Dakota farmers' leader. (Canton, S.D.) 1890-19??, 1911-02-10
CRIMINAL AT BAR.
BILL RELATING TO DEFENDANTS
AS WITNESSES NOT LIKED I
rsxs az ONE JUDICIARY
INNOCENT in EYES Of Law
Several Well Known Cases are Cited
10 Point Out Evils Of Statute
Now in Force and IS
Interpreted

Pierre-There will likely be a merr~
DEBATE when the bill relating to de
PENDANTS charged with crime being wit
nesses, is reported from the commit
tee on judiciary OF the house. The
bill was introduced in the house by
Representative Whiting and Senator
Norbeck put the measure Ia the SEN
ate. The senate Judiciary committee
has already reported the bill unfa-
vorably and the house committee is
prepared to follow suit. bat minority
reports will force a fight ON the floor.
All American criminal law is based
on the assumption that a person Is
innocent until proven guilty. Follow
ing out this line ~ present statutes
state that a defendants refusal OF
failure to testify in his own behalf
Shall not create any PRESUMPTION
against him" The proposed law would
amend that section OF the code Of
civil procedure regarding the fail
ure of a defendant to, go upon the
stand and, grant the states attorney
the privilege OF commenting upon 1t
in his argument in the same manner
as if the proceeding ger a civil ao-
ton. a.C 2Efa25 sa'
The supreme and circuit courts
have held IN several occasions that
the mere a1lusion bv the states at
torney to the fact that the defend
ant has not taken the sand. is snf
fcient gro"nd for a new trial. The
case of the state versus Darlington
viii serve as an illustration. That was
I = -,,,I~- .--- = H1-1hh- 5000,
and an examination OF the record dis
closes that the defendant was clearly
guilty of the crime. The states at
torney in his address to the fury said
st is not against the defendant that
he did not go on the stand, because
he was not compelled to" and Caring
| ton was convicted. The case was ap-
pealed to the supreme court and a
new trial Granted on the ground that
the prosecuting otto had violated
the statute in referring to CARING
tons failure to testify. At the second
| trial he was fornd guilty and sentenc-
| ed to the penitentiary, where he Is
still serving sentence. The ~e"ent case
of the state AGAINST Emma Kaufman,
charged with the murder Of her serv-
ant Agnes Polrejs, is still fresh in the
minds of the peon1e. A new trial was
granted on a technicaAty of this ma
ture.
Friends Of the bill do not wish to
be put in the light of crit'cising the
supreme court upon It's decisions in
these cases. They claim the fault is In
the statute and they are seeking to
amend it. The author of the bin
claims that the statute or rather the
Interpretation placed upon 1t, as a mat
ter of fact, allows a defendant who
has been proven guilty beyond n
doubt whatever, to secure a new trial
merely because some indirect allus1on
may have been Inadvertently made,
to the fact that the defendant did not
go upon the stand.
Persons pushing the bill also claim
that if this statute had been as it Is
sought to have it amended, that the
famous case of the state against Car
| rington, would not have been sent
back for a new trial and the state
thus saved thousands of dollars. While
only three cases have been passed
upon by the supreme corrt, the cir
cult courts have been compelled under
| the statutes 20 grant many new trials
and usually when new trials are
granted there are DELAYS of months
and sometimes years. When a case
then comes up for retrial many of h
important witnesses cannot be AGAIN
secured and a large proportion OF the
defendants escape that in fact are
guilty.
On the other hand it Is an old adage
| in law that it is better to let a dozen
guilty parties escape than to convict
n that is innocent. It is an ad-
mitted fact that there are many in
nocent persons, who for n reason
or another, would appear at a disad-
vantage on the witness stand, and
comment upon their failure to do so,
by the prosecuting attorney, might
wreck their opportunity to gain free
dom. This would be ar infringement
upon their constitutional rights and
the bill will be bitterly fought on this
point. The lawyers Of both houses
are divided regarding the merits OF
the bill, though a majority of them
seem to think that such a statue
would be dangerous inasmnch as it
places in jeonardy the the chances OF
victory of many innocent persons &C
cused of crimes.
The constitutionality OF the Whit
ing bill has been so continuously rails
ed. it is now considered doubtful if
the measure will ever be reported from
the committee. Section 8, Article 6 of
the constitution says:
mo person shall be compelled in
any criminal case to give evidence
against himself"
It is commended that the supreme
court would throw out the proposed
Legislation, on its Interpretation Of this
article. Il
At a meeting of the school and pub
lie lands committee which was attend
ed by Land Commissioner Brinker,