CRIMINAL PRACTICE.
Mr. JOHNSON'S bill [ H. R, 35] to amend section 90 of the criminal practice act--(to give the defendant's the right to testify)--was taken up on the third reading.
Mr. JOHNSON. This bill proposes to make an amendment to the criminal code so as to give the defendant in criminal actions the right to testify in his own behalf--or rather at his own request. I will say for information that this provision is copied almost verbatim from the N. Y. statutes. It accords to the defendant this right, so that the State can,t compel him to testify against himself; and so that he shall not be compelled to testify in his own behalf but he may if he chooses; and so, that if he chooses not to testify, the fact shall not be considered as a circumstance against him, and counsel shall not comment on his refusal or neglect to testify. It has not been long since parties in criminal actions were competent to testify. Since, however, the door has been opened, and parties in interest have been permitted to testify, it has been found that it ia beneficial. The jury or the court trying the case naturally desire all information they can get in regard to the facts. In erdinary transactions when we want information of a fact, we will go to the person who was present and ask him. And the Legislatures have found out that you can get the truth best from the person who knows most about it. Therefore parties in civil cases are allowed to testify against each other. That was considered an innovation, but it has proved a step taken in the direction of liberality and broader views; and it has been going on till in nearly all the States persons charged with crime are now permitted to testify in their own behalf. The hardship page: 182[View Page 182]that rests upon him in having his lips sealed may be exemplified in this way, for instance: Last night a horse wras stolen from A, and to-day the horse is found in the possession of another person. Now the law is this: If A proves that he lost his horse and found it in the possession of the defendant, the burden of proof rests on the defendant. Now it might be that some thief stole the horse and sold it to the defendant, and so he goes to the penitentiary. I think that I know of one man who went to the penitentiary, and who might have escaped if he had been allowed to testify in his own behalf. I know it will be said that this rule will facilitate the escape of guilty men. I think not. The jury, if they choose not to believe the defendant, can reject his testimony. Standing in the relation of defendant, accused of crime, the jury will scan his story closely. If the defendant has interests, they ought to be regarded, and, if guilty, he will generally be convicted on the cross-examinations. There is the celebrated Clem case, wherein Nancy E. Clem, the defendant, was twice convicted. But every one knows that over that case there still hangs the secret of the murder; and that there is but one person that can dispel that secret--and that is the woman herself. This bill is to be followed by another. Originally, this bill had two parts: one to allow the defendant to testify, and the other to require the State to close the argument These two propositions are now separated. In this bill [H. R. 35] it is proposed to give the defendant the right to testify, and in the other, the bill [H. R. 127], it is proposed that the State shall close the argument. In the one case, you open the way of escape for the innocent man; in the other, you shut off beyond a reasonable doubt the means of escape for the guilty.
The bill was finally passed the House of Representatives--yeas 61, nays 26.
