To do so has been held to be a violation of his
constitutional rights and equivalent to compelling him to give
evidence against himself.
Thus when Thaw came to the bar at his first trial the State
had never had any opportunity, through an examination by its
physicians, to learn what his present condition was or past
mental condition had been. The accused, on the other hand,
had had over six months to prepare his defence and had fully
availed himself of the time to submit to the most exhaustive
examinations on the part of his own experts. The defendant's
physicians came to court brimming with facts to which they
could testify; while the State's experts had only the barren
opportunity for determining the defendant's condition afforded
by observing him daily in the court room and hearing what
Thaw's own doctors claimed that they had discovered. There
was no chance to rebut anything which the latter alleged that
they had observed, and their testimony, save in so far as it
was inconsistent or contradictory in itself, remained
irrefutable.
Pages:
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324