Opinion ID: 2357814
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearkening the Verdict

Text: Lewis Hochheimer, Esq., immortalized as a member of the Baltimore bar by his book on criminal law published at the turn of this century, had this to say about the rendition and receiving of a jury verdict in a criminal case: The verdict must be given and received in the presence of the accused, ... in open court, all the jurors being present.... L. Hochheimer, The Law of Crimes and Criminal Procedure (2d ed. 1904) § 179. Hochheimer warns that [t]he prescribed formulas must be substantially complied with. Id. The formula for the rendition of verdicts is set out in Givens v. State, 76 Md. 485, 25 A. 689 (1893): When the jury have come to a unanimous determination with respect to their verdict, they return to the box to deliver it. The clerk then calls them over, by their names, and asks them whether they agree on this verdict, to which they reply in the affirmative. He then demands who shall say for them, to which they answer, their foreman. This being done, he desires the prisoner to hold up his right hand and addresses them: `Look upon the prisoner at the bar; how say you, is he guilty of the matter whereof he indicted or not guilty?' The foreman then answers guilty or not guilty, as the verdict may be. The officer then writes the word `guilty' or `not guilty' as the verdict is, on the record and again addresses the jury: `Hearken to your verdict as the court hath recorded it. You say that ____ is guilty (or not guilty) of the matter whereof he stands indicted, and so say you all.' [4] Id. at 487, 25 A. 689. This is in substance the formula stated by Hochheimer § 179. Although there is no reference in the Maryland Rules of Procedure about hearkening, the procedure detailed in Givens is substantially that followed today. In Glickman v. State, 190 Md. 516, 525, 60 A.2d 216 (1948), we observed that the procedure whereby the clerk calls upon the jury to hearken to their verdict when they return to the court to render it, is uniformly practiced in the courts of Maryland.... We quoted with approval what was said in Givens 76 Md. at 486, 25 A. 689: And while it may be a matter of form and practice, yet it is a juridical form; and matters of form when they become established, and are supported by reasons of justice and propriety, are regarded as matters of substance. [5] Glickman 190 Md. at 525, 60 A.2d 216. See Heinze v. State, 184 Md. 613, 616-617, 42 A.2d 128 (1945); Ross v. State, 24 Md. App. 246, 252-255, 330 A.2d 507 (1975), rev'd on other grounds, 276 Md. 664, 350 A.2d 680 (1976). It is to secure certainty and accuracy, and to enable the jury to correct a verdict, which they have mistaken, or which their foreman has improperly delivered, that they are called upon to `hearken thereto.' Givens, 76 Md. at 488, 25 A. 689.