The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-12-04
INSULTS TO WITNESSES.
From the Washington Post.

From the ashiGgtOn Post
In many Of the state courts throughout
IN, country, both civil aud criminal, 1t is
the habit of smart counsel To grossly
insult witnesses by asking impcrtinrnt
ana offensive uCStiunS, and by intolCr-
able nsolcnce in manner and bearing
Questions that have no possible relation
to or connection with the case on trial
ard which are artfuly devised to eNls-
prratc the witness and cause him or her
to make an unfavurahlc appearance be-
fore, and, therefore, an unlaNOrablC i'm.
preston on tie jury, are the regular or
dCr In cross examinations in scores Of IN"
temples OF Justice" Questions ART put
to honest mon and good women intended
TO convey to the july the impression that
bad reports concerning the character of
the witnesses are or have been in CirCu-
latlon. In the course of a trial i'm one of
the Northwestern states a witness named
Brown, a farm laborer of good reputation,
was asked on nCrOss-cXGmindtiOn If he was
the Same BrCwE who had been indicted
for stealing hogs. This was followed by
other equally insulting qucstiO until
Brown became 50 argry that he got con-
fused, and it was not difficult tO make
him contradict himself. 1t is some salts
faction, however, to record that when
the insultor of Brown left the shelter If
the court house he found his victim out
side, and got his deserts from pair of
stout fists.
In the recent trial of a case before Jus
ticc Book Staver, of the Supreme court Of
New York, MIs. Dorothca Barach gave
evidence for the plaintiff, ami on cross
examination the apology for a man who
acted a. lawyer for the defendant asked
her this qIestion: Isn't it fact that
you were with a man that night whom
YOU had met for tn, first time UP in thuC
part of town? Now, answer that qucs-
ton" The woman, fired with indigna-
tiOn, rose to her feet and said: NO, sir;
Int | would ike to tell you sometime
else. How dare you talk to me in that
way? You have no right to ask me sI..h
q question. | was With my husband, and
If he was here you would not dare talk
to me in that way The jury gave the
witness Il round of applause, and that
fact proves that the lawyer failed to &C.
complish the object of his shameful in-
suit The New Vow sun reports that
when order wIS restored the fellow who
had asked the ind cent question offered
an apology, but the judge said: "No, no;
that won't do. The jury will decide what
effect it will have. II any, on the ease. |
order the qucs ion stricken out
The order to strike out was, of course,
the proper thing, 50 far as it went, but
s
afford any assurance that he and other
lawyers OF his class will not continue to
insult witnesses. All courts uwC it to
their own dignity and self-respcct to prD-
teCt witnesses. They owe 1t to the pub
lie, to the witnesses dEd to justice ana
decency to see that every witness gets
fair treatment. Even if "A witness on the
stdI'd is teStifying falsely it il far better
to furcgo rOupn language The law Pro-
vilcs pr,pcr penalties for perjury. 3ut
the lying witnesses are not the ones most
likely to have irrelevant and eXasporatiug
gu; stiOnS PIT to them. They are general
~ so calm and cool that It is useless to
try to confuse thom. Tncy hav" their
story well conned lii advance and stick
to- it with unshakable persistcnCy. 1t is
the honest. timid. sensitive man or wo-
man who, in nine out of ten cases, is se-
lcctcd by the smart" lawyer to receive
his insults. We know that a majority OF
the members of the bar are gentlemen,
and. therefore, not addicted TO Il brutal
habit We know, too, tfat majority Of
judges afford protection to witnesses.
But Culpable minority CT the bench an |
bar are in Crcat need of reformation ds 10
their manner of conducting trials.