The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1884-05-06
WEEKLY BAZOO.
SEDAlIA MO.
TUESDAY, NAY 6, 1884.
CONFESSIONS IN CRIMINAL
CASES.

The supreme.cou of the United
States, has recently delivered an opir-
ion in regard to the admissibility of
the prisoners confession in a Utah
murder case, which is of special in
terest in this state just at the present
time, in consequence of the import
ance of the confession which was re-
ceived in evidence in the Rugg trial.
1t is certain, says Mr.. Justice Har-
Ian, delivering the unanimous opinion
Of the court, that the rule against the
.dmissibility of confessions has been
carried too far, ami in its application
Justice and common sense have too
frequently been sacrificed at the shrine
Of mercy.
In the case under consideration,
the confession was made to the de.
tective who arrested the prisoner, i'm
mediately after the officer had taken
him into custody at the railroad sta
ton at Cheyenne. The ocly testi-
mony to show that the statement was
freely made was the evidence of the
detective himself, who swore that he
left the prisoner in charge ola police
man for two or three minutes, that he
did not know what the policeman
said to the prisoner in his absence;
that he rejoined them, and the accused
Immediately began to confess. the
crime; and that the confession was
voluntary and uninfuenced by any
inducement held out by the witness.
The argument for the defence was
that the confession should not have
been admitted until the policeman
had also been called to snow that he
did nothing to extort it.
The supreme court thought this po-
sition plausible, but not sustained by
authority nor consistent with sound
reason. This rule was quoted with
approval as laid down by Roscoe in
these words: "In order to induce
the court to call another officer, in
whose custody the prisoner has been,
it must appear either that some induce
mept has been used by or some ex-
press reference made to such officer"
Ordinarily, a sufficient foundation for
the introduction of a confession is laid
by showing simply that no promise
was made or inducement held out by
the person to whom the prisoner con-
fessed. The fact that a confession |
was made to one In authority is not a
sufficient reason for excluding it, pro-
viding it appears to be voluntary.
As to the weight of such evidence
when admissible, and the care which |
ought to be exercised in receiving it,
the CONT makes these observations
elementary writes of authority
concur in saying that, while from the
yery nature of such evidence it must
be subjected to careful scrutiny and
received with great caution, deliber-
ate, voluntary confession of guilt is !
among the most efectual proofs in the
law. and constitutes the strongest
evidence against the party making it
that can be given of the facts stated
in such confession.
"But the presumption upon which
weight is given to such evidence, that
one who is innocent will not imperil
his safety or prejudice his interests by
an untrue statement, ceases when the
confession appears to have been made
either in consequence of inducements
of a temporal nature held out by one
in authority touching the charge pre-
ferred, or because of a threat or
promise by or in the presence Of such
person: which, operating upon the
homes or fears of the accused in re-
ference to the charge, deprives him of
that freedom of will or self-control
essential to make his confession vol
ntary within the meaning of the
aw.
The supreme court dec 8, how
ever, that the admissibility of COMES
sions depends 80 largely on special
circumstances that it is perhaps i'm