Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/502

 THE BARILLAS CASE other person; if he should exceed these limits he shall be called to order by the judge, and if he should still persist, the right to speak further will be denied him, or he may be even removed from the hall and the trial proceed without him. When the accused has finished speaking the judge shall declare the arguments closed; and he shall proceed at once to pre pare the interrogatory which must be sub mitted to the deliberation of the jury, and which must be in the form prescribed in the thirteen sub-sections which follow, setting out in definite questions, to be separately voted on by the jury, the material conclu sions of the prosecution and of the defense, including, as prescribed by the Code, first, the question " whether the accused is guilty of having done the particular act charged, without giving its legal denomination; " then questions upon the qualifying circumstastances; then those which may modify the penalty; then regarding aggravating and extenuating circumstances of the alleged crime, a separate interrogatory being formed for each defendant on trial. Either party may object to the form of the interrogatory, and the judge shall immediately pass upon the objections. Immediately upon the settlement of the interrogatory, the judge, within the limits of the strictest impartiality, shall make a methodical, succinct and clear summing up of the facts adduced on the trial, determin ing the circumstances constituting the im puted crime, and of the proofs rendered during the instruction, and any modifica tions of the same during the hearing, begin ning with those of the prosecution and end ing with those of the defense; but carefully abstaining from displaying his own opinion or making any comments upon the respon sibility of the accused. The judge who does not observe these provisions or who alters in any way the instructional record shall incur the penalties prescribed in the Penal Code.

469

The judge shall thereupon address to the jury the following instruction: "The law does not require of the jurors any account of the means by which they have formed their conviction; it fixes for them no rule upon which full and sufficient proof depends; it only commands them to interrogate themselves, and examine, with the sincerity of their conscience, the impression made upon it by the proofs rendered in favor of or against the accused. It only puts to them this question, which sums up all their duties: Have you the intimate con viction that the accused is guilty of the act which is imputed to him? The jurors fail in their principal duty if they take into account the fate which by virtue of their decision may fall to the accused in accord ance with the penal law." Thereupon the judge shall deliver the process and interrogatory to the eldest juror, who shall act as president of the jury, the youngest member acting as its secretary. A recess being thereupon de clared, the jury will retire to their delib eration room, and shall not leave it or have communication with any person outside, until the verdict shall have been signed. The supernumerary jurors will remain in the court room ready to supply any vacancy that may occur. From the foregoing epitome of the C6digo de Procedimientos Penales an idea may be had of Mexican criminal procedure, from the first inquiries tending to establish cul pability until the sentence of guilt is pro nounced. American lawyers may well con sider whether the ex parte system of the grand jury, with its secret inquisition of but one side of the tale of alleged crime, with indictments based on the partial testi mony thus only educed, the subsequent fights for delay, the technical rules of evi dence, often rejecting the most important truths of proof because they fail to meet some technical requirement, the absurd fetich of the " constitutional privilege "