Brown v. Board Legal Team, 1950s - 1 of 2
Photograph
January 1, 1950 - January 1, 1960
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. City of Greenwood, MS v. Peacock Transcript of Oral Argument, 1966. 6e23e2a6-b49a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/6b7cce1b-1d67-4104-9243-24ffc26ffadb/city-of-greenwood-ms-v-peacock-transcript-of-oral-argument. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OCTOBER TERM, 1 9 6 5
THE CITY OF GREENWOOD, M I S S I S S I P P I ,
P e t i t i o n e r ,
v s .
WILLIE PEACOCK, ET AL.
WILLIE PEACOCK, ET AL.
v s .
P e t i t i o n e r ,
THE CITY OF GREENWOOD, M I S S I S S I P P I .
Washington, D. C.
A p r i l 2 o , 1966
W A R D & P A U L
OFFICIAL REPORTERS
917 G STREET, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20001
( 4266
) 4267
628' 1 4268
( 4269
I
n n e l l : b s p TN te e su pr em e court of the u n it e d s t a t e s
GCTC3ER TERM, 1965
THE CITY OF GREENWOOD,. M ISSISSIPPI*
P e t i t i o n e r j
v .
WILLIE PEACOCK- ET. AL,
WILLIE PEACOCK, ET, AL,
P e t i t io n e r s ,
v„
THE C XTY OF GREENWOOD, M IS S IS S IP P I.
W ashington,. D. C.
Tuesday, A p r i l 2 6 , 1966
The a b o v e - e n t i t le d m atter carae on fo r o r a l argument
a t 12:30 o 'c lo c k p%Wv
PRESENT:
The C h ie f J u s t ic e , E a r l Warren, and A s s o c ia te
J u s t ic e s B la ck , D o u g la s , C la rk . H arlan- Brennan, S te w a r t, W hite
and F crta s*
2
APPEARANCES;
On b e h a lf o f the C ity o f Greenwood, M is s is s ip p i
Hardy L. L o t t , E sq u ire
On b e h a lf o f W i l l i e P eacock , e t . a l„
Benjam in E . Sm ith , E sq u ire
and
L ou is F . C la ib o r n e , E sq u ir e
A s s is t a n t t o th e S o l i c i t o r G eneral
.n n e l ls b s p C O N T E N T S
ARGUMENT 0? PAGE
Hardy L. L o tt , E sq u ir e ,
ou b e to I f o f th e C ity o f Greenwood, M is s i s s ip p i . "i
Benjam in E . Sm ith , E sq u ir e ,
on b e h a lf o f W i l l i e Peacock, e t . a 1 * 23
L ouis F . C la ib o r e , E sq u ir e ,
on b e h a lf o f W il l ie Peacock , e t . cilo 5 1
p r o c e e d i n g s
TUB CHIEF JUSTICE: No, 47.1, The C ity o f Greenwood*
M is s is s ip p i^ p e t i t io n e r , v e r su s W i l l i e P eacock , e t a l , , and
Mo, G49r W i l l i e P eacock , e t a l . , p e t i t io n e r , v e rsu s The C ity
o f Greenwood,
THE CLERK: C ou n sel a r e p r e s e n t ,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr, L o t t ,
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF GREENWOOD, MISSISSIPPI
By Hardy L» L o tt , E sq u ire
MR, LOTT: Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e , may i t p le a s e th e C ourt,
in t h i s ca se P eacock and 13 o th e r s f i l e d rem oval p e t i t io n s in
the F e d er a l D i s t r i c t C ourt a l l e g i n g th a t th e y w ere b e in g
p r o se cu ted in th e P o l ic e C ourt o f th e C ity o f Greenwood fo r
b lo c k in g p u b lic s t r e e t s . The D i s t r i c t C ourt remanded th e c a se s
t o th e P o l ic e C ourt on th e b a s i s o f th e p e t i t i o n s . They ap p ea led
t o th e Court o f A p peals fo r th e F i f t h C ir c u i t , w h ich h e ld th a t
th e a l l e g a t io n s o f th e p e t i t i o n w ere s u f f i c i e n t i f proved to
make ou t a c a se fo r rem oval under th e f i r s t s e c t io n o f 28 U5C
1443 0 And th e y r e v e r se d th e c a s e and remanded i t to th e
D i s t r i c t Court t o hear e v id e n c e t o s e e i f P eacock cou ld prove
th e a l l e g a t io n s o f t h a t p e t i t i o n .
The P eacock p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s v e r y l i t t l e , b u t th e
su b s ta n c e o f th e a l l e g a t io n s a r e th a t P eacock th e p e t i t io n s
a r e i d e n t i c a l s o o n ly one i s in the reco rd - - th e a l l e g a t io n s
a r e th a t P eacock i s a member o f th e S tu d en t N o n v io len t
C o o rd in a tin g com m ittee , w h ich i s a s s o c ia t e d w ith COFO , and th a t
//
th ey engaged in c i v i l r ig h t s work in a s s i s t i n g N egroes to
r e g i s t e r to v o te*
They th en a l le g e d th a t th e y were a r r e s te d fo r b lo c k
in g p u b lic s t r e e t s .
They draw th e c o n c lu s io n and make th e c o n c lu s io n a r y
a l le g a t io n * f i r s t * th a t th e s t a t u t e i s b e in g a p p lie d t o them
in su p p o rt o f a p o l i c y o f s e g r e g a t io n o f th e S t a t e o f
M is s i s s ip p i and th e C ity o f Greenwood#
They th en make th e c o n c lu s io n a r y a l l e g a t io n s th a t b e
cau se — f i r s t , t h a t th e s t a t u t e i s b e in g a p p lie d to them in
su p p o rt o f a p o l ic y o f s e g r e g a t io n o f th e S ta te o f M is s i s s ip p i
and th e C ity o f Greenwood. They th en make th e c o n c lu s io n a r y
a l l e g a t io n th a t b eca u se o f th e ir p ro secu tio n * b eca u se o f th e
above* th a t th ey a r e d en ied and can n ot e n fo r c e in Court th e
e q u a l r ig h t s o f c i t i z e n s under th e C o n s t i tu t io n in 42 USC 1971.
Now, th e W eathers c a se s w ere combined l a t e r . Of th o se
th a t came a lo n g l a t e r , th e r e w ere 15 d e fen d a n ts* They a l le g e d
p r o se c u t io n in th e P o l ic e Court o f Greenwood fo r v a r io u s
o f f e n s e s on d i f f e r e n t d a te s , a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y , d r iv in g a car
w ith improper l ic e n s e * r e c k le s s d r iv in g , and m a tters o f th a t
kind „
The D i s t r i c t Court d id th e same th in g w ith th o s e c a s e s ,
remanded them on th e fa c e o f th e p e t i t i o n .
They came up in th e C ir c u it C ourt o f A p peals la t e r in
th e Peacock ca se s o th a t th e r e was no b r i e f i n g and no argument
4
5
in th a t c a s e . And th e y s u s ta in e d a summary m otion to r e v e r s e
on th e ground th a t th e y v/ere c o n tr o l le d by P eacock .
Now, th e p o in t we are con cern ed w ith here in th e Pea
cock ca se i s a rem oval s t a t u t e , 1443 .
Now* i t i s s e t t l e d law th a t t h i s C ourt o n ly has such
j u r i s d ic t io n in a rem oval ca se a s C ongress has co n ferred upon
i t , has co n ferred upon th e F ed er a l C o u r ts . And th e q u e s t io n
h ere i s what j u r i s d i c t io n C ongress c o n ferred b y th e f i r s t s e c
t io n o f 1443.
Noxv, th a t s e c t i o n g iv e s a p erson th e r ig h t t o remove
in a c i v i l or c r im in a l p r o se c u tio n brou gh t a g a in s t any p erson
Who i s d en ied or cannot e n fo r c e in th e C ou rts o f su ch s t a t e a
r ig h t under any lav; p r o v id in g fo r th e e q u a l r ig h t s o f c i t i z e n s
o f th e U nited S t a t e s .
Nov;, th e p o in t th a t I want t o em p h a size , and what X
th in k th e C ourt o f A ppeals overlooked^ i s th e language in th a t
s t a t u t e '’who i s d e n ie d or cannot e n fo r c e in th e C ourt o f su ch
s t a t e ."
Now, th e s t a t u t e p ro v id e s th a t in order t o remove
you have t o f i l e your rem oval p e t i t i o n b e fo r e th e t r i a l . So
t h i s C ourt has lie Id , th a t b e in g t r u e , and th a t i s th e s t a t u t e ,
you have t o a l l e g e f a c t s in advance o f a ‘t r i a l t o show that,
in th e S ta te C ourt you w i l l be d e n ie d or cannot e n fo r c e some
e q u a l c i v i l r i g h t .
T h is C ourt th e r e fo r e h e ld in e ig h t c a s e s m entioned in
6
th e p r e v io u s arguments,, b e g in n in g w ith Sfcrauder v . West V ir g in ia ,
and V ir g in ia v s „ R iv es on th e same d a te , and g o in g on down
through Kentucky v . Powers, th a t s in c e th a t i s tr u e , th a t you
have t o f i l e your p e t i t i o n and a l l e g e and show in advance th a t
you a re g o in g t o b e d en ied or can n ot e n fo r c e an e q u a l c i v i l
r ig h t in C ourt, th a t th e r e fo r e i t xvas n o t th e in t e n t io n o f
C on gress b y t h a t s t a t u t e t o ta k e ca re o f any d e p r a v a tio n Of
r ig h t s th a t m ight come up on t r i a l fo r th e f i r s t t im e , b e c a u se
you would not know th a t u n t i l i t happened. That you had t o be
a b le to p o in t o u t in advance t h a t you would b e d en ied or can
n o t e n fo r c e in th e C ourts o f th e S ta te an e q u a l r ig h t , and th a t
th e o n ly way you cou ld do t h a t i s 'where th e r e v;as a s t a t u t e or
C o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n o f th e S ta te w h ich , i f th e S ta te C ourt
follox^ed i t , would o b l ig a t e i t t o deny you some e q u a l c i v i l
r i g h t .
Now, in th e ab sen ce o f t h a t , t h i s C ourt has h e ld in
th o s e e ig h t c a s e s , or in che l a s t se v e n , a t l e a s t , t h a t you
cannot remove underneath th a t s t a t u t e . They s p e c i f i c a l l y h e ld
th a t i f a su b o r d in a te o f f i c e r u n d ertak es t o d e p r iv e a d e fe n d
a n t o f h is e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s in advance o f t r i a l b y , fo r in
s ta n c e , s ta c k in g th e Grand Ju ry , r e f u s in g t o p u t anybody on
th e Grand Jury , i f i t i s a c o lo r e d d e fe n d a n t, e x c e p t xuhite
p e o p le , th a t th a t d oes n o t show th a t he i s g o in g t o b e d en ied
or cannot e n fo r c e h is e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s in th e S ta te C ourt,
b e c a u se th e presum ption i s t h a t th e Court w i l l c o r r e c t th a t .
7
th a t i f i t i s a m atter o f s ta c k in g th e Grand Ju ry , th a t th e
C ourt when th e t r i a l comes on w i l l s u s t a in a m otion t o quash
th e in d ic tm e n t . I f i t i s a m atter o f a p e t ty ju r y , i t i s th e
same th in g * And i t seem s t o me th a t we a r e o b l ig a te d to do i t
under t h i s s t a t u t e . But in any e v e n t , th ey h e ld e ig h t tim es
th a t you cou ld n o t remove undern eath t h i s s t a t u t e w ith o u t
show ing in advance t h a t you w ere g o in g t o be d en ied or cou ld
n o t e n fo r c e your r ig h t s in s t a t e C o u rt, And th a t th e on ly way
you cou ld show th a t was i f th e r e was a C o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n
or s t a t u t e o f th e S ta te w h ich , i f fo llo w e d by th e S ta te C ourt,
Would have th a t r e s u l t „
Now, th o se d e c is io n s have b een c r i t i c i z e d b y th o se
v?ho want more rem oval on th e ground th a t i t i s a r e s t r i c t i v e
in t e r p r e t a t io n or th e s t a t u t e , b u t i t d o ss n o t seem t h a t way
t o me.
I t seem s t o me th a t t h i s C ourt w ent p r e t t y fa r when
i t h e ld th a t th ey w ere n o t g o in g t o presume th a t th e S ta te
C ourt would do what i t sh o u ld do , and d isr e g a r d an in v a l id
S ta te s t a t u t e , and fo l lo w th e paramount F e d er a l law , b u t th a t
th e y would in d lu g e any presum ption th a t the S ta te C ou rt, b e in g
bound by a S ta te law , i f th e r e was a S ta te s t a t u t e or Con
s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v is io n , th a t th e y would sa y th a t th e S ta te Court
was g o in g to fo l lo w i t and g iv e th e d e fen d a n t th e b e n e f i t o f
t h a t presum ption and perm it him t o remove*
Mow, th e C ir c u it Court o f A p p ea ls in t h i s c a se , we su b -
8
m ic w ith d e fe r e n c e , c o m p le te ly o v er lo o k ed th a t p o r t io n o f th e
s t a t u t e in th e P eacock c a s e , th a t i s , th e p o r t io n th a t th e d e n ia l
o r i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e has g o t t o be in C ourts And th e y com
p l e t e l y , in cur o p in io n , d isr e g a r d e d th e e ig h t d e c is io n s o f t h i s
C ourt t o th a t a f f e c t *
What th e y h e ld in th e Peacock ca se v;as th a t th e v e r y
i n s t i t u t i o n o f th e p r o se c u tio n w ould e n a b le you t o remove on tin
a l l e g a t io n th a t th e p r o se c u t io n was in s t i t u t e d fo r an improper
m o tiv e , t o d e p r iv e you o f c i v i l r i g h t s .
In o th er w ords, what th e C ir c u it C ourt o f A p peals h e ld
was t h i s , th a t in t h i s ca se where th e a r r e s t s and ch arges were
made b y p o licem en - - and I b e l i e v e th ey a l l e g e p o licem en and
o f f i c e r s o f th e County - - th e C ir c u it Court o f A p p ea ls h e ld
th a t t h a t was s u f f i c i e n t , an a l l e g a t io n th a t th e y were made b y
an improper m otive for them t o a r r e s t , th e y may e x e r c i s e
t h e ir c i v i l r i g h t s .
The rem oval p e t i t io n d oes n o t c o n ta in su ch an a l l e g a t io n ,
b u t th e C ir c u it c o u r t o f A p peals a p p lie d i t s n o t ic e - t y p e p le a d in g
d o c tr in e , and s a id th a t th e y would in f e r th a t t h a t was what
P eacock and th e o th e r s would c o n ten d . So th a t th ey h e ld th a t
the mere i n s t i t u t i o n o f a p r o se c u tio n b y th e p o licem en was
s u f f i c i e n t to rem ove.
Now, j u s t a s a m atter o f common sens© and l o g ic , v?e
su b m it t h a t th e i n s t i t u t i o n o f a p r o se c u tio n , or th e making o f
a ch a rg e , an im proper ch a rg e , i f you p le a s e , b y a po licem an d o es
9
n o t show th a t you a r e d ep r iv ed or can n ot e n fo r c e your r ig h t s
in S ta te C o u rt. As h e ld b y t h i s C ou rt, th e presum ption i s th a t
i f th e r e i s som eth in g improper in th e r e , i f he has brought a
charge th a t he sh o u ld n o t have b ro u g h t, th e presum ption i s th a t
th e S t a t e C ourt w i l l s u s t a in him . And th e r e i s c e r t a in ly no
way to sa y th a t th e charge b y a p olicem an i s p ro o f ch at you
a re d e n ie d or cannot e n fo r c e your r ig h t s in a S t a t e C ou rt,
Now, i f you r e v e r s e th e th in k in g — su pp ose th a t some
F e d e r a l M arshal made a f a l s e a r r e s t or a r r e s te d a man fo r an
im proper m o tiv e . That i s c e r t a in ly no p roo f t h a t you a r e d en ied
or can n ot e n fo r c e your e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s in a F e d e r a l C ou rt.
And th e same th in g i s tr u e in t h i s c a s e , in th e c a se o f a
p o licem a n . But in any e v e n t , w hether i t i s tru e or n o t , t h i s
C ourt has s o h e ld . T h is C ourt lias s o h e ld in se v e n c a se s th a t
where a su b o r d in a te S ta te o f f i c e r packed th e Crand Jury b y
i l l e g a l l y e x c lu d in g c o lo r e d p erson s from th e Grand Jury , and
2 a l s o th e p e t ty ju r y , th a t th e c a se was n o t rem ovab le .
Now, in th a t c a se th e charge was b rou gh t b y a Grand
Jury th a t was im properly s e l e c t e d in v i o l a t i o n o f F ed er a l lav;,
and th e y b rou gh t th e c h a rg e . T h is Court h e ld in th o se se v e n
c a s e s th a t th a t c a se was n o t rem ovable , b e c a u se , b ecau se i t
d id n o t shew th a t you w ere d en ied or co u ld n o t e n fo r c e your
r ig h t s in the S t a t e C ou rt. That th e presum ption was th a t th e
» »
S t a t e C ourt would e n fo r c e your r ig h t s and v;ould quash th e in
d ictm en t,, and s o fo r th *
10
Now, th e C ir c u it Court o f A ppeals in P eacock , th e r e
i s no doubt about i t s h o ld in g . I f you w i l l read th e ir o p in io n
c a r e f u l ly , i t i s hard t o b e l i e v e th a t th e y e v en r e a l iz e d th a t
t h i s d e n ia l o f en forcem en t had t o b e in th e s t a t e C o u rt.
In any e v e n t , th e y came out w ith j u s t a f l a t h o ld in g ,
th a t a p r o se c u tio n fo r an improper m otive i n s t i t u t e d to d e p r iv e
you o f your c i v i l r ig h t s made out a ca se o f rem ova l.
JUSTICE STEWART: I t i s p o s s ib le , i s i t n o t , t o read
S e c t io n 1 o f 1443 t o sa y som eth in g p r e t ty much a lo n g th o se
l i n e s , th a t i s , t o read i t th e way Judge S o b e lo f f in th e
F ourth C ir c u it su g g e s te d th a t i t m ight b e r e a d ,
i-5R„ LOTT: Your Honor, I w i l l corse t o ch a t in a moment,
b u t l e t me sa y t h i s . T h is C ourt in se v en s t r a ig h t c a s e s has
h e ld th a t t h a t s t a t u t e i s a d e n ia l o f th e i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e
i n S ta te C o u rts .
JUSTICE STEWART; B oth have t o b e in th e S t a t e C ourt?
MR. LOTT; Y e s , s i r .
JUSTICE STEWART: As I sa y , a s a m atter o f r e a d in g i t ,
i t i s p o s s ib le t o read i t th e o th e r way, i t i s n o t?
MR. LOTT: Y es, s i r .
Now, in ea ch one o f th o se se v en c a s e s th a t I ara t a lk in g
a b o u t, th e man had b een d ep r iv ed o f h is e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s b y
a s ta c k in g o f th e Grand J u r y , And i f i t d id n o t r e la t e t o a
C ourts a l l s e v e n o f th o s e c a s e s v?ouid have b een rem oved. But
t h i s C ourt h o ld th a t th a t language — and you can read i t th a t
i :l
way — a p p l ie s t o th e C ou rt.
