Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-01-24

deprivatich Of the liberty Of the cit.
State Constitutions Play Part.
The Wiekersham plan provides fol
non-jury trials that might lead uu
to punishment of six months in fail
1t Is true that Judge Harlan referred
to minor or. petty offenses that NAV be
proceeded against without a jury, but
that reference in the language Of the
judge himself Is according to many
ad1udged cases arising under consti-
tutionS which OF course means, State
constitutions, the Judge clearly insist
ing that the case before him. which
was under the Federal Constitution, re-
quired Q jury determination. This DIS
tinction was sharply followed up in
thompson W.. Utah, which have al
Thus far all the cases reported uphold
the mandatory theory Of q fury trial
under the Constitution. There are some
cases In lower courts that permit a
waiver by the defendant, the most
notable being Belt VS.. the United States
decided IN the Court of Appeals of the
District OF Columbia, which affirmed a
statute permitting such waiver. This
case never went TO the Supreme Court
but the Thompson vs., Utah case was
decided four years afterwards by the
supreme Court and is an absolute con-
tradiction to the lower court.
Questions Chance Of ImpartiaIHy.
The wickersham Commission realiz-
Ing that the Constitution obstructed its
plans to relieve court congestion de-
toured on the beaten path of American
jurisprudence, hoping to get back on the
proper highway by permitting the Re-
cused to have Jury trial BY petition
after the commissioner makes o report
to the judge OF guilt. Once more we
md the Wickersham committee obs
strueted by the Constitution for that
sacred document Is not Satisfied with
any kind of q jury trial, but requires q
trial by an impartial jury. How can a
jury be impartial If there has already
been a finding by judicial officer that
IN the case before It, the defendant is
guilty, Every iuryman will know the
only reason the defendant has been
given jury trial is because the defend
ant has been found guilty and so the
the common law and tho Constitution
is completely destroyed. Furthermore,
the defendant is entitled to a speedy
trial. How can he get that when there
intervenes a trial In the Commission
ers Court In which the defendant is
forced to practically testify against him
self to secure subsequent jury TRIAL?
The Wickersham report clearly con-
templates the enforcement of prohibit
ton through the confinement of major
or professional violators, but the COM
mission would give such vioIators all the
constitutional safeguards such as a
grand jury presentment. q jury trial, a
speedy trial, an impartial trial. before a
district Judge and denies all these safe
guards to the boy who Is caught with a
flask OF gin in his hip pocket. One
Judge might give the professional boot
logger year and a day, which under
our parole laws means three months,
and another Judge give the boy with a
guilty hip pocket six months and $500
tine or their equivalent, six months and
500 days with no parole.
There are many practical objections
to the plan. For instance, a person
stands on his rights for q Jury trial and.
although originally called a petty Of
fender by the prosecutor, he becomes In
the eyes Of that officiai and the law a
felon. What a senseless scheme of JUS
tice? He is found guilty Of a petty of