Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1907-05-17
AMERICAN JUSTICE is
BURKED BY TECHNICALITIES

Not long ago a case was reported
in the American papers In which O
mob lynched a prisoner who had
been held for two years under a
charge OF murder, though the ques-
tlon whether he had killed the VIC
tim had not been raised. A man
named Patrick was convicted In New
York in 1902 for murder, nearly
two years after the crime was COM
mltted. IL took three years to get
the case argued before the court of
appeals where the sentence was con-
firmed in March, 1905. A further
appeal TO the United States supreme
court occupied the whole OF 1906.
Thre emonths ago came the news
that the governor of New York had
changed the sentence to imprlson-
ment for life.
One could multiply such instances
by the score, and the defects they
point to can all, or nearly all, be
traced back TO one general cause.
The criminal procedure OF America
today is very much as ours was In
the time of the Stuarts. II Is hope
lessly entangled In technlcalities, and
neglects justice and common sense TO
chase after an impossible infallibil-
ity OF form. In criminal case. as II
Is conducted across the Atlantic, IL
is not the prisoner In the dock. but
the Judge on the bench who is really
on trial. The counsel on both sides
polish up n thousand little points of
pleading and practice and, evidence
and fire them on at the Judge, who
has to decide upon them offhand. II
he falls into n single error, no mat
ter how trivial or how far removed |
from the question OF the guilt or In
nocence OF the accused. the appellate
court will order new trial OF the
case almost automatically.
That rs the grand distinction be
tween the American procedure and
our own. In the English courts all
such errors OF form are brushed
aside, unless they can be shown TO
have caused miscarriage OF JUS
tice. In the American courts any
error. however technical and how
ever little related to the fundamental
Issue. is held TO presume prejudice |
The appellate judge considers not
whether the verdict he Is reviewing /
is a just one on the facts of the case,
but whether single error OF pro-
cedure was committed In reaching |
It. And II any such error Is discoy'
cred he had then TO satisfy himself
not only that no prejudice TO the
tights OF the accused arose from II. |
but also that none could have arisen
IN the mind Of any juryman,
Thus Il is that we find such alb
surdlties as that of the United States
supreme court, the highest tribunal
in the land reversing a Judgment be-
cause the record failed TO show that
the defendant has been arraigned
aud had pleaded not guilty. Thus
only few months ago, a retrial was
ordered IN one case because the
REORGANIZATION OF witness eX-
tendeA somewhat beyond the eXaml-
nation in chief and conviction
was set aside In another because the
prosecuting attorney said some
things In his speech 20 the jury that
the appellate court thought he ought
not 10 have said; and In a third case
by reason OF some wholly immaterial
error, a court felt constrained 10 re-
verse Judgment which In the same
breath Il declared TO be absolutely
just
There are many other things, such
as the sentimentalism OF juries. the
abuse OF the pardoning power, the
limited authority OF the trial Judge
aud the ebullienee OF the press, that
favor the accused In America. But
most OF all Is he helped by, the per-
nicious rule that any error which II
is impossible TO show afiirmativeiy
did not prejudice the defendant
must lead TO a reversal OF judgment.
Hence appeals and retrlals multiply
without end. Hence lawyers ant
criminals flourish while Justice and
society helpiessly snffer.--Anglo-
American In London Mail.