Slow, l e t me s a y t h i s . X d o n o t th in k th a t t h i s C ourt
sh o u ld s u s t a in th e C ourt o f a p p e a ls in th e P eacock case fo r
th e s e reasons*. In th e f i r s t p la c e , i f you d o , you would have
t o o v e r r u le se v e n d e c i s io n s . You w ould have t o o v e r r u le th a t
p a r t o f th e d e c is io n h o ld in g th a t under S u b se c t io n 1 th e d e n ia l
or i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e had t o b e shewn foy S t a t e s t a t u t e or
C o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n . You would have t o o v e r r u le t h a t . You
w ould have t o o v e r r u le your own o p in io n s in th o s e se v en c a s e s ,
th a t th e a c t s o f S ta t e o f f i c e r s in d e p r iv in g you o f your r ig h t s
in advance o f th e t r i a l -were n o t s u f f i c i e n t fo r rem oval, b eca u se
th e presum ption i s th a t th e s t a t e C ourt w i l l c o r r e c t i t .
Stow, th o se d e c is io n s o f t h i s Court have been in e f f e c t
and have been s e t t l e d law s in c e a t l e a s t 1879 .
D uring th a t p e r io d o f tim e* C ongress l a s n o t made any
s i g n i f i c a n t changes in th e w ording o f th a t s t a t u t e th a t w ould
a f f e c t th o se d e c i s io n s . And C on gress , h a v in g c o n fer re d th e
rem oval ju r is d ic t io n * and h av in g a c q u ie sc e d in th a t in t e r p r e ta
t io n s in c e a t l e a s t 1879? X subm it th a t i t would b e to o la t e
now fo r t h i s C ourt t o do what C ongress has f a i l e d t o d o , and
th a t i s t o amend th e s t a t u t e , And th a t i s what he i s a rg u in g
you sh o u ld d o ,
HOw, in a d d it io n t o t h a t , 2 want to d i r e c t th e C o u r t's
a t t e n t io n t o t h i s , t h a t in c o n s id e r in g th e C i v i l e ig h t s A ct o f
1964,, C ongress had p r e v io u s ly r e e n a c te d t h i s s t a t u t e any number
n Tv, i o t h e v had th e ir
o t t i n e s w ith o u t changing a w ord, a 196- *
V • - on d ir e c t e d t o i t . They amended th e companion
s p e c i f i c a t t e n t io n d ir c c t c
. . . . VGU t o a p p ea l from a remand order under
s t a t u t e t h a t en ab led you ^ L v
_ . . * -T-hat you cou ld n o t ap p ea i.T144-3. P r io r co u=*w yv«
s o c o n g r e ss had i t s a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t io n d ir e c t e d t o
i t and made th e amendment p e r m itt in g an a p p e a l from a remand
order in a c i v i l r ig h t s ca se under 3443 .
in t h a t same s e s s io n o f C ongress I found c u t th a t
_ sA arhror-ated th e amendment o f cech appeared b e fo r e C on gress and a d v o ca ted
• . . a„d Hr K astenm eier in tro d u ced i t . and th e
th a t s t a t u t e , «««
t , b r i e f £pr P e a c o c k , A s t a t u t e b e fo re
c i t a t i o n i s in th e r e p ly b r ie r
. s t a t u t e and make i t do p r e c i s e ly whatC ongress to amend th a t s t a t u t e an
, r i r m i i t h e ld in P eacock i t
, » n n a -n 1 q i n t h ® F i l t h C — c>----*-■th e C ourt o f A p peals m ^
d id a c . and th a t i s t o make any d e n ia l o f r ig h t , w h ee ler by
. c o u r t or a d m in is tr a t iv e o f f i c e r or what n o t , rem ovab le .
scw. congress d id n o t do t h a t . The congress f a i l e d
to p a ss t h a t s t a t u t e in l 9 6 4 -
JUSTICE WHITE: D id th e y v o te i t down?
« . bOTT: I do n o t w o w . s i r . » U I Know i s th a t i t
_ _ -it in th e r ec o rd , and i t d id n o t
xvas in trodu ced* and 1 r e a ‘
p a s s . I t d id n o t c o ir s c u t .
_ „ 1n.i. 0 f b i l l s in trod u ced
JUSTICE WHITE: There a re a 1 t
c o n s id e r in g . Was a«Y sugges
t s Congress never gets around 10 considering
c io n l ik e t h i s ever v o te d down?
was te s t im o n y b e fo r e th e House Committee* b eca u se I read th e
h e a r in g s ab ou t t h i s p a r t ic u la r b i l l * And two o f th e gen tlem en
h e r e appeared and m entioned —
JUSTICE WHITE: Was i t e v e r v o ted on in C om m ittee?
MR. LOTT; I do n ot know th a t e i t h e r , s i r . But th e
f a c t th a t I am g e t t in g a t i s chat C ongress s in c e 1379 has n o t
amended th a t s t a t u t e , has r e e n a c te d i t , and, th e r e fo r e * i t
ap p ears t o vis i t has c e r t a in ly en d orsed th e o p in io n s o f t h i s
C ourt w h ich have b een s e t t l e d law in th e U n ited S t a t e s -
Nov;, I w ould l ik e t o s a y t h i s a s a p r a c t i c a l m a tte r .
In a d d it io n t o t h a t , I th in k th e Peacock c a se la y s down a
bad r u le , and t h a t th e d e c is io n s o f t h i s C ourt in th o se e ig h t
c a s e s a r e a good r u l e . They a r e n o t o n ly good b eca u se th ey
f o l lo w th e s t a t u t e — and a f t e r a l l , th a t i s th e q u e s t io n h ere -
JUSTICE WHITES: What would you do in a c a s e , Mr, L o tt ,
w here a S t a t e s t a t u t e p r o h ib ite d th e j o i n t s e r v ic e o f w h ite s
and n eg ro es to g e th e r in a r e s ta u r a n t , and a F e d e r a l s t a t u t e
p erm itted i t , and a E&gro was th en a r r e s te d fo r g o in g in t o a
s o - c a l l e d w h ite r e s ta u r a n t?
MR- LOTT; I th in k under th e l i b e r a l in t e r p r e t a t io n
g iv e n t h i s s t a t u t e by t h i s C ourt in th o s e s e v e n c a s e s , you
w ould s a y th a t th o S t a t e C ourt would fo llo x v , you would j u s t
presume th a t th e S t a t e C ourt would fo l lo w t h a t S ta te s t a t u t e
and, th e r e f o r e , you would sa y th a t you cou ld —
MR. LOTT: I do n o t knew, s i r . 2 do n o tic e t h a t th e re
14
JUSTICE WHITE: You would presum e, th e n , th a t th e S t a t e
C ou rts would ig n o r e th e F e d er a l s t a t u t e ?
MR. LOTT: Yes* s i r . That i s w hat th e s e se v e n c a se s
h o ld . They sa y th a t th a t i s th e o n ly tim e - - and I th in k th a t
i s a l i b e r a l in t e r p r e t a t io n o f th e s t a t u t e .
JUSTICE WHITE: But th o s e c a se s d id n ot have a s p e c i f i c
F e d e r a l s t a t u t e , d id th ey?
MR. LOTT: No. s i r , b u t th ey s a id t h i s , th a t in any c a se
in w h ich you co u ld p o in t to a S t a t e C o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n or
s t a t u t e a s in te r p r e te d by th e h ig h e s t Court o f th e S t a t e , or a s
r e a so n a b ly r e a d , w h ich would c a u se , i f a S t a t e Court fo llo w e d
i t , w ould cau se you t o be d en ied or un ab le t o e n fo r c e your
e q u a l c i v i l r i g h t s , th a t then th e ca se was rem ovab le .
JUSTICE WHITE: In th e ab sen ce o f th e s t a t u t e you
would n o t presuit® a g a in s t th e S t a t e Court?
MR. LOTT: No, c e r t a in ly n o t .
JUSTICE WHITE: In the p resen ce o f th e s t a t u t e you
w ould presume th a t th e y would ig n o re th e F e d e r a l r u le ?
MR. LOTT: And fo l lo w th e S ta te s t a t u t e . That i s the
in t e r p r e t a t io n put on i t b y t h i s C ourt in th o s e se v e n c a s e s .
Nov;, in Poacock we do n o t have any su ch s t a t u t e . There
i s n o l e g i s l a t i v e d e n i a l . The s t a t u t e a g a in s t b lo c k in g p u b lic
s t r e e t s a p p l ie s t o everyon e a l i k e . There i s n o th in g in P eacock
t o shew th a t he canncfcget h is r ig h t s , or th a t he w i l l b e d en ied
them in S ta te C ou rt.
Now, a s I was sa y in g , one rea so n th a t i s a bad r u le
in P eacock i s t h i s . U nderneath th a t r u le any d efen d a n t in a
c r im in a l c a se , or a lm o st any d e fen d a n t, can remove h is ca se
from P o l ic e C ourt t o F e d e r a l Court by s im p ly an a l l e g a t io n of
t h i s k in d , b eca u se th a t i s a l l t h i s i s in P eacock , th a t he i s
a s s o c ia t e d w ith sone c i v i l r ig h t s group or engaged i n some
c i v i l r ig h t s work, and he i s charged or a r r e s te d fo r so m e th in g *
I t m ight b e d r iv in g w ith o u t a l i c e n s e , or a t r a f f i c t i c k e t , or
o v erp a rk in g . I t does n o t make any d i f f e r e n c e w hat, th a t he
has been charged x-jith that® and th a t th e m otive o f making th e
charge was t o d e te r him in some c i v i l r ig h t , and th a t c a se i s
th en removed to th e F e d e r a l C ou rt.
JUSTICE WHITE: What happens when he a l l e g e s th a t ,
Mr. L o tt? The ca se i s removed when he f i l e s th a t p ie c e o f
paper, i s i t n o t?
MR. LOTT; Y es, s i r ,
JUSTICE WHITS: And th e n th e r e has t o be a m otion fo r
remand?
MR, LOTT: That i s r i g h t , And th e n under th e C ir c u it
Court o f A p peals r u le in Peacock , th e man wouilcl th e n go in t o
C ourt, and you would have a h ea r in g in F e d e r a l Court to d eterm in e
th e m otive o f th e P r o se c u to r .
JUSTICE WHITE: What do you contend fo r ? You cannot
p rev en t th e rem o v a l. You j u s t sa y t h a t th e m otion t o remand
sh o u ld b e d e c id ed on th e papers w ith no e v id e n c e ?
16
any c a se fo r rem ova l, I can n ot p o in t out any S ta te C o n s t i t u t io n a l
p r o v is io n o f th e s t a t u t e th a t w i l l p rev en t him.
JUSTICE DOUGLAS: May I put a c a se t o y ou . We have had
c a se s in th e p a s t in v o lv in g S t a t e r e g u la t io n s o f p eo p le engaged
in r e l i g i o u s a c t i v i t i e s . I am th in k in g o f some o f our Jehovah
W itn e sse s where a m u n ic ip a lity r e q u ir e d a l i c e n s e , and we h e ld
th a t p r o s e ly t iz in g in th e manner in w h ich th e y p r o s e ly t is e d was
an e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g i o n and cou ld n o t b e l ic e n s e d or taxed b y th e
S t a t e Government.
Now, in a ca se l ik e th a t , i f th e y were a r r e s te d , 3:
su p p ose , s in c e th e y w ere a s s e r t in g a C o n s t i t u t io n a l r ig h t , th a t
th e y co u ld b e removed t o F e d er a l C ourt even though th e y m ight
g e t a f a i r t r i a l in th e S t a t e C ourt, i s th a t n o t tru e?
MR. LOTT: I would sa y th e y cou ld be removed i f he cou ld
p o in t , a s t h i s C ourt lias h e ld , t o a S ta t e C o n stitu tio n a l p r o v is io n
or s t a t u t e w h ich , i f fo llo w e d b y th e S ta te C ourt in h i s c a s e ,
w ould r e s u l t in th e d e n ia l o f soma r ig h t co n ferred on him by
some s t a t u t e o f th e U nited S t a t e s p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l c i v i l
r i g h t s .
JUSTICE DOUGLAS: W ell, th a t may b e a g lo s s th a t some
o f our e a r l i e r d e c is io n s have put on tb s rem oval s t a t u t e , b u t
d oes n o t th e rem oval s t a t u t e sp eak in terras o f th e p r o te c t io n
o f th e C o n s t i t u t io n a l in h e r e n t r ig h t , l ik e th e f r e e e x e r c is e
MR. LOTT: W e ll, w h ere h i s p e t i t i o n d o es n o t make o u t
o f r e l ig io n ?
17
b o l t 4
s t a t u t e sa y s th e p o in t 1 an concerned w ith now, S e c t io n 1,
r e l a t e s t o j u s t e x a c t ly what 1 r e a d .
JUSTICE DOUGLAS: The mere f a c t o f th e a r r e s t and th e
p r o se c u t io n i s a C o n s t i t u t io n a l , ta k en a t th e fa c e v a lu e o f th e
a l l e g a t io n , i s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e p r a v a t io n .
MR. LOTT: Y es, s i r , th a t i s . But C ongress has n o t
g iv e n you rem oval j u r i s d ic t io n in su ch a c a s e .
JUSTICE DOUGLAS: W ell, th a t i s th e q u e s t io n in t h i s
c a s e .
I® . LOTT: Y es, s i r . They have l e f t th a t t o th e
a d v is o r y power o f th e S t a t e C ou rt, and i f th ey do n o t do i t ,
u lt im a te ly t o t h i s C o u rt. But under th e d e c is io n s o f t h i s
C ourt in th o se se v e n c a se s C ongress lias n o t g iv e n you rem oval
j u r i s d i c t io n .
How, l e t me sa y t h i s . In th e b e g in n in g , in 1866, th ey
d id , when t h i s s t a t u t e was f i r s t e n a c te d , in 1866, you cou ld
remove a c a se a f t e r th e judgm ent. You cou ld n o t o n ly remove
i t b e fo r e , b u t a f t e r th e t r i a l in th e S ta te C o u rt. I f you had
b een d e n ie d some e q u a l c i v i l r i g h t , th en you cou ld remove i t
t o F e d e r a l C ourt and have a t r i a l a l l over a g a in . But C ongress
r e p e a le d t h a t in 1874, and th ey l e f t th e s t a t u t e a s i t i s now,
a s in te r p r e te d by t h i s Court,, t h a t th e o n ly tim e fo r rem oval
i s in advance o f th e t r i a l .
Now, g e t t in g b ack t o my p o in t — and I th in k t h i s i s
MR. LOTT: Ho, s i r . I w i l l s a y t h i s , t h a t th e rem o v a l
im portant — any d efen d a n t under P eacock can remove th a t ca se
t o a F e d e r a l C ourt by a s im p le a l l e g a t io n th a t he i s engaged
i n c i v i l r ig h t s work, and he has b een a r r e s t e d , and t h a t the
p r o se c u t io n was fo r an improper m o t iv e ,
Hox*;r you th e n are g o in g t o have one t r i a l , and
p o s s ib ly two t r i a l s in F e d e r a l C o u rt. Your f i r s t i s g o in g t o
b e a t r i a l t o exam ine th e m otive o f w hoever b rou gh t th e ch arge,
w hether i t i s a Grand Jury or a p o l ic e o f f i c e r , or what not*
Under th e P eacock r u le , th e Court Would have to d e c id e th a t
b e fo r e i t knew w hether i t had j u r i s d i c t i o n . I t vjoulcl hear
e v id e n c e a s t o th e m otive o f w hoever b rou gh t th e c h a r g e s .
Now, th a t cou ld in v o lv e q u i t e a le n g th y t h in g . Arid
what I want t o sa y i s th a t th e burden i s n o t on th e F e d e r a l
D i s t r i c t C ourt t o t r y a l l th e s e P o l ic e Court c a s e s , o v e r
p ark in g and d r iv in g w ith o u t a l i c e n s e , b u t th e burden on a
m u n ic ip a lity t o e n fo r c e th e law i s ju.3t beyond i t s a b i l i t y
t o r e a c h in most tow n s. I do n o t know ab ou t W ashington or
P h ila d e lp h ia . But what th e y w ould have t o do i s t h i s . You
would have t o g o t o a F e d e r a l C ou rt, w h ich i s p rcb a b ly some
d is ta n c e from your tow n. You would have t o h ir e a law yer,
o f c o u r se , t o r e p r e s e n t you in F e d e r a l C ourt, and you would
have t o ta k e w i t n e s s e s . Now, i f i t i s th e m otive fo r a
p ro secu to r l i k e in th e se c a s e s , you would have t o tr a n sp o r t
your w itn e s s e s th e r e and your policem an t h e r e . You probably
would have t o have th e p o l ic e com m issioner and th e Mayor t o
19
t e s t i f y about th e p o l i c y o f th e C ity , and s o f o r t h . You would
have t o have a l l th a t h e a r in g t o d e c id e th e m otive o f th e
p r o se cu to r or th e m otive o f th e Grand Jury , whoever brough t
th e c h a rg e .
How,, suppose,, th en , th a t th e C ourt d e c id ed th a t th e
m otive was n o t bad — t o d e te r th e e x e r c is e o f some c i v i l
r ig h t s , th en he would remand the c a s e . But i f Ivi d e c id ed th a t
th e m o tiv e o f th e p r o se cu to r was bad , then rem oval j u r i s d ic t io n
w ould b e e s t a b l i s h e d under th e P eacock c a s e . ?»«d then you
w ould have a t r i a l on th e m e r its t o s e e w hether he was g u i l t y
or n o t , b e c a u se , a f t e r a l l , th e m otive o f th e p o licem an in
ch arg in g t h i s man w ith b lo c k in g th e s t r e e t or d r iv in g w ith o u t
a proper l ic e n s e on h i s a u to m o b ile may have been a s bad a s
co u ld b e , b u t th a t d o es n o t mean th a t he i s not g u i l t y o f i t *
JUSTICE FORTAS: Mr. L o tt , I do n o t read C ir c u it
Judge B e l l ' s o p in io n th a t way, and I w ould l ik e t o g e t your
h e lp on t h i s .
As I read h i s o p in io n , he e x p la in s t h i s C o u r t's
e a r l i e r c i v i l c a s e s under 1443 b y em p h a sis in g th a t th e r e a r o se
in the c o n te x t o f i t an a l le g e d d e n ia l c f r ig h t s w ith r e s p e c t
t o th e c o m p o sitio n o f th e ju r y . lie sa y s th a t i t was fo r th a t
r ea so n th a t t h i s C ourt a r t i c u la t e d i t s d e c is io n in term s o f
th e ab sen ce o f any S t a t e s t a t u t e or S t a t e C o n s t i t u t io n a l pro
v is io n * He s a y s , a s I read i t , in t h i s c a se th e se c a s e s .d o
not a p p ly b eca u se here the d i f f i c u l t y d oes stem from th e
20
a p p l ic a t io n o f a S t a t e s t a t u t e , nam ely, th e S t a t e s ta tu e th a t
makes i t a crim e t o o b s tr u c t th e s id e w a lk , and so o n .
