Folder

Correspondence - General Vol. 3 of 6 (Redacted)

Correspondence
November 7, 1983 - July 14, 1985

Cite this item

Correspondence - General Vol. 3 of 6 (Redacted) preview

65 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Includes Correspondence related to the Amicus Brief of Social Scientists in Support of McCleskey; Resolution 10/84 and Correspondence related to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Amicus Brief; and additional Correspondence between Counsel.

Impact area
- Criminal Justice
Topic
- Capital Punishment
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Robert Stroup
Organizations
- LDF
- Stroup & Coleman
Matter
- McCleskey v. Kemp
Case
- McCleskey v. Kemp – General
U.S. state
- Georgia
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 7c5b9e3b-0bca-ef11-8ee9-6045bddb7cb0

Cite this item

Case Files, McCleskey Correspondence. Correspondence - General Vol. 3 of 6 (Redacted), 1983. 7c5b9e3b-0bca-ef11-8ee9-6045bddb7cb0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a2c3a13a-0ab2-4b77-8bc6-c61d4cebc15b/correspondence-general-vol-3-of-6-redacted. Accessed December 04, 2025.

Copied!

LonsT. [=~ 31-9C

Inmate to appeal ruling
on state’s death penalty

The attorney for death row in-
mate. Warren McCleskey said
Wednesday he will ask the US. Su-
preme Court to decide whether un-
constitutional, racial factors enter
‘into Sentencing: decisions. made in
Georgia. .

On Tuesday, the 11th Us Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta re-
jected McCleskey’s claim that his
death sentence should be overturned
because of what he argued were ra-
cially biased Sentencing practices
across the state.

~ McCleskey, | who is black, was
convicted for the 1978 shooting
death of Atlanta police officer
Frank Schiatt, who was white.

. McCleskey offered the most de-
tailed study yet of capital punish-
ment cases in Georgia to support
his claim that the death penalty is
more frequently given those con-
victed of killing white people than
to other murder defendants. The
study, compiled by University of
Iowa law professor David Baldus,
said: that is particularly true when
the defendant is black.

In the first Circuit Court ruling
on a case of its kind, the judges
here said that even if Baldus’ study
were correct, it did not prove that
Georgia juries are racially biased.
Neither did McCleskey provide evi-
dence that his own sentence was ra-
cially moved. the court said in

!
iL
L

: il

CLAIMS SENTENCING BIASED
Warren McCleskey

McCleskey’s attorney, Jack
Boger, said he will ask the Supreme
Court to review the racial claim, as
well as others that McCleskey of-
fered but the 11th Circuit rejected.

Among them was the question of
whether people who oppose the
death penalty should be excluded
from juries in capital cases. The
11th Circuit unanimously said exclu-
sion is permitted, but the St. Louis-
based Stn Circuit this week came to

the opposite conclusion.
~ — Apn Woslner

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

egal efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

June 14, 1985

Michael 0. Finkelstein, Esq.
Barrett, Smith, Schapiro, Simon & Armstrong

26 Broadway

New York, New York 10004

Dear Michael:

Enclosed is a preliminary draft of a proposed brief
amici curiae to be submitted on behalf of our social science
experts in support of the petition for certiorari in McCleskey
v. Kemp. At present, we have agreement or near agreement from

Hang Zeisel, Marvin Wolfgang, Frank Zimring and Dr. Sperlich.
I am still working on Lawrence Klein. I have sent copies of
the draft brief, together with the petition, the District and
Circuit Court opinions and the Baldus report to all of the
experts. 1 have asked them to convey their suggestions and
comments to you by next Friday afternoon, June 21. If you

would prefer, 1 would be glad to collect and collate their
suggestions for your use. Please just have your secretary

forward them to me, if that would be preferable.

I hesitate sending something as rough and uninspired
as this draft out under your name, even in preliminary form,
but I assured these experts that you would soon put your gifted

hand to this draft. Please let me know what else I can do. Thanks

for your generous contribution to this effort. Best regards.

Sincerely,

JCB:agf
encs,

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

; BARRETT

ROBERT F. AMBROSE
MICHAEL F ARMSTRONG
JOHN J. BARRETT
DAVID D. BROWN IIT
WILLIAM C.CLARKE
WARREN H. COLODNER
KEVIN J. CURLEY
MICHAEL O. FINKELSTEIN
MAHLON M.FRANKHAUSER **
MORTON E. GROSZ
RANDALL D. HOLMES
CHARLES E. HORD IIT
RICHARD M. LEDER
THOMAS C.MERIAM
LAWRENCE NIRENSTEIN
GERALD A. NOVACK
ALFRED T. OGDEN IL
WILLIAM O. PURCELL
DONALD S. RICE
MARTIN F. RICHMAN *
CARL F. ROGGE, JR.
JACK B.SALWEN
DONALD SCHAFIRO
EDMUND R. SCHROEDER *
DAVID SIMON
ARTHUR D. SPORN
JOANNE W.YOUNG *

MEMBERS OF THE N.Y. BAR

* ALSO MEMBER OF THE D.C.BAR

**MEMBER OF THE D. C.BAR ONLY

Hon. Alexander L.

Clerk

SMITH SCHAPIRO SIMON & ARMSTRONG

26 BROADWAY 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004

NEW YORK, N.Y. |0004 oth ite 2082

CABLE: ROOTBAR WASHINGTONDC

(212) 422-8180 CABLE: ROOTBAR

WU! TELEX: 66420 OREN ROOT

V. HENRY ROTHSCHILD 2ND

W. MASON SMITH

COUNSEL

June 27, 1985

Steavas

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street,
Washington, D.C.

N.E.
20543

Re: Warren McCleskey v. Ralph M. Kemp

No. 84-6811

Dear Mr. Steavas:

Enclosed for filing are an original and forty copies

of a motion for leave to file brief amici curiae and brief

amici curiae in support of the petition for writ of certiorari

in the above-captioned case. I am also enclosing a certificate

of service on all parties with the brief.

Thank you very much.

MOF :mg

Enclosures

Sincerely,

dud 0.
Michael O. Finkelstein

BARRETT SMITH SCHAPIRO SIMON & ARMSTRONG

ROBERT F. AMBROSE 26 BROADWAY 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W.

MICHAEL F, ARMSTRONG
JOHN J. BARRETT

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20004
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10004

DAVID D. BROWN IIT (202) 393-5024

WILLIAM C.CLARKE

WARREN H. COLODNER

CABLE: ROOTBAR WASHINGTONDC

(212) 422-8180 CABLE: ROOTBAR
KEVIN J. CURLEY

MICHAEL O. FINKELSTEIN WU! TELEX: 66420 OREN ROOT

MAHLON M.FRANKHAUSER ** V. HENRY ROTHSCHILD 2ND

MORTON E. GROSZ W. MASON SMITH

RANDALL D. HOLMES COUNSEL

CHARLES E. HORD IIT
RICHARD M. LEDER
THOMAS C.MERIAM
LAWRENCE NIRENSTEIN
GERALD A. NOVACK
ALFRED T. OGDEN II
WILLIAM O. PURCELL
DONALD S. RICE
MARTIN F. RICHMAN *
CARL F. ROGGE, JR-
JACK B.SALWEN
DONALD SCHAPIRO June 27, 1985

EDMUND R. S
DAVID SIMON

CHROEDER *

ARTHUR D. SPORN
JOANNE W.YOUNG *

MEMBERS OF THE N.Y. BAR

* ALSO MEMBER OF THE D.C.BAR

**MEMBER OF THE D.C.BAR ONLY

Hon. Alexander L. Steavas
Clerk

Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543

Re: Warren McCleskey v. Ralph M. Kemp

No. 84-6811

Dear Mr. Steavas: ;

Enclosed for filing are an original and forty copies

of a motion for leave to file brief amici curiae and brief

amici curiae in support of the petition for writ of certiorari

in the above-captioned case. I am also enclosing a certificate

of service on all parties with the brief.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Wedd 0. fuskeb/=—.
Michael 0. Finkelstein MOF : mg

