|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Burdette.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: But not the
intention to exclude it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: I would say, yes,
it was our intention to exclude lawyers
who were judges in the category of law-
yers for the purpose of these nominating
commissions.
DELEGATE BURDETTE: Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Mr. Chair-
man, I was wondering how you contem-
plate the nominating commissions to be set
up under 5.16? Under 5.15 you, of course,
have it set up in the exact manner, but
under 5.16 you leave it up to the legislature
to develop the nominating commission.
Could you explain to the body how you
expect this provision to operate?
DELEGATE MUDD: You mean how I
anticipate the legislature will set them up?
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes, sir.
DELEGATE MUDD: Well, my most rea-
sonable expectation woul'd be they would
set up a district nominating commission, or
at least that was my thinking before this
morning, but it is left to the wisdom of the
legislature. I do not think it contemplates
or did not contemplate in Committee neces-
sarily a commission for each county, if
that is responsive to your question.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Willoner.
DELEGATE WILLONER: Yes, I as-
sume then the contemplation is that these
commissions would be set up at least on a
regional basis?
DELEGATE MUDD: That would be my
expectation of the manner in which the
legislature would handle it, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox?
DELEGATE FOX: Chairman Mudd, I
am just wondering what would be the
status of a retired judge as far as being a
lawyer member of the commission? It might
be of some significance particularly in a
small county. In Garrett County, we heard
about six lawyers, and if two of them were
nominated judges there would be not many
left.
DELEGATE MUDD: That is a good
question, Delegate Fox, and we have some
distinguished or retired judges who are
|
members of this Convention. I might say
it would be my view and I would assume
the view of the majority of the Committee,
that when we said lawyers we contemplated
lawyers in active practice and not retired
judges who had not resumed the practice
of law.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Fox.
DELEGATE FOX: They would then be
barred from serving either as lawyer mem-
bers or as lay members?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Within that inter-
pretation they could be barred, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: Chairman Mudd,
I am interested in the qualifications for be-
coming a judge of the supreme bench, or
the supreme court of Maryland. Does the
fact that a judge has been divorced have
any adverse bearing on his eligibility to
become a member of a supreme bench?
DELEGATE MUDD: You are speaking
of which supreme bench, Delegate White?
DELEGATE WHITE: I am speaking- of
the supreme bench as it existed some time
in the past.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are you talking
about the supreme bench of Baltimore City
or are you talking about the Court of Ap-
peals of Maryland?
DELEGATE WHITE: Baltimore City.
Does the fact that a judge is the victim of
a divorce have any adverse bearing on his
eligibility to become a member of the bench
or court?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Mudd.
DELEGATE MUDD: Certainly not, in
the language of eligibility used in our rec-
ommendation, Delegate White.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate White.
DELEGATE WHITE: A recent experi-
ence I had in Baltimore City suggested that
a judge is autonomous once he takes the
bench. In your concept of the new consti-
tution, how autonomous will a judge be
and what can we do about it when it works
to the detriment of a citizen appearing be-
fore him?
DELEGATE MUDD: I think, Delegate
White, the section of our recommendation
beginning on page 7 dealing with removal
or retirement of judges is decidedly the
|
