|
second time was enough deliberation to
establish premeditation.
Juries disregard that instruction, al-
though there is no doubt that two shots
were fired, and they were shot at the vital
part of the body. So the juries do in fact
disregard. I am not so sure that they are
right in those circumstances.
I have abandoned a first degree count
when I did not think it was first degree,
even though under the law it was first
degree.
DELEGATE BOTHE: You have not
answered my question now. Do you feel
that defense counsel and the prosecutor
should be at liberty to argue law to the
jury which is not the law of the State or
of the land?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: No.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Mentzer.
DELEGATE MENTZER: I would like
to speak in favor of this amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding): Is
there a series of questions?
DELEGATE BOTHE: I have one more.
Will you agree that this can be and
often is the practice in the criminal courts
of this State under the present provisions
of the Constitution?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: No, I say it
is not the practice. If somebody argues that
which is not the law anywhere in the
United States or in the State of Mary-
land, then you can object to that argu-
ment, and the judge will usually sustain
your objection. At least, he always sus-
tained my objections and arguments of law
that were not sound, and I think that is an
appropriate way of handling it.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Mentzer, you wish to speak in favor
of the amendment?
DELEGATE MENTZER: Yes. Mr.
Chairman, I have never been a lawyer,
and I have never served on a jury. I do
not hope ever to be a lawyer, but I do
hope to some time serve on a jury. When
that day comes I know I will have enough
trouble deciding on the facts involved.
|
I do not wish to decide on the law in-
volved. As a non-lawyer I wholeheartedly
support this amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
anyone wish to speak against the amend-
ment?
Delegate Stern.
DELEGATE STERN: Delegate Mentzer,
one day you may want to decide the law
if you are on the jury. We had a case in
Prince George's County where a woman,
the wife of a Congressman, went to each
bedroom and shot and killed four of her
children. She was found by the psychiatrist
to be sane. The jury found here to be sane.
At that point, I felt as defense counsel
there were only two decisions that they
could bring in, either not guilty, or first
degree murder.
Under the Maryland law the jury com-
promised and I felt it was an excellent
compromise. The jury found her guilty of
manslaughter, and the judge sentenced her
to ten years in prison for each of the
deaths, to serve concurrently.
That woman has tried to commit suicide
at least four times. Had they found her
guilty, the judge could have sentenced her
to death. Had they found her not guilty I
am positive she would have been dead
within a week by her own hand. The jury
could not have brought in the manslaughter
verdict if this were not in our Constitution.
The jury would have either had to find her
not guilty, and then tried to live with them-
selves knowing that she did shoot those
four children, or found her guilty, and take
the chance that she would be put to death
anyway.
And perhaps, through the years that she
is incarcerated for less than life imprison-
ment, she could be helped through psychi-
atric and mental care which she is now
receiving, and then return to society.
Without that provision that woman
would never have had that opportunity ex-
cept to spend additional years, many years
as an additional punishment instead of
once being corrected mentally, and returned
to her place in society.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Sherbow.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: Mr. Chairman
and ladies and gentlemen of the Committee:
I had hoped I would not have to speak on
this particular subject, because it was so
simple and plain, but some of the non-
lawyer members of the Convention have ex-
pressed to me the fact that they are still
|
