Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-11-18


line charged with having shot and killed an
other man, who happened to be standing on the
Tennessee side, but within gunshot of the al
legged assaant.
When the defendant WIS brought to trial in a
North Carolina court. his counsel urged that since
the offense "consumnAated" in Tennessee-the
victim having been killed while there-the courts
of North Carolina had NO jurisdiction, no crime
having been committed in North Carolina. This
was sound law, and the court compelled to set
him free.
would try their hand They sought to have the
defendant extradited from North Carolina and
brought to Tennessee for trial
The defendants able lawyer, however. again
interposed demurrer. file argued that his client
had never been in Tennessee, and therefore could
not be regarded a fugitive from justice from
that state. Not being fugitive from Tennessee
justice, he could therefore not be eXtradted and
brought to Tennessee.
This too was sound law, and the courts of
Tennessee We're likewise unable to deal with the
alleged slayer, AS result Of this and similar
cases, however, many stakes passed laws by agree
mont with their neighbtor-states under which a
crime committed under these circumstances could
be punished by either Of the contiguous states. In
other words sort of No Mans Land was estab-
lshed along the boundary line, and any crime com
courts of either state.
Laymen are prone to censure the administration
of justice because hardened criminals are allowed
to escape on such techniCates. But a glance at
the history of the common law will convince one
that though there may be cases where loopholes
are provided for evil-doers whose guilt is beyond
question it is better that this should happen than
that the accused in a court of law should not be
given the benefit of every doubt. This latter
shield around the defendant was forged with the
blood-sweat of Anglo-saxon forefathers, as a
protest against Star Chamber methods, by which
men were condemned to death or torture by the
decree of an olgarchy celebrating behind closed
doors.
The theory of the common law is simple The
state, the people. or the government, what
ever name the prosecuting agency may have. must
make out a complete and defense-proo case. A
presumption of guilt is not sufficient, although in
the course of the trial the prosecutor may raise
such presumption in order to shift the burden of
proof to the defendant. For instance the fact that
a is found with a smoking gun in his hand,
standing by the body of the victim may raise a
of guilt the part of the SO
found standing
This presumption, however, does not yet
amount to conviction 1t merely shifts the burden
of proof The defendant may still show that
though his weapon was smoking, the shot that
but that the latter merely fired at the real assail
ant, who escaped
On the other hand, it would be useless to deny
that there have occurred many cases of fragrant
nustices, in the history of the courts But in many
instances the courts not to blame. The fault
lay with the statutes governing crimes and criminal
procedure, which made it mandatory on the courts
to dismiss cases quash indictments where slight
and immaterial irregularities brought to light
In such cases, the remedy was not to impeach the
judges, but so to amend the law that substantial
justice could be done.
The simplification of judicial procedure is a
matter of evolution. While every barrier should
be erected prevent the escape of criminals whose
guilt is proved beyond the shadow of shade"
as the old common lawyers put it, there should
not be let down a single bar that protects the
innocent from unjust punishment Nothing
rankes in the human bosom much as injustice,
and the who is sent to the penitentiary for
a crime he did not commit hardly be blamesd
for coming out embittered and embruted.