Pueblo chieftain., 1921-02-24
LEGISLATION
RELATES TO OFFICE OF
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
Special to The Chieftain:

DelNef, Ecu. %o.-bistriCL Attorney
Philip S. Van Cise is taking quite an
interest in Legislative matters relative
to the District Attorneys office.
There have been six bills of a.
special interest to the District Attor-
ney's office introduced and five of
special interest to Denver. Mr.. Van
Cise has prepared on behalf OF the
District Attorneys of the State an ar
gument in favor of the six bills relat-
ing to the District Attorneys office.
Perhaps no bills in the general as
sembly are getting more attention
support of them he says:
H. B. 214. A Bill Requiring No
Bond for District Attorneys: Tho
District Attorney handles no money
whatever. Under the present law the
District Attorney and his deputies arc
required to file a $4,000 bond with the
Secretary of State This bond costs
$3.50 a year, which is payable out of
the funds of the office, and accom-
plishee no. purpose whatever. In the
case of the Denver office with ten
lawyers. 1t means an expense to the
y taxpayers of SIPS per year.
Fl. B. 169. Gambling: At present
there arc a good many gambling
houses running in Denver. They all
have a well-organized system of look
outs and people. and it is almost i'm
possible to get a. conviction because of
their systems of signals. Therefore,
of such system il signals is made
prima facie evidence of gambling, it
will largely eliminate the same.
Prima facie evidence statutes are not
new in Colorado, as we already have
them for tampering with gas, electric
light and water meters and other Of
lenses The second part of the gamb-
ing statute has an abatement clause.
providing that when the owner knows
that gambling is being conducted, tho
I IA
unless he gives bond that the offense
will not be repeated. The abatement
proposition is not new to our law. a,
1t is found in the prostitution statutes
and in liquor statutes The whole
question of abatement laws was dis
cussed in an opinion of Judge Garri-
gues in Gregg VS.. People, 65 Colo 90.
to which your attention is directed.
II. B. 165. Separate Trials for Do
PENDANTS Jointly Indicted:
| If several men commit a robbery,
under the law as it is at present, all
each one needs to do is to file a mo-
ton that he will be prejudiced by be-
ing tried with the others. and the
court must give him separate trial.
The result Is that the state is put to
the expensce of trying each of these
men separately when tho Same evil
dencc applies to all. and all could and
should be tried together. The amend
ment provides that they must be tried
together unless tney make PROOF 10
the court that the evidence that will
be introduced in the case would not
be admissible against all of them so
that they would be prejudiced by n
joint trial
II. b. 1854. Perjury: Under the
present law. falsely swearing in court
is not perjury unless 1t is upon
point material to the issue or point in
question. In other words. in n mur-
der case. 1t n person who was not an
eyewitness claims to have been pres
ent. and gives a version of tho shoot
ing. and 1t is proven that such per-
son was not present. that is perjury.
as 1t Is material to the point at issue
tho question of the murder. On the
other hand. If any eyewitness, in ad-
dition to the testifying of being an
| eyewitness to the shooting. tcstifies
| that he had not beer convicted of n
crime. tho ho may have been. and the
fact that hc had been convicted OF n
crime goes to his credibility as n
witness. it is not perjury under the
present law. because it is not material
to the point at issue. Further. under
the present law you must prove to
the jury first, that there was false
swearing. and second. 1t is practically
| impossible to ever convict person
of perjury.
! II. b. 11e. Criminal Procedure:
This bill simply provides that. be-
cause of immaterial defects in the in
formation, or In the trial. the case
should not be reversed for that
reason.
| II. Il. c5c. Power to Administer
oaths: At present when anybody
wants to swear to n complaint before
the District Attorney. 1t is necessary
/ that the District Attorneys deputy
he a notary public. or a notary public
chilled in. The work of the office
will be facilitated If tho District At
| torney or any of his deputies have
power TO administer oaths on mat
| tcrs connected with tho office.
I II. Il. 1853. Commenting on the
Failure of Accused to Testify:
| Under the present law. if the ac-
cuscd fails to testify no comment can
he made on his failure SO to do. either
| by tho Judge or District Attorney.
The state should be entitled to call
the attention OF the jury to the fact
that there is a man, who the evidence