The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-10-21
The HummeI Decision.

In the case of ABRAHAM HUMMEL,
which has just been decided by the Court
OF Appeals, the question involved was
whether a person convicted of a crime
not punishable with death might be adj
mitted to bail pending the determination
of an application for a certificate of rea-
sonable doubt. HUMMEL, on being con-
victed of the crime Of conspiracy, was
fined $500 and sentenced to one year in
the penitentiary. He was thereupon
committed to the City Prison. The same
day an order was granted to show cause
why a certificate of reasonable doubt
should not be allowed and a stay of exc
cution was directed meantime. At the
same time an order was made admitting
the defendant TO bail until the hearing
ofthe application for a certificate. HUM
MEL was then rearrested on the theory
that this release on bail was contrary
to law. He Immediately instituted the
habeas corpus proceedings that have
now been decided finally and obtained
his discharge Hereunder. What the
Court Of Appeals decides is an academic
question, a certificate of reasonable
doubt having been granted meanwhile
and there being no question Of the right
to admit to bail after the issuance of such
q certificate.
Judge HIscoCK reaches his conclusion
after a minute examination of those sec
tons Of the Code Of Criminal Procedure
dealing with this question of bail. He
LAYS great stress on the safeguards
thrown about a convicted defendant as
developed from the Revised Statutes and
shows the liberal Interpretation given
to these and later enactments by the
courts. Judge HIsCoCK inclines to the
belief that the criminal laws must be
construed more strictly in the future.
He holds that it was the legislative inten-
ton not to admit to bail on the tempo
rary stay to determine whether a GER
tifcate should be issued, but only after
the determination Of the court that the
evidence Of the case warrants the grant,
ing Of such certificate. He makes these
comments, which are in line with the
recent observations Of Secretary TAFT
and other eminent ~jurists on the need of
greater rigor In the administration Of the
criminal law:
swe con hardy close our minds to the fact that
at tho present time tho universal trend in public dis
cussion Of our system OF criminal procedure 10 In the
direction OF cEttictHtng is lenisncy and hardness
whereby ortminals entirely escape or unduly post
pons the day Of uunishmsnL and the construction
which I have sndeavored 70 justify VII close one
avenue through which persons duly convicted
by aid Of sx paTts statements and allegations of
error may escape. temporarily. enforcement OF the
Judgment Of conviction which has been rendered
against them. Ths fSct haS not been overlooked
that . somswhAs lengthy discussion has been
given 70 Q psrSoA. which 90 far - this case IL con-
corned. has become academic. W. have been q.
Wlred. however, and readily have been able to see,
thAs no question hero presented Ia an important
ono and Liable 70 arise with much frequency, and
under such circumstances Is has been deemed
wiss 70 express our views In tho case now presented
for ~EuidAncs In tho futuEe.s
This opinion Is concurred in by Chief
Judge CULLEN and Judges EDWARD T.
BARTLETT, WERNER and CHASE. 1t will
meet with general approval. Few will
quarrel, it is believed, with this state
ment Of the court:
Il believe that this objection lofharshness 10 one
wrongfully convicted criminaIl viii prove to be
based rather upon q fear than sustained by reality.
and that not many persons convicted OF criminal
offences and who have good ground for appeal will
be treated with undue seventy. We may antIcl
pate that . Judge before whom has been conducted
. criminal trial will be able to determine with fair
accuracy whether . conviction rests upon debatable
grounds. and that II Il does a certificate will be
granted forthwith and the defendant saved from
imprisonment pending the detsrmina,ion Of his
appeal A Judge other than the one before whom
es Trial has occurred has The power. by prescribing