Enclosures

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

egal efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013¢(212) 219-1900

BY HAND

June 26, 1985

Mr. Bob Rappaport

Bar Press

132 Lafayette Street
New York, New York

Dear Bob:

Enclosed is the proof of the

cover page in McCleskey v. Kemp. The

remainder of the amicus brief will be

in your hands by noon tomorrow.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

ini Boger

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

egal efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

June 18, 1985

Julian Epstein, Esq.
Office of Hon. John Conyers, Jr.
2313 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D. C. 20515

Warren McCleskey v. Walter D. Zant,
No. 84-6811

Dear Julian:

Enclosed are two copies of the first draft of

a brief amicus curiae for possible submission by the Black

Legislative Caucus in support of Warren McCleskey's petition

for certiorari. Absolutely everything in the draft is open

for suggestions, revisions, deletions, etc. The only specific

additional material we will need for sure is the description

of amicus on page two of the motion. I will be available

later this week and most of next week to field any changes,

run them through our wordprocessor, and have a copy ready for

printing. It might be best to have the printing done in

D.C., but if that proves inconvenient, I can make arrangements

for printing here in New York. Our filing deadline is next

Friday, June 28th.

Let me know what else we can do from here. Thanks

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it

was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

Julian Epstein, Esq.
June 18, 1985
Page Two

for all you have done for us already on this issue.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

{
)

2
.
0
LJ

'W)
O
h

[QV
-

a
©

k
+

d
i
l

H
E

oN
Fs

G
0
0

m
do
O
w

0
5

B
L

.
2

a
(NN

4
i

E
a

Z
z

-
=

Pig
B
h

1
[1+

0)
3

;
w
i

ek
oa

2s
J”

-
)

~~
0)

()
oi

)

r
y

a
0

Gi
>

(ry
7

"wy:
)

=
o

~
-—

w
o

C
O

S
l

4]
bo

Wd
Ss

(1
5

(09
.

»
o
S

2
X

N
n

!
2

Pv
|

0
)

[
a
d

o
S

go
i
i
)

E
S

0
Bo

“
3%

-
Sor

y
NE

Z
9

-
o
o

.
5

9a
w

Zz
--

oi
O

y
=
D

“w

HUES
nh

”
he

[VY]
@

F
n
g

[8
{

fe
W
d

ay
{

ul
y

Fi
5

Fi
—

())
)

-3
-~

“
1

4
:

C)
,

bi
S
Y

ul
5

i
t
i
s

ri
©

:
A
y

o
k

“i
E
A
R
L
S

JS
Ww

chor
R
i
e

a
BD

u
l

8
J)

R
y

0
u
w

Inet
%

a
S
W

a
I

et
0)

0
f

eva

<
Ur

u)
=

o
ed

£
Oo

ul
Ul

“
0

a
n

a
ul

Q
het

ary
3

«
=

{1
©

I
=

“
4

ba
3

r~
v

~y
4

)

i:
a

cb
het

o
3

lad
i
c

G
U

0
,

“

(@)
"

+
)

Z
Z

.
‘
S
o
m

h
a
y

gs
5

W
E
L

ot
a

bar

WW
4d

££
ow

18]
:

Aa
(0

Eo
Q)

~
oe

To I
CI

E
O

L
W
)

£1,
y

4)
UD

ri
VJ

J)
\

+
[i+]

ui
+

GES
©

Hon
rar

ox
&

He
l
o
w

0
w
o

As
ed

A
S
M

Oh
;

3
.

[S
V
Q

~
oF

r
t

W
D

UD
[1b]

QO
9

:
J

[46
t
i
i

u
n

Hh
wy

oO
43

xX,
ON

|
5

ed
-

a
xX,

(N
(4)

3
rd

~~
&

&
<I

z2 SS
w
i

~
9

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY ··••••••••••··

BERKELEY • DA VIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO
-------------------------

( ) SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

(415) 642-6323

John Charles Boger, Esq,
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, N,Y. 10013

Dear Mr. Boger,

............

BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94720

May 29, 1985

Thank you for sending me the Mccleskey materials. I have studied them,
giving particular attention to the Baldus report. I agree that the Baldus
report is a sophisticated and solid piece of work. Neither District nor Circuit
Court have adequately appreciated its findings and its methodological strengths.
I shall be happy to add my signature to an amicus curiae brief to be sul:Xl\itted
to the United States Supreme Ooart. I assume that you will circulate a draft
for approval.

I have no difficulty with the language and stateaents found in the Baldus
report and the brief to the Circuit Court. My only reservation regards the
issue of "an inference of intentional discrimination" from statistical analysis
(e.g., your letter of May i1, 1985, P• 2). I do not believe that intentions can
be inferred from statistics, regardless of the size of disparities. I think that,
at most, statistical findings (significance) allow the inference of non-randomness.
Causal attributions require a true experimental design.

Earlier today I talked to Mr. Finkelstein. I advised hill of my willingness
to participate and Gf the above reservation.

For your use 1n submitting the aminus curiae brief, I enclose a copy of my
curriculum vitae,

Encl.

Sincerely yours,
\\

•, �
,.J

� . \ ;1� �
Dr, Peter W, Sp

l
ch

Professor

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013¢ (212) 219-1900

May 23,1985

Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.
Barrett Smith Schapiro Simon & Armstrong

26 Broadway
New York, New York 10004

Dear Michael:

Enclosed are copies of my transmittal

letters to our social scientific luminaries which
were sent out, with the noted enclosures, by

Federal Express on Friday, May 17th.

Thanks for contacting these folk during a

week that 1 realize was an extremely busy one for

you.

I'd) talk with you soon. Best

; Sincerely,

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it

was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board. program, stati, office and budget

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013¢(212) 219-1900

egal efense

May 17, 1985

Dr. Stuart S. Nagel

1720 Park Haven Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61810

Dear Dr. Nagel:

At Michael Finkelstein's suggestion, I am enclosing copies
of the judicial opinions rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F.2d
877 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) and by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in
Mclleskey v, Zant, 580 F., Supp. 338 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Both of
these opinions address and resolve adversely constitutional
claims, presented by a Georgia death-sentenced inmate named
Warren McCleskey, that the post-1972 capital statutes of the
State of Georgia have been applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory manner. The factual basis for these allegations
derives from two overlapping studies conducted by Professor David
Baldus of the University of Iowa School of Law. I am also
enclosing a preliminary report by Professor Baldus which outlines
his findings.

Michael Finkelstein has indicated that you might be willing
to review the opinions and Baldus' report, as well as the brief
submitted by Mr. McClesky to the Eleventh Circuit, for possible
participation as an amicus curiae in a brief to be submitted to
the Supreme Court of the United States in June, 1985. I am
counsel for Mr. McCleskey, and I would of course welcome your
participation in this case. The Baldus studies comprise the most
methodolically sophisticated and comprehensive effort ever
undertaken to examine the actual application of capital punish-
ment statutes. Professor Baldus reports findings of racial
disparities, especially by the race of the victim, that are
highly statistically significant, and that persist irrespective
of the model he selects or the analystic methods he employees.

The federal courts have nevertheless rejected his work on a
variety of grounds, none of which seem to me persuasive. The
District Court, as you will see, faults his studies on a variety
of methodological points and displays hostility towards any
method of multivariate analysis other than cross-tabuler methods.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it

was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Stuart S. Nagel
Page 2 oh

Our brief to the Eleventh Circuit, a copy of which is also enclosed, engages in a point-by-point discussion of the District Court's analysis. The Court of Appeals purports to assume the validity of the Baldus studies, but questions their value -- or indeed, the value of any empirical social scientific evidence -- in proving racial disparities sufficient to allow an inference of intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals' deep skepti- cism about the worth of social scientific methods, moreover, as well as the Court's apparent misunderstanding of several princi-
pal features of statistical analysis, might well warrant an amicus curiae brief on behalf of academicians of your stature, drafted by Michael Finkelstein, urging the Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit.

