Search

This article presents the text of an address delivered by Crown Attorney Henry H. Bull at the Short Course for Prosecuting Attorneys at the Northwestern University School of Law in Illinois on July 31, 1961. Not every prosecutor in Canada is a career man. There are those who look upon the position as a temporary training ground, prolific of experience--as a transitory step in a broader legal career--as a part-time adjunct to bolster an inadequate practice--or as a refuge from the rigours of a competitive profession. The image of the Canadian prosecutor was an integral part of the picture of rough and ready barrel-head justice being meted out to Eskimos by an itinerant magistrate who raps for order on a cask of whale blubber with a frozen seal fin.

This article presents the text of the keynote address delivered by law professor Fred E. Inbau at the 1961 Annual Conference of the National District Attorneys' Association in Portland, Oregon. What many people do not realize is that they are also faced with another serious threat to public safety and security from another kind of enemy right within their own borders--unorganized as well as organized criminals. What particularly disturbs Inbau is the dangerous attitude that has been assumed by the Supreme Court. The Court has taken it upon itself, without constitutional authorization, to police the police. It has also functioned at times as a super-legislative body. Moreover, even as regards its constitutionally authorized judicial function, the Court has gone far beyond all reasonable bounds in imposing its own divided concepts of due process upon the states. It has also gone much too far as regards its concepts of admissibility of evidence in criminal prosecutions in the federal courts.

This article discusses the participation of expert witness in criminal trials. An expert witness must be a person of great knowledge. The purpose of his testimony is to enlarge the vision and understanding of the triers of fact and to enable them to perform their function intelligently. The subject of inquiry must be one relating to some trade, profession, science or art in which persons instructed therein, by study or experience, may be supposed to have more skill and knowledge than jurors of average intelligence are supposed to have. The use of expert evidence has increased until it was deemed an important and often controlling factor in an estimated 60 percent of the most important litigation as early as 1937. Under the adversary system of U.S. jurisprudence, expert witnesses are called usually by either the defendant or the prosecution. They are called with relative infrequence by the court, even though the judge has inherent power to call such witnesses. The inherent power to call witnesses, expert or otherwise, should be exercised in the interest of justice, where necessary to supplement or clarify evidence presented by either party. The court should exercise this power freely specially where unbiased expert witnesses are needed to clarify the confusion.

The article focuses on the petition for rehearing in the Mapp v. Ohio case, presenting the side of the prosecutor and a historical background if the exclusionary rule. The judgment calls for an extended argument on the decisions which have expounded the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in harmony with the essential reserved power of the States in enforcing their criminal laws. The opportunity to be heard is an essential requisite of due process of law in judicial proceedings. There was no argument advanced by the appellant in their brief or orally, promulgating the Weeks exclusionary rule in this State criminal case, Indeed, there was no argument by the appellant establishing that the Wolf doctrine was unsound, Nor did the Civil Liberties Union give any argument in their brief or in the fifteen minutes allotted to them on the oral hearing, establishing that a construction of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment rendered the Wolf decision unsound. Under all of the circumstances, it may be said that the appellee was misled into a limited argument and briefing upon the issue upon which the Court has reversed. Since the judgment raises a grave issue as to whether the States intended by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, to give to Federal authority the power of prescribing what evidence is admissible or not admissible in trials for offenses against the States, we respectfully claim that a rehearing should be granted the appellee.

This article presents the views of a U.S. prosecutor on the issue of addiction. The narcotics problem is not marijuana. Although state laws ban marijuana, only about 8 percent of narcotics arrests are for its possession or sale. If its use did not so often function as a prelude to heroin addiction, citizens are not to be concerned about it. A narcotic addict is generally male, young and significantly maladjusted. Quite apart from his addiction, there is a likelihood that this maladjustment has found expression in a criminal record or in conflicts with authority as a youthful offender or as a juvenile delinquent. The heroin addict probably comes from one of the badly crowded urban areas. He has been unable to adjust to the tensions and responsibilities to the economic privation, to the unsatisfactory family life that is all too common. Heroin is the elixir that provides his escape. Certainly race and ethnic origin are not themselves factors tending to breed addiction or any other criminal conduct. The frictions and insecurities present in the ghettoed areas of great cities are likely to have their greatest impact upon those who are discriminated against for reasons beyond their control.

