Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-03-14
tconunued from page eleven,

Innocent men nave Dctn COuNiSlCu
upon circumstantial evidence, nay even
cases where the defendants own con-
LESSONS have proved false. but We do
not on that account exclude the EVIL
dence of eye-witnesses. the admis-
sions OF the accused. or circumstantial
evidence. Nothing human Is perfect,
no testimony is infallible, but Of all
evidence which tends to establish the
defendants guilt, his own is least likes
" TO be unreliable. He may, and in
most cases does lie to save himself,
but never IL he knows il to accuse
| himself
This rule in question, originally
adopted to save the subject from the
tyrannical power of the crown when
men were prosecuted for religious
opinions, for political offenses, for
writing or speaking the truth, is pre-
served, though the reason for it has
long disappeared. The danger now Is,
not that innocent men will be convic-
ted, but that guilty men shall go un-
whipped OF justice.
a. ) and 6. Reversal Upon Merits, FL
nal Judgment In Appellate Court,
And Findings OF Fact:
These three subjects will be con-
sidered together. They are embraced
I in bill drafted by the American Bar
Association and now before Congress.
The bill relates to practice In the fe-
deral courts and provides as follows:
mo Judgment shall be set aside, or
reversed, or new trial granted, by any
court of the United States in any case,
civil or criminal, on the ground OF mis-
direction of the jury or the improper
admission or rejection of evidence, or
/ for error as to any matter OF pleading
or procedure, unless, in the opinion OF
| the court to which application is made,
after an examination OF the entire
cause, it shall appear that the error
complained of has injuriously affected
the substantial rights of the parties.
The trial judge may in any case sub
NIT to the jury the issues OF fact
arising upon the pleadings, reserv-
| ing any question Of law arising in the
lease for subsequent argument and de-
cision, and he and any court to which
/ the case shall thereafter be taken on
writ of error shall have the power to
direct judgment to be entered either
upon the verdict or upon the point re-
served, II conclusive, as its judgment
upon such point reserved may re-
quire.'
Through the efforts of the State Bar
] Associations similar laws have been
enacted in the New England states,
| in New York, in New Jersey, Ohio,
/ Wisconsin, Kansas, Oregon, and, by
constitutional amendment, in Califor-
| mia. The u. s. supreme court has
shown itself to be in sympathy with
this reform by its recently adopted
equity rules. This amendment to
the law by statute, constitutional
amendment and rule" says Mr.. Alger,
| in the January number of The
Worlds Work, indicated above, does
not fairly express the full measure of
this particular reform. Influenced by
public opinion. the courts in other
states in which no such legislative re-
form has taken place today are dis
regarding technical errors which they
would have found seriocs 10 years
ago Indeed, there is no real need for
these statutes amending the law, ex-
cept. as the Chinese say, to save the
face of the courts. The trouble from
which these statutes give them an ex-
cuse for escaping was one of their own
devising. It is more dignified, how
ever. for the courts to declare in the
states in which these statutes have
now been enacted that they are COM
plying with new statute than to say
frankly that they had heretofore done
wrong in magnifying the importance
of technicalities by which they had
created vast number of precedents
EQUITY Rules This amendment to
resolved to mend their ways and do
right
Quoting from the same author in
the February number of The Worlds
Work: "A new note is being sound.
led. A few judicial utterances which
sound that new note may not be inap-
pronriate Take, for example. re-
cent case in the supreme court of
Wisconsin, in which. after overriding
a number of its own decisions and re-
fusing to follow the United States SUI
lpreme court, it held that a defendant
who remained silent waived his right
to arraignment and plea. The fact
THAT the record on appeal did not dis
lclose that he had been arraigned and
/ asked to plead guilty or not guilty, the
rourt declared, did not affect his sub
stantial rights The court says: Sure
| ly the defendant should have every
one of his constitutional rights and
privileges. but should he be permit
tied to juggle with them? Should he be
isilent when he ought to ask for some
minor right which the court would at
once give him, and then when he has
had his trial and the issue has gone
against him. should he be heard to say
there was error because he was not
given his right? Should he be al
lowed to play his game with loaded
dice? Should justice travel with lead
en- heel because the defendant had
stored up some technical error not
affecting the merits, and thus secure
! a new trial because. forsooth, he has
waived nothing? We think not
Perhaps ii is due to discouraging
decisions like these that the percent
age of appeals in criminal cases is
| far smaller in Wisconsin in propor-