Naturally, as counsel for Warren McCleskey, I am interested in a review of the case on his behalf, but I also believe that ‘the treatment afforded Baldus' evidence by the courts raises important questions about the value of social scientific evidence that transcend this case, or the death penalty issue generally. Certainly within the Eleventh Circuit, where McCleskey will be precedent if not reviewed, statistical proof in a variety of legal contexts will be made far more difficult (indefensibly so I believe) by that opinion. The broader implications of the McCleskey opinion, in sum, seem to justify Supreme Court review, and I am grateful for your willingness to consider participation in an amicus brief.

One word of explanation prior to your review. Professor Baldus' report is a condensation of somewhat broader and more comprehensive presentation made in 1983 to the District Court. It was written, at our request, with an eye toward educating the District Court on the basic principles of multivariete analysis and statistical inference. You may find, therefore, that the initial chapters are far more elementary than would be warranted in a report prepared initially for scholarly review. Please understand that Professor Baldus was complying with our requests in this mode of presentation, which will be substantially altered when he publishes the report in final form.

Lastly I have included a number of additional exhibits and a brief report from Professor Baldus' collaborator, Dr. George Woodworth, at the end of report. These items comprise several revised analyses prompted by the 1983 hearing as well as Dr. Woodworth's diagnostics presented during the hearing.

oe
,

\ 1

™

May 17, 1985 aaa
Dr. Stuart S. Nagel 4

Page 3

Once again, thank you for undertaking this review, and best
regards.

Sincerely,

TP Charles Boger

JCB/ac :
Enclosures
cc: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013¢(212) 219-1900

egal efense und

May 17, 1985

Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Political Science Department
University of California At Lh
Berkeley, California 94720 Srl

Dear Dr. Sperlich:

these opinions address and resolve adversely constitutional
claims, presented by a Georgia death-sentenced inmate named
Warren McCleskey, that the post-1972 capital statutes of the
State of Georgia have been applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory manner. The factual basis for these allegations
derives from two overlapping studies conducted by Professor David
Baldus of the University of Iowa School of Law. I am also
enclosing a preliminary report by Professor Baldus which outlines
his findings.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tar purposes

May 17, 1985
Dr. Peter W. Sperlien
Page 2

Our brief to the Eleventh Circuit, a copy of which is also
enclosed, engages in a point-by-point discussion of the District
Court's analysis. The Court of Appeals purports to assume the
validity of the Baldus studies, but questions their value -- or
indeed, the value of any empirical social scientific evidence --
in proving racial disparities sufficient to allow an inference of
intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals' deep skepti-
cism about the worth of social scientific methods, moreover, as
well as the Court's apparent misunderstanding of several princi-
pal features of statistical analysis, might well warrant an
amicus curiae brief on behalf of academicians of your stature,
drafted by Michael Finkelstein, urging the Supreme Court to
review the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit.

Naturally, as counsel for Warren McCleskey, I am interested
in a review of the case on his behalf, but I also believe that
the treatment afforded Baldus' evidence by the courts raises
important questions about the value of social scientific evidence
that transcend this case, or the death penalty issue generally.
Certainly within the Eleventh Circuit, where McCleskey will be
precedent if not reviewed, statistical proof in a variety of
legal contexts will be made far more difficult (indefensibly so I
believe) by that opinion. The broader implications of the
McCleskey opinion, in sum, seem to justify Supreme Court review,
and I am grateful for your willingness to consider participation
in an amicus brief.

One word of explanation prior to your review. Professor
Baldus' report is a condensation of somewhat broader and more
comprehensive presentation made in 1983 to the District Court. It
was written, at our request, with an eye toward educating the
District Court on the basic principles of multivariete analysis
and statistical inference. You may find, therefore, that the
initial chapters are far more elementary than would be warranted
in a report prepared initially for scholarly review. Please
understand that Professor Baldus was complying with our requests
in this mode of presentation, which will be substantially altered
when he publishes the report in final form.

Lastly I have included a number of additional exhibits and a
brief report from Professor Baldus' collaborator, Dr. George
Woodworth, at the end of report. These items comprise several
revised analyses prompted by the 1983 hearing as well as Dr.
Woodworth's diagnostics presented during the hearing.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Page 3

Once again, thank you for undertaking this review, and best
regards.

: ge
Sincerely,

hn Charles Boger

JCB/ac
Enclosures

cc: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

David Carliner

CHAIR

Robert H. Kapp

VICE-CHAIR

Stuart Lemle

TREASURER

Charles E.M. Kolb

SECRETARY

Millard W. Arnold

Hodding Carter, III

Nancy Folger

Robert K. Goldman

(Rev.) J. Bryan Hehir

Robert Herzstein

Joan McEntee

Burt Neuborne

Roberts B. Owen

Steven M. Schneebaum

Mark L. Schneider

ADVISORY COUNCIL

Richard B. Bilder

Theo C. van Boven

Roberta Cohen

Martin Ennals

Thomas M. Franck

Hurst Hannum

Monroe Leigh

Richard B. Lillich

Bert B. Lockwood, Jr.

Fali S. Nariman

Louis Pettitti

Charles Runyon

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOK

Amy Young

ELECTION OBSERVER
PROJECT DIRECTOR

Larry Garber

UN REPRESENTATIVES

New York

Richard N. Dean

Grant A. Hanessian

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW GROUP
1346 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Suite 502

Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 659-5023

Cablegram: INTLAWGRP

November 28, 1984

Mr. Julius Chambers

NAACP Legal Defense Fund

806 15th Street, NW

Suite 940

Washington, DC 20006

Dear Mr. Chambers:

As you may recall, the Law Group in 1980 filed a

communication with the Inter-American Commission on Human

Rights alleging that the U.S. discriminated against death row

inmates by imposing capital punishment according to the race

of the victim. After four years of having this case under

submission, the Inter-American Commission recently issued a

resolution declaring the Law Group's case inadmissible. The

basis for this decision is that the procedural requirements

set forth in the Commission’s regulations were not met with

sufficient specificity. For example, the Commission

characterized the Law Group's allegations and data as being

analogous to a sociological study, rather than presenting

grounds for relief, and also found that information on

specific individuals was lacking.

The Law Group believes that the Commission’s resolution in

no way diminishes the substantive merits of the case and plans

to issue a request for reconsideration or an appeal shortly.

In this regard, the Law Group would appreciate any

supplemental or additional information of which you are aware

so that we may compile as detailed and complete a record as

possible. If you do have information, please notify us at

your earliest convenience as the submission is due by

mid-December.

Although the Commission’s resolution denied admissibility,

which will delay the ultimate decision on the merits, it did

contain an encouraging and important statement concerning the

death penalty. As you will note in the attached copy, the

Commission urged the U.S. to exhort states allowing the

imposition of capital punishment to reconsider their position

and to commute all pending death sentences until such

consideration is completed.

The International Human Rights Law Group is a non-governmental

organization having consulative status with the United Nations (ECOSOC).

he,

Again, the Law Group would welcome any information on

recent cases, statistics or studies regarding the death
penalty and its application. Thank you for your continued
interest in this case.

