|
tution does not use the words "shall have"
in each instance. It says "shall enjoy",
and then goes on to provide not the man-
datory form but just "to have".
I just wanted to make sure that the
language here is the same construction as
the courts have given to date.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I am glad you
asked the question, because I think that the
record should be clear that we have no
intention, although we have modernized the
language and changed the order, of altering
the state of the law by so doing.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman, is it not true that our Com-
mittee in all of these areas suggested by
Delegate Hargrove meant that they shall
have the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation in time to pre-
pare defense; they shall have the right to
assistance of counsel, and of course that
right can be waived, and we recognize that.
Also, they shall have the right to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses,
whether they take advantage of it or not,
and they shall have the right to have a
speedy and public trial by an impartial
jury of twelve without whose unanimous
consent he shall not be adjudged guilty.
The Committee did not mean that they
must have to have them whether they want
them or not, but they shall have the right
to have all of these things, and of course
in all of the cases it is up to the accused
himself whether or not he wants to waive it.
Mr. Chairman, I have tried to state what
I thought was the Committee's intent, and
would ask the Chairman if he does not
agree with that.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Again I thank
you very much, Delegate Weidemeyer. I
think that is correct, subject to the view
of my criminal law experts.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Just to re-
state a little bit what Mr. Weidemeyer
said, the right to confrontation has been
held to be one of those rights that you
cannot waive in Maryland, and the intent
|
here is not to change the present Maryland
law or the federal law as it applies to
Maryland.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Thank you. You
have now heard from my criminal law
counsel en banc.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Are there any further questions on this
section? Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Chairman Kie-
fer, your language with regard to having
a jury trial speaks in absolute terms, as
does Article 6 of the federal Constitution,
but I believe, if I am not incorrect, that
the Supreme Court has held that in the
area of minor misdemeanors, including but
not perhaps limited to those for which only
a fine would be available, a jury trial is
not required.
Do you have any intention whatsoever
of changing those federal cases and making
our law more restrictive?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: In the first place,
the federal courts have held that the re-
strictions with respect to criminal law
juries and civil law juries are not ap-
plicable to state action, so what we do is
not subject at the moment to interpretation
by the Supreme Court.
They have not extended those two areas
to state action.
Now, we have not changed in any way
in this article the rights of the accused
to have a jury trial with the unanimous
verdict of twelve persons.
It does not, however, prevent a person
from waiving a jury trial if he so wants.
We are not changing the law at all.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: Let me be more
specific.
If the Supreme Court holds, as I believe
it has held, that in the case of a relatively
minor misdemeanor it is not necessary
under the federal Constitution to have a
jury trial, would this language mandate in
a minor traffic offense that a jury trial be
held in this case?
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding) :
Delegate Kiefer.
|
