10,031

1

The second reason for abandoning this provision

2

is that some 50 years ago there were ten other jurisdictions

3

at least that had it. All of them have abandoned it one way

4

or the other accept for Indiana, and Indiana, as is pointed

5

out I think in the committee report, has rendered it virtual- y

6

useless because the judge is not required to charge the

7

criminal jury that they can disregard the instructions. This

8

is a requirement under Maryland law.

9

The main present effect. and this the bad reason,

10

is that it tends to confuse criminal juries and subverts

11

justice. What happens is that prosecutors and defense counsel

12

get up and argue different propositions of law to the jury

13

and each of these may differ from the judge's instructions.

14

I have done this myself as a prosecutor and at

15

least on one occasion when it was done I think that an in-

16

justice occurred, that is to say that someone was convicted

17

of an offense for which he probably should not have been

18

convicted and the reason for it was that I was permitted, in

19

fact expected, to argue the law to the jury.

20

It puts a undue emphasis on clever advocacy and

21

persuasiveness and I suggest that there is sufficient realm