|
like to call two more points to the atten-
tion of the body.
In Scotland we have had the less than
unanimous verdict for centuries. In Scot-
land you have 15. A majority of 8 is re-
quired for the verdict. Is there anyone who
would argue that Scottish justice has not
stood up to American justice?
The arguments that were made on the
floor of the House of Commons when
Britain abolished the unanimous verdict
are equally applicable here.
The Home Secretary who spoke in favor
pointed out that in the days when the
criminal law was rigged against the de-
fendant a unanimous verdict was entirely
proper but then after summing up the
procedural protections that have evolved in
England, as in this country to now favor
the accused, he closed with this sentence
in his argument: "We have, I am glad to
say, moved well away from the latter ap-
proach, that is the approach under which
the criminal law was rather rigged against
the criminal and moved toward the ap-
proach we have in England today where it
is rigged in his favor, and it follows in the
present state of the crime wave we can
feel less equanimity about the acquittal of
the guilty."
Mr. Kiefer and his Committee may feel
that equanimity. I do not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mitchell.
DELEGATE MITCHELL: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, it is not a ques-
tion of what the Committee feels.
We had Judge Barnes from the Court of
Appeals of Maryland. We had Judge
Foster, the Chief Judge of the Supreme
Bench of Baltimore City. We had Mr.
Charles Moylan, who is President of the
State's Attorneys of Maryland, and we had
a number of outstanding trial lawyers, both
in criminal and in civil areas of trial prac-
tice, to testify. It was ther unanimous rec-
ommendation that the unanimous vote of a
twelve-man jury be continued.
Now, Mr. Moylan, when we specifically
asked him whether the provisions such as
Judge Henderson proposes would aid in
speeding up the criminal cases, he felt that
any individual defendant should be entitled
to a unanimous verdict.
He pointed out that only in a very small
minority of cases in Baltimore City do de-
fendants even elect to be tried by jury. He
had had no indication from the state's at-
torneys in the counties throughout the
|
State that this was necessary and it was
his recommendation that what we have
considered a constitutional right to a unani-
mous verdict by a 12-man jury be con-
tinued.
Now, the question is not what the prob-
lem is in Scotland but what the problem is
in the State of Maryland. The State's At-
torney for Baltimore City said in Balti-
more last year, they tried 24,000 cases. If
you have the President of the State's At-
torneys Association for the State of Mary-
land and the state's attorney for the larg-
est city in the state testifying, I would say
that we ought to accept the recommenda-
tion of those who are the experts in the
field, and that is what our Committee did,
and therefore I urge that we vote against
this innovation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor of the amend-
ment?
Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
in this field of sociology if we are really
going to give any meaning to the vesting
of the police power in the General As-
sembly, it seems that here we have the
question clearly in focus, the forum where
properly this matter can be debated at
length, and even more expert witnesses
can be heard from than those who appeared
before the Committee.
Certainly the forum is the General As-
sembly, and if we are really going to give
a degree of flexibility and if we are going
to write a skeleton rather than put the
dress upon the skeleton, it seems as if we
have the question here directly in front of
us.
Therefore, I strongly urge that the
amendment as suggested here be adopted.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Convention,
what startles me is the apparent disregard
of the sponsors of this amendment for the
rights of the accused in a criminal case.
Yesterday, we debated this quite at
length, but by the simple expedient of
withdrawing the amendment the propo-
nents come back and get two bites at the
same apple.
They tell us today this is not a constitu-
tional right. What more of a constitutional
right is it when by the Sixth Amendment
|
