The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-05-12
THURSDAYS PROCEEDINGS

L. BROOKS, ana lne court uiu hot use It's
discretion to call him, so that it de-
wolves on the defense to put MIN upon
the stand. The matter was debated out
Yesterday afternoon by the attorneys.
When they got through, the court said
that he had his mind firmly made up.
At New Tim, Judge Weber denied the
motion of the defense that the state be
required to put Brooks on the stand,
and himself called Brooks. The defense
objected to the latter proceeding, in ord
er to gain a point in case of an appeal.
Yesterday, Judge Cray denied the mo-
tion and left it to the defense to call
Brooks. The defense would have object
ed to the court calling him, the same as
it did at New Ulm, had the court
proposed to call him.
1t makes no difference in Brooks tes-
timony, of course, who calls him. He
will tell his story and be cross examined
by the state. At New Ulm he was
cross examined by both sides.
Mr.. Clark cited some authorities to
sustain the motion of the defense, yes
terday afternoon. He said that it re-
solves itself to this point: Can the state
rest it's case on inconclusive circum-
stances when there is an eye evidence
He held that the state should obtain the
best possible evidence in capital cases.
Can the state, in this case, ignore the
positive evidence of an eye witness, and
that it now has? He had always consid-
cred that it was the duty of the public
prosecutor to protect the innocent as
well as punish the guilty. He quoted
from Michigan decision where it was
held that the prosecutor should put on
all possible evidence, unless the witnesses
are too numerous. 1t is no answer that
the witness may not be favorable to the
state, as may be the fact in this case.
court decisions in other states The SUI
preme court of Texas discussed ques-
ton like tne one of Brooks, where the
witness was present in court, and the
state wanted him called by the defense.
The court enforced the holding that the
state must put the witnesses on unless
there are great many, when all need
not be put on.
Texas, Michigan, Montana, Pennsyl-
vania, Wyoming, North Carolina, Indi-
ana, New Mexico, California, Illinois,
West Virginia, and Missouri decisions
were granted. Mr.. Clark said that the
defense had examined the decisions of
all the states i'm the union, and not one
mad been found that would sustain the
state in its stand in the present case,
or authorize a conviction on purely cir
cumstantial evidence where an eye wit
ness can be secured.
Mr.. Brown argued the case in it's re-
lation to the Minnesota courts. The de-
Tense did not contend that the state is
compelled to call in eye witnesses in
most cases, or to call all of the eye
witnesses even in homicide case. The
state is bound to call some of the wit
nesses, no matter what their testimony,
according to the Texas rule. If the
state had any positive evidence, the de-
tense would not contend that any eve
witness need be called. The eye wit
ness in this case seems to bear no par
TALLY, and his testimony was not i'm
peached in the first trial Our supreme
court has touched the margin of the
case only, or there would need be no
argument. There is no suggestion or
warrant for the court to call the wit
ness in any court, as was done at New
Ulm, except by decision in Illinois,
where the circumstances were not the
same. In that case the witness, bar
tender, was discredited by the court and
called by it for both sides to examine.
Called Untrustworthy.
Gen. Childs said That the state was
unwilling to call the witness, Brooks,
because it could not vouch for the truth
fulness of the witness. 1t could not
call him without great detriment to the
state and travesty upon Justice 1t con-
sidered the witness, as entirely untrust-
worthy, and it should not be compelled
to call him. Gen. Childs saw no reason
why the old English rule should apply
in this day and age. The defendant mas
far more rights in court than the Eng
lish law gave him. 1t would be a trav.
esty upon justice for the state to be
compelled to put upon tina stand Asa P
Brooks and stand by his evidence. MANY
decisions had been referred to, but there
has never yet been an Asa P. Brooks for
the courts to rule upon. Gen. Childs
cited West Virginia case, where the
court called witness for both sides to
examine. The state was not compeIled
to call all or any of the eye witnesses
to homicide, as in England This is