And a s 2 read h is o p in io n , what he sa y s has t o be
t r i e d o u t , n o t th e m otive o f th e p r o se cu to r b u t th e q u e s t io n
a s t o w hether th e s t a t e s t a t u t e had b een a p p lie d here s o a s
t o d e p r iv e th e a ccu sed o f h is e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s *
In other' w ords, he w ould t r y ou t th e q u e s t io n a s t o
w hether t h i s i s , w hether th e c o n te x t o f th e p r o se c u tio n h ere ,
th e c o n te x t o f th e d e fe n d a n tfs a c t io n i s su ch th a t t h i s i s
s u b s t a n t ia l ly sp ea k in g an e f f o r t t o in t e r f e r e w ith t h e ir
r ig h t s o f f r e e a ssem b ly , o f f r e e sp e e c h , or w h a tev e r .
As 1 read i t , in one p la c e h ere in d is c u s s in g th e
F i f t h C ir c u it d e c i s io n in R achel he sa y s th a t th e te a c h in g
o f R ach el i s th a t you are t o c o n str u e th e S ta te s t a t u t e a s
i f th e r e w ere a g lo s s on i t , 3 a y in g th a t t h i s s t a t u t e may n o t
be a p p lie d in p e a c e fu l s i t - i n d e m o n str a tio n s .
I am r e a d in g from Page 26 o f th e R ecord. And th e
q u e s t io n I am a sk in g i s w hether you d i f f e r w ith th a t r e a d in g
o f t h i s or w hether your p o s i t io n i s th a t th a t amounts t o an
in q u ir y in t o th e m otive o f th e p r o s e c u t io n .
MR. LOTT: My d isa g reem en t w ith th a t i s on t h i s b a s i s ,
th a t in th o s e se v e n c a s e s o f t h i s Court t h a t you w ere t a lk in g
a b o u t, th a t he r e f e r s t o , b r in g in g th e ch arge, th e charge was
b rou gh t by a s ta c k e d Grand J u r y . In each o f th o s e se v e n c a se s
th e y d e l ib e r a t e l y d ep r iv ed th e d e fen d a n t o f h is e q u a l c i v i l
21
5
r ig h t s by e x c lu d in g Ehgroes from th e Grand Ju ry , and th e char go
was b rou gh t b y t i e Grand Jury and he was a r r e s t e d .
JUSTICE FORTAS: C u rcu it Judge B e l l ' s o p in io n sa y s tha'<
t h a t d is c r im in a t io n w ith r e s p e c t t o Grand Jury s e l e c t i o n was no-i
b ased on any S t a t e s t a t u t e or C o n s t i t u t io n .
MR. LOTT: That i s r ig h t .
JUSTICE FORTAS: I am n o t s u g g e s t in g t h a t I agree w ith
th a t , o f c o u r s e .
I® . LOTT: How, in t h i s c a s e , o f c o u r se , he i s sa y in g
th a t when a p o l i c e o f f i c e r b r in g s a ch arge, n o t a Grand Ju ry ,
b u t a p o l i c e o f f i c e r b r in g s a charge im p rop erly , th a t th a t i s
a d i s t i n c t i o n , and th a t your se v e n c a se s do n o t a p p ly here.,
JUSTICE FORTAS: That i s w hat he i s s a y in g .
MR. LOTT: Y e s .
cUSTTCZ FCRTL5: El* ssryi, th a t th a t is; th e a p p l ic a t io n
o f & S t a t e s t a t u t e in aa* is tv iz ic v s way.
5^ . LOTT: Us 11, ncs?, ir . tlzs acrmn c a r e s d ec id ed by
t h i s C ourt, Tour Honor, tho?{« w ere a l l S t a t e s t a t u t e s , one
a g a in s t murder, one a g a in s t ra p e , and th e charge in th a t c a se ,
in a l l o f th o s e se v e n c a s e s was im properly brou gh t b y th e
Grand Jury in th e s e n s e th a t th e C ourt o f f i c e r s ta c k e d th a t
Grand J u ry . So under any S t a t e s t a t u t e , murder and ra p e ,
and s o f o r t h — I do n o t s e e th e d i s t i n c t i o n th a t he i s
a tte m p tin g t o make. And I can n ot s e e why, i f th e Grand Jury
i s s ta c k e d on you,, and you a r e in d ic te d under a S ta te s t a t u t e .
that i s n o t rem ovable , b u t .if a p o l i c e o f f i c e r comes in and
d oes i t and d oes i t w ith an im proper m otive w ith no i n d ic t
ment th a t , th e r e fo r e ., th a t makes i t rem ovab le , And, th e r e
f o r e , I can n ot fo l lo v ; him on t h a t .
New, in su b s ta n c e , what we contend ab ou t S e c t io n 1
i s t h a t , a s I have s t a t e d , th e s t a t u t e sa y s "deny in th e
S t a t e Court.," T h is C ourt has s o in te r p r e te d i t , and a l l th e
o th er C ourts in th e U nited S t a t e s have fo llo w e d th a t* C ongress
has n o t changed th a t r u l e . And what th e s e gen tlem en a re a sk
in g you t o do i s t o do Xvhat C ongress has n o t d o n e . They a r e
a sk in g you now a t t h i s la t e d a te to amend th a t s t a t u t e b y
s t r ik in g out th a t p a rt a s the C ir c u it C ourt o f A ppeals d id ,
th a t your d e n ia l has t o be in th e S ta te C o u rt. They have
u t t e r l y d isr e g a r d e d t h a t , b eca u se a s th ey s a id , i f th e
p r o se c u tio n was t o d e p r iv e you o f a r ig h t , th a t was
s u f f i c i e n t . And what I s a y , what we su bm it i s th a t i t i s
now much to o 3.ate fo r t h i s C ourt t o d o , and t h i s C ourt ..
sh o u ld n o t do what C ongress has r e fu s e d t o d o , and th a t i s
about th e ir amendment o f th e s t a t u t e .
JUSTICE BLACK: May I a sk you , d id you c i t e th e .1874
s t a t u t e to w h ich you r e fe r r e d a s having been r e p e a le d in
1374?
MR. LOTT: No, s i r . I d id n ot n o t i c e th a t , Your Honor,
u n t i l I read th e c a s e , w h ich i s n o t y e t r e p o r te d - - i t i s .Raines
v e r su s th e C ity o f D a n v il le from th e F ourth C ir c u it — B a in e s .
23
I sa ic l R a in es- B a in e s , B - a - i - n - e - s - - u n t i l a f t e r I f i l e d my
b r i e f s and I read th e ir o p in io n , where th e y p o in te d th a t out*
and c a l le d a t t e n t io n t o th e f a c t th a t th e r e s t r i c t i v e , s o -
c a l l e d r e s t r i c t i v e in t e r p r e t a t io n of t h i s c o u r t - - i t was n o t
th e in t e r p r e t a t io n o f t h i s C ourt a t a i l - i t was th e a c t o f
C ongress in r e p e a l in g rem oval a f t e r judgm ent.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr. S m ith .
ARGUMENT OS BEHALF OF WILLIE PEACOCK, ET. AL
b y Mr. Smith*.
MR.SMITH: Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e , may i t p le a se th e C ourt,
what we a r e lo o k in g fo r in t h i s c a s e , W i l l i e Peacock , and th e
13 p eop le th a t w ere a r r e s te d w ith him, i s a f a i r t r i a l . And
what we cannot g e t in th e M is s i s s ip p i S ta te C ourts i s a f a i r
t r i a l .
That was what C ongress had on i t s mind in 1356, when
i t p assed t h i s c i v i l r ig h t s rem oval b i l l . T h is c i v i l r ig h t s
rem oval b i l l was th e th ir d p a r t o f th e f i r s t c i v i l r ig h t s a c t .
And i t s im p ly s a id th a t a p p e l la t e p e o p le , N egroes and n ew ly -
fr e e d s la v e s , w ere g o in g t o have to be b rou gh t up t o th e
l e v e l o f th e w h ite man, and t h i s was che in t e n t o f th e 3 9 th
C o n g ress . I t was th e in t e n t o f th e 14 th , 1 3 th , and 15th
Amendments. And i t was th e p h ilo so p h y o f th e a g e , th a t th e
\
Negro was g o in g t o be b rou gh t up t o th e l e v e l ox th e w h ite
nan, and th a t th e F e d e r a l power was g o in g t o s e e t o i t th a t
t h i s happened
24
And whac happened in t h i s ca se was th a t th ey p assed
th e C i v i l R igh ts A ct o f .1856, and i t s a id N egroes are g o in g
t o have th e same r ig h t s a s w h ite p e o p le , and th e F e d er a l G overn
m ent i s g o in g t o s e e to i t th a t i f any o f th e se r ig h t s a re d e
prived ,. p eop le can be p r o se cu ted under su ch and su ch o f th a t
A c t. That vjas th e secon d s e c t io n o f t h a t A c t . And th e th ir d
s e c t io n sa y s th a t th e r e i s g o in g t o b e p r o se c u t io n o f th e s e
N egroes and th e u n i o n i s t s . There i s g o in g t o b e rem oval in t o
th e F e d e r a l C ourts where th e y can g e t a f a i r t r i a l . Everybody
knew in 1856 th a t th e R egross i f th e y were g o in g t o be t r i e d
by th e s e r e c o n s t r u c t io n i s t s , or o b s t r u c t io n i s t S ta te Govern
m en ts, th ey were g o in g to be t r i e d b y e x -c o n fe d e r a te ju d g es ,
and th a t th e N egroes w ere n ot g o in g to g e t a f a i r t r i a l . And
th a t any w h ite man in th e Sou th th a t took th e un ion cause was
n ot g o in g to g e t a f a i r t r i a l . And th a t was t r u e . They t r i e d
t o r e i n s t i t u t e s la v e r y in M is s i s s ip p i in 1965, and th ey ju s t
b a r e ly m issed i t . They cou ld n o t have r e p e a le d i t . The fr e e d -
m en's c o u r ts th a t w ere s e t up in M is s i s s ip p i phased th em se lv es
ou t in e a r ly 18S5r s o t h a t th e r e was no longer any c o n tr o l over
hov; N egroes xvere g o in g t o b e t r i e d . There was no r ev iew o f th e
m ethod by w h ich th e y were g o in g t o be t r i e d . The same th in g s
th a t th a t C on gress in 1866 was t a lk in g about i s in M is s i s s ip p i
to d a y . I t was in M is s i s s ip p i in 1964 . I was t h e r e . And th a t
i s w here th e s e p r o se c u t io n s came from . N egroes and c i v i l r ig h t s
worleers in M is s i s s ip p i a re n o t g o in g t o g e t a f a i r t r i a l in th o se
25
b e l t 6
S t a t e C ou rts , and th e y do n o t g e t them b e c a u se th e y do not have
N egroes on th e j u r i e s . They have w h ite ju d g es , w h ite p r o se c u to r s ,
w h ite ju ry men, w h ite s h e r i f f s th a t a r e a l l e le c t e d b y w h ite
e l e c t o r s from w h ich N egroes a r e e l im in a te d , N egroes a re
g r a d u a lly g e t t in g t h e ir r ig h t to v o te under th e now A c t, b u t th ey
are a lon g way from i t . There a r e n e a r ly 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 Negroes th a t
I th in k a re e l i g i b l e t o v o te under th e p r o v is io n s o f th e new
A ct in M is s i s s ip p i , and th e r e i s n o t even S 5 ,000 r e g i s t e r e d y e t ,.
The w hole id e a o f th e M is s i s s ip p i p lan o f 1890 was t o keep
N egroes o f f th o se j u r ie s by k eep in g them o f f th e v o t in g r o l l s .
Now, th e o n ly th in g th a t we sa y i s th a t th e C on gress
s a id th a t t h i s was n o t an a c t p assed in 1856 fo r th e c i v i l r ig h t s
movement or fo r c i v i l r ig h t s p eo p le j u s t b y th e m se lv e s . I d o not
a g r e e W ith t h a t , I do n o t a g r e e w ith th e p r e v io u s argument th a t
t h i s was an a c t p assed th a t would a l lo w rem oval when somebody
g o e s out and d oes som eth in g c o n s i s t e n t w ith th e 14th Amendment
or d ees som eth ing c o n s i s t e n t w ith th e C i v i l R ig h ts A ct o f 1964 .
I sa y i t was p a sse d fo r th e Negro who cou ld n o t g e t a f a i r
t r i a l in th e S t a t e C o u rt. That was why th ey p assed i t .
Now, what th a t means i s th a t th e y a r e g o in g t o send -«
under t h i s in t e r p r e t a t io n th a t R iv e s and Powers put on t h i s
t h in g , th ey can n ot g e t a f a i r t r i a l and a f a i r F e d e r a l t r ib u n a l
u n le s s th e S ta te i s s o dumb th a t th e S ta te pa -,ses an a c t thd:
ca y s N egroes can n ot s e r v e on j u r i e s . And no Sou thern S ta te
Government i s g o in g t o d o a n y th in g l ik e t h a t . They have lea rn ed
26
t h e ir l e s s on *
The w h o le p h ilo so p h y here was th a t th e l e g a l m achinery
o f th e s t a t e s , th e r e c o n s tr u c te d s t a t e s , th e C on fed erate s t a t e s ,
was th a t th ey w ere g o in g t o u se th e S t a t e power t o p ro secu te th e
u n io n is t s in t h e ir m id st and th e N egroes.
What happened a f t e r th e C i v i l War was th a t th e N egroes
w ere freed * There w ere hundreds o f thousands c£ them roaming- tlie
S ou th w ith o u t an e d u c a t io n , w ith o u t any money, w ith o u t any jo b s ,
and w ith o u t any hom es. And th e y p assed th e s e b la c k c o d e s . These
b la c k codes w ere j u s t about l ik e a s la v e c o d e . The o n ly tiring
i t d id n o t h a v e , . i t j u s t d id n ot sa y s la v e r y , and th a t was th e
c n ly d i f f e r e n c e * And th e Negro had t o r e g i s t e r , and he had t o
have a lab or c o n tr a c t* He had to in d en tu re h is c h i ld r e n . He
had t o pay a head ta s:. He cou ld n o t move around w ith o u t a
t r a v e l p e r m it . He was a c la s s o f in d en tu red serv a n t* And when
he was p r o se cu ted fo r n o t d o in g th e s e th in g s , th e F e d e r a l tow-
sa y s he had a r ig h t t o rem o v a l. That i s what th a t second s e c t io n
o f 1643 means, in a d d it io n t o th e f a c t th a t you a r e p r o se c u tin g
the F e d e r a l o f f i c e r and th e S t a t e o f f i c e r s who a r e tr y in g to do
the jo b . What I am s a y in g h ere i s th a t i f we do n o t g iv e some
m eaning to t h i s F e d e r a l rem oval s t a t u t e , th en th e r e i s no use
t a lk in g about e q u a l i t y . I f a man i s g o in g ~~ what they were
g o in g to do and w hat th e y d id d o and what th e y a r e d o in g in
M is s i s s ip p i , and what th e y a*e d o in g in p a r ts o f L o u isian a now
i s th ey a re p r o se c u tin g p eop le fo r c i v i l r ig h t s a c t i v i t y . They
2 7
j u s t go o u t and p ic k up a Negro who i s n o t in v o lv e d in th e
c i v i l r ig h t s movement, and th e y g e t a p r o se c u t io n a g a in s t him.
They can n ot g e t a f a i r t r i a l , and th e c i v i l r ig h t s p eop le can
not g e t a f a i r t r i a l , b e c a u se th e y a re b la c k and th ey a re com
in g down from th e N orth , and a l l o f t h a t . S o what th e y are d o
in g , th e y a r e tr y in g them in th e S t a t e Court w here th e y have
g o t a b u i l t in d e c i s io n and th e y know th ey a r e g o in g t o c o n v ic t
them . No law yers in th e community a r e g o in g t o r e p r e s e n t them
b eca u se i t i s unpopular t o d o t h a t . What happens i s th a t th e y
cannot g e t proper c o u n s e l and th e y g e t c o n v ic te d , And th ey g e t
h ig h b a i l - And you have g o t tw o c a s e s up h ere now th a t are a sk
in g fo r c e r t i o r a r i b e fo r e th e C ou rt. One i s B a in e s . That i s
a D a n v il le c a s e . And th e o th er i s Forman o u t o f Montgomery-
I f you read th o s e c a s e s , you w i l l f in d out th e judge
comes t o Court w ith a p i s t o l , and th a t th ey s e a r c h everybody
th a t w alks in to th e courtroom . They se a r c h th e b r i e f c a s e s ,
th e y s e a r c h th e p u r se s , and th ey have po licem en s ta n d in g around
w ith guns on . You can n ot g e t a f a i r t r i a l in th a t kind oi an
a tm osp h ere . That i s what th e w hole rem oval s t a t u t e i s a l l a b o u t.
I w ould have b een cfe l e t o show you som eth in g l ik e th a t ,
coo , i f th e D i s t r i c t C ourt b e lo w had g iv e n me an o p p o r tu n ity t o
g e t a h e a r in g .
What I am s a y in g i s th a t I w ant t o b e a b le t o ta k e
d e p o s i t io n s s o t h a t I can sho\'; you ch at in L eF lore County
N egroes do n o t s e r v e on j u r i e s . N egroes are b e a t up and s h o t a t .
28
b e l t 7
They a r e k n ife d - And th e y a r e a r r e s te d when th e y t r y t o
r e g i s t e r t o v o t e .
That was what th e y were d o in g h ere when th e y were
a r r e s t e d .
And what happened in th e s e c a se s - - I w i l l t e l l you
what W i l l i e P eacock was d o in g . He was n o t t r y in g to v i o l a t e
th e law . He was t r y in g t o s e e t o i t th a t th e lav7 was fo l lo w e d .
He was n o t ou t d em o n stra tin g t o b lo c k th e c i t y s id e w a lk s . They
found th a t i f th e y wanted n egroes t o r e g i s t e r so a s t o in an
o r d e r ly fa sh io n change th e p o l i c y and th e governm ent of th e
S ta te o f M is s i s s ip p i and b r in g i t in to th e T w en tie th C entury
where i t b e lon gs,, th a t you are g o in g t o have t o have Negroes
r e g is t e r e d t o v o t e . So th a t th e v o t in g p r o c e ss e s ch at makes
t h i s cou n try g r e a t , th e D em ocratic p r o c e s s e s o f th e vo ce mean
som eth in g t o p e o p le . So th a t th e r e i s some p a r t ic ip a t io n in
governm ent. That i s w hat th e y w ere t r y in g t o d o , And th ey
found th a t i f th e y w ent to a Negro who l iv e d on a farm and
s a id , U ncle or Aunt Cr fr ie n d or b r o th e r , whoever i t was in
t h i s in s ta n c e * come on down and v o t e , th e y a re g o in g t o sa y ,
we are sc a re d to go t o th a t w h ite n a n ’s c o u r th o u se . And I w i l l
t e l l you why we a re sc a r e d t o go t h e r e . T h a t's j u s t a w h ite
m an's c o u r th o u se . That i s a l l th e law means t o me. He has
g o t a badge on and you b e t t e r lo o k o u t . D o n 't hang around
t h e r e . T h a t's j u s t where you pay your t a x e s .
So what th e c i v i l r ig h t s w orkers w ere s a y in g w as.
okay, i f you are sc a r e d t o go , we w i l l g o xv'ith you , and we
w i l l b e t h e r e „ And we w i l l shew them th a t i f we have th e
courage t o go w ith you , maybe you w i l l have th e courage t o go
down th e r e and v o t e .
