The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1904-11-29
SWEAT BOX
CONDEMNED
Supreme Court Roasts
Peculiar Police
Practice.

A unanimous decision of the Supreme
taro, under sentence OF death for muir
der, unquaihedly condemns the exaUin-
alton of suspected persons by the Sweat
box" method and strongly censures the
conduct of Chester A. Doyle, dctec-
tive, in assaultine the defendant, Mort
taro, while Under arrest. Nevertheless,
the exceptions from the Fifth Circuit
Court are overruled and case is remand
ed to that court. The findings contain
ed in the syllabus are these:
"a confession by a person accused Of
murder made in the presence of the
sheriff, his deputy, a detective and an
interpreter not in the employ of the
prosecution held admissible in evidence,
Notwithstanding the fact that the sheriff
charged the defendant to tell the truth,
and did this because other witnesses had
implicated defendant.
"a slight assault by detective upon
defendant during an interview at which
the detective sought to obtain confess
sion from defendant, but failed to do so
held not to affect the admissibiliy in
evidence of confession made two days
subsequently"
Justice Hatch writes the opinion of
torney General, appeared for the prose-
cution, and A. G. Correa for the defend
ant Matsumoto Moritaro was convict
ed and sentenced to death at the March
term of the Fifth Circuit Court, Kauai,
for the murder of one Albion H. Glen
nan by exploding seven or eight sticks
of giant powder under his bed. Of a
number of exceptions to the admission
of evidence at the trial, the only one
presented to the Supreme Court related
by the defendant.
MoritaroA was arrested in Honolulu
and sent to Kauai and while in Jail
there was interviewed by Detective
Chester A. Doyle for the purpose of OBJ
tanning confession from him, if posi-
BILE Of this matter the opinion of the
court gives the following account:
Doyle testified to the court, on a
hearing had in the absence of jury, as
to the admissibility of the confession,
that he started in to ask the defendant
everything he could possibly think of
leading up to the time he came to the
islands and as to his connection with
the plantations. Doyle says that the
defendant told so many conflicting
stories and lied SO that when we called
his attention to his conflicting state
ments and asked him if he wasn't lying
he would remain silent. Every time
questioned him he would tell another
story and he would get tripped up, and
eventually he got very insulting and
used language that you or | would not
take from anybody and l shook him
and boxed his ears.
Court-More than onceF
"'A. | think more than once
80. So as to intiict any bodily in
jury
struck him with my open hand over
his ears
40. You struck him in consequence
of his using insulting language to you?
GA. Yes sir
40. After you had shook him and
boxed his ears, as you say, did you have
any further conversation with him?'
"a None, we left him."
Two or three days after the incident
thus related the defendant, after having
been seen privately by one Kawahara
at his house he took refuge the morn
ing after the murder, made a confession
in the courthouse in presence of Sheriff
Coney, Deputy Sheriff Rice, Mr.. Doyle
Mr.. Prosser and Mr.. Sheba. the last.
named being the Japanese editor of the
Garden Island newspaper. Before the
defendant made his statement he was
charged by the sheriff to tell the
TRUTH" because other witnesses had i'm
plicated him. Mr.. Sheba testified thai
the defendant was warned before max
ing any statement that everything ht
might say would be- used against him
1t was on cross examination that the
sheriff said he told the defendant to tel
the truth because other witnesses hac
implicated him." The Supreme Cour
says:
implication by other witnesses was COM
minicated to the defendant by the
sheriff. If, however he had stated thi:
to the defendant, though it was an i'm
proper statement to make to him, We
do not think that under the circum
stances this alone should render the
confession inadmissible."
The court considers the case of Bran
Tvs. United States, where a confession
was rejected for a similar Statement
but as one of number of circumstance
taken together, concluding that th'
other facts in the Bran case were no
all analogous to this case In the Bran
case the defendant was subjected t.
great personal indignity and browbeat
ing. 1t is found that the admission o
the confession in evidence by the tria
court in this case WIS a correct ruling
Also, it is found that "the misconduc
of Doyle on the occasion two days pre-
vious" did not have any influence il
causing the defendant to make the con
fcssion. "The assault, though ineXcus
able, was in fact trivial in its nature
All of the circumstances showed that j
made very slight impression. if any
upon the def adant.
Notwithstanding this" the cour
says, "the action of Doyle on that O.:
casion calls for severe condemnation