Warning

Info

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

372 F.2d 742 (4th Cir. 1967)

tl;dr: Allowing the jury to decide both the law and the facts in any given case does not deprive the defendant of due process per se.

1L is really, really hard. Save time, crush cold calls, and excel on exams with LSD's AI case briefs.

We simplify dense legal cases into easy-to-understand summaries, helping you master legal complexities and excel in your studies.

AI Deep DiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Level 1
Click below ๐Ÿ‘‡ to deep dive

Rodger Wyley, a state prisoner, appealed his conviction on the grounds that Article XV, section 5 of the Maryland Constitution, which allows the jury to determine both the law and the facts in a criminal trial, violated his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed his petition based on a previous Supreme Court case, Giles v. Maryland, which had also questioned the constitutionality of section 5 but was dismissed for lack of a substantial federal question. The Court of Appeals of Maryland has consistently upheld the constitutionality of Article XV, section 5, which grants this power to the jury. The appellant argues that allowing the jury to be the judges of both law and fact in a criminal trial violates his due process rights and denies him equal protection under the law. However, the Maryland court clarified that juries in criminal cases are not completely unrestricted. Judges have certain powers to restrain juries, which serve as a counterbalance.

The trial judge has the power to determine the admissibility of evidence, competency of witnesses, and legal sufficiency of evidence. The judge can also direct a verdict of acquittal or for the defendant if the evidence is insufficient. Juries cannot pass on the constitutionality of a statute. Article XV, section 5 of the Maryland Constitution, which allows the jury to determine both the law and the facts in a criminal trial, has been upheld by the state court and the Supreme Court of the United States. However, several Maryland jurists have argued against the wisdom of the provision and have advocated for its repeal or modification.

Critics of Article XV, section 5 of the Maryland Constitution, which allows the jury to determine both the law and the facts in a criminal trial, have not claimed that it violates the federal constitution. The origin of the doctrine is uncertain, and opponents argue that it is no longer necessary. Maryland is considering deleting section 5 from its constitution, and a subcommittee has recommended this step. The court is reluctant to intervene in this matter, and in this case, the court finds no justification for disturbing the District Court's order of dismissal. The decision is affirmed.

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

IRACIssue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion

๐Ÿคฏ High points ๐ŸคฏKey points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

Facts & Holding

Facts:The defendant was convicted of first degree murder. He was...

Holding:The court held that the provision does not violate due...

LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.

Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary

Chat for Wyley v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
brief-757
๐Ÿ‘ Chat vibe: 0 ๐Ÿ‘Ž
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.