
taking this line. When they enleavor to
stignatize all hostile witnesses without
Discrimination or justification, they over
step their jurisdiction, and they lay them
selve liable TO the punishment which the
wauton and deliberate slanderer deserves
at all times. The RIGHTEOUSNESS of many
lawyers has indeed become intolerable.
We can call to mind several men now at
the criminal bar of this State, who have
habitually abused their positions in the
manner referred to, and who appear to
think that any damaging imputation upon
the character of hostile witness is per-
MISSILE, under the plea of duty to their
client These men have deeply injured
many previously fair regulations, by their
reckless employment of this article, and
they have no doubt often cheated Justice
by casting unmerited doubt upon the evil
dence for the prosecution.
In the case under notice we have said
that too little was known to make dogma
tism possible, but nevertheless the prin.a
.facie probability must be perceived to be
strongly against the theory of the defense.
In support of that theory they have al.
ready called more than one witness of no.
toriously bad character, and the most
specific statement inculpating Moroney ap-
pears to have been made by person whose
oath would not be believed by anyone who
was acquainted with his past history. The
detailed testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution, namely the children, does not
suggest the idea of a conspiracy, while the
superiors and comrades of officer Moroney
unite in testifying to his efficiency, ac-
tivity and integrity, during his service on
the force. Under the circumstances, it is
clear that it would require very plain and
strong testimony to warrant the belief
that the Dolliver case was gotten up
for black mail purposes. The course of the
defense, moreover, has not been that of
counsel who rely upon the conscious limo.
cence of their client. 1t has rather been
that of men bent upon evading justice by
every subterfuge. But the counsel for the
a virulence and persistence in no way ex-
planned or justified by any of the testimony
offered by them in support of their plea of
conspiracy, and it is only necessary to sup
pose the innocence of the accused officer
to become able to realize his evaporation
at being thus bounded while striving to do
his duty faithfully.
No doubt his final recourse was wrong and
his revenge cowaIdly. Bntwhen lawyers IN
dertake to remove all restraint from their
tongues when, to serve clients who may
be the most execrable villains, they blast
the character of upright and honest men !;
when their extravagant and preposterous
notions of their duty to their client lead
them to become slanderers and calumniators
and liars and foul aspersers, it is too much
for them TO expect that their victims will
always be submissive, or that they may
not some day rouse spirit prepared to go
even further than they themselves have
proceeded. The question whether wit
nesses in criminal cases have any rights is
one which in fact requires to be determined.
The public are certainly not prepared to
admit that attorneys are entitled to insult
and libel every hostile witness with i'm
punity. Juries indeed have repeatedly
testified to their belief in higher law, I"
where the honor of man has been at.
tackled, and it is not to be doubted that a
sentiment somewhat analogous would be
very apt to arise in cases where proof was
furnished that the browbeating lawyer had
overstepped the proper limits of his posi-
ton. Itmay be in the present case that
D. ]. Murphy was justified in what he said
of Moroney. But most assuredly Moroney's
rash act cannot be regarded as supporting
the theory of his guilt in the Deliver case.
THE NEW PARLIAMENTARY RULES.
| The new rules of procedure proposed by
Mr.. Gladstone are, in brief, as follows