The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1891-01-08
!IyPEOTIZING WITNESSES.
Some Opinions of New York Lawyers
on the Practicability of the Scheme.
New York Star.

the recent trial OF the Parlslan stTanS-
le1s, Eyraud and Mile. Bompard, that
the latter be made to testify to her
completely in the murder of Goulie
while under mesmeric influence, has
caused considerable discussion here.
The practicability of the adoption OF
such plan for use in cases where
obstinate witnesses are being dealt with,
or even the possibility Of the thing ever
being allowed in our courts when de-
manded by an attorney, has engaged
attention of several lawyers. Many Of
them who were interviewed by q Star
reporter held conflicting views on the
subject.
William G. Davis, a member Of the
law firm of Dos Passos Brothers, No. ID
Wall Street, said that it was possible
that the idea of DR.. Lejgions might re-
ceive the serious consideration of our
courts, but he doubted if the courts
would take the initistory step toward
maturing it. If some we'll known law
yer would make the suggestion before
some Judge, he thought it remotely
possible that he would succeed in bis
purpose. The first thing necessary, he
thought would be to get the court in
terested in the subject. After that it
would be plain sailing. Or the court
might appoint commission to have
the experiment made.
James a O'Gorman of no. POS
Broadway favored the project. Evi-
dence, he said, procured from person
in hypnotic state, by an expeTtspecla-
list, might be presented in court, the
same as is expert medical testimony.
The policy of the law, he said, IS to get
the best possible evidence, and he be-
lieves that testimony procured under
the circumstances suggested might be
permitted before jury. If the exigen-
cies of a case made it prudent to have
the test made, Mr.. O'Gorman said be
doubted if the court would be justified
in preventing it. OF course, great
deal would depend on the subject to be
experimental with. People Of strong
will could oppose it, while others could
not prevent it being made.
Robert H. Griffin Of Colonel Robert
G. Ingersoll's office was also seen, and
he secuted the idea of such thing ever
being attempted here. Prisoners and
witnesses in our courts are always
treated with scrupulous fairness, be
said, and it would be against tie funda-
mental principles Of our laws to allow
it. If the thing was suggested in court,
the witness OH whom it would be pro-
posed to operate could object to it as
against the common rights Of citizens,
and no court in the country wolld over
rule the objection.
One Of the junior members OF the
firm of Evarts, Choate & Beam&n, OF
Wall Street, said that the suggestion
was to many impracticable, ard he
doubted if such an experiment would
ever be made in our courts. 1t would
be an infringement of the private rights
of citizens, and that fact would be the
chief obstacle in its way.
Alfred Jaretzaki, of No. 45 Wall
Street, said that it is doubtful if the
scheme would ever meet with the ap-
proval of our courts. What the law
asks from a witness is that he or she
give evidence to the best of his or her
knowledge. By resorting to hTpr rotism
or any other unusual influence to COM
pei witnesses or prisoners to testify
would be direct violation of the law.
Then, again, the law explicitly states
that man need not testify against
himself. If man is suspected OF a
crime it is the laws duty to prove his
innocence or guilt. The utilization OF
hypnotism here to further tie ends OF
Justice would be another violation Of
the statute.
Several other prominent lawyers
were seen, but many had taken only
transitory int crest in the trial at Paris,
and declined to express an opinion on
the practicability of the utilization OF
DR.. Liegeoi's suggestion. Others doub-
ted that hypnotism would ever be used
in our courts. One or two thought that
the thing might be adopted if some OF
the most prominent lawyers approved
OF it and laid the matter before the
proper authorities.