Administration of justice in our judicial system sometimes is impeded or made more costly by challenge through ”technicality.” Conviction or acquittal too often hinges on one technicality or another – the police officer erred, the suspect wasn’t properly advised of his rights, court procedure didn’t go according to Hoyle. Sometimes, it almost seems, technicalities are as important as the innocence-or-guilt factor in determining the outcome of a case. Recently in California, a superior court judge ruled Juan Corona’s attorneys could bring into court evidence to back their contention the jury which convicted him of mass murder may have been chosen illegally. The defense sought to show that the panel from which the jury was chosen in the first trial did not contain a representative number of Latin-Americans. We know of men convicted of murder right here in Utah who have stalled the death penalty many years on one legal maneuver or another. In a recent Utah tax case, a man convicted of wilIful failure to file federal tax retums on nearly $300,000 income asked to be freed from prison in another state, claiming his constitutional rights had been violated. He had been charged in a “bill of information” rather than a “federal grand jury indictment,” he claimed. Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to rule whether a defendant’s “Miranda rights” were violated when the man apparently was influenced by the remark of an arresting officer and led police to the weapon allegedly used to murder a taxi driver. The case arose in Rhode Island in 1975. The suspect invoked his right to remain silent until he could see a lawyer. But en route to the police station the suspect overheard one officer tell another there was a school for handicapped children near the murder scene and youngsters could hurt themselves with shells if they found the weapon. The suspect then directed officers to a sawed-off shotgun hidden under some rocks. He decided to talk because of the small children. The gun was admitted in evidence and the man was convicted and sentenced to life. Rhode Island’s top court reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the gun could not be used as evidence. This illustrates another type of technicality that can upset a case. Rulings by the erstwhile Warren Supreme Court opened the door for challenge on many such technicalities. Naturally, we must be fair in our judicial system. Any time proper evidence is found that has a bearing, it should be considered. But we should not get carried away with the technicalities to the extent that innocence or guilt is bypassed and true justice is sacrificed.