Los Angeles Herald, Number 32, 1 November 1899 — DUTY, NOT COURTESY The Coroner Asked for Advice and Got It Frankly [ARTICLE]

DUTY, NOT COURTESY The Coroner Asked for Advice and Got It Frankly

When the inquest was held upon the body of Mrs. Mootry several weeks ago there were several attorneys who interjected themselves into the case for the purpose of guarding the rights of Charles Mootry, who was accused of having murdered his wiltCoroner Holland, as a result of this arrangement, was no longer the star performer and viewed the intrusion with disfavor. He was inclined to think that attorneys were only allowed to interrogate witnesses at the inquest by courtesy of the coroner, anyway, and claimed the right to rule upon the admissibility of all questions put by such outsiders. But Coroner Holland had a glimmering idea that possibly attorneys might have a legal right, to be present and that in a case such as the one already referred to it might perhaps not actually fall within the province of the coroner to extort, in the haphazard method of the average layman, information tending in its ultimate conclusion to put the hangman's rope around a man's neck. In such case the coroner propounded three solemn questions to the district attorney, and yesterday the district atorney. through his deputy, Curtis D. Wilbur, made reply. "Will you please inform me," queried Coroner Holland, "as to the prerogatives of the coroner with reference to the action of attorneys at inquests?" 2. "Is it not the coroner's right to restrict attorneys in the matter of asking leading questions or questions that are calculated in his judgmr nt to influence the jury or become prejudicial in the minds of people? 3. "Is it not a fact that attorneys are permitted to take part in or perform their functions at a coroner's inquest only as a matter of courtesy on the part of the coroner, except in such cases as the district attorney may deem it wise to send to such inquests a representative of his office?" "We have examined authorities," read the answer of the district attorney to the inquiry, "and have been unable to find any case in which it has been dir'-ctly held that an attorney has an absolute right to ask questions or to participate in the examination of witnesses before a coroner. "Without, however, speculating upon what the abstract rule of law may be upon these questions, we are satisfied that attorneys representing parties interested in the verdict to be rendered by a coroner's jury should be permitted to ask legal and proper questions of such witnesses. "In answer to your second question.therefore. I would say that the coroner has a perfect right to restrict attorneys in the matter of asking leading questions if he Seems it necessary, or in other words to confine the testimony tn legal testimony. "In regard to the asking of 'questions that are calculated in his judgment (the coroner's) to influence the jury,' we would say that we understand the object of all

questions is to draw out the evidence which will influence the jury. "We do not see how questions could influence the jury unless they are statements of fact. In such cases the statement should not be made unless material, and if material should be made under oath. "As to questions 'which might become prejudicial in the minds of the people.' we must confess to entire inability to understand your question, in so far as you draw a distinction between the jury and the people. As we understand it. the whole purpose of an inquiry before a jury is to 'Influence.' or lead them to a conclusion as to the mode or manner of death, and persons implicated therein to the end that if a crime has been committed the criminal may bo apprehended. "In answer to your third question, as to whether or not attorneys are permitted to take part in or perform their functions at a coroner's inquest only as a matter of courtesy extended on the part of the coroner. would say that as we understand ii the element of courtesy in no wise enters Into the question of whether an attorney may participate in an investigation at a coroner's inquest. "It may be, and probably is. a fact that the coroner may allow an attorney to participate in an inquest or refuse to allow him to do so: but this discretion should be exercised by the coroner as a judicial officer and for the purpose of furthering the ends sought to be attained by the coroner's inquest. To allow or refuse to allow an attorney permission to participate is not a matter of courtesy nor discourtesy, but is a matter of sound discretion to be exercised by the coroner as a public official and In the interest of the public service."