S o w hat th e y would do i s th e y would put an a freedom
d ay , and th e y w ould march around th a t cou rth ou se w ith th a t s ig n
sa y in g "One Man-One V oce", or som eth ing ab ou t v o t in g . And th e
n eg ro es w ould t r i c ic l e in to th a t r e g i s t r a r ' s o f f i c e and th ey
would r e g i s t e r . Then th e p o l i c e would come down and sa y , you
a r c b lo c k in g th e s id e w a lk , and threw everybody in j a i l . That
i s what was g o in g o n . That was g o in g on a l l over M is s i s s ip p i ;
th row in g them in j a i l and t r y in g them th e n e x t clay. We had t o
f i l e our rem oval p e t i t io n th e n e x t d a y . I drew i t up in one
n ig h c and we w ent up t o s t o p th e t r i a l s a t noon th a t day b e c a u se
th e y were go in g t o t r y him .
So a l l I am sa y in g to you gentle?non i s th a t th a t was
what we were ta lk in g ab ou t when x?e p assed t h i s th in g by th e
3 9 th C o n g ress . And th e r e i s no g e t t in g around i t . I f you a r e
g o in g to t e l l th e Negro — and th a t i s what i t was p a ssed f o r —-
i f you are g o in g t o t e l l him he has g o t e q u a l r ig h t s , d o n 't
t e l l him and th en k id him ab ou t i t . G ive him some o p p o r tu n ity
t o e n fo r c e th e s e c i v i l r ig h t s and t o p r o te c t h im se lf and t o
g e t a f a i r t r i a l .
Now, maybe in f i v e or te n y ea rs when th e Negro g e t s
t o v o c e in th e S o u th , l ik e I h o p e fu lly th in k he i s go in g t o g e t
29
30
i t , th e n maybe he w i l l b e a b le t o e l e c t some ju d ges and some
s h e r i f f s , and maybe he w i l l b e a b le to g e t on some ju ry r o l l s *
But r ig h t now lie cannot do i t . Only in a v e r y few a r e a s do
you f in d N egroes s e r v in g on j u r i e s .
So i f you are g o in g t o g iv e him th e fr a n c h is e - - and
you know th e C i v i l R ig h ts A ct o f 1957, and 1960, '64, and '65 —
you go out in th e se cou n try p a r ish e s o f L ou is ia n a and th e se
cou n try c o u n t ie s in M is s i s s ip p i , th e y do n o t know what i t i s .
They have n o t se e n i t . I t has n o t changed th e ir l i v e s any .
They s t i l l do n ot g o to the cou rth ou se and v o t e . They s t i l l d o
n o t have any p a r t i c ip a t io n in governm ent. They a r e s t i l l a f r a id
o f th e s h e r i f f b eca u se he i s a w h ite man. And th e th in g about
i t i s he d oes n o t know th a t th e r e i s a F e d e r a l p r o v is io n in th e
S t a t e o f M is s i s s i p p i . I t d o e s n 't to u ch him .
Now, i t m ight tou ch somebody in Jack son , b u t th a t i s
xc •
THE CHIEF JIB TICE: Mr. S m ith , what do you have t o
a l l e g e in your p e t i t i o n t o remove t h i s f a c t , or t o g e t th e
F e d e r a l C ourt t o ta k e over?
MR, SMITH: Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e , I th in k what you have
t o do i s l ik e th e s t a t u t e s a y s . I t sa y s a c le a r , p r e c is e ,
b r i e f s ta te m e n t o f what i s g o in g o n . And I w i l l adm it I d id
t h i s p r e t ty h a s t i l y t o g e t t h i s up th e r e t o s to p th e s e t h in g s .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I d id n o t g e t th a t l a s t th in g
th a t you s a id
?4K, SMITH: A s h o r t , b r i e f , c o n c is e s ta te m e n t —
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Y e s .
MR. SMITH: — o f th e grounds upon w h ich you rem ove.
And I th in k i f you tr a c k th e langu age o f th e s t a t u t e , I th ink
i f you s im p ly make th e a l l e g a t io n l ik e I d id in Peacock,. th a t
you a r e b e in g d e p r iv ed o f c e r ta in C o n s t i t u t io n a l r i g h t s . And
2 sa y you a r e b e in g d e p r iv ed o f th e r ig h t - - i s d e n ie d . I am
sa y in g d e n ie d . I th in k th a t i s th e o p p o s ite la n g u a g e . I s d e
n ied e q u a l p r o te c t io n o f th e la w s, p r iv i l e g e s and im m unities
o f th e law s, and th e due p r o c e ss o f th e la w s, inasmuch a s o th er
t h in g s . He was a r r e s te d and ch arged , and to h e charged under
a S ta te C o n s t i t u t io n a l s t a t u t e t h a t i s u n c o n s t i t u t io n a l and un
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y a p p l ie d . I th in k th a t i s enough t o shew d e n i a l .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: What s t a t u t e i s unC onotifcutiona 1
here?
MR* SMITH: I was s a y in g th a t th e s t a t u t e — t o b e
fra n k w ith you , in th e Peacock e a s e , I th in k th a t I had r e f e r e n c e
t o th e s t a t u t e under w h ich he was b e in g ch arged , t h i s courthouse}
p ic k e t s t a t u t e — n o t co u rth o u se p ic k e t , b u t b lo c k in g th e s i d e
w a lk . But I th in k th a t i t can b e r e a so n a b ly in fe r r e d , Mr.
C h ie f J u s t i c e , th a t 1 was a l s o t a lk in g ab ou t th e f a c t t h a t he
was g o in g t o b e t r i e d under a sy stem o f s t r i c t r a c i a l s e g r e g a
t i o n , b eca u se I amended th a t paragraph b y s a y in g "This s t a t u t e
i s vague and d e f i n i t e l y u n c o n s t i t u t io n a l on i t s f a c e . I t i s
*
u n c o n s t i t u t io n a l a n d 'a r b i t r a r i ly made and used a s u sed , anil i s
32
e n fo r c e d in t h i s in s ta n c e a s a p a r t and p a r c e l o f th e un
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t r i c t pow ers o f r a c i a l s e g r e g a t io n of the
S t a t e o f M is s i s s ip p i and th e C ity o f Greenwood."
How, th a t i s a l l I s a i d . Than X s a id ha w as b e in g —
X s a id he i s not o n ly n o t g u i l t y , b u t he cannot e n fo r c e in th e
C ourts o f th e S t a t e o f M is s i s s ip p i th e r ig h t s he p o s s e s s e s p ro
v id in g fo r th e e q u a l r ig h t s o f c i t i 2 e n s o f th e U n ited S t a t e s ,
nor can he a c t under a u th o r ity o f th e a fo r e m e n tio n e d p r o v is io n s
p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l p r o te c t io n o f r i g h t s , And I s i t e th e V o tin g
R ig h ts A c t ,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Assum ing th a t th e s t a t e con es in
and d e n ie s th a t , in th e g e n e r a l t e r n s a s you have a l le g e d i t , —
MR. SMITH: Y es , s i r .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: — what i s th e p roced u re, what i s
req u ire d ?
MR. SMITH: My th ou gh ts on th e proced u re w ould b e that,
i f I had t o d efen d t h a t , i f X was th e rem oving p e t i t io n e r , X
would s i t down and i n s t i t u t e a h ea r in g on th e ju r y s e l e c t i o n
p r o c e ss in t h a t c o u n ty . And I v7ould a l s o c a l l in th e S h e r i f f ,
and I w ould c a l l in th e law en forcem en t o f f i c i a l * And we d id
t h i s in th e r e t r i a l o f this Cameron c a s e , w h ich t h i s C ourt s e n t
b a ch to us t o r e t r y , and we t r i e d i t over in B ilo a s i l a s t
O ctober* You s a id you w anted a b e t t e r reco rd in th a t c a s e , s o
wo r e t r i e d i t . What we d id was we put th e p r o se cu to r on th e
s ta n d , and I s a id t o th e p r o se c u to r , fo r escample, I hear you
33
a re a r r e s t in g p eo p le fo r parading around th e cou rth ou se in
F o r r e s t County,. M is s i s s ip p i - I s a id , what ab ou t th e f o o t b a l l
parade you had in town? You know i t i s j u s t a s bad t o b lo c k
th e cou rth ou se w ith th o s e f o o t b a l l parades a s w ith a s ig n s a y
in g "One Man-One V o te " , And he s a id , ohr th a t i s a f o o t b a l l
p arad e , We do n o t have to \vorry about th a t , And I s a id , th e s e
p eop le are j u s t a s s e r io u s a s you a r e t i l t h your f o o t b a l l p arad es,
and you adm it th a t i t b lo c k s th e c o u r th o u se , Thi3 i s s e l e c t
e n f orcem en t, T h is i s what was condemned in Cox v e r su s L o u is ia n a .
And th a t i s th e kind o f h ea r in g th a t I would u n d ertak e,
Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e . I w ould show th a t kind o f s e l e c t i v e r e p o r t .
And I would show t h a t N egroes do n o t se r v e on j u r i e s . And I
would shot; t o th e F e d e r a l C ourt b y t h e s e , th e e x p e r ie n c e s o f u s
in g th e F e d e r a l r u le 3 to d e v e lo p a r e c o r d , I w ould show t h a t he
cou ld n o t e n fo r c e in th e C ourts o f th a t S ta te th e e q u a l c i v i l
r ig h t o f h av in g a f a i r t r i a l . And once I had done t h a t , I would
sa y , okay. Now we w i l l t r y th e c a s e s in th e F e d e r a l C ourt and
we w i l l g e t a f a i r t r i a l , w h ich i s w hat t h i s th in g i s a l l abou t
anyway,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE.; The r ea so n I ask ed th a t was b ecau se
I u n d erstood c o u n s e l in th e c a se j u s t b e fo r e y o u r s e l f t o sa y th*£
he d id n o t th in k th a t was n e c e s s a r y , th a t t h i s a p p lie d , n o t b e
cau se o f d is c r im in a t io n , b u t b eca u se i t a p p lie d now t o a l l
s t a t e s , b eca u se C ongress had made an ir r e b u t ta b le presum ption
t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y t o do t h a t . Do you f e e l th a t way?
34
MR. SMITH: Ho, s i r . I do n o t a g r ee w ith him about
t h a t . I th in k t h i s A ct was p a ssed t o cover th e p r o se c u t io n o f
N egroes in an u n fa ir a tm osp h ere . That i s w hat th e C ongress in
1866 had in i t s m ind.
J u s t ic e B la ck m entioned som eth in g about p r o se c u t in g
He g r o ss in W atts in Hew York, and I th in k t h a t i s the way i t
came up . I th in k i f th ey are d e n ie d a f a i r t r i a l , i f th ey
cannot e n fo r c e i t in th o se C o u rts , i f th e a r r e s t i s r a c i a l l y
m o tiv a ted , i f i t i s g o in g t o foe s ta c k in g th e deck a g a in s t
them., I do n o t c a r e i f th e y l iv e d in W ashington or New York,
1 s t i l l th in k th e y are e n t i t l e d t o rem o v a l. I t j u s t s o
happens a t the tim e when th e s t a t u t e was p assed th a t we a r e
t a lk in g about th e S t a t e s o f r e b e l l i o n . So 1 d o n o t a g ree w ith
p r e v io u s c o u n s e l abou t th a t p o in t .
JUSTICE WHITS: I g a th er you w ould perm it rem oval,
or th in k rem oval sh o u ld be a llo w ed w ith regard to any p ro v a b le ,
or i f you cou ld w ith some e v id e n c e e s t a b l i s h a p r e t ty good
l ik e l ih o o d o f some u n fa ir n e s s th a t may occur- d u rin g th e t r i a l .
MR. SMITH: Y es, s i r .
JUSTICE WHITE: For exam ple, a s you s a y , th e e x c lu s io n
from th e p e t ty ju r y .
MR. SMITH; R ig h t.
JUSTICE WHITE: Or I supp ose you would a l s o sa y you
sh o u ld bo a b le t o remove a rape c a se i f you co u ld show th a t th e r e
was d is c r im in a to r y punishm ent imposed On Etegroes.
We have g o t chat problem inMR. SMITH: Y es „ s i r .
L ou isian a ., where i t i s p rob ab ly a r a c i a l cr im e.
JUSTICE WHITE; But you do n o t sa y th a t th e rem oval
e x te n d s t o th o s e c a s e s , t o o .
MR. SMITH: X th in k th a t i s w hat we are ta lk in g a b o u t,
Mr, J u s t ic e W h ite .
JUSTICE WHITE: I su pp ose you cou ld make a su re case
on th e e v id e n c e a s you cou ld about th e ju r y .
MR. SMITH: Y es, s i r . And i t m ight work ou t b e t t e r
a s a m atter o f j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a t io n , t o o .
JUSTICE WHITE: E ith e r one o f them would h e lp .
MR. SMITH: That i s r i g h t . X j u s t cannot s e e in a
s i t u a t i o n where we a r e r e a l l y t a lk in g about th e developm ent o f
good j u d i c i a l a d m in is tr a t io n why we cannot remove th e s e c a se s
and g e t th e q u e s t io n o f d is c r im in a t io n over w ith on th e f i r s t
l e v e l r a th e r than t h i s habeas corpus up and down l ik e a y o y o .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: I g a th er th a t you a re a sk in g t h i s
w ith o u t a s e n s e o f o v e r r u l in g .
MR. SMITH: Y e s . I do n o t s e e th e b a s i s fo r o v e r
r u l in g th o se c a s e s .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: You d o n o t s u g g e s t th a t i t can b e
d is t in g u is h e d . You j u s t th in k we have t o o v e r r u le them .
m . SMITH: 1 do n o t ch in k s o . X th in k th o s e a r e
th e same kind o f c a s e s a s when you o v e rr u led P le s s y , The
K ayes-T ild on compromise came ou t th a t s o ld ou t th e Negro in
36
b e l t 9
th e Sou th by rem oving th o se r e c o n s tr u c t io n govern m ents. 2?lo s s y
v . F erguson was j u s t an a s p e c t o f i t j u s t a s are chose c a se s
a s p e c t s o f i t , too*
JUSTICE BREMEN: Did I understand you t o sa y you would
have t h i s h ea r in g in th e F ed er a l C ourt on th e i s s u e of w hether
or n o t t h i s i s b e in g u n fa ir t o th e Negro d e fe n d a n ts , and a f t e r
th a t has b een co n c lu d ed , th a t th e S t a t e C ourts w ould be u n fa ir ,
th en v.-hat would you sa y would happen?
MR. SMITH: I would t r y th e c a se in th e F e d er a l Court*
JUSTICE BRENNAN: Try them on th e m e r its?
MR. SMITH: Y es , s i r .
JUSTICE' BREMEN: You w o n 't d is m is s th e p r o se c u tio n ?
MR. SMITH: I f th e man i s charged , fo r exam ple, w ith
rape or murder, th e o n ly r e a l q u e s t io n i s w hether he i s g o in g t o
g e t a f a i r t r i a l or n o t . I f i t i s a c i v i l r ig h t s ca se - - and,
fo r exam ple, in th e R achel c a se - -
JUSTICE BRENNAN: Take th e se c a s e s , fo r exam p le. As
I understand i t , your p o s i t io n i s a l l Peacock and th e o th e r s
were engaged in d o in g \’;as le g i t im a te c i v i l r ig h t s a c t i v i t i e s .
MR. SMITH: Y e s ,
JUSTICE BRENNAN: And th a t th e y w ere n o t engaged
a c t u a l ly in o b s tr u c t in g any s id e w a lk s in any manner th a t would
n o t b e p r iv i le g e d ?
MR. SMITH: No more than you would be d o in g i t by
w a lk in g down th e s id e w a lk y o u r s e lv e s .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: On th e t r i a l o f th a t i s s u e chat
m ight b e b e fo r e a judge w ith o u t a ju r y , i f you were t o p re
v a i l , X ga th er t h a t th a t i s what w ould be th e r e s u l t ,
MR. SMITH: I g a th e r th a t would be a d is m is s a l t h e r e .
JUSTICE WHITE: But .if i t was a p e t t y ju ry q u e s t io n
or a punishm ent q u e s t io n , you would have t o t r y th e c a se , b e
cau se th en you w ould j u s t sa y th a t you cou ld n o t g e t a f a i r
t r i a l in th e F e d e r a l C ou rt.
MR. SMITH: Y e s . I can n ot understand p rev io u s
c o u n s e l ‘s s a y in g send i t b ack n ecau se X co u ld n o t g e t a f a i r
t r i a l in th e S ta te C ou rt.
JUSTICE WHITE: He w ould o n ly send i t back i f he
d e term in es th a t th e r e was a proper a p p l ic a t io n o f th e s t a t u t e
h e r e .
MR. SMITH: W e ll, i f i t was a proper a p p l ic a t io n - -
JUSTICE WHITE: I su p p ose you w ould a l s o sa y th e r e
sh o u ld be a remand i f you t r i e d to p u t on a ca se about d i s
c r im in a tio n and th e p e t ty ju ry and th e judge r u le d a g a in s t
you, and he was a ff ir m e d on a p p e a l. You would not remand
th e c a se th en t o th e S t a t e C o u rt.
MR. SMITH: You mean i f th e judge found th e r e was
no S t a t e d is c r im in a t io n , and he was a f f ir m e d . Then I th in k
th e S t a t e C ourt would b e th e proper forum .
JUSTICE BREDiEBEf: But th e j u r i s d i c t io n i s in i s s u e .
MR. SMITH: A l l we a r e lo o k in g fo r i s a f a i r t r i a l .
JUSTICE FORTAS: Mr. Sm ith , may I a sk you t h i s q u e s
t i o n . Would p u c o n s id e r i t r e le v a n t or p e r t in e n t to th e r e
m oval is s u e to o f f e r e v id e n c e w ith r e s p e c t t o b ia s and
p r e ju d ic e on th e p a r t o f th e p r o se cu to r or th e ju d ge, or do you
th in k th a t e v id e n c e o f th a t s o r t m ight p r o p e r ly be exclu d ed ?
L et me put i t t h i s w ay. i s i t your p o s i t io n th a t
th e o n ly th in g t h a t would b e r e le v a n t t o su p p ort rem oval o f
th e c a se from th e S ta te to th e F e d e r a l C ourt w ould be e v id e n c e
g o in g t o th e g e n e r a l sy stem o f th e a d m in is tr a t io n o f j u s t i c e
a s d is t in g u is h e d t o what has b e e n r e fe r r e d t o h ere a s p u tt in g
th e S t a t e Court i t s e l f on t r i a l ?
MR. SMITH: I would n o t put the S t a t e C ourt on t r i a l
any more than th e R ecu sa tio n s t a t u t e s do now. We c a l l i t
R ecu sa tio n s t a t u t e s in L o u is ia n a , w here the judge can be r e
cused fo r p r e ju d ic e and i n t e r e s t in th e c a s e . 2£ you have t o
shew th a t p r e ju d ic e i s r a c i a l , th en I th in k you have th e r ig h t
to do i t . But I would not put th e S t a t e C ourt on t r i a l any
more than th a t R ecu sa tio n s t a t u t e d o e s , And a s fa r a s the
p ro secu to r i s con cern ed , u n le s s th e r e i s a s t a t u t e th a t r e
l a t e s t o t h a t , I d o n o t know th a t I would w ant t o go in to
th e m o tiv a tio n o f th e p r o se c u to r .
