The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1909-08-26

{, State Iud -39 California III t1e Waiter y il- Iraii
adtds corpus ~ Gall 49, = lc 23r; IcNa- = q, Fost
TeV Nrp.6.7 s. \m Rep 81 end possibly ole tto othc
eases. reler 10 thc ltrn>l i,snia ease arprlvre'l
tat most t.c cases pore tlo Supreme 5sl, uu a,.
peal and IN others oi them The uaI , tcc b.a a-Ifrae,
by the highest courts II thc same states
\uoh,r Iuc NJ decision, hold at t, term, u to proof
Y eti1 nient " the presumption thereof -at.
definite he legal mind auy word, "a c>anat could make
ucn Ia the State, where l u prevails tbs courts when they
refuse ball. 10 So with the statement ta bail should Be refused
Where the proof guilt evident the presumption thereof
great and when bail ernte by Jag statement chat where
c proof ot guilt not evident the prc,wtan thereof
great bail should bc allowed n capital cases, Thus aioruia
il hf firif afoIf IS a 3o2 = Iac o5z lo~. 4 without
commenting the rule laid down IL The Matter IF Hdar Iroid
supra. says
"On the question Of admission TO ball. the ofcns charged Is
punishable with death unless the jury hx it Imprisonment for
life The defendant therefore cannot admitted bail If the
proof OF his guilt evident the presumption thereof great
Colorado Kansas hcncl and Texas several cases have
followed this rule.
This docs look with favor on either if the above
rules The first be unmindfu ot the inherent
right of life liberty and the pursuit Of happiness OF the citizen
and burdens upon those charged with capital oensc
contemplated by the law The second IS general be useful
guide the judgment of the weighing the evidence
when the liberty OF the citizen in the balance Primarily per-
charged with capital oense cannot demand bail matter
of right since upon ascerag the character of the charge
against the accused the next question would be the degree
Of proof and the nature Of the presumption of guilt Upon a
pcaon the Supreme Court for bail by writ OF hdbcd corpus
after commitment for capital ofense by justice OF the peace
the burden upon the petitioner show that he illegally de
priyed of his liberty. Er fUc HdBHock q Ala AIS Er fdrc
Rhcu - Ma o.; Et fUtc dHghau a Ma AZ On this ques
ton there is little conflict ~ the authorities Alabama California,
FLORIDA. Indiana. Nevada New Jersey, New lcsk Utah, and
Wyoming all uppo hc proposition IcN, seems o. lc the OILY
placing the burden proof upon ha that tie
ofcna capital one and that the proa j, evident but
There the doctrine of the test prevailed until upset the
OF - tuic Bud Nrmm IS IeN. Cr r. Iot n S w o2S
20 Au 81. Rep 74o
We believe that with the burden Of proof he petitioners,
H. after hearing the whole evidence introduced the appcl
tom lor bail insufficient generate in the mind ol the
reasonable doubt whether the accused committed the charged
and doing they guilty Of capital oAcns bail should
be refused But do wish be understood LAYING this
down hard and last rule to which there may be exception,
There may be exceptional circumstances such the serious
probably fatal injury health unusual and proucted delay
upon the part of the state bringing the prisoner trial that
the hearing all the evidence to Admit BAIL
when the proof guilt is evident the presumption thereof
great The admission ID BAIL however under these circumstance,
a constitutional right M matter resting in hc sound
judicial discretion of the trial Judge who should not grant
under extraordinary circumstances The rule herein hd down
supported BY array of WcIrsoncd cases Those rrcu
hrly rely Et fVt lithaIr s. Aa l95, 15 Am Rep