The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1894-11-26
he MUST TELL WHAT He KNOWS.
So Says the Supreme Court to
Louis Cohen.
Under the Purity of Elections Law G
Witness Is Compelled to Give
His Testimony.


The Supreme Court, in session here,
has decided the habeas corpus case of
Louis Cohn of San Francisco, whom
Judge Wallace fined $500 for contempt of
court.
Conn was witness in the investigation
OF alleged registration frauds in San
francisco, and refused to answer certain
questions on the ground that his answers
might criminate himself. He appealed
from Judge Wallace's order, but the SUI
preme Court says Wallace was right;
that he must answer the questions, and
that his testimony cannot be used against
him, under the purity of election law.
Associate. Justice Harrison wrote the
decision, which is concurred in by JUS
tees Garoutte and Mcfarland.
THE DECISION.
After reciting the history of the case,
the decision says:
The right OF the Legislature to deter
mine who shall be competent witnesses
TO establish any fact under judicial ex-
ANIMATION and TO compel the attendance
OF sucn witnesses cannot be disputed.
Every person is subject to the power OF
dicial proceedings to give testimony Of
any fact within his knowledge and ma
! terlal to the issue. except so far as the
Constitution restraints the Legislature
| from exercising this power, or protects
the individual from compulsory COM
pliance with its attempted exercise. The
Constitution OF this State has limited the
extent TO which the Legislature may use
this power. and has given to the individ-
ual protection by providing in A rtlcle
l., Section IL, that NO person shall be
compelled in any criminal case TO be
witness against himself"
The object of the provision is the I'M
munlty OF the individual from compuls-
sorry selt-accusation. This immunity is,
however, TO Ee limited TO the purpose for
which IL IS given, VIZ, the protection of
the witness from being compelled TO fur
nlSh any evidence from which he may be
subjected to prosecution or punishment,
ana Is not 10 be extended so as TO include
an exemption from being compelled to
give evidence that could not under any
circumstances tend to his conviction OF
an otfense against the laws of the state.
The provision that q persons shall not
be compelled I'm a criminal case' to be
witness against himself is TO be construed
as protecting him from being compelled
to give any evidence which. in criminal
prosecution against himself, might in
aEy degree tend to establish the otfenses
With which he may be charged. 1t is
only when his evidence may tend to es-
tablish all ottense for which he may be
punished under the laws OF the State that
be is witness against himself in GRIM
iual case. The criminal case in which he
Is witness need not be against him UNI
der whatever circumstance such evidence
may be sought; but the fact that in a
proceeding IN which he is not the defend
ant his testimony may tend to show that
he has violated the laws of the State, is
not sufficient TO entitle him to claim this
protection of the Constitution, unless he
is at the same time liable to prosecution
and punishment for such violation.
Ii at the time of the transactions, re-
speeding which his testimony is sought,
The acts themselves did not constitute an
ofiense, or If at the time OF giving his
testimony the acts are no longer punish
able; il the statute creating the offense
has been repealed; if the witness has
been tried for the Cffense and acquitted,
or II convicted has satisfied the sentence
of the law; If the otfense has been barred
by the statute OF limitations, AMI there is
no pending prosecution against the wit
ness, he cannot claim any privilege under
this provision of the Constitution, since
his testimony could not be used against
him III any crimipal case against himself,
and consequently he is not compelled to
be a witness against himself. Equally is
he deprived OF Claiming this exemption
if the Legislature has declared that he
shall rot be prosecuted or punished for
any otfense of which he gives evidence.
Any evidence that he may give under
such Il statutory direction will not be
against himself, for the reason that by the
very act of giving the evidence he be-
comes exempted from any prosecution or
punishment for the offense respecting
which his evidence is given.
Of l,.,, IL
under which the examination of Stein
berger was had, provides: 4 person Of
tending against any provisions OF Sec
tons (enumeratIng certain sections of the
Act) is a competent witness against an
other person so offending, and may be
compelled TO attend and testify upon any
hearing, proceeding or lawful inyestiga-
ton or judicial proceeding, civil or Grim
inal. against the person SO testifying. A
person so testifylng shall not be there
alter liable to indictment or punishment
for the oifense to which his testimony
was given, and may plead the giving of
testimony in bar OF indictment or prose-
cution.
The manifest object of Section 80 afore-
said is TO secure evidence for the convic-
ton OF offenders against the provisions OF
The other sections of the statute. which
are enumerated therein, but it is only on
hearing, trial, prosecution, lawful in
vestigation or judicial proceeding against
another person for offending against
the provisions of those enumerated Sec
tons.
< witness who has himself offended
against these provisions of the section
can be compelled to testify.
BY the provisions of the section the
petitioner has the full protection guaran-
teed to him by the Constitution against
any self-accusation of crime. The immu-
nifty given includes not only the offense
with which the defendant is charged and
in which the witness was a participant
with such defendant, bat also any other
offense with which the witness may be
charged.
The exemption from punishment is as
broad as the compulsion to testify. We
hold, therefore, that the petitioner should
have answered the questions propounded
to him and that he was rightly adiudced
guilty OF contempt in refusing 10 answer
them.
The writ is discharged and the petit
TONER remanded.