EUEUéQ QQQQHQQHQQHHQQQH [1!] ‘134w .- w s.
(Q:
The Editor’s Bag [L1 QHQHQHQQQHHQ@QQQ [Ell (1.2» VI
(.5)
exceed the narrow limits within which
REX v. CRIPPEN the common law has hedged its authority, HE speed with which the Crippen case was disposed of by the English
to protect the rights of every individual,
courts, in a manner which could leave no doubt that the accused enjoyed a fair trial, excited the general admiration
nothing derogatory to that same com mon law, or to the institutions that have grown out of it, in empowering
of;the American bar.
and in this country there would be
Our lawyers,
our courts to handle their business with
however, have not shown the same unanimity as to the practicability of
increased dignity and dispatch. The practice of indiscriminately allow ing challenges on the vaguest and most
conducting trials for murder with equal speed in this country. There has been a tendency to lay stress on the conten tion that the English methods are not adapted to American courts. It is
doubtless this very sentiment which blocks progress in this country, and resting as it does on the shakiest founda tion, gives rise to unreasoning opposition to reforms of procedure which leading professional organizations are coming
to demand. The difi'iculties of copying the procedure followed in the Crippen trial are more apparent than real.
We do
not wish to imply that English methods could be exactly copied in the courts
of this country.
But the spirit, if not
the actual details of those methods,
could be imitated with entire safety. The England of today is a democratic country, and those who say that the American people would not submit to the methods of an English court are thinking of the England of yesterday. The powers of an English court do not
trivial pretexts could be abolished by the passage of a satisfactory practice
act, and no one would suffer injustice through the removal of this formidable
instrumentality of delay.
Motions for
continuances could be ruled upon with greater firmness, and with keener at
tention to the expeditious disposal of causes,
without
any
just
complaint
that the judiciary is exceeding its province.
The introduction of testi
mony of doubtful relevancy,serving to protract the trial needlessly, and un necessarily long-winded arguments by counsel, are evils for which a remedy that does not contravene the Sixth
Amendment is obvious.
Likewise the
plea of insanity, and the testimony of handwriting and medical experts, are matters which can be dealt with by legislation, supported by proper rules
of court, in such a manner as materially to lessen if not wholly to overcome these evils, without danger of violating
constitutional provisions safeguarding
