The silver messenger. (Challis, Idaho) 1890-1912, 1908-02-18

As interpreted thus far, this provision of the constitution protects the a-
cused if found not guilty, against a second trial entirely regardless of the
manner in which the decision in the first trial was brought about; that s
to say, the accused, whether in person or through his attorneys may be
guilty of the most fragrant abuse, of the most unfair methods, indeed,
of direct bribery and corruption, and, nevertheless, should he in any
manner, by hook or crook, obtain a verdict of mot guilty" he forever is
protected against another trial TO-. the same odense.
1t would seem the part of prudence to shape the constitution and
the laws, even the construction if it can be, in such a manner that the
accused shall not profit by his own wrong, nor by the wrong of his repre-
sentatfves, and that a verdict in his favor obtained by illegal means should
be as readily displaced as he in turn may have a verdict displaced, which,
by error or otherwise, was improperly obtained.
There is another rule that no one shall be compelled to incriminate
himself-that is, to give testimony against himself, which, also, originally
was a protection against tyranny, inasmuch as the victims were subjected
to torture until they would give testimony. OF course in modern times
no such thing as such torture is known, and we readily might dispense
with such provisions, leaving to the calm and fair judgment of our courts
the extent to which an accused may be interrogated. Here again the fall
lacy Of the present situation is recognized, and we have statutes whereby
the accused has the right to testify, but should not be compelled SO to do.
The ostrich is said to stick his head into the sand, and then harbor
the belief that no one can see him. This provision of the law has a
similar effect, inasmuch as, with few exceptions, the jurors trying cases
are present in the courtroom and observe that in some cases the defend
ants testify and in others they do not. From this they clearly learn the
defendant has the right to testify if he cares to do so, and, consequently,
when sitting in the next case in which the defendant does not testify
the jury knows a well as II so told by the court or counsel that he did
have the right to testify and failed to do SO, and they will draw the same
inference from his silence as above suggested. Under this anomalous
constitution it would seem the part of wisdom to brush all this rubbish
aside and subject the defendant in criminal cases, as he is now in civil
cases, to the obligation of testifying should he be called upon by the prose-
cution SO to do.
Many cases re known in the courts where, although guilt is most
apparent, conviction fails by reason of the absence of witnesses upon
some, perhaps, minor point in the case. Commercial frauds especially,
and all sorts of financial confidence concerns, wildcat insurance, fraud
ulent banks and guaranty companies, arr aided by the present condition
of the law. Our country is so great, and state lines SC numerous, that
oHenses of this kind flourish by reason Of the extreme difficulty and ex-
pense of bringing witnesses from a distance. In many of these and SINH
lar cases a few well directed questions to the accused would suffice to es-
tabhsh the ofense beyond the shadow OF a doubt. Fortunately, even
under our present system much valuable information is obtained from
the commendabe police method commonly called the "sweat box" No
innocent person has ever been injured thereby, while often it has afforded
the only means of conviction in most henous cases. The interrogation of
the accused at all stages, even at the tal. itself, should be allowed, as it
is now with much efficiency in continental Europe.