|
Delegates Johnson, Blair, Burdette, Dorsey,
Dukes, Grant, Harkness, Neilson, F. C.
Robey, Rollins, Rosenstock, Rybczynski, M.
Smith, H. Taylor, Wheatley, Hostetter,
Hickman, Frederick, Murphy, Kahl, Soul,
Sosnowski, Kirkland, Linton, Bradshaw,
Vecera, Rush, D. Murray, E. C. Murray,
Key, Ritter, Webb, Darby, Hutchinson, Jett,
J. H. Smith, Siewierski:
On page 3 section 7, Right to Jury Trial
in Civil Cases strike out all of line 41
through 44, inclusive, beginning with the
word "the" in line 41 and extending through
the word "verdict" in line 44 and insert in
lieu thereof the following: "The jury shall
consist of not less than 12. The General
Assembly may provide by law for a jury of
not less than six in the district court. A
unanimous decision of any jury shall be
required to constitute its verdict."
THE CHAIRMAN : The amendment has
been submitted by Delegate Johnson and
seconded by numerous other delegates.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Johnson
to speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman,
if you would permit, I should like to read
the names of some additional delegates who
wish to co-sponsor this amendment. May I
do so?
THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, would you
say it again, Delegate Johnson.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: I would like to
read the names of some additional delegates
who wish to co-sponsor this amendment. I
would like to so record their names.
THE CHAIRMAN: Very well.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Delegates Hos-
tetter, Hickman, Frederick, Murphy, Kahl,
Siewierski, Soul, Sosnowski, Kirkland, Lin-
ton, Bradshaw, Vecera, Rush, Dorothy Mur-
ray, Churchill Murray, Key, Ritter, Webb,
Darby, Hutchinson, Jett, Hodge Smith — if
we could have him raise his hand.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Borom, for
what purpose do you rise?
DELEGATE BOROM: I move the pre-
vious question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Johnson,
you may speak to the amendment.
DELEGATE JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman
and fellow delegates, may I call to your
attention that under section 5, Rights of
the Accused, while guaranteeing a twelve-
man jury to the wrongly accused, this Com-
mittee has also granted a twelve-man jury
|
to the most hardened and unconscionable
criminal. Under the same section, namely
section 5, Rights of the Accused, while
correctly granting the right of a twelve-
man jury to an individual accused of mur-
der, it also impliedly granted the right of
jury trials to an individual who is the re-
cipient of a parking ticket.
If you really believe, as I do, and as I am
certain the sponsors of this amendment do,
that the twelve-man jury is such a cherished
right, that there is not a law-abiding citizen
who is not entitled to the same right.
I call to your attention that the amend-
ment that is before you for consideration,
correctly guarantees civil jury trials. The
question is, what will the constitutional
minimum guarantee be.
Under section 7, as you have it before
you, you will note that the majority states
that juries shall consist of not less than
six. In effect, this will permit the General
Assembly the opportunity, perhaps not in
the immediate future but sometime in the
future, to set all civil jury trials at six so
that cases perhaps involving hundreds of
thousands of dollars will be decided by
only a six-man jury. I submit to you, ladies
and gentlemen, that if two heads are better
than one, then twelve minds should be better
than six.
I think it is very important to retain a
twelve-man jury on the Superior Court level
for several reasons: First of all, you will
have the opportunity to obtain a proper
cross section of all people, all points of
view and all ethnic groups. You will be per-
mitted to do this by virtue of a twelve-man
jury. You will not have the same, and no
one can argiie that you will have the same
opportunity with a six-man jury. With a
twelve-person jury, you will have that much
more experience with the problems that the
jury will be facing, and you will, I submit,
have an opportunity to evade the problem
where there is a jury leader, an individual
who thinks that he knows something more
than the other jury members do, and oft-
times bulls the jury into making a deci-
sion that it would not have ordinarily made
had it not been for that one persuasive
member.
I am convinced that a majority of the
members of the Personal Rights Committee
meant to do just what this amendment does,
namely, to retain the twelve-man jury on
the Superior Court level and let the legisla-
ture have permission to establish a six-
member jury on a lower court, namely, the
District Court. This suggested amendment
|
