|
in doubt. We used these words, anachronis-
tic, outmoded, let me tell you exactly what
it means:
There never was a better opportunity to
have a verdict brought in that did not meet
with the law than there is under this kind
of an old, outdated rule..
Here is what happens. If you are in-
volved in a simple automobile accident case,
personal injury or property damage, the
judge will turn to the jury and give them
his instructions on the law. He will tell
the jury what the law is, and he will tell
them that they are bound by his statement
to them of what the law is.
And the jury in its function as a fact-
finding body decides what the facts are
under the law as the court has given it to
them, each taking its own place in our
scheme of justice.
But when you come to a criminal case
which may be one involving the question
of whether the crime was robbery, whether
it was receiving stolen goods, whether it
was larceny or whether it was embezzle-
ment, and all the complications involved in
all of those descriptions of what the law
may be, the judge has to say to the jury
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what
I have told you about the law is not binding
on you. It is advisory only."
In other words, a jury of lay people is
supposed to be able to figure out for them-
selves what the complicated law may be in
a given case.
Now, if they get fooled and the verdict
is not guilty, there cannot be another trial,
there cannot be any correction of it. All I
can say to you is this: Somebody some-
where ought to be thinking of that great
body of people and that is those who are
the general public. I am in favor of all the
restraints and restrictions, even those that
have come down from the Supreme Court
benefit and protect the individual on trial.
But I want to say to you that we have
imbedded in our Constitution one restraint
and restriction on a fair trial and we have
a chance to take it out. We ought to take
it out. It is old, and it does not serve a
proper purpose.
I hope you vote for the amendment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
Delegate Sollins wish to speak against the
amendment?
DELEGATE SOLLINS: I wish to ask
Delegate Moser a question.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Will
Delegate Moser yield to the gentleman?
|
DELEGATE MOSER: Yes, I will yield,
sir, and after I answer I would like to cor-
rect the record.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: In the event
your amendment is approved, will not the
legislature be able to re-establish this rule
by statute?
DELEGATE MOSER: I am not sure. I
cannot answer the question. They might be
able to.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: I have another
question.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Sollins.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: In the event
your amendment is approved, and it is not
in this Constitution, and the Constitution
is ratified, what will be the rule, in effect,
in criminal jury trials from May 14, 1968
until such time as the General Assembly
chooses to act, or not to act.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: If the Constitu-
tion is effective on July one of this year,
which I would assume it would be, the law
would be just exactly what it is in every
other state. The law of Maryland, now, as
it stands, does not differ from other juris-
dictions in the Green case type situation,
as I understand that case. It is the same.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Sollins:
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Just one last
question :
Do you think any transitional legislation
will be required in the event your amend-
ment is approved.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: I would not think
that it is required. If you feel that it is, I
am sure the committee that is considering
it would take it under advisement.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Does
anyone wish to speak against the amend-
ment?
For what purpose docs Delegate Moser
rise?
DELEGATE MOSER: I would like to
correct one statement which I made which
corrected some misunderstanding.
When I presented this, I said an injus-
tice occurred in a case that I prosecuted,
|
