The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-07-31

The KING VS.. All HAIR, Al KoNG
FooK SING, All CHIN, All PASe, AE
SAM AND All HING.
BEFORE JUDD CO., M'CULLY, PRESTON, BECKER
TON AND DOLE. il.
Opinion Of the Court per Judd, C. j.
The defendants were tried and
convicted in the Police Court of
Waikiki, Maui, of the offense of
assault on police officers. They ap-
pealed to the Circuit Judge, who
also convicted them. They then
appealed to the Circuit Court of the
Second Judicial Circuit on points of
law which We're overruled, and the
same questions are brought to this
court upon a duly found bill of ex-
ceptions.
The case sent up is as follows:
The defendants all being Chinese,
and all claiming not to understand
the Hawaiian language, and nothing
to the contrary being shown or
claimed by the prosecution, and all
witnesses for the prosecution being
native Hawaiians and giving their
evidence in Hawaiian, and the case
for the prosecution having closed,
counsel for defendants wit, John
Richardson, Esq.-moved that the
evidence, as given by the witnesses
for the prosecution or substance
thereof as taken down by the Judge,
be interpreted in Chinese to the de
PENDANTS prior to their taking the
stand and giving evidence on their
own behalf The Judge denied said
motion on the ground that counsel
should have asked that the evidence
be interpreted as it was being given
by each and every witness, and hav-
ing failed so to do, and defendants
being represented by competent
counsel, who cross examined all the
witnesses for the prosecution and
rested, the Court considered that
defendants had no right at that
stage of the proceedings to require
the Court to have The evidence in
terpreted to them. The counsel for
defendants then declined to put de-
PENDANTS on the stand and closed
the case.
The points of law are
First. That the trial and convic-
ton of the defendants was unconsti
tutional and void.
Second. That the granting of said
motion was a matter of right, and
not within the discretion of the pre-
siding Judge, and that the denial of
motion was error.
Third. That if the granting of
said motion was discretionary with
the presiding Judge, there was gross
abuse of discretion on his part in
denying the motion.
Nr. " a. Kinney, for defendants,
cited Article Z of the Constitution
"And he shall have the
right to meet the witnesses who are
produced against him face to face
to produce witnesses and proofs in
his own favor, and by himself or his
counsel, at his election, to examine
the witnesses produced by himself,
and cross-examine those produced
against him, and to be fully heard
in his own defense"
The constitutional privilege of |
being confronted by ones accusers
means more than their physical |
presence. 1t must include right |
to know what they are saying.
Counsel for the Grown admits as
but claims that the knowl-
edge of counsel as to what the wit
nesses are saying is the knowledge !
of the client.
We respectfully submit that the
constitutional privilege in question
and many like provisions are clearly
to be personal, individual
rights. He has met witnesses face
to face, because his attorney knew
what the witnesses were saying.
Why should it not be sufficient for
his attorney to be physically present
when the witnesses are produced
Just what good comes from the
presence of the accused, when he
does not know what is going on, we
fail to see.
The right in question is a per-
sonal right just as much as his right
to plead, and it is part of the gov
case to see that the
accused is confronted by his accusers
within the meaning of the Constitu-
ion.
A. P. Peterson, Deputy Attorney
General, per contra.
The part of Article Z of the Con-
'tItution quoted refers only to in
lictable cases.
The defendants waived their right
% have the evidence interpreted as
t was given. They may meet the
witnesses =" face to face" through
bird party, their counsel.
By THE Court We are of opin-
on that the quoted portion of
Article z of the Constitution APP
olies to all criminal cases, whether
within the summary jurisdiction
If a magistrate or indictable and
riable only before a jury. The
in the former part of the
Irtiele is to the effect that no person
hall be held to answer for any
-; -, ~. ofropeo 11DIose r7roY, ;n9.oF |