Legal Defense Fund Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Upset Conviction of Rev. Shuttlesworth

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

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
PRESS RELEASE 

De: Ailes Knight Chalmers 

Director Counse 
en ees FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE denicate Cocos August 25, 1968 
Constance Baker Motley 

DEFENSE FUND APPEALS 
FREEDOM RIDER CASES 
TO SUPREME COURT 

Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court was asked today to 

reverse the breach of peace and unlawful assembly convictions 

of 11 "Yale Freedom Riders" in an appeal by the NAACP Legal 

Defense Fund. 

Fund lawyers offered many arguments on behalf of the 

seven Negroes and four whites, several of whom are prominent 

leaders in the civil rights movement. 

These Freedom Riders were arrested on May 25th, 1961, in 

the Montgomery, Ala. bus terminal when they sat at the lunch 

counter seeking service, 

According to the Defense Fund brief, the convictions 

violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment in that 

there is no evidence of guilt. 

The attorneys also argue that the statutes under which 

the Freedom Riders were prosecuted are vague and indefinite 

and therefore give no fair warning of punishable conduct. 

Fund attorneys further argued that the Freedom Riders 

arrest and conviction violated the 14th Amendment guarantee of 

equal protection of the law, since state agents enforced racial 

discrimination, 

In addition, the Fund contended, the Freedom Riders were 

denied freedom of assembly, which is guaranteed by the lst 

Amendment. 

(more) 

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



Defense Fund Appeals 
es Freedom Rider Cas -2- August 25, 1964 

Further arguments by Defense Fund attorneys pointed out 

the federal ban on discrimination in interstate travel facilities, 

and the unlawful burden on commerce thus imposed. 

The civil rights advocates also stressed the fact that a 

lower federal court -=- though refusing to stop the Alabama 

prosecutions -- specifically noted that such action was designed 

to enforce racial segregation. 

The final contention of the Defense Fund brief was that 

the arrests and convictions violated the constitutional ovoron 

of due process, since the Alabama Guardsmen permitted the 

' Freedom Riders to sit at the lunch counter, and then signalled 

¢ for thei@arrest. 

The Freedom Riders were thus "entrapped" by state officials, 

‘Fund attorneys stated. 

At the time, they were being escorted by the Alabama 

WNational Guard, which had been assigned to protect them from an 

angry white crowd assembled across the street. 

At their trial, it was asserted that the presence of the 

crowd made it likely that their sitting at the lunch counter 2y 

would provoke violence. The Guard officials, however, did not pee 

attempt to prevent the Freedom Riders from crossing the waiting i€ 

room to the lunch counter. = 

Among the plaintiffs in the case are Rev. Ralph Abernathy, — 

Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, and Dr, Bernard Lee, all of Rev. Martin 

Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference. 

Also appealing is Rev. Wyatt T. Walker, currently on leave 

from his SCLC post to work as vice president in charge of 

marketing for the Educational Heritage Foundation, a venture in ~ : 

publishing books on Negro history. 

(more) 



p
e
 

Defense Fund Appeals 
Freedom Rider Cases -3- August 25, 1964 

7 Another defendant is Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Jr., 

Chaplain of Yale University. The remaining appellants are all 

ministers and teachers of theology, with the exception of George 

B. Swith, who was at that time a student at Yale Law School. 

Mr. Smith is currently an assistant counsel at the Legal 

Defense Fund's New York City headquarters. ; 

Fund Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg and Associate Counsel 

Constance Baker Motley led a battery of ten lawyers in preparing 

the Freedom Rider appeal. o 

Appearing with them on the brief were James M, Naber, 

of the Fund's staff, Fred D. Gray, a cooperating attorney ‘from 

Montgomery, and Louis H. Pollak, Professor of Law at Yale é 

University. 

Of counsel were Leroy D. Clark, Charles S. Conley, Ronald 

R. Davenport, Frank H. Heffron, and Solomon S. Seay, Jr. 

wa
l?
 

= a0<