Wow, I m ight want to go in t o th e m o t iv a t io n o f th e
a r r e s t in g o f f i c e r , b e c a u se th a t would in d ic a te what was go in g
on a t th e s c e n e . But th e s e g r e g a t io n o f a p r o se c u to r ,
t h e o r e t i c a l l y I can p r o se cu te him p a r t i a l l y , I assum e, i f he
39
o p e r a te s under h i s o a th .
JUSTICE FORTAS: I s th e r e a n y th in g e l s e th a t you co u ld
f o r e s e e a s b e in g a m atter w h ich you m ight go in t o a t t r i a l and
t h e p le a d in g s in t h i s ca se? you now m en tion th e ju ry sy stem ,
s y s te m a t ic e x c lu s io n o f N egroes from a ju r y , th e p o s s i b i l i t y
o f a t ta c k in g th e m o t iv a tio n o f th e p r o se c u to r , and th e q u a l i f i c a
t io n s or s u i t a b i l i t y o f th e S ta te judge under th e R ecu sa tio n
s t a t u t e . Now, i s th e r e a n y th in g e l s e th a t you can h e lp me w ith ?
MR. SMITH: Y e s , s i r . I th in k i f you — i f you have
a chance t o read th e a p p l ic a t io n in B a in es v e r su s th e C ity o f
D a n v il le , and Forman v e r su s th e C ity o f Montgomery, w h ich i s up
b e fo r e you , I th in k* fo r soma d e c i s io n , you a r e g o in g t o f in d
th a t th e atm osphere c r e a te d in th e B a in e s courtroom , i f th e
a l l e g a t io n s in th e a p p l ic a t io n are c o r r e c t , w ere su ch th a t any
one lo o k in g a t i t co u ld c e l l in a m inute th a t you were n o t g o
ing t o g e t a f a i r t r i a l . I th in k i f you lo o k a t th a t y o u can
n o t a v o id d o in g som eth ing about t h a t .
Now, I do n o t want t o craw l in s id e o f a n a n 's mind
and f in d out how he f e e l s ab ou t r a c e , b u t w here you have
o b j e c t iv e m a n ife s ta t io n s o f a r e ig n o f t e r r o r , and the
a b s o lu t e ab sen ce o f j u s t i c e or th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f j u s t i c e , I
th in k you ought t o b e a b le t o in q u ir e in t o t h a t .
JUSTICE FORTAS: Would you l im i t th e rem oval
p o s s i b i l i t i e s under 1443 t o s i t u a t i o n s in w h ich th e a c t io n fo r
w h ich i s p erson i s b e in g p ro secu ted in th e S ta te C ou rts , w here
40
b e l t 10
th a t a c t io n ta k e s p la c e in a c i v i l r ig h t s c o n te x t? I ta k e i t
th a t you would n o t s o l im i t i t » L e t 's j u s t ta k e a c a se o f
rap e -~
MR. SMITH: Y es , s i r .
JUSTICE FORTAS: or a ca se o f murder,, w ith no
c i v i l r ig h t s c o n n e c tio n a t a l l . I supp ose your resp o n se t o
a p r e v io u s q u e s t io n means th a t you w ould th in k th a t 1443 i s
a v a i la b le fo r rem oval t o F e d e r a l C ourt th ereu p on a proper
sh o w in g .
MR. SMITH: I th in k i t i s j u s t a s im p ortan t, b ecau se
you ta k e a Negro in th e Sou th th a t i s charged in one o f th e se
co u n try par i s lies or c o u n t ie s w here N egroes have e v e r se rv e d - -
and we h e ld a h e a r in g in th e F i f t h C ir c u it in December where
we had a s e t o f ca ses ,, and we showed in e v e r y one o f th e se
cou n try p a r ish e s where no N egroes had ev er se r v e d on th e ju r y .
JUSTICE FORTAS: You c o n tin u e t a lk in g abou t Negroes
h e r e . X su ppose th a t th a t w ould a l s o a p p ly t o a w h ite p erso n ,
l e t us s a y , who i s a c i v i l r ig h t s w ork er.
MR. SMITH: I th in k s o . I th in k you j u s t have t o face?
th e f a c t s th a t he i s n o t g o in g t o g e t a f a i r t r i a l e i t h e r .
There was a G eorgia c a se th a t came out o f t h a t . I f o r g e t th e
name o f th a t , b u t i t was a c a se in w h ich th ey s a id — th e
c i v i l r ig h t s worker was w h ite , and he s a id he s a id th a t he
was d ep r iv ed o f h is 14th Amendment r ig h t s o f e q u a l p r o te c t io n .
JUSTICE FORTAS: X may be Wrong, b u t I th ou gh t in R achel
41
th e r e w ere a cou p le o f w h ite c i v i l r ig h t s w o rk ers .
MR. SMITH: W ell, th e r e m ight have b e e n . A c tu a l ly ,
two in th e P eacock c a se here w ere w h it e .
JUSTICE FQRTAS: Two in h ere?
MR. SMITH: Two in th e P eacock c a se were w h it e .
JUSTICE PORTAS; And I su pp ose a l s o th a t t h i s would
a p p ly — l e t me j u s t assume t h i s s i t u a t i o n in w h ich a w h ite man
was a r r e s te d for seme r a c i a l b u s in e s s by s e g r e g a t io n , or w h at
e v e r i t m ight b e , or some crim e in v o lv in g a p erson o f th e
o p p o s ite r a c e .
MR. SMITH: R ig h t.
JUSTICE F ORTAS: That 1443 would t h e o r e t i c a l l y b e
a v a i la b le t h e r e .
MR, SMITH: I th in k s o . I th in k where you f in d th e
atm osphere in th e s e a r e a s , r u r a l a r e a s p a r t i c u la r ly , th a t f o r
b id a f a i r t r i a l b ecau se o f a r a c i a l b i a s , r e g a r d le s s o f
w hether th e d e fen d a n t i s c o lo r e d , th e n you have t o r e c o g n is e
th a t t h a t i s what t h i s th in g was ta lk in g a b o u t. I th in k th e
A ct i s g o in g t o phase i t s e l f ou t a s th e s o c i e t y becom es more
hom ogeneous, and vzhere the N egroes a re p a r t ic ip a t in g in the
p o l i t i c a l l i f e o f th e S ou th , w h ich i s w hat we have a l l b een
lo o k in g fo r fo r y e a r s . Then th e mere n e c e s s i t y o f su ch an
in te r r u p t io n o f a S t a t e j u d i c i a l p r o c e ss would p ass ou t o f th e
p ic t u r e . And I do n o t s e e any r e a so n why th e F e d e r a l Govern
ment ought t o in te r p o se i t s e l f in t o th e S t a t e ’s a f f a i r s i f th e
42
S t a t e can g iv e p e o p le f a i r t r i a l s . And th a t i s w hat we a r e
a f t e r . These f a i r t r i a l r ig h t s a r e F e d e r a l r i g h t s . And i f th e
S ta te Government has th e o b l ig a t io n under th e suprem acy c la u s e
t o e n fo r c e th e s e F e d e r a l r ig h t s , and th e y a r e g iv e n th e f i r s t
o p p o r tu n ity to d o i t . I f th ey do n o t w ant t o do i t , i f th e y
r e fu s e t o do i t , i f th e y want t o use th e m achinery o f th e S ta te
t o a r r e s t p eo p le th a t are tr y in g t o e x e r c is e th e s e r i g h t s , than
th e y f o r f e i t th e r ig h t t o c la im S t a t e s r i g h t s . And th e y a r e
g o in g t o have to f o r f e i t i t u n t i l th e y b r in g th e S ta te Govern
ments in t o ord er , s o th a t th ey can sa y on th e S ta te l e v e l , we
obey th e suprem acy c la u s e o f th e C o n s t i tu t io n and p eo p le in
our S t a t e , c o lo r e d and -w hite, g e t a f a i r t r i a l .
JUSTICE STEWART: Are you .r e ly in g on any p a r t ic u la r
p a r t o f 1443, or on any p a r t ic u la r lan gu age, or j u s t on
g e n e r a l h i s t o r y and purpose a s you understand i t ?
MR. SMITH: W ell, th e lan gu age i s p r e t ty b ad , Mr.
J u s t i c e S te w a r t . And I am r e ly in g upon a l o t o f th e h i s t o r y ,
I th in k you w i l l f in d a l o t o f i t in th e b r i e f , i am r e ly in g
On, I would sa y . Judge S o b e lo f f 's r e a d in g o f th e f i r s t s e c t io n
a s he hss i t in th e B a in es d i s s e n t . "And I sa y -where th e
p r o se c u tio n i s a g a in s t any person who i s d e n ie d a r i g h t . . .
under any law p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s o f c i t i z e n s , 11
i f he i s d en ied i t , I th in k he i s d en ied i t b y r a c i a l l y
m o tiv a ted a r r e s t .
JUSTICE STEWART: And th a t wouId be tr u e even, in a
rape or murder c a s e , you th in k ?
MR. SMITH: S ir ?
JUSTICE STEWART; I f you cou ld show th a t th e a r r e s t in g
o f f i c e r was a s e g r e g a t io n i s t , you would th in k t h a t would h e true;
in a rap s c a se or murder c a se or a r so n ca se?
MR. SMITH: Ho, I do n o t th in k th a t would ap p ly in
th a t kind o f a c a s e .
JUSTICE STEWART; On what langu age o f th e rem oval
s t a t u t e do you depend fo r your p o s i t io n in su ch c a s e s a s rape
c a s e s , murder c a se s?
MR. SMITH: I r e ly upon th e secon d p a rt th e r e th a t
s a y s , "cannot e n fo r c e in th e C ou rts o f su ch S ta te a g a in s t any
{person who cannot e n fo r c e in th e C ourts o f su ch S t a t e a r ig h t
under any law p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l c i v i l r ig h t s o f th e c i t i s i e n s . ' 1
How, an a ccu sed r a p i s t or an a ccu sed murders who i s
n o t a r r e s te d b e c a u se he i s a c i v i l r ig h t s w orker, b u t b eca u se
he may have com m itted a crim e, I th in k i f he cannot g e t a f a i r
t r i a l b e fo r e a n o n -d is c r im in a to r i ly s e l e c t e d ju r y , th a t he
ought t o b e a b le t o remove i t . That i s th e o n ly grounds I th in !!
lie w ould h ave.
JUSTICE STEWART: And you d o n o t th en r e l y on s e c t io n
2 o f 1443 a t a l l , or do you a l s o r e l y on th a t?
MR. SMITH: W e ll, I th in k th a t W illie; P eacock and h is
group - - I sa y in th e secon d p a r t o f ray b r i e f th a t th e y were
p o sse co m ita tu s t o o . B ut what we found th e r e was th a t th e
end 'belt: .11
1364 C i v i l R ig h ts A c t had b een - - w e l l , i t had n o t been
p a ssed , b u t two v o t in g r ig h t s a c t s , th e one o f 1957 and th e
one o f i9 6 0 , had been p a sse d - And th e se w ere to encourage
Negro r e g i s t r a t i o n s - And t h a t i s what P eacock was out th e r e
tr y in g t o do* And 1 sa y i f he was out th e r e - - a s a m atter o f
f a c t , th e r e was an in te r v ie w w ith Mr. K atzenbach th e other day
by Mr. C onyers, and th e y ta lk e d abou t - - I th in k Mr. Conyers
s a id t o Mr, K atzenbach, i s n ’t th e r e some o b l ig a t io n on th e
F e d e r a l Government t o encourage r e g i s t r a t i o n and n o t ju s t
make c e r ta in t h a t f a c i l i t i e s a re a v a i la b le ? And t h i s i s what
Mr* K atzenbach. He s a y s , "no, i t i s th e o b l ig a t io n o f th e
F e d e r a l Government t o uphold th e law* My in t e r p r e t a t io n of
th e law i s th a t c i v i l r ig h t s groups in t h i s c a se have t o put
on th e d r iv e co g e t p e o p le t o r e g i s t e r * 1,
i f he i s go in g t o s a y t h a t , th en th e c i v i l r ig h t s
w orkers have some p r o te c t io n coming t o them . And 2 th in k th e y
have th e p r o te c t io n o f t h i s rem oval s t a t u t e th a t sa y s th e y can
do i t .
JUSTICE. STEWART; How you are ta lk in g about S e c t io n 2?
I® . SMITH; Y es, s i r . You ask ed me ab ou t i t .
JUSTICE STEWARTi Y es, I d id . And d o I un d erstan d ,
th e n , th a t you would a g r ee th a t th e language o f S e c t io n 2
a p p l ie s o n ly t o th o s e who a r e o f f i c e r s o f th e F ed er a l Govern
ment or a c t in g under th e a u th o r ity a s o f f i c e r ?
44
MR. SMITH; Ho, s i r .
45
JUSTICE STEWART: P lu s members o f th e p o sse cora lta tu n r’
MR. SMITH: W ell, I th in k I make a p r e t ty good argument
on th a t p o sse c o m ita tu s , b u t I do n o t d i s a s s o c i a t e rayself from
t h e S o l ic o t o r G e n e r a l’s p o s i t io n in t h i s c a se , w h ich I th in k i s
a very r e le v a n t argum ent w hich Mr. C la ib o rn e w i l l b r in g out
a f t e r I f in i s h * But i t a p p l ie s t o — I co u ld have won l i t e r a l
argum ent a t the end o f my b r i e f ab ou t th e f a c t th a t t h i s l a s t
language to r r e f u s in g t o d o any a c t on th e ground th a t i t would
b e in c o n s is t e n t w ith su ch la w . They want - t o r e s t i r i c t th e
A ct th e r e t o j u s t a p p ly t o th e S t a t e o f f i c e r who, fo r exam ple,
i s supposed t o be f a i r t o N egroes b e in g p r o se c u te d . I would sa y
th a t i t a p p l ie s t o a l l th e N egroes who are b e in g p ro secu ted fo r
f a i l i n g t o do som eth in g , a c t u a l ly in 1366, f a i l i n g t o do som eth in g
under th e b la c k c o d e . B ecau se th e b la c k cod es w ere e n a c te d in
M is s i s s ip p i in November o f 1865, and t h i s A ct was p a ssed in
A p r i l o f 1866. The b la c k codes w ere e f f e c t e d January 29 o f 1866.
And i f th e Negro j u s t had to s i t around in h is l i v i n g room and
d o n o th in g , he cou ld v i o l a t e ab ou t te n o f them , and he cou ld be
p ro secu ted for vhem. And he had, I th in k , under t h i s l a s t p ara
graph, th e l a s t phrase o f th e l a s t paragraph, th e r ig h t to r e
move th o s e p r o s e c u t io n s . That i s my o p in io n . I do n o t know a
l o t o f h is to r y on t h a t , b u t a t l e a s t th a t i s what w ould happen*
JUSTICE BREM&N: Mr. Sm ith , perhaps you have a lr e a d y
answ ered t h i s . I am n o t su re* In a s i t u a t i o n w here th e Negro
i s in d eed out drumming up r e g i s t r a t i o n s , and he i s g u i l t y o f
46
soros v io le n c e , what would h e your p o s i t io n ? And what would
happen, then,, in th e D i s t r i c t C ou rts?
MR. SMITH: I have a ca se r ig h t now where a c i v i l
r i g h t s worker r e g i s t e r e d t o v o te in F o r r e s t C ounty, M is s i s s ip p i ,
and he f i l l e d out h is r e g i s t r a t i o n form , and on th e r e i s t i e
s ta te m e n t "Have you ever b een c o n v ic te d o f any crim e? " And he
s a id "No. " He had b een c o n v ic te d o f about fo u r o f them . That
posed a heck o f a problem t o me. He had p led g u i l t y w ith o u t
c o u n s e l t o ab ou t fo u r o f them . And i t was j u s t a m istake*
But 2 removed th a t c a s e , and I th in k I removed i t b ecau se
N egroes do not s e r v e on j u r ie s in F o r r e s t C ounty, M is s i s s ip p i ,
And he co u ld n o t g e t r id o f a p e r ju ry req u irem en t in F o r r e s t
C ounty, M is s i s s i p p i . And th a t i s the o n ly r e a so n I removed i t ,
JUSTICE BRENBftN: But in th a t s i t u a t i o n ,a s I u n d erstood
you e a r l i e r , i t w ould be a t r i a l on th e m e r its in th e F e d e r a l
C ourt?
MR. SMITH: Y es, s i r .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: I am tr y in g t o th in k c£ a s i t u a t i o n
in which — a s I understand your p e t i t io n h e r e , i t i s th a t you
have e s t a b l i s h e d in th e F e d e r a l C ourt th a t th e a c t i v i t y was
a l l p r o te c te d a c t i v i t y .
3® .SMITH: Y es , s i r ,
JUSTICE BREiTEAM; And in th a t s i t u a t i o n th e r e s u l t
would have t o b e a d i s m is s a l o f th e p r o s e c u t io n .
MR. SMITH; That i s r i g h t .
47
JUSTICE BRENESfcN; Suppose th a t in c a r r y in g on
p r o te c te d a c t i v i t i e s some o v e r s te p th e bou n d s. Then what
happens ?
MR. SMITH: We3.1, 2 th in k th a t — you mean th ey nay
have a c t u a l ly com m itted a crim e in th e p r o c e ss o f p r o te c te d
a c t i v i t y ? I do n o t th in k chat b e c a u se th e y are d o in g c i v i l
r ig h t s a c t i v i t i e s th e y sh ou ld be p r o se c u te d .
JUSTICE WHITE: Say th e y a c t u a l ly b lo c k e d th e s t r e e t s ,
or b lo c k e d th e s id e w a lk s?
MR. SMITH: I th in k under th o se c ircu m sta n ces th ey
w ould have t o be p ro secu ted .
JUSTICE BRENNAN; In th e S ta te C ourt or in th e F e d e r a l
C ourt?
MR. SMITH: W ell, i t d ep en d s. I do n o t want t o go
t o one o f th o se S ta te j u r ie s now. I want t o b e p r o se cu ted b e
fo r e a ju ry t h a t ' i s f a i r .
JUSTICE WHITE: That i s fo r a d i f f e r e n t r e a s o n . But
you would ta k e any c r im in a l c a se to th e F e d e r a l C ourt in some
c o u n t ie s - - i t would n o t make any d i f f e r e n c e what th e charge
was — would you n o t?
MR. SMITH: I am a f r a id I V70uld have t o . Some o f them
d o n o t have a ju ry sy stem w orth th e name. I d o not know. I t
sounds r a th e r s t r a n g e , Mr, J u s t ic e W hite, b u t some o f th e
problem s you fa c e in some o f th o s e c o u n t ie s are p r e t ty ex trem e,
JUSTICE BEEKK&SJ: W ell, t h i s i s o n ly a M is s i s s ip p i c a s e ,
4-8
b u t t h i s i s n o t m erely a M is s i s s ip p i d e c is io n in th e m a tte r ,
And I am tr y in g t o f ig u r e out what w ould happen, s a v f in th e
W atts s i t u a t i o n w here chore was some le g i t im a t e p r o te c te d
condu ct o f seme k in d , b u t i t was an in d is p e n s a b le a c t and was
rem oved.
MR. SMITH: W ell, I w ould sa y th e y w ould have t o be
t r i e d . I do n o t th in k you cou ld d is m is s i t .
* ■
JUSTICE BRENNAN: T ried where?
