The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1896-03-04
JUST WHAT IT MEANS.
That Queer Verdict, mot Guilty Rut Pay
the Costs

Hon. j. 4. MdiIelt, II NCll kiioNH aAloi-
ney, publishes the following commune
cation in the Clarion Gazette. II touches
upon n subject of general interest that
has been much discussed
In your last issue appeared an item to
the effect that the law which permits
cution upon defendant when acquitted
for the crime for which he is indicted, is
laughed at outside Pennsylvania, and
that as long as courts received such
verdicts, fool juries would render them.
i have never heard a court, a judge, or
an attorney say this is an unwise law,
although il has been i'm force III Pennsyl-
vania since 1894. The sneers at this law
arise simply from want of proper un-
derstanding Of its purpose. Ii pariicu-
lar case produces miscarriage Of justice,
it is just rs likely TO he the fault Of fool
court as a fool jury.
Pennsylvania passed law i'm 1894
which provides ''that in all cases of ac-
quittals, by the petit jury. on indict-
ments for all misdemeanors, the jury
trying the same shall determine, by their
verdict, whether the county, or the pros
ecutor, or the defendant or defendants,
shall pay the costs of prosecution" This
law is in force to-day with the modifica-
tion which the penal code of 1850 pre-
scribes, permitting the jury to divide the
costs between the prosecutor and defend
ant in such proportion rs they deem just.
But you ask, "Why should an innocent
defendant pays the costs ?'' The simple
reply To that is, he should not, never, and
it is not the purpose or the spirit of the
law that he should. So an honest, care
full prosecutor should not pay costs. In
all cases where both prosecutor and de-
fendant are entirely blameless, and the
prosecution prima facie iustifiable, after
careful consideration, the county should
pay the costs. The only ineqUitable
thing about the law in this respect is that
the county never pays defendants costs.
But when the costs are imposed on the
parties jointly, or all on either party, it
covers all costs. The purpose OF the law
permitting costs to be imposed upon
defendant when acquitted, is to punish
him for bad conduct in the transaction,
although the evidence may fail to estab.
lish beyond reasonable doubt the act
ual commission of 4 crime under the law.
So as to the prosecutor. In the pream-
BILE of the original act of 1894, il was ex-
pressly stated that the purpose of the law
was, 'to prevent restless and turbulent
people from harassing the peaceable part
of the community with irifiing, unbound
ed or malicious prosecutions"
So the supreme cour; of this state says:
''The act was not intended to authorize
the jury to punish innocent prosecutors,
acting upon well founded grounds of be-
lief in preferring charges of character
which ought TO be investigated"
And the supreme court says, ia the
same case, that it i the plain duty OF the
court to promptly sc; aside verdicts i'm
posing costs on innocent prosecutors. So
as to the defendant. II the jury impose
costs on defendant when acquitted, and
who, under the evidence is wholly
blamelesss, the court should at once set
aside the verdict or arrest the judgement.
Judge Stowe did this very thing last
week in Pittsburg. 1t is the duty of the
court to explain the law to the jury, and
tell them they have no right to impose
costs on any one who is wholly blame
less. And il is the duty of this jury to
''act under the direction of the court"
The court. with single exception, has
an undoubted right to set aside all per-
verse verdicts in criminal cases.
That exception is, where a defendant
is acquitted in criminal ease, he shall
not be put in jeopardy a second time for
the same offence. The law we nave
been considering is a wise one, and it is
| the business of the court to see that it i
administered according to its spirit and
purpose.
The supreme court, in the ease 81
GuiTey vs.. the commonwealth, says "a
| decision of a jury, contrary to the direc-
ton of the court, and not subject to its
decision, is not verdict" There would
not be so many scotch verdicts" if
courts would properly explain to juries
| their duty in this matter OF costs in GRIM
inal cases.
Some time ago witnessed a complete
vindication Of the wisdom OF the law i'm
posing costs on defendants when acquitt-
ed. was attending cDgrt in Clearfield.
Pa. Certain parties were on trial, under
indictment for wantoDly and wilfully
setting fire to the woodland of the prose
cutor. The evidence showed that the de-
| PENDANTS, young men of the town. on a
certain Sunday provided themselves
with 4 lot of liquor, got a conveyance and
! drove out into the woods. the land of the
! prosecutor, and there built fire to cook
| dinner with, and in their drunken care
lessneSs, the fire spread into the timber
and destroyed large quantities Of it. 1t
was not claimed, or at least not proved,
/ that the defendants wantonly aud will
fully set fire to the woods.
The court very properly told the jury
that the defendants could not be con-
victed but oaght to pay the costs. This
was a significant pointer which the court
very properly gave. and the Jury rem
| dered a verdict accordingly. In such
cases as this the court shouid not merely
say to the jury that they can pat the
costs on the defendants, but that they
ough. to do 80.
Let the law stand, bat insist on lis
| proper enforcement.
The Spring term Of the Indiana Norma!
School of Pennsylvania will open Tues
day, March 81, 1896. Special teachers
have been engaged for the increased at
tendance. Daily drill in small classes a
speciality in all departments. Students
are admitted any time and may board in
| clubs. Costs Of tuition for term Sl2.00 to
| teachers. Inquire of
ID. J. WALLER, JR.. Principal.