The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1911-02-10
CRIMINAL AT BAR
BILL RELATING TO DEFENDANTS
AS WITNESSES NOT LIKED
BY ONE JUDICIARY
INNOCENT IN EYES OF LAW
Several Well Known Cases are Cited
to Point Out Evils of Statute
Now in Force and as
Interpreted

Pierre-There will likely be a merry
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 in the SEN
ate. The senate judiciary committee
has already reported the bill unfa-
vorably and the house committee is
prepared to follow suit, but minority
reports will force q 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 that 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 a defendant to go upon the
stand and grant the states attorney
in his argument in the same manner
as if the proceeding were "a 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-
fcient ground for a new trial. The
case of the state versus Darlington
will serve as an illustration. That was
a murder case in Minnehaha county
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
1T 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 q
new trial granted on the ground th"t
the prosecuting attorney had violated
the statute in referring to CARING
toms failure to testify. At the second
trial he was found guilty and sentenc-
ed to the penitentiary. where he is
still serving sentence. The recent case
| of the state AGAINST Emma Kaufman,
charged with the murder Of her serv-
ant Agnes Polreis, is still fresh in the
minds of the people. A new trial was
granted on a technicality Of this rs
ture.
Friends of the bill do not wish tc
be put in the light of crit'cising the
supreme court upon its decisions jr
these cases. They claim the fault is In
the statute and they are seeking te
amend it. The author of the bill
claims that the statute or rather the
Interpretation placed upon it, as a mat
ter of fact, allows a defendant who
has been proven guilty beyond any
doubt whatever, to secure a new tria
merely because some indirect allusior
NAV have been inadvertently made
to the fact that the defendant did MOI
go upon the stand.
Persons pushing the bill also claim
that il this statute had been as it j:
sought to have it amended, that thu
famous case OF the state against Gar
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 passef
upon by the supreme court. the cir
cult courts have been compelled undel
the statutes to grant many new trials
and usually when new trials arr
granted there are DELAYS OF month
and sometimes years. When q cas-
then up for retrial many of thu
important witnesses cannot be AGAR
secured and a large proportion OF thu
defendants escape that in fact ART
guilty.
On the other hand it is an old adag'
in law that it is better to let a dozel
guilty parties escape than to convic
one that is innocent. 1t is an ad
mitted fact that there are many in
nocent persons, who for one reason
or another, would appear at a disad
vantage on the witness stand. ant
comment upon their failure to do Sc
by the prosecuting attorney, Nigh
wreck their opportunity to gain free
dom. This would be an infr!ngemen
upon their constitutional rights an
the bill will be bitterly fought on thu
point. The lawyers of both house
are divided regarding the merits o
the bill, though a majority OF then
seem to think that such a statue
would be dangerous inasmuch as !
places in jeopardy the the chances o
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
the measure will ever be reported from
the committee. Section 8, Article s o
the constitution says:
mo person shall be compelled II
any criminal case to give evidenc
against himself"
It is contended that the suprem
court would throw out the proposes
legislation, on It's Interpretation OF thi
article.
At a meeting of the school and pull