|
sonal Rights and Preamble feel that this
matter should rightfully be in the judicial
article and not in the personal rights arti-
cle, and if it will be an aid to the delegates
to this Convention, I would be willing to
withdraw the amendment at this time, al-
though I frankly feel that the amendment
properly belongs in the constitution and
properly belongs in the judicial article.
However, with the suggestion from you,
and apparently the agreement by Delegate
Kiefer, the chairman of that committee
that maybe something else could be worked
out at a later date, I will withdraw this
with the assurance that at a later time I
will either introduce it again or amend
whatever section pertaining to right of
removal comes before this body.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : If
there are no objections to the withdrawal
the amendment is withdrawn.
For what purpose does Delegate Sher-
bow rise?
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Personal privi-
lege.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : The
delegate may proceed.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I hate as an
ex-judge to be accused of any partiality,
and as a grandfather of twelve, I assure
you I do not want to be accused of any
partiality, but it so happens that four of
my grandchildren are in the gallery, Julie,
Jill, Mollie and Mitchell, and I would like
us all to welcome them.
(Applause.)
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : The
next amendment is Amendment No. 58,
presented by Delegate Stern and Willoner.
Do you all have copies of the amendment?
I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 58,
to Committee Recommendation JB-1, by
Delegates Stern and Willoner: On page 10
after Section 5.31, add the following new
section:
"Section 5. Written and Published Opin-
ions. The Court of Appeals and the inter-
mediate appellate court shall file a written
opinion in every case. They shall also pro-
vide for the publication of such opinions."
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : This
is marked AG, on the top of your amend-
ment. The chair recognizes Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: This amendment
serves one purpose. It mandates the appel-
|
late courts to deliver written opinions and
that the opinions be published. Written
opinions have been mandated by the Con-
stitution since 1851 and publications have
been allowed since that year.
It is obvious to lawyers here that what
effect it will have on opinions delivered by
the courts orally and are not reduced to
writing but are left for publication by the
court. This amendment gives greater flexi-
bility to the courts than what is in the
present Constitution, which is a mandate
for a written opinion within three months.
It would appear that technical cases now
coming before our courts would come in
the future, such as tax, finance cases, or
technical improvement cases, could last
longer than the three-month period that
would be mandated. However, we ask only
that the opinion be reduced to writing.
Secondly as to publication. Here again
it states that they shall also provide for
publication of such opinions. This is a little
more liberal than the current Constitution,
which specifically requires that they be put
in the reports.
Now, we do not ask for it here to be
specifically put in the reports; just that
they make arrangements for some sort of
publication.
The special court of appeals by its rules
arbitrarily chooses what cases shall or shall
not be published. I have here in my hand
over 20 cases that the courts have given
opinions on and have marked either not for
publication and later change in terminol-
ogy, or unreported. Going through twenty
that I picked up, I found four cases which
I feel should have been published. One case
is a complete new law in the State of
Maryland. There are no cases reported any-
where on it but it is marked, "not for
publication."
I am told by the state's attorney in Bal-
timore City, who is president of the State's
Attorneys Association, that he has gath-
ered more than one hundred cases from the
special court of appeals, made copies of
them and submitted them to his members.
It is obvious he puts all defense attorneys
at a sharp disadvantage. It also puts de-
fense attorneys at a disadvantage when
they go before the special court of appeals
because the attorney general, as the at-
torney of record in every criminal case,
receives every case of the court. Therefore,
when I or you go before the court and have
your case heard, the man opposing you, the
attorney general, has had the benefit of
every case that the court has had where
|
