clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 192   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
192

ten became aroused and sought by a triumphant
prosecution, to display all its distinguishing abil-
ity. Sometimes, too, it might occur that other
counsel might be employed by those who imagined
themselves aggrieved to aid the regular prose-
cutors in the trial, and thus an additional stimu-
lant lent its powerful influence.
Mr. DONALDSON asked if he understood the
gentleman from Worcester as saying that the
Attorney General, or any of his deputies were in
the habit of receiving fees.
Mr. DIRICKSON replied. Certainly not. He had
not said so—nor did he believe the Attorney
General or his deputies, ever had received fees
, for doing their duty as prosecutors. He had al-
luded solely to the other counsel, who might be
retained to assist them.
He then continued his remarks by saying,
that the persons accused not unfrequently, were
suffering under the very extreme of poverty and
want—that they were wholly unable to obtain
the influence of able and eminent men, (unless
the spirit of sympathy was awakened,) and that
the counsel assigned for their defence by the
court might be from among the youngest and
least experienced of the bar. Under such cir-
cumstances, the odds were fearful indeed; and
when it was remembered that degredations and
infamy, and liberty— nay, life itself, might de-
pend upon the issue, the highest dictates of hu-
manity urged the adoption of every measure
consistent with the ends of justice, by which the
unfortunate might be rescued from so awful a
peril. Entertaining such sentiments, he earnestly
hoped the Convention would regard the
amendment with favor, and cheerfully accord to
the accused, the last appeal to that jury upon
whose verdict, his all of reputation and happi-
ness might depend.
Mr. JENIFER expressed his apprehension that
gentlemen were permitting their feelings of hu-
manity to outrun their discretion. So far as his
experience went, he had never known any in-
stance of a criminal being convicted, without full
proof of his guilt, after every opportunity had
seen given him for his defence. He was not
aware of the existance of any law, which preclud-
ed the counsel for the accused from having the
closing appeal to the jury.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, said it was the
practice in all the courts.
Mr. JENIFER replied that it might be the prac-
tice, but he knew of no positive rule to preclude
the accused from the advantage. He thought
the effect of the amendment now proposed would
be to give an advantage to guilty criminals over
honest men.
Mr. BRENT, of Baltimore city, thought the
amendment a proper one, because it carried out
the benign object of our laws. He considered,
from his experience, that the closing speech to
the Jury added 33 per cent. to the chance of the
verdict. The eagerness to obtain this advantage
was evident from the constant wrangling at the
bar, to see who shall open and conclude a case,
even before the court, on a law point. It ought
to be a main object of the State, that no man
should be falsely convicted; and, for this purpose,

every facility should be afforded the accused. It
was often the practice to employ, as an assistant
prosecutor, some young lawyer whose duty it
was to open the case, and the weakest argument
was always in the opening, and it is to that only
that the counsel for the accused is permitted to
reply. The evil of this practice he had felt both
in Maryland, and in the courts of the District of
Columbia. He gave some reasons to show that
the State had now a sufficient right of challenge
and that the right ought not to be extended. In-
nocent men had been convicted in Maryland, as
well as in other places.
Mr. CHAMBERS wished to say a single word.
He had filled the office of Prosecuting Attorney,
and had tried as many cases as any gentleman
here, in a long course of practice. During all
that period, there were very few criminals tried
in whose trials he did not take part. He had
only risen to say, that in all his long experience,
he had never known 'one solitary case in which,
with the present advantages allowed an accused
person, of an innocent man suffering from an un-
just conviction. He had acquitted scores of men
who were guilty, and he had known other gentle-
men at the bar who had acquitted as many. If,
with these facts before its eyes, the Convention
think it necessary to provide further facilities
for persons brought into Court for trial, so let it
be.
Mr. DORSEY said, he also would State the re-
sult of his observation and experience. He had
been Attorney General of the State of Mary-
land, before he had a seat on the Bench, and
had been on the Bench twenty-five years, and he
could reiterate all which had been said by the
gentleman from Kent. He had never known but
one case of improper conviction, and that was
since he had been on the Bench. When Attor-
ney General, he had always felt it his duty when
the evidence of guilt was insufficient to warrant
the conviction of the accused, to make such
statement to the jury, and an acquittal always
followed. There was one case in which an in-
nocent, man tried before him, was convicted, and
he, without any application made to the court for
the purpose, informed the counsel of the accused
that if moved for, a new trial would be granted.
Mr. BRENT stated that the feelings of old
practioners were less acute on this subject than
those of younger men. He referred to the case
of young Stewart, of Baltimore, tried for the
murder of his father, and after doubt and hesita-
tion on the part of the jury, was convicted of
murder in the second degree. The young man
had since died, calmly protesting his innocence;
and facts which have subsequently come out,
have attested the truth of that confession.
Messrs. MAGRAW and DIRICKSON asked the
yeas and nays on the amendment, which were or-
dered, and being taken, resulted as follows ;
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Bu-
chanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Da-
shiell. Chambers of Cecil, Miller, Spencer,
George, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks,
Jacobs, Shriver, Sappington, McHenry, Magraw,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Gwinn, Stewart of
Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, John



 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1850 Constitutional Convention
Volume 101, Volume 1, Debates 192   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives