Newspapers / The Kings Mountain Herald … / June 8, 1972, edition 1 / Page 6
Part of The Kings Mountain Herald (Kings Mountain, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Thursday, Juna 8, 1972 This Is The Law By ROBERT E. LEE (Sponsored By The Lawyers of North Carolina) JURY miAL Is it unconstitutional to convict a person of- a criminal offense without trial by jury? The Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution provides: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State snd district wherein the crime sliall have been committed.’* T'he Fourteenth Amendment de nies the States the power to “deprive any person of life, lib erty, or properly without due pro cess of glaw.” In a 1968 decision the United States Supreme Court held that constitutional provisions guaran teeing the right to jury trial were applicable to “serious” crim inal cases but not to "petty” of fenses. The court stated: "So-called letty offenses were tried with- THANK YOU / ; r'.iO nl for your r ' ' '• T’"'"Ipinrrmecar- j Cjuniy in the Tune Run-Off Election. Pat Taylor Lt. Gov. ol N. C. Cecil L. Barrier, M.D. Buck Lattimore Bill Plonk Co-Chairmen — Taylor For Governor Xi- ' TIES SOLID, STRIPES SHIRTS SOLIDS, PATTERNS SIZES 14 U - 19 I ' I m- ARNOLD PALMER DOUBLE KNIT WALK SHORTS & SHIRT SETS Red, Chestnut, Navy $28.00 FULTON’S out juries both in England and in the Colonies, and have always been held to be exempt from the otherwise comprehensive lan guage of the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial procedure. There is no substantial evidence that the Framers intended to depart from this established common - law practice, and the possible conse quences to defendants from con victions for petty offenses have been thought insufficient t o outweigh the benefits to effi cient law enforcement and sim plified judicial administration resulting from the availability of speedy and inexpensive non jury adjudications.” The court hag not settled "the exact location of the line between petty offenses and serioits crimes.” Until this is done, the various states will have great dif ficulty in determining which of these crimes are "jury” “cases and which are "non-jury” cases. Most states, like North Carolina, do not define the terms "serious rimes’ ' and "petty offenses.” -. existing North Carolina stat- .ites define crimes as either mia-| -^n-^rs or felonies. A t.ie federal system, petty jXxenses are defined as those punishable by not more than six months in prison and a $500 fine. There is some indication that the state courts may take the six- months period as a guideline. In the particular case before the United States Supreme Court the defendant was convicted of s.mple battery in Louisiana and sentenced to serve 60 days in the parish prison and pay a fine of $150. Under the law of Louis-' i2Lna simple battery is a misde-j meanor, which carries a maxi mum punishment of two years* imprisonment and a $300 fine. The defendant had sought a trial by jury but the trial judge de nied such because it was not a case providing for trial by jury under the Louisiana constitution. The United States Supreme court reversed the judgment of the Louisiana court and remanded the case for a new trial with a jury. If the particular misdemeanor had not been one carrying a pos sible maximum penalty in excess of .six month.s, apparently the 60- day sentence would not have been one requiring trial by jury. "The penalty authorized for a particu lar crime is of major relavancy in determining whether it is ser ious or not.” The Supreme Court found no fault with the practices, common in both federal and state courts, of accepting waivers of jury by trial. Criminal cases below the grade of feyony must be tried in the district courts of North Carolina without a jury. The convicted de fendant has the right to a de nova trial before a jury in the superior court. Washiagton Report By CONGRESSMAN JA9LMES T. BROYHUjL U. S. - SOVIET UNION AGREEMENTS President Nixon returned from his historic visit to Moscow last week with several accomplish ments which could signal the beginning of the end of the cold war. Unlike previous summit meetings, President Nixon’s talks with Soviet leaders produced sol id accomplishments and commit ted both nations to further talks on subjects of mutual interest. The most notable agreement reached between the two world powers was the limitation on offensive and de'enstve nuclear weapons. This agreement was the culmination of two and a half years of strategic arms limitation (SALT) talks which began Nov- eiurer 17, 1969. The U. S.