Pine Bluff daily graphic. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) 1893-1942, 1913-06-10

defendant the right ITO be heard by
| himself and counsel" The court
| holds tina this is a right to the de-
| PENDANT TO be present when substan-
| tative steps are taken by the court.
A decision OF Chief Justice Cockrill
! rendered in the case Of Bearden VS..
the State, is quoted to SHOW that the
cause of the defense is not actually
prcjudiced by the proceedings to an
! null verdict if it appears that the
defendant has lost advantages by
steps taken during his absence.
The Supreme Court holds that while
the defendant cannot be deprived OF
the right to be present, it does not
follow tina THE Constitution requires
that he must be. 1t says that he
may be- present. The court acknoWl-
edges that statutes require the pres
ence OF the defendant, but states that
this statutory provision is Mt for the
state This decision is 10 be found i'll
Martin vs., the state.
Presence Of Defendant.
In felony cases the Supreme Court
holds there is no question of the right
OF the court 70 permit the verdict to
be entered in the absence of the de-
PENDANT, there being a great weight OF
authority on the subject, but the
question Of crime in which closer
examination OF the authorities. This
is shown by the right OF the court to
proceed when trial has been started
and The defendant absendt. A verdict
canno, be rendered in this case, how
ever, until the defendant is present.
The Supreme Court of Mississippi
recently held, in Herodd VS.. State,
that defendant on bond could not
voluntarily absent himself from the
courtroom when verdict was to be
rendered, and could not waive his
presence.
In the recent decision OF the United
States Supreme Court, in Hope VS..
People, Chief Justice Harlan stated
that the defendant could not waive
his presence a. the entering of a .er-
dict, as the power OF the court to act
depended upon the presence Of the de-
PENDANT, and the public interest in the
result of the trial deprived The de-
PENDANT of the power to give his con-
sent to his absence.
These grounds are, We think far
from tenable,' states the opinion rem
dered by the Arkansas Supreme Cour;
in its opinion, with reference to the
decision Of the United States Supreme
Court, land neither OF the cases qG>t-
ed appeals to US as stating sound cor
cluslons, nor are the conclusions
decisions Of This court
Proceeding with the opinion the
Supreme Court states that the power
of the court to proceed does not de-
pend upon the personal presence or
the accused, his right 20 be present,
alone being guaranteed by the Con-
stitution, otherwise that section ler-
hitting the trial to proceed in case OF
an escape would be in valida ed The
fact that the statutes permits the de-
PENDANT to be voluntarily absent DEM
onstrates the power OF he court to
act and does not depend upon the
presence Of the accused. 1t is only
where steps are taken in the absence
OF the defendant without his consent
where his rights are violated.
The Constitution permits the de-
PENDANT to waive the RICH. to witness
to testify by agreement, and the les
timony may thus be entered II per-
mits the defendant to waive the right
to copy of The Indictment, .s well
as the waiver of formal arraignmen,.
If all these constitutional rights may
be waived the Supreme Court, in the
opinion, asks why the right to be
present when the verdict is rendered
may not also be waived.
Many Precedents Cited
In Polk VS.. Arkansas the court has
already held that the court may hear
argument and enter an order fc-
change OF venue without the defend
am being present. Bond VS.. State
contains similar ruling.
In Baker VS.. State the defendant
can waive the presence OF his attor-
ney when a verdict is returned.
In Darden VS.. State the defendant
cannot complain if, while he is GU. on
bond witnesses are examined in his
case during his absence.
In Cfnt III