MR. SMITH: In th e F e d e r a l C ourt t o g e t a f a i r forum ,
u n le s s th ere was a f a i r S ta te forum . But j u s t b eca u se th e y were
in v o lv e d in p r o te c te d a c t i v i t i e s and th en o v erstep p ed th e
b o u n d a r ie s , I do n o t th in k you cou ld p r o te c t them any fu r th e r .
JUSTICE FORTAS: Mr* Sm ith , am I c o r r e c t in under
s ta n d in g th a t your p o s i t io n makes i t r a th e r ir r e le v a n t t o what
th e p a r t ic u la r charge i s , w hether a p erson i s a r r e s te d fo r an
o rd in a ry everyd ay murder, an o rd in ary everyd ay ra p e , or
v io le n c e and b r e a ch o f th e p ea ce , or what n o t . The q u e s t io n
th a t you a r e g o in g t o r a i s e i s w hether he w i l l g e t a f a i r t r i a l
on th e b a s i s o f th e f a c t o r s r e la t in g t o th e a d m in is tr a t io n o f
j u s t i c e in th a t p a r t ic u la r j u r i s d i c t io n in th e S t a t e C o u rts ,
L et us sa y ju ry s e l e c t i o n , and s o on; and th en th e evidence.'
t h a t you V7.il 1 p r e se n t in su p p o rt o f rem oval w i l l go t o th a t
q u e s t io n — n o t t o th e q u e s t io n , a lth o u g h i t may be p a rt o f
th e e v id e n c e , b u t th e fo c u s o f your e v id e n c e w i l l n o t be
b e l t 12 w hether he engaged in v io le n c e or p e a c e fu l p ic k e t in g , or whetheir
4:9
he v io la t e d th e lav; or d id n o t v i o l a t e th e lav;. But th e fo cu s
o f your e v id e n c e in su p p ort o t rem oval w i l l b e w hether he can
g e t a f a ir t r i a l or n o t , i s th a t r ig h t?
MR. SMITH: Y es, s i r .
JUSTICE FORTAS: And i t d oes n o t m atter what th e basic:
charge i s .
MR. SMITH: Y e s . I w i l l sa y again* Mr* J u s t ic e F o r ta e ,
th a t I d o n o t th in k t h i s A ct was t a i l o r made fo r a c i v i l r ig h t s
movement. I th in k i t was t a i l o r made t o r a i s e th e Ktogro up t o
th e l e v e l o f th e w h ite man and g iv e him a f a i r forum .
R'ov;, maybe C ongress sh o u ld n o t have done i t . Maybe
th ey sh o u ld n o t have p assed i t in 1866 . Maybe t h i s w i l l burden
th e F e d er a l C o u rts , b u t th a t i s what th e y d id .
JUSTICE BLACK: Do you mean b y th a t th a t th e se were
w h ite p eop le d o in g t h i s , and th e y co u ld n o t g e t rem oval?
Suppose i t was a l l w h ite p e o p le , a l l th e labor u n io n s .
MR. SMITH: Mr. J u s t ic e B la ck , I th in k th a t th e h i s t o r y
— I would l ik e t o be a b le t o s e e i t removed i f you had due pro
c e s s . But I do n o t th in k th a t i t i s h i s t o r i c a l l y c o r r e c t . I
th in k t t e i t th e v ;h ite p eop le in v o lv e d in t h i s ca se would have t o
use th e in ju n c t io n l ik e we used i t in Dombrowski. I th in k th a t
i s r e a l l y th e answer t h e r e .
JUSTICE .SLACK: You d o n o t th in k ch at la t e r i f th e y
were a r r e s te d under th e same c ircu m sta n ces and made the same
a l l e g a t io n s , th a t he would have a r ig h t t o rem oval?
*50
MR. SMITH: Y e s . I have t r i e d i t fo r labor u n ion s and
1 d id riot g e t any p la c e . I d id i t a lon g tim e ago , and I d id
n ot g e t anyw here. I do n o t th in k a t th e s t a r t th a t th e y a r e e n
t i t l e d t o use i t . I w ish th ey were*
JUSTICE BLACK: Your argum ent seeias t o me t o be th a t
th e lav; was p a ssed fo r th e p r o te c t io n o f th e c o lo r e d p eo p le and
b eca u se o f th e s i t u a t i o n th a t e x is t e d th e r e , and i t a p p l ie s t o
them , th a t th ey sh o u ld have the r ig h t to have a c a se removed
w henever th ey a l l e g e th a t th e y can n ot g e t a f a i r t r i a l in th a t
p la c e .
MR. SI-1ITH: Yes r s i r .
JUSTICE BLACK: For any r e a so n w hatever*
MR. SMITH: Y es, s i r . And in a d d it io n t o th a t in
answer t o your q u e s t io n , and in a d d it io n t o t h a t , th ey ought t o
b e e n t i t l e d t o keep th a t c a se in th e F e d e r a l C ourt i f th e y can
prove t h e ir a l l e g a t i o n s . I f th e y ca n n o t prcsve t h e ir a l l e g a t io n s ,
th e y ought to bounce them b ack t o th e S ta te C o u rts .
JUSTICE DOUGLAS: Of c o u r s e , t h a t i s p u t t in g a g lo s s
on th e s t a t u t e b eca u se th e s t a t u t e read s in term s, a s you know,
a g a in s t any person who i s d en ie d th e r ig h t o f e q u a l p r o t e c t io n .
MR. SMITH: W ell, Mr, J u s t i c e D o u g la s , I am g e t t in g a
l o t o f o p p o s it io n from law yers g e n e r a l ly and from t h i s C ourt,
I can s e e on t h i s q u e s t io n o f how w idesp read i s g o in g t o b e
th e a f f e c t o f t h i s A c t . I f I s t a r t e d t o t e l l you chat i t was
g o in g t o go t o due p r o c e ss of law , th en somebody i s g o in g t o
‘51
c e l l you th a t you a r e g o in g t o i n s t i t u t e a F e d er a l sy stem o f
C ourts fo r th e w h o le 50 s t a t e s . I d o n ot want t o g e t in v o lv ed
in morass,, b eca u se 2 am up h ere t r y in g t o g iv e i t some h i s t o r i c a l
m eaning. I t cou ld b e in te r p r e te d t h a t way, b u t 1 ju s t do n o t
th in k in a l l p r a c t i c a b i l i t y i t v;ould b e d o in g any ca se any good..
I f th e r e a r e no more q u e s t io n s , th a t i s a l l I have, Mr.
C h ie f J u s t i c e .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr. C la ib o r n e .
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF WILLIE PEACOCK, ET. AL
By Mr. C la ib o rn e
MR. CLAIBQRMS: Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e , may i t p le a s e th e C ourt,
2 w i l l tu r n im m ed ia te ly t o th e s t a t u t e and t o th e s e v e r a l s e c
t io n s o f i t a s we a n a ly z e i t .
As we s e e i t , th e s t a t u t e s t a t e s fo u r se p a r a te d i s
t i n c t grounds fo r rem o v a l. They a r e in co rp o ra ted in th e fou r
o p e r a t iv e c la u s e s o f th e s t a t u t e , Which we la b e l , f i r s t , th e
d e n ia l c la u s e , s e c o n d ly , th e i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e th e laws
and, t h ir d ly , th a t - - b o th o f th e s e a r e in th e f i r s t paragraph.
And in th e secon d paragraph th e c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u s e and,
f i n a l l y , the- r e f u s a l c la u s e .
As we v iew th e c a s e , i t tu rn s on o n ly two o f th o s e
c la u s e s , the f i r s t on e , th e d e n ia l c la u s e , and th e th ir d one,
th e c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u s e .
Hew, c o u n s e l fo r P eacock a l s o invoked th e o th er two
c la u s e s in t h i s c a se , th e i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e th e laws and
th e r e f u s a l c la u s e . 2 th in k I sh o u ld sa y som eth in g abou t our
v iew o £ th e sco p e o f th o s e a s w e l l , b u t f i r s t l e t rre d i s t in g u i s h
b etw een th e c la u s e s in th e f i r s t paragraph a s a group and th e
c la u s e s in th e secon d paragraph.
The f i r s t paragraph v e r y c a r e f u l ly d e a ls w ith a i l k inds
o f c a s e s i n w hich th e d e fen d a n t i s d en ied or u n ab le t o e n fo r c e an
th e C ou rts o f th e s t a t e s p r o c ed u r a l, p r im a r ily p ro ced u ra l r i g h t s .
I t r«akes no d i f f e r e n c e o u t o f what c o n te x t th e ca se a r is e s . . In
th e langu age o f th e IBSfi p a c t , i t was fo r any cau se w h a tso e v er .
The problem d e a l t w ith in th a t c la u s e i s , a s Kx . Sm ith s a y s , th e
u n fa ir n e s s w h ich i s a n t ic ip a t e d a t th e t r i a l b e e a u iii o f p ro
c e d u r a l or o th er r u le s w h ich may put the d e fen d a n t a t a d i s -
advantage a t t r i a l . That i s a t l e a s t th e prim ary t h r u s t o f th e
f i r s t paragraph a s We s e e i t .
The secon d paragraph, on th e c o n tr a r y , i s n o t cor*cernc?d
w ith what happens a t C ourt and v;hat w i l l happen, b u t i s concerned
s o l e l y w ith th e c o n te x t o u t o f w h ich th e c a se a r i s e s , th a t i s , th e
a c t i v i t y fo r w h ich l e g a l p ro ceed in g s b y S t a t e or by a p r iv a te
in d iv id u a l , fo r chac m a tter , s in c e t h i s a p p l ie s a s w e l l t o c i v i l
a c t io n s , s e e k s t o in fe r and d e t e r . And th o se are the r ig h t s
• . *
p rov id ed by th e s u b s ta n t iv e law s p ro v id in g fo r e ^ u a i r i g h t s .
And some o f them a re a lr e a d y o u t l in e d in t h e ’66 f c t s , and o th e r s
o u t l in e d in th e a c t s o f 1870 and 1871, and, o f c o u r se , su b
se q u e n t ly by laws l i k e th e P u b lic Accommodations 3 c t o f 1964.
Now, as I sa y , we are here o n ly und-sr th e d e n ia l
S3
c la u s e and under th e c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u s e . W ith in th e
f i r s t paragraph we do d i s t in g u i s h betw een th e d e n ia l c la u se
and th e i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e c la u se * The i n a b i l i t y t o e n fo r c e
c la u se * i t seem s t o us* d e a ls w ith an a p p reh en sio n a s t o th e
fu tu r e d e p r a v a tio n o f r ig h t s a t t r i a l . That p r e s e n ts a q u es
t io n o f p r e d ic t io n * had i t p r e se n ts th e v e r y d e l i c a t e problem*
a s Mr, J u s t ic e F o r ta s put it* I b e l ie v e * o f t r y in g th e S ta te
C ourt in ad van ce . I t i s som eth in g w h ich one i s r e lu c t a n t t o
d o , And i t i s in our v iew in la r g e p a r t a lo n g th e l in e o f
d e c is io n s c i t e d h ere b e g in n in g w it h V ir g in ia v e r su s Reeves*
in w h ich t h i s C ourt in d ic a te d th a t i t was u n w il l in g t o make
th a t p r e d ic t io n th e S t a t e judge would b e u n f a i t h f u l t o h is
C o n s t i t u t io n a l o a th - - u n le s s th e r e was a s tr o n g in d ic a t io n
in th a t d ir e c t io n * in .which t h i s C ourt found cou ld o n ly b e
su p p lie d by a l e g i s l a t i v e d i r e c t iv e to him t o deny e q u a l pro
t e c t i o n in th e s e n s e o f e q u a l p r o ced u ra l r i g h t s .
Now, th e d e n ia l clause? has a d i f f e r e n t sco p e on ly
b eca u se i t d e a ls w ith a d i f f e r e n t t im e , " is d e n ie d * 1' a s we
read i t * means — s in c e we a r e t a lk in g about rem oval b e fo re
t r i a l — i s a t th a t moment or has a lr e a d y b een d e n ie d r i g h t s .
We a r e no 3.onger d e a l in g w ith a p r e d ic t io n o f fu tu r e e v e n ts ,
th e f a c t th a t th e t r i a l judge rimy n o t a l lo w th e d e fen d a n t t o
t e s t i f y a s he w ould o th er d e fe n d a n ts . He may deny some o th er
courtroom p r iv i l e g e t o th e d efen d an t*
JUSTICE WHITE; Mr, C la ib o r n e , do n o t some o f th o s e
c a s e s in v o lv e th e Grand Ju ry where a n y th in g t h a t had happened
i n th e Grand Jury had a lr e a d y occu rred a t the tim e o f th e
p e t i t i o n for rem oval?
MR. CLAIBORNE: That i s t r u e , Mr. J u s t ic e W hite .
JUSTICE WHITE: And th e C ourt f e l t th a t th e S ta te
Court cou ld b e r e l i e d on, a b se n t th e s t a t u t e , t o r u le p ro p er ly
on th e m otion t o d is m is s th e in d ic tm en t?
MR. CLAIBORNE: The a t t i t u d e , or th e approach t h i s
C ourt to o k , ev en though a m otion t o quash in th o se c a se s had
a c t u a l ly been d e n ie d , W ith r e fe r e n c e t o th e d is c r im in a to r y
s e l e c t i o n o f th e Grand Ju ry , was th a t t h i s was s t i l l a c o r r e c t
a b le e r r o r , and th a t th e p r e d ic t io n th a t would j u s t i f y rem oval
was a p r e d ic t io n th a t th e C ourt a t some la t e r s t a g e o f th e p ro
c e e d in g s , or th a t th e A p p e lla te S ta t e C ourt wcu3jd d e c l in e t o
c o r r e c t th e e r r o r .
JUSTICE WHITE: But a l l th e conduct th a t amounted t o
th e a l le g e d d e p r a v a tio n tod a lr e a d y ta k en p la c e , and wag
a d ju d ic a b ly r ig h t th e n , i s th a t not r ig h t?
MR. CLAIBORNE: Not a l l o f th e con d u ct, b eca u se t h i s
C ourt view ed th e conduct w h ich would have j u s t i f i e d rem oval
a s a f i n a l r e f u s a l t o quash , a s i t w e re . And t h i s C ourt s a id
th e f a c t th a t th e m otion t o quash had a lr e a d y b een d en ied i s
n o t f i n a l . I t i s s t i l l c o r r e c ta b le b y th e t r i a l c o u r t, and
by th e A p p e lla te C ourt and i t i s o n ly i f th o s e e v e n ts ta k e
p la c e , i f th e c o u r t p e r s i s t s in i t s r e f u s a l t o v a c a te .
JUSTICE WHITE: W ell, ch at cou ld be tr u e in th e c a se s
you have h e r e .
MR. CIAIBQRNE: That i s t r u e . We sp eak o f th e d e n ia l
c la u s e a s a p p lic a b le t o th a t s o r t o f case* th e s o r t o f c a se t h i s
C ourt has r e c o g n iz e d , p a r t i c u la r ly in th e b la c k a r e a , r e c e n t ly
in Durrbrowski v e r su s Pr i s t e r , wher e th e i n s t i t u t i o n o f th e
p r o se c u t io n o f a fo rm a l c o u r t p ro ceed in g i s i t s e l f so grave a
d e n ia l th a t ev en i f a c q u i t t a l r e s u l t s , even i f c o n v ic t io n i s
accom p lish ed and u l t im a t e ly th e c o n v ic t io n i s r e v e r se d in some
h ig h er C ourt, ev en t h i s C ou rt, th a t w i l l be to o l i t t l e to o
l a t e . The d e te r r e n t e f f e c t o f th e Court p ro ceed in g has a lr e a d y
d e n ie d r ig h t s in a v e ry m oderate s e n s e .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: That was th e F i r s t Amendment a r e a ,
Duiribrcws k i?
MR. CI&IBORNE: Those c a se s have b e e n , I th in k , la r g e ly ,
i f n o t e n t i r e l y , c o n fin e d to th e F ir s t Amendment a r e a .
JUSTICE BRENNAN; Do you s u g g e s t t h i s a s th e F ir s t
Amendment area?
MR. CLAIBORNE; No, n o . But v;e do th in k th a t t h i s
a rea i s in e v er y r e s p e c t - - perhaps n o t e v er y r e s p e c t , b u t in
many r e s p e c t s q u i t e comparable t o th e F i r s t Amendment. These
p r o se c u tio n s d o d e te r th e e x e r c i s e o f r i g h t s . And I th in k i t
has b een r e c o g n iz e d in th e v o t in g u r e a .
JUSTICE BREMEN: The e x e r c i s e ox what r ig h t s ?
MR. CLAIBORNE: Here Xve a r e ta lk in g about a s fa r as
56
b e l t IS
th e p e t i t i o n e r s ' a l le g e d r e g i s t r a t i o n fo r v o t in g p r im a r ily .
C e r ta in ly p r o se c u tio n o f a p r o s p e c t iv e r e g i s t r a n t ten d s t o
d e te r a t l e a s t in a community - -
JUSTICE WHITE: Were a l l t h e s e p eop le p rosp ective!
r e g is t r a n t s ?
MR. CLAIBORNE: I do n o t th in k th a t th e y were a l l
p r o sp e c t iv e r e g i s t r a n t s , Mr, J u s t ic e W h ite . I ch ink 3ome o f
them w ere sy m p a th iz e r s , h e lp e r s . They w ere a id in g and a b e t t in g
th e r e g i s t r a t i o n b y N egroes in th e a r e a , or a t l e a s t I am m erely
ju d g in g from th e fa c e o f th e p e t i t i o n s fo r rem o v a l. But the
a l l e g a t io n i s th a t t h i s was p r im a r ily a v o t in g d r iv e , th a t th e
a c t i v i t y was h a lte d b y th e s e p r o s e c u t io n s . That was indeed one
o f th e pu rp oses o f th e p r o s e c u t io n s . And i t i s n o t u n rea l t o
suppose th a t in th e community in v o lv e d th e r e w i l l be a r e p r e s s iv e
d e te r r e n t e f f e c t from su ch p r o s e c u t io n .
L et me tu r n , how ever, t o th e c o lo r of a u th o r ity c la u se
in th e secon d s e c t io n where in one se n se we d e a l w ith a much
more r e s t r i c t i v e c a te g o r y o f c a s e s . Here we do n o t in c lu d e
c a se s in w h ich th e d e fen d a n t i s engaged in any a c t i v i t y o th e r
th an , or p r o se c u tin g b e c a u se o f h is e n g a g in g in any a c t i v i t y
other than th o s e s p e c i f i e d in law s in term s p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l
r ig h t , th a t i s t o sa y , F e d e r a l la w s.
JUSTICE STEWART: Under your v e r s io n o f S e c t io n 2 , or
I su pp ose lender any v e r s io n o f S e c t io n 2 in 1443, a p erson
charged w ith murder or w ith rape or W ith b u r g la r y j u s t cou ld
!>7
n o t make a c a se fo r rem oval, c o u ld he?
MR. CIAIBGRNE: C e r ta in ly n o t in th e l a s t tw o in s ta n c e s .
B ut i t i s c o n c e iv a b le - -
JUSTICE STEWART: I suppose th e r e cou ld b e su ch a
th in g a s a rape in th e fu r th e r a n c e o f som ebody's e x e r c is e o f
c i v i l r ig h t s , b u t i t i s a l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t t o im a g in e . Or murder
o r b u r g la r y .