Sincerely yours,

Amy Y/ou

Executive irector

Enclosure

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

\ INTER - AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS GS | | D ) | & (

110 { 5 198k

«-
RECEIVED

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.63
Doc. 17

3 October 1984

Original: Spanish

63th Session

RESOLUTION 10/84
CASE 7465

UNITED STATES

Approbed by the Commission at its 831la session,

held October 3, 1984

RESOLUTION N° 10/84
CASE No. 7465 (UNITED STATES)

October 3, 1984

BACKGROUND:

7 On August 6, 1980, the nongovernmental entity called the

International Human Rights Law Group of Washington, District of Columbia,

United States of America, in an extensive communication, lodged a

complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the

United States of America for violation of Articles II, XVII and XXVI of

the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man;

2. The petitioner presented the complaint, "specifically on behalf

of more than 350 prisoners who are awaiting execution in the states of

Florida, Georgia and Texas," and it supported the complaint with the

argument that statistics reveal dramatic disparities in convictions based

on the racial origins of the victims: defendants convicted of killing

white people are sentenced to death in vastly greater proportion than

defendants convicted of killing blacks;

3. Clarifying and further stressing its complaint, the petitioner

repeats its arguments on page 9 of its statement as follows: "This

complaint 1s addressed to the disparities in death sentencing due to the

race of the victim of the alleged murderer. Specifically, in each state

complained of here, a defendant convicted of murdering a white person 1s

immensely more likely to be sentenced to death than one convicted of

murdering a black person;

Rg 2 EE

-
- —— - rms em— a a

4. "What the figures and statistics presented in this complaint
reveal" according to the petitioner, "is that death sentencing in Florida,

Georgia, and Texas is carried out in a racially biased and iaesual aeniez

which values the lives of whites greater than those of blacks; and the

death penalty is far more actively sought, recommended, affirmed and

imposed where the defendant is accused of killing a white person;"

5. Based on the facts and statistics presented with its statement,

the petitioning entity asks the Commission:

1. To reach the conclusion that due to discrimination in

application of the death penalty, the United States of

America has violated Articles II, XVII, and XXVI of

the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of

Man;

2 To recommend a moratorium on executions in the United

States, whether (the cases) are under state or federal

jurisdiction, as long as the present case is before

the Inter-American Commission on, Human Rights;

3. To conduct an on-site investigation in the states of

Florida, Georgia and Texas to determine the truth and

merit of the accusations set forth in this complaint;

6. On August 12, 1980, the Secretariat of the Commission

transmitted the essential parts of the complaint to the United States

Government, pointing out that so doing did not constitute a decision

regarding the admissibility of the complaint and asking the government in

reference to convey its answer to the Commission together with information

that would enable the Commission to determine whether domestic remedies

had been exhausted in the case in question;

Zo The Commission's request to the government was repeated in a

note dated March 12, 1981, in response to an express request made by the

petitioner in view of the fact that the government had not answered the

previous communication. This request informed the government that,

lacking its response, the Commission could presume the facts reported in

the petition to be true, in accordance with Article 39 of its Regulations;

8. On June 16, 1981, the Delegation of the United States to the

Organization of American States presented to the Commission a memorandum

prepared in the Department of State as that government's answer to the

complaint which had been transmitted to it as an attachment to the note in

reference dated August 16, 1980. That memorandum, without mentioning

other facts or matters, analyzes extensively the matter of inadmissibility

of the petition due to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and in

conclusion states that "consequently, the United States believes that the

petition presented by the International Human Rights Law Group is not

admissible for consideration by the Commission";

9. After the memorandum in reference was transmitted to the

petitioner entity on November 5, 1981, the latter presented a written

reply observing that the government had not attempted to refute any of the

substantive reasons for the complaint and had limited itself to attempting

to show, unsuccessfully in the opinion of the petitioner, according to the

arguments the government presents, that the Commission could not take up

the case because the interested parties had not exhausted the remedies to

which they are entitled under domestic law;

10. On January 7, 1982, the United States Government requested an

additional 30 day period to answer the petitioner's arguments; and with

the Commission in recess and with the additional period appearing to be

under way, on February 1, 1982, the petitioner presented new "material to

the Commission in support of its thesis, which was transmitted to the

government with a note dated February 17, 1982;

11. The government did not comment on the new "material" provided

with the note dated February 17, 1982, but in view of a new presentation

by the petitioner on January 27, 1983, which was transmitted to it the

following March 21, the United States Government presented an extensive

note dated October 5, 1983. There it set forth the '"doubts that the

petition states a claim falling within the competence of the Commission,

as it does not appear to allege a denial of any rights set forth in the

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man'; and the government

duly confirms the official position that 'the petition is not admissible

(for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies), for which reason the United

States declines to comment at this time on the merits of the complaint";

WHEREAS:

1. In a communication dated October 5, 1983, the United States

Government expressed its definite opposition to having the Inter-American

- 5 -

Commission take cognizance of and apply the regulatory procedure to the

complaint by the petitioning entity because the documents of August 1980

and January 27, 1983, do not allege violations of the rights referred to

in Article 2 of the Statute to the detriment of specific persons,

indicating date, circumstances and responsible official or authority, but

rather, general facts and statistics are set forth in order to ask the

Commission to carry out an investigation in the states of Florida, Georgia

and Texas and to confirm the truth of the charges that judges and juries

in these states proceed in a discriminatory manner, depending on the race

of the victims, in sentencing defendants convicted of murder to the death

penalty, and at the same time, suspension of pending executions is

requested while the investigation is being carried out, which the

Government considers not to be within the Commission's competence;

2. The defense based, on the Commission's incompetence, having been

so presented, and the legal possibility of accepting petitions 1 and 2 of

the aforementioned communication of August 1980 having been denied by the

state against which the complaint is made, 1t was appropriate before

taking up the petitions in reference to analyze the various aspects and

particulars of this petition and the one dated January 27, 1983. It was

decided that the observations of the petitioner concerning the facts or

assumptions arising from the statistical analysis of the death sentences,

upon relating it to the racial characteristics of the victims and

offenders, could constitute basic factors for a sociological study on

possible situations which might influence the conduct and completion of

criminal actions filed for the murder of a human being, but not for

intervention by this Commission in compliance with its statutory duties in

the framework of the regulations and other . provisions of the

Inter-American system;

3. The petitions of August 6, 1980 and January 27, 1983 do not

contain the specifications indicated in the paragraph of Article 29 of the

Commission's Regulations which indicates the requirements for petitioas;

and

4. Moreover, the documents appended to the original petition

indicate that all of the sentences in reference that may have been

influenced by racial considerations were handed down long before the six

months referred to in Article 35 of the Regulations began;

THEREFORE:

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.

RESOLVES:

1, In accordance with Attisie 38 of its Regulations, to declare

inadmissible the complaint made by the International Human Rights Law

Group against the United States of America in its documents dated August

6, 1980, and January 27, 1983;

2. To abstain from rendering a judgment on the defense of

inadmissibility for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies filed by the

United States Government, as this is unnecessary;

3. Urge the Government of the United States, in keeping with the

spirit of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, whose

approval was recommended to the Senate by the Executive, and following the

universal tendency towards the suppression of the death penalty, to exhort

‘those states of the Union which continue to apply capital punishment to

consider its abolition and to adopt in the meantime a policy of

commutation of pending death sentences.

[8 To convey this resolution to the parties concerned and to file

the record:

CDH/3033

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL

June 14, 1985

John C. Boger and Richard Brody
NAACP Legal Defense Fund

Dear Jack and Rich:

Enclosed is a brief statement about discrimination in the
death penalty, for possible use in the Furman Day festivities.
Do whatever you will with it.

On other matters, I just read the McCleskey cert. petition.
It's terrific! Also, I am at the moment in the process of putting
together what I think of (euphamistically) as the "Harris amicus
brief writing kit." I should be able to send it out next Tuesday
or Wednesday.

I'm enclosing a copy of my UC Davis Law Review article on the
McCleskey case, and of the page proofs of the Gross & Mauro
article on discrimination in the death penalty. (One page -- 33 --
is unaccountably missing. I've inserted a pieced together version
of that page from the galley proofs.) These articles might possibly
be useful for you in putting together things for Furman Day.

Let's talk next week wrap up any problems that may be connected
with these things before I leave on June 21st. See you in Airlie

in any event.

