the defendant testifies or not, there is no error in a charge that certain testimony given on behalf of the prosecution is uncontradicted.12 A verdict will not be set aside because the jury during their deliberations discussed the failure of the defendant to take the stand.18 § 523f. Cross-examination of defendant. By offering himself as a witness on his own behalf, the defendant waives his right to object to any question upon his cross-examination affecting matters to which he has testified upon the direct,1 and to all which may effect his credibility, although he may object to such of the latter as tend to degrade him 3 or to render him liable to prosecution for another crime. It has been held that he may be asked whether he has been convicted of another crime. Upon the second trial for a criminal offense, it was not error to permit the defendant, when testifying in his own behalf, to be asked upon cross-examination if he did not feign insanity upon his first trial; nor, when he denies this, to admit the testimony of other witnesses as to his demeanor on and during the first trial, as both affecting his credibility as a witness and tending to show his guilt of the offense charged. Upon defendant's cross-examination, it is proper to show that his license as a detective had been revoked after a judicial investigation resulting from an article published in a newspaper owned by a person his animosity towards whom was a material fact." But it has been held: that his cross-examination may not extend beyond the subject of his direct examination; and that impeaching questions concerning an involuntary confession pre 12 Shea v. U. S., C. C. A., 251 Fed. 440. 13 Stout v. U. S., C. C. A., 227 Fed. 799. § 523f. 1 Powers v. U. S., 223 U. S. 303, 56 L. ed. 448. 2 Waller v. U. S., C. C. A., 179 Fed. 810, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 113; Franklin v. U. S., C. C. A., 193 Fed. 334; MacKnight v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 832. 3 Bombarger v. U. S., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 841, 843. 4 See MacKnight v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 832. 5 MacKnight v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 832, 840. 6 Waller v. U. S., C. C. A., 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 113, 179 Fed. 810. 7 Franklin v. U. S., C. C. A., 193 Fed. 334. 8 Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, C. C. A., 169 Fed. 47; Paquin v. U. S., C. C. A., 251 Fed. 579. viously made by him, to which he has not referred, if admitted, violate his constitutional rights.9 It has been held to be improper to ask the defendant whether sometime after the date of the alleged offense he had attempted to bribe an officer to delay his arrest; 10 and to ask a bankrupt indicted for concealing assets: "Didn't you sport in a $3,000 auto? You sported in an auto two or three days before the adjudication. Didn't you fly around Mobile just a few days. after you were adjudicated a bankrupt?'' 11 A new trial may be granted because the District Attorney upon cross examination of the accused asked degrading questions which are clearly irrelevant and immaterial, and tend to prejudice the accused with the jury.12 § 523g. Confessions. The confession of the defendant is not admitted in evidence unless it is voluntary 1 and supported by proof of corpus delicti.2 Upon the trial of the charge of receiving stolen property of the United States with the knowledge that it was stolen, the defendant's confession is sufficiently corroborated by proof that the property was issued to a soldier; that it was found in the defendant's possession, and that the defendant's place of business was very near where the soldier was stationed. Proof that a large quantity of intoxicating liquor was found in the defendant's residence was held not sufficient corroboration of the charge of transporting liquor from a point outside the State so as to corroborate his confession. 9 Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, C. C. A., 169 Fed. 47. But see Lepper v. U. S., C. C. A., 233 Fed. 227. 10 Paquin v. U. S., C. C. A., 251 Fed. 979. 11 Meyer v. U. S., C. C. A., 220 Fed. 822, 826. In the same case where the trustee had testified that he had brought a suit against the defendant's wife to recover an automobile it was error to exclude the question by defendant's counsel whether the suit was dismissed for want of evidence. 12 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 10th Ed., I, p. 56; People v. Wells, 100 Cal. 459, 34 Pac. 1078, and cases cited. See Bombarger v. U. S., C. C. A., 219 Fed. 841, 843. § 523g. 1 Purpura v. U. S., C. C. A., 262 Fed. 473. 2 Martin v. U. S., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 950. 3 Bolland v. U. S., C. C. A., 238 Fed. 529. ་ 4 Martin v. U. S., C. C. A., 264 Fed. 950. A plea of guilty to indictment in the State court based upon the same facts is admissible in the Federal court as a confession.5 A confession was not admitted when made after the defendant had been detained twenty-four hours in the charge of government officers who told him that they believed him guilty and had evidence that made it look bad for him.6 By the Bankruptcy Law no testimony given by the bankrupt upon his examination in the proceedings in bankruptcy "shall be offered in evidence against him in any criminal proceeding."7 This does not exempt him from an indictment for perjury then committed, nor prevent the admission in evidence of his schedules upon the trial of an indictment for concealing his assets. Upon the trial of an indictment for perjury his testimony when under examination before another officer cannot be admitted against him.10 Voluntary statements made in bankruptcy proceedings by others than the bankrupt are admissible against him in prosecutions for a conspiracy to conceal his assets.11 It is ordinarily for the court to determine whether a confession is voluntary, 12 and it has been held to be error in the first instance to permit the introduction before the jury of the evidence upon that question.13 When the evidence upon the point is conflicting, it must be submitted to the jury.14 Papers found upon the defendant's person when he is arrested are presumptively owned by him 15 and are evidence against him,16 although he may deny their ownership.17 The fact that they were seized against his will is no objection to their 5 Ibid. 6 Purpura v. U. S., C. C. A., 262 Fed. 473. 