The San Francisco call., 1898-05-06
Only Glory for Witnesses in Clara Palmer
 Defense.
Those for the People Receive Handsome Fees for Their
 Knowledge.
Interpretation of a Statute That Is of Great Import to Defend-
 ants.
Oakland Office. San Francisco Call,

sos Broadway, May 5.
 A question involving the privileges of a person charged with murder is now hanging fire in the legislative department of this county, that if a determination can be reached will establish an import ant precedent one way or the other The debatable point is the latitude of stat ute enacted in 1872 which gives the court and its officers power to employ expert testimony in any case in which it IS con- sidered absolutely necessary.
 In the trial of Clara Fallmer for murder two experts, Drs. Robinson and Fucker were employed by the District Attorney to assist in the prosecution. The defense having no money, and considering 1t nec- essaIy to employ medical experts, ap- pealed to Judge Ogden to authorize under the statute of 1872 the employment or nee essary expert testimony. The Juuge stated that in his opinion the statute ln- vested the court only with the power to demand such testimony, and said that II it were left to the attorneys for the oe- fense it would be opening the door to vast expenses for the county in the 1uture' Prick, who handled the case for the Qe- fendant, argued in chambers that the statute clearly. gave them the rlght 70 ,15 eH7 pect that the fee for their experts should be paid by the county when 1t had been shown that the defendant was without means to provide such testimony
 The statute states that the court shall name the amount of the fees to be paid to the experts, and also states that this statute is not conclusive. The attorneys for Clara Palmer argued from this that the statute meant to give equal chances to the prosecution as well as to the de fense so that justice could be obtalned.' The District Attorney does not consult the court regarding the employment or witnesses necessary to present his slde Of the case, and the defense contends that they should exercise the same privilege. In the case the judge declined to make the order before the trial, and the de- fense Subpenaed Drs. Dunn, Rabe and Tamlin in the prisoners behalf. After the trial Judge Ogden was asked for q certificate that could be attached to the bills of the three doctors, and declined to give one After more argument he signed a modified certificate, which set forth the services rendered, the language of the statute, and also the fact that the judge had not appointed the experts.
 It was generally understood by the de- fenSe that when the bills were presented to the Supervisors they would be passed and paid But at the last meeting an oral Attorneys office advising that the certifi- cate was not sufficient and that the bills be not paid.
 On looking at the record it is shown that the two doctors who testified for the prosecution received $100 apiece, and the experts for the defense only charged $50 apiece, they contend that there can be no doubt as to the reasonablenesS of their charge. and consequently the case hangs entirely on the interpretation Of the stat ute
 Clara Fallmer's attorneys express the opinion that if the bills of their experts are not paid 1t shows a. possibility of dis crlmlndtlon not contemplated by the stat ute against people without means who are charged with serious crime All the experts Tn the case were put on to testify regarding the insane tendencies Of the de- fendant. and mainly on the strength of me testimony of the experts for the de- Tense the girl was acquitted