◆ SpookStack

12 Asheraft et al. vs. State of Tennessee. fession was influenced by Lope or fear. This rule is so well estab- lished that if the judge allow the jury to determine the prelim- inary fact, it is error, for which the judgment will be reversed. ‘In the instant case the trial judge heard the witnesses ag to their confessions out of the presence of the jury, and he held | that under the facts he could not say that the confessions were - not voluntarily made and, therefore, permitted them to go to the jury.’’ [Emphasis supplied.} The rule of law thus laid dov.. complied with the law as this Court had settled it at the time of trial. The Tennessee Supreme Court made a painstaking examination of the evidence in the light of the claim that the confessions were eoerced. It concluded that it was ‘‘unable to say that the con- fessions were not freely and voluntarily made. Both of the plain- tiffs in errer have had a fair trial and we decline to disturb the conviction.”’ That court, it is clear, renders no mere lip service to the guar- anties of the Constitution. In other cases it has set aside convic- tions because confessions used at trials were found to have been eoerced.* There is not the least indication that the court was passionate or biased or that the result does not represent the honest judgment of a high-minded court, sensitive to these problems. A trial judge out of hearing of the jury saw and heard Ash- eraft and saw and heard those whom Ashcraft accused of coerc- ing him, In determining a matter of this kind no one ean deny the great advantage of a court which may see and hear a man who claims that his will succumbed and those who, it is claimed, were so overbearing. The rea] issue is strength of character, and a few minutes’ observation of the parties in the courtroom is more informing than reams of cold record. There is not the . slightest indication that the trial! judge was prejudiced or indif- ferent to the prisoner’s rights. Aslcraft’s counsel] moved to ex- clude his confession ‘‘for the reason that the statements contained therein were not freely and voluntarily made, nor were they free from duress and restraint, but were secured by compulsion. . . .’’ The court said, ‘‘ . . . the sole proposition, as the Court sees it from this testimony, is that he was confined and questioned for a 2Deathridge v. State, 33 Tenn, 75; Strady v. State, 45 Tenn, 300; Self v. Biate, 65 Tenn. 244; Cross v. State, 1442 Tenn. 510; Rounds v, State, 171 Tenn. 511.