Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1911-02-09
Criminal AT BAR
BILL RELATING TO DEFENDANTS
AS WITNESSES NOT LIKED
BY ONE JUDICIARY
INNOCENT in EYES OF Law
Several Well Known Gases are Cited
to Point Out Evils of Statute
Now in Force and as
Interpreted

Pierre--There will likely be d merry |
debate when the bin 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 in the sem
ate. The senate judiciary committee
has already reported the bill unfa-
vorahly and the house committee is
prepared to follow suit, but minority
reports will force fight on the floor
All American criminal law is basel
on the assumption that a person is
innocent until proven guilty. Follow
ing out this line our present statutes
state shat a defendants refusal or
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 defendant to go upon the
stand and grant the states attorney
the privilege of commenting upon it
in his argument in the same manner
as if the Proceeding were civil ac-
ton.
The supreme and circuit courts
! have held on several occasions that
the mere allusion by the states at
! torney to the fact that the defend
ant has not taken the sand. is snf-
! hcient ground for a new trial. The
/ case of the state versus Darlington
will serve as an Illustration. That was
l,,f ~,
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 Jury said
''it 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-
Dealed TO the supreme court and 9
new trial granted on the ground thai
the prosecuting attorney had violated
the statute in referring TO Caring
tons failure to testify At the seconc
trial he was fond guilty and sentenc
ed to the penitentiary. where he il
still serving sentence. The recent cas-
of the state AGAINST Emma Kaufman
charged with the murder of her serv
ant Agnes Polreis. is still fresh in u
minds of the people. A new trial wa
granted on a tcchnicality of this IA
ture
Friends OF the bill do not wish t
be put in the light of criticising tn
supreme court upon lis decisions j
these cases. They claim the fault is ]
the statute and they are seeking t
amend it. The author Of the bI
claims that the statute or rather tn
Interpretation placed upon II. as mat
ter of fact, allows n defendant WI
has been proven guilty beyond an
doubt whatever. to secure a new trif
merely because some indirect alluslo
NAV have been inadvertently mad
to the fact that the defendant did ne
90 upon the stand.
Persons pushing the bill also clai
that if this statute had been as NJ
sought to have it amended. that u
famous case of the state against Ga
r;ngton. would not, have been Sc!
hack for a new trial and the sta
IL thus saved thousands of dollars. WIN
n only three cases have been passf
upon by the supreme court. the CT
cut. courts have been compelled una
the statutes to grant many new trla
and usually when new trials a
granted there are delays OF mont
and sometimes years When ca
II then comes up for retral many OF Z
y important witnesses cannot be aga
secured and a large proportion OF
;, defendants escape that III tact a
guilty.
= On the other hand it is an old ada
in law that il is better to let doz
guilty parties escape than to convl
one that is innocent. 1T is an
mitted fact that there arc many
nocent persons. who for one reas
or another. would appear at dlsa
vantage on the witness stand. a
comment upon their failure to do
* nv the prosecuting attorney, mls
sc wreck their opportunity to gain fr'
t. dom. This would be an infringeme
es unon their constitutional rights a
sc the bill viii he bitterly fought on Il
'c point. The lawyers Of both hou:
~ are divided regarding the merits
~ the bill. though a majority OF tn
seem to think that such a stat
would be dangerous inasmuch as
= places in jeopardy the the chances
a victory of many innocent persons
cuSed OF crimes.
-, The constitutionality of the WI
81 ing bin has been so continuously "a
-! ed. it is now considered doubtful
7 the measure will ever be repoi ted II
It'll the committee. Section 9, Article +
al the constitution says:
20 "No person shall be compelled
he any criminal case to give evide
against himself
nj 1t is contended that the supre
Fl court would throw out the propo
he legislation, on It's Interpretation o.
nd article.
MT ------
IN IN At a meeting OF the school and
III lie lands committee which was attt
=. ed by Land Commissioner Brin
az it was decided that the coHmi