The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-04
DEFENSE WILL SWEAR BROOKS
Fails to Have Court or State Call the
Famous Witness.
Special to The Journal.

Special to The Journal.
Mankato, MINI, May 4.-Called
again by the court, Asa P. Brooks stood
up in the rear Of the room late yester-
day afternoon, and Judge Cray said:
Called again by the court, Asa P.
Brooks stood up in the rear Of the
room late yesterday afternoon, and
nj will require the witness Brooks
to remain in court until called by the
defense, or until the defendant s at
torney informs him that his presence
is no longer required
Thus was settled the contention over
which lawyers for both sides had been
struggling ever since the trial began,
and over which the public had agitated
itself almost as much as over the sit
ter nearly three hours Of oratory by
Messrs. Brown and Clark for the de-
Tense and General Childs for the state,
Judge Cray interrupted Mr.. Brown
when he. offered to cite authorities in
the position of the defense in moving
that the state be compelled to call
Brooks to the stand. The judge said:
Judge Cray's Ruling.
I have got a clear conviction in regard
to this motion now. There is nothing, I
think, better settled under our reformed
practice than that when a witness Is
called by either party to the suit, and it
appears that this witness Is, to any extent
hostile to the party, that party may be
allowed, in the discretion of the court, to
ask questions as in cross-eXamination
and in order that the truth may be clio
tied.
think, connecting that rule with the
abrogation Of the old English rule requr-
ing the state to call the witnesses named
in the BILL justifies the court in declining
to compel the state to call any eye wit
ness or any other witness to an offense
that it does not see fit to CALL I think
the rights Of the defendant, If the de-
PENDANT sees fit to call this witness, can
be well and fully protected by the court
if the testimony Of the Witness or the
conduct of the witness upon the stand,
is such as to lead the court to believe that
a full and fair statement of he facts can
| not be ELECTED from him. Because Of this
right which the court can exercise, in its
discretion, it doesn't occur to me whether
| it is very material to have the state call
the witness or whether the defendant calls
| him. ..
I will deny the motion and will require
| the witness Brooks to remain in court
| subject to the call Of the defendant, unless
| he is advised by the defendants at
torney that his attendance in court will
not be required.
Clark Speaks for Defense.
Mr.. Brown had moved that the court
direct the state to call Brooks on the
grounds which he outlined yesterday af
| ternoon. Then Mr. Clark spoke al
| length on the law as TO the point il
| question.
cit has always been the policy of the
state in felonies and in capital case:
to produce the best possible evidence
Can the state ignore the evidence of al
eyewitness, and attempt to prove thu
stances7 If I commit murder here il
this courtroom; if hundred persons
see me do it; if bloodstains and
| bloody weapon are found at a home il
a distant part of the city: then shall tn,
state, in its prosecution of the case, pre-
sent all the circumstances of thos
bloodstains and that bloody weapon
and not call the eyewitnesses who say
the crime and could establish positive
lily the identity of the criminal7
have always commended that a publ
prosecutor is a protector of the right
of the accused, and should not be
partizan, but am afraid it is not al
ways so.
1 Mr.. Clark then cited several decision
of state supreme courts, PARTICULAR
i that of Weller VS.. People, 80 Michigai
16, where conviction was reverse
because the state called only one Of tw
on phases of the law applying to the me
ton.
i General Childs then explained the DC
sition of the state. He said in part:
Childs Scores Brooks.
.l'The state is not willing to call Thu
witness because it will not vouch fo
his testimony. In fact, the state j
{ aware, by reason Of his testimony in TIL