New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-05-06
TRIALS HERE AND ELSEWHERE.

Justice GaynOr is always interesting when he
discusses the administration of the law. for he
is Il man of unusual candor and one who never
gets into professional rut. He Is outspoken
in his condemnation OF criminal trials as con-
Quoted in New York County and points with
some Justice to the better results obtained IN
the other counties Of the city and in the rest or
the state But doubt whether this Is. as
Justice Gaynor thinks. the fault OF New York
County's judges SO much as II is the result of DIFF
ferent conditions prevailing here. We question,
too, whether the difference is really so great as
II seems between the conduct of criminal trials
III general in this county and their conduct In
the rest Of the state. or that the reason for the
difference IS simple as the Brooklyn Justice
thinks
Does n Brooklyn or n Queens Judge understand
that he IS no mere autOmatOn, required TO sit
ION the bench looking meek and wise or stupid
quite helpless and limited in his powers to rule
"on objections made by the lawyers while they
do as they please" while New York County
judge has the opposite and sef-effacing concep-
ton Of his role? Are not the inconspicuous
cases conducted I'm this county with just as much
expedition and just az much assertion from the
bench rs those in the neighhoring counties? We
think it highly probable The real difference
seems to be that sensational cases get a diff
ferent treatment from the ordinary cases and
In New York County we have a dozen cases
which are either in themselves sensational or
which newspapers make sensational to one such
in Kings or Queens. The Impression of New
York COunty's conduct of criminal trials is
formed from the publicity attending these fire.
quent sensational cases.
In an ordinary trial. which will fill only a few
lines i'll the newspapers, the jury Is obtained in
few hours, just as 1t is In Kings, Queens or
Richmond. But when sensational case comes
up the lawyers for the defence and for the state
conduct a trial of each talesman who is called
They are under no temptation to do this in cases
unlikely to be described In the newspapers.
Prospective publicity invites the lawyers TO pose
and show off their Subtlety and their extraOrdi-
nary discrimination in the selection of 1urymen
SO II Is with cross-examnation; It IS conducted
with an eye to the headline that will announce
Mr. So-and-So fails to break Blanks story" or
the reverse
If II medical witness, for instance" saws ms
ice Gaynor, is crOss-examined for four days
instead or Tor half an hour, and the time taken
up day altef day with harangues, chickering's
long arguments of elementary DropositIops
trlhlng APPOINTMENTS and so on, IL Is because
1.-THE trial judge permits It." Undoubtedly thia
is so, but such cross-examInations take place
only in the sensational cases ATTORNEYS ora
under no temptation to make such wonderful ey-
anlnatlons and cross examinations eyceDt I'm
cases being exploited by the newspapers and as
such cases are relatively uncommon In other
counties compared TO this county the iudpas
elsewhere are not subjected TO SO severe a test
as to their ability to restrain counsel within
proper bounds. AS Scotch attorney said of
this prominence of lawyers in a recent case
You make too much Of the counsel II 90
really Jerome's and Delmass acts thai ara on
trlal with Thaws future as kind of by-prod-
uet OF the experiment. This. think. is wrong
l4,,l-
more room you leave for diplomacy and tactics
me more you swell the lawyers heads and be-
little the law
There is too much room for the exhibition of
lawyers tactics. 1t is, however, only when they
are sure of big headlines In the newspapers that
counsel treat trial as mere opportunity TO
exhibit to the admlring world their wonderful
forensic and legal prowess, and when they wish
so to pose and strut the courts seem powerIess
10 prevent 1t If trials attended by great pub
licity were as common In the other counties or
the state as In New York, and II the opportuni.