Los Angeles herald., 1910-09-11

the jury that they alone are the final
judges of the facts. The provision, as
it now stands, has been given a very
narrow construction in the decisions.
The tendency of these decisions is to
render judges timid in making any
reference to the evidence during the
trial. even for the purpose of illustrat-
ing propositions of law. This restric-
ton on the prerogative of the court
initiates against an effective admin
istration of the lLw. The people never
intended that their ministers of justice
should be ineffective in the discharge
of their duties. In my judgment; the
provision simply means that the court
should not attempt to control the jury
in resolving the evidence into facts,
and it was not intended to hamper the
court in the effective discharge of its
proper duty
THE DEFECTS
zone of the most serious defects in
the present system is thu lack of suf-
ficient power in the trial court and
the too liberal exercise of authority by
the appellate courts in criminal cases.
1.-THE constitution should enlarge the
authority of the one and restrict that
of the other. The charge should be
so clearly expressed that there could
either. The result can be reached by
having the constitution enumerate eX
Industrial the only questions that may
be raised on appeal. All other mat
ters would then become final in the
trial court, with the result that greater
expedition would be shown in the dis
position of crimiPal charges. This con-
clusion is based upon experience ana
the inherent difference between. the eX-
1F nd
diction. The difference is fundamental
"The trial court, which deals direct
lv with human beings-litigants, wit
nesses and counsel-should have suf-
ftcient authority to enable it to deal
with them effectively. In order to
serve the interests of justice In the
highest sense the power of the trial
court should be broad and commanding
and all should be compelled to respect
its authority This consummation is
found difficult because the law permits
the authority to be challenged at every
turn and exceptions noted as to every
act and word of the court which does
not meet with the approval of the ac-
cused and his counsel.
COURT ON TRIAL
"The court is practically on trial.
This tends to weaken the effectiveness
of the court. The incessant noting OF
exceptions to the action of the court is
sometimes availed Of for the sole pur-
pose of defeating the proper effective
ness of the judge with the jury in the
case at hand. Such a result is deplor-
able in the extreme. And on appeal 1T
would seem as If the trial court and
the district attorney were on trial in
stead of it being simply hearing to
settle the questions of law involved.
'In view Of the wide authority exer-
cised in criminal appeals the constitu-
tion should provide that only the ex-
ceptions enumerated therein shall be
heard on appeal. The trial court would
have a definite conception of its
authority and could control the pro-
ceedings accordingly. This proposed
change would find support in the re-
Election that exceptions involve mat
ters of fact in greater or less degree,
while the constitution provides that
appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases
shall be confined to questions of law
alone. A pronounced defect in the
present system is found in the practice
of considering on appeal practically
every question of law that may be
raised. This reduces the final author
ity in the trial courts to minimum,
and in consequence the rights of the
public are made to suffer, the law to
become weak and the activities Of theI