|
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That is my
understanding.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: And if there
are more than two defendants whose cases
are . ""ing combined for purposes of trial,
does that mean that each of the defendants
would have a right or the two must act
concurrently, and by agreement?
(President H. Vernon Eney, resumed the
chair.)
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Penniman.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: I am hesi-
tant to go into that, but I think in any
case it is no change to change from "of
the parties", that is, "either of the parties"
to "by the party", but I would hesitate to
get involved in the content.
We say what was said when it came to
us, but I would be hesitant to go into the
text beyond that.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: But as you use
the language here you mean a party being
the state as prosecutor, and party defend-
ant, whoever that might be.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: That was my
understanding of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other
questions?
Delegate Weidemeyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
Chairman, in section 1.05, and on line 30,
the Committee took out the word "or" and
placed in the word "and", and I am won-
dering if we would not be better off to
strike the "and" and reinsert the "or" so
as to make our meaning a lot more clear
than what we have here.
It would seem to me that the clause "and
other invasions of their privacy shall not
be violated" of course could by some rea-
soning be said to refer back to "and be
secure against unreasonable other invasions
their privacy."
To me it just does not read right the way
it is there.
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: The Commit-
tee's intention was that this not be an
either/or case, but our understanding was
that the citizen was to be protected against
each of these, that is, one and the other
at the same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Protection against
both, in other words.
|
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: Both at the
same time.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Weide-
meyer.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I under-
stand an amendment will be offered to
clarify the way that reads.
In section 1.12 and in line 42, "or agree-
ment approved by decree of the court" —
do you mean by the word "approved" that
the agreement must be embodied either by
specific reference or in toto in the decree
of the <?ourt?
DELEGATE PENNIMAN: These were
the words that came to us, and this would
I think be a substantive question which I
choose not to answer. I think it is one for
the chairman of the substantive commit-
tee, Delegate Weidemeyer.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Kiefer,
could you respond to the question? The ques-
tion is with respect to section 1.12. The
question asked is whether the clause re-
ferring to an agreement approved by de-
cree of a court requires that the agreement
be specifically referred to or incorporated
in toto, embodied in the decree.
Delegate Kiefer.
DELEGATE KIEFER: Mr. President, it
is my understanding that it does.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any fur-
ther question, Delegate Weidemeyer?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I have
no further questions on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other
questions?
If not, Delegate Penniman may return to
his seat.
The Committee Recommendations R&P-1
and R&P-2 are now open for consideration
of amendments as to style, amendments
pertaining to the amendments suggested
and recommended by the Committee on
Style.
Are there any such amendments, amend-
ments as to style with respect to section
1.01?
The Chair hears none.
Are there any with respect to section
1.02?
The Chair hears none.
Are there any with respect to section
1.03?
|
