Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/212

 An Analysis of the Holmes Case. "The Court. The prisoner has exercised his right; he has discharged his counsel and is conducting his own case." The effect of Mr. Moon's consultation with the prisoner before the jury and his refusal to take part in the trial, and especially his statement that " perhaps he knew as much as any other counsel could know about the case " may be imagined. I will not repeat the rumors about the prisoner and who were his counsel, but I will state an undoubted fact, that after his ostensible counsel were discharged and retired, they were in consul tation with him during every recess of the court and in the morning before the opening of court. After the jurors were selected and sworn a recess was had until three o'clock, when the District Attorney made his opening address and court was then adjourned, at the request of the prisoner, until the next morn ing. Other counsel were then assigned to the prisoner, but he rejected their services. On the evening of the second day his counsel who had been discharged previously, re turned and took part in the trial until the conclusion of it. In deciding against grant ing a new trial I said : " The Constitution of Pennsylvania as well as of the United States secures to persons accused the right to have counsel to assist them at their trial, but it does not attempt to force counsel upon them. The right of every man to plead his own cause is a natural, inherent right. The right to have counsel is given by the Constitution, and no man can be deprived of the right to defend himself or be compelled to have the the services of counsel. The Constitution also secures to the defendant the right to a speedy public trial. This was given in re turn for the right which the Commonwealth possesses to a like speedy public trial, and it is not within the power of persons accused to say when" they will be willing to be tried or to defeat a trial by dilatory motions and

179

practices such as were resorted to in this case." Comm. v. Mudgett, 174 Pa. 239. The court cannot force counsel on an accused person : State v. Moore, 121 Missouri 574. The next matter to be considered is the time taken to select the jury and the questions allowed to be put to talesmen. The jury in the Holmes case was selected in about three hours, the time usually required for that pur pose in this State. The questions allowable are only two in the main, but they may, how ever, be divided into more, according to the answers given by the talesman. They are : "Have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or inn cence of the prisoner?" and, " Have you any conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishment? " If the talesman answers that he has formed an opinion, then he is asked whether that opinion is so strong as to influence him in finding a verdict and whether he can lay aside his opinion and render a verdict on the evi dence which he will hear in court without regard to his opinion. If he says he will be governed by the evidence alone without re gard to his opinion, he will be accepted as a juror. Comm. v. Crossmire, 156 Pa. 304, is the last of a long line of cases on this point. There are in Pennsylvania a number of persons of religious views who call them selves Friends, while the general public call them Quakers. One of their tenets is oppo sition to war and to the death penalty. They say they have conscientious scruples against capital punishment and would not agree in finding a verdict which would result in that kind of punishment. They are never ac cepted as jurors. There are a number of other persons who are not Friends or Quakers, who, in order to evade jury duty, say they are conscientiously opposed to capital punish ment. Of course they are prevaricators, but we have to take them at their word and de clare them unfit for jury duty.