|
society, and not release him. That is one of
the reasons why I think that this section is
wrong.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: So the device the
judge would use would not be setting a high
bail but rather committing him to the
examination of some psychiatrist?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE 'CHILD: That is absolutely
right, and this section as it is written would
prevent the judge from doing just that.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: In what way
would that device, that is, the examination
by psychiatrists, be forbidden by section
5-B?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: Because section 5-B
says that he shall be entitled to release,
conditioned only upon such bail or other
security necessary to produce him in court.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Let me go ,to an-
other point. Did I understand correctly that
you said to Delegate Gill that if 5-B were
not part of our constitution, a judge could
decide to deny bail, or set extremely high
bail, simply based on his prediction that
the accused is apt to commit crimes in the
future?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: I would say so, yes.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: And do you feel
that that prediction would not be a proper
basis for denying bail if section 5-B were
in our constitution?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: Right.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Thank you.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Judge Child,
in your Committee, on this question, did you
|
consider the cases dealing with the criteria
for setting bail on purpose ?
What I have in mind is whether you find
any cases which allow the court the dis-
cretion in determining a prior criminal rec-
ord as a basis for the setting of bail?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: There is none in
Maryland, because this section which we
now have in the Constitution has acted so
well that I could not find under the con-
stitutional provision here any decision
which has gone to the Court of Appeals
regarding bail under that.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Did you
check the federal authorities, where they
do have some cases dealing with the setting
of bail? I believe the only criteria used
in any cases that I have seen is the ques-
tion of whether or not the person facing
trial has a prior criminal record.
Did your Committee consider this?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Judge
Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: I do not know
what the so-called majority, which is now
the minority, considered, because I was
perfectly satisfied, and have always been
satisfied with the old constitutional pro-
vision. I do not think we need anything
else, in view of the statutes and the rules
which have been passed under them.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: My question
is whether or not your position is con-
sistent with the legal opinion, on the ques-
tion of the setting of bail, the question of
whether or not you can deny a person the
right to bail simply because you feel he is
going to commit a crime, as opposed to
setting bail regardless of how much it is.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Dele-
gate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: Not the setting of
bail, but the amount of bail.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Then you
would need both provisions, section 5-B and
section 8, under those circumstances, would
you not, because excessive bail would be
another question, would it not?
|