This article discusses the problems with the prosecutor system. When a district attorney withholds information by not eliciting from a State's witness the facts favorable to the defendant, and even deliberately tries to give the impression such facts do not exist; or when a prosecutor allows his witness to testify that no consideration was given to said witness for cooperation, without correction when that statement is untrue or when the district attorney, in a weak case, uses words to suggest race prejudice in order to win; or when improper summation tactics are used, it must be classified as prosecutor's bias. The reason that prosecutor's bias continues to exist may be that no lawyer interested in a result can be fair. It is unrealistic to argue that the prosecutor be impartial and let the jury decide. Human aspects dictate that a lawyer in a courtroom believes that his case is in the right. In addition, the prosecutor, as an advocate, has a compulsion to fight fire with fire against the tactics used by defense lawyers. Courts are hamstringing the prosecutor with their adverse decisions on wire tapping, search and seizure, inability of the state to appeal, confessions of defendants, and the use of proper law enforcement techniques. Legislatures refused to correct such deplorable decisions, or to make any improvements in archaic criminal laws. This is because courts and legislative bodies are generally uninformed. They listened to do-gooder groups and others who desire to portray their law enforcement agents as members of a vicious army. The need for balancing the equities must come from a strong national group, as well as state groups of Career Prosecutors.

This article presents the text of a speech delivered by Honorable Frank E. Moss, a U.S. Senator from the state of Utah. Today the principles of freedom and fair play are being challenged and opposed around the world by totalitarian ideology that denies the existence of God and subjects the individual to arbitrary naked power of the state. The greatest threat to the Rule of Law in any of the nations of our free world is the danger that the people will become dissatisfied with the functioning of their system of, justice and do irreparable injury to it, without realizing that by so doing they are destroying the very foundation of the Rule of Law in their society. It is our professional responsibility to keep the pulse of life beating strongly in the law. We cannot do this by treating our fundamental freedoms as abstract theoretical concepts of a legal system. The people of the free world must learn to believe those freedoms to be what we believe them to be, the practical dynamic concepts for living, unalienable in every human being. In earlier days the status of law in other nations Obviously, our system is under attack and tremendous pressure from without.

This article presents the text of a speech delivered by Honorable Kenneth B. Keating, a U.S. Senator for the state of New York, about what the Congress can do about organized crime. Tonight I should like to talk to you about a malignant cancer this nation suffers from--the cancer of organized crime. I shall discuss it in terms of its national implications and in relation to the role of our government in meeting its nefarious challenge. Following the investigations and disclosures of the Senate Crime Committee in 1951--when a nation learned to its shock and anger that vice and corruption had become major industries in the United States--there was the fervent hope that drastic action would be taken to break the back of organized nationwide crime. As a matter of record, certain steps have been taken in this direction, notably the creation of the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section in the Department of Justice. But today, nine years after the Crime Committee's report, the proportions of the entire problem remain mountainous and frustrating. We are still forced to prosecute alleged murderers and thieves for such comparatively innocuous offenses as tax evasion and contempt of court.

The article provides a factual synopsis of the statutes of the 48 states in the U.S. The prosecutors of the various states are known by different designations. This nomenclature includes: Assistant Attorney General, Circuit Attorney, Circuit Solicitor, Commonwealth Attorney, County Attorney, County Solicitor, Criminal District Attorney, District Attorney General, Prosecuting Attorney, Solicitor General and State's Attorney. Generally, the only qualification required of the prosecutor of any state is that he be a member of the bar of that state. Generally, prosecuting attorneys with criminal jurisdiction are elected. However, in several states county counsel with only civil jurisdiction over county legal problems are appointed. In some instances the jurisdiction of the court to which the prosecutor is assigned determines the crimes for which the responsibility of prosecution exists. In Texas, if there is no District Attorney the County Attorney handles all criminal cases. If there is a District Attorney, the County Attorney prosecutes misdemeanors, while the District Attorney prosecutes felonies. Alabama is the only state in which a deputy prosecutor is elected. In Arkansas, the deputies of the Prosecuting Attorney, who act much like county attorneys, evidently receive fees for at least part of their compensation.

The article presents an excerpt from the statements of Edward S. Silver, district attorney of Kings County, Brooklyn, New York, and president of the National District Attorneys' Association, on three different occasions discussing law enforcement and wire tapping.

