The record-union., 1894-02-03
THE RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS.
They Are as Sacred as Those of the
People.
So Says Judge j. E. Murphy-He Con-
tinues the Palmer Case Until
the 7th of May.

There was large audience present in
Department Two of the Superior Court
yesterday morning to hear what Judge
James Z. Murphy of Del Norte had to
say in answer to the application of Il. j.
Palmer's counsel for continuance Of the
case because of the absence of several ma
terial witnesses for the defense.
The arguments on the application had
occupied the entire session of the preced
ing day, and the matter was regarded as
of great importance. The motion was
stubbornly contested by District Attor-
ney Ryan and special counsel G. L. Jones.
and was persistently argued by A. l..
Hart and Alvin j. Bruner for the defense.
The motion for continuance was granted,
and in doing so Judge Murphy said, after
reviewing the facts:
RIGHTS OF DEFENDANTS ARE SACRED.
In granting or refusing motions for
| continuance in criminal cases, discre-
tionary power rests largely with the Su-
perior Judge. The rule Of the Supreme
Court makes the discretion legal ones
The rights of the defendant must be
considered as we'll as the rights of the
| people. The conveniences of couesel or
the costs necessarily entailed in all crimi-
nal prosecutions must be disregarded
when any of the substantial rights guar
anteed by our Constitution and laws are
at stake. Courts are obligated to give
fair and impartial trials. Defendants
have the right not only to be tried by a
jury OF their peers, but to have the use of
the processes of the court to procure the
attendance of witnesses in their behalf.
If due diligence has been used, and
through some unavoidable or unforeseen
circumstances, witnesses, who are ma
terial and on whose testimony the life or
liberty of the defendant hangs, cannot at
tend at the time set for the trial, and can.
by proper legal process, be procured or
compelled to attend at some future rea-
sonable time without invading the rights
of the people, the exercise of the discre-
tionary power should Enthusiastically be
in favor OF a continuance. The granting
of continuance at this time would not,
in my opinion, be a reversal or reflection
on the action Of any Judge who has pre-
ceded me.
COURTS SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS.
l assume the case as the record stands
on plea of mot guilty" to a charge of
murder preferred against the defendant,
neither knowing nor inQuiring into the
fact whether he is guilty or not guilty of
the charge alleged. The trial on the merits
of the case has not yet been entered upon.
The fact that this defendant has already
ben placed on trial twice, and on both oc-
casiOns resulting in mistrials, should
make the court cautious in ruling on any
question affecting the substantial rights
of the accused, and the conduct of the
case should be such that no objection
could be taken that would result in an
other trial after this one is concluded.
ACTION OF THE PROSECUTION JUSTIFIED.
l see nothing in the conduct of the
prosecution in opposing a continuance
but a laudable and natural desire that
this case, which has cost the people OF
Sacramento County so much should be
eXpeditiously and speedily terminated;
but the atfidaVits and showing made by
counsel for defendants have been made
so strong, and the materiality of the testi-
mony of the absent witness so apparent,
that refusal to grant a continuance
would be subversive of justice and vio-
lation of the legal discretionary powers
vested in me as presiding Judge.
THE DEFENSE MUST BE READY.
I have no right to assume or presume
that the motion is not made in good faith.
The trial should be set at such reason
able time that any further continuance
would be an abuse of power, and could
and should not be asked. In granting a
continuance | shall set the trial on date
that will afford the defendant an oppor-
tupity to have all his absent witnesses
present Ii he fails to avail himself of
the rights and privileges thus granted,
the fault will lie with him, and the Peo-
pie of the State will have performed its
whole duty. Subpenas and attachments
will be issued by this court to compel the
attendance of witnesses as by law pro-
vided.
1t is therefore the order of this court that
the case of the People VS.. Palmer be and
it is hereby peremptorily set for trial on
Monday, May 7th, a. d. 1894. at 10 clock
A, NJ,