Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/43

 Procedural Reform in California prepare a bill

of

exceptions if the

23

states allowing amendments of indict

motion for a new trial was made on aﬂidavits, thus obviating delay, would

ments and informations. It is not proposed, however, that an indictment

make the practice with regard to bills

may be so amended as to change the oﬁense charged.

of exceptions constituting the record on appeal from such order uniform with that with regard to other bills of excep tions, and would make it possible so to prepare the bill of exceptions that it may be used equally well on appeal from a ﬁnal judgment and on appeal from an order granting or refusing a new trial.

IV. Appeals Amendments to the Code are advo cated which would provide that no notice of appeal need be served on any party whose default has been duly

entered, and dispensing with the $300 undertaking on appeal, which the com mittee think is generally considered by the bench and bar to be “practically useless."

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE I. The Grand Jury The committee expresses itself as

III. Arraignment On this subject the committee ac company their recommendation that copies of testimony taken before the grand jury should not be required to be served upon the defendant with the following observations :— "We believe that the requirement that all the testimony taken before grand juries shall be taken down by a stenographer and transcribed and ﬁled with the clerk and that a copy thereof be served upon the defendant, adds unnecessarily to the expense of grand juries,

encumbers

their

deliberations,

robs their proceedings of secrecy and

gives accused persons (and other persons who are likely to be accused) the oppor tunity of thwarting justice. This latter consideration we deem to be an im portant one, for while in theory it is

only fair to an accused person to know

unqualiﬁedly opposed to long investi

gations at the instance of indicted persons regarding the qualiﬁcations of grand jurors. They therefore favor the adoption of the Oregon statute (sections 1268, 1269, Ballinger & Cotton’s Code), which provides that every grand juror found by the court duly qualiﬁed to act must be accepted unless the court excuses him before being sworn at his own request, and that no challenge can be made, except by the court for

want of qualiﬁcation. II. Amendments

A change in the law is favored, de manded by "the spirit of our law" as in keeping with the disregard of tech nicalities, the effect of which would be to

adopt

the

provisions of progressive

what the witnesses against him have testiﬁed to, we know that under our system there is only the remotest possibility that an innocent person will

be convicted, and we believe that such information is commonly used by the guilty to build up defenses and get rid

of witnesses." IV. Evidence The enactment of a section following the form of New York and federal statutes is favored, which would do away with disqualifying or excusing any person from testifying on the ground that he may incriminate him self. V. Constitutional Amendments An amendment is- advocated allowing