Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma

Citations

• 169 F. 47
• 94 C.C.A. 415
• 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4549

Syllabus

<p>1. Witnesses (§ 380*) — Involuntary Confession Incompetent to Impeach Accused.</p> <p>An involuntary confession of an accused person, Incompetent to prove the case of the prosecutor In chief, is incompetent to impeach the accused after lie has testified in his own behalf relative to other subjects only, (1) because such a confession is unworthy of belief, and (2) because its introduction would violate the constitutional guaranty that the accused shall not be compelled to testify against himself.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. § 1211; Dec. Dig. § 380.*]</p> <p>2. Witnesses (§§ 305, 380*) — Waiver by Accused by Testifying of Guaranty Against Compulsion to Testify Limited to Legal Cross-Examination.</p> <p>The waiver by an accused person testifying in his own behalf of his constitutional guaranty against being compelled to testify against himself does not extend beyond a legal cross-examination upon the subjects of his direct examination.</p> <p>Impeaching questions relative to the involuntary confession not treated in the direct examination of the accused, and the introduction of such a confession to contradict the answers to such questions, violate the constitutional guaranty.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Witnesses, Cent. Dig. §§ 1053-1057, 1211; Dee. Dig. §§ 3C5, 380.*]</p> <p>3. Witnesses (§ 269*) — Criminal Law (§ 1170%*) — Cross-Examination—Limitations — How Far Discretionary.</p> <p>The party against whom a witness is called has the right to a full and fair cross-examination of him upon the subjects of his direct examination.</p> <p>The party on whose behalf a witness is called has the right to restrict his cross-examination to the subjects of his direct examination.</p> <p>The violation of these rights is not discretionary with the courts, but is reversible error.</p> <p>It is only beyond the limits of the exercise of these rights that the extent of the cross-examination of witnesses is within the discretion of th