|
because of a personality conflict or because
of an arbitrary attitude or because of com-
ing before an arbitrary jury, will be left
with no other alternative whatsoever, none,
I submit, than to try his case before that
judge or jury when he or she knows deep
down in their heart that they are not going
to get a fair trial, and I say that when a
matter is that important to a litigant, that
he takes it to court, you had better give
him at least one right of removal.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Perhaps I could
make my question more direct. Would I be
correct in the assumption that a removal
filed in Prince Georges County would not
necessitate under the concept of the single
superior court that the case be removed
from Prince Georges County, but that it
simply be removed from the judge before
whom it was scheduled.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: That is cor-
rect, this could be the case under this
amendment.
DELEGATE DUKES: Still heard in
Prince Georges County however?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes, it could
still be heard in the same county.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
anyone wish to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: For just a mo-
ment, sir. It seems to me that all of the
qualms that have been indicated by the
various delegates presume that the Court
of Appeals and the General Assembly are
going to conspire to create an impossible
situation. They are going to conspire either
to completely eliminate the right, or to set
it up in such a way that abuse is more
characteristic of it than use.
We have had a great deal of debate as
to whether under some circumstances we
can trust the courts, whether under other
circumstances we can trust the General
Assembly. This is, I believe, the first time
in the last few days at least that there
has been a serious insistence here that in
this particular area above all others we
can trust neither the courts nor the Gen-
eral Assembly. I suggest you vote for the
amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
Delegate Willoner wish to speak against
the amendment?
|
(There was no response.)
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
anyone wish to speak against the amend-
ment? Delegate Kirkland.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Mr. Presi-
dent, may I ask Delegate Mudd a question?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
Delegate Mudd yield?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Delegate
Mudd, would such an amendment as this
help the people? Would there be a benefit
to them?
DELEGATE MUDD: In some rare in-
stances, I think it would help unprepared
attorneys more.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: But it would
help the people, is this correct?
DELEGATE MUDD: In a rare instance
it might.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Thank you,
sir.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding). Any-
one wish to speak against the amendment?
The Chair recognizes Delegate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: Mr. Chairman, I
am in favor of a removal, and I think that
such provision should be in the Constitu-
tion.
I am against this amendment because of
its language. As I see the amendment, it
applies to every case. It says, in cases.
Now, that language to me means in
every case. If so, it applies to every traffic
case, every assault and battery case, every
possible minor criminal case, every civil
case, every equity case, and when you get
on the superior court level, every criminal
case up there.
We have in the constitution now what I
consider is the proper matter of removal.
It applies in all civil cases where a proper
affidavit is made; that you cannot get a
fair and impartial trial. It applies to capital
cases and criminal cases as an absolute
right; in other criminal cases where you
can show the court that there is prejudice
in the neighborhood, the court will remove.
It does not apply in condemnation cases.
I think I am correct when I say that it
does not apply in mandamus cases.
I am for the law as it now is. I am
afraid of this amendment because it applies
|
