XII. RIGHTS OF ACCUSED

Acquittal By Jury Final-Accused Not Compelled To Be A Witness

Now keeping in mind that this is a personal matter with each one of us, that we are talking about our own rights, that some day our liberties may be in danger, let us take up the next guaranty of the Const.i.tution: "_nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb_".(62)

I am sure you do not know what that means. I am sure there is not one of you who ever dreamed that such a thing might happen to you as to be "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". This is very important and likewise very simple. In the olden days, in the old world, many a man was tried for a crime in court and found not guilty, and then later was arrested and put on trial again and found guilty. Suppose your father, as I said the other day, should be arrested, although he were innocent. Suppose he were indicted by this grand jury and brought on for trial. He would be compelled to hire a lawyer, if he were able to, and get ready for trial.

The trial would come on, and days or possibly weeks might be spent in examining witnesses. Finally the case would close and the jury would bring in a verdict of "not guilty". It would be an expensive proceeding. Perhaps it would take all the money he had saved. It would not only be expensive but it would be a hard strain upon him, your mother, the other children, and yourself. It is a very serious matter for an innocent man to be tried for murder. Still the verdict of "not guilty" comes in and you are all full of joy to realize that his life and liberty have been saved. Now suppose it were possible that within a couple of weeks afterwards he could again be arrested, indicted, put on trial. All of the family would again be subjected to worry and sorrow. You do not think it would be just, do you? It would not be right. Of course it wouldn't be right, but men in the olden days have been compelled to submit to such injustices. So when the Const.i.tution was adopted this guaranty which I just read was put in there, so that for any offense against the United States no man can be tried again after acquittal. Once a jury of his fellowmen, his neighbors, brings in a verdict of "not guilty" that ends forever any prosecution for the same offense. He is free and there is no power in the United States nor any of its officers to call him again for trial for that offense. Most of the States have a like const.i.tutional guaranty.

Then there is another important guaranty: "_nor shall (he) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself_".(63)

I wonder if you have ever heard of the days when men were tortured to make them confess. I wonder if you ever heard of the rack where men were stretched, almost torn limb from limb, or of the days when men were hung up by their thumbs, in order to compel them to admit their guilt of some crime. Have you read of the burning of the soles of men's feet? Or the application of red hot irons to other parts of the body in order to extort a confession? Well those were common things in some of the countries in the days before America was born. Men would be arrested, charged with an offense, and then an effort would be made to torture them into confessing to the crime. And often where no such brutal torture was employed, men were brought into court, put on the stand, threatened, examined, and cross examined by lawyers to try to gain admissions which might help to prove their guilt. Of course this was all wrong. It was brutal. It was a violation of human right. When the Const.i.tution of the United States was framed this great abuse of human privilege was absolutely barred by the provision, that no one can "be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself". In this country, when a man is brought into court charged with a crime, it is the duty of the government to prove his guilt. This proof must be by the sworn testimony of witnesses of certain facts or circ.u.mstances, aside from any statement or admission by the defendant. He cannot be compelled to be a witness at all. If he so wishes, however, he may be a witness for himself. This privilege was denied him under the English practice for generations, and even in this country in many of the States until a comparatively recent time; but never since the Const.i.tution was adopted could any person charged with a crime against the United States be compelled to testify to any fact or circ.u.mstance in relation to the crime. Not only can he sit in the court room and listen to the stories told against him, but he is guaranteed this right by protection against any threats or inducements outside of court and before the trial which would lead him to say anything against his innocence.

Every judge in criminal courts has been compelled at times to refuse to admit in evidence before the jury certain statements or alleged confessions. You may see in the paper where some man has been arrested for breaking into a bank or committing some other offense, and it may be further stated that the defendant has confessed that he broke into the bank. Naturally you then say to yourself that he will be found guilty.

Well this const.i.tutional guaranty not only protects him in court but protects him out of court. He cannot be compelled to give answers after his arrest while he is in jail, or even if he is at liberty under bond, which can be used against him upon the trial. Of course a person charged with a crime may waive this const.i.tutional guaranty. He may voluntarily say that he wants to tell his story, and if he does so without any inducement, promises, or threats it may be admitted against him when the trial comes. Otherwise not. To be admitted, it must appear to be absolutely voluntary and of his own free will. If it appears that the confession has been induced by promises of lighter sentence or "that it will be easier for him", or if any other inducement is used to get him to consent to make his statement, such statement cannot be used in evidence because of his const.i.tutional guaranty. Many times I have seen the court refuse to admit proof of an alleged confession of a defendant, and I could see that the jury trying the case and the people sitting in the court room were surprised that the judge would not admit such proof even when the confession was signed by the defendant; but the jury and the people did not happen to think of this const.i.tutional provision. Perhaps they had never heard of it. Every judge is sworn to uphold and defend the Const.i.tution. No judge can permit any provision of the Const.i.tution to be violated if he can help it. A man is on trial before him. A written confession is offered in evidence to help convict him. The defendant's attorneys claim that the confession was not voluntary but was induced by threats or promises. The court then makes inquiry and hears the witnesses upon this question, and if the court finds that the confession was not the voluntary act of the defendant, the same will be excluded because the Const.i.tution provides that no man "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".

