|
rules, and through the legislature, and
there are many things in this Bill of Rights
that we could ignore, because we have
adopted federal language.
We can take the position here that if
the legislature did something, we do not
have to. We could also argue, let us leave
out religion and freedom of assembly and
freedom of speech, because all we have
done is taken the federal language. This
does not really mean that much.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Child.
DELEGATE CHILD: I will allot the
balance of our time to Delegate Hardwicke.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Hardwicke.
DELEGATE CHILD: He is not here.
I will allot it to Delegate Henderson.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
Delegate Henderson, you have three and
a half minutes.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I will not
take that long.
My purpose in rising really is to call to
the attention of the assembly, because it
may not be known to all of you, that at the
last meeting of the State Bar Association
in Atlantic City, there was a very ex-
tensive report based on a two-year study
by a commission under the chairmanship
of Mr. Feldman, of Baltimore City. They
went into a thorough study of the whole
subject of bail and came up with the sug-
gestion that some major reforms were
needed, particularly in connection with the
allowance for bail, on which the feeling
was that entirely too many people were
being held in jail, rather than released on
their own recognizance after the sort of
study which has been going on in Balti-
more City.
Now that report was unanimously ap-
proved by the Bar Association, and was
referred to the Legislative Council and the
Rules Committee. A sub-section of the
Rules Committee has been working with
the Legislative Council for some months,
and they are preparing a joint product
consisting of both rules and legislation to
liberalize this whole question of bail and
bring it in line with some of the results
that have been obtained in New York and
some other states.
It will greatly improve the whole system
of bail.
My feeling about this proposal, putting
it in the constitution, is that it simply
|
muddies the water. It is quite unnecessary.
This matter is being studied by the proper
authorities and will undoubtedly result in
improvements.
I think it muddies the water to put it
in the constitution and it might have un-
fortunate results. It is much better to
leave the thing entirely to the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have a little
less than six minutes, Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Has Delegate
Henderson some time left for a question?
THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Delegate Henderson, do you yield to a
question?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Delegate Hender-
son, are you aware that Mr. Feldman, who
was the attorney in charge of the investi-
gations you referred to being made by the
State Bar Association, testified before our
Committee that he felt this provision would
frankly enhance the possibilities of a
clearer bail reform program in this State?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I was not
aware of that. I do not know that I agree
with him.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: In your opinion,
Judge Henderson, would the present con-
stitutional provision for excessive bail give
any constitutional right to pre-trial re-
lease?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do not
think so, no. It simply leaves the matter
open. When you put in specific language
like this, which is certainly open to varying
interpretations, I think you rather pre-empt
the legislative field. I think that is a mis-
take.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: What other in-
terpretation could be placed upon the lan-
guage, other than that the standard for
release be that the defendant will appear
for trial?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I do not
quite understand the question.
|
