Albuquerque evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1911-1914, 1912-07-18

iner trial between the same parties.
the dying declaration" upon the trial
Of one charged with his death. declar-
atlons against interest. entries In the
course OF employment. statements AZ
to pedigree. and public facts affecting
the community TO which no belonged.
such as. for instance, public boundar-
les. Hut with these exceptions. made
almost entirely In a body, the modisl-
cation OF the hearNay rule came 10 an
abrupt stop, The judges OF OUT courts
In general have absorbed tho fixed
and adhered idea that there were six
or eight or ten exceptions 20 the rule
against hearAay. and no more. The
number. whether six or eight or ten.
depends upon the classification used
and not upon the principles Of law
applied az the trial.
In other words. our judges have
treated the exceptions az clearly os-
lRbiished. and. although civillaation
has increased In the comElexity OF las
commercial and %aziness relations as
much In tho last sixty years as II has
IN the twp hundred years preceding
that. these Judges have refused 20
blaze trail Of progress along these
lines. II II also a curious fact, apd
one somewhat unexplainable. that our
legislatures which have tinkered prac-
IDEALLY every session with our rules OF
.plnsding. heve left eupWnehed our
hearsay rule. The public. usually 80
ready 70 6Fltlclse the methods and
manners Of law and lawyers. tells Us
every day about the artificial manner
In which our criminal cases are rS-
versed on appeal on account OF tech.
nicaiitics. but says nothing about the
artlhciaiity OF the modem application
OF our hearsay rule. This II very pc.
culiar, l repeat. because the Injustice
done by this heareay rule may some
,i,nes become very fragrant and has
undoubtedly become 40 in the past.
For instance, let us assume the case
OF a man Indicted for murder, against
whom the circumntantinl evidence is
very strong. Two OF three weeks be-
fore his trial man about 10 die con.
fesscs Ia his physician that no =
guilty ~ the crime for witch the ac-
ciised stands Indicted. The circnm-
stances are such as 10 lead the ply
slclan 20 believe that the man, on his
death-bed, IL telling the exact truth.
Yet, under our rules OF evidence. thcro
Is absolutely no way In which this
mans confession could be placed In
evidence,
Lot uH assume another example. A
man whose character IN the commun-
10y IN watch he lives In % tho highest
kind. and whose crcdlbllity ~ OF tbs
Highest. IA the only witness OF an
atr0ci0us muraer, aud there is 90 cir
eumstantlal evidence to connect tho
accused with the crime. Illa ailbl is
perfect, but for tho avldence OF this
ono witness. This man makes q
statement IN writing 10 the district at
torney. over hla signature. concerning
tho facts OF che case. and IL accident
ally Killed in a railroad wrocp before
the trial. Under the hoarny rule
this written statement would be alb.
sointely excluded.
These two instances are only ex.
treme cN1 implies of the flaRrRni lnjus'
tlee which has been done frequently
in tho courts OF our country by tAs
arllnclaliiy Of our hearHny rulo N
itH modern application. n y not In
tented 10 be stated here that ths
heaFsay rule should be- abolished. ant
that the hearHay testimony should b
permitted regardless Of the fac
whether OF not the testimony Of ths
original dociaFant can be procured ~
she trial; hui Il does seem necessary
tnat there should DO a radical modI
Acation of llle rule 20 permit the IT.
PRODUCTION Of hearaay whom better All