The Montgomery advertiser., 1903-03-28
IN CRIMINAL PRACTICE

SxAR4G6 xN C64m&NA4 E6AOx4QG In The Sacramento Bee of last Sunday
 there is an interesting paper contributed by Hon. F. W. Houser which virtu- ally takes the position that there should be public defender as well as a public prosecutor in all our criminal courts.
 The writer, in speaking of the disadvant- ages with which certain class of pris-
 oners have to contend, says:
 The police, in the first place. after the
 arrest of destitute person charged with
 crime. keep him in solitary confinement
 for what appears to them a sufficient
 length of time: they then bring him out and put him through what Is termed the
 sweating process" Every word, every syllable. every culver of the eyes or cle, is noted. Every suspicious circum- stance is enlarged upon and new ones. perhaps. invented for the purpose of catching the culprit in some admission. Inducements to confess. in the way of light sentence. are not infrequently held out, and the unfortunate man is bad gered and abused until he is in despair, and perhaps confesses his guilt to a crime of which he Is not guilty.
 Nor do the disadvantages under which the accused person iabors stop there As a general proposition the lawyer holding the position of public prosecutor is versed in both the law and the procedure of criminal practice and is supposed to hold his position by virtue of his skill as & prosecuting attorney. If the case is a very important one. or if there is doubt about tke ability of the solicitor assistant counsel is employed and all the talent and energy of the prosecutors is bent to the task of convieting the prisoner.
 What Is the condition of the accused in the meantime. if he is without money or influence? He is not able to employ a f1rst-rate lawyer, even if he has a little money, and must entrust his defense to an attorney who is willing to take the case for a small fee, and who is in no respect a match for the States counsel. If the accused $ not able to employ counsel of any kind the court designates a lawyer to defend the prisoner and that lawyer, in too many cases. Is one who has no practice and little fitness and is will ling to defend the accused for the expe- rience 1t will give him, caring little whether he clears his client or not.
 Every one familiar with the courts knows that these are facts in many cases and that a prisoner without money or influence, and who is supposed to be in- nocent until proven guilty. is at a great disadvantage. It is for reasons of this nature that Mir. Houser argues that the courts should have public defenders, com petent to cope with the prosecuting off, cers, and In whose hands prisoners would be assured ofaa fair trial and be assured of justice.
 But. while these suggestions may or may not be of force, why not go further and let that defence begin in the grand jury room? There no testimony for the defense is heard. A man is charged with a crime and 1t Is the duty as well as to the advantage of the Solicitor to obtain a true bill. Only one side is heard, and however unjust the charge may be, and however perjurous the testimony may be the party against whom the charge is brought has no opportunity to clear him. self or rebut the charges. All who know anything of courts know that many true bills are found which are thrown out before the trial court. and which should never have been returned by the grand jury.
 Of course it Is not claimed that an ac- cused party or his attorney should appear in the grand jury room. but If there was an official employed by the State, in every way as reliable and we'll qualified as the Solicitor. and whose duty 1t would be to defend an accused party against un- just charges or suborned testimony, would not the ends of justice be served and much useless litigation be saved in our courts? If not, why not? What is the objection to 1t?