Legal Defense Fund Intervenes in Behalf of 4,000 Watts Rioters - Suit Filed Against Three Courts and 21 Judges

    10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

Legal Defense and Educational F und 
PRESS RELEASE 

er Allan Knight ‘Chalniets 
Director- Counsel 

Jack Greenberg 

FOR RELEASE 

Tuesday 
November 30, 1965 

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND INTERVENES IN 
BEHALF OF 4,000 WATTS RIOTERS 

Assert California Courts Placed Issue "Under the Rug" 

SUIT FILED AGAINST THREE COURTS AND 21 JUDGES 

WASHINGION--The California courts were charged today with sweeping 

"under the rug" the cases of more than 4,000 Negroes arrested 

during the Watts riots. 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., plus the 

Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP asked the U. S. Supreme Court 

to review a suit that names three Los Angeles Courts---the 

Municipal, Juvenile, and the Superior Courts, along with 21 Los 

Angeles judges. 

The two civil rights groups also asked that the cited courts 

be enjoined from taking further proceedings until there is a 

hearing. 

The civil rights attorneys ask the high court to define 

"the relation between the state and those who, because of poverty 

and neglect, heave been excluded from society." 

Negroes, the attorneys continue “who have despaired of 

proceeding through the lawful process, have now become caught up 

in the machinery of the law---the enforcer of the standards of 

that society.” 

The California Courts are being charged with neglecting their 

responsibility to inform the Negroes of the charges against them, +o 

inquire as to whether they could afford legal counsel and to appoint 

counsel when needed. 

Negro petitioners named in this suit, and others interviewed, 

asserted that they had no legal representation at their initial 

arraignments and the District Attorney argued that bail be set at 

three times the normal level. 

(more) 

Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 



Legal Defense Fund Intervenes in November ~ 
Behalf of 4,000 Watts Rioters -2- 

1965 

c a o
h
 

my
 

So
f ip a 3) at. an indeterminate number of Watts 

defendants are fandeent oMepemes placed against them, and will 

Mot receive the kind of Pp otesen tation which the U. S. Constitutin: 

guarantees to all defendants, rich or poor, Negro or white, 

innocent or guilty. ' 

Two Negro petitioners, both young mothers (one of four, the 

other of six) remained in jail until their preliminary hearings, 

although sneither had prior convictions. 

The civil rights attorneys argue that if the courts had 

inquired as to the background of these women, both would -have been 

réleased on their own recognizance, as they later were after 

their preliminary hearings. 

More specifically, the suit states that the judicial 

officials cited "have failed and refused to appoint private 

counsel not associated with the Public Defender's office." 

It was noted that the Public Defender's staff had not been 

expanded sufficiently to "give adequate time for preparation and 

investigation to defend petitioners." 

The suit further asserts that "none of the petitioners have 

been» continuously represented by one Public Defender throuch 
3 
oer ee ee : c ; : 

successive proceedings, resulting in each Public Defender saving 

to freshly acquaint himself with cases." 

th ce "the Public Defender's office has never been 

required to handle nearly 4,000 defendants with multiple charges 

during a six week period such as occurred after the riots began. 

Legal Defense Fund Assistant Counsel Leroy Clark, joined by 

local NAACP attorneys Raymond L. Johnson and Herman T. Smith, 

pointed out that lists of attorneys willing to represent indigent 

persons were given to judicial officials cited in the suit. 

However, the officials still failed to appoint private lawyers 

from this list in sufficient numbers to relieve the over-extended 

case load of the Public Defender's office. 



Legal Defense Fund Intervenes In November 30, 1965 

Behalf of 4,000 Watts Ricters -3- 

The Legal Defense Fund, which entered the case upon request 

the: ‘local NAACP onan eT » filed the original case in California's fe 

‘Supreme Court ee than a lower court “because it is a matter of 

grave public import tance a 1d raised serious questions of 

constitutLonality and i. rity of respondent officials: to continue 

with criminal prosecutions of over 4,900 persons, " a to 

Mr, Clark. ze x # 

& 
y 

ps 4 

serious apes raised by this action," the Legal Defens 

uous li Agni The state. of California has "conspi 

ars ee 

asserts, © Wg 

"Neither the respondent judges nor the State have 

responsive papers. " 

roes:! “have beenédenied in both the District Court of 

2s ite a 5 . * 
Appeals and the Supreme Court of California, a hearing at which 

time they may offer proof and argue the validity of their 

geggs tettons! claims." 

Negroes have been denied a hearing summarily, without opinion, 

e result that "they have not been given a hint of the basis 

Ree led October 8, 1965, to the District Court of Appeals for the 

say District. 

That Court accepted the suit affecting more than 4,990 lives 

nd sent a post card to the Legal Defense Fund's New York City 

headquarters saying "hearing denied”. 

There was no hearing. 

Legal Defense Fund attorneys, in today's brief for the U. S. 

Supreme Court argue that "the state of California is merely 

perpetuating the same injustices which gave rise to the 

disturbances. 

"It ig trying thousands of indigents in a rapid, routinized 

manner, which fails to insure that every individual will have at 

least the protection of counsel, who-is able to devote the time 
sf 

required to consult with his client fully and togprepare © ¢ 

adequately his defense. 
(mere) 



Legal Defense Fund Intervenes In November 30, 19.5 
Behalf of 4,000 Watts Rioters “4- 

"To these defendants," the Legal Defense Fund attorneys 

continue, “justice can appear only as an impersonal machine, a mere 

tool of the’ same powerswinm society that have put them and kept them 
; “a 

in their position of poverty." 

"The civil rights attorneys ask that the California courts: 

ee . . s : : . 
1, Appoint lawyers with adequate preparation, investigation 

ling before conducting further proceedings 

2. WNullify any prior proceedings in which petitioners or 

members of their class, after securing adequate counsel, 

can demonstrate that they were disadvantaged ky lack of 

counsel; 

3. Furnish petitioners with names of private counsel if the 

er's office is found to have an inordinate 

d (and to pay such attorneys) 

And, in the alternative, the civil rights lawyers ask that 

the cited courts be enjoined from taking further proceedings until 

there is a hearing. 

Joining attorneys Clark, Johnson and Smith are Jack Greenberg, 

director-counsel of the Fund; Charles Stephen Ralston of the 

Fund's New York office and Anthony G. Amsterdam of Philadelphia. 

== 

EDITOR'S NO *Complete text of Mr. Greenberg's statement is 
attached, 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund" is not the NAACP, 
o were separated in 1939 and now function 

in close cooperation as two separate entities.