The record-union., 1896-05-10
VERY IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
Continued from Third Page }

|
tnat the defendants who testified be-
lore the Grand Jury, appeared there
pursuant to the command Of subpenas
that were served upon them, and that
rhey were not advised by either the Dis
trlct Attorney nor by any one else, that
they were not compelled to testify to
any 1acts that might tend to incrimi-
nate themselves. But the District At
torney contends that they gave their
testimony freely and voluntarily, and
that they were subjected to no restraint
and need not have testified had they not
CHOSEN to do SO, and that therefore they
are not entitled to the protection or Inn
munity provided for in section 13 Of Art
1. of the Constitution and in section "a
and 919 of the Penal Code.
Section IL, Art. l. of the Constitution
provides that no person shall be COM
pelled to be a witness against himself
In a criminal action, and section 919 OF
the Penal Code provides that Grand Ju-
r1es shall not receive any but legal evil
dence
Though the Grand Jury sits in diff
ferent room from the Judge, it consti-
tutes a part of the court, and is under
judicial control" Bishop Criminal Pro-
cedure, section S68. Boone VS.. The Peo-
pie, 14S Ills. Rep. 44S)
Hence, as Grand Juries are compo-
nent parts of the court, and are SUBJ
| ject to it's control and Jurisdiction, it
follows that the same rule applies to the
! rights and privileges of witnesses called
/ before them to testify, and to the char
J acter of testimony to be submitted to
them, as does to the nisi prius courts.
And would it be contended that the
District Attorney could on the trial,
| place the defendant on the witness
stand as witness for the prosecution
and question him as to facts which
| would tend to incriminate him, without
the defendant being first advised as to
his rights, that he was not compelled to
testify to anything for the prosecution ?
| Most certainly not, because, among
other reasons, the law requires both
witnesses and defendants to be fairly
dealt with, and it does not permit them
to be placed in trap through their ig-
norance of their rights, and for the Dis
| trlct Attorney to attempt to do so,
| would be a contempt of the court. 1t
| has been held in a number of caSes-and
think cOrrectly-that where witness
is called to testify before Grand Jury
| in regard to a particular matter, and
incidentally testifies to a, different mat
ter than that upon which he may there
after be indicted, that this Is not cause
for questioning the Indictment
| The statute of Utah provides that
mo one is disqualified from testifying
concerning the offense of gaming on the
ground that such testimony may GRIM
! mate himself, but no prosecution can
! afterwards be had against him for any
offense concerning which he testified"
Compiled laws, 1888, Section 4545, and
the District Attorney has cited the case
of the People VS.. Reggels, Pacific Re-
| porter, 955 rendered by the Supreme
Court of Utah, in which case it appears
that the defendant had instituted pro-
! ceedings on his own complaint against
one John Scott, charging him with rob-
! berry, as having been committed ON his
| person, and on a hearing on the COM
| plant before the Grand Jury the de-
| fendant voluntarily gave testimony
| concerning the robbery and also volun-
| tarily testified that at the time Of the
| alleged robbery he, the defendant, was
| running a gambling house and faro
| game. No indictment was found
against Scott on the charge Of robbery,
| but after this, and after hearing the
| testimony of other witnesses, the de-
| fendant, Reggels, was very proper ly
| indicted for gambling, and the court
said: 1T appears from the facts in
| this case that the defendant was not
called as a witness for the purpose Of
esta ablishing the charge afterwards pre-
ferred against him, but for the purpose
| of establishing the complaint he had
| himself made against Scott, charging
him with robbery. The offense concern
ing which he testified was rob-
| berry. He was not called upon
| to testify about any other offense un-
| less he chose to waive his privilege
and do so. No objection was made by
him against testifying to what he did
testify to; indeed, he was willing wit
ness, in pursuit OF his chosen object.
If he could not give evidence upon a
| hearing he had voluntarily instituted
against another without disclosing facts
and circumstances which would make
his own guilt apparent, or, at least
| capable of proof, in connection with an.
| other offense, it is the misfortune oI
his condition, and not any want Ut
| humanity in the law. He
| d
! connecting himself with the offense of
gaming, which was not the offense con-
cerning which he was called to testify,
and upon his testimony, together with
other evidence afterwards obtained, he
was subsequently indicted by the Grand
| Jury" and / think very properly so.
| because he went before the Grand Jury
| voluntarily and without any compul-
| cin in To ho In =
dictment Of another person gave tes-
| timony entirely foreign to the COM
| plant he had made against him, and
! by which he incriminated himself. But
| it was not so with the defendants who
| testified before the Grand Jury in this
case. Here they were, by subpenas,
commanded to appear and testify, and
they We're interrogated and testified
about the subject matter upon which
the indictment was found. Were they
| brought before the Grand Jury, and
did they testify under such circum-
stances as led them to believe that it
was their duty to answer such ques-
tons as were propounded to them? And
were not such questions propounded to
them as were calculated to mislead
them? They were asked if they were
not officers of the election, and IL they
knew George Smith and Glenn Pressy
| in their hfetimes. That such were the
| facts was indispensably necessary to
the finding Of the indictment, while
| affirmative answers to the questions
may very naturally have seemed to
| them to have been directed to some OBJ
and had they understood that the
| yyyoO o1yid hv