|
382 APPENDIX.
Friday, 7th inst., at 10 o'clock.-Met on Friday, December 7th, and
adjourned to meet on Saturday, December 8th.-Met at 9 o'clock, A. M.,
on Saturday, and adjourned to meet on Monday, December 10th, at 9
o'clock, A. M.-Met on Monday, December 10th, and adjourned to Tues-
day, December 11th, at 9 o'clock, A. M.-Tuesday, 9, A. M., met accord-
ing to adjournment, and adjourned to meet on Thursday, December
13th.-Met according to- adjournment, and finished the evidence and
rendered the verdict. On each of the days, except December 6th, the
Jury met at 9 o'clock, and continued through the day, until near 7 o'clock,
P. M.
JOHN L. ANDREWS, Secretary.
As the holding of the sessions of the coroner's inquest in private has been
made the
subject of much comment, we subjoin the opinion of the Commonwealth's
Attorney for
Suffolk County, Samuel D. Parker, Esq., given to the inquest at their
request, upon the
subject. It will be seen by it, tht, in addition to the concurrence of Mr.
Parker in the
propriety of the course afterwards adopted, pains were taken by him to
inquire of the
prisoners counsel beforehand, if he had any objections to such a course;
and that the
only legal gentleman then acting professionally on his behalf professed
himself indifferent
as to which course the jury should adopt. The reader will also have
noticed, from the
Attorney General's statement in his closing address to the jury, that he
caused a
copy of all the evidence taken before the inquest, immediately after the
close of their
session and before he had time to peruse it himself, to be furnished to the
prisoner's
counsel.-REP.
COMMUNICATION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO THE
CORONER'S INQUEST ON THE PROPRIETY OF A
SECRET SESSION.
It being now ascertained that the Attorney General is where a tele-
graphic communication cannot be made to him, I will express my opin-
ion upon the points proposed to me.
The powers and duties of the Coroner depend in Massachusetts
upon the statute law, and are very different here from what they are
in England by the common law. The 140th chapter of the Revised
Statutes is very explicit in many particulars, but is silent upon some
subjects. Much is left to the discretion of the Coroner; and I am of
opinion, that it is wholly within the exercise of the sound discretion
of that officer, whether the testimony of witnesses should be taken
before the jury of inquest publicly or privately.
In some cad's, a public examination of the witnesses and a publica-
tion of their testimony might defeat the ends of public justice. The
10th section of the chapter cited provides that if any person, charged
by the inquest, shall not be in custody, the Coroner shall have power
to issue process for his apprehension. As soon as any evidence is
published tending to implicate a person, he would have, in most cases,
an opportunity to escape. In some respects, the inquest of the Coroner's
jury resembles the analogous inquiry by the grand jury of the criminal
court which is always secret. Many other evils may be suggested,
which may arise in cases of great excitement, from a publication of the
testimony as it progresses before the Coroner's jury, and which would
be detrimental to public justice, by pre-occupying, and perhaps mis-
directing, public opinion,-creating great difficulty in getting an
impartial panel of jurors at the trial, and exposing the material wit-
nesses to personal attacks, or attempts at bribery, or inducements to
avoid, &c.
I have no doubt of the power of the Coroner to decide whether the
examination of the witnesses shall be public or private. It is within his
official discretion, to be exercised in each particular case according to
the circumstances of that case; and, in this case, it is his privilege and
duty to decide the mode of proceeding.
If it is his wish, or the inquest's desire, that I should express my
opinion upon the question of expediency on the present occasion, I do
not hesitate to advise, that the proceedings before the Coroner's jury
|
