Commonwealth v. Zorambo

Citations

• 205 Pa. 109
• 54 A. 716
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 526

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Silence—Duty to speak — Judicial inquiry — Evidence.</p> <p>While it is true, as a rule, that, when one charged with a crime is at full liberty to speak, but remains silent and makes no denial of the accusation by word or gesture, his silence is a circumstance to be taken into consideration by the jury, it is equally true that an accused at a judicial inquiry into his guilt may hold his peace in the face of an accusation against him, and his silence cannot be regarded as any, not even the slightest, evidence of his guilt.</p> <p>At a hearing before a magistrate two persons, neither of whom could speak English, were charged with murder. After the witnesses for the commonwealth had testified, one of the prisoners said that he desired to make a statement. He was warned by the district attorney through an interpreter not to speak, as any statement he would make might be used against him. The prisoner, however, made a sworn statement exculpating himself and charging the other prisoner with the crime. The latter sat silent at the time, but on the following day denied the truth of the statement. The evidence was doubtful as to whether the hearing was at an end when the statement was made. At the trial the statement was offered as evidence of the prisoner’s guilt, first because he had not spoken and denied the statement when it was made, and secondly, because on the day following, he had declared it to be false. Held, that it was error to admit the offer as circumstantial evidence against the prisoner.</p> <p>Neither an ex parte affidavit nor a deposition regularly taken can be substituted for testimony “ face to face ” in any criminal prosecution.</p>