Arizona weekly citizen., 1893-08-05
MOMENTOUS DECISION.
A New Departure by a High
Court of Mexico.
The InviOlable Rights of Man to Be
Respected-The Barbarous Code
of the InquIsition Set Aside.

The high T courts of Mexico are
gradually eliminating from the criml-
nal code of that republic the laws and
rules of practice derived from the in
famous Inquisition establ shed in the
mother country in the twelfth century.
The federal district court at the capital
on the 20th instant rendered an in
teresting, important, and in that coun-
try unprecedented decision in a MUIR
der case. The decision in question does
not only affect the case at bar, but it
establishes al important precedent, and
will cause change from the former
rules of criminal practice in this, that
the defense will be permitted to in
troduce new evidence after the close Of
the Instruction" that is, after the
evidence upon the preliminary official
investigation is closed.
The statutes Of Mexico provide, and
always heretofore the courts have adj
hered rigidly to the stringent letter Of
the law, that both sides, the prosecu-
ton as we'll as the defense, should be
confined, on the trial OF the case, to the
evidence taken and produced during the
INSTRUCTION" or preliminary investiga
ton. III the case under discussion the
attorney for the defense, having first
procured in legal form, after the
preliminary investigation, an abundance
of new and important testimony bearing
on the case, filed motion in the crimi-
pal court fo- leave to introduce the
evidence upon the final trial. Without
a hearing court forthwith overruled the
motion, on the ground that, under the
statutory provisions of the law govern
ing final trials, no new evidence could
be admitted by the court, and this
ruling was promptly sustained by the
court.
The attorney for the defence (Mr.
Alfaro) then filed an ''amparo" pro-
ceeding in the federal district court,
which proceeding, in this case, instead
of being the same legal remedy as the
writ-of babeas corpus in the United
States, as "amparo" is usually under
stood to be IN Mexico, was in the nature
of a writ of .mandamus, 10 compel the
III " dOmib OhO low CNAOOHCS.
In doing so the attorney raised the
question that, notwith-
he is barred by the provisions
ofSthe statutory law, as followed and |
laiG down IN the decision of the court |
below, from introducing this new and |
testimony, this is a right, |
granted and guaranteed to defendant by |
the terms and provisions of the federal |
which no enactment OF |
the legislature can abrogate, and that |
his provision of the penal statutes |
involves and constitutes a violation of |
one Of the inviolable rights enumerated /
n the constitution; and that therefore |
me provisions of the penal statut
above referred t., are unconstitutional |
md OF no legal force and effect.
The federal district court, after due |
decided in favor of the |
applicant, and as a result mandate
Will be issued to the criminal Judge or
iering him to admit the new evidence.
Under the provisions of the amparo
aw, this decision of the district court
,oes to the supreme court, which has
inal Jurisdiction in, and sits in joint
essions as a reviewing court, on ali
!mparo cases. But Mexican lawyers be-
ieve that there is no room for the least
ioubt that the supreme court will Of
irm the ruling of the district court by
unanimous vote.-El Paso Times.