Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-22

t0Q Justice, SQOulQ De Idlr anu I'M
partial. He should remember that it
is net his Sole duty 10 convict. AMI
mat tc use his Official position to OBJ
tain a verdict by Legitimate or UNI
lair means is to bring his Cf1ice ami
the court into distrust. We make
cue allowance fer the zeal which IS
the natural result Ct such legal bat
tie as this. and fer the desire Lf
every lawyer to win his case, but
these should be overcome by the con-
CT the court to dc dis duty, and not
go beyond it."
At the close of the testimony for
the prosecution counsel for the de-
fenGant moved the court that the
State he required to produce the con-
fassion that they alleged was made
at the State Prison. and introduce it
in evidence, or in lieu of that. thai
the Court grant the defendant per-
mission TO introduce the same" The
Judge replied:
"The court will not make either one
of the orders that have been askel
If you want the document itself You
snay'ask the States attorney for it and
if ynu want to introduce it in EVIL
eenee --ou u,av do SO. and when 1t IS
offered the court will rule uDon the
offer after further discussion the
art said:
Now, if you want an instruction up
CT what it is the duty Of the jury
to dc in case Of this kind, you may
prepare your instruction and present
i. 10 tie court" Counsel fer the de-
PENDANT did not avail themselves of
the privilege CT securing the COMES
sion and Cheering it in evidence sub
,ect to the inspection OF the court,
ard until it was presented and could
he examined, end its contents ascer-
tsiree, tie refusal TO make sn order
TOR its admission was quite proper.
II the contention OF counsel were cor
i.t,. and if. as claimed. it were err
rOr for the court 10 refuse to order
the confession introduced in evidence
under these circumstances and with
cut knowing its contents, it ma ystiil
be said that there is no copy of ii
in the record, and nothing indicatins
that it was different from or more fay
orable to the defendant than what
had been stated r. the attorney foi
, the State CT that it contained any
thing beneficial to the accused. or
that. its exclusion could have injur
ed him in any degree.
During the closing argument OF the
attorney for the State. while he was
making his remarks in answer to the
argument of counsel for the defend
ant in relation to the failure of tn:
!, State to produce the alleged comics
; sion of the defendant. the following
occurred:
: Mr.. Pike: The defendant is here
, He could lave taken the stand.
: the statement is good reduced tC
' writing, why isn't AZ good when Civ
! en- from the stand?
) Mr. Packard: If -FOUR Homo
y please. we object to the statement G
, Counsel in regard to the defendan
q not taking the staL.f.
r says II shall not be used against hin
t Mr. Pike: The statute also say
/ nav it please the Court and Ger
> tlen,en CT the Jury. that self-sers
!. ing declaration has no value AMI
! cannot be used in Court. the State
e Attorneys never at any time declai
q ed that they would use that stats
e ment. that declaration, or that stat:
y ment reduced to writing. They sal
a. they might use it and they might no
:. And after consulting together we col
cluded to might not. and We hav
not used it, but that throws no il
jury upon the defense. That rever
no damage to them. Their man
A. here, and il he has anything to ga
= to this Jury. why in the name /
1 common sense hasn's he taken tt
lc witness stand. as he had a right
2 do, ard declared It
Mr.. Packard: Your Honor, We o
J. ject to that.
n. The Court: ! suppose you want
,e ruling Of the court upon this que
). ton?
! Mr. Packard: We want ruling
ID the Cor-: upon this question: Tn
h no comments shall be made upon tn
n witness not taking the witness stan
!. Mr.. Pike: None made, excepting
- connections With your own allee
ut tons
#. The Court: Well, the Statute do
~ not provide that no comments in ar
is wer to arguments by Counsel f,
t. the defendant can be made. 1t sa
no that the fact that person is not
de witness cannot be considered again
no him in the trial of the case But
is view of the argument made by COu
IF sci fer the defendant, it is proper t
). counsel for the State to reply thel
4. to. Eut no inference can be taxi
RI against defendant by reason OF I
q not testifying in the case. The {
IN. lection to the argument is override
o. Mr. Packard: We note an exec
of ton on the ground stated in the {
r. lection
~. We ere cited to numerous decisio
lis reversing cases because the prosA.
If ting attorney mad commented up
nm the failure of the accused to take
or stand. In several States, statut
he different from ours provide that \
no comment shall be made in that
av gard. and in a number of these q
or in some states without such a r
vision, but with one more like tt
in force here, reference by the pro
cutting attorney to the defeEdan
62 emission TO testify has been deem
no rev erzible error.
8 In State v Harrington. II New.
~, this court following the language
mt the opinion IA recple " McCungh