|
I do not know what the situation would
be with respect to the new order. It may
very well be that the same type of situation
would exist for the district court. It seems
to me that what you do here is to build
into the jury system cases that may have
been on the magistrate's court level.
We did not take that into consideration.
We wanted to preserve the same privileges
for the accused which already existed. I do
not believe the four-tier system will inter-
fere with that at all.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the record
should be clear that Committee Recom-
mendation JB-1 is not intended to be modi-
fied by any way by section 5 (A) of R&P-1.
Under JB-1 the legislature would have
the power to authorize juries in the district
court, but without this amendment, the jury
would have to be a jury of twelve. With this
amendment, it could be a jury of six.
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Excuse me, Mr.
Chairman. I have a very brief question to
ask of Delegate Henderson with respect to
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson,
do you yield to a question?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: I yield.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegate Hen-
derson, I read your amendment as saying
it would not interfere with the right of the
accused to elect to be tried by a jury of 12,
if that is what he chose.
In other words, I want to make it per-
fectly clear that the intent of this amend-
ment is that the General Assembly may
set up a jury of six in the district court.
However, the accused would have the right
to elect not to be tried by that jury of six
in the district court and could be tried by a
jury of twelve, I would assume, then, in
the superior court under 5 (A).
Could that be done?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: That would
depend upon the action of the legislature.
As I said several times before, the legisla-
ture might in its wisdom decide to confine
it to a six-man jury in the district court
rather than a trial in a higher court.
THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a further
question ?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Would that not
then conflict with section 5 (A)?
|
THE CHAIRMAN: This amendment is
part of 5 (A).
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Would that
sentence not conflict with what was men-
tioned prior to that wherein it says that
the accused shall have ,the right, as I un-
derstand it, or as I read it, to be tried by
an impartial jury of twelve and the amend-
ment really indicates a permissive type
action that the General Assembly may set
up, I would assume, for ,the sake of con-
venience and for the sake of a speedy trial ?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Henderson.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: So far as my
intention is concerned, the intention was
not to restrict the legislature. The General
Assembly can provide for the ousting of
jurisdiction by the election of a jury trial
or it might not.
These two would certainly have to be read
together and it is my view that the six-
man jury in the district court would satisfy
the requirements of a jury, an impartial
jury.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for
the question?
(Call for the question.)
The Clerk will ring the quorum bell.
Delegate Dulany.
DELEGATE DULANY: Mr. Chairman, I
just want to make one brief statement. I
am amazed at the distrust of the legislature
expressed while arguing this question. Ac-
tually we have a legislature that can give a
death penalty to a pickpocket or give a two-
year sentence for murder.
The State's Attorney from Baltimore
City has stated that four times as many
people are requesting jury trials than did
four years ago. This is a 400 percent in-
crease. If we are talking about an increased
cost to taxpayers, we had better think about
a six-man jury in a lower court rather than
a twelve-man jury in every single case.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: While we
think about the cost to the taxpayers, we
ought to think about some traditions which
are called sacred. There are some traditions
which are sacred.
This amendment intends to accomplish an
idea which was rejected by this Committee.
Nowhere in the judiciary article is there a
limit on the jurisdiction which the General
Assembly may infer upon the court.
|
