Montgomery v. State

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“However, with respect to Part I of the Court’s opinion, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167, 189-204 , 423 A.2d 558, 570-577 (1980). Specifically, I believe that Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and those portions of Maryland Rule 757 b and g implementing Article 23, violate the Fourteenth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See 289 Md. at 191-194 , 423 A.2d 558 . Article 23, by authorizing a criminal jury in certain limited circumstances to disregard legally correct instructions, and find the law to be otherwise than it is, abridges a defendant’s right to be tried in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction and thus violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, Article 23 is inconsistent with the proper role of a criminal jury under the jury trial clause of the Sixth Amendment, applicable to state proceedings by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88 S.Ct. 1444 , 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968), and Sparf v. United, States, 156 U.S. 51 , 15 S.Ct. 273 , 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895). Consequently, in my opinion, under no circum stances should a jury in a criminal case be told that it is the judge of the law.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 171 Md. App. 668 - State v. Adams