Amarillo daily news. [volume] (Amarillo, Tex.) 19??-current, 1912-12-01

,tresslng the need OF remedial legis-
alton. Wa printed simultaneously In :
The News and other dailies OF the a
state about two weeks ago.
The initial article suggested llmita- j
ton 81 the right OF appeal. as
means OF relieving congested dock
cts In the appellate cOurts II ere
ated widespread discussion through
out Texas. and Judge Browning re-
ceived much favorable comment.
The second article. which Is here
with presented. treats Of an ever
more Important subject:
Amarillo. Texas. Nov 30. 1914.
The Limitation OF the right OF aD-
peal, suggested In my article, pub
llshed in the leading dallies OF the
state about the 18th instant Is not the .
only means OF relief 10 the appellate
oarts from oyercrowded dockets.
Neither is Il the only means Of i'm
proving the administration OF Justice
In the courts OF the country. Let
Us examine certain articles OF our
criminal procedure governing the
trial In criminal cases and see some
OF the loopholes through which many
criminals escape just punishment
Art. 7s7. Code OF Criminal Procdur"
! G9lD reads az follows. In rul-
ing upon the admisslbllity OF evil
dence the Judge shall not discuss o.
comment upon the weight OF the
same or rs bearing In the case. bat
shall simply decide whether or not
! IL In admissible nor shall he, al
any stage OF the proceedings preyi-
Gus 10 the return of a verdict. make
any rennrk calculated 10 convey %
the jury HIS opinion OF the case The
lcourt OF Criminal Appeals has re-
.peatedly held. and correctly too, that
This statute Is self explanatory and
mandatory upon the trial court.
Can any good reason De offered ~
defense OF this law Why should
the trial court be shacklod and
bound hand and foot by such law
lie. above all others. should have In
fluence In the trial OF case. Often
In the trial the jury and spectators
e form an unfayorable opinion OF the
fairness OF the Judge, because this
llaw prohibits him from opening hi,
mouth except 10 merely rule wheth
pr or not the testimony offered u
, admissible. lie can make no explain
e. alton Of his rulings u is a common
, thing for the defendants counsel e
object 20 the greater part OF tb'
evidence offered by the state. whe'
hc knows his objections are not vel
u founded. but the jury Is not so wei
informed As each objection II mad
Doc judge simply oyerrulcs H. bu
larc not make any explanation o
F, why he does so by the time IN
G states testimony is all in tmost q
il over the objections % defendant
rounscD the jury and spectators ar
\ pretty well impressed that the ludg
a preiudicod against the defendan
/ ana Is doing all he can TO secure hi
conviction. and II comes from hi
unexplained action la oyerruling IN
,rouudloss objection of defendant
counsel These objections ate ofte
made for the sole purpose of creatin
bat uuayorablo impression In IN
mind of the jury When the stat
has rested Us case the defendant
counsel then begins introducing ev
l,nrc In behalf OF the defendant u
De- time he Is through ne has %
y ored an sorts OF inadmissible cy
= lcnre. which illegal testimony
!. ruled out on objection OF the state
counsel. Just as defendants couns'
Knew it should be- when he offere
t. but the Judge. because OF tn
tatute dare not explain his rulinl
lr reprimand the attorney. by re.
on OF such proceedings. which n
rial court h powerless to proven
II rlminal trials often consume niue
= more time than is necessary. an
Justice is thereby often thwarted an
y. the guilty criminal goes unpunishe
=. while the state and county pay IA
IS price for this unnecessary waste
70 time and miscarriage OF justice.
he Twin brother 20 the above quoted 81
IS ute is Article 1855. Code Grimm
IA Procedure O9ll) which reads
=, follows: After the argument
N. any criminal cause has been conclu
~ ed. the judge shall deliver TO the jul
"a a written charge. in which he sha
4. distinctly set forth the law appli
m able TO the case. but he shall n
re cypress any opinion as TO the weigl
p 81 evidence. nor shall he sum I
~ he testimony. This charge shall
p given IN all cases OF felony. wheth
u asked or not" This statute HI
:, = also been held mandatory. Time al
y lgaln the appellate court has he
.. that the charge must be a full al
p complete application OF the law, al
= all the evidence. and expressed
ID plain language TO the understandiI
rs Of the jury" aud that this rule a
" plies especially to every defense re
~ sonably presented by the evidence
"a The appellate courts have furth
We held that "A charge which trench
n n the smallest degree on Il