N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 4, Page 287

Tuesday, July 8, 1947 (Morning session)

of Errors and Appeals that it has to wait until the Supreme Court decides it?

MR. VAN RIPER: That's what I had in mind, Judge McGrath, when I talked about the broadest rule-making powers.

MR. McGRATH: In order words, when we make our Constitution we ought to look at modern problems; look at questions such as those that you have brought up.

MR. VAN RIPER: And be a little practical along with it.

MR. WINNE: Could I ask the Attorney-General a question?

VICE-CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead, Mr. Winne.

MR. WINNE: I have always been concerned, Mr. Attorney-General, about what happens in a great many cases. Is these really any reason why, after a motion to quash in the county court where the man is to be tried - the trial court; it may not be a county court, it may be your Superior Court or your Supreme Court - the defendant should then have any other remedy before conviction? Naturally, he has a chance to attack the indictment after conviction, but if there is no conviction he doesn't have to attack it. But, if he has his attempt to attack the indictment before the court in which he is to be tried, and that court finds the indictment good, why should he have any right to go to some other court on that question? That's an unusual opportunity which he has today - of having the Supreme Court say whether the grand jury found a proper bill after the county court has already had it. Why should he?

MR. VAN RIPER: I don't think he should. I am perfectly willing to admit that there are instances, but I think they are very, very rare, where a person is indicted as the result of things going on in the grand jury that shouldn't go on; and I think he ought to have the opportunity to bring that out in the open, to bring it to the attention of the trial judge, or the Supreme Court judge - I don't care, perhaps to the Superior Court Judge. But I think that once he has had the opportunity to bring that before one judge - and perhaps if you are going to limit it to one judge it ought to be to one judge of the Court of Appeals, or whatever you want to call it; there should be no question about a local judge wanting to oppose a local jury or a grand jury, or anything like that - I think that once he has had that opportunity to bring it out in the open, to tell it to the top court judge, who decides that that judgment is properly found, then he ought to go to trial on the merits of the indictment.

MR. WINNE: Now, one other thing that troubles me, Mr. Attorney-General. In all this proposed court set-up, what happens to local convictions, appeals from motor vehicle convictions? What happens to your Orphans' Court under the present system? Are they in the general court?

Previous Page in Book ********* Table of Contents *********** Next Page in Book