The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-01-06
70 CONSERVE JUST ENDS.
THREE PROPOSITIONS OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE DISCUSSED.
Depusy Prosecuting Attorney Hart
Believes Court should Instruct
Jury Before he ArgmeDt-Pros-
Seattle, Jan. 4, 1853.

| day nfoyniB > paper, under TIE cap1tSh 10
! Prevent Miscarriage ~ Justice vas read
by me with considerable Interest. You
| present three propositions which you think
/ advisable 10 enact into law.
| FIRST that Ii De declared q felony for
1 arg person 10 carry concealed Weapons
| Second that the courts Instructions be
/ given 10 the jury before the argument CT
/ counsel.
| Third. that an appeal should be granted
/ to tho state during the tendency Of the
/ trial. on legal propositions and that further
/ proceedings OF the trial be stayed unit!
| the appea! be passed on BY the supreme
| court
| In discussing these three propositions
| briefly. / would say that there Is always
| danger OF attaching to an offense too great
| punishment While l am opposed to the
| carrying Of concealed weapons, still.
| TO make that offense felony. TO In
| carcerate the person doing II IN the peni-
| Tertiary, and To take from him his civil
rights strikes me as being entirely too
severe In ifs punishment. and suries would
be extremely slow to convict OF such an
offense where they know the result OF the
convection would tie such as you advocate.
1t is tTsie that many homcides would not
take place IL concealed weapons were not
carried but that would be no reason for
Furnishing man as severely as would be
necessary were this proposition enacted In
the lan.
law with such a severe penalty would
| be not only d punishment for carrying con-
| ceaied weapons. but would also be pun
| ishmsnt because the offender might use
the weapon. II Is not the policy OF our law
| to punish a man for what he might do. A
man carrying box % matches might
| commit arson, but he is not punished for
arson, simply because be carries the
matches. If the matches were of char
acter when would be dangerous TO society
-sf
| then IL would be proper 10 give such pam
| isisment as would meet the given case so
IT Is vita concealed weapons
Considering the third proposition. A law
OF that character. ! do not believe, would
work satisfactorily, for several reasons.
| Among Others IL might be mentioned that
many errors are committed by trial court.
ghieh. owing 10 The subsequent facts and
rulings appearing In the case, are rendered
iInmsteriaI II sppeaiei 20 the sapi me
court al the time Of the commission IF tho
crrar then il aculd fall upon the supreme
court 10 pass upon the matter, which the
| subsequent facts or the case would develop
| 70 be smma.sr.ai.
Then again. the supreme court, owing 10
| the fact that the progress OF trial vas in
terrupted. would be called upon to pass
upon the error assigned at once, and l.y
hasty decision erroneous opinions II light
he rendered in some eases, and the after
effects Of these opinions would De much
greater ard more dlsadvaGiageous than
Tn. errors growing out Of the present pro-
e.ddfe- IL n Ght be. In some rare cases,
that If an appeal eoaid be taken 70 The SUI
prene couf during the psndercy OF the
apreas. justice would te better administers
ed and The laws better enforced. Still, the
INJURY and delay and the dangers attendant
on such a system, which any lawyer can
see would be numerous would place the
whole admin stratton of criminal Justice
| III worse position than Ii Is now IN. Pol
lo"ang somewhat the line OF your sugges~
ton, q law could be enacted such as I am
| informed, exists in some OF the states
~nlcn vousi permit the prosecution 10 APP
peal from the Instructions given b.. the
trial court. or from the rulings OF the trial
court. 70 the supreme court 50 that Ike
ias OF The state coIId be announced or
course. TIE cefentant. In case he Is acntl.-
TED. could not hs retired. stiii the supreme
court could lay down the law 40 fha, in fu-
tnre eases the trial court could be governed
thereby. Ard again. In appeals ntada hy
the defendants. when convicted. IL .he state
were given the privilege OF presenting the
errors 10 the supreme court committed by
state. then. IN the event the case should
ne retired on the application of the de-
Ishesahs lor new trial, all the proposi;loss
OF Law would be determined both ,hns.
presented by the state as welI as these nre
scented by the defendant
IL ls true AZ the present time. there are
some conditions which may arise, which
VIII allow an appeal To ths, Supreme cnny,
by the state. There are hut one or two in
Stances, however IN which this can he
aoiie. law. such as indicated above.
M
stances in which the state could appeal.
ana while she particular case on trial would
"ot Ie aHeeteU by the appeal OF toe state
.of y the decision III the supreme court
s1li4 the law would be declared. and future.
cases could fsa t<fsi in accordance with
the law as declared by the So
| IRENE court. II saouid ee made the ,.uty
Of the trial court to announce in clear
terms what the Law Is. There should aa
40 useless REPETITION. sucn ~ Ia frequent
| ~ given and ghe trial court should be- com
| PEELED III It's charge 20 give such Law an
| rliea-s.e ~ the case winch tire supreme law
has apfTuyesa Ia other similar CASES
| In o1hsse wostis. the discretion should ha
taken from fhe trial court as 70 whether
OF moi II Will give such instruction as il
| c1nceGs&ily applicable 70 given slate of
facts. wasrs the supreme court has upon a
similar state of facts heretofore pronounce
81 t3le law
Every lawyer has noticed tae effect upon
/ the jury by the continued Iteration ard re-
/ Iteration al s. given Proposition E5van to
/ .aem ny the court. aai while Il may b.
! correct Yet the court. ny So constant re-
| l~ea;Iag. gives tha+ charge undu. PROM
| in*aea, and ifaPrssses nnsiuly upan the
I minds If tsE Jurors aEsi from tf,ls an I'm.
Als. ycraic; often follows \ legislative, e.
acsmssggt S1lcG as ia here Indicated | be-
! .-ve Nollt8 go borg way towards cor-
rsrtt8S eTgoTs ~ both cur caSil and Grim
sTsal pFaCt3Cs.
| Bias II Is from tho second prarsossti,4a yo,
advance ia fiae morning paper that n8azt
rs-l3ef can esNnle, : - that after TIE owl
he distractions 90 the cUtTt should s-s
gwen to tha Js4ry. ARA might add here
faat sss#@ instructions sslss}s3 IN all CT III
/ sn&& gases he required BY Saw 10 he fin
| NF,t.ag. ara tass court saould act te per
Ialtte1 - address ans coF2gHuT}i csst ton 20
save 3HTS after tte close ~ She evidence
/ except kts@t q - 81 writing. / know taat
/ ogtr Gsgas@ert fas permits either side fa re-
e1ies5 thEt rAs iuscfs.. ti1tls - gwen tp
WTInE. t-tgssstUS prAc13gs, haw Nver
| tvae'scs ore taat attorneys be roS Ike 70
s.- 4
en thr cesTt T. sn9ubd ts tsone ~ the iszy-
Esettage ~ a mandatory manner
lgaeFe Ag@ three toFTagDou sYsfHE;7s - &c.
srrFsCtsaf1s- TAkt with oh%AiEs ia fAss
STATE. cr t2sst @h}cA gssz-airs 81 ssase other
states wasse tEe nsfyes-tasi4@ ars ztrr-. in
wFstsux sn@ Attorneys 2sgsag {0farTrsst -
- ~ Sat thaT w.a tss SO SsgsIrt. hsasvev
/ Us; EHgaS 7heua Ssn1!t after Fee argument
az issN athe~ sSs.rsrt advocated ~ Yea esrs3
! X ,.fgA Us RE }sn 50 FssanV - thes states
/ =. tast TIRE 3rssTsscs3fsass must Ia hY me
| n M@ 1T.