|
stitutional provision that the office of the
attorney general shall represent the state
in all criminal cases in the Court of Ap-
peals, the intermediate appellate courts and
the courts of the United States.
There has been a considerable discussion
in recent years of the feasibility of having
the state's attorneys or some other attor-
neys from the local subdivisions represent
the state in criminal proceedings before the
intermediate courts and the Court of Ap-
peals and as I read this, this provision
would foreclose that possibility without a
Constitutional amendment.
Did your committee consider whether it
would be advisable to delete that provision
and to leave it to the legislature to de-
termine who would represent the State in
criminal proceedings before appellate
courts?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: We did and we
were advised by the attorney general, a
member of our Committee, who is head of
the criminal division in the attorney gen-
eral's office, that while the attorney general
is a formal lawyer for the state in crimi-
nal proceedings, that if a state's attorney
wants to write the brief, wants to be on
the brief, wants to argue the case, there is
nothing to prevent him from doing it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: You simply make
that statement on the strength of the ad-
vice of the attorney general's office?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions of the Committee Chairman?
Delegate Chabot?
DELEGATE CHABOT: Dele-gate Mor-
gan, in the event that there is a dispute be-
tween the governor and the attorney gen-
eral as to whether or not the State should
appear as an amicus in a Supreme Court
case, who is to make the final determination?
I realize that this question had been
asked when E. B. Wood was before us, but
there seems to be some differences in the
memory of the delegates as to what the
answer was.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I believe the
answer is that the attorney general decides
|
that. It is purely a legal question and he is
the chief legal officer of the state.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: As to whether
the State should appear as an amicus, I
am not talking now about whether there is
merit in taking an appeal in a particular
case, but rather whether the state's policy
should be affected by a determination of a
case otherwise before the Supreme Court,
in which way the State should jump in
announcing its policy.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I should guess
that it would be the attorney general who
would make that decision.
Now I do not know, but that is just my
guess.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Did I under-
stand correctly in your answer to some
of the questions of Delegate Clagett that
not withstanding the first sentence of the
second section before us, that the General
Assembly may create some legal offices or
the governor may create some legal offices
which are not subordinate to the attorney
general?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: May I button
down some small points in section 1?
Does the language appearing in line 8
of section 1 mean that if there is, in the
unlikely event that there is a tie vote for
attorney general, the same procedure shall
be used for resolving that tie as is provided
for the governor?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
DELEGATE MORGAN: I think that is
probably the intention. There is some ques-
tion in my mind as to whether the language
actually accomplishes that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Just as the gov-
ernor may continue to serve until his suc-
cessor is qualified in case there is some
delay in the inauguration of the new gov-
ernor, so the attorney general may con-
tinue to serve until his successor is
qualified?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Morgan.
|
