Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/272

 25^. • . FEDERAL REPORTER. �and call all oih&tsadmissions.' B^e^'^nQfQtiextrcijudicJMl coviesBIQnB, Pr, .Greenleaf says.:. .., " 'n .,,; '. ;■ ■•■ >:v'< �,,,'*4<il coiif6ssi(i)ns of^this Mad ajp^. receivabjeiin. evidence, being prQved Ijke bther faets, to be weigh^ bj[ tiie iytr^jf : 1 Gfeenl. Ey.^§ �Againr, ■ ■;,. ,::i i^- ,, : ,■ ^ ::■ �,'.'.3efore any confpssion„can Ijie received in evidence in a criminal case, it must, be shown that it was mluntary." Id. § 219. �Now, mamfestly,' th,eEi0 two atatemente of thfi i&xis are not only inaccurate; but conflictiog, unless attention is given to the limitation to which I,haye just allude4,; and with snch attention they are both accurate and harmoniouB, and abijndantly supported by the best- cpnsidered cases. Spme such classification will greatly aid in under- Btanding the cases, and serves tp somewhat clear up the confusion attending the subject throughout any investigation of it. �The case of Beggarly y. State, supra, contains, in the opinion of a yery able judge, intimations of an adherence to the rule suggested by Mr. .Greenleaf as the wiser one, though, confessedly, not the one established; by the later cases, that all confessions, -whether made to persons in authority or not, must be entirely excluded 5y the judge, ii it appear to him that the threats or promises i^sed were suf- ficient to overcome the mind pf the accused. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 223, (12th Ed. by Eedfield,) and note. , „ �In Beggarly' s Case, supra, it is said: �"In regard to the perspn by :whom the inducements were oliered there has been conflict in the authprities — some holding that the inducements held out by private persohs, not being prosecutor, officer, or having any authority over theprisoner, are not suffleient to exclude confessions thus obtained; but the sounder rule' inanif estly is that this is a mixed question of law and f act for the judge, and while it is ptoper to note the difEerence between confessions ab- tained by prosecutor, officer, or person in authority, and those obtained by pri* vate persons, yet, if in fact the confessions were forced f rom the prisoner through hope or fear presented to his mind by a third person, it should be rejected." Page 526. �This was said in regard to an occurrence that did not resuit in any confession, but a deniai of guilt, the adjudication turning upon the admissibility of suhsequent confessions received in evidence in the court below, and sustained because the prisoner had been warned and all the influence of that occurrence removed, as the court determined. But, as to the occurrence itself, if confession had resulted, as suggested by the court, it would have been as well rejected because the induce- ments were sanctioned by one in authority, the magistrate, namely. It is true the magistrate did not talk to the prisoner, on aecount of a ��� �