The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1888-01-14
ALeoAL OPINION.
what . Public Prosecutor Thinks Of the
Testimony Of Police O6accrs.


what . Public Prosecutor Thinks Of the
Testimony of Police Ofhcers.
II could have my own way about IL,
l should always present the case Of the
prosecution without the testimony Of
police officers or detectives. Not be-
cause I consider them unreliable as
witnesses or because their testimony Is
any less deserving of credit than that
Of any other person, but simply because
of sort of popular prejudice against
them which insinuates itself often into
the jury box. and serves to acquit many
thorough scoundrel. The average
citizen must certainly appreciate the
necessity of police officers and detect
ives, and often finds them of great
value and assistance to him, and don't
understand why he should allow him
self as juror to be Influenced by this
prejudices a prejudice which originated
with the hoodlum element. and which
has been sedulously cultivated by the
criminal lawyer. have known men
who at least pretended to be decent
and respectable citizens to be car
ried away by the vehement TRADE
made by the prisoners attorney
against the police, when. in fact.
the officers in the case not only had
done absolutely nothing to deserve any
abuse, but had really discharged their
duties as good men and true. l have
had considerable experience on both
sides OF the counsel table, and / have
found the policeman as rule to be
honest and straightforward, and to real.
ize the obligation of an oath as fully as
the ordinary witness. His testimony,
of course, is generally damaging to the
accused, but it would hardly be ex-
pected to be otherwise. If a patrolman
early in the morning finds man with
a watch and chain stolen from my
room during the night. it is only
reasonable to suppose that his swearing
to that fact should go hard with the
prisoner on his trial, yet little poison
Of abuse of the police in general skill
fully injected into the jury by the law
yer in the case may secure an acquittal.
Cases doubtless occur where the officer
is 30 well assured of the guilt of the ac-
used, especially if he be hardened Of
fender, that his testimony is to some
extent tinged with his personal opinions
or feelings in the matter, yet in this re-
spect he differs not at all from other
persons. Idoubt if any man who has
personal interest in any criminal
case on either side can be Il
wholly truthful and impartial wit
ess. Human testimony is after all
only an expression of human
nature. which is any thing but perfect.
AS usual thing, officers are not OK.
perts in any particular line, yet they
are expected to be statesmen. jurists,
diplomatists, doctors and every thing
else, and under all circumstances and
in all cases to be absolutely impartial
and imperturbable, and to discharge
their functions with Judgment and
discretion as nicely balanced as q
chemists scales. In reality, all that
the Office calls for is physical strength.
fearlessness and moderate quantity
of what is called "horse-sense. II a
man possesses more than these, he can
certainly do better than walk beat in
all kinds of weather at seventy-tive
dollars a month. AS for the profes-
sional detective, have found that his
calling rather causes him to appreciate
the value of truth than otherwise, and
that he needs to be feared and dis
trusted only by those who are fit SUBJ
jects for his work. That he devotes
himself to the task of ferreting out
crimes and criminals for the good
of the commonwealth is no reason why
he should be any less truthful than the
physician who prizes into all manner OF
uncleanliness and pollution for the
good of humanity, or the lawyer who
searches diligently for every nice tech
nicality to keep his client from paying
just debt. For my own part, Iwould
take the oath Of detective as readily
as that of any other man.-St. Louis
| GLOBE Democrat.