|
Shortly before this Constitutional Conven-
tion, I had occasion to be associated with
the Schowgurow case. In that case, the
first trial resulted in a verdict of guilty,
and, of course, that was overturned on ac-
count of the Buddhist angle in the case.
The second trial in which I had some as-
sociation was a eleven to one hung verdict
for first degree murder at 2:30 in the
morning. The jury was finding not guilty.
The third time we had a three judge trial.
We had given a man eighteen years. I
point out to you there is a lot of difference
between eighteen years and eternity.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
will you take the floor and yield to a ques-
tion?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Yes, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: I am not sure
what the verdict of less than five-sixths
does with the fractions involved. Do you
round off to the next higher number? For
example, a jury of ten with eight and a
third required. What happens there?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: What I
had in mind was that perhaps the legis-
lature would provide a six-man jury in
the district court sitting there regularly
and twelve-man juries in the upper court,
and for five-sixths, ten would be enough
for a verdict out of the twelve and the
five would be enough out of the six.
I really did not contemplate that there
would be any fractional problem, but I do
not know that that would be difficult to
determine anyway. Five-sixths is five-
sixths and you would have to get a whole
number, I assume, to get a verdict.
THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Cardin rise?
DELEGATE CARDIN: A parliamentary
inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the inquiry.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Delegate Scan-
lan suggested a dividing of the question.
Will that be decided upon by the Chair be-
fore we vote?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that
the question is not divisible.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Any one who de-
sires to may offer an amendment to the
|
amendment as to either portion of the
amendment. As the amendment is presently
drawn, the two portions could not stand
alone and hence it would not be divisible.
The Chair points out that Delegate Hender-
son has already drawn an amendment,
which I assume he would intend to offer if
this fails, providing for a jury of not
more than twelve with a verdict of five-
sixths, another amendment striking out all
of lines 11 and 12. Delegates James and
James Clark have an amendment to strike
out the word "unanimous". The Chair
would be inclined to put the amendments
in that order if each of them in that order
should fail.
At the present time, any delegate who
desires to have submitted the question of
five-sixths with the jury of twelve can
offer an amendment to the amendment to
make that change, or any delegate who
desires to have submitted the question of
the jury of six, or not less than six, but
with a unanimous verdict can offer an
appropriate amendment to accomplish that.
For what purpose does Churchill Murray
arise?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: In an ef-
fort to clarify the situation, sir.
The question of any jury of five or six
condemning a man to death has not been
brought up, and I do not think it has been
the intention of anyone to bring this up.
The proposal to consider this matter in
its entirety, by the Committee on Personal
Rights, came from England. It arose from
the discovery that in England they were
using a verdict by, I think, either ten or
eleven out of twelve jurors. I hope that
the question can be divisible, because I
would like to support that phase of it
separately from the question of the lesser
number of jurors. Also, the British are
not using it in capital cases, I believe, even
with the ten or eleven jurors of the twelve-
man jury voting for conviction. I think it
is excluded from capital cases.
TPIE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose
does Delegate Johnson rise?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
to ask Delegate Henderson whether or not
he would accept an amendment to his
amendment, and may I state my reason?
THE CHAIRMAN: You have to state
the amendment first.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I was wonder-
ing if Delegate Henderson would accept
an amendment to his amendment so that
|
