The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-11-29
SWEAT BOX
CONDEMNED
Supreme Court Roasts
Peculiar Police
Practice.

der, unQual1hedly condemns tLf eAdulll-
alton of suspected persons by the sweat
box method and strongly censures the
conduct of Chester A. Doyle, detec-
tive. in assaulting 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 person accused OF
murder made in the presence or the
sheriff, his deputy, 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 cid 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 admissibility in
evidence of a confession made two days
subsequently"
Justice Hatch writes the opinion of
the court. NJ. F. Prosser, Deputy At
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
to the adrnissibility of confession made
by the defendant.
Moritaro 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-
bic 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 a 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 thar 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 | shook him
and boxed his ears
.Court-More than once
a. | think more than once.
90. So as to infiict any bodily in |
"A. There we're no marks on him. !
1 struck him with my open hand over
his ears
30. You struck him in consequence
of his using insulting language to your |
"a. Yes. sir !
go 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 |
in the courthouse in presence of Sheriff |
Coney, Deputy Sheriff Rice. MIR. 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 inn
plicated him, Mr.. Sheba testified that |
the defendant was warned before max |
ing any statement that everything he |
might say would be used against him. |
1t was on cross-examination that the |
sheriff said he told the defendant to tell
the truth because other witnesses had |
implicated him.. The Supreme Court |
says:
1T is not clear that this fact of the |
implication by other witnesses was COM
municated to the defendant by the |
sheriff. If, however, he had stated this |
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 |
VS. United States, where a confession /
was rejected for similar statement |
but as one of a number of circumstances
taken together, concluding that the |
other facts in the Brain case were not |
all analogous to this case. In the Bran |
case the defendant was subjected to /
great personal indignity and browbeat- |
ing. 1t is found that the admission of |
the confession in evidence by the trial |
court in this case was a correct ruling |
Also, il IS found that the misconduct |
OF Doyle on the occasion two days pre-
vious' did not have any influence i'll |
causing the defendant to make the CON
fcssion. The assault, though inexcus
able, was in fact trivial in It's nature"
All OF the circumstances showed thar Ii |
made very slight impression, if airy.
upon the defendant
Notwithstanding this" the court
says, the action of Doyle on that o:
casion calls for severe condemnation |
To lay his hands at all on one held IN
der arrest was a cowardly thing to do |
and a gross violation OF the rights of |
the prisoner. a confession made d. |
that time and under those circumstances