The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-07-23
Scandalous John Doe Proceedings.

Every few days lately the announce
mcnt has been made In newspaper
articles concerning the Becker case
that John Doe proceedings were to be
instituted in BEcKER's behalf. We
have received many inquiries as to
the meaning Of this statement.
Precisely what cours Of procedure
has been contemplated in this par
ticular case we do not know; but 1t
may be useful to point out what a
John Doe proceeding properly Is and
how 1t has been abused by magis-
trates. Notwithstanding the severes
condemnation of their illegal prac-
tees by the Court of Appeals.
Properly speaking, a John Doe pro-
ceeding is u criminal prosecution In
stituted before a committing magis-
trate by submitting to him u sworn
complaint charging that a definite
crime has been committed by a desig-
mated person whose name Is not
known to the complainant, and who
is therefore denominated John Doe.
1t Is essential to the validity Of such
a proceeding, however. that 1t should
point to some particular person as the
accused. a committing magistrate
under our law does not possess gen
eral inQuisitorial powers. He has no
authority 80 institute u full investi-
CATION as to whether any crime has
been committed by anybody. This a
Grand Jury may do; but a committing
mi magistrate is restricted to the in
quiry whether a specified crime has
probably been committed by a speci-
fed person. When the complainant
is ignorant of the name Of the person
he would accuse. that person may be
called John Doe until his true name
is ascertained. The magistrate can.
not lawfully conduct u rowing inqui.
sition to ascertain what member OF
the community is the offender. The
defendant must be designated at the
outset of the proceeding.
In 1905 a case arose in this city
which is a good example OF the sort
Of John Doe proceeding that the law
does not approve. A Justice Of the
Court Of Special Sessions issued a
subpoena to nineteen witnesses di
recting them to attend before him a
a specified time and place and brins
with them all the books, records ant
documents in their possession Or un
der their control, belonging to a Ger
tain firm Of theatrical managers, GOV
ering a period Of nine years! NJ
proof had been laid before him tend
ing to show that an offence had beef
committed or who had committed It
The Court Of Appeals held that tn,
subpoena was void on its face:
ut did not state what the crime was
nor h the accused was. but Indicate,
; an intention to rove around and I'm,
out. The recital by the magistrate o
a mere superstition. followed by a decla
! ration of his purpose to investigate anc
see whether the supposition was correct
indicates a voyage OF discovery that tn
, law does not tolerate"
This language will be found in tn
l case of the People ex rel LivingstoI
! VS.. Wyatt, in Volume 1S6 of Ney
Z York Reports, on page 1893. The de-
cision was rendered nearly nine year
ago; yet 1t has frequently been dis
regarded by committing magistrates
with the sanction Of representative
4 of the District Attorney In variou
D counties. We repeat that q study G
= that case shows that no valid job
4 Doe proceeding can be instituted e,
cept against a designated person 70
|. a definite crime.