|
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: This may de-
velop to be the case.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Storm.
DELEGATE STORM: It appears to me
that your Committee has done a complete
job on this. Would you object — I suppose I
would have to ask if anyone would object —
if we just proceeded and adopted this en-
tire recommendation as it has been given,
and surprise our President when he comes
back?
I think the Committee has clone a terrifi-
cally wonderful job on this. I had a few
questions which you answered in your pres-
entation, and I know that there is going to
be some disagreement, but I hope that the
issues have already been decided in our
minds. I was wondering if you would have
any objection to our proceeding in this
fashion.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would have
no objection.
DELEGATE STORM: If you would give
me the courtesy of letting me present my
freedom of information article sometime
before the Convention adjourns on Janu-
ary 12.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Storm, the Chair might say that
is a excellent idea, but the first step is for
people to stop asking questions.
The Chair recognizes Delegate Hargrove.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: Delegate
Willoner, on section 10, did your Committee
check with Judge Bruce's Commission which
has been studying this matter for the last
couple of years on the provision of criminal
laws and procedures?
DELEGATE WILLONER: No.
DELEGATE PIARGROVE : Would you
be interested that their conclusion, after
several years of study, was that the jury
should not be the judge of the law?
DELEGATE WILLONER: I am well
aware of the study. I am not aware of the
Judge's conclusion. I would be interested
in hearing it.
DELEGATE HARGROVE: That is the
conclusion they reached, without too much
debate.
DELEGATE WILLONER: What?
|
DELEGATE HARGROVE: That the
jury should not be the judge of the law in
criminal cases. They concluded that the
criminal procedure and understanding the
law should proceed along those lines.
DELEGATE WILLONER: I would like
to ask a question. I talked to a couple of
state's attorneys about this and asked them
whether they were aware of the Green
problem, the problem raised in the Sharp
and Hanson case. That does not include
Royce Hanson. Sharp and Hanson v. United
States is a murder case where they pro-
hibited an instruction in second degree
murder where the facts were undisputed.
It was first degree murder. It is an old
case. It thoroughly discusses the whole
area. I found it rather shocking that you
could not get a manslaughter or second
degree murder instruction.
And was there anything on the Green
case situation?
DELEGATE HARGROVE: We con-
sidered all those cases, but we also con-
sidered the fact that a jury of twelve
people cannot learn the law in such a short
period of time, particularly if it is elo-
quently presented by one side and not
necessarily correct and not so well pre-
sented by the other side.
DELEGATE WILLONER: My question
is specific. When you considered it, did you
wish to abolish the practice in Maryland
that we have inconsistent verdicts, that
juries can bring in inconsistent verdicts.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
The Chair recognizes Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: My questions go
to section 12 in which you use felony cases.
Is it not true that in Maryland it is very
difficult to determine what a felony is and
certain crimes which are felonies in other
states are not felonies in Maryland?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Delegate
Stern, you have the same problem that ap-
parently the Chair referred to of not
listening carefully. I said there would be a
committee amendment that would eliminate
this felony aspect and would provide for
the right, the absolute right, of removal
only in capital cases punishable by death
or life imprisonment, and that would pro-
tect the right we have today, just as it is
today.
It is not meant to change the law one bit.
DELEGATE J. CLARK (presiding):
Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: That is as to
capital cases?
|
