|
Before leaving the consideration of sec-
tion 5, the Chair understands that Delegate
Willoner feels that the colloquy between
Delegate Kiefer, Delegate Case, Delegate
Carson and the Chair leaves something to
be desired. The Chair recognizes Delegate
Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, it is with great reluctance that I rise.
It bothers me a great deal to rise on this
question but I think that the committee
history on this particular provision should
be made a bit more clear.
We had a full discussion of the validity
of a jury trial for the most minor offenses
and in answer to my questions during the
presentation by the Chairman he answered
that we did intend to include the most minor
offenses.
When we discussed coverage of traffic
offenses, we discussed, as I remember, one
particular crime — exceeding 70 miles per
hour — which is a traffic offense that carries
one year. We discussed that and thought
the jury trial was appropriate in that case.
In any event, the present law of Maryland
is to provide for a jury trial in all offenses.
The Constitution apparently is not provided
with this because the Court of Appeals has
chosen to read all criminal matters in con-
nection with Article 5 of the present Con-
stitution which says, those matters in which
you had a right to trial by jury, and to
common law.
I think it should be clear that at least in
my opinion it was the intent of the Com-
mittee that all minor offenses be covered,
as they are by statute. I think it was the
intent of the Committee that the present
state of the law be given constitutional
status and that jury trial be required for
the most minor offense.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Kiefer, if
Delegate Willoner's recollection is correct,
the Chair's question to you as to whether
when referring to present law you meant
the present Constitution or present statute
law, and in view of Delegate Willoner's
statement, do you desire to add anything
to the statement you made as to whether
when you referred to the intent of the
Committee as being not to change the pres-
ent law, whether you meant not to change
the present statute law which guarantees a
jury trial in every case, or whether you
meant not to change the present Constitu-
tion, which does not guarantee a jury trial
in every case?
Delegate Kiefer.
|
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. Chairman,
as Mammy Yokum says, "I has spoken". I
thought I made it clear the first time. I do
not care to add anything more. If Delegate
Willoner wants to talk, it looks as if there
is more than one French girl around here.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Are there any other amendments to sec-
tion 5?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair hears
none.
Are there any amendments to section 6?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair hears
none.
Are there any amendments to section 7?
(There was no response.)
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair hears
none.
Are there any amendments to section —
Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I have an
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: What section?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Seven.
THE CHAIRMAN : Do you desire to offer
your amendment AL?
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: The pages will dis-
tribute amendment AY, all love.
The Clerk will read the amendment.
READING CLERK: Amendment No. 17
to Committee Recommendation R&P-1 by
Delegate Johnson.
On page 3, section 7, Right to Jury Trial
in Civil Cases, in lines 41 and 42 strike out
the words: "The jury shall consist of not
less than six as may be fixed by law" and
insert in lieu thereof the following: "The
jury shall consist of either six or twelve as
provided by law".
THE CHAIRMAN : The amendment has
been submitted by Delegate Johnson.
Is there a second?
Delegate Kirkland.
DELEGATE KIRKLAND: Second.
|
