According to the Roman system, every criminal trial is divided into two stages; dur ing the summary (sumario), which is the first, and the purpose of which is to ascer tain the facts connected with the case, the testimony of the accused is taken down, sometimes without his knowing who may be the witnesses testifying against him, or even the crime with which he is charged. During the plenary (plenario), or second stage, all the proceedings of the summary are made public; and thereafter all the proceedings are public, the accused enjoying the same rights which are guaranteed to him by the common law. To this latter statement there may be some slight exceptions, as, for in stance, the fact that bail is allowed in only a few specified cases, determined by law, and never when the accused may, upon con viction, be liable to bodily punishment. It would take more space than is allowed in an article of this character, to state the re spective advantages of the two systems, and I shall, therefore, limit myself to briefly men tioning the principal differences between them. The secret proceedings of the sumario are much criticised in the United States, it being forgotten that the English common law like wise provides a secret proceeding very simi lar to the sumario. Before anyone is indicted in this country, the case is heard secretly by a grand jury, a body composed of persons who, in some cases at least, are secretly designated. The grand jury listens to such testimony as is offered, or as it may deem sufficient, without permitting the ac cused to be present or to know what trans pires; and if in their judgment there should be sufficient ground, an indictment is found; and thereafter the public trial begins before the court. It is very difficult, of course, to make any general statement which will be accurately true with respect to all of the forty-five commonwealths which compose this Union, since, as is well known, each of them has its own legislation. In some
States, as in New York, a preliminary hear ing may take place before a police magis trate, who has in some petty cases power to inflict punishment, release the accused, or hold him for action of the grand jury. Sometimes, however, no arrest is made until an indictment has been found by the grand jury, or in cases of misdemeanor, for trial by a court of judges if the defendant waives a jury. So far, therefore, as a proceeding under one system may be said to correspond to a proceeding under the other, it may be said that the sumario, in countries where the Roman law prevails, corresponds practically to a grand jury indictment in Anglo-Saxon nations. In the Latin countries testimony is taken down in writing, and, after being read to the witness, is signed by him and by the judge, in proof of the fact that his statements have been correctly recorded. That gives a degree of certainty to the correctness of the testimony which cannot be obtained by a stenographic report; and it renders it impossible for the judge or op posing counsel to put into the mouth of a witness language different from that which he has actually used. When the summary is ended, all the testimony is presented to the accused for his examination; and the right is then given him to cross-examine the witnesses who have appeared against him. The cross-examination is an old Spanish proceeding which we call " careo," and which in Spanish means that the accused is personally confronted with the witnesses in presence of the judge, for the purpose of cross-examining them. It is therefore quite incorrect to assert that, because the sumario, or first stage of the trial under the Latin system, is kept secret, therefore the accused does not know anything regarding the evi dence against him; the fact being that during the second or plenary stage of the proceeding he is fully informed of all that has been done, and is given ample opportunity to
