Watkins v. California Petitioners' Reply Brief in Opposition to Petition for Certiorari

    I n  the

S’upraru' (duurt of %  Ittitei States
October T erm, 1965

No. 784

D oris W atkins, et al.,

-V.-
Petitioners,

T he Superior Court, L os A ngeles County, 
California, et al.

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 
TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

Jack Greenberg

L eroy D. Clark

Charles Stephen R alston 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

R aymond L. J ohnson

4840 W. Washington Blvd. 
Los Angeles, California

H erman T. Sm ith

600 East 103rd Street 
Los Angeles, California

A nthony  G. A msterdam 
3400 Chestnut Street 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Attorneys for Petitioners



I N D E X

PAGE

I. Respondents For The First Time Pose An Issue 
Of Fact, Demonstrating The Necessity For A 
Hearing In The Court Below ..................................  1

II. Substantial Federal Questions Were Squarely Pre­
sented To The Courts Of The State Of California .. 2

A uthority

Boone, Prohibition: Use of The Writ of Restraint in 
California, 15 Hastings L.J. 161 (1963) ............... 3



I n  th e

Submit? (ttnurt of tip' Httttei 8>latea
October T erm, 1965

No. 784

D oris W atkins, et at.,

Petitioners,

T he Superior Court, L os A ngeles County, 
California, et al.

-----------------------------------------------------------

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 
TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

I.

Respondents For The First Time Pose An Issue Of 
Fact, Demonstrating The Necessity For A Hearing In 
The Court Below.

Respondents for the first time in any court have re­
sponded to the substantial issues raised by petitioners by 
a Brief in Opposition to Writ of Certiorari. No other party, 
nor any California court, has denied or demurred to any of 
petitioners’ allegations heretofore. One part of this re­
sponse creates an issue of fact. Affidavits by members of 
the Los Angeles Public Defender’s Office dispute the peti­
tioners’ factual allegations. But this Court is not a nisi



2

prius tribunal for resolution of factual issues. This Court 
therefore should grant the petition for certiorari and re­
mand to the California courts for a full evidentiary hearing 
on the allegations of the petitions filed in those courts.1

II.

Substantial Federal Questions Were Squarely Pre­
sented To The Courts Of The State Of California.

Apart from presenting their contradictory version of the 
facts, respondents make a number of legal assertions. 
First, they argue that petitioners presented no federal ques­
tion to the courts of the State of California (Brief in Op­
position, p. 2), but this is transparently not the case, as the 
Petition for Writ of Certiorari indicates. (See pages 7-8, 
10- 11.)

Second, respondents argue that in a number of respects 
petitioners did not comply with California procedure. 
(Brief in Opposition, Parts II, III.) This assertion is con-

J Moreover, many of the facts set out in the affidavits in Respon­
dents’ opposition tend to support petitioners’ claim that adequate 
counsel has not been provided. They establish that: the normal 
weekly case load per public defender was increased 50% to 75% 
(Appendix, p. 7) ; there is only one attorney assigned to criminal 
appeals (App., p. 1) • the Los Angeles County office took over the 
misdemeanor jurisdiction previously handled by the City office and 
only ten of a possible forty-four authorized positions had been filled 
at the time cases began coming to trial (App., p. 2) ; only five 
attorneys are assigned to “ the Psychiatric and Juvenile Courts” 
(App., p. 1), although some 534 juveniles were arrested, detained, 
and disposed of over a period of five to six weeks (see Petition for 
W rit of Certiorari, p. 20, n. 6). Respondents give no statement of 
the case load per deputy for juvenile or misdemeanor defendants.

The serious questions of fact thus left unanswered even by the 
Respondents’ affidavits require a full evidentiary hearing.



3

spicuously bare of authority. No such defense was pre­
sented to the California courts, and the California courts 
made no such ruling. On the contrary, as the authorities 
set forth in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at pages 14 
to 15 indicate, the procedure employed by petitioners was 
apt. (See, Boone, Prohibition: Use of The Writ of Re­
straint in California, 15 Hastings L. J. 161 (1963).)

Indeed, apart from their technical correctness, the writs 
of prohibition and mandamus are peculiarly appropriate in 
dealing with a widespread denial of constitutional rights 
as was here alleged. The type of relief requested seems 
suited to avoid problems of retroactivity and anxieties over 
possible releases from jail of large numbers of defendants 
which could arise when prosecutions are concluded and only 
post-conviction relief can be awarded. As a matter of sound 
policy it would seem better to issue an order granting antic­
ipatory relief, rather than to seek to unravel a conviction 
that was thought to be settled.

It would be an anomaly if it were held that this other­
wise appropriate remedy was unavailable, i.e., that the 
cases are moot, because of California’s unilateral action 
of ignoring the petitioners’ allegations while moving ahead 
with pending prosecutions. However, this result need not 
obtain, since respondents admit the propriety in the present 
proceeding of setting aside petitioners’ convictions and the 
granting of new trials (Brief in Opposition, p. 4).

Petitioners therefore submit that the appropriate disposi­
tion of this cause would be for this Court to grant a petition 
for writ of certiorari, to vacate the judgment below, and to



4

remand for a hearing on their allegations, which have been 
challenged for the first time in this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack G-reenberg

L eroy D. Clark

Charles Stephen R alston 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New l Tork 10019

R aymond L. J ohnson

4840 W. Washington Blvd. 
Los Angeles, California

H erman T. Sm ith

600 East 103rd Street 
Los Angeles, California

A nthony  G. A msterdam 
3400 Chestnut Street 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Attorneys for Petitioners



38