Found this in a Rochester, Monroe, NY article's coverage of Lizzie's trial:
"The question raised by the defense as to the propriety of admitting the evidence that Lizzie Borden gave at the inquest is a novel one. It is the first time that the point has been raised in this state. The argument on this point will be made to-morrow morning, and the court will render a decision on Monday morning. All the lawyers in the state are interested in the result."
I didn't realize that was a first! (And I hope I spelled "prescedent" right. My old pocket book Webster, my friend of 20+ years, died last week. Split right in half. Dang, that was just the right size for keeping in the drawer here...)
A Legal Prescedent
Moderator: Adminlizzieborden
-
augusta
- Posts: 2231
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2004 11:27 am
- Gender: Female
- Real Name: Augusta
- Location: USA
-
Gary
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 1:53 pm
- Real Name:
- Location: South Carolina
Hi Augusta
That is an interesting article. It's hard to try and interpret what was going on with the law at the time of Lizzie's trial. Legal procedure seems to have been in a stage of evolution and devolopment in those days. At least that seems to have been the case in Lizzie's home state. An inquest -as I know it today- is a hearing by the coroner to determine the cause of death and answer the question as to whether or not the death was by homicide. The people who testify are generally speaking the people or persons who found the body, the police and medical witnesses. If homicide is indicated then the coroner makes a sort of obligatory statement that death was by a person or persons unknown. This obviously means the police have to follow up on the case.
Under no circumstances would a possible defendant be examined at the inquest in todays judicial system.
The next step would be a grand jury hearing and once again the defendant would not testify. After a grand jury indictment a preliminary hearing or a series of preliminary hearings would take place. These are mainly hearings in which both sides make motions before the court. For example, the defense could present a motion to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence or because of a procedural error.
I can certainly believe that the admission of Lizzie's inquest testimony would be of interest to the legal community in all states. This is because testimony at an inquest by a defendant has never been a part of accepted legal procedure.
It is the job of the police and the prosecution to investigate the evidence and question an alleged perpetrator. It is not the purpose of the court to use an inquest to gather information against the defendant. The inquest testimony was deemed "private" by the court because they may have realized that it was improperly taken by the court. When the testimony was printed by the press it was the begining of a potential travesty of justice which the court may have been trying to rectify when Justice Dewey delivered his highly prejudiced charge to the jury.
Gary
(my spelling is terrible as you can probably see-I'm lost without spellcheck)
That is an interesting article. It's hard to try and interpret what was going on with the law at the time of Lizzie's trial. Legal procedure seems to have been in a stage of evolution and devolopment in those days. At least that seems to have been the case in Lizzie's home state. An inquest -as I know it today- is a hearing by the coroner to determine the cause of death and answer the question as to whether or not the death was by homicide. The people who testify are generally speaking the people or persons who found the body, the police and medical witnesses. If homicide is indicated then the coroner makes a sort of obligatory statement that death was by a person or persons unknown. This obviously means the police have to follow up on the case.
Under no circumstances would a possible defendant be examined at the inquest in todays judicial system.
The next step would be a grand jury hearing and once again the defendant would not testify. After a grand jury indictment a preliminary hearing or a series of preliminary hearings would take place. These are mainly hearings in which both sides make motions before the court. For example, the defense could present a motion to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence or because of a procedural error.
I can certainly believe that the admission of Lizzie's inquest testimony would be of interest to the legal community in all states. This is because testimony at an inquest by a defendant has never been a part of accepted legal procedure.
It is the job of the police and the prosecution to investigate the evidence and question an alleged perpetrator. It is not the purpose of the court to use an inquest to gather information against the defendant. The inquest testimony was deemed "private" by the court because they may have realized that it was improperly taken by the court. When the testimony was printed by the press it was the begining of a potential travesty of justice which the court may have been trying to rectify when Justice Dewey delivered his highly prejudiced charge to the jury.
Gary
(my spelling is terrible as you can probably see-I'm lost without spellcheck)