Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1909-03-25
MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page SKI

MAINE LEGISLATURE.
Continued from Page Sikh
| object of this bill can be to give one
more way i'm which criminal prOcedure
can be made more uncertain and TO
create greater delay. The courts 10
| DAY are criticised because we do not
nave cases tried more quickly and de-
cislonS arrived at at an earlier date.
| N some states where there is 4 similar
| law to this which is proposed. where
man convicted by jury can tail.,
me matter up because it is against
evidence, it has been criticised because
| Of delay to the administration of ius-
tlce and because every man who is
convicted by a jury will try to post
pone the inevitable; if he is rich he will
postpone it because he can employ
lawyers, if he is poor he will try to
get the county to pay for his printing
blllS. Now we all know that before
any man can be convicted by a jury
there must be in the minds of that
jury certainty beyond to a reasonable
doubt that the man has committed Il
crime and is responsible for it, We
know also that if any man is convicted
and the evidence is in his favor i'm any
degree he can take it at the present
time to the Governor and Council and
have a hearing. For that reason it
seems to me that this proposed bill is
entirely unnecessary.
The last part of the bill says. ''and
no sentence shall be imposed until final
Judgment" 1t is now the practice in
this State in criminal matters, when q
man has been tried and found guilty
by a jury. that the judge who heard
the case is the one who imposed SEN
tence. We all know that the judge
who hears the case, sees the witnesses,
hears what they have to say. notes the
probability of whether they are telling
the truth or not. and these judges are
experienced in these matters after
years of practice and they can tell very
| we'll the weight which is to be attach
ed to the evidence which any witness
gives. He hears also the prisoner, if
he offers himself as a witness. and he
can also judge of his credibility. 1t
seems to me that the judge who tries
that case is the only man who should
impose sentence. Again, the time may
go by for several months or possibly
a year. and a new judge may be APP
pointed and may be the one to hear
it who knows nothing about it what
ever except so far as he may have
read the evidence. Even if the same
Judge should be there to impose SEN
tence, months have gone by. other
cases have occupied his mind. and the
fact. the appearance of the witnesses,
their words and the way they testified
has passed in part from his
memory | do not believe that JUS
tice can be as we'll done between
| the State and the respondent as
it can be if the practice now in
vogue should he continued. For this
reason think the bill is wrong. ! have
heard but one reason given why sem
tence should be deferred and that is
that Il mans character is Smirched by a
Judgment of guilty. If he is guilty it
does not hurt him; if he is not guilty
it hurts him no more than the judg-
ment Of the jury T have no doubt that
there might possibly once i'm great
while be Il case which would call for the
clemency of the Governor but ! do not
believe there are many lawyers in the
House today who have seen cases where
Injustice has been done when man APP
pealed on the ground that the evidence
was against him.
Mr. SMITH Of Berwick: Mr. Speaker,
this bill does not provide that in all
| cases an appeal may be taken and the
evidence reviewed: it simply provides
that in cases of felony n motion may be
made. That has reference to crimes of
a serious nature an OffenSe which is
liable to subject one to State prison
penalty. Now under our present law Il
five dollar horse trade or ten cent dog
ease may be taken to the supreme court
and the evidence reviewed If in the
opinion of the supreme court the evil
dence is not sufficient to warrant the
judgment of the jury it is set aside and
| sent back for new trial. f it is
| case Of damages and a large verdict is
recovered and it is taken to the SUI
preme court they have the right to
! der a remittitur. Put if a man has been
pronounced guilty by a jury of felony
| today-or arson or manslaughter or any
! of the offenses above the grade of a mis-
demeanor-he has no right to have that
| evidence reviewed. Is it right? Is it
| the square deal that the poor devil who
gets arrested for an offense is entitled
| to? I say not. l had my attention call
| ed to one case-it was brought before
| the committee on legal affairs-a man
| was arrested for arson. There was
| disa agreement Of the jury. Before the
| time came around for the next term of
| court it was made so manifest that the
man was innocent that the prosecuting
attorney dismissed the indictment. Now
| had the jury agreed. under the present
| law as it is now, that man would have
| had to go to jail with no right
of appeal. The right of appeal
should be one of the freest rights
which respondents have. Talk about
encumbering the records of the supreme