|
another list; Wyoming-, less than twelve
as prescribed by law. North Dakota may be
less than twelve in courts not of record.
Illinois, ,the legislature may provide for
less than twelve in the district courts.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
I think Delegate Blair's question goes to
those states that authorize less than unani-
mous verdict, regardless of the size of the
jury.
Is that correct?
DELEGATE BLAIR: Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: There are
about fifteen states that provide that in-
cluding New Jersey, New York, Virginia,
California — a great number of them; I have
the list here if you care to look at it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Blair.
DELEGATE BLAIR: What in your opin-
ion would be the effect of this provision.
Would it speed up the criminal processes?
Would it in your opinion be to the benefit
of the accused or the State? What is the
effect of it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I think it
would speed up the process of deliberation,
because a great deal of time is spent in the
juries' deliberation of getting that last one
man who may be a very stubborn fellow
to fall in line with them, and that certainly
requires a lot of persuasion.
It may be that he is opinionated one way
or another. He may be holding out for con-
viction or may be holding out for acquittal,
so it certainly cuts both ways.
I think in some cases it is actually detri-
mental to the accused, because a man who
is holding out for conviction may force a
retrial of the matter although he is in a
minority of one; so I do not think it is
designed to favor either one side or the
other.
It is designed, I think, to put into effect
at least partially the democratic principle
that the majority controls, which in every
other phase of the activity except the
medieval survival is the democratic rule.
THE CHAIRMAN: Since the time has
already expired, would you ask only one
more question?
DELEGATE BLAIR: The main principle
is to speed up the work in the courts ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
|
DELEGATE HENDERSON: And to give
a more just result.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes, sir. I see
some drafting problems at least in my own
mind, and I would like to ask Delegate Hen-
derson at least a couple of questions for
clarification.
THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Hen-
derson, this amendment does not interfere
with the criminal jury?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: It does not.
It keeps the jury at twelve in all criminal
cases, but it provides that ten could render
a verdict.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Hen-
derson, when you use the term "may au-
thorize", could that also be that the General
Assembly may provide by law the means to
carry out the intention of your amendment?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That was
the meaning of the phrase, that they may
provide by law for that or they might not.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: And Delegate
Henderson, it is clear, is it not, that in
capital cases a unanimous verdict of twelve
must be handed down?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That is cor-
rect.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
the Chair has one question that was touched
on by Delegate Johnson.
I assume in providing that the General
Assembly may authorize, you meant that
the General Assembly could act only by law,
that is subject to gubernatorial veto ?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That is cor-
rect.
THE CHAIRMAN: So that the Commit-
tee on Style would have no difficulty, would
you consent to modifying your amendment
to insert the words "by law" after the word
"may" in line six?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would so
agree.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection
to so modifying the amendment? The Chair
|
