The Third Degree

A smashing judicial blow has been dealt by the U. S. Supreme Court at the so-called "third degree." The substance of Mr. Justice Brandeis' opinion --given when a new trial was ordered in the appeal from a death sentence of a youthful Chinese, Liang Sung Wau, who confessed to having killed, on Jan. 21, 1919, one Dr. Ben Sen Wu and two other members of the Chinese Educational Mission--is that no court should admit as competent evidence a confession obtained by "third degree" methods. In the case at bar, the defendant admitted his guilt after eleven almost sleepless days of questioning. Said a medical witness, testifying as to the torture Wau underwent: "If he were as sick as that and in as great pain as that, he would do almost anything to have the torture stopped."

Nothing has been more perplexing to lawyers, trial judges and appellate courts than the "sage inconsistencies of the rules of, evidence." It is familiar law that confessions given under duress are not admissible. A confession must be voluntary, without fear of punishment or hope of reward. The problem is to fit particular cases to these general principles. The decision in this case should be a valuable guide in this difficult matter. The appeal was argued before the Supreme Court by James B. Shea on a brief signed by John W. Davis when he was a member of Stetson, Jennings, Russell & Davis. Mr. Shea made the point that no will would be held valid if executed in the circumstances under which the confession had been admittedly obtained. The decision has been generally approved by the press and prosecuting officials. "In the long run," said the Boston Transcript, "the third degree injures the cause of Justice and the administration of the criminal law." But police officers, it is submitted, will always be tempted to resort to harsh questioning--not to obtain confessions for use as such in trials, but to get "leads" which will result in unearthing facts from which a chain of competent evidence can be woven.