|
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Do you
think it desirable to spell that out?
THE CHAIRMAN : I am not clear. Will
you state your question again?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: Do you
think it desirable —
THE CHAIRMAN: Your prior question?
Your previous question.
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: My previ-
ous question was who would designate the
ten judges to sit at such a tribunal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Is that not answered
by the sentence beginning in line 12?
DELEGATE E. C. MURRAY: I am
sorry, appointed by the Court of Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Mr. Chair-
man, since the Chairman of the Committee
has just answered that to mean the Chief
Judge, I should like to ask specifically if it
does not mean appointment by the bench
as such, the Court of Appeals?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: Well, perhaps I
was shooting from the hip on that. I think
the recommendation of the Committee does
say the Court of Appeals. It does not say
the Chief Judge. This would necessarily
then be by en banc court of the Court of
Appeals.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bradshaw.
DELEGATE BRADSHAW: I wish to
announce the presence in the gallery of the
Chairman of the Democratic Committee of
Montgomery County.
(Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Delegate Boyer,
this refers to cases of serious crimes or
serious misconduct in office. Without fur-
ther spelling it out or stating how these
crimes might be defined, by whom do you
contemplate the defining of those terms
should somebody be faced with an impeach-
ment under this section?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: The definition of
those terms would have to lie and rest with
the House of Delegates who shall have the
|
sole power of impeachment to do thus and
so in face of serious crimes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: Would you con-
template the ten-judge tribunals which try
the impeachment as having the power to
determine whether or not the impeachment,
which is the indictment, in fact, charges
a serious crime or serious misconduct in
office? If they have the authority to try
that, is there further recourse to the Court
of Appeals to determine whether or not
that determination has been correctly made,
either by the House of Delegates or by this
ten-judge tribunal?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: It is my under-
standing if there should be an impeach-
ment proceeding, and the special tribunal
should go along with the House of Dele-
gates that there has been a serious crime
committed, I do not know to whom you
would appeal from that decision of the
special tribunal.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: So whatever the
House of Delegates chose to categorize as
a serious crime or serious misconduct in
office for a particular situation would be
binding upon the particular tribunal or the
House of Delegates?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: No. The House of
Delegates would be the accusatory body.
Then the ten judges with their special
training and expertise would determine
whether this should go to trial.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Marion.
DELEGATE MARION: I am not sure
we are talking about exactly the same
thing.
DELEGATE BOYER: I am trying to
answer.
DELEGATE MARION: I understand
the tribunal of ten judges would determine
if there are facts to support the charge.
Could they also determine if the charge
was a valid charge and whether the in-
dictment charges a serious crime or a
serious misconduct in office?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: It is my thought
that a special tribunal would be a de novo
court that would hear the proceedings from
the original inception. If they thought it
|
