Evening star., 1947-06-25
When Plea Of Guilty Is Barred
Court Of Appeals Says Defendant in Rape Case Must Be
Tried by Jury in Accordance With the Local Law
(See Editorial. The Green Case)

.
poaoer to accept plea OF guilty upon an indict-
ment charging rape in this District.
Right to Jury Trial Unaffected.
Statutes depriving a defendant of the right to
plead guilty, where the alternative punishment
of death Or imprisonment is left to the dis
cretion of the jury, are upheld upon the theory
that he cannot be prejudiced, in that the con-
stitutional safeguard of trial by jury is
accorded him. Under the present statute. how
ever, when defendant was deprived of the right
to plead guilty, it became possible, as it does
in all cases of rape in this District, for the
jury to impose the death penalty, whereas, could
he have pleaded guilty, the court could have
imposed only the punishment of imprisonment.
The imposition of this limitation upon a person
charged with crime is within the power of
Congress, and deprives a defendant of no con-
stitutional right. If plea of guilty may be
accepted under the present statute. it places
it within the power of defendants in just such
cases as the jury would be likely to assess the
higher punishment, to escape such punishment
by entering plea of guilty, thereby nullifying
the whole intent of Congress.
The absurdities to which the contention of
counsel for defendant would lead are well ex-
pressed in the opinion of the learned trial
judge as follows: THE contention of the de-
fendant is that there was no issue to be sub
mitted to the jury, inasmuch as his plea
admitted his guilt; that hence there could
be no verdict and consequently no addition
Of the death penalty His construction of the
statute is that the legislature said to him, IF
you will plead guilty, you shall be imprisoned
only; If you plead not guilty, and are found
guilty by the jury, you may be hanged; that,
faced with this alternative, he plead guilty
and is entitled to the milder punishment. Is
that construction that can properly and
legally be placed upon the statute? Is it
legitimate to suppose that the legislature has
put penalty upon pleading not guilty? Would
a legislature have constitutional right to
penalize an accused person for pleading not
guilty? Suppose the legislature should say
The punishment of this crime shall be inn
prisonment only, if the accused will confess his
guilt in open court but If he will not confess,
and insists upon the Government proving its
case against him, then, in case he Is convicted,
he shall be hanged Would such an act be
constitutional? Could any court in such cir
cumstances ever have any assurance that
plea of guilty was voluntary plea? If judge
should say to the accused If you will plead
guilty, will give you lighter sentence than I
shall give you If you plead not guilty, and are
COilVlCleu, WIldt WOulQ De the result? ANY SEN
tence passed upon plea of guilty thus obtained
would be set aside. Can we then suppose that
the legislature intended to do such thing?
Nobody doubts the right and power of the legis-
lature to require the guilt of the accused to be
ascertained by the verdict of jury, even If he
pleads guilty. The only question is whether
it has exercised that power in the case of
this statute. If We say that 1t has Motif we
hold that it has offered the accused reward
for pleading guilty, threatened him with
severer punishment If he shall require the case
to be proved against him. then we must hold
that the provision is unconstitutional and void
as violating the clause of the Federal Consti-
tuition in the Sixth Article of Amendment.
which guarantees that In all criminal prosecu-
tions, the accused shall enjoy the right to
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
For how can one be said to be left in the free
enjoyment of jury trial when the statute sub
jects him to severer punishment on being
found guilty by a jury than when he is adiudged
guilty on his own plea ?"