Halt for 61 San Quentin Executions Sought by NAACP Legal Defense Fund

    FE President 

: Hon. Francis E. Rivers 
PRESS RELEASE Director Counsel 

egal A aie and Jack Greenberg 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. iret ceca - Jesse DeVore, Jr. 
fo onan Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 FOR RELEASE NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

SATURDAY 
July 1, 1967 

HALT FOR 61 SAN QUENTIN EXECUTIONS 
SCUGHT BY NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 

Similar Action Was Successfulb-in Florida 

SAN FRANCISCO---A halt to the execution of 61 San Quentin prisoners 
sentenced t> die f-r capital crimes was sought here this week in 
Federal District Court by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 
Fund, Inc. (LDF) and private attorneys. 

The LDF action is mest unusual since it not only represents three 
death row petitioners but also all those prisoners under sentence of 
death at the California State Prison. 

Attorney Leroy Clark represented the LDF. 

Only once before in American jurisprudence have such petitioners 
represented other death row prisoners, and that was when LDF attorneys 
won a similar suit April 13 in Federal Court, Jacksonville, Florida. 

There, a federal judge ordered that pending executions of 51 men 
on Florida's death row be held up until there could be a full hearing 
on the matter. 

Pointing to the urgency of the action, LDF attorneys said that 
four defendants are slated to be executed at San Quentin in July. 

The LDF action lists three petitioners on the state's death row. 
They are Frederick Saterfield, whcse execution is set for July 20; 
Joshua Hill, presently set to die in San Quentin on August 29; and 
Robert Page Anderson, whose execution date has not yet been named. 

LDF attorneys point out that two petitioners (Saterfield and 
Anderson) are Negro, and one (Hill) is Caucasian. 

The attorneys explained that they have filed an action which 
could affect all death row prisoners but will assure Negro prisoners, 
who show up on death row in disproportionate numbers, of adequate 
constitutional safeguards. 

The action filed in Federal District Court lists the three peti- 
tioners, Hill, Saterfield, and Anderson, and “all other similarly 
situated petitioners." 

It asks the court to enjoin San Quentin's warden, Louis E. Nelson, 
from all executions until a full hearing can be held on the petitioners’ 
claims. 

Attorneys for the convicted men contend in their petition: 

1. Denial of the Right of Effective Counsel 

California law provides for court-appointed attorneys to 
indigents for the purpose of trial and initial appeal. How- 
ever, there is no provision for appointment of counsel to aid 
in preparation of petitions for further appeals which are 
possible to avoid the death penalty. 

2. Stacked, or Death-Oriented Juries 

In the State of California, persons who conscientiously 
object to the death penalty are excluded from juries. The 

( more) 

i 



HALT FCR 61 SAN QUENTIN EXECUTIONS 
SQUGHT BY NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND -2- July 1, 1967 

attorneys argue that this is a violation of the defendants' 
rights since it results in juries predisposed toward con- 
viction and the death penalty. 

Juries Not Instructed as to What Factors or Standards to 
Consider in Sentencing 

The attorneys maintain that death sentences are imposed by 

juries which have unlimited, undirected and unreviewed dis- 

cretion in determining that sentence. They say no standards 
for making this determination are set forth by statute, 
judicial decision or administrative or executive pronounce- 
ments. 

Judge Has Authority to Reduce Sentences but Has No Standards 
for Doing So. eS SER AISE gc ESISE 

The attorneys maintain that judges are threrfore permitted to 
act “capriciously and arbitrarily. 

Death Sentence Is Cruel and Inhuman Punishment 

The attorneys argue that the death sentence is cruel and in- 
human punishment since, without standards for the judge to 
consider in reducing sentences and without provisions made 
for guidance for the jury, it is arbitrary. 

Private attorneys who filed the petition for habeas corpus and 
injunctive relief along with the LDF are: 

Jerome B. Falk, Jr. and Roy Eisenhardt of San Francisco, attor- 
neys for petitioner Saterfield; Harry J. Kreamer, San Francisco, 
attorney for petitioner Anderson; Clinton White, Oakland, and Richard 
eae and Garfield Stewart, San Francisco, attorneys for petitioner 
aS 

LDF attorneys along with Mr. Clark are Jack Greenberg, director- 
counsel, and Charles Stephen Ralston of New York City; also Nathaniel 
Colley, Western Regional Counsel, NAACP, Sacramento, and Gary D. 
Burger, San Francisco. 

=30-