Correspondence between Franklin and Kodish Re: Arguments

    LAW OFFICES
DON M. ROMAN 
MAURICE E. FRANKLIN 
VERONICA F. COLEMAN

ROMANS FRANKLIN,RC.
2107 FIRST TENNESSEE BANK BUILDING 

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103

TELEPHONE 
1901) 521-9700 

165 MADISON AVENUE

June 11, 1980

Ms. Joan A. Kodish 
Suite 102
The Belden/Whipple Building 
4150 Belden Village Street Canton, Ohio 44718
Dear Ms. Kodish:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 5, 1980 inquiring 
into the status of Garner vs. Memphis'Police Department, 600 F. 2d 52 (1979) .
By way of background, the Garner case was tried in the District 
Court by Attorney Walter Bailey of Memphis, Tennessee, in associa­
tion with Attorney Drew Days, now the head of the Civil Rights 
division of the United States Department of Justice. I was assign­
ed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to write the 
Brief on Appeal. When the case came on for argument in the Sixth 
Circuit, I was an Assistant United States Attorney in Memphis, 
Tennessee and as a result, an attorney from the Legal Defense Fund argued the case.
I have recently talked with Attorney Walter Bailey regarding the 
status of the case and Mr. Bailey informed me that the District 
Court had not, as yet, se the matter for Hearing as directed by 
the Sixth Circuit. Since I. am no longer working on the case, I 
will send a copy of this letter along with your letter dated June 5, 
1980 to Walter Bailey, Esq., at Suite 901, Tenoke Building, 161 
'^®ffsrson Avenue, Memphis, Tennessee 38103, and to Attorney Steve 
Winter, at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Suite 2030, 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York. Mr. Winter, I am informed, 
is handling the case for the Legal Defense Fund. Both of these 
gentlemen should be able to supply you with all information which 
you need in connection with this matter.
If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call upon me.
Very truly ^urs,

Franklin 
Attorney at Law
MEF/mms



E U G E N E  G R E E N  

J O S E P H  S C H I A V O N I  
R O B E R T  M .  M U R P H Y  

D E N N I S  H A I N E S  
A N T H O N Y  P. S O A M B A T I  n  
B A R R Y  R. L A I N E  
R O N A L D  G. M A C A L A  
F R E D E R I C K  G. C L O P P E R T ,  J R  
F R E D E R I C  A .  P O R T M A N  
P A T R I C I A  S .  R O B E R T S  

C O R N E L I U S  J .  B A A S T E N  
H U G H  N .  H E L M  JU  
D A V I D  G .  L A T A N I C K  
D A V I D  R O L O F F  
J O A N  A. K O D I S H  
I R A  J .  M I R K I N  
R O B E R T  W. S A U T E R

Gr e e n , Sc h ia v o n i , Mu r p h y , Ha in e s  & Sg a m b a t i Co.,L.P.A.
A T T O R N E Y S  A T  L A W  

T H E  B E L D E N / W H I  P P L E  B U I L D I N G  

S U I T E  1 0 2

4 1 5 0  B E L D E N  V I L L A G E  S T R E E T

C a n t o n , O h i o  4 4 7 1 8

(2 16)  ' ♦ 9 3 - 1 5 7 0

I N  Y O U N G S T O W N , O H I O

D O L L A R  B A N K  B U I L D I N G  

Y O U N G S T O W N ,  O H I O  '♦'♦SOI 
(2 16) 7 4 3 - 5 1 0 1

June 5, 1980

I N  C O L U M B U S , O H I O

2 2 5  E A S T  B R O A D  S T R E E T  

C O L U M B U S ,  O H I O  '♦3215  
(6 14) 4 6 1 - 4 4 5 5

I N  A S H T A B U L A , O H I O

U.S. ATOITO, 
MEMFiKS, TENN.

4 1 0  P R O S P E C T  R O A D
H I O  4 4 0 0 4  

2 - 0 2 0 4

Mr. Maurice Franklin, Esquire 
Assistant U. S. Attorney 
1058 Federal Building 
Memphi s , TN 38109

Dear Mr. Franklin:

This firm represents the 
by the Canton, Ohio Police i 
wrongful death of their son. 
under §1983 for violation of 
fourteentii Amendment rights.

JUN 1 0 1980

parents of a young man gunned down 
n their claim for damages for the 
Our claim is, of course, brought 

the decendent's fourth, eighth and

The facts facing us are virtually indistinguishable from 
the facts in Garner v. Memphis Police Department, et al., 600 F. 
2d 52 (1979), at least as described by Circuit Judge Merritt. 
We have studied the available literature and have completed our 
investigation. Now, we turn to you since it seems that we are 
following in your footsteps. Certainly, Garner will be the 
definitive one in the Sixth Circuit.

We were somewhat heartened to read the Sixth Circuit's de­
cision in your case but are anxious to know the District Court's 
response to the questions posed therein. Ohio has no capture of 
fleeing alleged felons statute so, we too are faced with a 
"reasonable force" non-standard. Therefore, we are interested 
in your arguments and the District Court's decision regarding 
numbers 1, 2 and 4 of the questions remanded to the trial court 
for answers in light of Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Any information concerning the case's progress on remand, 
suggestions you might have, or a pre-publication copy of the 
District Court's Opinion would be most appreciated.

Very truly yours.

JOAN A. KODISH

JAK : ddp