730 St. at L. 544, 548, § 7. 8 Glickstein v. U. S., 222 U. S. 139, infra, § 639. 9 Johnson v. U. S., 228. U. S. 457. 10 Cameron v. U. S., 231 U. S. 710. 11 U. S. v. Knoell, 230 Fed. 509, 512. 12 Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma, C. C. A., 169 Fed. 47. 13 Ibid. 14 Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613, 40 L. ed. 1090; Kent v. Porto Rico, 207 U. S. 113, 52 L. ed. 127; Shaw v. U. S., 180 Fed. 348. 15 Dean v. U. S., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 568. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. admission.18 Papers seized under a valid search warrant are also admitted; 19 but not when seized under a search warrant that is invalid,20 or otherwise taken by force from his office or residence.2 21 The books of an unincorporated association of which he is a member may be admitted in evidence against him,22 but not entries in a book of a corporation of which he is a stock holder but not a director, officer, or employee.23 The entries in the books of a corporation are competent 'evidence against its officers and employees, upon proof of such connection and familiarity therewith as to justify an inference of actual acquaintance with their contents.24 It was held that without such proof the books of a corporation are not competent evidence against its president and superintendent.25 It has been said that erroneous admission of a confession is not prejudicial error when the fact to which he confesses is otherwise abundantly proved.26 1 § 523h. Evidence of other crimes. Evidence of the commission by the defendant of an independent crime is ordinarily inadmissible; but evidence which is material or relevant upon the issues is not inadmissible because it tends to prove the commission of another crime,2 although it is material only as to the 18 Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383, 392, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 344, 58 L. ed. 652; U. S. v. Murphy, 264 Fed. 842, supra, § 487b. 19 Schenck v. U. S., 249 U. S. 48; Gouled v. U. S., 253 Fed. 770; U. S. v. Stilson, 254 Fed. 120, supra, § 487b. 20 Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383, 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. ed. 652; Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. U. S., 251 U. S. 385; Flagg v. U. S., C. C. A., 233 Fed. 481; Fitter v. U. S., 258 Fed. 567; U. S. v. Wong Quong Wong, 94 Fed. 832, supra, § 339a. 21 Ibid. Supra, § 339a. 22 Knauer v. U. S., C. C. A., 237 Fed. 108. 23 Carey v. Williams, C. C. A., 79 Fed. 906. But see Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418, 24 L. ed. 437; Liggett v. Glenn, C. C. A., 51 Fed. 381. 24 Foster v. U. S., C. C. A., 178 Fed. 165, supra, § 332. 25 Worden v. U. S., C. C. A., 204 Fed. 1. 26 U. S. v. Stilson, 254 Fed. 120. $ 523h. 1 Taliaferro v. U. S., C. C. A., 213 Fed. 25; Coyne v. U. S., C. C. A., 246 Fed. 120. 2 U. S. v. Rhodes, 112 Fed. 513; Bryant v. U. S., C. C. A., 257 Fed. 378. But see Shea v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 97. question of intent, or motive, or is evidence of a crime which is barred by the Statutes of Limitations.5 It is incompetent to prove that a witness has been previously indicted for another offense. Evidence of previous conviction of a felony is competent to impeach the testimony of any witness, even the defendant." § 523i. Evidence of identity. A photograph properly authenticated may be offered in evidence to prove the identity of the accused with the person whose conduct is relevant to the issues. Such a photograph may be shown to witnesses, who can then testify that it is a fair representation of the face of a man concerning whose acts they testify. Such testimony does not reach a high degree of proof.3 The testimony of a witness that a stranger called upon him and said that he, such caller, was the man who had registered at a hotel, the identity of such registrar being an issue upon a prosecution for perjury is hearsay, incompetent and inadmissible.* The admission of letters previously; written in the name upon the register to the woman who went to the hotel with him, the object of the offer being to prove the similarity of character, habits, expressions and chirography between the writers as proved by other witnesses and letters written by a person differ 3 Shea v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed: 97; White v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 Fed. 17. 4 People v. Thau, 219 N. Y. 39. 5 U. S. v. Hougendobler, 218 Fed. 787. 6 Smith v. State, 79 Ala. 21; Bates v. State, 60 Ark. 450, 30 S. W. 890; Dotterer v. State, 172 Ind. 357, 88 N. E. 689; Kitteringham v. Dance, 58 Iowa 632, 12 N. W. 612; Hensley v. Commonwealth, 74 S. W. 677, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 48; Welch v. Commonwealth, 110 Ky. 105, 60 S. W. 948, 63 S. W. 984, 64 S. W. 262, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 151; Ashcraft v. Commonwealth, 60 S. W. 931, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1542; State v. Wigger, 196 Mo. 90, 93 S. W. 390; Roop v. State, 58 N. J. L. 479, 34 Atl. 49; People v. Morrison, 194 N. 7 MacKnight v. U. S., C. C. A., 263 § 523i. 1 Yee Et (Ep.) v. U. S., C. C. A., 222 Fed. 66. 2 Yee Et (Ep.) v. U. S., C. C. A., 222 Fed. 66. 3 Ibid. 4 Safford v. U. S., C. C. A., 252 Fed. 471. |