OCR Text |
Show SUPREME COURT CONFIRMS R1GIIT-0F-ACCUSED-PERS0IIS TO SPEEDY TRIAL 111 PUBLIC Judgment of District Court of Davis County Reversed and Cause Remanded for New Trial in Case Where Man Was Convicted Under Un-der Statutory Accusation Utah Tribunal Decision Condemns Con-demns Practice of Holding Hearings Behind Closed Doors or Excluding People, Peo-ple, Except Under Well D e fined Circumstances RIGHT of an Individual who la accused ac-cused of crime to a public trial cannot be obrldiied in Utah, the aupreme court of the atate pointing point-ing out that the constitution is absolute abso-lute regarding the right of the accused ac-cused In criminal prosecutions to a speedy public hearing. This question came up In the case of George Ernest Jordon, convicted In the district court of Davis county of a statutory offenae by a Jury trial, and from the declalon of the court he appealed. His appeal waa based on the claim that the public was excluded from the courtroom during the trial and this fact causes the supreme court to re- verse the Judgment of the district court rnd grant a new trial to the accused. EXCLUSION ORDER. In the opinion, which Is written by Chief Justice K. K. Corfman, It is declared de-clared that "after the Jury had been Impaneled and sworn and before further fur-ther proceedings were had In the trial of tho case, the trial court ordered that 'all persons will be excluded from the courtroom during the trial except! Ihosg connected with the case, exclir-j slve of witnesses.' Thereupon counsel ; for defendant asked for a public trial, when the court remarked: 'The court in such a case aa thla may exclude tht Jiubllc. nnd the court has excluded the public in this case.' It further appears ap-pears that before proceeding with the trial the witnesses in tne caae were culled, sworn and admonished, and then excluded. So complaint la made of that. However, upon motion of the district attorney the prosecutrix and her father, who waa not a witness, were iicimltted to remain In the courtroom court-room during the progresa of the trial, when counsel for defendant again called the court'e attention to the fact that 'every friend and relative of the defendant have been excluded from the courtroom. Including hla motber, and the father of the prosecuting witness hue been permitted to stay here all the while.' The record further shows that at all times the defendants counsel Insisted that, the defendant waa being denied the conatltulonal right to a public pub-lic trial and duly ex-epted to the rul-inga rul-inga of the court" CONTRAVENES CHARTER. The aupreme court points out further fur-ther that In certain actions the court ' may exclude all persons who are not directly interested therein, except witnesses wit-nesses and officers of the court, provided pro-vided that the court may in lis discte-tion discte-tion during the examination of a witness wit-ness exclude any and all other witnesses wit-nesses In the case. "The defendant V contends." says the court, "that if the sV crime, 'statutory offense,- may be included in-cluded by implication, tne provisions of the statute are in direct contraven-. contraven-. tion of the righta guaranteed to the defendant by the provisions of the constitution con-stitution above referred to. Similar revisions guaranteeing a public triat to the criminally accused are to be found in most. If not all, of the con- stltutions of the seve.ai -isies of the Union. In so far as section 17M of our statute may conflict with the r.ght to a public trial before an impartial Jury, the ststute must give wsy'and the right be not denied. That will be conceded. "It would seem In this case that not only the- general public waa excluded, but also the mother of the accused. We cannot conceive: of a cose, no matter how revolting and disgusting the acta ac-ta I Is of the testimony given. In which the near relatives and friends of the accused should not be permitted to be, In attendance upon the triul for the: purpose of seeing that the act used is' fairly and Justly dealt with by the officers of the court and not Improp- i eriy condemned. NOVEL PROCEDURE. "This waa a novel procedure, and 1 haa no Justification Ik the law of modern times. We know of no case i decided In this'country supporting the 1 course of procedure here pursued. It I Is in direct violation of that provision of the constitution which says that a: party accused of a crime lias a right to a public trial. The fact thnt the j offlcera of the court were allowed to : be present In no way enade the trial, publ.c. For the purpoaea contemplated ' by the provisions of the constitution. ' the presence of the officers of the court, men whom It is safe to say were i under the Influence of the court, made ' the trial no more public than If they ; too had been excluded." |