The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-07-23

CARRIES POINTS
Courts Rulings are Favorable
in the Conspiracy
Trial.

The prosecution scored heavily in
the conspiracy trial before Judge De
Bolt yesterday, winning every i'm
portant point regarding the admissi-
bility of evidence and shutting out a
great deal of the cross-examination Of
sheba attempted by Attorney Light
foot.
The papers seized by the authorities
on the night of the arrests were adj
mitted after hard fight and included
the account books of the Nippu Jiji
showing that Negoro was paid editor,
number of private papers in Negoro s
handwriting and mass of corresponds
ence from iaborers and branch offices
of the Higher Wage Association which
was found in the Jill Office.
Sheba was on the stand all the morn
ing. The days proceedings began
| with the introduction of more copies
of the Nippu Jiji containing the same
kind of threatening language as those
introduced on the previous day, and
one in which the paper refers to it
self as the organ of the Higher Wage
Association. Another issue contained
a despicable attack on Sheba S family.
his wife and daughter being represent
ed in ribald verse as weeping together
over his treason to his countrymen
The offer of the account books of
the Nippu Jill in evidence precipitated
the first big fight of the day Light
foot offered to prove that the book
ter's arrest, on the threats that his
safe would be dynamited if it was not
produced. Kinney denied the threats
and said that Sega produced the book
when requested, but was willing to adj
nit that for all practical purposes it
was produced under compulsion.
Neither side claimed that there was
any authority or sanction of the court
and the lawyers thrashed out the ques-
ton as to whether the illegality of
the seizure had any effect on the ad-
instability of the book as evidence.
Opinion By Court.
Judge De Bolt stated that at his
request the attorneys submitted their
authorities to him in advance, and de-
livered the following opinion:
& In King V. Luce, Haw, 6S4, the
documentary evidence was obtained by
force of a search warrant, issued by
Chief Justice Judd for the purpose of
using the same in evidence against the
defendant. The evidence was not OBJ
tanned independent of or without an
order of the court. 1t was clearly in
admissible.
I'm Boyd V. United States, 116 e.
5. 6l6, the defendant, was required by
an order of court made in pursuance of
an act of Congress, to produce certain
documentary evidence, or else the al
legations of the district attorney to be
taken as confessed. This case clearly
is not an authority on the question of
evidence obtained without the sanction
of the court.
sin United States VS.. wong Quong
Wong, 81 Fed. S32, the court, notwith-
standing the total disimilarity of the
facts therein involved with those in
the Boyd case, quotes therefrom and
follows, what is to my mind obiter
dictum. The point decided in the Boyd
case being that the defendant could
not be compelled by an order of the
court to produce documentary evidence
against himself. In the Wong Quong
Wong case the court made no order.
''The rule as laid down by Green
leaf, (Vol. /, Sec. 254a), Wigmore
(Vol. 3, Sec. 21s3), and other author
tiles is, that though papers and other
subjects of evidence may have been
illegally taken from the possession of
the party against whom they are Of
fered, or otherwise unlawfully obtain
ed is no valid objection to their ad-
instability if they are pertinent to the
issue. The court will not take notice
how they were obtained, whether law
fully or unlawfully, nor will it form an
issue to determine that question. The
| admissibility of the evidence depend
ing largely, if not entirely upon the
| question whether or not the court has
used its power or process to obtain
| such evidence. The point being that
| If the evidence is pertinent and has
| not been obtained by order or sanction
of the court it is admissible.
''Gillett on Indirect and Collateral
Evidence, See. 81, says: THE courts
| have in many instances had pressed
upon their consideration the question
as to whether the constitutional provi-
sions against unreasonable searches
and seizures, and against compelling a
person in criminal case to give evi-
dence against himself, should be SC
construed as to preclude the reception
i of evidence illegally obtained. There
| is, however, little or no disagreement
| upon the authorities respecting this
question. The courts will not use their
own powers or process to obtain such
evidence They will not permit a per
son on trial for crime to be even call
ed on, during the trial, to indulge in
any experiments designed to establish
his identity as the criminal.
| Although quite variant in its facts
from the case last cited, the ease OF
BOYD V. United States arranges itself
within the same principle. 1t was there
held that the constitutional rights OF
| defendant in criminal case might
be violated by obtaining discriminating
evidence from him under the morally
compulsory process of a subpoena duces
/ teeum. But in eases where evidence
has been obtained by the wrongful act
of officials or third persons, under cir
eumstanees not charging the court will
responsibility for thesacts by which thu
| evidence was obtained the r11le Is +ha-