New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-04-07
CRIMINAL COURTS.
ARE THE LAWS. THE JUDGES. OR TBH
JURlES AT FAULT

| BREAK-PRoPosED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE
| tFRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT oP TIE r2IBrsp
ALBANY, April 6.-The Cincinnati riot and irs
origin were the subjects Of much conversation m
| the Legislature last week. The lawyers were
positive that the riot was entirely due to dissats-
faction with the verdict Of the jury il the BerDes
murder case; that the rioters believed that Berner
ought TO have been convicted Of murder instead Of
manslaughter. II the Jury had been carefully
selected. they said, Berner would have been ooa-
victed of murder. Many members Of the Legiaa-
ture who are not lawyers thought, however, that
the riot was caused as much by popular indignation
at the lax condition of the laws concerning MURDER
as by dissatisfaction with the action of the Jury
Even IL Berner had been convicted of murder, thy
said, there would have been common belief that
he woud be saved from hanging by the interferenea
of the higher courts. By stays Of proceedings, by
arguments that the criminal had not been accorded
an entirely fair trial, the execution of Berner wond
have been delayed first and then prevented.
The lawyers were asked what they thought Of
the criminal laws of this State. In reply most of
them said that they considered the laws in regard
to murder sufficiently strict. In ther opinion mol.
ern sentiment would not support the quick tnsA
a=d equally quick executions following a convio-
ton for murder which were common in former
years Assemblyman Rice, who formerly
District Attorney of Ontario County, said on tbs
point: We would not permit in this country ths
swift trials and executions that are allowed IN
England. The trial of O'DOnnell for the murder ef
Carey and his immediate execution was disgrans
to that country. Far better it to give Guiteza
every chance to prove his innocence of the murier
of Garfield, which permitted, disgraceful ss
were the incidents OF that trial. No; the theory II
our law is correct, that nuety-nine guilty persons
had better be permitted to escape, than that oas
4 I .l,,f
which he is not guilty. Every person accused of a
crime should have the fullest opportunity to prove
his innocence. Stays of proceedings, and appeals
20 the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeoa
after a conviction for murder, right. The law
for murder s strict enough; perhaps too strict. 4
murderer must be tried at the first trial court after
his indictment for murder aud there can be ID
postponement of his trial except for good cause
shown by affidavit Ii has been said that lawyers
invent the excuses for delaying and posponing
trial for murder. No reputable lawyer Will dO
that. But he may be deceived by his client. Sup
pose your client says that the chief witness Tor hs
defence cannot be present until certain day.
What can you do but accept his statement aud as
tempt To get postpOnement OF the tTial TIL thss
dayf No: the fault Is not with the law, Dut III us
application. 1t is either the fault of the prOsecut
ing officer or of the jury. In tins BerneT case %
seems to have been the fault of the jury. think
there ought to he great care taken In making %
the ury lists. Good men only ought 10 be selected
In the country We have no trouble about gettuS
an intelligent and reputable jury; but in the CITIES,
/ believe the commissioners of juries have consider
able difficulty in this respect. There are always
many men of no character and slight Intelllgencs
who des ring to get on urles for the mere pnf-
pose of earning the - q day paid for he service
Improve the character of the prosecuting odioess
and the iuries and you Will have moro cOnYlctoas
for murder"
GOOD LAWS But BAD JURIEs.
Senator Ellsworth. the chairman of the idcisEy
Committee of the Senate, said that he also thouSsk
.l,o& aln rtot nv
wrath over the conduct of the Jury. "There zas
no fault found with the Judge believe he o1a-
tinued, "uOr with the lawyers. 1t was the jsrY
that was in fault. Plainly 1t had not been properly
selected doubt if the people Of Ohio disszt-
isfed with their criminal law Certainly tia
people of this State satisfied with theirs II 8
"a good law in every respect. The complaint that
is sometimes made that IT is not severe enough s
not a Just one. Murderers are not lenicutly deals
with. and they are not given an undue chance az
escaping punishment for their crimes The whOa
theory Of the law in this State is to give the fullas
opportunity to man to prove his Innocence. 4
stay of proceedings IL granted as matter ot cOurs
Lately the Judiciary Committee received drstt
of bill from an ex-senator conferrlng upon tlt
Court of Appeals the same jurisdiction IN regard I'd
criminal trials s now possessed by tile Snprc,o
Court The Court Of Appeals Is now limited to ths
consideration of law point when an appeal
from Judgment of the Supreme Court on conVls-
ton for murder other crime Is made TO then.
The proposed law would give u the Court OF NJ
peals the same liberty the Supreme Court to rs
view all the facts IN case whether the verdha
against the prisoner was against the weight OF eN-
denc- or against law, or that any errors were coli-
mitted on tho trial, or that there was any nsll-
yectIon i'm the Judges charge, or that justice 10
qures new trial see no objection 10 such IN
amendment of the law. The Judiciary COMMITTEES
have decided, however, to limit such wide appeals
to trials for murder. and not 10 give the Court sf
Appeals that authority III all kinds of crlmisa
cases"
THE PROPOSED LAW.
The pronosed law f. as follows:
SECTION l-scction SOS OF the Code OF Criminal Pre-
cealure OF the State NewYork, Is hereby amended
sEC 52S-An appeal to the Court OF Appeals fras
Judgment Of the Supreme Court affirming jndgmen,os
con. the execution Of the judgment appebd
f0m upon hnG with the notice Of appeal c"rtihcas Of
Judge Of the Court OF Appeals OF 9t to H9plSns o
Judgment should stand, not otherwise except that waeu
of course until the determination Of tie appeal 6Ed
the Court OF Appeals when the Judgment l. of deah
may order II new trial II II be satisfied u<As
the verdict against the prisoner was against TAO
weight OF evidence on against law or mat any cross
Judges charge. or that Justice requires new uiA
the Court in which the conviction was had"
ARGUMENTS FOR TIE CHANGE
The following reasons submitted by the ~.
Senator why the above bill should be adopted:
Under the statute it stands to-day n perssn
having been tried and convicted may appeal to the
General Term of the Supreme Court, and that court
may consider any error which may have been con-
mitted on the trial, whether exception he taken
or not in the court below. And besides this tbs
General Term may review the evidence and deteS-
mine whether the conviction supported by il.
Bat in tue Court of Appeals there Is no power 70
review anything but an exception A. an llustr7-
tun, suppose Il man tried for murder. Having
counsel ignorant of law no exception was taken,
although the court committed very many errors on
the trial. The court at General Term may review
all the errors that committed, AMI let us sup
pose that their decision bo directly in conflict with
The precedents Laid down by the Court of Appeals.
still no review could be had because no exception
had been taken, and thus "A man might forfeit bIs
life to tho law on account of the ignorance OF
counsel. While the Code gives tho right OF appeal
to the Court of Appeals rs one OF the safeguards OF
the liberty of the citizen, it should at the same
l. Il ll..a..l- q A.-... Il.