|
was not a serious charge, they would prob-
ably dismiss it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Beatrice Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I notice in
the present Constitution there is no provi-
sion for the tribunal. What was the think-
ing of your Committee in adding this sec-
tion to the section on impeachment?
THE CHAIRMAN: I could not hear the
last part. To the section on what?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: On impeach-
ment. Why was the tribunal provided for
when it was not in the Constitution?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I do not know
how else to say it except to repeat that
their expertise and experience and the ma-
chinery they have would be more effective,
and they would be able to delineate right
from wrong on whether or not there had
been a serious charge and whether or not
there had been any guilt involved. The
Committee felt, I felt, that it was better to
have the judges conduct the actual trial
rather than the Senate.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: The model
constitution recommends a special tribunal
much as your Committee has. In doing so,
one of the reasons they give is that having
the special tribunal would remove the spe-
cial impeachments from the legislature and
remove the procedure from partisan poli-
tics. Was that one of the reasons you took
into account naming a special tribunal?
DELEGATE BOYER: Thanks very
much, Delegate Scanlan. I could not have
said it better myself.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: You con-
fused me when you referred to the Court
of Appeals choosing the ten judges by sit-
ting en banc. Do you mean the majority
of the Court of Appeals as four out of
seven or a majority of the quorum that
sits?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer.
DELEGATE BOYER: I am advised that
the House of Delegates in their impeach-
ment proceeding would have to have a
three-fifths vote and this would carry over
to the ten- judge tribunal.
|
DELEGATE WILLONER: I am refer-
ring to the selection process of the ten
judges that would decide the case for lack
of a better word.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyer, the
question Delegate Willoner asks is what
number of judges in the Court of Appeals
is necessary to concur in the appointment
of the special tribunal of ten? A majority
of the quorum or a majority of the whole
court?
DELEGATE BOYER: The recommenda-
tion is silent on this, but I would imagine
as in all other decisions of the Court of
Appeals the majority would prevail.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Of a quorum.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Bamberger.
DELEGATE BAMBERGER: Mr. Chair-
man, I just rise because I think we have
become confused. My recollection from the
judiciary article is that this always re-
quires a concurrence of four judges for any
particular decision. Even when they sit as
a panel of five, a majority of three is not
sufficient to act; it would require a ma-
jority of four. I would suggest that the
answer to Delegate Willoner is that it
requires a concurrence of four of the seven
judges that would appoint the ten that
would serve on the impeachment panel.
DELEGATE BOYER: On reflection, I
must concur with you. Thanks for your
assistant, Delegate Bamberger. This is, it
is true, my recollection of the judicial ar-
ticle. I think I got stampeded into giving
an erroneous answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Boyles.
DELEGATE BOYLES: Delegate Boyer,
I take it the impeachment by the House of
Delegates makes a trial by the Court of
Appeals mandatory?
DELEGATE BOYER: No, there is no
trial by the Court of Appeals. The Court
of Appeals would appoint a special tribunal
of ten judges.
DELEGATE BOYLES: Excuse me. By
the judges which the Court of Appeals
appoints?
DELEGATE BOYER: Yes, after the
House of Delegates by a three-fifths vote
makes the indictment, then it is mandatory
that the special tribunal must conduct a
hearing on it.
|
