Correspondence from Parker to Winner; Gingles v. Edmisten Court Opinion

    " ' ,-."'

SUITE 4{X) . 14OO EYE STREET, NORTHWEST .

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
POR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW

WASHINGTON, O.C. 2000s . PHONE (20,2) 371-1212

CABLE ADDRESS: t-AWClV, WASHINGTON, D.C.

October 29, 1984

Leslie J. Winner, Esq.
Ferguson, Watt, Wa11as, and,
Adkins, PA

951 South Independence B1vd.
Charlotte, NC 28202

Re: Collins v. Citv of Norfolk

Dear Les1ie:

Lani Guinier sent.me a copy of the motion to d'ismiss
or affirm in Edmisten v. Gingles. I enjoyed reading it;
you both did an excellent job.

I have an appeal in the FourLh Circuit in our law-
suit, which we lost in the District Court, challenging
at-large city council elections in Norfolk, Virginia-
In many respeets, the North Carolina situation and the
Norfolk situation are similar. fn our Norfolk case, the
District Court found that anti-busing rhetoric in the 1982
city council campaign uras not a racial appeal under
Factor 6 of the L982 Senate Report, a finding which I
understand contradicts the District Court's finding in
Gingles based on similar anti-busing rhetoric.

Would you please send me copies of the exhibits
and/or testimony used, in Gingles containing examples of
post-I954 anti-busing rhetoriCEnd upon which the Distrj-ct
Court in Gingles found racial appeals. f remember at our
March conference in New Orleans you distributed some
copies of anti-busing campaign ads, but I was not able
to keep any of the copies which you distributed. I would
like to attach some of the Ginqles testimony and/or
exhibits to my reply brief In the Norfolk case to show



EAWYERS'COMMITTEE FOR CryIL RIGHTS T'NDER LAW

Leslie ,J. Winner, Egg.
October 29, L984
Page 2

that the Norfolk District Courtts findings contradict
Gi-ngl,es.

Thank you very much for your he1p.

Yours very truly,

4buzt
Frank R. Parker
Director, Voting Rights
Project

FRP: dm
cc3 Lani Guinier



l

:
I

:

i
c

I
t
t
;
t-

8

f.

cfr<
GI:{GLES v. EDMISTEN \WZ -

clt's'lPF'srn':ru rtgtt) \:'
the Distnct -{ttorney which led to her ar- sonable. Thus. summary .ludgment will bc

rest and incarceration. These actrvities of granted for defendant Brosha due fo his

public prosecutors fall :;quarely within the imraunity from suit.
range of lcdons related 

"o 
lhe lnitiation ,lf

:r inminal pmsecution rhtch are pmtected
by ebsolute ,mmunitl- ,rncier imbler and

Forryth- See e.g.. lseiey ,:. Eucks County,
.ra9 F.Supp. ltj0 lE.D Pa.l982); llilkinson
r. Ell$ {84 F.Supp. 1072 tE.D.Pa.i980).

tt{l Even if these defendants wer€ not
afforded abaolute immunity, they would
have grounds for summary judgment urF

der tlre qualified immunity of Horlou.
Summary judgment would be warrented
under that standard if plaintiff does noi
rebut defendants' showing that their con'
duct was objectively rta-sonable. Defend-
ants have established that their conduct in

issuing complaintr against plaintiff was ob
jectively reasonable under the cireumstanc-
e8. The evidence they have mustered in
support of thejr claims that probable cause

existed for the arrest shows that the deci
sion io execute the complaints was neasor
able under the facte as tien known to
thern As discusEed in the previous section

of this Memoandum Opinion, plaintiff has
'not provided evidence which raises a ques'
tion as io tle reasonableness of these ac'

tions. Therefore, defendants Biehn,

Shantz and Sommers are entitled to immu-
nity from this suiL

tlSt Defendant Brosha, a county detee
tive, does not have prosecutorial immunity
but does posse$ qualified immunity.
Therefore, il Brosh8's actions related to
plaintiffs errest wete objectively reasoo'
able, he too is entitled to immunity. Under
the facts presented by the defendants, Btu
sha's actions wene reasonable not only in
light of the strong evidence of wrongdoing
in the investigative rcports but also due to
the fact thst his investigation was conduct-
ed upon tle request of the District Attot*
ney's Officc; He did not take part in tlte
probable ceuse det€rminetion and he relied
upon t}te dceision made by the attorneys in
the District Attorae/s Office that plaintiff
should be errest€d Plaintiff has brought
forttr no evidence that Detective Brcsha
had psrticulsr knowledge about the cese

which would have made his reliance upon
the conclusions of tlese attorneys unnea'

Due ro the decisions ',rrrth ceference bo

che federal {:auses ot'action. ths court will
iollow the ,iirecuon of the Third Circuit in
Tully ,:. .Vott Supcrmorkets, Inc., i10
F.zd 18?, 196 (3d Cir.19?6) and refrarn frcm
exercising pendent jurisdiction since therc
e.rist no extraordinatf circumstances to
wanant such jurisdiction.

Ralph GINGLES, Sippio Burtoru Fred
BelIield, and Joccph Moody, on Behdf
of Themselvcl and All Othcn Similarly
Situated, Plaintifir,

Alan Y. Pugh, Gr{ory T. GriftIn. Mason
Mdullough, Peul B. Eaglin, Ethet R
Ttotter. Gitbcn Lee Bo;u, David D.

Almond, Jr., Rey lVltten, Joe B. Bob'
ertr, Plaintiff-Intenenorrl

v.

Rufue EDMISTEN, in hie cepocity ae the
Attorney Gencral of N.C; Jamee C.

Green. LL Governor of N.C. in Hie Ca'
pacity as President of the N.C. Senate;
Lieton B. Remecy in IIir Capacity ar
Sgeaker ef thc N.C. Hourc of RcPa.:

The State Bosrd of Electionr of N.C.;
Robcrt tY. Spcarman, Elloree il|. Ervin'
Ruth T. Scmashlo, Willlam A- Marsh'
Jr., and John .d Wdkcr, in Their OfIi'
ciat Capacttier ar lllembcra of the Statc
Board of Electionr of N.C.; and fhad
Eure, in His Ctpscity ar Secretary of
thc Stetc of N.C. Dcfcndentr.

No. El-t03{IY-6.
United States Distrid Court"

E.D. Norttr Cerolina,
Raleigh Division.

Jan. XI, 198{.

Supplemental Opinion April 20, 198z1.

Black voters brought action challeng-
ing legislative districting scheme of North