The Arizona sentinel., 1885-07-11
Information and Indictment.
San Francisco Chronicle.

and lost them at the gambling table, has been released from the penitentiary on the ground that he was prosecuted by information instead of by indictment. The prosecution was, of course, in the United States Court. This was at Cheyenne, and simultaneously 125 convicts in the House of Corr rection at Detroit, Michigan, have applied for their discharge on the same ground. They will of course obtain it. The Constitution Is clear, and it is astonishing that among so many United States District Attorneys not one was sharp enough to see the point.
 The officers of the law propose to re-arrest the escaping cOnvicts and secure indictments against them. In the case of Frank De
 Walt, papers have already been laid before a United States Grand Jury at Denver. But the pro> ceeding is open to two objections. District-Attorneys proceed by in- formation instead of indictment, because experience proves that it is not always sure that Grand Ju- rles will find a true bill, even on the best evidence. They usually consist of stupid men, who can be relied upon to do the wrong thing. In going before them now to secure indictments against men who have already served part of a term in the peniten- tiaay, it is quite likely that Dis trict-Attorneys may find them more or less under the influence of sentimental considerations, which may lead them to decide that the cuIprits have already been sufficiently punished. They are likely to throw out bills which ought, in view of the interests of society, to be found true. Again, it is a nice question of law wheth- CT the ruIe-twice in jeopardy would not apply to the case of man convicted under an informa> tion, and afterward brought up for the same offense on an indict- ment. Looking at the question hastily, without consulting the authorities, 1t would seem that the rule must apply. If the case had not gone to the jury, if the District.Attorney had discovered his blunder in time and with drawn the prosecution before the case closed, there would then per. haps have been no objection to starting de novo under an indict- ment. But where a man was tried and convicted, and actually sent to prison. it would really ap- pear that it is beyond the power of any court to try him again for the same crime. Suppose the first trial ended in a verdict in pursuance of which, under the law, the Judge sent the culprit to the penitentiary for five years, and at the second trial the jury found him guilty of the same crime in higher degree, which his imprisonment for ten years, could such verdict stand review by higher court? It is at least doubtful,
 Other questions of considerable interest grow out of the new judgment of the Supreme Court. Under that decision, the trial, and sentence of an ac- cused who was prosecuted by in. formation are null and void and absolutely without authority. Consequently such a man as De-
 Walt was restrained of his liberty without warrant of law. His im> prisonment was unlawful, and the keeper of the penitentiary
 who had him in his charge is lia- ble to hIm in damages for false Imprisonment. It is hard 10 con. ceive the possibility of his recov> ering damages under the circum- stances, but there is no saying
 what juries might not do. A yig- orous criminal with friends and money to back him might give trouble enough te make it worth while to make terms with him. Again, judges have been in the