Foreigners Against White Persons

"Criminal Act § 14, provides, "No black, or mulatto person,or Indian shall be allowed to give evidence in favor of, or against a white man." People v. Hall (1854), 4 C. 399.

"Civil Practice Act § 394, provides, "No Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify in any action in which a white person is a party." People v. Hall (1854), 4 C. 399.

"The words, "Indian," "Negro," "Black" and "White," are generic terms, designating race. Therefore, Chinese and all other people not white, are included in the prohibition from being witnesses against whites." People v. Hall (1854), 4 C. 399.

"People v. Hall (4 C. 399), excluding Chinese witnesses in suits to which white persons are parties, is affirmed." Speer v. See Yup Co. (1859), 13 C. 73.

"The indicium of color is not an infallible test of the competency of a witness, under the act excluding blackes, mulattoes, and Indians, from testifying for or against white persons." People v. Elyea (1859), 14 C. 144.

"It may be a sufficient test in many cases, but only when it is so decided as to leave no doubt of the race to which the witness belongs." People v. Elyea (1859), 14 C. 144.

"In a criminal action against a white person, a black or mulatto person -- though the injured party -- cannot, under the statute, be a witness against the defendant." People v. Howard (1860), 17 C. 63.

"The words "in favor of or against any white person," in the act prohibiting persons of one-half or more Indian blood, or Mongolian, or Chinese, from giving evidence, refer to the defendant alone in a criminal action. (Per Sanderson, C. J.)" People v. Awa (1865), 27 C. 638.

"A defendant in a criminal case who is a Chinaman is entitled to produce Chinese witnesses in his behalf." People v. Awa (1865), 27 C. 638.

"The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States does ot conflict with the power of the legislature in the exercise of its discretion to exclude Chinamen from the right to testify in the state courts." People v. Brady (1870), 40 C. 198, 6 Am. Rep. 604, overruling People v. Washington (1869), 36 C. 658.

"Crimes Act § 14, as amended in 1863, provided that no "Indian, Mongolian or Chinese shall be permitted to give evidence in the courts of the stae in favor of or against a white man," is not in conflict with constitutional amendment 14, which provides that persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens,
etc., that no state shall make any law abrogating the privileges or immunities of citizens, nor deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; since the restrictions by such amendment imposed on states relate to substantial personal rights of liberty, property, etc., and do not extend to mere rules of evidence." People v. Brady (1870), 40 C. 198, 6 Am. Rep. 604, overruling People v. Washington (1869), 36 C. 658.

"The evidence of a Chinaman cannot be admitted to prove a white man guilty of manslaughter." People v. Harrington (1872), 1 C.U. 768.

Effect of Failure to Testify

"A defendant in a criminal case is entitled to rest in silence and security upon his plea of not guilty, and no inference of guilt can properly be drawn against him from his failure to testify in his own behalf." People v. Tyler (1869), 36 C. 522.

"The right of the accused to be examined in his own behalf is one which he may exercise or not, and no presumption can be properly indulged against him for his not doing so." People v. Anderson (1870), 39 C. 703.

"The existence of this right does not modify or change any of the rules of evidence as they existed anterior to its incorporation into the Code of Criminal Procedure." People v. Anderson (1870), 39 C. 703.

"The failure of a defendant in a criminal case to become a witness in his own behalf is not to be considered by the jury as a circumstance tending to establish guilt." People v. Brown (1878), 53 C. 66.

"It is a principle of criminal law that the defendant may not be compelled give evidence against himself." Johnston v. Southern Pacific Co. (1907), 150 C. 541, 89 P. 348, 11 Ann. Cas. 841.

"The accused's silence or failure to explain or deny the evidence presented against him cannot be regarded as a confession." (Disapproving statement in People v. Pianezzi, 42 C.A.2d 265, 268, 108 P.2d 732.). People v. Adamson (1946), 27 C.2d 478, 165 P.2d 3, aff'd (1947) 332 U.S. 46, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 171 A.L.R. 1223; followed in People v. Peterson (1946), 29 C.2d 69, 173 P.2d 11, People v. Greenberg (1946), 73 C.A.2d 675, 167 P.2d 214.
Discussed in 34 C.L.R. 764.

"Defendant's failure to testify will not supply a lacuna in prosecution's proof." People v. Ashley (1954), 42 C.2d 246, 267 P.2d 271, on hearing after 115 A.C.A. 69, 251 P.2d 747, reh. den. by div. ct., cert. den. 348 U.S. 900, 99 L.Ed. 707, 75 S.Ct. 222; followed in People v. Weitz (1954), 42 C.2d 338, 267 P.2d 295.

"The defendant has the constitutional right to stand mute, without unfavorable presumption from his silence, and to demand that the prosecution prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt." People v. Emmons (1910), 13 C.A. 487, 110 P. 151.

"A defendant in a criminal action cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself and his refusal cannot be used against him." People v. Keko (1915), 27 C.A. 351, 149 P. 1003.

"A defendant is not required to take the stand." People v. Bracklis (1921), 54 C.A. 40, 200 P. 1062.

"No unfavorable inference can be drawn from the failure of the defendant to testify." People v. Bracklis (1921), 54 C.A. 40, 200 P. 1062.