clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2194   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

2194 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF MARYLAND [Dec. 11]

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dorothy
Murray.

DELEGATE D. MURRAY: A point of
personal privilege, please.

Also in the balcony, we find with the
teachers, the lovely two in the front from
Anne Arundel County, some handsome
gentlemen from Prince George's County
Teachers Association :

Mr. Lloyd Hoover, President, Prince
George's County Teachers Association.

Mr. Ferd Cardano, Past President.
Mr. James Braswell, President-Elect.
Mr. Dean Harpe, Legal Chairman.

And also, in the balcony to my rear, an-
other fine young man, my son, Kim Scott
Murray. Will you join me in welcoming
them? (Applause.)

THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kahl.

DELEGATE KAHL: Mr. President, I
would like to introduce to the Convention,
Mr. Lucas Horn, President of the Local
239 Auto Workers, and Stanley Adamski,
Joseph Millender, Fred Reynolds, Shannon
Soles, Clark Robertson, and former Balti-
more County Councilman, Joseph L.
Schield. (Applause.)

THE CHAIRMAN : Are there any other
amendments to section 4?

(There was no response.)

The Chair hears none. We will move on
to section 5.

There is a Minority Report with respect
to section 5. The Chair recognizes Dele-
gate Child to present the Minority Report
and requests him to come forward.

Delegate Child.

DELEGATE CHILD: Mr. Chairman,
my minority report, goes to section B of
section 5. I have no Minority Report on
section A.

THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.

Are there any amendments to paragraph
F of section 5?

Delegate Henderson.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: Amend-
ment U.

THE CHAIRMAN: The Pages will
please distribute amendment U.

This will be Amendment No. 9. __ _

The Clerk will read the amendment. i

READING CLERK: Amendment No. 9
to Committee Recommendation R&P-1 by
Delegate Henderson:

On page 3, section 5, Rights of Accused,
strike out all of lines 11 and 12 and insert
in lieu thereof the following words : "of not
less than six upon a verdict of not less
than five-sixths, as prescribed by law."

THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
submitted by Delegate Henderson. Is there
a second?

DELEGATE BENNETT: Seconded.

THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment is
seconded by Delegate Bennett.

The Chair recognizes Delegate Henderson
to speak to the Amendment.

DELEGATE HENDERSON: Mr. Chair-
man, fellow delegates, the point of this
amendment is to permit the legislature to
reduce the size of the jury from twelve to
not less than six and to provide that a
verdict of not less than five-sixth might be
given in a given case, as prescribed by law.
It leaves it to the legislature to decide, in
other words, whether in all cases we should
continue the traditional common law jury
of twelve with the requirement that they
reach a unanimous verdict.

Now I think about fifty years ago every
constitutional convention in the country,
including the federal one, called for a right
to a jury trial in criminal and civil cases
both. Of course, the federal provisions have
never been held applicable to the states,
but the states had similar provisions in
their own constitutions.

It was held that when you used the word
"jury", you meant the conventional jury,
but in the last fifty years, and in the more
recent years, twenty-nine states have
amended their constitutions so as to leave
to the legislature, either in criminal or civil
cases, or both, the right to have a smaller
number of jurors reach a verdict, and to
have a smaller number of jurors compose
the jury. That is particularly true in the
misdemeanor cases in the criminal field and
in the cases tried in the lower courts, that
is, the lowest courts, in civil cases.

We have provided a new system here in
Maryland with the four-tier structure,
whereby the lowest court, the district court,
should be set up on a full-time professional
basis. I think it is highly desirable that
that court be given the right to hear cases
with the jury, but I think it is quite un-



 

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings and Debates of the 1967 Constitutional Convention
Volume 104, Volume 1, Debates 2194   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives