Arizona republican., 1908-06-05
PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JUNE 5. 1908
WHEN WITNESSES DIvERGE.

In the course of the Carr trial yester- day the district attorney complained with an appearance of bitterness that some of the peoples witnesses had thrown him down." that their testi- mony at the trial was not the same as that given in the grand jury room and on which the indictment had been drawn. The inference might be that the district attorney thought the wit nesses were lying.
 That was not necessarily so and not probably so. It is in the experience of all men that it is not always easy to tell or understand the same story, in the same way twice unless the condi- tions are the same in both instances
 The conditions surrounding the wit ness stand and those prevailing in the grand jury room are radically differ ent At the trial there are two sides striving to bring out two contradictory stories and as a result the truth which is said always to lie in the middle is arrived at.
 The grand jury room is a dark and inquisitorial chamber, the most use less and senseless of all the institu- tions which have been preserved from the early days of modern civilization. The old sheet iron covered plowshare is less of an anachronism in these early years of the twentieth century. There was time when the grand jury served a purpse; hen it was designed to protect the citizen from the accuser and to prevent him from being hurried to punishment with improper haste. The grand jury stood between him and the crown If it entertained any sym pathy that sympathy was with him.
 The need for the grand jury long since passed away but it yet fingers, not a protection of the accused but as an instrument to facilitate the work of his accusers. On exparte testimony it sends him before the trial jury with a stigma of guilt which could not be fixed by any other manner of his commitment for trial The grand jury hears the worst about the ac cused. All the testimony offered is de- is no word in favor of his innoncence. The examination of grand jury wit nesses tends to bring out only damag ing facts. The atmosphere is charged with accusation. Witnesses may be in possession of information which would be favorable to the accused. If it were brought out it might result in the dismissal of the charges against him, but it is not brought out, usually for the reason that it is not wanted.
 Very often the witness who has told his damaging story to the grand jury, leaves the room with the impression that he has told the whole story. What he has not been permitted to tell he regards as unessential- He then goes before the trial jury with the story which the inquisition chamber has fixed in his mind and unless the whole truth is drawn out of him by rigid cross examination he unintentionally keeps back all that he was forced to withhold from the grand jury.
 He is therefore regarded as a truth full witness for he has told the same | story twice though he did not tell it | in its essential wh2le-truthfulness either time.
 On the other hand, a witness freed | from the poisoned atmosphere of ac- cusation, in the hands of a skillful ex- aminer pOurs forth a story which | seems to be dilution of his statement 1 to the grand jury. It is in fact a di- lution. It has been weakened by that | part of the truth which was repressed in the grand jury room. It is a differ ent story, for which the witness is to | be commended rather than condemned. |