New-York tribune., 1901-02-12
LCNATTC TESTTHONT.

Al tho opening of the trial Of the Bellevue
nurse charged with causing the death Of an
insane patient i'm the hospital il was announced
by the nistrici Attorneys office that some of
the lunatics would he called as witnesses and
their testimony used in the endeavor 10 fasten
a crime upon the defendant The latter's coun-
sci not improperly desired ia know the names
of these lunatics in order 10 make inquiries as
10 their credibility but the prosecution declined
10 accede this natural request. and Judge
Cowing refused 10 require the District Attorney
20 give the defence this privilege.
Under the circumstances the general feeling. we
think of fair minded men would he that such
opportunity should be given. The habit of the
District Attorneys office is 10 keep the names
of fits witnesses a secret and prevent persons
charged with crime so far as possible from
learning and revealing 10 the jury the records
of those who may be swearing away their lives
or liberties. That is q questionable practice,
savoring more OF persecution than prosecution,
founded the theory held 10y some Assistant
District Attorneys anxious for records that
their business is not 10 give defendants fair
trials. hut Ia secure convictions. Whatever
may he said of this practice in general. IL seems
peculiarly harsh in a case like this. when
the testimony 10 be adduced is presumptively
incompetent and can only be admitted at the
discretion of the Judge. because he thinks
he has reason 10 believe that the insane per
sons have lucid intervals and were at the time
Of the alleged offence capable Of receiving rea-
/ sonable and true impressions concerning il and
at the time of trial capable of correctly recall
7 ing what occurred. defendant has a right in
objecting TO the competency Of such testimony
1 10 bring evidence that the proffered witness is
/ Incompetent. Since the general fact OF insan-
ity is not sufficient 10 disquafy without con-
Meeting that insanity. of n degree and sort in
capacitaring for n sane account of facts in
question. either with the period of the crime
charged or of the trial. il seems reasonable
n matter Of common sense and common justice,
whether the letter of the law requires Il or not
that the defence should have fair preliminary
opportunity 10 learn anything that is 10 be
learned about the lunatics' states
The chance 70 make inquiry afterward is not
sufficient. 4 lunatc's untrue statement once
before jury. may be attacked on the ground
of its credibiliiy. hut if lodged I'm the minds of
the jurymen il may not be totally eradicated
even by proofs which. If placed before the
Judge beforehand. would have caused him TO
exclude the witness. The Judge should have
before him in deciding such difficult questions
all possible light. and not he confined 10 mere
offhand impressions TO the competency Of a
lunatic when produced or the prosecutions
statements concerning him which the defence
can only question withOuI adequate opportunity
TO overthrow. The Court wishes only TO do
justice. The peculiar circumstances of the
Bellevue ease have caused a clamOr for convic-
iion The pressure is strong 10 Overwhelm the
nurses ami make examples of them" There
fore special care should be taken to safeguard
them from prejudiced or excited testimony such
as insane people are peculiarly likely to give in
such ease. and assure them Of every opuor-
tunity 10 test the truth and competency of such
testimony by knowing beforehand who is 10
give il. The District Attorney NAV be within
his technical rights. but the obligation of fair
play transcends technical rights