Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/223

 UNITED STATES V. BIBBUS^'. 213 �only to affect credibility. Whart. on Ev. § 397. The tendency of courts and legislatures is now strongly in the direction of the doctrine that ail persons of sufficient intelli- gence should be accepted as competent to testify, leaving to the jury, and not to the court, the question of credibility. In the courts of the United States, as well as in those of many of the states, a defendant in a criminal case may now testify in his own behalf. If, however, a conviction of an infamous ■crime is to be held to exclude a ■witness, it is clear that such conviction must be shown by the record. "The record," says Mr. Greenleaf, "is required as sole evidence of his guilt, no other proof being admitted of the crime, not only because of the great injustice of trying the guilt of a third person in a «ase in which he is not a party, but, also, lest in the multipli- cation of the issues to be tried the principal case should be lost sight of and the administration of justice should be frus- trated." 1 Greenl. Ev. § 372. "It is the judgment, and that only, -which is received as the legal and conclusive evidence of the party's guilt, for the purpose of rendering him incom- petent to testify. * * • jf {]^q gyjit of the party should \>e shown by oral evidence, and even by his own admission (though in neither of these modes can it be proved if the evi- <ience be objected to) or by his plea of 'guilty,' which has not heen followed by a judgment, the proof does not go to the competency of the witness, however it may afîect his credi- Mity." Id. § 375. �4. The record of a judgment in the state of Illinois by a court of that state, to be admitted in evidence her«, must be attested in the manner provided by section 905 of the Revised Statutes, and the certiûcate must show that the person sign- ing it as judge was, at the time of so signing, the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate of the court in which the judgment is of record. �5. Upon the question raised upon this motion as to what evidence may be received in corroboration of the testimony of a witness who is shown to be infamous, the authorities are not perfectly agreed. I am, however, prepared to accept, as -applicable liere, the rule laid down by Chief Baron Joy ia ��� �