Let us turn again to the false accusation against your father. He is charged with murder. He is on trial before a jury. The attorney for the government pulls a paper out of his pocket and offers it in evidence. It appears to be signed by your father. Your father's attorney objects to having it considered by the jury for the reason that the policemen took your father into a cell in the jail, and threatened that they would beat him with their clubs unless he would sign a paper telling how he committed the offense, and that in terror he signed the paper. At this point, the court would hear the statements of your father, and other evidence, and if it appeared that there were any threats of any kind used to get your father to sign the paper, it would not be admitted in evidence at all.

Your father would only claim his const.i.tutional rights as an American, and they would not be denied to him.

There are notable instances in which confessions were made and signed by innocent parties, who were discouraged because the facts seemed to be all against them, who felt that they were certain to be convicted, and that their punishment would be lighter if they would make a confession. Under this impression they made and signed a confession. It was afterward found that the confession was false and that they were innocent of the crime.

This const.i.tutional guaranty protects against any injustice of this kind.

These careful efforts of the makers of the Const.i.tution to guard the liberties of the most humble persons must impress us with the earnestness of their efforts to make this a free country, where no one shall be deprived of his life or liberty except where proven guilty, after a most carefully guarded trial.

Isn't it fine to live in a country where the people have a Const.i.tution written in such simple language that even the little children can read it?

I want every one, even the smallest child, to understand that every line of the Const.i.tution was written to guard and protect each one of us, young and old, against injustice and wrong. These safeguards cannot be taken away except by the people themselves. The President cannot change the Const.i.tution. Congress cannot change it. Judges cannot change it. No one but the men and women of America can alter it in the least.

ELEMENTARY QUESTIONS

1. Show how being put on trial again and again for the same offense would be an injustice.

2. Why is it right to have the verdict of "not guilty" final?

3. What would be the result if it were not final?

4. Why is this of _particular_ advantage to the poor man?

5. Why should no man be compelled to be a witness against himself?

6. Why do they allow a man to be a witness if he so desires?

7. What is the importance of the guaranty protecting the defendant from being examined as a witness?

8. When a person is indicted for an offense, what is the duty of the government with reference to proof of guilt?

9. How is guilt proven in court?

10. When may a confession made outside of court be introduced as evidence?

11. Why would anyone accused of a crime confess guilt, when in fact he might not be guilty at all?

12. Can the President or Congress or a judge change any of the provisions of the Const.i.tution?

ADVANCED QUESTIONS

A. Discuss the democracy of the provision that the verdict of "not guilty"

is final while that of "guilty" may not of necessity be final?

B. Why are confessions wrung from frightened or tortured men likely to be untrustworthy?

C. Why should the "Third Degree" methods be prohibited?

D. Write a paper on the following:

The Third Degree

Early Cases of Torturing Accused Persons

The Burdens, Disadvantages, and Injustice of Permitting a Retrial After A Verdict of "Not Guilty"

Methods Sometimes Used to Secure a Confession of Guilt

XIII. LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY

Rights Protected By Due Process Of Law-Property Taken For Public Use

The three great things which every man, woman, and child cherishes are life, liberty, and property. We see in every one of these guaranties how careful the people who made the Const.i.tution were to see that these valuable things were sacredly guarded.

It is stated in the Const.i.tution that:

"_No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law._"(64)

You can understand how important this is if you will realize how in the olden days people were so brutally treated by their fellowmen, especially by those in power who happened to represent the government. Have you ever read the story of the Bastile, a prison in which hundreds of French people were thrown without a trial, in which many were murdered and many kept in dark cells chained to the floor for years? Have you ever read the story of the Tower in London, where men were imprisoned and murdered without a trial by any court and without an investigation by any one, often without the knowledge of their closest friends? Have you ever read about how the property of people was taken away from them without trial or investigation to be turned over to the king or to some of his friends? Until you have read something of the past, and realize how people suffered, how they lost their lives, their liberty, and their property, you will never realize the wisdom of those who framed our Const.i.tution, nor the affection which they had for the people of America in protecting them against such horrible treatment.

No person's property can be taken, no person's life can be taken, no person's liberty can be taken under our Const.i.tution without due process of law. We do not need to discuss the meaning of "due process of law". You will learn more about this later, as you study more fully the details of the Const.i.tution. It is sufficient now to say that no person's life, liberty, or property can be taken away from him without his consent, except by a trial before a legal court, in which the person shall have the right to a fair hearing. He must have notice of the charge or claim made against him. He must have a chance to appear in person. He must have the right to employ attorneys to represent him. He must have the privilege of bringing in witnesses to tell the truth about the charges that may be made. There must be a decision by the court after a speedy public trial.

In all the States of this country any one is ent.i.tled to such a trial, and he is also, in case of defeat, ent.i.tled to appeal and present his case to a different and a higher court. These courts are the courts of the people, selected by the people, and neither government nor individuals have any right to take away anyone's life, liberty, or property unless the people by and through their courts shall so find and do.