Note 560 — POWERS AND DUTIES OF CORONERS AND MEDICAL EXAMINERS.

People v. Willett, 92 N. Y., 29. In this case upon the trial of an indictment for murder, evidence was received on the part of the prosecution, under objection and exception, to the effect that upon the coroner’s inquest a witness testified that shortly after the murder a stranger called at her house and asked the way to Sandy Hill, and also for a drink of water; that the prisoner with a number of others was placed around a room, and the witness pointed out the prisoner as the one who so called; also that a number of persons, including the prisoner passed behind her, each one repeating the question asked her by the stranger, and she identified the prisoner by his voice, and that the prisoner on that occasion did not Footnote: deny that he was such stranger. It was held that the prisoner was not bound to speak and his silence could not be regarded as an evidence of guilt, and that the evidence was improperly received. The Court said: “The question whether the defendant was bound to speak, and understood that he was at liberty to speak, if he chose, was submitted to the jury by the Court in his charge, and an exception taken thereto. The doctrine as to silence being taken as an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken or uttered in the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at a judicial proceeding or hearing. And if the proceedings before the coroner were of a judicial character the evidence was erroneously received. It is very apparent that the examination before the coroner partook of a judicial character, and what then transpired must be considered as a part of the proceedings; the coroner was there, a jury had been empanelled, and witnesses were examined whose testimony was returned as a portion of the coroner’s proceedings. It is difficult to see upon what ground it can be claimed that the experiments which were made were not in connection with the proceedings before the coroner and a part thereof.”