THE DELAY IN THE EXECUTION OF MURDERERS A Paper read before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, By The HON. ROBERT RALSTON, of Philadelphia* At the present day an impression more or less widespread appears to prevail, that the administration of the criminal law in this country is too slow; that there are seemingly endless delays at all stages of the proceedings. The subject has been discussed by many able and eminent men at the meetings of learned societies, and also in the public press. If the sentiments to be gathered from these sources truly reflect the wishes of the people, there is an earnest desire that the criminal law shall be promptly administered and the punishment for crime follow conviction without delay. There are forty-six States in the United States, each having its own laws and its own method of procedure. Therefore any general and sweeping denunciation of the administration of the criminal law in this country is apt to be misleading. A criticism or even a condemnation of the methods employed and of the results achieved in a particular State may be just and proper when limited to that State, but unjust if applied generally to all the States. If reforms are required they must be brought about in the several States. A change which is needed in one place may be unnecessary in another. The present paper will be confined to a consideration of the conditions existing in Pennsylvania, in cases of murder of the first degree, which are the only ones in this State involving the life of the prisoner. It is toward them. that criticism is principally directed, and it is in them that reforms are demanded. *The tables prepared by Judge Ralston and referred to in this paper are not in this volume, but accompany it, in a separate cover. It was found impracticable to bind them in the volume. In order that there may be a foundation upon which to base conclusions, and data from which deductions may be drawn, the dates of the important stages in a number of cases have been arranged, in such a way as to indicate what delays ordinarily occur and who is responsible for them. As the tables contain cases tried in fifty-one of the fifty-six judicial districts of the State, during the course of many years, they may fairly be said to illustrate the usual and ordinary course of procedure in this Commonwealth. The delay between the commission of the crime and the beginning of the trial may be caused by such a variety of circumstances that no conclusions can be drawn from dates alone. The crime may not have been discovered until long after it was committed. The prisoner's connection with it may not have been learned, nor the evidence against him procured, until months or years later. It may have been impossible to apprehend him quickly, by reason of his having fled the country or successfully concealed himself. This branch of the subject is a matter which concerns the police. The indictment is usually presented soon after the arrest of the prisoner, or even before if he is a fugitive from justice; but it may be delayed while evidence is being collected or for other reasons. The delays between arrest and trial are also due to many causes. The prisoner may be unable to appear; he may have injured himself in an attempt to commit suicidenot an unusual occurrence- or he may have been wounded while being captured. Witnesses may be ill or absent; counsel may be unable to try; the community may be aroused to such a state of excitement that it is advisable to postpone the trial. A great deal, of course, depends upon the District Attorney. If he is energetic and prompt in the performance of his duties, much unnecessary delay may be avoided. There are so many causes, however, which may delay the beginning of the trial, that without full knowledge of all the circumstances of the case it is impossible to determine whether or not the delay was unavoidable. Therefore, although the date of the crime and of the indictment are given in the tables when practicable, no deductions are drawn therefrom. If the column on the extreme right of the tables, in which is stated the total time from the beginning of the trial to the final execution or commutation of the sentence, be examined, it will be noticed that commonly many months and sometimes several years elapse before the final disposition of a case. An analysis of the dates in the other columns will show where the delays occur. An inspection of the column to the left in the summary, entitled "Length of Trial," will disclose that but a small part of the total time is taken up by the trial itself. The longest trial lasted twenty days; others nineteen, seventeen, fourteen, twelve, and so forth. From these figures Sundays must be deducted. These cases are exceptional. In the majority of instances the trial lasted two, three, or four days. Bearing in mind that the time includes the selection of the jury and that in some trials there were a great number of witnesses and a large volume of testimony, the time taken does not of itself indicate that any radical change in procedure is necessary. The length of a trial depends not only upon the number of witnesses to be examined, and the length of their testimony, but also very largely upon the personal characteristics of the Judge and counsel. So long as parties are restricted to the issue and the trial is conducted in a dignified and proper manner, one or two days, more or less, make very little difference in the promptness of the administration of justice. In some of the States the power of the Judge has been curtailed. He is forbidden by statute to sum up the evidence. As the President expressed it in an address re cently delivered, he has little more authority in the Court than the moderator of a religious assembly. In Pennsylvania the system of trial by jury as developed in the course of ages still retains the vigor which has characterized it these many hundreds of years. It is a trial by Judge and jury. The Judge retains all the powers of the English Judge. He may, should and frequently does prevent abuses of cross-examination. He has ample authority to keep counsel within the proper bounds, to admonish them, and even to punish them if the exigency of the occasion require it a power which to the credit of the Bar he is seldom called upon to exercise. He charges the jury as the English Judges have done for centuries, explaining to them not only all the questions of law which they will have to consider, but summing up the evidence, pointing out its bearing upon the case, aiding them to determine the weight which they ought to attach to it, and likewise expressing his own opinion of it if he thinks fit. In early times the lawyers of this State took the English Bar as their model and handed down to their successors the best traditions of the Inns of Court. For generations the Bar of Pennsylvania has had its own traditions, of which it is deservedly proud. The influence of these traditions of the profession goes far to preserve the dignity and decorum so necessary to the administration of justice. A trial for murder is a struggle between the people collectively and an individual. The fight on behalf of both parties is conducted by counsel. Every stage of the conflict is bitterly contested. It is no amiable gathering of chancery lawyers, but a battle in which the prisoner is fighting for his life and the Commonwealth is striving to vindicate the majesty of the law. The elements of contest naturally arouse the feelings of counsel to a high pitch; nevertheless they should, and generally do, observe a respectful demeanor toward the Court and treat their antagonists with courtesy. It is here that the necessity of discipline and training becomes apparent. Counsel should refrain from making irritating side remarks, bearing in mind that their adversaries are under a great strain and may be exasperated by comments which on a less trying occasion would pass unnoticed. They should be eminently fair, especially the District Attorney, who should remember that he represents the people in their sovereign capacity, and comport himself with a dignity becoming his great office. The counsel for the prisoner should be able to concentrate his entire attention upon the case and should not be obliged to be constantly on his feet objecting to improper statements made or questions propounded by his opponent. Where the traditions of the profession are observed, no matter how bitterly the battle may be waged, the strain upon all concerned is greatly lessened and much time is saved. One reform in practice might be adopted with advantage. It is customary for the prisoner's counsel to present to the Court points for charge, not infrequently thirty or forty or more in number. In these every conceivable point of law is stated in every variety of form that the ingenuity of counsel can devise. After concluding his charge to the jury in Commonwealth vs. McManus (28 W. N. C. at p. 504), Judge HARE said: "I now have rather a difficult duty to perform. Thirty-three points have been presented to me containing a statement of the law of murder in a great variety of forms, almost like the shifting of the kaleidoscope which, though the beads are the same, at each turn presents a different aspect, and where it is rather difficult to know precisely or to recollect what the impression is." The jury can gain no enlightenment from hearing such a conglomeration of statements. A very acute lawyer would be puzzled to distinguish their meaning. No benefit or advantage results to the prisoner from reading them except that the liability of the Trial Judge to err is greatly increased, and this seems to be the principal reason |