|
that could be handled by court rule or by
statute. However, there is a strong feeling
on the Committee of Personal Rights and
Preamble that if this is not or some right
is not included in the constitution, and the
court has no restraints constitutionally,
that the Court of Appeals' rules will
promptly abolish the right to removal.
Whether this is good, bad, indifferent, right
or wrong, I am not prepared to say. I only
say that this is the feeling apparently of
the Committee on Personal Rights and
Preamble. Therefore, it has been included
in Recommendation No. 2, which is not to
be included in the Declaration of Rights,
but perhaps ought to be considered or put
in some other part of the constitution.
I do not think an inalienable right exists
to remove, Judge Sherbow. If it is and this
is cured, that is fine. I simply call this to
your attention and believe that the detail
that is set forth in the recommendations
of sections 8 and 10, or 12, of the Recom-
mendation No. 2, are far more so than are
necessary. They may go further than they
should. Section 8, which is the right of
removal in civil cases exactly duplicates
what is presently in the constitution. Sec-
tion 12 goes a step further and will allow
removal as a right in any felony case,
while now it is restricted to capital and
life imprisonment cases. However, I would
feel that if the right were insured in the
constitution, the details would be better
left to the legislature or the rules of the
court. This is why I personally rise to
support this amendment, because it is less
odious in that it sets out fewer details. If
we could be assured there would be a
right of removal preserved in the rules of
the court or by statute, I think possibly
the whole thing could be dropped, but we
have no such assurance at this point.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Johnson, have you modified your
amendment or are you presenting it in the
original form?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Presenting it
in the original form, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause Delegate Kiefer correctly reminded
me that, although the language in our
present Constitution is at best confusing
with respect to the right of removal, it does
in fact imply that there shall be a right of
removal in equity cases, and I feel certain
that if we leave this matter to the legis-
lature and to the Court of Appeals, that a
proper solution will arise or will be arrived
at. I think it is terribly important that we
spell out in the constitution that the citi-
zens of this state will be entitled to some
|
right of removal, and for that reason I do
not amend our original amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Does
Delegate Macdonald wish to speak against
the amendment or for the amendment?
DELEGATE MACDONALD: I do, Mr.
Chairman, against.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): The
Chair recognizes Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Fellow
delegates, please do not adopt this amend-
ment. This would be the greatest step
backward that this Convention has taken
to date. Right at the present time there is
an unqualified right of removal in the
Constitution, and it is used as a process
for delay, it is used all the time, it is a
gimmick, and it is one of the worst things
we have in the Constitution. This matter
can be taken care of by the rule of the
Court of Appeals, but do not put it in the
Constitution. Hundreds and thousands of
cases in Maryland are delayed by utilizing
this gimmick, and that is what it is. All
a person has to do at the present time is
to file an affidavit of removal the morning
of trial and then the case must be removed
to another county.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Will Delegate
Johnson yield for a question?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Does
Delegate Johnson yield?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Gladly.
DELEGATE CHABOT: As I read the
amendment before us, the only thing that
is left to rule or to law is the manner in
which one exercises his right to remove.
Do I understand correctly that the fact
that one will have an opportunity to re-
move will now exist in every single case?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: The purpose
of this amendment is to preserve the right
of removal. We do not imply by this right
that it will be misused. We are deeply
concerned about the fact that if we remove
it from the Constitution, there will be no
right of removal under this exclusive, uni-
fied judicial court system that we have.
We think that the details can be and will
be worked out by the legislature and the
Court of Appeals and for that reason, we
feel strongly that a litigant in a manner
that is personal and important to him
should have that right, that single right of
removing his case.
|
