4298

VETOES

"If a person lawfully refuses to answer or to provide
other information on the basis of the privilege
against self incrimination, the person may be
compelled to testify in a proceeding to investigate or
prosecute a violation of Article 27, § 132 or §§ 340
through 343 of the Code, if such offenses involve
officers, directors, or employees of a savings and
loan association."

On the other hand, the House Bill states in subsection (a) that:

"A person compelled to testify in a proceeding to
investigate or prosecute a violation of Article 27, §
132 or §§ 340 through 343 of the Code, if such
offenses involve officers, directors, or employees of
a savings and loan association, is not excused from
testifying or complying with a summons or subpoena
because the answer or document may tend to incriminate
him."

In addition, subsection (c) of Senate Bill 10 provides that:

"(1) If a person lawfully refuses to answer or
to provide other information on the basis of the
privilege against self incrimination, the court shall
compel the witness to answer or otherwise provide
information if:

(i) The prosecuting attorney requests in
writing or on the record that the court order the
person to answer or otherwise provide information,
notwithstanding the person's claim of privilege; and

(ii) The court informs the person of the
scope of immunity the witness will receive.

(2) The court shall enter its order compelling
testimony in writing or on the record."

However, House Bill 10 merely states, in subsection (c), that:

"[T]his section shall be administered in accordance
with Rule 4-631 of the Maryland Rules."1/

These differences are significant because Senate Bill 10
clearly places the burden on the witness to assert the privilege
against self-incrimination rather than on the State to compel his
or her testimony. ("If a person lawfully refuses to answer...).
The language of Maryland Rule 4-631 that is expressly included
within the bill reemphasizes the point. On the other hand, the
House Bill is open to an interpretation that the grant of
immunity is automatic without the need of the witness to assert
the privilege. The Court of Appeals has emphasized the need for