This article presents updates on the National District Attorneys' Association in 1959. During the annual meeting of the association from July 30-August 1, 1959 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the national organization of local government prosecutors and attorneys changed their name from National Association of County and Prosecuting Attorneys to the National District Attorneys' Association. Moreover, Honorable Frank E. Moss, former president of the association, was toastmaster at the banquet held on the evening of August 1, 1959. At that time President J. St. Clair Favrot presented the Furtherance of Justice Award for the year 1959 to Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney of New York County, in the form of a plaque. Meanwhile, Earle Stanley Gardner discussed the history of the Court of Last Resort. Gardner mentioned that because of his involvement with the court he runs into many who state he is interested in the administration of justice simply as a prop in order to sell books. Meanwhile, the program for the year 1959 concentrated on the theme Crime and the Family. Many outstanding personalities from across the nation were presented, under the direction of James H. DeWeese, program chairman of the meeting in Milwaukee.

This article presents a report from the National District Attorneys' Association on organized gambling and law enforcement as of November 1959. A grand jury of Kings County in Brooklyn, New York, recently returned a presentment to the court regarding "effective means of combating violations of laws relating to gambling and police corruption." The District Attorney of Kings County, Edward S. Silver, summarizes the presentment as follows: gambling is the life-blood of organized crime; gambling breeds corruption and contempt for law enforcement; the action of the courts reflects a lack of understanding of the real nature of illegal gambling; and policemen assigned the task of suppressing gambling should be detectives, and not just plainclothesmen of patrolmen rank; and their assignment should be regarded as highly as any other phase of police activity. All agencies concerned with law enforcement must engage in a concerted campaign to emphasize the real nature and importance of gambling crimes. Public apathy must be combated. In the training of police officers and all those charged with enforcing the gambling laws, the interrelationship of gambling and organized crimes must be emphasized to a far greater extent than it is at present. The press, radio and television can render a great public service in this respect.

This section presents the information contained within the jury handbook used in criminal cases in Illinois. The book is written to help jurors understand their work in criminal cases. They have been summoned to render interesting and important service as a juror. Their services will be as important as those of the judge. They are obligated to perform these duties honestly and conscientiously without fear or favor. The entire group of jurors sent to a courtroom is called a jury panel. They will be asked to rise and to swear or affirm to answer truthfully all questions asked of them touching upon their qualifications to act as a juror in the case. The laws of the state require that the defendant be indicted by a Grand Jury or be named in an information filed by the State's Attorney before he can be made to stand trial. The defendant is presumed to be innocent throughout the trial. Because this is so, the state has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond all reasonable doubt--the defendant is not required to offer any evidence.

The article presents a speech by William Randolph Hearst Jr., Chairman of the President's Committee for Traffic Safety, delivered at the Conference of the District Attorneys' Association, March 19, 1960. The President's Committee felt it important to place fresh emphasis on the major traffic safety needs facing the nation. Enactment, by every State and community, of sound, uniform traffic law and ordinances. Fair, firm and impartial enforcement of these laws and ordinances by properly trained and adequately equipped state and local police forces. Traffic courts that dispense fair and impartial justice, fostering respect for the law and support for its enforcement. Reasonable but strict requirements for obtaining and retaining a driver's license. Development, by all States and communities, of adequate and uniform accident reports, and use of this information to determine needs and corrective actions. Stimulation of construction of new highways, and rehabilitation and maintenance of those now existing, using the best engineering techniques to insure maximum safety. Periodic inspection of all motor vehicles. Nationwide instruction of young people in driving practices and attitudes. Progressive improvement of motor vehicle design and construction to afford greater ease in safe operation and greater protection for occupants.

The Minnesota County Attorneys' Association held its annual conference in Saint Paul, on December 29 and 30, 1959. The host was Ramsey County Attorney William Randall. The program themes were Criminal Negligence and Trends in the Criminal Law. Participating in the program were Lyman Brink, Si Weisman, Godfrey Nelson, Dr. Harold Wright, Senator Harold Schultz, Professor Maynard Persig and others. Officers for 1959 in charge were President Einer C. Iversen, Vice-President Attell P. Felix, and Secretary-treasurer George M. Scott.

