| Show 1 lJiltt11t6 l itt t11t iGU1Ult IDl1at AlIulU rtl1ttttulg tn 1E11ta tt By ANDREW J HIRSCHL s There if constant compluint of the failure of jUI > ice I in criminal cases 1eforms IInl been attempted but for the most part they have been of u minor nature na-ture and have given but little relief Changes in the constitution arc difficult to snake but if i deemed advisable ad-visable that they should be made the soOner the steps t are taken the better there is one proposition that would require 11 change in the constitution although on strict analysis it might SLCm that an intreprctntion iN7fJ1JlC of the constitution should suffice that is that no one shall be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense As interpreted thus far this provision of the constitution protects the accused ac-cused if i found not guilty against 11 second trial entirely regardless of the manner in which the decision in the first triM was brought about that is to ay the accused whether in person or through his attorneys may be guilty of the most flagrant abuse of the most unfair methods indeed of direct bribery and corruption and nevertheless should he in any manner by hook or crook obtain a verdict of net guilt he forever is protected against another trial for the same offense It would Bccm the part of prudence to shape the constitution and the laws even the construction if it can be in such 11 manner that the accused shall not profit by his own wrong nor by the wrong of his representatives repre-sentatives and that a verdict in his favor obtained by illegal means should be as readily displaced as he in turn may have a verdict displaced which by error or otherwise was improperly obtained there is another rule that no one shall be compelled to incriminate himselfthat is to give testimony against himself which also originally was a protection against tyrnnn inasmuch as the victims were subjected to torture until they would give testimony Of course in modern times no such thing as such torture is known and we readily might dispense with such provisions having l to the calm and fair judgment of our courts the extent to which an accused may be interrogated Here again the fallacy fal-lacy of the present situation is recognized and we have statutes whereby the accused hastIle right to testify but should not be compelled so to do The ostrich is said to stick his head into the sand und then harbor the belief that po one can see him This provision of the law has 11 similar effect inasmuch as with few exceptions the jurors trying cases are present in the courtroom and observe that in some cases the defendants defend-ants testIfy and in others they do not From this they clearly learn the defendant has the right to testify if he cares to do so and consequently when sitting in the next case in which the defendant docs not testify the jury knows as well as if so told by the court or counsel that he did have the right to testify and failed to do so and they will draw the same inference from his silence as above suggested Under this anomalous constitution it would seem the part of wisdom to brush all this rubbish aside and subject the defendant in criminal cases as he is now in civil cases to the obligation of testifying should he be called upon by the prosecution prose-cution so to do Many cases are known in the courts where although guilt is most apparent conviction fails by reason of the absence of witnesses upon some perhaps minor point in the case Commercial frauds especially und all sorts of financial confidence concerns wildcat insurance fraudulent fraud-ulent banks and guaranty companies are aided by the present condition of the law Our country is so great and state lines so numerous that offenses oC this kind flourish by reason of the extreme difficulty and expense ex-pense of bringing witnesses from a distance In many of these and simi lar cases a few well directed questions to the accused would suffice to establish es-tablish the offense beyond the shadow of a doubt Fortunately oven under our present system much valuable information is obtained from the commendable police method commonly called the sweat box No innocent person has ever been injure thereby while often it has afforded the only means of conviction in most heinous cases The interrogation of the accused at all stages even at the trial itself should be allowed as it is now with much efficiency in continental Europe |