7
ltt yours,

Samuel R. Gross

All the best,

P C.- Sen vio +S GA d [73 dd Lonel Lonclsenes a 4 ls

Crown Quadrangle Stanford University Stanford California 94305

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

egal efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

Jurie 19, 1885

Ralph Steinhardt, Esq.
2550 M:Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Ralph:

I was delighted to learn that the International
Human Rights Law Group will participate as amicus curiae

in support of Warren McCleskey's petition for certiorari.

I have spoken with Sam Gross at Stanford Law

School, who would be happy to have you quote from, or
cite to, his forthcoming article in the University of
California, Davis, law review which discusses the McCleskey

opinion and makes extensive references to the Baldus

studies. 1 am enclosing a draft of that article. The
introductory page includes a description of the Baldus
studies and the Eleventh Circuit's opinion that makes
just the point you and I were speaking about today.

If you decide to refer to this article, vou
should give Sam a call on Thursday, June 20th, to get
the exact citation and the final revised wording. Sam

is off on a two-week vacation after Thursday, and he

plans to spend all that day revising the article.

Let me know if we at LDF can help out in
any way. Best regards.

Sincerely,

¥ Charles Boger

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

egal

June 14, 1985

Dr. Marvin Wolfgang
4106 Locust Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

Dear Professor Wolfgang:

Thank you very much for agreeing to review the
enclosed materials and consider participation as an amicus

curiae in the brief to be submitted by Michael Finkelstein
supporting the petition for certiorari in the McCleskey v.
Kemp case. I have included copies of the petition for
certiorari, which was filed on May 28, 1985, the appendicies

to the petition, which include the District Court and Circuit
Court opinions, and a very rough preliminary draft of a brief
amici curiae, which is being circulated to Michael Finkelstein
for his undoubtedly gifted revisions and editing, and to the
expert amici for their welcomed suggestions and comments. Also

included among the appendicies are copies of factual statements
excerpted from our District Court and Court of Appeals' briefs.
These provide the fullest statement of our factual contentions.
In addition, I have included a copy of Baldus' preliminary

report. (I should caution that the report was specifically

drafted by Baldus, at our request, to educate the District
Court on basic statistics principles. The final version
will obviously assume a form more appropriate for a scholarly

audience.)

As I indicated to you when we spoke on Thursday,

June 13, we believe the brief amici curiae may prove extremely

influential in determining whether the Supreme Court agrees to
review this case, and we think that if review is denied, the

practical impact will be devastating for further research on
racial discrimination in capital cases in the foreseeable

future. It is for this reason we so welcome your contribution

to this case.

Our timetable requires the filing of this brief by
Friday, June 28, 1985. I suggest that, 1f possible, you convey

your suggestions and comments to Michael Finkelstein by Friday

afternoon, June 21, at the latest. If that schedule appears

too tight, please let Michael or myself know by next Wednesday
or. Thursday, SO that we can revise our schedule accordingly.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

Dr. Marvin Wolfgang
Page 2.

June 14, 1985

Once again, thank you very much for your

Sincerely,

ch Bry—
hn Charles Boger

CC: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

JCB:agf

help.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

egal efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

June 14, 1985

Dr. Frank Zimring |

Boalt Hall
Earl Warren Legal Institute
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

Dear Professor Zimring:

I understand from Eric Multhaup that you have
agreed to review materials connected with the McCleskey v.
Kemp petition for certiorari in order to determine whether
you will participate as an amicus curiae in a brief to be
filed in support of that petition for certiorari by Michael
Finkelstein. I am enclosing copies of the McCleskey v. Kemp

petition, the appendicies to that petition which include the
District Court and Court of Appeals opinions, a copy of
Baldus' preliminary report, and a very preliminary draft of

a brief amici curiae, which is being circulated to Michael
Finkelstein for his editing and revisions, and to a small |

group of experts, among them yourself, whom we hope will
participate as amici. |

The importance of the amici curiae brief, in our
judgment, is quite great. If the Supreme Court permits the
opinion of the Court of Appeals to stand unreviewed, it may
well jeopardize future research into racial discrimination
in capital sentencing, and will certainly dampen further
court review of such evidence. It is for this reason that

we are particularly grateful to you for considering partici-
pation in this effort.

As Eric may have mentioned, our timetable is tight.
The brief amici curiae is due at the Supreme Court on Friday,

June 28, 1985. Therefore, Michael Finkelstein and I would be

grateful if you could forward your suggestions and comments
on the draft brief to Michael by Friday, June 2lst, if possible.

Again, let me thank you for your generosity in
reviewing this material. Please let me know if I can be of
further help.

Sincerely,

n Charles Boger
JCB:agf

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

egal

June 14, 1985

Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Department of Political Science
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

Dear Dr. Sperlich:

Thank you very much for agreeing to participate
as an amicus curiae in the brief to be submitted to the
Supreme Court in support of the petition for certiorari
in McCleskey v. Kemp. I am circulating a very preliminary
draft of that brief amici curiae. It has not yet received
the undoubtedly gifted revisions and editing that Michael
Finkelstein will bring to it, nor the welcome suggestions

and comments from yourself and the other experts who will
participate as amici.

Our timetable requires the filing of this brief
by Friday, June 28, 1985. 1 suggest that, if possible, you
convey your suggestions and comments to Michael Finkelstein
by Friday afternoon, June 21, at the latest. If that schedule !
appears too tight, please let Michael or myself know by next
Wednesday or Thursday, so that we can revise our schedule
accordingly.

Once again, I am grateful for your participation
in this effort. Best regards.

Sincerely,

n Charles Boger

JCB:agf

CC: “Michael O., Finkelstein, Esq.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

AOEAL
|g ite

E
W

Jo
0

‘
r
d

Y
d

ni
0 a

|
+
)

0
0

Ri ST
0

N
S

+2
WU)

an
TOY EP

[(V]

A
Q

+)
©

“
o
d

LYST
1

O
D
0

O
wu

Fe,
SRA

$
0
)

i
[=

Se
|

(@
w
i

+)
| 3 ©

w
9 G
i
a
n

3
0
|

>
a

(OD

A2
jg 3

‘0
©

@
»I

S
J

x
a

UJ)

Ov
4)

“
d
L

+
4

cue, De

ui
—

=
«

L
o
s

w
o
[1))

ul
5

QQ)

ki
{

Gy
2

=
4

hey
pron B

C
O

EEE i
0

Yi
4+

r
d

O
im

2
,

E
O

R
O

R
E

fe
4

r
t

O
O

& ©

i
Bm

O
uw
@Q

~~
|

i
Q)

4
)
.

NER
4
4

QL
uv

Liss
Sod 4

Ul
«od

w
d

S
a
l
)

4+
“ed

je
44

4
a

FAN
0,

3
4 [on

O
n

“4
WU)

O
hy

{sigs

0
®

| PEE

Ad)
4)

du)

We
5

gl
4)

|=
Yi

D
O

f
=
)

Q
=

e
d

0 QO

d
o
d

f
[
.

ui
WU

£2

O
e

O
w
4)

W
E
T

QO
(1

As
0

d
l

win Ks 08
CSET

Mi
JE

i
|

@)
4
)

Y
a

Ui
QO

=
WL
0 O
O
)

e
i
)

QO
ee

r
i
r

Q@
©

lo
BTS

w
d

49
(©

£)
QO

Ud
We

u+
O

w
[1V}

~—i
7)

3
Ud

.ped

gr
<<)

hi
dd

ur
49

-y
1

Re
R
E
L

O
d
)
(1)

RAT
Wl

O
O
as

BY Lo)

Ui
4)

QD
4

i
L

3
wi

0
Q

[LN
LI

o
O

bt
ON

i
(VD]

(]
VJ

ang
E
T

+)
C
Y

(7)
“A

[OV
R
E

=
4

O
L
)

0
.
0

0
+
b

FREES
0

Chan

u
O

0
d
i
.

nl
w
o
)

L
Fs

L
0
H
)

4
J

4)
4

UW)

x
ul

Ul
Ta)

At
l
y
f

a
O
F

4
.
1
4

0
8

()
ord

E
r

RE
£
0
,

10
E
L

0)
or

s
(
J
Ww

TR
E,

]
Te

|
wl,

|
RI

T
a
t
a

O.
Uy

WE
|

r
t

TIMOTHY K. FORD

COUNSELLOR AT LAW, PS.

