Year: 1869

SHI1nAnHIS IebtIIyluR III Incir Owl
Behalf The New Law and HOW 4
Works.


From the New York Times. September 1871
The law passed at the last session o
the Legislature, permitting person.
charged with crime to testify In thei
own behalf has now Keen in operation
for four months, and its merits and de
merits are exemplfied in the practica
working of the latter over matters o
public interest. With the exception o
Connecticut and California, New Yorl
is the fret State that has introduced thi,
innovation upon the long-established


rules for the conduct of criminal trials


and, so far ss this city is concerned, the


new law meets with the unanimous ap


proval of the District Attorney and ol


the Judges engaged in the administra


ton of criminal justice. They all say


that it is an excellent law for the limo


cent man and very bad one for the


guilty, which is equivalent to saying that


It works in the interest of the pub


lie and promotes the ends of JUS


tice, which are the prim mary objects of all


laws. The records of the Court of Ses-


sions show that for the last four months


eight out Of ten persons pat on trial have


avsiled themselves of the new law and


taken the witness stand in their own be-


half, and Judge Garvin and his Assistant,


Mr.. Hutchings, both say that there has


not been case where probably guilty


person has succeeded in inducing jury


to acquit him on his own testimony,


while there have been two or three per.


sons presumably innocent who have been


enabled, by telling their own story, to SO


clear up doubtful points of evidence as


to secure their scquittal, when, in the


absence of their testimony, they might


have been convicted. In no case hos q


person known to be guilty helped his


case by taking the stand, but, on the con-


trary, they almost invariably ipjure it.


The moment they become witnesses


they subject themselves, like other wit


nesses, to the cross-examination of the
District Attorney, which may extend to
their whole past career, and is sure to
bring out facts that prejudice their case.
1t may lie asked, then, why the guilty
should avail themselves of the
law and take the stand2 The
answer to this question involves the
only serious objection to the law. The
truth is, if they do not take the stand,
strong presumption of ther guilt is inev-
table in the minds of the jury; for,
although the law expressly declares that
the failure on the part Of the prisoner to
avail himself of it's privilege shall not
work any presumption against him, yet,
as was very pointedly stated by Mayor
Hall in discussing the law, the proviso
is like all other attempts to legislate
against moral conviction-an abortion"
Juries sciH draw an inference unfavor-
able to the man who refuses to take the
stand and declare his innocence if he be
innocent, although the law declares they
shall not To avoid this interference,
counsel engaged in defending criminals
are compelled to put their clients on the
stand even at the risk of having their
defense injured by the testimony. Thus
it happens that nearly all persons
charged with crime since the passage of
the law avail themselves of its privileges,
and if it be true, as all who had expert
ence in prosecuting criminals in the
Court of Sessions declare, that nine out
of ten prisoners put on trial in the Court
are guilty, then it follows that the law
must be the means of instigsting an i'm
mense amount OF false swearing. This
is the strong point against the law,
and one which criminal lawyers, who |
are almost unanimously opposed to it,
make great handle of. They say that
it often happens that their clients make
such bungling work in telling their story,
or protesting their innocence on the |
stand, that their perjury becomes patent
TO all; and then when they come to be |
the court does not scruple to |
give them the extreme penalty of the |
law, and give as reason for his severity |
that they have added to the crime with |
which they we're charged that of perjury.
Thus the guilty man is placed between
two fires-the jury is prejudiced against
him if he don't testify; the court gives
him extra punishment for false swearing.
This, they protest, is not " fair and i'm
partial trial." such as the Constitution
and the American Eagle guarantees they
shall haYe. But as all this apparent in


Justice operates only against the guilty,
he public are supposed to be able to
stand it, If the criminals cannot Whether
hat be, on the whole, good law which
promotes the crime of perjury, as this
aw certainly does (albeit It's workings
IRE only unfayorable to criminals), is
question for the professors of moral
Icience, and not lawyers, to determine.
pound Her ARptty-A Lovely Missis-