|
case was not a criminal case. It was a case
involving a quasi-judicial agency. In the
proceedings before the Board, the witnesses
in favor of the applicants and against the
citizens were there and to that extent the
counsel for the citizens and the citizens
were confronted with the witnesses against
them. However, they were denied the right
of cross-examination and were required to
call the witnesses as their own adverse
witnesses when their case went on. The
Court of Appeals struck down this practice,
in a landmark case. It made clear by impli-
cation, I think, that the right of confronta-
tion does not always necessarily include the
right to cross-examination, whereas the
converse of the proposition is different. The
right to cross-examination always includes
the right of confrontation. I think there is a
difference and I would like to press our
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already
indicated the amendment is proper. The
Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 11
to Committee Recommendation R & P-1 by
Delegates Adkins and Scanlan:
On page 3 section 5, Rights of Accused,
in line 7 after the words "confronted with"
add the words "and to examine under oath
or affirmation".
THE CHAIRMAN: The amendment has
been submitted by Delegate Adkins, and
seconded by Delegate Scanlan.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: Mr. Chairman, it
does not seem to me that this amendment
should take any lengthy debate. I take it
that it is quite clear to members of the
Convention and indeed to the Committee
that the right of cross-examination is a
valuable, if not one of the most precious
of the rights in the trial of any justiciable
issue. The sole purpose of this amendment
is to make crystal clear that the right of
cross-examination does continue to exist.
The language of the amendment is the
language of the existing Constitution. It is
the language proposed by the Commission,
for whatever additional strength, if any,
that might add. It seems to me that there
is no confusion, if you add this language
"Confronted with" may, under the erosions
of time and the judicial process, be inter-
preted to mean something other than con-
fronted with the right to cross-examine. I
would hope that without too much debate
we could add this language simply to make
crystal clear preservation of this right is
intended.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman, the
Committee had considered this language
and we were advised by our criminal law
experts that the word, confronted, meant
under oath, or affirmation. Apparently, there
is some doubt about it. I am sure there is
no objection to this amendment, and as far
as I know, in talking to several members of
the Committee, there would be no objection.
If it will make it more crystal clear we
would be in favor of the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any further
discussion?
Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Just a question of
Delegate Adkins.
THE CHAIRMAN: State the question.
DELEGATE MARION: I was not clear
how the colloquy you had with the Chair
ended up as to whether or not your inten-
tion by this language was to get a pre-trial
proceeding.
THE CHAIRMAN: He said no.
DELEGATE MARION: It would only ap-
ply then to at the time of trial. Is that the
intention which you had in mind?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: It is certainly not
my intention or Delegate Scanlan's to indi-
cate that we should not have the right to
cross-examination at the pre-trial. But we
had not intended that the constitutional
guarantee hearing provided would neces-
sarily go to that extent. This is limited to
the language of the proposal here, which is
at the trial stage.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: So it would be
correct to say that it would not be your in-
tention by this amendment to affect in any
way the secrecy of grand jury proceedings
by which witnesses do appear in a proceed-
ing against the accused.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Adkins.
DELEGATE ADKINS: All we are trying
to do is to make quite clear that the word,
confronted, as the Committee Report indi-
cates, means confrontation with the right
to examine, in the language of the proposal
of the Committee. We are not attempting to
broaden the Committee Report, except to
make crystal clear the meaning of the word,
confronted.
|
