|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd,
could you yield to a question?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman
Mudd, twice in section 5.25, in the first and
in the second sentences thereof, you state
that the Court of Appeals having power
either respectively to remove or to retire
a judge. Two things occur: First, a recom-
mendation of the Commission on Judicial
Disability, and secondly, and I quote, "a
finding after hearing", of either miscon-
duct or of other deficiencies.
Now, which finding is this? Is this a
finding of the Commission, or is this a
finding that the Court of Appeals subse-
quently makes after receiving the Com-
mission's recommendations?
DELEGATE MUDD: What this pro-
posal contemplates is that the commission
on judicial disability shall first have its
own investigation, findings of fact, and
make a recommendation if the facts war-
rant. Then, Delegate Carson, the court
then has the ultimate disposition of the
matter, and may remove, retire or censure.
The commission has no function other than
to make a recommendation to the Court of
Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson, do
you have a further question?
DELEGATE CARSON: I have not re-
ceived an answer to my question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Would you restate
it?
DELEGATE CARSON: Twice you use
the words "upon a finding after hearing"
and these words follow a requirement that
a recommendation of the commission be
received and then it requires a finding
after hearing certain things.
Now, does this refer to a finding after
hearing of the commission or a finding
after hearing of the Maryland Court of
Appeals?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: A finding after
hearing by the Court of Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman
Mudd, in section 5.27 there are a number
of powers given to the Commission with
|
regard to hearings, subpoenas, et cetera.
Do I take it that it is expected that the
commission will first hold a lengthy hearing
itself and that then later in addition to
that hearing, the Court of Appeals will
also have a full hearing?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, that is pos-
sible.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Only one re-
maining question, Chairman Mudd. These
questions are not asked in criticism but so
that I may know because I think the sec-
tions —
THE CHAIRMAN: Your inquiries are
pertinent. You may proceed.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman
Mudd, could the Court of Appeals by rule
or could the General Assembly by law re-
strict in any way the time limit that the
hearing before the Court of Appeals might
take? I suggest that a lengthy hearing
might take a month of the Court of Ap-
peals' time.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: That question had
not occurred to me, and was not discussed
in Committee to my best recollection, Dele-
gate Carson. I would assume it could be
ruled by law or by the Court of Appeals,
requiring a decision or finding by the Court
of Appeals in so much time after the com-
mission had made its recommendation or
report, if this is responsive to your ques-
tion; but how long the trial might last, I
just think that would be something that
would have to be under control of the trier
of the facts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
c.
DELEGATE CARSON: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman,
could the Court of Appeals not appoint a
master to make these findings and take
the evidence?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, I would think
that would be well within the rule-making
power covering this matter.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Miller, do
you have a question to address?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Yes, Mr.
Chairman.
|
