|
extent that it can practicably be imple-
mented.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE HARDWICKE: Unless
Delegate Chabot can say something in ad-
dition to this, I am at a total loss to
understand what his phrase means.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Does
anyone wish to speak in favor of the
amendment?
Does anyone wish to speak against the
amendment? Delegate Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: May I address
a question to the sponsor of the amend-
ment, Delegate Johnson?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
Delegate Johnson yield?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
DELEGATE POWERS: Delegate John-
son, is it contemplated in this amendment
that the rules provide for any safeguards
against abuse of the right of removal?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes, I think
that it could. If we leave the manner and
under the circumstances to the rules, then
to the Court of Appeals, Delegate Powers, I
fully expect and hope that we will have a
similar removal provision as we have under
Rule 5.42.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Powers.
DELEGATE POWERS: Mr. President,
I would like to speak against the amend-
ment briefly.
This absolute right of removal has been
in and out of the constitution about six
times in the history of this State. Every
time it went out it went out because it was
abused. At the present time, according to
much more experienced judges than I am,
the use of this device is abused about 99
times for every time that it is legitimately
used.
It does not make any difference, par-
ticularly to the judge in the case, because
he goes on to the next case.
I am not even speaking on behalf of the
lawyers who are victimized by this, but
litigants could be readily and emotionally
involved over a trial and finally the day
comes up, they are there; they have their
witnesses; they pay for the docket to be
there and the attorney on the other side in
order to wear them down to a lower settle-
|
ment than they should receive, can immedi-
ately start using a threat that he will file
an affidavit of removal. The second he does
that, off they go to some county, 20, 30, 40,
50, 60 or a hundred miles away and the
case is delayed several more weeks, and
there is certainly several weeks —
DELEGATE JAMES: (presiding):
Months usually.
DELEGATE POWERS: Weeks, months,
sometimes years. Certainly if there is going
to be anything about removal, there should
be safeguards against that, and I would
still be afraid of the language in this
present amendment. This is purely on be-
half of innocent litigants who are victim-
ized by this, as Delegate Macdonald says,
hundreds of times a year, and thousands
of times for every time that something
legitimately does it. In addition to that in
noncapital criminal cases, the right of re-
moval is not absolute, and it is very rarely
involved, but when it is revoked, the right
of removal at the request of the court is
almost always granted. I am very much
against this amendment and doing any-
thing that would cause the condition that
now exists in this State to continue.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Would Delegate
Johnson yield?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Johnson, do you yield?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes.
DELEGATE DUKES: As I understand
the new court system that has been adopted,
there are no separate courts in the sense
of county to county. There is only one su-
perior court and one district court and
therefore it seems 'to me that under the
amendment, removal would be from only
one judge to another, not necessarily from
one county to another, would it not?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: This would
and could be provided by rule. It could be
it could be removed, and I trust the legis-
lature and the Court of Appeals to work
this out.
DELEGATE DUKES: What is the in-
tention?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: The intention,
contrary to what Delegate Powers has said,
is simply this: Admittedly there are some
abuses in this system, but one day I pre-
dict that each and every delegate in this
Convention will come before a judge, who,
|
