LDF File Brief to Supreme Court to Vacate Jesse Fowler Death Sentence

Press Release
December 13, 1974

LDF File Brief to Supreme Court to Vacate Jesse Fowler Death Sentence preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 6. LDF File Brief to Supreme Court to Vacate Jesse Fowler Death Sentence, 1974. b617e801-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/15d54345-da84-49be-979e-a98c2a96bff4/ldf-file-brief-to-supreme-court-to-vacate-jesse-fowler-death-sentence. Accessed October 08, 2025.

    Copied!

    75) 

IBY NYPR2S rfi3] 

/ADVANCE FOR RELEASE 6 PM EST TONIGHT/ 

/ADVANCE/ NEW YORK, DEC. 13 -- THE NAACP LEGAL DE ENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL. FUND TODAY FILED A BRIEF-IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT URGING 

THE COuRT TO VACATE:THE-DEATH SENTENCE OF JESSE THURMAN FOWLER, A 

BLACK DEFENDANT = CONDEMNED TO DIE FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER IN 

RALEIGH, N.C. ON SEPT. 27, 1973. THE NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT, 

BY Ay NARROW 4-3 VOTE, AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE CN 

APRIL .10, 1974. 

JESSE FOWLER 1S ONE OF 64 PERSONS ON DEATH ROW IN THAT STATE, 

MOST oF WHOM WERE CONDE iE D PURSUANT TO A JUDICIAL REINSTITUTION OF 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BY THE NORTH C > ROLINA SUPREME COURT IN JANUARY, 

1973 /ALSO BY A 4-3 VOTE/, THE STATE COURT THEN RULED THAT THE 

IS "MANDATORY" FOR 4 CRIMES -- FIRST DEGREE MURDER, 

FIRST DEGREE BURGLARY AND ARSON. PRIOR TO THAT RULING, THE 

D STATES SUPREME COURT WILL } 

THE IMPOSITION AND CARRYING OUT OF THE SENTENCE OF DEATH 

= Q Eo}
 

— fq
 

Q RIMS OF MURDER UNDE THE Law OF NORTH CAROLINA VICLATES 

THE STH OR 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?” 

IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH 

BE PREE OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHME! 



THE DEFENDANT. WAS CONVICTED ENTENCED TO DIE FOR THE muRDE > 

JOHN GRIFFIN. “DURING: THE COURSE OF HIS TRIAL, JESSE FOWLER TESTIFIED 

AND’ PRESENTED WITNESSES ON HIS OWN BEHALF, BUT THE JURY REJECTED HIS 

SELF DEFENSE CLAIM AND CONVICTED HIM OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER. THE 

TRIAL COURT ALSO INSTRUCTED THE JURY THAT IT COULD, AS AN 

ALTERNATIVE, FIND HIM GUILTY OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER OR MANSLAUGH 

PEGGY DAVIS AND DAVID KENDALL, LEGAL DEFENSE FUND STAF F LAWYERS 

SPECIALIZING IN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT CASES, NOTED -- "THIS IS THE 

FIRST TIME A DEATH SENTENCE IS BEING CHALLENGED ON THE MERITS IN 

THE“U-S.. SUPREME COURT SINCE THE FURMAN DECISION OF JUNE 29, 1972.” 

“THE. PRESENT CASE,” THEY ADD, “APPEARS TO BE SIGNIFICANT BECauUSz 

Tt RAISES ISSUES COMMON TO THOSE PRESENTED IN 187 CASES IN 17 

STATES: -- AND, IN-PARTICULAR, TO THE 64 NORTH CAROLINA CASES,” 

INS THE FURMAN RULING, ARISING OUT OF THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CASES 

/COLLECTIVELY CALLED FURMAN V. GEORGIA/, THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT 

THE DEATH PENALTY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN THE SENTENCING AUTHOR ITY 

IS FREE TO DECIDE BETWEEN DEATH AND SOME LESSER PENALTY. THE FURMAN 

DECISION, WHICH HELD THIS FORM OF DEATH PENALTY TO RE "CRUEL AND 

UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT,” SPARED THE LIVES OF 631 ON DEATH ROWS. 

IN THE INTERVENING 2-1/2 YEARS, SINCE FUR4AN, SO STATES HAVE 

REINSTITUTED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES, ASSUMING THAT THE STATUTES 

COULD MEET CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREYENTS 3Y IMPOSING STANDARDS TO 

CONTROL JURY DISCRETION OR BY MAKING THE DEATH PENALTY AUTOMATIC 

UPON CONVICTION OF CERTAIN CRIMES EN LHE NT CaSE, THE DEATH 

SENTENCE WAS REINSTITUTED JUDICIALLY BY A STATE SUPREME COURT. 

NOTE -- THE LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE 

CAGANIZATION EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE Naacp AND THOSE 

INITIALS ARE RETAINED IN ETS NAME. THE CORRECT DESIGNATION IS NAACP 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., FREQUENTLY SHORTENED To 

FUND. 

/CONTACT 77> PEGGY DAVIS OR DAVID KENDALL OF LEGAL DEFENSE FuND AT

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.