Prisoner Rights Case in Supreme Court - Background on Francis Haines v. Otto J. Kerner

    December 1, 1971 

PRISONER RIGHTS CASE IN SUPREME COURT 

BACKGROUND 

RANCIS HAINES v- OTTO J. KERNER 
FRANCIS HAINES v- OTTO Ve —e—e 

On Monday, December 6, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear 

the case of a 69-year old disabled Illinois state prisoner, who 

claims that the arbitrary powers of prison officials to punish 

inmates for disciplinary infractions violated his constitutional 

rights. 

The prisoner, Francis Haines, has served some 32 years of a 

life sentence for burglary. Until the Supreme Court agreed to hear 

the case, Haines was unsuccessful in persuading lower courts to 

entertain his complaints about the lack of procedural safeguards or 

standards by which he was subjected to fifteen days punishment in 

a dark isolation cell, lacking bed or mattress, where morning and 

evening meals consisted of bread and water, and without even the 

most basic items of personal hygiene. This happened when Haines 

was 66-years old and 30% permanently disabled. Lower courts 

dismissed the case without hearings, stating that such measures 

were within the “wide discretion" of officials to maintain prison 

discipline. 

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has appointed Stanley A. Bass, an 

attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

(LDF) to prepare and argue Haines's case. Bass, an expert in 

prison reform litigation, has brought some 75 separate cases on 

(More) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



Page 2 

behalf of LDF, and has maintained ar itstanding record of cases 

successfully concluded. 

While the case holds the promise of major reform within the 

Illinois State Penetentiary syst -- reputedly one of the country's 

finest -- possibly most important result would be an affirmation 

by the high court that lower federal courts must share the responsi- 

bility for upgrading American prison conditions to meet constitutional 

standards. 

According to the LDF brief in March of 1968, Haines was 

engaged in an argument with two other inmates, each about 30 years 

in age. The argument included statements by the younger inmates 

that the "young blood" in the prison was taking over and that the 

“old blood," like Haines, was done. Several times Haines withdrew 

from the conversation and each time the younger inmates pursued 

him and resumed the argument. When the argument had resumed for the 

third time and following threatening and provocative comments from 

the inmate named Doherty, Haines hit him with a shovel, inflicting 

cuts on his head. Haines then scuffled briefly with the other 

inmate, named Moore. 

When brought before the disciplinary officer, Haines refused 

to discuss the nature of the incident.’ After noting that it had 

been 28 years since Haines had been in the "hole" (isolation), the 

officer gave him 15 days punishment there and later demoted him, 

without hearing, to "C" grade under the institution's "Progressive 

Merit System," which entailed a loss of privileges. Although at 

least one other inmate was an eyewitness to much of the argument 

between Haines and the two younger prisoners, no apparent attempt was 

made to verify the existing ev.dence against Haines. 

In the Supreme Court, Attorney Bass will argue that the type of 

punishment meted out to Haines was both as cruel, as it was unnecessary, 



BACKGROUND - PRISONER RIGHTS CASE Page 3 

to maintain prison discipline. Not only did Haines suffer severe 

pain to his feet and circulatory problems in his legs because he 

was forced to sleep on a concrete floor, but he was refused even 

the minimal articles necessary to maintain personal hygiene. 

Furthermore, while on the surface it might appear that the 

prisoner was given ample opportunity to explain his actions, from 

Haines's vantage point there was no choice at all. Haines was no 

doubt acutely aware that his alleged misconduct also amounted to a 

prosecutible offence, assault and battery, under state law. Further- 

more, he had no way to know -- it wasn't explained to him -- that 

under recent court rulings (including Miranda), any statements he 

made to prison officials would have been inadmissible in a court 

of law. Thus Haines was subjected to punishment at least partially 

because he chose to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right 

against self-incrimination. 

The brief continues that had prison officials been as determined 

to satisfy justice as they were to maintain discipline, other inmates, 

witnesses to the event, might have been included in their investi- 

gation. On the other hand, had Haines received the assistance of 

an attorney, this third party would have relieved Haines's fears 

about self-incrimination. 

Because remedies are available to ensure minimal justice for 

prisoners who find themselves in circumstances similar to Haines', 

attorney Bass will ask the Supreme Court to return the case to 

district court for a complete hearing. 

=30- 

For further information contact: Sandy O'Gorman 

(212) 586-8397