The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1910-03-22
AFFECTS ALLEGED
GRAFT CASES
Circuit Judges May Not Hereafter
Charge that lit is Unsafe to Con-
vict Upon the Uncorroborated
Testimony Of an Accom-
pGce.''
News and Courier.

uncorroborated testimony of an ac
complice,' according to decision
handed down by the supreme court
today, opinions by D. E. Hydrick, A.
j., In case in which the point was
drought into issue. Attorney Gen
eral Lyon had especially requested
the court to rule en- the matter OF
testimony Of aceomplices. It will be
recalled that in the Sowell case, re-
versed tcIJay, Mr.. Lyon asked the
court about the question that Is OF
50 much interest and Importance IN
the alleged graft cases.
The court says:
"With regard to the testimony OF
an accomphce, the court Instructed
the jury in part as follows:
"Human experience has found
that the testimony of a man who
says that he is the accomplice of
somebody else in crime that is he is
a confessed criminal, is. not testimony
of the highest credibility, because it
comes from a person confessing that
he is guilty of committing crime,
and only needs the judgment Of the
Law that he is a felon to debar him
from giving testimony. The testi-
nony of person Of that sort comes
with more or less doubt as to the
worthiness of the party who makes
it, to eredenee, to belief. So, as l
said, the experience Of ages in the
administration of the Law and the ex-
animation of questions Of fact, is
that it is not a safe thing for jur1es
to convict on the unsupported testi-
mony Of an aecompliee. Yet it is
wholly a matter for the jury. If
you had no other testimony but that
of the accomplioe, and you believe
it, are satisfied beyond all reasonable
doubt by it, it is perfectly competent
for you to convict on that sort of
evidence. If the testimony Of the
aecomplice is corroboratdd by other
evidence, as matter Of course, 1t
becomes much stronger. If it lacks
corroboration it is weak, according
to human experience.
s'This charge was too favorable
to appellants. Previous to the adop-
ton Of the constitution of 1869 the
Judges had the power to charge jur-
ies with respect to the facts, as we'll
as the law. The practice then pre-
vailed as it did in England, and in
nearly all the States where the COM.
mon law powers Of the judges had
not been restricted by constitution or
statutes for the judge to advise the
jury that it was not safe to convict
upon the uneorroboratel testimony
of an aecomphce. But even then, if
thes testimony of the aceompllce sat
isfed the jury Of the guilt Of the ac-
cused beyond reasonable doubt and
notwithstanding the caution of the
Judge, dh4y returned Verdict Of
guilty, it was held to be legal. State
VS.. Browny supra. The rule of this
practice was so well established and
uniformly followed that it has been
continued to the present time, not
vithstanding the provisions Of the
constitution of 1868, that Judges
shall not charge juries in respect to
matters Of fact, but may state the
testimony and declare the law and
the still greater restrictive provision
of the constitution Of 1895 that judg-
es shall not charge juries in respect
to matters Of fact, but shall declare
the law upon the assumption, we
suppose, that it IS a rule of law.
tsThe practice Of advising juries
has been incidentally before the SUI
preme court in several eases tried un-
Ner the constitution Of 1868 and 1895,
and, in some Of them it seems to
have received the sanction of the
court. State VS.. Scott, 10 S c., 434;
State VS.. Prater, 26 S. C, 1913; State
VS. Lee, 20 S. c., 1l3; in Green's
easey 48 S. c., 1876; the right of the
trial lndge to advise the jury was
seriously questioned. In Meare's
ease, 90 S. c., 527, the right of the
defendant to have the judge so in
struct the jury was denied. The
question whether the judge cam 50
advise the jury without violating the
Gnhihiton Of the constitution above
quoted has not yet been decided.
And it is not strange that it has not,
because the judges have almost IN
var1ably 50 advised the juries, and,
as it was favorable to the defendants
they could not take advantage OF an
annes1 from a, verdict of acquittal.