-Soviet Union arms limitation agreement takes two forms. For defensive weapons, a treaty p**ovides a llmJtatbn on anti-ballistic mlssi'e (ABM) sys tems. Each country is limited to two ABM sites, one for the de fense of the capital and one for the defense of the chief inter con tinental ballistic missile (ICBM) field. For the U. S., this means a reduction from the presently planned 12-site A-BM system. One site has already been located near Grand Forks, North Dakota, and another will be provided near Washington, D. C. Inspection ig provided through "nations! technical means,” which i would Involve satellite survell-' lance from outside national terri tory rather than on-site inspec tion. A significant provision of the treaty statCg that neither side will interfere w.th the oher’s na- ional technical collection means or seek to conceal missile sites. The treaty is of unlimited dura tion and is subject to Senate rat ification. An interim agreement provides for the limitation of of.ensive weapons at current levels. For the U. S., this allows 1,()54 land- based missiles, compared to an estimated 1,618 for the Soviet Union. Submarine missiles would be at the following levels: for the U. S., 710 ballistic missile launch ers on 44 submarines; for Soviet Union, an estimated 950 launch ers on 62 submarines. Only num erical limits on missiles are es tablished, and modernization of weapons and replacement by more advanced weapons are per mitted within the limitations. The interim agreement is for a period of five years, during which time both sideg are com mitted to negotiating a perman ent and more comprehensive treaty. Although not required by law, the President has indicated his intension to submit the inter im agreement to iboth houses of the Congress for concurrence. I have no doubt that under the limitations provided the United States can maintain its strong defense posture. The U. S. leads the Soviet Union in man ned bomber strength, an area not covered by the limitation agree ment, and also has superior strength In deliverable missile warheads. In addition, our na tion leads in offensive and de fensive missile technology. The goal of nuclear arms lim itation has been of national con cern for many years. The sign ing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 helped to pave the way for the I new accords. The escalation of' the arms race 'between the world's nuclear powers has created a dangerous climate fori the conduct of foreign 'elations. • The growth of our nation’s ar senal hag also been an expensive I burden for the American tax payer. The arms limitation agree-' ment is an encouraging sign for the future and a step toward world peace. I am pleased with the favorable response of the ^Congress to the president s ac-! I complishments, and I feel sure' ! that Congressional approval will I be readily given to the agree-, ment. i I Agreements in other areas were reached between our two nations which commit us to joint efforts in several fields. A joint commis-! sion will be established to study problems of air, water, and soil pollution and measures to control j man’s impact on the environment. | A Joint Commercial Commis.sion will meet in Moscow in July to- begin work on an entire range of trade problems. In tlie space j effort, a joint docking of manned spacecraft and flight in linked craft will be carr ed out in 1975. ^ There will also be cooperation in space medicine and exploration of the moon and planets. MORE CX>RN I most significant factor in this , difference was the blight trouble!^ A year makes a lot of differ-which ' left critically ^-1# ence in supplies of farm com-1 g^ort supplies to be carried into modit es. This spring, North 1971^ ^nd last y.?ar’s crop wa. Carolina had over a third more j ^ corn on hand than at the same. ^ time the pro vious year. The VACATION mE LOANS UP TO $900 Get your money now. Have a Good Time and Pay Later. Call or Visit Betty Hager and T. L. Saine at Triangle Fin ance Corp. at 123 W. Mtn. St. TELEPHONE 739-2576 Herald Want Ads Pay; The Veterans Corner Editor’s Note: Veterans and their families are asking thous ands of questions concerning the benefits their government pro vides for them through the Vet erans Administration. Below are some representative quesies. Ad ditional information may be ob/.ained at any VA office, Q.—I’d like to apply for a cer tificate of eligibiliay for a GI loan, but I lost my I>D-214 Arm od Forces Report of Transfer or Discharge. What should I do? A.—VA will accept a legible copy of an original discharge or release from active duty. If a copy is not available any VA office will supply an application form for requesting a replace ment from your military de partment. Q.—Will the Army furnisjj a memorial marker to be put in a private cemetery for my son who was lost at sea during World War II military service? A,—Yes. Application forms for memorial markers'are available at all VA office?, and should be mailed to the Office of the Chief Support Services, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. Q.-^My husband, a veteran. Is in a nursing home for a condition not related to military service. Will VA pay for his nursing home care, A.—No. VA is permitted to provide nursing home care only for a limited time for such vet erans who have received maxi mum benefits from VA hospital ization. There ig no time limit for veterans who were hospital ized primarily for service-con nected conditions. ’ ADDITIVE COSTS It costs between $125,000 to 250,000 to develop and test a new food additive. Not many companies can af ford to spend this amount of money on products that will fail to pass the standards of the Food and Drug Administration, o-iiis out Mrs. Ruby Uzzle ex- ension consumer marketing 'conomist, Nort|^ Carolina State Jniversily. HERA WANT • ' • ADS GET RESULTS Kings Mountain
The Kings Mountain Herald (Kings Mountain, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 8, 1972, edition 1
6
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75