|
rule making power the need or the desire
for a specialist judge in a particular place?
Is that your question?
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Yes.
DELEGATE MUDD: To appeal to a
very competent standing committee on rules
composed of sixteen talented judges and
lawyers.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: I note, Chair-
man Mudd, with great satisfaction your
answer to this last question, and I am glad
to see the Committee favors, I take it, the
establishment of family courts in those
areas where needed. But merely desig-
nating a judge is not enough, because the
family court, to fulfill its responsibilities
must be equipped —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett,
are you going to ask a question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes, sir.—
must be equipped with adequate probation
services. How will that be achieved under
this proposal?
DELEGATE MUDD: Delegate Bennett,
this is one very important feature in the
court budget. And administrative judges
and the need for another probation officer
or psychiatrist or some such additional
manpower in a particular area of the
family court or juvenile court would be
something that would be provided for in
the judicial budget; and the request for
that should be channeled through the ad-
ministrative judge.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: Would you
also contemplate that probation service
now being administered separately from
the court system would likewise be trans-
ferred to the court system and taken over
and financed and funded under the court
system?
DELEGATE MUDD: Probation, did you
say?
DELEGATE BENNETT: Yes, proba-
tion service.
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes. I can see that
becoming an arm of the court in its ad-
ministrative responsibility.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bennett.
DELEGATE BENNETT: I hope that
that will be given consideration at the time
this article is discussed, because it is a
pretty important issue, it is policy —
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Is this a question?
DELEGATE BENNETT: This is an ex-
pression of hope, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may express
that later, sir.
Delegate Scanlan.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I have a ques-
tion with respect to section 5.11, dealing
with the commission. The Committee ap-
parently has followed the recommendation
of the Constitutional Convention in^this
area and deliberately restricted powers of
the commissioners to those set forth in the
section; is that not correct, Mr. Chairman?
DELEGATE MUDD: Yes, sir,.
DELEGATE SCANLAN: Was any
thought given to providing some flexibility
by permitting1 additional powers that could
be prescribed by rule in the future? There
may come a day when commissioners, for
example, will be thought competent enough
to determine whether sufficient evidence
exists to hold a man or to pass upon
sufficiency of search warrants. Under this
language that power could not be vested
unless by amendment to the constitution,
is that correct?
DELEGATE MUDD: Correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair-
man, is it not true that on your Committee
you have a businessman from the Dundalk
District of Baltimore County named Wil-
liam Rush? Is it not true he recently cele-
brated -his forty-eighth birthday; and is
it not true that he is a pleasant, intelli-
gent, articulate — what else — aren't all these
things true about him, and shouldn't we
give him a round of applause?
DELEGATE MUDD: Exactly; except I
did not think he was forty-eight.
(Laughter and Applause.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Rybczyn-
ski.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: I would
like to ask another question.
DELEGATE MUDD: Do not make it
that long.
DELEGATE RYBCZYNSKI: Delegate
Mudd, with reference to the uniformity of
the four tier system, plus the inclusion of
the commissioners, who, I suppose in many
respects would be like the masters we now
|
