|
of trial and it is of great expense to the
litigant and the Court.
We have obviated that problem by in-
cluding in Amendment No. 13 the language
that the Court of Appeals by rule shall
provide for reasonable regulation of this
provision.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have
unanimous consent. Judge Henderson raised
the valid point this does not reflect the
concurrent power theory of the judiciary
article and I would like to have unanimous
consent by the General Assembly.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think you
mean that because grammatically it would
then say the Court of Appeals by act of the
General Assembly.
DELEGATE WILLONER: The Court of
Appeals by rule or the General Assembly
by law.
THE CHAIRMAN: The request is that
the amendment be modified by adding at the
end of line 11 the words "or the General
Assembly by law".
Is there any objection?
T.he Chair hears none. The amendment
will be considered as modified.
Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: It seems to me
the issue before the Convention is whether
or not the right of removal will continue to
exist. The history of those cases where the
question was left to the discretion of the
court have unanimously been reversed.
I think an example of how far the court
will go on this question is the Sam Shepherd
case which of course is not a Maryland case.
I could not conceive it as being that bad in
Maryland. The case was being tried in the
press and the court refused to remove the
case.
It is the same as in the Ruby case. Maybe
there was not any place to remove it, but
removal was requested and the Court in
Texas refused to remove it.
Unless this right will be left in this con-
stitution, this right will end and the ques-
tion today is whether the right will con-
tinue. This right as proposed in this amend-
ment has the protection that the Court of
Appeals and the General Assembly may
regulate it. It could expand the right.
The legislature and the court have been
prohibited from passing any kind of regula-
tion of this right. This will end the problem
|
and now it seems to me that the question
before you is this. Should this right con-
tinue? If the decision of this body is that it
should not be left within the constitution,
it is my feeling that there will be no right
of a removal.
May I say this applies only to civil cases
and goes to the question of jury trials and
not to the question of the removal or preju-
dice of judges.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate de-
sire to speak in opposition to the amend-
ment?
Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to offer amendment W
as a substitute amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald,
I think any person desiring to speak in
opposition may do so before you offer your
amendment.
Delegate Henderson, do you desire to
speak in opposition?
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Yes. I sug-
gest that Delegate Willoner is not correct,
unless this right is put in the constitution.
It could not be regulated by the court or
the General Assembly.
We are dealing here with a mere matter
of practice and procedure and of course if
the man cannot have a fair and impartial
trial if he is able to prove that he has a
constitutional right to a removal. So we are
not leaving the matter in limbo. We are
merely leaving its regulation to the Court
of Appeals or the General Assembly, where
it belongs.
I suggest that there is another problem
in connection with this which has not yet
been mentioned. We have adopted a system
under which we have one superior court
and one district court in the whole State.
We would have a unified judicial system and
the terms of the old absolute right of re-
moval from one jurisdiction to another can
no longer be worked out. It is a matter
which will have to be dealt with in a unified
way on a statewide basis. It seems to me
that this amendment perpetuates an ab-
solute right of removal. All that is required
under the first paragraph is simply an affi-
davit without any proof as to whether the
trial would be fair or impartial or not. It is
an absolute right of removal which is per-
petuated and the last sentence which at-
tempts to provide reasonable regulation
would not permit any limitation upon that
|
