|
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER : Mr. Pres-
ident and delegates of the Committee, my
assignment was to cover two sections, sec-
tion 11 and also section 13.
Section 11 provides for indictment by
grand jury. As you know, we have indict-
ment by the grand jury now, although
there was no specific provisions in the Con-
stitution requiring grand jury. However, in
our present Declaration of Rights, in Ar-
ticle 21 is was by implication because it
said that the accused should be furnished
with a copy of the indictment and by im-
plication we had the grand jury.
Under the federal Constitution we had
the words which we have in section 11,
which specifically require indictment by
grand jury. Then we have now, under rule
of the Court of Appeals, Rule 708 which
requires indictment by a grand jury in
capital or other infamous crimes, and also
709, which permits the accused to waive.
So I think where we have changed Article
21 of the Declaration of Rights, and where
we want to guarantee this right in capital
or otherwise infamous cases, we should
have it specifically provided either in the
Declaration of Rights or in our judiciary
article.
That is all I have to say for that, and
there has been no amendments offered. I
assume that there is no objection to that
being in our constitution.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: May I ask
a question?
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Will
Delegate Weidemeyer yield to a question?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Yes.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: Since sec-
tion 11, I understood you to say, is not in
our present Constitution, and since there
is a regular procedure whereby most of
the cases come up on information and not
by indictment, would there be any intention
here to change that present practice which
has worked so well?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No, I do
not think so because this follows the word-
ing of the federal Constitution, no person
shall be held to answer for a capital or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on pre-
sentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces or in the militia when in actual
service in time of war, or public danger.
DELEGATE HENDERSON: This is
limited then to capital cases, is it?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: This is
capital or otherwise infamous crime. On
|
some of the minor things they come up
on presentment.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : A
point of inquiry from the Chair.
Is this not interpreted in federal law as
requiring a jury trial in these important
cases?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: No. This
only pertains to grand jury and not to the
trial jury.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : I see.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: For those
of you who might not understand, before a
man is brought to trial before what is
known as the petty or trial jury on a capi-
tal or infamous case, he must be indicted
by the grand jury. The grand jury has a
chance to review with the state's attorneys
the facts they have at hand to determine
whether or not there is ample evidence to
take the case before a jury.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Dele-
gate Cardin, for what purpose does Dele-
gate Cardin rise?
DELEGATE CARDIN: I would like to
ask a question of Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE JAMES (presiding) : Do
you yield?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Yes.
DELEGATE CARDIN: In working on
the suffrage and elections article, we came
across the phrase "infamous crime." We
felt the word infamous is one no longer
in use by the general public and we sug-
gested changing it to "serious crime." Is
this the type of crime which you had in
mind?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Infamous
is a serious crime and I think our legisla-
ture now is in the process of redefining the
statement between felonies and misde-
meanors. In some instances probably you
have what we would call an infamous crime
that is now a misdemeanor, but I would
imagine they will get that thing straight-
ened out. But "infamous," to my way of
knowing, is a very serious offense.
DELEGATE CARDIN: Would it be in
order to suggest that if there is no objec-
tion that the Committee on Style and Draft-
ing consider the same terminology?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I would
not agree to that. I think "infamous" has
its legal significance and we ought not to
tamper with that.
|
