The Coeur d'Alene press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1892-1907, 1905-06-10
MUST SERVE SENTENCE.
Supreme Court in an Opinion Lecture.
Judge and Prosecutor.

Supreme Court in Opinion Lecture.
JuIze and Prosecutor.
The supreme court, in an opinion
by Chief Justice StoCk,lacer. ccn
Cured il " his associates, has
affirmed the Judgment Of the district
court Tor Nez Perez county in the
case # the state ". David Harness,
The defendant was convicted Of tn,
crime OF rare and sentenced 10 serve
term Of 10 years ia the reniten
tIary This is the secoud time the
case has been Passed on by he su
pteme court The judgmsu ut vas
reversed 10 the first instance tecause
the prosecuting officer vas permitted
to make certain iLfltmatuTy state
ments in his argument to the jury.
On re-tIial he was again convicted
and once more appealed, relying
mainly on the alleged suHicieuey
of the evidence. The court observes
that the evidence was considered by
two juries. a verdict Of guilty being
rendered both times. 1t deelires to
disturbe it, Statements made by the
prosecuting officer were also present
ed as reason for reversal. Lut the
court bells that this time be did net
EXCEL the bounds.
ADVICE To OFFICERS.
The opinion reviews The former
action of the court at some leugth
evidently by way Of impres.ing on
tie minds OF prosecuting officers the
limitations OF argument. TIE opiu-
ion slgs, alter referring 10 he OBJ
isc - Die statements: These
ttateue in the opinion Of the
emit NY have rrajrt.cel the jury
or iriiFi,u4l wembeIz Of it. lie
lay lave felt b. vas justified by .hg
conduct sf tie de5orse IT he heiucus.
ue-- &C lie crime charged. but he
cUnr 4tI laa iseu, nor Dies it new,
hsli4ga tg4r rerlaia statements vare
iIsfsGHH. IT, atll als1 b. fauud lEat
ea=ta1 statements os Tie court ia Tie
rrg.suae z TIE gary aera constituted
IreigdictHl 10 The constitutional
rigb at ia. defendant to fair and
lunar ial trial Il l. sell known to
all trial judges and lawyers that
ju 0 . or at least many 81 lsm, nay
be influenced by the action or Ian
Ruaqs ~ The court, aul for that
reason every ruling should ba free
from any Indication ot hostility to-
ward he defendant or any interest
Ia the result Of the verdict Of the
jury We do not = ish 10 be uader.
stood as intimaling that the learned
trial judge before whom this case has
twice been tried used any language
In the presence u the jury with a
view to prejudice either or any Of
them against the defendant. In fol-
lowing his records on appeal-and
we have had occasion to read mauy
of them-we find him universally
fair, but no differences how iuuocent-
~ a statement may be made, 1t may
have its effect on the minds Of some
of the jurors aud then evil results
follow.
AS CITIZEN AND AS OFFICER.
1.-THE same rule with less severity
applies to prosecuting officers. Theg
should always be guarded 10 thelr
statements in the presence of or tc
the jury and base their right Of con
viction on legal aud competent eyi
dence rather than on appeal to the
bias and prejudice Of the jury. 1t Ii
but natural that any we'll disposed
citizen should have more OF less pre-.
jndice against one charged with the
crime of rape. There is nothing sc
offensive to morals and decenoy. Nc
crime will appeal to the passions Of
the people so severely; but what the
prosecuting officer may think as &