600 PIONEER BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
206/622-5942

TIMOTHY K. FORD
RITA J. GRIFFITH

June 3, 1985

Jack Boger
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Dear Jack:

McCleskey looks fine, and worthy of the historical company
it invokes. I am proud to have contributed the "{sic]" to the
last line of page 31.

Sincerely,

Timothy K. Ford

TKF:1s

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

egal

May 17, 1985

Dr. Brian Forst
The Police Foundation
Suite 200
1001 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Dr. Forst:

At Michael Finkelstein's suggestion, I am enclosing copies
of the judicial opinions rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F.2d
877 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) and by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in
McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Both of
these opinions address and resolve adversely constitutional
claims, presented by a Georgia death-sentenced inmate named
Warren McCleskey, that the post-1972 capital statutes of the
State of Georgia have been applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory manner. The factual basis for these allegations
derives from two overlapping studies conducted by Professor David
Baldus of the University of Iowa School of Law. I am also
enclosing a preliminary report by Professor Baldus which outlines

his findings.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it

was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Brian Forst

Page 2

Our brief to the Eleventh Circuit, a copy of which is also
enclosed, engages in a point-by-point discussion of the District
Court's analysis. The Court of Appeals purports to assume the
validity of the Baldus studies, but questions their value -- or
indeed, the value of any empirical social scientific evidence --
in proving racial disparities sufficient to allow an inference of
intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals' deep skepti-
cism about the worth of social scientific methods, moreover, as
well as the Court's apparent misunderstanding of several princi-
pal features of statistical analysis, might well warrant an
amicus curiae brief on behalf of academicians of your stature,
drafted by Michael Finkelstein, urging the Supreme Court to
review the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit.

One word of explanation prior to your review. Professor
Baldus' report is a condensation of somewhat broader and more
comprehensive presentation made in 1983 to the District Court. It
was written, at our request, with an eye toward educating the
District Court on the basic principles of multivariete analysis
and statistical inference. You may find, therefore, that the
initial chapters are far more elementary than would be warranted
in a report prepared initially for scholarly review. Please
understand that Professor Baldus was complying with our requests
in this mode of presentation, which will be substantially altered
when he publishes the report in final form.

Lastly I have included a number of additional exhibits and a
brief report from Professor Baldus' collaborator, Dr. George
Woodworth, at the end of report. These items comprise several
revised analyses prompted by the 1983 hearing as well as Dr.
Woodworth's diagnostics presented during the hearing.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Forst

Page 3

Once again, thank you for undertaking this review, and best
regards.

Sincerely,

ohn Charles Boger

JCB/ac
Enclosures

cc: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

egal NA efense und

May 17, 1985

Dr. Stuart S. Nagel
1720 Park Haven Drive
Champaign, Illinois 61810

Dear Dr. Nagel:

At Michael Finkelstein's suggestion, I am enclosing copies
of the judicial opinions rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F.2d
877 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) and by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in
McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F, Supp. 338 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Both of
these opinions address and resolve adversely constitutional
claims, presented by a Georgia death-sentenced inmate named
Warren McCleskey, that the post-1972 capital statutes of the
State of Georgia have been applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory manner. The factual basis for these allegations
derives from two overlapping studies conducted by Professor David
Baldus of the University of Iowa School of Law. I am also
enclosing a preliminary report by Professor Baldus which outlines
his findings.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 218-1900

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Stuart S. Nagel
Page 2

Our brief to the Eleventh Circuit, a copy of which is also enclosed, engages in a point-by-point discussion of the District Court's analysis. The Court of Appeals purports to assume the validity of the Baldus studies, but questions their value —-- or indeed, the value of any empirical social scientific evidence -- in proving racial disparities sufficient to allow an inference of intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals' deep skepti- cism about the worth of social scientific methods, moreover, as well as the Court's apparent misunderstanding of several princi- pal features of statistical analysis, might well warrant an amicus curiae brief on behalf of academicians of your stature, drafted by Michael Finkelstein, urging the Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit,

Naturally, as counsel for Warren McCleskey, I am interested in a review of the case on his behalf, but I also believe that the treatment afforded Baldus' evidence by the courts raises important questions about the value of social scientific evidence that transcend this case, or the death penalty issue generally. Certainly within the Eleventh Circuit, where McCleskey will be precedent if not reviewed, statistical proof 1n a variety of legal contexts will be made far more difficult (indefensibly so I believe) by that opinion. The broader implications of the McCleskey opinion, in sum, seem to justify Supreme Court review, and I am grateful for your willingness to consider participation in an amicus brief. .

May 17, 1985
Dr. Stuart S. Nagel
Page 3

Once again, thank you for undertaking this review, and best
regards.

Sincerely,

gs Charles Boger

JCB/ac
Enclosures
cc: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013¢(212) 219-1900

egal

May 17, 1985

Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Political Science Department
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720

Dear Dr. Sperlich:

At Michael Finkelstein's suggestion, I am enclosing copies
of the judicial opinions rendered by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in McCleskey v. Kemp, 753 F.2d
877 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc) and by the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, in
McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338 (N.D. Ga. 1984). Both of
these opinions address and resolve adversely constitutional
claims, presented by a Georgia death-sentenced inmate named
Warren McCleskey, that the post-1972 capital statutes of the
State of Georgia have been applied in an arbitrary and racially
discriminatory manner. The factual basis for these allegations
derives from two overlapping studies conducted by Professor David
Baldus of the University of Iowa School of Law. I am also
enclosing a preliminary report by Professor Baldus which outlines
his findings.

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it
was founded by itand shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board, program, staff, office and budget.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Page 2

Our brief to the Eleventh Circuit, a copy of which is also enclosed, engages in a point-by-point discussion of the District Court's analysis. The Court of Appeals purports to assume the validity of the Baldus studies, but questions their value -- or indeed, the value of any empirical social scientific evidence -- in proving racial disparities sufficient to allow an inference of intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals' deep skepti- cism about the worth of social scientific methods, moreover, as well as the Court's apparent misunderstanding of several princi- pal features of statistical analysis, might well warrant an amicus curiae brief on behalf of academicians of your stature, drafted by Michael Finkelstein, urging the Supreme Court to review the opinion of the Eleventh Circuit. :

Naturally, as counsel for Warren McCleskey, I am interested in a review of the case on his behalf, but I also believe that the treatment afforded Baldus' evidence by the courts raises important questions about the value of social scientific evidence that transcend this case, or the death penalty issue generally. Certainly within the Eleventh Circuit, where McCleskey will be precedent if not reviewed, statistical proof in a variety of legal contexts will be made far more difficult (indefensibly so I believe) by that opinion. The broader implications of the McCleskey opinion, in sum, seem to justify Supreme Court review, and I am grateful for your willingness to consider participation in an amicus brief.

May 17, 1985
Dr. Peter W. Sperlich
Page 3

Once again, thank you for undertaking this review, and best

regards.

Sincerely,

hn Charles Boger

JCB/ac
Enclosures

cc: Michael O. Finkelstein, Esq.

hf show a racial bias in that decision.

+ The court ruled that, no matter whether

THE ATLANTA CONSTITUTION
* For 116 Years the South’s Standard Newspaper

g James M. Cox, Chairman 1950-1957— James M. Cox Jr., Charan Too7-107

£4 con i
EERE su

Tom ecis Jim Minter
: Editorial Page Editor - Editor ~ * Managing Editor

i David E. Easterly
Publisher .

| Minor J . Ward
President

Edward Sears

PAGE 14-4, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1985

4 A ruling for capriciousness 4
~ No amount of verbal polish can gloss

over deep flaws in deatirpenaity: law, but
the courts keep trying.

