Criminal Procedure in Jewish Courts.
333
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN JEWISH COURTS. BY JULIUS H. GREENSTONE. IN the early days of the Jewish common wealth, there were no regular sessions of the courts. Whenever occasion required it, the court assembled and disposed of the cases at hand. Ezra and his contemporaries, recognizing the defects of such a system, appointed Mondays and Thursdays as court days. The sessions usually lasted until noon, but occasionally were continued until even ing. A criminal case was never adjudged after sunset. According to the Jewish system of juris prudence, trial for a crime could be insti tuted at the instance of the injured party, or, as was commonly the case, at the instance of two witnesses. "At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established" (Deut. XIX 15). There is no trace in the Jewish law of the existence of an official prosecutor. The confession of the accused was not admitted in evidence, for "no man can make himself out guilty." This principle the Rabbis ap plied to all criminal cases. There was no preliminary examination of the defendant or of the witnesses. The trial began when the witnesses appeared be fore the court and delivered their testimony. If. however, further evidence was necessary to establish the crime, the culprit was im prisoned and the case deferred until the evi dence was brought forth. A trial involving capital punishment was conducted with great solemnity. The judges were conscious of the heavy responsibility resting upon them, and they pictured to their imaginations a sword threatening them from above and Gehenna yawning at their feet. The members of the court assembled in the court-room early in the morning and took their seats which were arranged in a semi circle, so that they could see each other, and
so that all could face the witnesses. Two scribes were present, one seated on the right of the judges and the other on the left, one recording the votes arid the arguments for acquittal and the other those for conviction. It is probable that the scribes ailso recorded the accusation as declared by the witnesses, although no mention is made of this in the Talmud. In front of the judges sat three rows of disciples, all learned in the law and eligible to the judgeship whenever a vacancy occurred. Each row consisted of twentv-three, the same as the number constituting the court. The culprit and the witnesses were conspicuously placed where they could face the whole court. In the trial of all cases, criminal and civil, every man was presumed to be innocent un til the contrary was proved. Hence, neither the judges nor the witnesses were sworn be fore entering their respective offices. Still, before being examined, the witnesses were earnestly exhorted and warned to speak only of what they saw or heard. The formula of this exhortation, as given in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a), was as follows: "Perhaps your conviction of the prison er's guilt is founded upon probability, cir cumstantial proof or hearsay; perhaps you are influenced by persons whom you regarcl as trustworthy and reputable; perhaps you are not aware that you will be submitted to a rigorous examination. Know ye that crim inal cases are not like civil cases. In civil cases a man may atone for his guilt by pay ing an adequate sum of money, but in criminal cases the blood of the innocently condemned and of all his possible descendants, to the end of all generations, falls on the heads of the witnesses. Thus we find in the case of Cain, that God said to him, 'The voice of thy brother's bloods cry out unto me' (Gen.