MR. CLAIBORNE: B ut in th e case o f murder i t cou ld
c o n c e iv a b ly b e a ca se o f s e l f d e f e n s e . The charge would b e
murder. The p e t i t i o n w ould deny th a t i t was murder, b u t would
adm it t h a t i t was h o m ic id e . One cannot im agine c ircu m sta n ces
where a murder c a se would r i s e o u t o f th e e x e r c i s e o f p r o te c
t i v e r i g h t s . One cou ld h a rd ly im agine a rape or b u rg la ry c:ace
a r is in g out o f th e same a c t i v i t y *
JUSTICE STEWART: I su pp ose under your rea d in g o f
b o th s e c t io n s o f t h i s lav; an o rd in a ry b u r g la r y c a se cou ld n o t
b e rem oved, co u ld i t , s im p ly on th e c la im th a t th e r e would
n o t b e a f a i r t r i a l in th e S ta te C ourt?
MR. CLAIBORNE: Not on e i t h e r o f th e c la u s e s th a t I
have m en tion ed .
JUSTICE STEWART: Not under e i t h e r o f th e c la u s e s a s
you new read them, i s th a t r ig h t ? *
MR. CI&IBORME: Of c o u r se , under th e i n a b i l i t y t o
e n fo r c e c la u s e , i f th e r e were th e kind o f d em o n stra tio n o f
r a c i a l d is c r im in a t io n in th e s e l e c t i o n o f th e ju ry th a t s a t i s f i e d
!58
th e c a s e s o f t h i s C ou rt, and we d o noc sa y t h a t th o s e c a se s
sh o u ld n o t b e r e la x e d fo r th e purpose o f th e i n a b i l i t y to e n
fo r c e c la u se * we do n o t th in k th a t chat i s th e n e c e s s a r y p o in t
f o r d e c i s io n h e r e . But you are q u i t e r ig h t , Mr. J u s t ic e , th a t
a s t o th e two c la u s e s I m en tion ed , th o s e c a se s th a t you
h y p o th e s ize "would n o t be rem ovab le .
JUSTICE STEWART; R ig h t ,
MR. CIAIBORNE: Now, i t seem s to us th a t w hat we con
ten d fo r under th e c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u se p r e se n ts th e
c l a s s i c a l c a se fo r rem o v a l. I t fo l lo w s a l l o f th e prime rem oval
s t a t u t e s , in p r o v id in g fo r rem oval on th e th e o ry th a t a F e d e r a l
o f fe n s e i s in v o lv e d , and th a t th e i s s u e a t t r i a l w ould tu rn on
t h e e x is t e n c e o f a F e d e r a l o f f e n s e b ased on a F ed era l r i g h t .
Indeed , th e C o n s t i t u t io n a l b a s i s fo r S e c t io n 2 , a s opposed t o
S e c t io n 1 o f 1443, seem s t o us d i r e c t l y in A r t i c l e 3 and d oes
n o t depend a t l e a s t on th e 14th Amendment, e x c e p t in s o fa r as
th e 14 th Amendment a u th o r iz e s th e law s p r o v id in g fo r e q u a l
r ig h t s on w hich in one se n se i t t u r n s . T his i s an e x e r c is e
o f power w h ich C on gress had from th e b e g in n in g , to p ro v id e fo r
th e F e d e r a l C ourt t r i a l o f a l l c a se s a r i s in g under th e
C o n s t itu t io n and laws o f th e U n ited S t a t e s . That has a lw ays
b een c o n str u e d , th e C o n s t i t u t io n a l p r o v is io n has a lw ays b een
co n stru ed as a l lo w in g rem oval t o th e F e d e r a l C ou rts o f c a s e s
in w h ich th e F ed er a l q u e s t io n was in te r p o se d b y way o f d e fe n se
r a th e r than b y way o f c o m p la in t.
C ongress has a s a m atter o f p o l ic y ch o sen n o t t o
e x e r c i s e th a t j u r i s d i c t io n g e n e r a l ly here fo r good r e a so n . I t
ch ose t o e x e r c i s e i t in t h i s a rea o f th e a ttem p ted a p p l ic a t io n
o f c i v i l r i g h t s , A ls o t h i s c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u se i t seem s
t o us d e a ls v /ith th e r e a l problem o f to d a y , and a problem th a t
was a l s o r e a l in 1(366, when th e s t a t u t e was p a ssed , a lth o u g h
a t th a t t in e th e r e w ere o th e r p rob lem s. There was th e problem
o f p r o ced u ra l r u le s th a t d id n o t p erm it N egroes t o t e s t i f y or
perm it them t o s e r v e on ju r ie s * And th a t prob3.em i s th e r i s k
o f an im p e r c e p tib le and, th e r e fo r e , u n rev iew a b le , a s a p r a c t i c a l
n a t t e r , p r e ju d ic e th a t may w e l l co n fro n t th e Negro or th o s e who
sym p ath ise w ith hira when he i s p r o se cu ted fo r conduct a r i s in g
o u t o f h is e f f o r t t o a s s e r t h is c la im t o e q u a l r ig h t s ,
e s p e c i a l ly s o \tfhen th a t a s s e r t io n i s made a g a in s t e x i s t i n g
w h ite suprem acy e s ta b lis h m e n t .
But in s o sa y in g we d o n o t mean t o c o n f in e th e scop e
o f th e s t a t u t e t o th e Sou th r a th e r than th e N orth . B ut i t i s
c e r t a in ly tr u e th a t th e p r a c t i c a l o p e r a tio n o f th e s t a t u t e may
b e fa r g r e a te r in some a r ea s th an in o th e r s .
Noxtf, th e d efen d an t nay have tr a n sg r e s se d th e bounds
o f h is F e d e r a l p r i v i l e g e . He may or may n o t have v io la t e d th e
l o c a l law w ith w h ich he i s ch a rg ed . But in any e v e n t , he i s
e n t i t l e d t o rem oval s o long a s h is p e t i t i o n fo r rem oval a l l e g e s
a ca se w hich on i t s f a c e w ould r e q u ir e d i s m is s a l or a c q u i t t a l
i f th e a l l e g a t io n s a r e t r u e .
159
60
I t seem s t o us th a t th e q u e s t io n w hether th e a l l e g a t io n s
a re tr u e sh o u ld b e d e term in ed , a s in any o th er c a s e , b y th e t r i a l
jury and n ot by th e judge p r e l im in a r i ly . And s o i t seem s t o us
th a t th e rem oval remedy was d e s ig n e d a s d is t in g u is h e d from th e
labeas corpus rem edy, a s d is t in g u is h e d from th e in ju n c t iv e rem edy,
t o sim p ly t r a n s f e r th e - t r ia l t o th e F e d e r a l C o u rt.
Nov;, i t seem s t o us th a t ch at i s e n t i r e l y comparable
t o th e d i v e r s i t y rem oval s i t u a t i o n . And i t i s b ased on a ju d g-
nent made b y C on gress , a s I s a y , t h a t th e s e kind of c a s e s w i l l
n ot a lw a y s , b u t o f t e n m ight r e s u l t in u n fa ir n e s s t o th e d e fe n d -
i t .16 a n t . And e x e r c i s in g i t s g e n e r a l j u r i s d ic t io n in t h i s area th e
C ongress determ ined as a m atter o f p r e c a u tio n to a v o id what i t
v iew ed a s a s e r io u s m isc a r r ia g e o f j u s t i c e , t o p ro v id e fo r th e
rem oval o f a l l su ch c a s e s upon proper p lea d in g t o th e Federcil
C ourt fo r t r i a l t h e r e .
JUSTICE FORTAS: Excuse me, Mr. C la ib o r n e , b u t a r e
you sa y in g th a t i f th e a l l e g a t io n s a l l e g e art e q u a l p r o te c t io n
r ig h t , th a t th en th e c a s e , th en th e F e d e r a l C ourt ought t o go
ahead and t r y i t ? In o ther w ords, th e q u e s t io n a s t o th e
rem oval i s d eterm ined j u s t on th e p le a d in g s . I s th a t what you
a r e sa y in g ?
MR. CIAIBORME: That i s la r g e ly what I am s a y in g .
JUSTICE FORTAS B ecau se he s a id th en you go ahead
w ith th e ju r y t r i a l and I assum e you do n o t mean t o have two
ju r y t r i a l s .
^ •
\ \
•t
MR. CLAIBORNE: No* c e r t a in ly n o t .
JUSTICE FORTAS: Are th e a l l e g a t io n s o f th e p e t i t i o n
for rem oval t o be tak en a s c o n c lu s iv e ? Suppose th e S t a t e comes
in and c o n te s t s them . What happens then?
MR. CIA IB OR ME: W ell, I think, th e r e a r e probab ly
* s.
s e v e r a l d is t in g u is h a b le s i tu a t io n s - , Mr. J u s t ic e For ta r ,. F i r s t ,
I wcuId r e q u ir e a much more d e t a i le d p le a d in g than perhaps we
have in th e s e c a s e s . And i f th e c o n c lu so r y a l l e g a t io n s , i f
th a t i s a l l th e r e i s , i s 1 c o n te s te d , I would r e q u ir e th a t th e
p e t i t io n e r by amendment or in some o th er way d i s c l o s e w ith p ar
t i c u l a r i t y e x a c t ly what conduct he c la im ed he was engaged in a t
th e t im e . And, s e c o n d ly , in w hat way in M s v iew o f th e f a c t s
he d id or d id n o t v i o l a t e th e l o c a l law or o r d in a n ce . B ut once
he has f u l l y d e t a i le d th e f a c t s , i t seem s t o me th a t th e m atter
i s read y fo r t r i a l p rov id ed th a t h is p a r t ic u la r iz e d v e r s io n o f
th e f a c t s , i f s u s ta in e d , would a u th o r iz e or r e q u ir e h is
a c q u i t t a l .
JIB TICE F ORTAS: You a r e , th en , s a y in g th a t i f th e
p e t i t i o n fo r rem oval a d e q u a te ly s e t s f o r th a c a se fo r rem oval,
r e g a r d le s s o f th e c o n te s t in g a l l e g a t io n s by th e S t a t e , th a t th en
th e re would b e no remand t o th e S t a t e C ourt and tine t r i a l would■ ?
go ahead on th e m e r its in the F e d e r a l C ou rt? .
MR. ClAlBORJfSS: Y es, Mr. J u s t ic e F o r ta s . I w ould a p p ly
th e same r u le s th a t a p p ly in a l l o th er rem oval c a s e s , w h ich i s
io th a t a f f e c t * When an o f f i c e r c la im s rem oval or reven u e o f f i c e r
62
c la im s rem oval and a l l e g e s e i t h e r th a t he d id n o t commit th e
murder w h ich i s charged a g a in s t him Or t h a t he d id s o b u t he
d id s o in d isc h a r g e o f h is d u ty a s reven u e o f f ic e r , , no n a t t e r
how s t r o n g ly th a t i s d e n ie d , he i s e n t i t l e d t o t r i a l in th e
F e d er a l C ou rt.
JUSTICE FORTES: W ell, th e n , th e d e l i g h t f u l a la c a r te
menu th a t you and Mr. Sm ith and Mr. Amsterdam have p r e sen ted t o
us t o s tu d y , and I suppose your p o s i t io n i s s u b s t a n t ia l ly c lo s e r
t o Mr. Am sterdam 's th an Mr. S m ith 's - -
MR. CLAIBORNE: E xcept perhaps on t h i s one p o in t , Mr.
J u s t ic e F o r ta s . Mr .Amsterdam never s e e s a t r i a l in th e F e d e r a l
Court*
JUSTICE FORTAS; Y es , th a t i s t r u e .
MR. CLAIBORNE: And i t seems t o me t h a t th a t i s w hat
rem oval i s a l l a b o u t, i s th e rem oval o f th e ca se fo r t r i a l .
JUSTICE WHITE; Mr. C la ib o r n e , what about in a case
w here i t i s conten ded th a t rem oval i s j u s t i f i e d b ecau se an o th e r
w ise v a l id S ta te law, a t r e s p a s s law or som eth in g e l s e , had been
a p p lie d in a d is c r im in a to r y nanner, and th a t i s th e a l l e g a t io n
in th e rem oval p e t i t io n ? Now, you would n o t - - a re you s u g g e s t
ing th a t you t r y out in th e F e d e r a l C ourt, n o t b y th e judge b u t
by th e ju r y , you n o t o n ly t r y out th e a l l e g a t io n s o f d is e r ir a in a to r
en forcem en t, or do you t r y out th e e n t i r e c a se? I would have
th ou gh t from w hat you s a id in your b r i e f th a t you would t r y o u t
m erely th e a d d i t io n a l q u e s t io n some way by th e judge or th e ju r y ,
ana i f th e a d d i t io n a l q u e s t io n were approved, th a t you would
d is m is s th e c a se e n t i r e l y . And i f you d id i t and you d id not
prove i t , you would remand i t t o th e S t a t e C o u rt.
MR. CLAIBORNE: I may have m is s ta te d i t . I was
sp ea k in g in answ er t o Mr. J u s t ic e P o rta s T q u e s t io n o f rem oval
under S e c t io n 2 , as we know i t . Our argument w ith r e s p e c t t o
d is c r im in a to r y p r o s e c u t io n s i s b a sed on th e d e n ia l c la u s e of
S e c t io n 1, and th e r e we would have a p r e lim in a r y h e a r in g b y th e
ju d ge' in w h ich th e i s s u e i s n o t g u i l t or in n o c e n c e .
JUSTICE WHITE: Mr. C la ib o r n e , th e is s q e i s on e q u a l
a p p l ic a t io n o f th e law .
JUSTICE ERE MAN: And th a t i s s u e would a l s o b e
d eterm in ed , I g a th e r , in your v ie w , b y th e judge w ith o u t a. ju r y ,
i s th a t r ig h t?
MR. CLAIBORNE: X th in k th a t i s r i g h t .
JUSTICE WHITE: And you w ould s a y , a l s o , th a t where
th e i s s u e i s w hether th e condu ct i s p r o te c te d b y a F ed era l
s t a t u t e , a s in R ach el, b u t th e a l l e g a t io n i s th a t t h i s cou ld
never b e a S e c t io n 1 c a s e , a S e c t io n 1 rem ova l,
MR. CLAIBORNE: I do n o t th in k i t makes any d i f f e r e n c e ,
Mr. J u s t ic e W hite .
JUSTICE WHITE: I t mak.es a l o t o f d i f f e r e n c e on how
i t i s t r i e d out in th e F e d e r a l C ourt under your th e o r y .
MR. CIA IB ORES: Even in a ca se under S e c t io n 2 , i f th e
p r o s e c u t io n ’s v e r s io n o f th e f a c t s makes o u t, a l b e i t , a v i o la t i o n
63
64
o f th e t r e s p a s s law. b u t a t th e same tim e condu ct Which i s
c l e a r l y p r iv i le g e d by th e F e d e r a l law , there w ould b e no
d e c is io n b y a ju ry » There would e i t h e r be a p r e lim in a r y d i s
m is s a l or th e re w ould foe a d ir e c t e d v e r d ic t o f a c q u i t t a l .
JUSTICE WHITE: What i f i t i s c o n te s te d ?
JUSTICE BRENKftN: What about v io le n c e ?
MR. ClAlBORilS: I th in k th a t th e s o l u t i o n w ould foe t o
le a v e th a t w ith th e ju r y .
JUSTICE BRENNAN: In th e F ed er a l C ourt?
MR. CLAIBORNE: In th e F e d e r a l C o u rt.
JUSTICE WHITE: Whether you do i t under 1 or 2? .
MR. CLAIBORNE: W ell, I would n o t v iew th a t c a se a s
b e in g s u f f i c i e n t l y c le a r t o f a l l w ith in th e d e n ia l c la u se under
1 and, th e r e fo r e , w ould b r in g i t under 2 V
TEE CHIEF JUSTICE:;; Mr. C la ib o r n e , 'would you mind
t e l l i n g me what th e procedure Xvould b e in t h i s s i t u a t i o n . As
X understand i t , in th e s e c a se s two o f th e s e p eop le a t l e a s t
x*;are charged Xtfith o p e r a tin g motor v e h ic le s in an improper
manner. They have so u g h t th e rem oval t o th e F e d e r a l C o u r ts .
What Xv'Ould th e y have t o a l l e g e and what would th e y have to
prove t o b r in g th a t under the C i v i l R ig h ts A c t s o th a t the
ca se cou ld b e t r i e d in th e F e d e r a l Court?
MR. CLAIBORNE: Mr. C h ie f J u s t ic e , in s o fa r as th ey
so u g h t rem oval under th e th e o ry which"vast upheld by the C ourt
foe lew , i t xv'Gulci n o t n a t te r what th e y w ere d o in g . They would
s im p ly have to show th a t th e y w ere p r o se c u te d , Whereas o th e r s
engaged in s im ila r con d u ct, th a t i s , w h it as engaged in s im ila r
con d u ct, would not have been p r o se c u te d . And, th e r e fo r e ,
th e r e was an un eq ual a p p l ic a t io n o f th e lav; t o them, and th a t
would j u s t i f y t h e ir rem oval under th e d e n ia l c la u s e .
THE CHIEF JUSTICEt T h is , a s I understand i t , i s fo r
o p e r a t in g v e h ic le s w ith o u t im proper l ic e n s e t a g s . J u s t what
would you have t o prove a s a p r a c t i c a l m atter t h e r e , th a t th e r e
w ere ocher p e o p le w ith improper l i c e n s e ta g s ru n n in g around th e
community, or what?
MR. CLAIBORNE: I assum e th a t th e y would e i t h e r have
t o show, e i t h e r deny th e g u i l t o f th e c h a rg e , th a t i s deny th a t
th e y f a i l e d t o have th e proper l i c e n s e ta g
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: W ell, i s th a t s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e
th e c i v i l r ig h t s q u e s t io n fo r th e C ourt t o p ass on?
HR. CLAIBORNE: No, th a t a lo n e would n o t . But i f I
may, on th e one s id e under th e d e n ia l c la u s e , i t seem s t o me
t h a t t h e ir o n ly c la im would have t o he th a t t h i s i s th e l o c a l
ord in an ce cr s t a t u t e w h ich i s in p r a c t ic e n o t a p p lie d t o o th e r s ,
or a t l e a s t n o t invoked a g a in s t o u t - o f - s t a t e r s , i f th a t i s
t h e ir s i t u a t i o n , or th o se from ou t o f th e c o u n ty , i f th a t i s
t h e ir s i t u a t i o n , w ith th e v ig o r t h a t i t has b een in t h e i r c a s e .
Now, how one g o es ab ou t p rov in g th a t may be v e ry
d i f f i c u l t . I r e a l l y cannot v i s u a l i s e th e te s t im o n y t h a t would
go in t o i t . T heir c la im under th e c o lo r o f a u th o r ity c la u s e .
i t seem s co me, i s q u ite d i f f i c u l t y th ou gh t i t rosy be th a t w h ile
th e y were a r r e s te d in a car th ey w ere in f a c t in a proxim ate way
engaged in v o te r r e g i s t r a t i o n a c t i v i t y * in th e e v e n t th ey were
ta k in g p eop le t o and from th e p o l l s . 1 do n o t th in k th a t th a t
p r iv i l e g e s them t o —
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Would t h a t g iv e them any r ig h t t o
have u n r e g is te r e d l ic e n s e p la t e s ?