Last week, the 11th U. S. Circuit Court of
~ Appeals rejected a study that purports to
-show application of the death penalty as ra-
cially discriminatory. Based on meticulous
statistics, the study concluded: Defendants
whose victims were white are more likely to
land on death row than defendants Whose
victims were black. \ ; 4

The 11th Circuit's answer, offered in a
dicision last week, is: So what? Warren
McCleskey, a black death-row inmate who

.~ made the study part of his case, was con- ila

.. victed of killing a white Atlanta policeman.
* But, as the court notes, the study does not

the study is sound or not, even its worst
conclusions are tolerable because: 1) No two
cases are alike — who knows what factors
influenced each decision tabulated in the
statistics? 2) even if cases were alike, “the
very existence of discretion means that per-
sons exercising discretion may reach differ-
ent results from exact duplicates,” and 3)
the law does not intend to discriminate.

In other words, a system that is ulti-
mately more prone to avenge a white per-
son’s murder with capital punishment is OK,
because who really knows why things work
out that way?

Here is what the court is up against. On

any A
EDS
a ro pl

the one hand, public-opinion lls show that
captial punishment is extremely popular
now. And legislatures, state attorneys gener-
al, district attorneys and the U.S. Supreme
Court push for more executions. po

~ And yet, a quick look at ort execu-
tions reveals a system that — contrary to
the law’s intent — remains arbitrary and
capricious. Moreover, as the study shows,
the system appears to abridge constitutional

- guarantees of equal protection under the |
law; it regards the murder of a white as a
crime more serious than the murder of a
black. : \

But the are is that to acknowledge

such persistent legal questions in effect '!
would outlaw capital punishment. It isn’t

- . prepared to do that. So it fudges and says,
oh, well, a little arbitrariness is OK.

“After today,” said Judge Frank Johnson
in a dissenting opinion, “in this circuit arbi-
trariness based on race will be more diffi-
cult to eradicate than any other sort of arbi-
trariness in the sentencing system.”

The flaws in death-penalty law grow
more apparent as the number of executions
accumulates. The political system, it is
clear, is willfully indifferent to them. Yet,
can our society decently demand the ulti-
mate penalty despite the increasingly appar-
ant fact that we are incapable of applying it
free of the whims of legal chance and free
of the sly intrusion of our complex social
prejudices?

|
1

The University of lowa
lowa City, lowa 52242

College of Law

October 16, 1984

John C. Boger
NAACP Legal Defense and Educative

Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013

Dear Jack:

In conducting an inventory of the McCleskey papers, I recently noted that
I did not have a copy of the state of Georgia's brief in the Eleventh Circuit.
Would you please send me one when you have an opportunity.

It was good to talk to you today and I look forward to getting your list
of schools.

Sincerely,

peer
David C. Baldus
Professor of Law

DCB :kb

JOHN R. MYER 1515 HEALEY BUILDING

57 FORSYTH ST., N. W.

ROBERT H. STROUP ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

GARY FLACK
ro

July 3, 1984
404/522-1934

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

John Charles Boger, Esq.

16th Floor

99 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10013

Re: McCleskey v. Zant

Dear Jack:

Enclosed you will find the originals of the Guilt and
Sentencing Phase Jury Instructions in McCleskey's Fulton
Superior Court trial. 1 appreclate very much your
bringing these to Atlanta for my review prior to the
oral argument.

Very truly yours,

nae,
Robert H, Stroup

RHS/1

Enclosures

Hnited Mtates Court of Appeals
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SPENCER D. MERCER OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN REPLYING, GIVE NUMBER
CLERK 56 FORSYTH STREET, N.W. OF CASE AND NAMES OF PARTIES

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

May 31, 1984

TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD

84-8176 —- McCleskey v. Zant

This is to advise that the above death penalty appeal has been

allotted one (1) hour per side for oral argument before the en

banc court on Tuesday, June 12, 1984, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Sincerely,

SPENCER D. MERCER, Clerk

Calendar Clérk

/bjc

Mary Beth Westmoreland, Esq.
Robert H. Stroup, Esq.

Jack Greenberg, Esq.
James M. Nabrit, III, Esq.

John Charles Boger, Esq.

Anthony G. Amsterdam, Esq.

JOHN R. MYER 1515 HEALEY BUILDING

57 FORSYTH ST. N. W,

ROBERT H. STROUP ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

GARY FLACK er
404/522-1934

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

May 1, 1984

John Charles Boger, Esq.
Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
16th Floor

99 Hudson St.
New York, N.Y. 10013

Dear Jack:

I am enclosing my 30 pages of the McCleskey brief. As you will
note, it is only 30 1/2 pages long. While I assumed it would be
necessary for you to retype it, I have sent you the original just
in case any of it can be used without retyping.

I have also enclosed a summary of this part of the argument, and a
listing of cases and statutes cited. I have not listed page
citations for the cases and statutes, as I anticipated that would
change.

If there's more that you need from me, let me know.

Very truly yours,

Robert H. Stroup

RHS/ib

Encls.

TIMOTHY K. FORD

COUNSELLOR AT LAW

600 PIONEER BUILDING
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
206/622-5942

April 30, 1984

Jack Boger
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor

New York, NY 10013

Dear Jack:

It was good to see you last week. I am enclosing everything I
could find in my box of McClesky stuff, which appeared to be
trial preparation materials describing authorities supporting Dave
and contradicting Katz. I think there may have been more than
this, but I do not appear to have them here. You might check your
boxes of materials and see if you can find more of my Katz cross-
examination book there. I think there were some snippits of
materials that focus on particular points in those. I will
continue to look around here as well.

Stay well.

pr te moe

Gh =
Timothy K. Ford

TKF : mm

Fnclosures sent under separate cover via federal express.

New York University
A private university in the public service

School of Law

Faculty of Law

40 Washington Square South, Room 327

New York, N.Y. 10012

Telephone: (212) 598-2638, 2639

Professor Anthony G. Amsterdam

March 20, 1984

John Charles Boger, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013

re: McCleskey

Dear Jack:

The enclosed appearance form arrived yesterday from
the Eleventh Circuit, bearing no name but endorsed with the
number that you told Nancy Lee had been assigned to McCleskey.
I have filled out my personal data and signed the form,
leaving everything else (including the name) blank, so that
you can conform it to your copy and send the two in together
pursuant to immemorial custom, if you would be so kind.

Many thanks. Take care and keep well.

As ever,

——

[61 MN
Anthony G. sterdam

AGA/ss
(Dictated by Mr. Amsterdam
and signed in his absence.)

LEWIS R. SLATON

DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THIRD FLOOR COURTHOUSE ¢ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30335

March 20, 1984

Mr. Robert H. Btroup
Attorney at Law

1515 Healey Building
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: The State v. Warren McCleskey
Indictment No. A-40553

Dear Mr, Stroup:

Thank you for your letter of March 19, 1984.

Your offer is declined.

Sincerely,

R.. 8
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

LRS:bcl

JOHN R, MYER

ROBERT H. STROUP

GARY FLACK

1515 HEALEY BUILDING

57 FORSYTH ST., N. W.

404/522-1934

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

March 19, 1984

Mr. Lewis R. Slaton

District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

Third Floor Courthouse

Atlanta, Georgia 30335

Re: Warren McCleskey, Indictment No. A-40553

Dear Mr. Slaton:

I am writing to you at the request of my client, Warren McCleskey. As
I expect you are aware, Judge Forrester“entered an order on February
2, 1984, granting my client a new trial on his conviction for malice
murder. As I also expect you are aware, that order has been appealed
by the State, and McCleskey has filed a cross-appeal from other
portions of Judge Forrester's February 2 order.

