File:The regenerators; a study of the graft prosecution of San Francisco (1911) (14765682802).jpg

Identifier: regeneratorsstud00bonn (find matches)
Title: The regenerators; a study of the graft prosecution of San Francisco
Year: 1911 (1910s)
Authors: Bonnet, Theodore F
Subjects: Political corruption Political corruption -- California San Francisco San Francisco (Calif.) -- Politics and government
Publisher: San Francisco : Pacific printing company
Contributing Library: University of California Libraries
Digitizing Sponsor: MSN

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
own behalf, )io evi-dence can be zvrung from him. (People v. Ar-righini, 122 Cal. 126.) Yet is this tale of the prostitution of justicebut half told? Schmitz denied the receipt ofany money from Ruef, and under the pretense ofrebutting this evidence so wrung from Schmitzby illegal cross-examination, Ruef was calledand was permitted to testify that after receiv-ing his fee he offered half to Schmitz, who ac-cepted it. And then Ruef was turned over tothe defense for cross-examination. Bear inmind that it was suspected then, though pub-licly denied by the prosecution, and not knowntill months after, that Ruef had been promisedcomplete immunity by the prosecution and wastestifying under that promise; bear in mind thatevidence of the existence of such a promise ofcomplete or partial immunity is always permis-sible to show the strong motives that may actu-ate a witness to color his testimony; bear inmind that Ruef was a co-defendant with Schmitzand had dramatically pleaded guilty though in-
Text Appearing After Image:
FRANK H. DUNNE The midnight meeting judge who presided at theSchmitz trial. THE SCHMITZ CASE 147 nocent, to the same charge; bear in mind alsothat judge, as well as prosecutors, knew all thesethings, and that the judge was a party to thesecret midnight conclave, at which the word ofall, judges and prosecutors, was given to therabbis that Ruef should receive absolute im-munity ; bear in mind, moreover, that the rulesof evidence have always sanctioned the utmostliberality in the cross-examination of a co-con-spirator, and that in this connection the SupremeCourt had said: The utmost latitude of cross-examination justified by the law in any caseshould be extended to the testimony of such awitness, (People v. Williams, 18 Cal. 191) ; andfinally bear in mind the illegal latitude allowedin the cross-examination of Schmitz, and thenfollow the record of Ruefs cross-examination.Ruef stated that he had told the prosecution allthe facts and that the larger part of them werefavorable to Schmitz.

Note About Images