Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-10-24
Rights OF A PERSON
Supreme Court Clearly Explains
the Rule Which Obtains in
the State of Iowa
CONSTITUTION is NOT CLEAR
Principle of the sacredness of the In
d;viduaI Upheld on General Princi
pIes-Evidence Procured Under Du-
ress Can Not Be Used Against Ac.
cused.
'pecial to Times-Republ,can.

| Special to mes-Republican.
| Des Moines, Oct. 24.-The Iowa SUI
preme court in an interesting opinion
| prepared by Justice McClain, passing
on the rules of evidence followed by
| Judge Thompson in 4 Linn county case,
yesterday laid down the law in Iowa In
regard to the personal rights of indi-
viduals in a manner more clearly and
explicitly than ever before. This is one
of those decisions which so largely
affect the people and so help to clear
up popular impressions about the
rights of individuals and the rights and
1 duties of those charged with enforce
ment of the law, that some quotation
from the decision will be of interest
to the general reader even more SC
| in which man was found guilty of a
heinous offense against a young girl
The court appears ITO have had nc
doubt of his guilt. and so intimates in
expressing regret at being forced to re-
! verse the case and cause a new trial
| Details of the case are not necessary to
\ the statement of q principle involved
1t appears that the defendant when ar
rested, after the manner in such cases
! in vogue generally, was put into the
on y,1ja a1 ,c
Then physician was called in to make
an examination of the man to secure
| discriminating evidence for use in the
case. He protested. The county at
! torney was present and acting under
his orders the peace officers told the
victim that the law would compel him
to submit to the examination. After
some parleying he yielded. The evil
denee thus secured was used against
him, the doctor going on the stand and
testifying in the case. Justice Nc
Claim dismisses without much eonsid-
Grafton the COMPLAINT that the doctors
, 5.ss 1iny3y 'wa' IL The nature Of nriv-
.iessd communication, for it was not in
any sense such, and even If it had been
IA ha e,vttiIlDIa to a.,
feat punishment of crimes. 1t was not
in the nature of revealing an unwill-
ing confession, for the defendant con-
fessed nothing to the doctor. But"
says the opinion, lit is necessary to in
lquire further as to the admissability of
the evidence thereof in view OF the
fact that it appears without reasona-
BILE doubt from the evidence that the
defendant was compelled to submit to
such examination and was compelled
10 f,,y.Y, ,icaI, a
1t would appear to those other than
lawyers that the proposition is so sim
pie that 1t needed no eluctdation, bu,
from this decision it may be learned
that the constitution of Iowa is unlike
many other constitutions and of itself
makes 10 direct guaranty to cover such
a case. The court goes outside of the
constitution and the statute and an
plies common law principles in a man
ncr which may cause ofiicious peace
officers and aggressive prosecutors to
pause. Judge McClain says:
I'm many of the states are found con.
stitutional provisions similar to those
of the fifth amendment to the federal
constitution. wj1c of course has no
application to the proceedings in state
courts, to the effect that the defendant
In criminal prosecution shall not be
compelled to be a witness against him
Self. and it is argued by counsel for the
prosecution that even If such provision
would render the evidence in question
in such states the absence
OF a like provision from our constitu-
tion renders such an objection unavail-
ing in our courts, for code section 54S4,
~ y han nj OF, f,,f,
ry language on the subject, simply pro-
vides that defendants IN all criminal
shall be competent wit
resses in their own behalf but can not
be called as witnesses by the state.'l
Perhaps this language is not broad
enough to cover the general ground of
the usual constitutional guaranty
against inquisitorial proceedings for
the purpose of compelling defendant
to disclose discriminating evidence. OUR
does explicitly provide
that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process
of law and the term due process OF
law has received by this court as we'll
as by all the courts of the country a
Very broad and liberal Interpretation.
The court here cites precedents to |
show what is meant by due process of
law, etc. and to show that "fundamen-
tai principles of judicial procedure,
whether civil or criminal cases, as they
existed and We're recognized in the /
courts of England ard the colonies
prior to the adoption of the federal and
state constitutions, are intended to be-
preserved by this guaranty of due pro-
cess of.law and that While forms may
zhange. essential guarantees can not be
taken away even by legislative enact
ment." Continuing the court says:
"'Fhe rule against requiring a wit
ress to give self discriminating evi-
dence in any judicial proceeding is
much older than our constitutions. Tt
IS one of the fundamentals of the COM
mon law. The rule itself and the rea.
sons for it are thus stated by an emil
nent authority: Upon a principle OF u
as well as of policy every Z
is protected from answering
questions by doing which he would in
sriminate himself Of policy, because
/. would place the witness under the
strongest temptation to commit the
crime Of perjury; and of humanity,
because 1t would be to extort confess Y