101 the procedure of the Law of 1734 was confession-centered: when it seemed that the suspect was about to confess, the session was not to be called off in order for the judge to take a nap or lunch break.As has been mentioned, Nehrman says that torture had never been used in Sweden; however, hardened imprisonment {svårarefängelse) was sometimes used to make a suspect confess in a murder case, and it was especially important whenever the kingdom’s security was at stake. In order to extract a confession, the king had at times ordered that the suspect be hung on the wall by handcuffs; lower court judges were not allowed to give orders of this kind.-' No systematic judicial torture wa built into Nehrman’s systemof fact-finding. As for the evaluation of evidence, Nehrman held strictly to the letter of the law. If the suspect did not confess and there was no proof against him, he had to be set free.^^ If there were two eyewitnesses, the case was not to be postponed, unless the suspect wdshed to produce counterevidence (based on the Royal Letter of November 24, 1749, on “unrest in the kingdom,” but according to Nehrman applicable to other crimes as well).'^^ Should testimonies conflict, the witnesses would be called again before the court in order for the unclear statements to be straightened out.-'' The witnesses’ statements, in order to constitute full proof, had to concern the same fact and coincide timewise. Nehrman identified three kinds of differences (singularitas) between witness statements. Singularitas ohstativa (collisio testium) was at hand when the witnesses’ statements are contradictory. In this case, the judge was to believe the witness whose story was the most probable, or the one whose statement best concurred with “howthings [were and happened] in general” {“sommast kommer öfveerens med thet somplägar wara och hända”) (PS 17:20). If the witnesses were equally good, the party that had the most witnesses won. If both parties had an equal number of witnesses, the suspcct had to be freed according to the principle “it is better to free than convict” {“hellrefria änjälla”).-^ Nchrman speaks of singularitas diversificativa or cumulativa when the witnesses had observed the crime at different times, assuming that the crime was of a kind which could be observed during a longer period of time. In this case, Nehrman says that the statements did not weaken each other, but neither did they add up to full proof. If the witnesses had made their observations simultaneously, but the observations concerned different aspects (circumstances) of the same phenomenon, the statements completely lacked evidentiary value, unless supported by other proof. Ibid. p. 156. Ibid. pp. 158-160. -- Ibid. p. 163. “Upror och orolighet i Rikct,” ibid. pp. 176-177. Royal Letter ot April 28, 1696, ibid. p. 176. Nchrman 1751 pp. 244-246. -f’ Ibid. pp. 244-245. 26
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=