|
hears none. In line G after the word "may"
insert the words "by law".
For what purpose does Delegate Har-
grove rise?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: To ask a
question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Will this in-
terfere with a situation with an eleven-
person jury if one gets sick ?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: No. There
is nothing to interfere with the consent of
the parties if they agree you can have less.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think what Dele-
gate Hargrove was asking was whether or
not this amendment would, in effect, pro-
vide that if you had a jury of 12 and one
became sick so that you ended up with a
jury of only 11 at the time they retire,
whether that would be permitted since
there would still be 10 available, to render
a verdict; was that your question, Delegate
Hargrove?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Well, that
is a problem which I have not considered,
and I do not believe the other draftsmen
had.
My view is that they would still require
ten for a verdict, even though one might
be taken sick and they might agree to go
on with a lesser number.
I still think that the proper construction
of the amendment would be that ten is re-
quired for a verdict.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair would
take it that what your answer meant was
that in view of the language of the com-
plete clause "to have a speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury of twelve", and
so forth, provided the General Assembly
may authorize by law majorities, so if one
juror became sick, you would not have a
jury of 12, is that your answer?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: You use the
words non-capital cases. There is a move-
ment to abolish capital punishment. That
phrase would be obsolete.
Would you object to insert instead of
"non-capital cases" the following words:
|
"Cases not punishable by death or life
imprisonment"?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I would
have no objection to that; if the other
sponsors agree, that would be a matter for
the Style Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: All of your co-
sponsors agree.
Is there any objection to the change? The
Chair hears none.
In line 8 strike out the words "non-
capital" and after the word "cases" and
before the period, insert the words "not
punishable by death or life imprisonment."
The Chair recognizes Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Commit-
tee, I rise respectfully to urge the rejection
of this amendment. This is a discussion
concerning the personal inalienable rights
of individuals.
That is what this Bill of Rights is all
about. This would be a dimunition of in-
dividual personal rights. I suggest that it
is not called for nor necessary. I suggest
that the federal Constitution provides for
a unanimous verdict in criminal cases, I
suggest that for 200 years or more we have
had the same thing here without any
difficulty.
We have had testimony from judges who
are trial judges. We have had it from
lawyers who are trial lawyers. The all are
urging the retention of the unanimous ver-
dict.
I am completely unimpressed by the
argument that it takes more time to do it
this way. When a man's honor and free-
dom are at stake, he is entitled to all the
time the jury needs to protect his interest.
It has worked well. I urge you without
further ado to reject this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, I rise to speak
in opposition to the amendment, if I may.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I will not re-
peat the arguments in favor of the amend-
ment that I made last week. I would just
|