MR. CLAIBORNE: No. I th in k th a t w ould have t o b e
combined w ith th e d e n ia l o f g u i l t o f th e l o c a l o r d in a n ce . B ut
a l l I am —
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Would you t i e th e q u e s t io n o f
g u i l t in in d e term in in g w hether th e y w ere e n t i t l e d t o th e r e
mand or rem oval?
MR. CIAIBORNE: Under S e c t io n 2 , Mr, C h ie f J u s t i c e r I
x;ould have th e e n t i r e q u e s t io n determ in ed a t t r i a l , th a t i s t o
s a y , b y a ju r y in th e F e d e r a l C ou rt. T h is i s assum ing they
co u ld p a r t i c u la r iz e , w h ich I f in d d i f f i c u l t t o v i s u a l i s e , par
t i c u l a r i z e a c la im o f e x e r c i s in g th e r ig h t o f advocacy o f v o t in g
w h ile d r iv in g a c a r , or th e y m ight b e c a r r y in g p r o s p e c t iv e v o te r s
b ack and fo r th , or in some o th er way engaged in c i v i l r ig h t s
a c t i v i t y , a l b e i t , d r iv in g a c a r .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Would th e r e have t o b e a pre lirninciry
h e a r in g b e fo r e th e judge to d e term in e th a t , w hether t h i s charge
w ould b lo c k th e c i v i l r ig h t s o f th e s e p e o p le , or would you go
ahead and l e t them tr y i t and d eterm in e i t b e fo r e a jury?
(>6
€.7
MR. CLAIBORNE: P ro v id in g t h e ir a l l e g a t io n s w ere
s u f f i c i e n t on i t s fa c e t o make out a c la im o f p r iv i l e g e in
th e ju d g e 's m ind. Of c o u r se , th e judge v iew s th e p e t i t io n ,
and by a l lo w in g i t or d is a l lo w in g i t he makes a r u l in g a s t o
th e sco p e o f th e F e d e r a l p r i v i l e g e . He s a y s , assum ing the
f a c t s a l le g e d , i s t h i s or i s t h i s n o t F e d e r a lly p r o te c te d
a c t i v i t y ?
Mow, t h a t may be s u b je c t t o argum ent, b u t I do n o t
th in k i t i s su ch to have te s t im o n y , And i t i s in th a t se n se
th a t th e r e may ba a h e a r in g , th e r e may be some p r e lim in a r y
p r o c ee d in g . But once th e judge has d eterm ined th a t i f tru e
th o se a l l e g a t io n s o f p r o te c te d F e d e r a l a c t i v i t y , th en i t seem s
t o me th a t th e c a se go es t o t r i a l b e fo r e a F e d e r a l ju ry in a
F ed era l C o u rt.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Then th e y sa y b e fo r e th e q u e s t io n
o f remand was determ in ed th a t th e r e i s a p r o se cu to r down th e r e
who was p r e ju d ic e d a g a in s t N egroes, and he p r o se c u te s us -more
t
v ig o r o u s ly than o th e r s , and th a t th e r e is a judge down th e r e who
i s u n fa ir in h is d e c i s io n s o fa r a s N egroes a r e con cern ed , or a
s h e r i f f th a t i s u n f a ir , and s o f o r t h . Would any p roo f b e a v a i l
a b le t o them t o show th a t a motor v e h ic l e , a charge o f a motor
v e h ic le v i o l a t i o n would come under t h i s A c t, a v i o la t i o n o f
t h e i r c i v i l r ig h t s ?
MX. CLAIBORH3: I w ould su p p ose th a t th a t s o r t o f
e v id e n c e , Mr, C h ie f J u s t ic e , w ould b e r e le v a n t t o th e rem oval
€8
under the d e n ia l c la u s e . However, I wouId th in k any judge would
prom ptly b e r e lu c t a n t t o remove a c a se on t h i s t e s t i n g out o f
p e r s o n a l i t i e s , w h ich i s a d e l i c a t e m atter V7hich sh o u ld b e
a v o id e d , i t seem s t o ms* i f a t a l l p o s s ib le *
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: W ell, i f he was n o t a t ta c k in g th e
s t a t u t e , and th a t v;as o n ly r e le v a n t , b u t n o t c o n c lu s iv e , what
would you add t o make i t c o n c lu s iv e ?
MR. CIAISORNE: I f I u n derstand Your H onor's q u e s t io n
c o r r e c t ly , I tak e i t t o be what w ould show th e d is c r im in a to r y
a p p l ic a t io n o f th e s t a t u t e to su ch an e x te n t a s t o j u s t i f y th e
F e d er a l judge in h o ld in g p r o se c u tio n o f rem oval or s u s t a in in g - -
TEE CHIEF JUSTICE: W hatever you would have to a l l e g e
in order t o keep i t i n th e F e d e r a l C o u rts .
MR. CLAIBORNE: I would th in k th a t th e d e fen d a n t would
have t o show t h i s i s a s t a t u t e w h ich over so n s p e r io d o f tim e
h as n o t b een invoked in th e same c ir cu m sta n c es w ith r e s p e c t t o
a d i f f e r e n t c la s s o f p erso n , much a s t h i s C ou rt, w ith resp e ic t t o
t h e s t a t u t e in v o lv in g Cm: v e r su s L o u is ia n a in w h ich th e Court
found, a s I remember i t , in th e e v id e n c e o f reco rd infchat c a se ,
th a t no p r o se c u tio n fo r v i o l a t i o n o f a parade ord in an ce had b een
known in th a t community o f L o u is ia n a , w here th e parade was n o t
b y H egroes, and th a t s o r t o f i n f e r s , I would su p p ose , i t would
b e s u f f i c i e n t to j u s t i f y a rem oval and d i s m is s a l o f th e p r o se c u
tio n *
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Suppose i t was a crim e where th ey
co u ld n orm ally p r o se c u te p eo p le fo r th a t kind of crim e?
MR. CL&lBORas: In t h a t c a se , Your Honor, th e r e x?ould
b e l t IS ba no b a s i s in my v iew fo r rem oval under th e d e n ia l c la u se .. And
a s I sa y - o n ly a b a s i s fo r rem oval under th e o th er c la u s e i f th e
d e fe n d a n t d en ied th a t he had v io la t e d th e l o c a l lav?, and showed
th a t he v?as a t th e tim e engaged in p r o te c t in g c i v i l r ig h t s
a c t i v i t i e s , b y Vfhich I mean a c t i v i t i e s p r o te c te d b y lax-? p r o v id
in g fo r e q u a l r ig h t s in term s
THE CHIEF JUSTICE; I was j u s t th in k in g o f the
r a m if ic a t io n s o f t h i s th in g . Suppose a man was d r iv in g a car
dov;n th e s t r e e t th a t x?as g o in g t o a c i v i l r ig h t s m eeting and
he ran over a p e d e s tr ia n and k i l l e d him and he was p ro secu ted
f o r m a n sla u g h ter . Could he go t o th e F e d e r a l C ourt and a l l e g e
th a t he was g o in g t o a c i v i l r ig h t s m eetin g and i t was in th e
e x e r c i s e o f th o s e r ig h t s a s th e r e s u l t o f w h ich he was b e in g
p r o se cu ted fo r t h i s crim e?
MR, CIAIBORNE: Mr, C h ie f J u s t i c e , 2 would sa y th a t
th a t i s to o r e m o te ly r e la t e d t o th e concern o f t h i s s t a t u t e
t o j u s t i f y rem oval a t a l l . I v?ou.'Ld not th in k ch at c a se —
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I t i s p r e t ty hard t o draw th e
l in e betx;oen one and the o th er?
MR* C’LftlBORUE: W ell, th e s e a re n a t t e r s , I s u g g e s t to
th e C ourt, v?hich need e x p la n a t io n , w h ich need t o b e a r t ic u la t e d
in th e lov?er F e d e r a l C o u rts , and v?hich need in t h i s case t o foe
a r t i c u l a t e d . Here th e D i s t r i c t Judge d is m is se d or remanded i t
69
70
w ith o u t a d v e r t in g t o any o f th e r e le v a n t c o n s id e r a t io n s , b u t
s im p ly on th e lav; a s he v iew ed i t , w h ich would n o t have a llo w ed
rem oval no m atter xvhat th e a l l e g a t i o n s , s h o r t o f an un
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l S ta t e s t a t u t e . And th e C ourt o f A p peals i t s e l f
d id n o t d is c u s s rem oval under S u b s e c t io n 2 . And, th e r e fo r e , we
would urge th e C ou rt, i f i t a c c e p te d our argum ent, n o t t o a ttem p t
t o draw th e s e l i n e s , b ecau se th e y a r e m a tters t o be fo rg ed th rou gh
j u d ic ia l e x p e r ie n c e w h ich f i t t i n g l y b e lo n g s t o the low er c o u r ts .
JUS TICE BLACK: I have j u s t read th e f a c t s a l le g e d in
t h i s p e t i t io n fo r rem o v a l. Coming t o i t , in your judgm ent, d oes
i t show, a l l e g e enough f a c t s t o j u s t i f y rem oval and t o p rev en t
a remand?
MR. CLAIBORNE: I th in k n o t . Your Honor. I th in k
b e c a u se o f i t th e s e p e t i t io n s a r e e x c u sa b le h ere a t t h i s i n i t i a l
s ta g e o f r e d is c o v e r y o f th e rem oval s t a t u t e . And in any e v e n t ---
JUSTICE BLACK: What f a c t o r s need t o b e added t o i t ?
MR. CIA IB OR HE: W ell, i f Your Honor i s sp ea k in g o f th e
P eacock p e t i t io n
JUSTICE BLACK: That i s what I am sp ea k in g o f .
MR. CLAIBORNE: - - I w ould want t o know, as th e ju d ge,
then th e q u e s t io n o f rem oval was b e fo r e me, in what way, in what
numbers, i f th e se p eop le w ere p ic k e t in g . 1 would w ant t o know
for w hat purpose th e y w ere p ic k e t in g in s o fa r a3 rem oval under
S e c t io n 2 i s co n cern ed . 1 would w ant t o knew w hether th e y adm it
or deny v i o la t i o n o f th e s t a t u t e w ith Which th e y a r e charged .
71
and p r e c i s e ly what conduct th e y a r e engaged i n . I would n o t
c a re s o much ab ou t th e a l l e g a t io n s o f th e r ig h t th a t th e y were
e x e r c i s in g * X would b e more in t e r e s t e d in a p a r t ic u la r iz e d
s ta te m e n t o f f a c t s o I a s t r i a l judge co u ld d eterm in e fo r n y -
s e I f —
JUSTICE BI&CKt What i s th a t?
MR. CLAIBORNE: So th a t I a s judge cou ld d eterm ine
w h eth er , assum ing th e s e f a c t s to b e tru e* w h ich a jury w i l l
la t e r t e s t , a F e d e r a lly p r o te c te d a c t i v i t y a s s t a t e d or r a th e r
a v i o l a t i o n o f S ta te law a s t o w h ich th e r e i s no im m unity.
JUSTICE BXACK: U n less I m isu n d erstood y ou , your
p o s i t io n i s th a t i f i t a l l e g e s any f a c t s , th a t i s a l l , a l l e g e s
th e s e f a c t s , th e judge has t o assume th a t i s t r u e . He d o e s n o t
t r y them o u t .
MR. CIA IB OR NE: As tc our p o s i t io n under S u b s e c t io n 2 ,
th a t i s th e p o s i t io n , y e s , s i r .
JUSTICE BIACK: In o th er w ords, anyone a l l e g in g
f a c t s , f a c t s enough t o b r in g them under th e s t a t u t e , whether
th e y a r e tr u e or n o t, g e t s a rem oval and i t i s t r i e d in the
F e d e r a l C ou rts?
MR. CL-AIBOSI®: Assum ing, o f c o u r se , t o th e v e r i f i e d
p e t i t i o n s , assum ing t o th e p e n a lty o f p e r ju r y fo r a l l e g in g —
JUSTICE BLACK; X am t a lk in g about h is r ig h t t o
t r i a l in the F e d e r a l C o u rt.
£2R. CLAIBORNE: H is r ig h t t o t r i a l in th e F ed er a l
72
C ourt, y e s .
JUSTICE BLACK: Ic depends a l to g e th e r on th e a l l e g a
t io n s 2
X®. CLAIBORNE; In th e same xv'ay th a t rem oval and in
v e s t i t u r e depends on tit© a l l e g a t i o n s ,
JUSTICE BLACK: How cou ld th e C ourt b e p r o te c te d , i f
t h a t i s a proper in t e r p r e t a t io n , and hav in g hundreds and
hundreds o f c a s e s p r o te s te d fo r t r i a l e v e r y y e a r , when th e r e i s
r e a l l y no j u s t i f i c a t i o n for i t in fa c t?
MR, CIA IB OR NE: Mr, J u s t ic e B lack —
JUSTICE BLACK: T h is w ould b e no e x cu se fo r C on gress,
I a g r ee w ith t h a t ,
MR. CLAlBORME: But more than th a t , Mr, J u s t ic e Black.,
th e d e fen d a n t w i l l remove t o th e F e d e r a l C ourt o n ly i f th ey do
have b a s i s fo r th in k in g t h e ir t r i a l in t i e S ta t e C ourt w i l l be
u n fa ir t o fchem.
JUSTICE BLACK: You sa y th e y w i l l ?
MR. CIA IB ORE®: There i s no advantage t o them.
JIB TICE BLACK: I f you ex cu se them o f c o n s id e r a b le
d e la y t h i s i s a l l th e y have t o do i s a l l e g e - -
MR. CLAI30RIME: There x>jere some d e fen d a n ts who took
s e r io u s ly t h e ir C o n s t i t u t io n a l r ig h t t o a sp eed y t r i a l , Mr,
J u s t ic e B la ck , and who want a c q u i t t a l , and t o whom in o r d in a te
d e la y s and in c o n v e n ien ce i s n o t an a t t r a c t io n , i f th e y f e e l
s e c u r e , th a t th e C ourt, in the low er C ourt th e y w i l l b e a d ju s te d .
73
belt 19
JUSTICE BLACK: You are go in g on th e assum p tion th a t
th e d e fen d a n t would not ta k e ad van tage o f th a t?
MR. CLAIBORNEi I am su re chat Your Honor i s c o r r e c t
in assum ing th a t many d e fen d a n ts w i l l tak e advan tage q£ i t . I do
n o t know t h a t i t w i l l r ea ch su ch unmanageable numbers.
JUSTICE BLACK: I t i s an axiom,, I chinks th a t th e
b e s t d e fe n se a d e fen d a n t lias i s d e la y .
MR. CL&IBORME: A g u i l t y d e fe n d a n t,
JUSTICE BLACK: Any d e fe n d a n t,
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Mr. C la ib o r n e , do you a g r ee w ith
Mr. Amsterdam th a t t h i s a p p l ie s a l l over th e co u n try t o e v er y
S t a t e in th e U nion, or do yCu th in k th a t i t i s r e s t r i c t e d t o
a c e r ta in number o f s t a t e s where C ongress f e l t t h a t th e se r ig h t s
ha'ere b een abused?
MR. CIAIBORHE: Ho, Mr. C h ie f J u s t i c e , I do n o t th in k
i t i s s e c t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n . I th in k i t i s permanent and
n a t io n a l l e g i s l a t i o n , good fo r th e w hole c o u n tr y . There i s no
d is g u is in g th a t w ould m o tiv a te th a t th e s t a t u t e was a concern
f o r th e c i v i l r ig h t s o f Sfegroes in th e s t a t e s in v o lv e d in th e
r e b e l l i o n . But th a t d oes n o t mean i t sh ou ld n o t and cannot be
a p p lie d in o th er p a r ts o f th e Union when th e same c ircu m sta n ces
ar i s e .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I t would b e th e same fo r o ther
p a r ts o f th e country?
MR* CLAIBORNE: E x a c tly *
74
JUSTICE WHITE; Mr* C la ib o r n e , do you s u g g e s t th a t
a l l o f th e s e c a s e s in th e P eacock c a se in t h i s p ro ceed in g are
s u s ta in a b le under S e c t io n 1, l ik e th e F i f t h C ir c u it s a id th a t
i t is ,, or do you th in k you must r e s o r t to S e c t io n 2 fo r any o f
th e s e c a se s?
MR* CLAIBORNE: I th in k , Mr. J u s t ic e W hite, th a t we
m ust a b id e b y th e h ea r in g w hich th e F i f t h C ir c u it has —
JUSTICE WHITE: So you do n o t th in k we sh ou ld t r e a t
t h i s ca se i n th e a b s t r a c t and s e t down some ground r u le s t o r e
main?
MR. CIAIBORHE: Mr. J u s t ic e W hiter l e t me em phasize
th a t th e remand makes a b i g d i f f e r e n c e in term s o f th e •— th e
terras o f th e remand makes a b i g d i f f e r e n c e . The F i f t h C ir c u it
has remanded th e c a se fo e a h ea r in g on th e q u e s t io n o f d i s
c r im in a to r y p r o s e c u t io n s , and th a t i s a l l ,
JUSTICE WHITE; But th e y d id sa y th a t i f d is c r im in a to r y
p r o se c u t io n s w ere shown, th e y w ere a l l s u s t a in a b le , th ey were
a l l rem ovable under S e c t io n 1?
MR, CLAIBORNE: But i t may w e l l tu r n o u t, Mr. J u s t ic e
White* th a t some o f th e d e fen d a n ts w i l l b e un ab le t o prove a
d is c r im in a to r y a p p l ic a t io n o f th e s t a t u t e s t o them, in which
e v e n t th e y sh ou ld have a v a i la b le t o them* n o t a d i s m is s a l , b u t
w ould b e th e r e s u l t o f th a t remand ord er, b u t a t r i a l in th e
F e d e r a l Court on a more p a r t ic u la r is e d p e t i t io n w h ich I th in k
w ould r e q u ir e th e y can show t h a t th e y w ere engaged in p r o te c te d
✓
75
en d -b sp
a c t i v i t y , a c t i v i t y p r o te c te d by F e d e r a l law ,
JUSTICE WHITE: And b y th e way, upon rem oval and
d i v e r s i t y c a s e s , you c e r t a in ly do n o t j u s t b la n k th e case on
th e a l l e g a t io n s o f th e F e d e r a l C ourt a s fa r a s th e a l l e g a t io n s
o f th e Court a r e con cern ed , i f you have a t r i a l on a remand
m otion th a t i s n o t a t r i a l . And s im i la r ly in t h i s p a r t ic u la r
rem oval s t a t u t e , you have a l l e g a t io n s th a t go t o th e m e r its ,
th e j u r i s d i c t io n o f th e m e r its o v e r la p . And I w ould th in k
th e r e i s q u ite a d i s t i n c t i o n betw een th e rem oval s e c t io n in
t h i s r e g a r d .
MR. CLAIBORNE: I su pp ose X sh ou ld sa y th a t in c r im in a l
c a s e s i t seem s more f i t t i n g th a t th e f a c t s be t r i e d b y th e ju r y ,
a t l e a s t th e s e f a c t s w h ich go t o t h i s .
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: We w i l l r e c e s s a t t h i s t im e .
(Whereupon, a t 2 :3 0 o ’c lo c k p„m„, th e h ea r in g i n th e
a b o v e - e n t i t le d m atter was r e c e s s e d , t o recon ven e a t 10:00
o 'c lo c k tomorrow m orning, W ednesday, A p r i l 2 7 , 1956 .)