New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-06-22
PPOSECTTOR IND CH1EGF.

The closing proceeding, IN the Borden case
offer a striking contqa.t between what i hard
ard inexorahlc and what is humane and m"ici-
ful in tho processes of criminal law. District
Attorney Kn1wl,on was prosecutor who was
essentially hcartlcs- in his presentation II the
evidence against the pl.oncr. The ca.c for
the state had been greatly dlmnccd by cross
examination AMI by countcr-cvid"ncN but he
chung tenacol,ly I, hiS theory. ard fu"bofnly
contond,d that hi, witnesses had not broken
down and that the prisoners quit had been
moved with an abs D'utr approach - moral cor
taintv. A, Logical. consistent argument Tor
the prosecution nothing could have been liner
or more ingenious; but il revealed narrow
ness Of mind and an overweight parti,anShip
which III cOmp,rtod with the functions OF his
Office. The c;hic, of the bar may sanction the
theory that an advocate is justified IN dong
everything in his power for his client but the
conduct of public prosecutor ought always 20
he free from partisan bias, His client is the
Stote That client j. Mt a malcvOcnt Shy
lock. CRYING out for the pound Of flesh from the
victim in its power. II wants justice and moth
ing more Justice for the living a, well as tho
dead for the innocent as well aS the guilty.
in his conviction that the prisoner was guilty,
but he wa, essentially a partisan, and by his
dogmalic mcrcilc>s pleading and strained IN
tc,protalion Of every circumstance and infer
cnce against her, sacrificed the real interests
Of his client
When the public prosecutor had closed his
imprisoned appeal Judge Dewey rcadiusted the
scales of justice and delivered a charge which
was markedly in favor Of the prisoner. His
was like the voice of Portia cxclamng "1hc
quality Of mercy is not strained W He brought
the case out Of the miSiS Of theory, speculation
and argumcn,a,ive subtleiieS. and presented it
as a simple issue Of fact 10 be determined by
evidence in the possession OF the jury. lie
warned thom that they must dismiss from their
minds all prejudice arising from the fact that
tho prisoner had been suspected Of the crimes
and had been brought into court under indict-
mont. She was entitled under the law TO the
presumption Of innocence until she was proved
| guilty and she could not be convicted until
every reasonable doubt had been closed against
| her. Then followed a lucid analysis Of the
| evidence, with the natural differences which
| were To be drawn from what she had said and
| done and from what had been proved by the
prosecution and the defence II was the voice
of a just and mercifu Judge who had no the
cries Of his own 10 explain, and who was clear
ing the ground for a plain, practical common
sense examination Of the evidence required for
moral certainty respecting the prisoners guilt
| When the charge was finished the Court fairly
| seemed 10 have summed up the case for the
| defence and to have directed an acqIiital
If the Court was placed in this anomalous
position it largely because the charge
offered 50 sharp contrast with the Dis'iict-
Attorneys mcriess pleading. That official
stood nearer to the bench than the pri.oncr's
counsel. They had their clients cause to de-
| fend against the resources Of the police and the
| State. He wa, associated with the bench it.
self in ordering and directing tho processes Of
| justice. lie was one Of the wheels in the
mechanism Of Massachusetts law. As re-
| spOnsible official he ought TO have been inter
cstcd not one whit more in the conviction of
| the guilty than i'll the acquitta Of tho inno-
| cent but his conduct in this case unmitakably
revealed strong partisan bias against the prs
Oncr and nscn>ibility to the possibilities Of in
| nOcence. \ prosecutor under moral obligation
| TO promote the supreme interests Of equal and
impartial justice, he had argued with the vim
! dictveness Of prosecutor. disto,ting every