CRIMINAL BRANCH OF THE SUPREME COURT
When on January 1st, 1896, the present Constitution of the State of New
York took effect, there went out of existence the Court of Oyer and
Terminer—a court whose quaint name accorded well with its interesting
history and associations.
It was an exclusively criminal court, closely allied to the Supreme
Court, and although unlike the “Circuit Court” not strictly a part of
it, its judges were Supreme Court Justices assigned to hold it and
interlocutory proceedings in actions pending therein were taken in the
Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is now the highest court in this State having original
jurisdiction—that is, having the power to hear the evidence in and
determine actions commenced therein or removed thereto from an inferior
court, as distinguished from the right to review on appeal. It may take
cognizance of all manner of civil and criminal actions and proceedings
triable in a State Court, except the impeachment of public officials, of
which a quasi-criminal court—the Court for the Trial of
Impeachments—alone has jurisdiction.
In New York County, one part of the Supreme Court is usually devoted to
the trial of criminal actions, and that part ordinarily sits each month
in the year, except July, August and September.
Cases that, because of the nature or circumstances of the crime charged
or the prominence of the persons involved, are of particular public
interest or importance are usually tried in the Supreme Court.
There are material advantages to the accused in being tried in this
court. The proceedings are apt to be more deliberate. The justices are
experts in Civil Law, and have the advantage of the training which
results from contact with the best legal minds and the consideration of
the many difficult and important questions that arise in civil practice.
The range of the criminal law as compared with the civil, is very
narrow. The experience of the practitioner at the criminal bar tends to
develop forensic rather than reasoning faculties; to narrow the mind and
sharpen the wits, rather than broaden and deepen the intellect; to make
alert, cunning, effective cross-examiners and wielders of
technicalities, rather than strong logicians, quick in the discernment
of fundamental principles, and ready in their application to the case in
hand.
Constant contact with the criminal classes, either as an advocate or in
the exercise of judicial functions, has a tendency to deaden the
sympathies, to lead to a complaisant view of the criminal as something
inevitable, and to an indifference to the suffering that flows from his
punishment. It results in an intuition and a preception of criminality
in acts and persons where it frequently does not exist—in an unconscious
predisposition to discover something sinister and evil in what may be
innocent or merely injudicious.
It is not a slur on the gentlemen who, with marked ability, untiring
industry and sincere conscientiousness dispense justice in other
criminal courts to say that the Supreme Court justices who hold criminal
terms of that court are their superiors in the qualities that make a
good judge, because of their wider experience and consequently better
judicial qualification, and because of their freedom from bias against
the accused, except such as may be temperamental.
Variety in thinking is essential to the best mental effort. Contact with
many minds develops the mentality. A judge of a court exclusively
criminal meets but few members of the legal profession, and confines his
attention to a very small range of subjects. If he grows intellectually,
it is because he wanders outside of the four walls of his judicial
duties. How much better it would be if his field of effort were
enlarged, so that his work would increase rather than contract his
capacities. It is not for us to suggest a remedy, although one could
readily be found, so far as the higher courts are concerned, in the
merging of the Court of General Sessions in the Supreme Court, and the
holding of a greater number of parts of that court for the trial of
criminal cases.
The Court of General Sessions
The Court of General Sessions of the Peace of New York County devotes
its entire time to criminal matters. It is English in origin, and was
established by them after they became masters of the colonies in the
latter part of the seventeenth century. The prototype of the Court of
General Sessions is found in all the counties of England, and is known
as the Court of Quarter Sessions. Since this court was established in
New York County, it has undergone many changes. At first, like its
prototype, its sessions were held quarterly, but with the immense growth
of criminal business in New York, its sessions are now held daily, with
the exception of Saturday.
[Illustration:
Beginning on the left, Judges Rosalsky, Foster and Crane, of the Court
of General Sessions, New York.]
At present there are five parts of this Court that are in session nine
months in the year. During the summer months two of the Courts close,
which permits each judge to take a vacation. In each Court the District
Attorney keeps two assistants, who prosecute all cases in the name of
the people.
The General Session Judges at present are as follows: Judges Foster,
Rosalsky, O’Sullivan, Mulqueen, Crain and Swann.
------------------------------------------------------------------------