This section presents articles, reports and notes of the National District Attorney's Association (NDAA). The NDAA held its Eleventh Annual Summer Conference in Boston, Massachusetts on August 10-13, 1960. Patrick Brennan, prosecuting attorney of South Bend, Indiana, was elected president of the NDAA. The third Furtherance of Justice Award was presented by President Edward S. Silver to the Honorable Frank E. Moss at the banquet on August 13, for his outstanding service as a prosecutor, exemplifying by his courage and humanity the highest ideals of justice; and resourcefulness, initiative and continued interest in all Federal legislation contributing to more effective law enforcement throughout the country.

Presents an update on the National District Attorneys' Association (NDAA) as of the year 1960. Grant awarded by Allstate Insurance Foundation to the NDAA Foundation; Highlights of the mid-winter meeting of the NDAA in Miami Beach, Florida on March 16, 17, 18 and 19; Number of members of the NDAA as of March 19.

This section presents abstracts of recent trials as of November 1959. In People v. Marks, the defendant was convicted of second degree murder. At the trial counsel for the defense asserted that the testimony of the state's chief witness, an admitted narcotics addict, had been suborned by prosecuting officials. In his closing argument the prosecutor stated that his reputation and that of the police were involved in the trial. The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the conviction, holding that although ordinarily the prosecuting attorney may not attempt to bolster the credibility of witnesses for the prosecution with the prestige of his office, the remarks he made were proper in retaliation for the accusations made by the defense. The defense, not the prosecution, interjected the reputation and character of the prosecutor and police officials into the case. In Knott v. Rawlings, the petitioner was charged with having committed lascivious acts with a child sixteen years of age. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court, contending that the child involved was sixteen years, six months and three days old at the time of the alleged crime and thus not a child of the age of sixteen years or under as recited in the statute denominating the offense with which he was charged. The Supreme Court of Iowa sustained a writ of certiorari, holding that a child is sixteen years of age or under only on or before his sixteenth birthday.

This section presents abstracts of criminal cases in the U.S. as of September 1959, including People v. Chessman.

This section provides information on the inception of a handbook for jurors in criminal cases in the U.S. In 1947, a handbook for jurors in criminal cases, prepared by the then Judge Julius Miner of the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, was distributed to a panel of jurors in the trial of People v. Schoos. Judge Miner encouraged the jurors to read the pamphlet and intimated that he might question them the next day concerning the contents of the handbook to see of his instruction had been carried out. The defendant, Schoos, was convicted and he appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. That court reversed the conviction; it disapproved the use of the jury handbook on the ground that it was erroneous on several points of law and changed the method of trial by jury from its common law antecedents. In other jurisdictions, both before and after the Schoos case, the same problem was presented to various appellate courts in cases where trial judges had attempted a pre-trial education of jurors in criminal cases through the medium of handbooks or oral instructions. Most courts held that the use of the handbooks or oral instructions was entirely proper.

This article presents updates related to the National District Attorneys' Association (NDAA) in the U.S., as of March 1962. James H. DeWeese was elected President of NDAA to succeed Patrick Brennan. The following officers were also elected: Executive Vice President, Keith Mossman; Treasurer, Fred E. Sisk; Secretary, Harry Ackerman; Vice Presidents, Garrett H. Byrne; William F. Frye; Richard E. Gerstein; Albin P. Lassiter; William B. McKesson; and Frank H. Newell. Fred E. Inbau, professor of law, was chosen to receive the Furtherance of Justice Award for 196I. Inbau is the fourth recipient of this award.

A certain jargon has grown up in the field of criminal law which has become a part of the English language; at least many of the words have arrived as far as the dictionary is concerned. This jargon has been promulgated by law enforcement officers, newspapers, and those who have been convicted of or charged with crimes. Through perpetuation of these words throughout the years, a certain connotation has often been attached to them. For example, the use of the word insanity as a defense in legal circles has no stigma attached to it, while if you talk of a psychiatrist, he wants it changed to mental health. The use of the word cop, in referring to a police officer is widely used, and has different meanings to various members of the public. The same can be said of the use of the words lie detector, third degree and wire tapping. These latter two words have been described as dirty business and many persons believe this, while many law enforcement officers believe there is a need for wire tapping to combat crime.