Hamilton v. Alabama Reply Brief Petitioner

    I n the

& ttprrm r ( t o r t  o f  tljr Im tr ts  S ta ir s

October T erm, 1963

No. 793

Mary H amilton, &

Petitioner,

” V-“

Alabama,
Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

J ack Greenberg 
Norman C. A maker 
J ames M. Nabrit, III 
Charles H. J ones, J r.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Oscar W. Adams, J r.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama

Attorneys for Petitioner



In t h e

Bvtpvmw (uutri at tip BUUb
October T erm, 1963 

No. 793

Mary H amilton,

— v .—  

Alabama,

Petitioner,

Respondent.

REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER

Argument

Respondent suggests that somehow the record is inade­
quate to present the federal question (Brief in Opposition, 
p. 3) and argues that the federal questions were not prop­
erly presented below (id. at 3-5).

In fact, however, the petition for writ of certiorari which 
sets forth verbatim the material testimony and objections 
complied with relevant Alabama law. See Ex Parte Bosco- 
wits, 84 Ala. 463, 4 So. 279 (1888) where defendant made a 
claim of self-incrimination, and upon refusal to answer 
was held in contempt. The Alabama Supreme Court quashed 
the adjudication of contempt, observing as to the contents 
of the record before i t :

The record only presents the question proposed to the 
witness, and the nature of the ease which was being



2

tried. No other circumstances are disclosed, . . . The 
question, therefore, is whether his answer would tend, 
prima facie, to expose him to a criminal charge. 4 So. 
at p. 280.

And Ex Parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218 (1909) holds 
that a contempt proceeding is separate and distinct from 
the main case.

Notwithstanding respondent’s suggestion, the Supreme 
Court of Alabama did not hold that the record was inade­
quate, nor could it, in the light of the Boscowits case. Had 
the Court below so desired it could have issued a writ call­
ing for the filing of any record or records it deemed desir­
able. See Ex Parte Wells, 267 Ala. 444, 103 So. 2d 328 
(1958); Towns v. Malone, 217 Ala. 273, 116 So. 131 (1928). 
Had respondent discerned any deficiency in the record be­
low, it could have so alleged in a return, had a writ been 
granted. See Ex Parte Morgan, 259 Ala. 649, 67 So. 2d 
889.1

The argument that the decision below is based upon a 
failure to present the federal question has no supjjort any­
where. The federal question was clearly presented to the 
Supreme Court of Alabama (E. 1). It did not purport to 
dispose of that question on any state ground, but ruled upon 
the issue in general substantive terms:

The power of the several courts to inflict summary 
punishment upon a witness for refusing to answer a 
lawful question is specifically authorized in Title 13, 
§2, Code of Alabama 1940. . . .

1 It is, of course, within the power of the Supreme Court of Ala­
bama to order that a certified transcript or the record itself be 
sent up. Cook v. Court of County Commissioners, 178 Ala 374 
59 So. 483, 484.



3

Here the question was a lawful one and the witness 
invoked no valid legal exemption to support her re­
fusal to answer it . . .

Many witnesses are addressed by various titles, but 
one’s own name is an acceptable appellation at law. 
This practice is almost universal in the written opin­
ions of courts (R. 7).

This Court may review the federal questions presented 
to the Alabama Supreme Court, if the federal issues were 
properly presented to it and if the issues were not disposed 
of on adequate state grounds. This is well settled. See 
Robertson & Kirkham, Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, Sections 65, 74 (Wolfson & Kurland 
ed., 1951).

As to the substance, respondent nowhere argues that peti­
tioner is incorrect in claiming that for a prosecutor to 
address a Negro by first name while addressing whites 
with titles of respect enforces a racially segregationist 
caste system. While Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt, cited 
by respondent, are authorities as to social amenities gen­
erally, the portions of their works cited by respondent 
nowhere purport to address themselves to the question of 
racial caste which is central to this cause.



4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons it is respectfully submitted 
that the writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
Norman C. A maker 
J ames M. Nabrit, III 
Charles H. J ones, J r.

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

Oscar W. Adams, J r.
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 
Birmingham, Alabama

Attorneys for Petitioner



38