The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1892-01-07

in law he commits nc crime. Now, if he
was insane then and incapable of COM
uniting an offence. is it not probable that
he is insane when called upon TO plead?
And would not an insane man be as apt
to plead guilty as not guilty?
Those are questions for a jury to pass
upon. and society, the public, and the ac-
cused mans family are entitled to avail
themselves of this defence and have hat
question passed upon by a jury. Here
again we have another reason why q de-
PENDANT cannot waive that right, even If
a statute provided for it.
"In this country it requires, legally,
lawfully and judicially to murder a man,
the concentrated thought of thirteen
other men. Twelve jurymen must agree
that he is guilty. and the Judge must be
satisfied With their verdict. The minds
of ali thirteen must be concentrated npou
their verdict of guilty beyond a reason
able doubt, and. under the law. the de-
PENDANT is entitled to nave all the facts
n circumstances fairly and fully pre-
sented to the jury in his presence for
their consideration. One juryman may
possess a doubt as to the mans guilt.
and that. OF course, would be resolved to
his benefit.
"There is a well settled principle of law
that. when a defendant pleads guilty to
an Indictment containing different de-
SlCCo Vi Ii SdulO OhchSC, VIC plch OHiy
goes to the lessersor minor charge therein
contained. This question is directly Id
point. 1t was settled in the case of Gar
vey AGAINST the People, in the Sixth Colo
RADIO Reports, and the principle Is fully
sustained by other presidents.
1T follows. therefore, that if Hallinger
plead guilty he only plead guilty to the
MINOR or lower degree of the offense
charged against him
prEAcx t1TcT pr DrrrNrrC
"Then there is an equally we'll settled
principle of law that a plea must be
definite u certain, so that the Court
could determine what he plead guilty to
from the plea itself. The defendant and
the Court must be of one mind.
THAT was not SO in Hallinger's case.
For. if the Court knew what he had
plead guilty to. why did the Court exam
ine several witnesses to fin out and as
certain that fact? No one believes but
what the Court acted in good faith.
at is the statute of the State hat is at
fault. And it is a statute which, If up
held, might become very dangerous to
that bulwark of liberty. h pride and
boast of Notwithstanding nations since
the time of the Magma Charter, the right
of trial by jury.
"That statute, il upheld, can be used
as an engine of oppression, and, when
we come to gear it up against the Consti-
tuition, we do not say it is SO used, but can
it be used? If that statute is upheld, the
benign influences of the Fourteenth
Amendment are lost forever.
IN some States the criminal juriSdic-
tion may be conferred upon minor courts.
and a poor, helpless, ignorant negro may
be dragged before those courts from the
marshes of Louisiana or the swamps OF
Mississippi. In that case naught will
ever remain of him, and his epitaph.
which will he his only monument, will
read:-'He confessed In opon court
''Due process of law means that a trial
by jury, rs provided, shall be the right OF
every citizen accused of crime And nc
legislation can abridge this right, lei
alone deprive a defendant OF 1t.
''Let us go back to the subject of con
fession in open court aud | will cite an
other instance. In the case of Wharton
versus the State of Indiana. where the de-
PENDANT plead guilty to an indictment for
murder IN the first degree, his plea was
accepted and he was sentenced to bt
hanged. But the Supreme Court of thai
State. overruled the mandat of the lower
tribunal, saying in the course OF its deciS-
ion:-'It is very clear that the Judgment
of the Court in this case is wholly mn
authorized by law, and must be set aside
as an absolute nullity.
"Hallinger knows that he killed the
m When u long rlgmarole OF an
indictment, couched in legal terms ano
phraseologies that would give a poet tht
shivers, is read to him while no is sur