The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-08-05

the defendant was in Jail, held to an.
swer for the offense for which he wa.
subsequently indicted. He made no re.
quest for leave to be present at the
| impeachment No cause of challenge is
shown or claimed to have existed.
| The right to challenge a grand jury
panel or an individual juror did not
exist at common law but is statutory
| only. In this Territory it is given by
| rule of court, and in order to avail
must be exercised before the jury re-
| tires. The privileges so granted by the
rule may be exercised or not by the
accused at his option and if he knows
of no sufficient cause of challenge or
! for any other reason sees fit to waive
the privilege, he may do so. If the &C
| cused expresses no desire to challenge,
the court may properly regard the 81
lence as a waiver. The fact that the de-
PENDANT was in jail at the time of the
| impanelment does not. in our opinion,
| alter the case.
COUNSEL NOT DENIED.
With regard to the exception that the
defendant was not represented by
counsel in preliminary proceedings.
such as impeachment of the grand jury,
the opinion is in part as follows:
The sixth amendment provides that
'in all criminal prosecutions, the ac-
cused shall enjoy the right to
have the assistance of counsel for his
defense" Assuming that this applies
not only to the actual trial but as well
to preliminary proceedings including
the impaneling of the grand jury, still
the defendant was not denied the right
in question The constitutional provi-
sion left him at liberty either to appear
in person or to employ counsel, as he
might see fit to do. OF itself it placed
no obligation on the Territory to pro-
vide him with counsel. He did not sig
Nifty a desire to be represented by coun-
sci and was not refused permission to
do SO. .
1t is pointed out that as soon as
the court was informed of the arraign-
ment, an assignment of counsel was
made.
ENDORSEMENT NOT MISLEADING.
One exception refers to the following
endorsement on the back of the indict-
ment:
Upon motion of c. F. Reynolds, Esq,
it is ordered plea of guilty be with
drawn, and continued until Friday,
Nav %, at 10 a. M (Signed) NJ. t.
Simonton, Clerk. May 81. Deft. pleads
not guilty. Case continued until Aug.
1902 Term to be set (Signed) NJ. T.
Simonton, Clerk.
The court comments:
1t is contended that this endorsement
might have misled some Juror into the
belief that the defendant had made
formal admission of guilt We do not
regard this as possible. The note is
brief one, occupying but a very few
lines in consecutive order. If any juror
read the words, cit is ordered plea or
guilty be withdrawn" he must have
read the whole note; and, so read, 1t is
entirely clear that the absence of the
word not was a mere clerical error and
that at no time was a plea of guilty en-
tered.
Next the court settles that E. A.
Douthitt, as deputy of the Attorney
General, was fully authorized to pre-
sent the Indictment in court.
The following extracts show other
findings of the Supreme Court:
The objection with reference to the
trial jury has been abandoned. We
find in the record no cause for sus-
it.
RULINGS HOLD WATER.
Exceptions to % inclusive and % |
are to rulings made during the trial |
lpon objections to testimony. We have |
carefully examined the record with ref |
.rence to them all, including nine which |
have been expressly abandoned, but |
AN find nothing to require or TO justify
A reversal of the verdict. In most OF
them the rulings were clearly correct
in one or two instances diff
,erent ruling might properly have been
made. but the error if any, was not
)reiudicial.
SEEMS FRIVOLOUS.
Exception %. At the close of the
,ase for the prosecution, the DEFEND
mt moved to dismiss the indictment
md for a directed verdict on the
named in exception !, already
disposed of. and on the further ground
hat there was no evidence TO connect
he defendant with the commission OF
he crime or 10 show that the deceaseu
vas John Watson or that the deceased
net his death from a wound inflicted
~ a knife or any other instrument IN
he hands of the defendant or from any
.ther wound received at the hands Oh
he defendant. Were this case OF a less
erious nature. we would be inclin-
q to characterize this motion ana
reception. in so far as il relates
o the alleged lack of evidence as
rivolous: but mindful OF the gravity OF
he charge and of the sentence we have
arefuIly read the transcript OF the eNI-
ence.
STORY OF THE CRIME.
We have no hesitation in saying ina
complete prima facie case was
a blished by the prosecution ana Lnal