|
than twelve-man jury or unanimous verdict
in a capital case.
The point is this: This State has always
had a requirement for a unanimous verdict.
We had judges come before us and tell us
that in their experience they found that
this was a very wise and helpful thing. One
judge related a situation where in a capital
case the jury was hung; up eleven to one.
One man refused to be convinced. The case
was retried and evidence was brought in
which resulted in his being released. The
judge said that he originally thought this
man had been guilty, but he thanked God
that there had had to be a unanimous ver-
dict.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have been
through this thing in Committee. We went
into it very carefully. It was the over-
whelming opinion of the Committee that
the verdicts should be unanimous in crimi-
nal cases, and that there should be a jury
of twelve. This may be, it may sound like
it is old-fashioned, it may sound like it is
conservative, but this is still the basic law
or constitutional provision in the federal
cases, the federal Constitution and we saw
no reason for changing it.
One final thing —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, you
have less than one-quarter of a minute.
DELEGATE KIEFER: All of the judges
that we talked to said that hung juries were
so infrequent as to not to be a matter of
concern. I hope that you will reject this
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger,
do you still desire to speak?
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: I have a ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: To whom?
DELEGATE MENTZER: I wanted to ask
Judge Henderson.
THE 'CHAIRMAN: You will have to wait
until he gets the floor again.
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, fel-
low delegates, I would like to say a word
in favor of this amendment.
|
I would like to cite the English experi-
ence and read from an article entitled,
"Less .than Unanimous Jury Verdicts in
Criminal Trials", by John B. Ryan, an arti-
cle prepared at Northwestern University
School of Law:
"During the year 1965, forty percent of
the defendants who pled not guilty to
criminal charges in England were acquited.
'Quite a lot of them', according to the Home
Secretary of England, were known to be
guilty 'by everyone connected with the
case'; and among those who 'got off', some
were the 'centres of networks of criminal
activities'.
In offering an explanation for England's
high percentage of acquittals, the Home
Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, expressed the
view that it was through 'the power to
intimidate or corrupt jurors'. He proposed,
as a remedy, that less than unanimous jury
verdicts be made permissible. A bill to that
effect was introduced in Parliament on Nov-
ember 29, 1966." I believe as a result of
that, the English now permit a verdict, ten,
in a twelve man jury.
The article concluded by saying:
"None of the arguments on either side
demonstrate that unanimity is or is not
essential to trial by jury. But, on balance,
the arguments on behalf of majority jury
verdicts carry more weight. The Home
Secretary of England wishes to enact a
majority verdict rule because jurors are
being intimidated or corrupted, especially
by those in organized crime. Since the
United States has organized crime, one
may assume jury tampering goes on in
the United States as well."
I have been of the opinion for some time
that the integrity of the judicial process,
of the jury system, certainly will be more
stable and beyond corruption, if we permit
majority jury verdicts. This amendment
gives flexibility to the General Assembly,
permits adjustment of the jury trials to the
particular court, to the particular crime,
and thus, while giving a strong measure of
protection, the jury trials to the criminal
defendant. At the same time it recognizes
the public has an interest in the enforce-
ment of the law and enables the General
Assembly to adjust the procedure to fit the
particular crime, and to adjust the proce-
dure in accordance with the administration
of justice as it deems proper.
i;HE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Child.
|
