Los Angeles herald., 1910-09-11

him to be a witness for the state.
In California, however the statute
law renders him a competent witness
in his own behalf, and 1t Is provided
that If he testifies he may be cross
examined by the people as to all mat
ters about which he is examined in
chief BY virtue of the provisions of
the constitution the limits of cross-ex-
animation are closely drawn in the
appellate decisions, and many cases
have been reversed because of the
claim that a fundamental right of the
defendant had been ipfringed by i'm
proper s-examination. 1t Is rea-
soned in those decisions that to the
extent the ss-examination exceeds
the limits of direct examination he is
made a witness against himself within
the meaning of the constitution.
"It is further held that unless the
defendant by the range of his direct
examination touches on matters affect
ing his" credibility as a witness the
people are not permitted to make such
an inquiry. Hence, a defendant may,
by the exercise of this right, exclude
from the consideration of the jury all
dents, habits of life, occupation
source of his support, his domestic and
other relations and previous criminal
ity, unless it reaches the grade of a
felony. The enforcement of this rule
sometimes presents situations which
are disturbing to. a proper sense Of
justice. The experience of mankind
has demonstrated the efficacy of a
proper inquiry concerning the credi-
bility of a witness in order to ascer
tain the truth, but in the case of a de-
fendant it must be entirely ignored
unless he, by the range of his direct
examination, renders the inquiry per-
tinent and proper cross-examination
The other witnesses whose testimony
Is to be weighed against that of the
defendant NAV be fully examined on
all matters going to their eredibility.
Why should the jury be denied the
knowledge concerning the kind of
man the defendant is when he appears
as a witness? To hold otherwise is to
eliminate an important test in the as
certainment of the truth. So long as
the defendant cannot be made wit
ness against himself and may appear
in his own behalf, he should be treated
the same as any other witness If he
takes the witness stand. This was
probably intended as the real meaning
of section 1879 of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure and section 1923 of the Penal
Code. The constitution should qualify
the rule under consideration so as to
put a defendant on a footing with all
other witnesses, II ne becomes VIII
ness in his own behalf. The experience
of courts proves that the rule should
not apply to testimony given before a
grand jury, for it tends to defeat law
full investigation. If the constitution
should add this qualification then 1t
would be just to provide that If a
witness is indicted after he has given
testimony before the grand jury 1t
should not therefore be used against
him, except on a charge of perjury
arising from such testimony
JUDGES CHARGE
"The constitution provides that
judges shall not charge juries as to
matters of fact, but may state the
testimony and declare the law. If this
provision is to remain, then it should
be amended in order that the inhibi-
ton on the power of judges should
only apply to the practice of judges
at common law Of advising with the
jury on matters of fact. In my own
opinion, the administration of the
criminal law would be more effective
If the rule were entirely abolished In
stating the testimony, which is with
In its province, the court should be
allowed to point out the relevancy of
the testimony to the litigated issues
and the like, but in every case the
court should be required to instruct