« 이전계속 »
Rule in Nebraska.—The statements of a prisoner to be competent evidence must have been voluntarily made. In cases of declaration made on an examination before a coroner's inquest by a person under arrest or charged with the crime and also under oath, they are not admissible. But when the person, although he be subsequently charged with the offence, appears voluntarily and gives testimony, before any accusation has been made against him, his statements are admissible in evidence against him on the trial of an indictment for the crime.'
Rule in Alabama.—The rule in Alabama is the same as in Nebraska.”
Rule in Georgia. -The rule in Georgia is substantially the same. Whether defendant has been accused is of "secondary " importance.
Rule in Illinois.—In Illinois evidence of statements made by the accused under oath before a coroner's jury, even though he was already suspected of the crime, were held admissible against him on his trial, when they were made voluntarily and not contradicted by him on his trial.'
Rule in Indiana.—The rule in Indiana is substantially the same as in Pennsylvania.
Rule in Maine. –The rule in Maine resembles the Illinois rule.
Rule in Missouri. Statements made by the defendant before the coroner are presumed to be voluntary, and unless shown otherwise are admissible against him in any case.'
Rule in South Carolina.—The rule in South Carolina resembles that in Nebraska." fastly resisted the subsequent intro- charged with nor suspected of crime. duction of the testimony against him. He might have declined to testify, The common law, which justities an and this would have pointed susaccused man in entire silence, ap- picion directly to him. He took the pears in beautiful contrast to the con- risk of a statement, and cannot com. tinental systems, which permit the plain that he met the legitimate concriminal to be racked by inquisitorial sequences of the act. In the eye of skill, until something be wrung from all the authorities, it was a voluntary him which may be patched up into statement." proof of guilt. This case shows Clough v. The State, 7 Neb., 320. nothing of the kind. The phrase ? Wilson v. State, 110 Ala., 1. *called up' commented on by the 3 Woolfolk 0. State, 81 Ga., 551. counsel, does not appear in the rec- * Lyons v. People, 137 III., 602. ord, and if employed by the witnesses 5 Epps v. State, 102 Ind., 539; Darelated doubtless to the ordinary case vidson o. State, 135 Ind., 254. of calling forth a witness, and not 6 State v. Gilman, 51 Me., 206. awakening him from slumber. State o. David, 131 Mo., 380. When the defendant was sworn be- 8 State 1. Vaigneur, 5 Rich. Law fore the inquest, he had neither been (S. C.), 391.
Rule in Texas. —The rule in Texas resembles that in Nebraska.
Rule in West Virginia. - The West Virginia courts lay stress on whether the defendant has been accused when he testifies before the coroner, as in Nebraska.'
Rule in Wisconsin.—The Wisconsin courts have followed the New York cases.
Wood v. State, 22 Tex. App., 431. ? State o. Hobbs, 37 W. Va., 812.
3 Dickerson v. State, 48 Wis., 288; Emery v State, 93 Wis., 146.
H. P. LOOMIS, A.M., M.D., Professor of Pathology in the University of the City of New York; Visiting Physicioa
and Curator to Bellevue Hospital, New York; Pathologist to the Board of Health, New York City; President New
York Pathological Society, etc., etc.
A MEDICAL examiner before proceeding with an autopsy, especially if called before the body has been removed from the place where it was found, should carefully.note certain facts. These should be entered by himself or an assistant with great care, in a note-book, as this book can be introduced as evidence in any trial. A satisfactory way is to dictate to the assistant as the examination proceeds, and at the conclusion the assistant reads the notes taken, and the examiner verifies them.
SURROUNDING OBJECTS_POSITION OF THE BODY.
These should be first noted. The character of the soil; the condition of the ground, and whether it shows footprints; if so, their direction; the evidence of any struggle; the presence of any weapon; and finally, the exact position in which the body lies, especially the position of the hands and feet. This is important, for the body may be found in a position which the deceased could not have assumed on the supposition of the wound or injury having been accidental or homicidal. If possible a photograph should be taken of the body in the exact position in which it is found. If it is absolutely necessary to remove the body, it should be done with great care, keeping the body in as horizontal a position as possible.
The character of the surrounding soil should be noted. This is of special importance when the body to be examined has been exhumed: for the question of preservation of the body and the ability to recognize pathological changes may be brought up at a trial. This was an important point raised in the Buchanan case (New York, 1893).
If a body be found in the water, examine the character of the water and the temperature, and if found near the shore, the character of shore and bottom.
Blood.The situation of blood-stains, and their number and extent, on clothing or surrounding objects should be noted.