The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1899-11-29

witnesses say, that it personal right that be exercised
by counsel and that it Is right that be waived cap
ital case
This contention was made in the case of The King T. IN Ha
ct al IIaw. Judd, c. j. says Eve agree with the con-
enon of counsel for the defendants that the right
OF the accused person SO the witnesses who produced
against him face face complied with unless he in
made understand their evidence in order enable
him avail himself Of his further express constitutional right
of crossexamning these Witnesses and also their
dence with his proofs Although the origin Of the
utiOnal requirement that accused person shall be confronted
with the witnesses against him. prevent the taking of depo
iOns against accused person in his absence he having
opportunity of hearing them them, the
personal presence of the witnesses before the accused would
obviate this If their testimony given language
understood by him
Bu article the also says that may by
himself his counsel his election, examine the witnesses,
Whoever by the election of the accused undertakes the
ercise of this right whether be the accused himself his
counsel has right know what the evidence of the witnesses
produced against the accused Is For this well be
cause the court must understand the evidence, Interpreters
provided of Justice But if the accused has
counsel who understands the evidence whether directly from the
witnesses through interpreter the constitutional require
complied with, though the accused himself may
understand it 1t presumed that counsel will communicate
with client. The right which accused has of
knowing say against him absolute when he
has When he has counsel who understands the
tmony himself understand the evidence the
will refuse requested have the evidence interpreted
him. but this request must be seasonaby made and the accused
valves it. if he allows the of the prosecution to be put in
without it."
ease of All Tar was misdemenor present case
being capital case defendants
upon all their rights waving nothing and that the defendants
the position the defendants in the All Iar
would have been had they seaonab requested the nerpeta
ton and it had been refused.
The of TIE King An Ho decisive of the law IIa
wa and is applicable capital well those of msde
The courts called by by
the defendants the Interpretation the japanese
language any objection made exception taken. 1t is
that the defendants did expressly waive right
depreciation, but the other hand they be allowed
quietly stand by and allow the proceed throughout long
trial without raising objection where they represented
by able and competent and then after conviction claim
that they did and could waive any right capital
That defendant waive his constitutional right be
fronted with the witnesses and other constitutional rights
a capital case-See Williams Z. State 81 Wis PSI; State
Wagner rs Mo- G44; Polscn 1873; Bsh New
Grim. Proc. Vol. /, section 1905.
In the of " g. Jones, Iaw 24O held that
attorney at law waive his clients constitutional right
the witnesses against him. The attorney of the accused
consented to the taking of dispositions of witnesses pros
ecuon, who about leave country;
present. he informed matter nor his
obtained No authority given attorney agree
the dispositions At the trial. the objection of the accused the
dispositions rejected That the
accused present and consented the taking of the epos
ons then the dispositions would be rejected Nor does decide
that the accused himself could waive his right the
witnesses.
Nothing remains consider but the exceptions the
diets the of each of the three defendants ground
that they are contrary to the law and the evidence
1t is claimed in behalf hara that the verdict against him
clearly contrary the h of evidence that accord
ing the testimony of various witnesses for the prosecution
haa could not have been present at the of the
fight and that Chew Foon Wing killed prior his arrival
the that the jury in convctng him have been
influenced by the fact that he failed take his
behalf because of his admission another of the
for the prosecution that he had off the queues of five China
because they believed he implicated in the death
others of the Chinese and that he convicted
principles the jury may have thought that, three
Cinnamon had been killed and many others severely injured
japanese ought be hung 1t further claimed in his
behalf testimony of the Chinese witnesses who claim