The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-08-07

Can man on trial for a crime be allowed
to show oy way Of defence that another
person. now deceased. confessed that he
was the real perpetrator OF the onencef
This question has recently arisen In the
United States District Court for tho Dis
trict OF kentucky before Judge JOHN w.
BARR Of Louisville. A Postmaster had
been convicted Of embezzlement in taking
money out Of registered letter. Upon the
trial he desired to introduce evidence tend
ing to show that another person had con-
fessed to having taken money from regis
tered letters in the same Post Ohce and
had killed himself the day after the confess
sion. This evidence was excluded: and
subsequently motion was made before
District Judge BARR for new trial on the
ground that the Court erred In not receiv-
ing such proof.
In an opinion denying this motion. which
| we find in the Albany Ldv Journal Judge
| BARR declares that he has not been referred
| to any authority or been able to find any.
either English or American. whore this
| kind OF evidence has been admitted In
criminal case. He succeeded in discovering
one civil case In South Carolina where q
Postmaster was sued to recover the value
Of letter containing money which 1t was
alleged had been lost through the negligence
OF the defendant. In that case the defend
ant was allowed to prove that q person
who had access to the letters in the office
had admitted that he himself stole the
money. The reception OF this evidence was
upheld on the ground that it was the ad-
mission Of an act committed by the party
making it against his interest and subject
ing him to infamy and penal consequences.
and on the further ground that the per-
son who made the confession was dead.
| So long as the rule against the admission
OF hearsay evidence prevails. we are not
able to perceive any sound reason why a
person accused Of q crime should be allowed
to show that some one else has confessed
that he committed 1t. Such o confession 10
simply an unsworn statement Of q person
Is not party to the controversy be-
fore the court. who Is under no constraint
to tell the truth. and is not subject
to cross-examination. It has repeatedly
been held that such confessions cannot be
proved in behalf Of a prisoner where the
person making the confession Is still living.
For example. in the celebrated GREENFIELD
murder case In this State an attempt was
| ubtlO W pun Ill eNiueuCo lcLLoT
written by man named ROYAL
KELLOGG. containing statements which
it was argued were equivalent to @ con-
fesson by KELLOGG that he committed
the murder The Court OF Appeals held that
this letter was properly excluded. mas.
much as it was only the declaration OF q
third party. merely hearsay testimony.
and upon no rule Of evidence admissible.
and Judge MILLER referred to the we'll
known fact that confessions OF this char
acter are sometimes made for the sole pur-
pose OF screening the real offender.
We agree with Judge BARR that there IL
no valid distinction which will permit the
reception OF such testimony because the
person who made the confession happens to
be dead. il it cannot properly be received
during his lifetime Indeed. tho argument
in favor Of It's admission II he Is alive IL
much the stronger: for thcn it may be pos.
sible to enforce his attendance before the
termination Of the trial and obtain from
him some explanation Of his confession.