The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1920-07-30

tsnburg Journal has the following to
say: e f:s:*". :.
'"Hugh T. Bramlett, convicted In
Greenville County of the murder OF
his mother-in-law and sentenced to
be electrocuted, has been granted
new trial by the State Supreme Court
ON the ground that some affidavits
made by his wife in another action
against him were permitted to be
used at the trial. This will not be rel
ished by the average layman who be-
iieves in the orderly and speedy ad-
ministration Of justice.
1.-The Supreme Court says a wife's
testimony may not be used against
her husband. That seems to be the
law. We are not going to say the
Supreme Court is wrong.
"But. what is to be done about the
Judge who permitted such testimony
to be introduced? The law had been
of long standing; why do we have on
the bench Judges who are unfamiliar
with the law?
1.-The plain truth of the matter is
that Bramlett has been gwen new
trial on a mere technicality. This is
not very wholesome thing to do. ,
'1The law, and the rules of the
Court, ought to be framed and con-
ytrued with the sole view of securing
substantial justice. The tendency, on
the other hand, seems to be toward
the strictest construction of all the
technalities that may be raised.
For long time there has been
demand for change in the law to
make it impossible for new trial to
be granted in a criminal case except
upon the ground of after-disc6vered
evidence proving the innocence of
the accused or at least raising
reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The
action of the Supreme Court in the
Bramlett case emphasizes the need
for such change
We do not think, on sober refec-
ton, that the writer of the above ar
ticle could endorse it. The charge
that the case of Bramlett was re-
yersed upon technicality is absurd.
The trial judge allowed the state to
use an affidavit of Bramlett's wife in
an Glimony case against him. The law
forbids that wife may be witness
against her husband and the consti-
tuition guarantees to a person accIs-
ed of crime the right to be confront
sG by all witnesses against him. The
affidavit, would be taken by an aver
age jury strongly against the de-
fendant. With no right to oross-ex-
amine the wife and bring out explain
atory facts from her, or secure
admissions from her, a statement of
the wife, prepared by a lawyer, and
in, the language of the lawyer and
not in her own, might have carried
With it anything but correct impres-
sion as to the facts so far as the
criminal case was concerned. All law
is technical, but the objection urged
in this case or one of them is con-
stitutional and not technical. The
ss-e provision is in the constitution
of the United States and in the con-
stitutions of every state OF the UNI
ion.. 1t represents the combined ex-
-. ;-,cc C the ages, and should not
';ghtly be called technicality by
paper which seeks to advise the pub
lie along right lines. |
The reflection upon the trial judge
IS unjust. There is no more pains
taking judge in the state than the
trial Judge in the Bramlett case. A
great lawyer has said that it is not
necessary to know the law, only
where to find it. 1t is impossible for
any Judge to know all the law, or
even a great part of it. Questions
arise in the trial of cases which a
minute before had not been thought
Of. The judge must decide the ques-
hons as they arise, oftentimes with
out the help of the lawyers. Law
yers, especially those employed to
prosecute or defend criminal cases,
press for every advantage IN secur-
ing the admission of testimony. Un-
til men cease to err, the judges will
make mistakes. That IS one Of the
reasons why we have supreme
court. Does the Journal believe the
Supreme Court should be abolished?
The suggestion that new trial
should not be granted except upon
newly discovered evidence, or in cas-
ss where the court of rev,ew has
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of
the party accused is made we must
40