New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-03-04
AN ASTONISHING PRocEDURE.

II is our unpleasant duty once more to e1-
press surprise at The liberty which District At
torney Jerome allows bimself 10 take with the
most sacred rights q q prisoner in his conduct
OF TIE Patrick case. AT the last hea-ing before
Recorder Con Mr.. Jerome again returned TO his
plan 10 make Mr.. House testify TO an alleged
confession OF Patrick 10 Mr. House, who was
et the time his counsel. As the court was about
20 adjourn the District Attorney addressed Mr.
oicO1 and said:
IN the mean time viii you see your client and
ask him II he is willing 10 waive his privilege
70 mat AT. House may be allowed 10 tell what
eappened between him and Mr.. Patrick in the
Tombs? 40 49,
MI. Jerome then went on 70 say: "It would
'be al excellent chance fer the defendant TO
"clear himself buc he does not avail himself
'of It; and when Gr Olcott made no comment
On This extraordinary challenge Mr. Jerome at
tempted 10 dragon an answer from him.
Now, it is not Mr.. Jerome's business TO offer
she defendant excellent chances 10 clear him.
sell BIS offer TO servo Patrick while acting as
his prosecutor suggests too much the Greeks
bearing gifts. he should confne himself TO
presenting the case from the side Of the prose
curon and confning that case to the normal
legal evidence What Patrick may have said to
his counsel it is not for him TO ask. In asking
IL be inevitably creates an improper prejudice
puDllc Hl-Il, not In the court Itself.
Dir. Jerome has said that If Mr.. House should
be permitted 10 deny the alleged confession the
denial would have great weight with him in
Pauicks behalf. No doubt however he be-
iieves that Mr. House could not deny this con-
iession and expects that his testimony or the
refusal Of Patrick 10 let him testify would SUD-
port bis stand against a new trial. But he Ia S
no right even 10 attempt TO secure such support
and We do not believe that the court should al
low him 10 make such suggestions The conf.
dence OF lawyer ana client should be sacredly
preserved by the courts. and great care should
be taken against establishing a precedent for
such demands upon defendants In criminal
cases, the refusal of which for any reason NAV
operate 10 prejudice their interests Patricl;
may have many reasons for not wishing 10 re
lease Mr. House from his obligations even "A
be did not make any confession 10 NJ House
yet refusal TO grant the District Attorney's
request Is bound TO be Interpreted by manE
persons as tacit acknowledgment that FIR
House could not iruthfJIly deny the confession
which he is challenged 10 Gt2y. And even II
Patrick responded 20 the challenge, the court
81 allowing Z. would be maSing a breach in
the wal II constitutional privilege set up for
persons under accusation. Any prisoner SO chal
lenged in future would have 70 submit TO III,
publication OF lis secret communications 10 hi.
cornsel or suffer under the reprcach OF hav1n,
q Conscience less clear than Petrick's
Tie resort 10 such methods OF prosecution a.
tniS : omlncus. II suggests a disregard To-
the fundamental principles on which iustic.
should be administered. Il IS an invasion o.
the spirit Il Lot the letter, OF our established