Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/37

 Review of Periodicals “Third. Certain irregularities in the grand jury room which could not possibly affect the merits of the actual trial are often allowed,

not only to delay the course of justice, but to reverse a proper conviction; and informalities in the indictment,. . . often prevent a trial

or reverse a conviction. “Fourth. Trifling errors in the admission or rejection of evidence, or in the charge of

the court, or the behavior of the court or prosecutor, will defeat a conviction. . . . "Fifth. The defendant is not allowed to waive certain of his rights, his right, for instance, to be tried by twelve jurymen. . . . "Sixth. The provision that no man shall be tried twice for the same offense results in liberating men who are mistried. . . . “It was well enou h to say that no man accused of crime co d be required to testify against himself when he was not permitted to testify in his own favor; but experience shows that in the long run truth is best deter mined when no reasonable source of inquiry is omitted. Now that the accused can testify in his own behalf, why should he not be examined and required to testify, whether

the evidence criminates himself or not? The protection to the innocent which is sought under this provision is just as illusory as the protection to the innocent sought to be secured by the other technicalities, which lead in the end to l nch law, where he has no protection at all. ince he cannot be required to testify against himself, the police authori ties seek to obtain confessions b extrajudicial examinations not subject to egal scrutiny. They take him to the room of the chief of police, or ha 5 to his cell, and there they put him t roug the sweating process-the third degree—and nobody knows what may be the inducements or the threats, nor how

reliable may be the report of the confession made. The police authorities are not greatly to blame for this. Where a crime has been committed, it is their business, their duty, and their pride to secure evidence to convict the man whom they believe to be guilty, and they have to do this outside the law. . . . "Unless we can protect the community as well as the men charged with crime, we will continue to have exhibitions of lynch law and private vengeance inﬂicted by individuals upon those from whom they have suffered injury.”

27

free-and-easy way than is conceivable in an English court. “A trial before the Supreme Court resembles rather our proceedings before a master with their quick exchanges of conversation and their unceremonious argument. Yet it is not mana ed with the same dispatch. It is rernar ble that a people who are famous for their hustle and their desire to save time should tolerate the slowness in the dispatch of legal business which is regular in American courts." He thinks that the division between the two branches of the profession, while it may make litigation cheaper, necessarily renders it slower. “The ‘omnibus’ lawyer-if one may use the term-does not put his argu ment as brieﬂy, does not narrow down the issue of fact as concisely, nor appreciate when the judge has taken his point as readily as the English barrister." Another fruitful source of delay is the crowded calendar, with the opportunity given to counsel to secure postponements. "So much for the cumbrousness of the American procedure. There are upon the other side of the account certain features which merit our favorable notice. Some time is saved, and a greater measure of accu racy is secured, by the rule that in every civil as well as in every criminal case the evidence is taken down in shorthand by a stenographer, and read out to the witness at the close of the examination, so that its correctness is ascer

tained. It may be that the jud e does not gras the salient facts as clear y by this met od as if he were to make his own abstract of the witnesses’ statements, but the taking

of evidence is certainly ex

dited.

Another

difference in procedure, w 'ch has much to

recommend it, is that in every appeal the state ment of the main facts and the legal argu ments, statutes and authorities u on which

each of the parties will respective y rely are embodied in a printed ‘brief,’ which is laid before the court.

In other words, what is

done here in appeals to the supreme appellate tribunals, is done in America in the case of all applications to revise the decision of a lower court, and it is, in fact, done more thoroughly,

inasmuch as the ‘brief’ deals as fully with the legal issues as with the issues of fact." “Particulars and Interrogatories in English Practice." By A. M. Hamilton. 21 juridical

Rm 230 (Oct.). “Procedure in the American Courts; Im

pressions of an English Barrister." London Law journal, v. 44, p. 644 (Oct. 30). While some of this writer's statements are inaccurate, his main contentions are in large measure just. He was deeply impressed by the want of respect and dignity of bench and bar in the Umted States, in their relations with each other. The popular election of judges often results in a weakening of respect for the bench, and the preparation given in many American law schools is distinctly in ferior. The absence of the barrister's wig and own dee us the impression of a lack of 'gnity. ases are conducted in a far more

“The ad tion of the application for par ticulars mig t be styled a development of our [Scots] practice rather than an innovation on it. . . . No serious difficulty should be antici ated in ﬁtting the essentials of this proce ure into our system." “The German Law-Suit without Lawyers." By Chief Justice Simeon E. Baldwin. 8 Michi gan Law Review 30 (Nov.).

"In most cases there must be written lead— ings drawn by lawyers, and a trial con ucted by lawyers. A plaintiff is not allowed to conduct his own cause in any of the higher courts. But the plaintiff has his option of