◆ SpookStack

ial ered - “sa. 606—SEPARATE ILLINOIS v. ALLEN 3 as they take place in federal courts we have broad super- visory powers over them. That is one setting where the question arises whether the accused has rights of con- frontation that the law invades at its peril. In Anglo-American law, great injustices have at times been done to unpopular iminorities by judges, as well as by prosecutors. { refer to London in 1670 when William Penn, the gentle Quaker, was tried for causing a rict when all that he did was to preach a sermon on Grace Church Strect, his church having been closed under the Conventicle Act: “Penn. I affirm I have broken no law, now am I Guilty of the indictment that is laid to my charge; and to the end the bench, the jury, and myself, with these that hear us, may have a more direct under- standing of this procedure, I desire yeu would let me know by what law it is you prosecute me, and upon what law you ground my indictment. “Recorder. Upon the common-law, “Penn. Where is that common-law? “Recorder. You must not think that I am able to run up so many years, and over so many adjudged cases, Which we call common-law, to answer your curiosity. “Penn, This answer I am sure is very short of my question, for if it be common, it should not be so hard to produce. “Reeorder, Sir, will you plead to your indietment? “Penn, Shall I plead to an Indictment that hath no foundation in law? If it contain that law you say I have broken, why should you decline to pro- duce that law, since it will be impossible for the jury to determine, or agree to bring in their verdict, who have not the law produced, by which they + e