Court Opinion

ID: 9537789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:24:20.406717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:02.589200
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority but believe that some reference should be made to the objections which are usually raised where a confession in the hands of the prosecutor is sought by a defendant, namely, the fear that the task of the prosecutor will be made more onerous and the fear that a guilty defendant may be given an advantage which will permit him to escape punishment.
Richard Arens and Arnold Meadow, the authors of “Psycholinguistics and the Confession Dilemma” (56 Col. L. Rev. 19), point out:
“ . . . pre-trial discovery cannot operate to the predju-dice of the prosecution with clean hands. The occasional detection of dishonest practices of a defendant does not furnish adequate grounds for the denial of all demands for necessary pre-trial discovery. The spectre raised by fears of trickery and deceit has long been laid to rest.
“The possibility that a dishonest accused will misuse such an opportunity is no reason for committing the injustice of refusing the honest accused a fair means of clearing himself. The argument is outworn; it was the basis (and with equal logic) for the one-time refusal of the criminal law to allow the accused to produce any witnesses at all. Modern rationalism should extend to the accused this right of inspection. ... [6 Wigmore, Evidence § 1863 (3d ed. 1940)]”
The court in State v. Dorsey, 207 La. 928, 963, 22 So. (2d) 273 (1945), granted a pre-trial inspection of the defendant’s confession and stated:
■ “We concede the possibility of manufacturing a refutation of a confession after inspection and before trial. How-*108éver, even conceding this, we do- not think that this fact and' the reasons-, above set ..forth by the courts of other states should outweight the danger of convicting an innocent accused, and it. is our opinion that to permit such an inspection is .nothing less than is required by fairness to a defendant under the presumption of innocence. . . .
“Under the provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and this State, every accused is entitled to, and is guaranteed, a fair trial, and to deny his counsel a pre-trial inspection of accused’s written confession is, in our opinion, tantamount to depriving such accused of a fair trial, and is in violation of his constitutional rights.”
• The trend' of the modern decisions seems to indicate a more liberal attitude toward pre-trial discovery in criminal trials. A New York opinion summarizes the pattern of development:
“It was the generally accepted rule for years that the accused had no right to the. inspection or disclosure of evidence in the possession of the-prosecution.- But that rule has been gradually relaxed. ...
“In modern days, courts strive to see that justice shall prevail in a given case rather than that there shall be a slavish adherence to well-beaten tracks. Just as in civil cases, where there originally was no .discovery or inspection and that procedure developed through gradual evolution, there is now slowly being born a tendency to apply that procedure in certain proper cases in the criminal courts. There is no good reason why in a proper case, in the exercise of a sound discretion, the courts of criminal jurisdiction should not be permitted to make available to a defendant before trial, by discovery and inspection, legal evidence in the-possession of the district attorney. The primary object of the criminal court is to render substantial justice and not to obtain a conviction. . . . Application of Hughes, 181 Misc. 668, 672-73, 41 N. Y. S. 2d 843, 847 (Sup. Ct. 1943).” 56 Col. L. Rev. 19, 30.
The authors further point out that in the use of the science of psycholinguistics, it is possible to determine the genuineness or voluntary character of a confession. The nature of this science and the use that can be made of it in a criminal matter is fully explained in the text of the article. It would appear that the instant case is one in which the *109application of such scientific knowledge could be of value to the accused in his defense. The state should be as eager to prove that an offered confession is genuine’ and voluntary as the defendant is to establish the opposite, and this new science can aid the one as well as the other. •
The court is committed to the rule that the granting or denying of a request for pre-trial discovery in a criminal matter rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. The trial court ifi/the exercise of its sound discretion is always motivated by its duty to see that neither the state nor the defendant is given any undue advantage or disadvantage in the trial. Thus, the interests of the state and the defendant may be protected to the end that both parties will have a fair trial. .
Finley, J., concurs with Rosellini, J.