The St. Charles herald. [volume] (Hahnville, La.) 1873-1993, 1885-06-06
A DANGEROUS STATUTE, OR
Its WRONG INTERPRETATION

The use male by the defendant III I
the case of the State against Jas.D.
Houston, in the Criminal District
Court of New Orleans, of e law i,
authorizing Ill accus d in criminal
prosecution to make his own state
ment to the jury, was of n novel
character. lit was authorized by
the statute there would seem TO be
no longer any restriction on the
admissibility of testimony on part
Of the defence In criminal prose.
cution.
The statement in that instance
included every kind of Testimony
which the accused desired to offer,
entirely regardless of aGmissibilily
under ordinary rules of evidence.
Interviews with other parties as also
copies OF newspaper causing i'll
feelings of the accused against the
person, for the attack on whom the
iccuSed was on rial, were narrated
md read to the jury; none Of which
would have been admissible i'll
offered by counsel, aud This without
benlg subject to any contradiction
on part Of the prosecution. The
Judge charged the jury i'll advance
# allowing the statement.
"Gentlemall, the accused at the bar
wiSheSiO make to you statement in
his own behalf. The law allows him
10 make that statement. aud you are
expected to listen to il with respect
md attention. But, whil,. it is thu
duty I ttir court to instruct NOu on
that point, it is also its duty to ad i, I
hat whatever that statement may
consist 0t.it il not he looked upon b> !
vOuaseNi'lence;ii cannot brevi'lrnce
1t IS but an argument on an erpIana
ton on the part of the accused. in
addition to the argument of has chosen
counsel. The acCus d, not being u
witness i'll his own trial, and speak
Ing to yOu, AZ he will do, WITHOUT
the OhIigaIi0n of al oath, il not res
,'Onsihle for Any Of his expressions
before you, What lie SAYS may. to
certain extent, assist yOu in better
understanding the eVid, nce-the
Sa0OFn CUidence--Suhmitled to YOU,
but. the court repeats it, you mnst
not take that statement aud weigh
1t III the scale VIII rein will lie
weighed the general evidence, on the
hial. II you 40 that you will violate
not only the law, but the OATH cash
of You have taken before entering
The jury box"
Yet, that the statement of the
accused was allowed to go hey ond
that allowed to his counsel is shown
by the Judges caution to har conn
sci when the latter stated TO The
jury that ''the accused WAS anthnr.
lied to go to the lMuScot) office, and
demand repatriation and just c." aid
whereupon, ".Iudge Roman eau.
toned COUNSEL 10 keep within th e
the record and not discuss matters
outside of the evidence"
Nothing. the HERALD is informed,
is better settled asa rule of criminal
practice than this re, friction gov
erning the admission of testimony |
on behalf OF the defence. Under
This rule no part of HouStpm's state. !
mont, excepting what occurred in I
thu Mascot office at tho time of the
ARRAY, were admissible. His eoun.
sci did not even assume them to be-.
Had he offered to present the Mas
cots publications to the jury, his
right to DO so, ON opposition OF lh.
prosecuting attorney, would un
doubtedly have been denied by tn.
Court. But what mattereI il,
whether those papers were brought i
to the judicial knowledge of the
jury by their off. ling by counsel or
by the accusedi
II the pre- cedent set in this cause
be correct regardil z the Slatute
authorizing an Accused Ia make his
unSw0rn Statement to the Jury,
To be- included IN pal of il.
statements of other parties AMI
newspaper articles tending in their
nature to establish facts hicn the
law preclude from bling pro, en- hy
ties lmOny offered in acc0ulancr
with the ordinary I'll es of practice,
il would seem practically to set
aside all rules at all restricting the
of evidence admissible on
behalf of a defendant in a criminal
CAUSE.
After offering, as evidence, say
letter or newspaper article, the
I.uflinu ,,f x,.l,nb L. .l:,t ~