|
before the court might be the consideration
that for a particular offense, the bail may
be $5,000 maximum, let us say, to secure
the appearance in court for the person who
has that kind of money. Yet $1,000 for a
poorer person may be just as much of an
incentive for a man to show up in court.
We ought to seriously consider part (B)
in section 5 and give it all the consideration
it deserves and hope that the court, regard-
less of a man's wealth, may be able to set
terms that make it possible to assure the
accused's appearance.
I would hope that the courts would look
upon this as a means of providing some
equity between the rich and poor, through
the mandate that they have in terms of
dollars and cents, to require the accused
to appear at the time that they are sched-
uled for hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I am reasonably satisfied that in the evolu-
tionary processes of the law, the rich and
the poor are going to be adequately pro-
tected and where a distinction between one
or the other is necessary, the law will
render that degree of protection.
However, what I am concerned with here
in section 5 (B) is the language itself which
says that an accused shall be entitled to
release conditioned only upon such bail or
other terms as are reasonably necessary.
Now, in that phrase, "reasonably neces-
sary", there is not, as I understand the
proponents of the amendment contend, the
idea of insuring the appearance before the
court of the accused. If it does not include
the idea of insuring, it must mean that
the standard shall be a reasonably neces-
sary one, and the only way that that stand-
ard can be determined is on the basis of a
norm or average of persons accused of a
similar crime.
Therefore, it does mean to me that in
establishing a norm or a reasonable stand-
ard which will not assure appearance be-
fore the court, we are letting ourselves get
into an area of greater danger, particu-
larly where dealing with subversive activi-
ties or exportation matters or crimes of
that nature involving the accused. It is
there that my concern arises, and where I
find that I will have to support the amend-
ment notwithstanding the very able argu-
|
ment and the very real and concerned situ-
ation relating to the poor.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment?
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Committee,
I feel that if I make 'no statement it might
be as significant, and more so, than if I do
make a statement.
I would just like to say this: that the
Committee considered this matter very
carefully. We showed it to, discussed it
with, and heard testimony from, Mr. Wil-
liam Taft Feldman who was the Chairman
of the Maryland Bar Association Commit-
tee on Bail Bond.
We showed this to Mr. Charles Moylan,
the State's Attorney of Baltimore City, and
on a separate and subsequent occasion, I
showed it privately to the Chief Judge
Dulany Foster of the Supreme Court Bench
of Baltimore City.
My concern was for two things. One, that
this did not materially change or alter the
present system or rights that are supposed
to be in existence. I was assured by all
of these people as well as other judges
that the basic concept set forth in this
proposal 5 (B) is exactly what the law is
and is supposed to be. If we leave it out,
the law will be no different than if Ave put
it in.
It was secondly the opinion of the ma-
jority committee that this did therefore
state a basic, inalienable right of individ-
uals and that while it may not have been
previously stated, it did in effect state it
publicly and provide at least a fresh new
look at this one thing, but it would not
change the law.
I do not want to argue for or against it.
This Committee is pretty well divided. It
was not just haphazardly thrown together.
It was carefully considered and submitted
to experts who all said it does reflect the
existing state of law.
THE CHAIRMAN : Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate James.
DELEGATE JAMES: I would like to
ask the Chairman a question as to the lan-
guage.
THE CHAIRMAN: We want someone
who desires to speak in favor.
|