My client has asked that I inquire as to whether there is any
possibility of resolving this whole matter at the present time through
plea negotiations, thereby obviating the need for further appeals and
a retrial, dependent upon the outcome of the appeals process. I have
spoken in this regard with Mary Beth Westmoreland, in the Attorney-
General's office, who advised me that I should speak with Russ Parker
in your office. I have done so, and he indicated that I should
communicate my request to you.

If there is any interest in resolving this matter at the present time
through plea negotiations, I would appreciate your advising me.

I appreciate very much your cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Robert Xt ouy
Robert H. Stroup

cc: Mary Beth Westmoreland, Esq.
Russ Parker, Esq.

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303

i J SJL ==
LEWIS R. SLATON

DISTRICT ATTORNEY-ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THIRD FLOOR COURTHOUSE ¢ ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30335

March 14, 1984

Mr. Robert H. Stroup
Attorney at Law
1515 Healey Building
57 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

RE: Warren McCleskey
A-40553

Pear Mr, Stroup:

I have a different recollection of your
telephone inquiry of March 13, 1984 on behalf
of Warren McCleskey. You indicated your client
McCleskey had asked you to call to see if some
type of deal could be worked out on the murder
charge.

My response was that I didn't know
anything about a deal and the case was out of
my hands as it is on appeal to the llth
Circuit. I also advised that you could contact
the District Attorney, Mr. Lewis Slaton, if you
wished to pursue the matter further.

With kind personal regards, I remain,

Sincerely,

nti
Assistant District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

RJP: jnb

CC: Mary Beth Westmoreland
Assistant Attorney General
132 State Judicial Building
40 Capital Square
Atlanta, Georgia 30334

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
efense und 99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900

egal

April 3, 1984

Professor David C. Baldus

College of Law
University of Iowa
Jowa City, Iowa 52242

Dear Dave:

Long overdue, I'm afraid, is

the enclosed copy of Respondent's Exhibit

20 from the McCleskey v. Zant hearing.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

ch
n Charles Boger

JCB:agf

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes

TABLE OF NONMATCH COUNTS

PERCENT

208

PROCEDURAL CHARGING

NUMBER OF REFORM AND

OF 361 STUDY SENTENCING

DESCRIPTION NONMATCHES CASES VARIABLE VARIABLE

Stat Agg Bl 18 5% PBQB1 LDFB1
Stat Agg B2 23 % PBQB2 LDFB2
Stat Agg B3 50 e 147 PBQB3 LDFB3

Stat Agg B4 40 117 PBQB4 LDFB4

Stat Agg B5 0 0% PBQBS LDFB5
Stat Agg B6 9 3% PBQB6 LDFB6

Stat Agg B7 55 15% PBQB7 LDFB7
Stat Agg BS 1 0% PBQB8 LDFB8
Stat Agg BY 3 1% PBQBY LDFB9

Stat Agg B1lO 92 25% PBQB10 LDFB10
Death Eligible 29 8% DPELIG DEATHELG

Number of death elg factors 180 20%, PBQDELX LDFBSUM
Number of prior felonies 120 33% PRIFEL PRIFELX
Coperpetrators 27 7% COPERPS LDF191
Sex motive 26 7% SEXMT LDF137
Jealousy motive 13 47 JEALOS LDF138

Immediate rage motive 35 15% RAGE LDF139

Insurance proceeds motive 3 1% INSMOT LDF142A

Silence witness motive 47 13% SILWIT VWITNESS

Drug dispute 38 11% DRUGDIS LDF151

Execution style murder 65 187% EXECK LDF177

Unnecesary killing 64 187% UNNEC LDF178

Victim pleaded for life 27 7% VICPLEA LDF179

Sexual perversion 8 2% PERVR LDF181

Defendant additional crimes 58 16% ADCRIM LDF185

Armed robbery 27 1% ARMROB ARMROB

Rape 5 2% RAPE RAPE
Kidnap 17 SZ KIDNAP KIDNAP

Burglary or arson 12 47 BURGARS LDF131-134A(5,6)

Racial animosity motive 6 27 RACE LDF142B

Multiple stabs 16 47 MULSTAB MULSTAB

Hostage 14 47 HOST HOSTAGE

Ambush 35 10% AMBUSH ~ AMBUSH

Bloody 101 28% BLOODY LDF172-175B(10)

Slashed throat 12 37 SLASHTH LDF172-175B(8)

Defendant drug history 92 25% DRGHIS LDF276A

Defendant gave up in 1 day 25 1% DFSUR24 LDF276

Victim aroused fear 56 16% DFEAR LDF281

History bad blood 27 7% VBDBLD LDF283

Victim bound and gagged 8 27% VICBDGAG LDF172-175B(13)

Def claimed accident 24 7% ACCD ACCIDENT

Def fired 5 or more shots 30 8% SHOTS DSHOOTS

Def killed 2 or more vic 7 2% TWOVIC TWOVIC

Two or more vic in all 289 80% TWOVICAL TWOVICAL

nsanity delense 18 5% INSANE INSANDEF

Victim 12 or younger 4 17% YNGVIC VICCHILD

Victim over 65 13 47% OLDVIC VDEFOLD

Def 16 or younger 31 9Z MINOR SMYOUTH

Def injured 1+ persons 10 3% INJURE DEFHURT

Victim a stranger 44 12% VICSTRAN STRANGER

Anthony G. Amsterdam

Vii. 327

New York University Law School

43 Washington SHguare South

New York, New York 12@&1Z2

Jay Wishingrad, Esq.

Shapiro, Spiegel, Garfunkel & Driggin

477 Madison Avenue

New York, New York l1ddzz

Dear Jay:

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful letter of February

13 and its enclosures. Jack Booger and I will certainly have your

ideas in mind in drafting the cert. petition in Moclleskey v.

Kemp, the case to which you refer. As an analytic matter, your

constitutional-analogies approach is made to order for the case.

The more difficult guestion is whether it is the best light

rod to draw a cert. grant from a Court whereon the key votes

likely to be cast by Justices like Blackmun, who couldnt tel

analogy from an anthill, and Powell, who takes equal pleasure in

sauashing both. Stevens might buy the approach, but playing

analogies with Stevens is a little like playing Can You Top This

with Lermie Bruce. For him, the only oriterion of a good theory

is that nobody thought of it before he did.
ft

B13
~ 3

iH)

Forgive the cynicismy it, No-Doz and gallows humor are

all we have left to keep us going. When we actually get down to

writing, we turn serious enough, and will seriously consider your

suggestion for which I'm very grateful.

i 4

1
k 3

Hope you! re prospering, Jav. Take care of vourself and

keep well. Many thanks again for your support and the stimulus

of your thinking.

With best wishes 5

hoo: John Charles Boger, Cen. i [
1
i

4
4

The University of lowa
lowa City, lowa 52242

College of Law

1847

December 16, 1983

Ms. Sara J. Sonet

Librarian

United States Supreme Court

Washington, DC 20543

Dear Ms. Sonet:

In connection with your request of December 14, 1983 for the two

studies I have done on capital sentencing in Georgia (Differential

Treatment of White and Black Victim Homicide Cases in Georgia's Capital

Charging and Sentencing Process: Preliminary Findings (June 1982) and

Discrimination and Arbitrariness in Georgia's Capital Charging and

Sentencing System: A Preliminary Report (July 1983)), it occurred to me

that you may not be aware of the background of these reports. TI have

done extensive research on Georgia's capital sentencing system over the

past few years. In connection with that work, I was requested to act as

an expert witness in a federal habeas corpus proceeding now pending in

the Northern District of Georgia (McClesky v. Zant, C81-2434A). In the

course of a hearing in this case held in Atlanta in August of this year,

a substantial portion of the material in the two reports was presented

to the court. My co-author Dr. George Woodworth and I also presented

in this hearing much additional testimony not included in either

report. We plan to publish the results of our Georgia research, and

we hope to do so soon, but neither of the two reports prepared for the

McClesky case has been published or will be published in their present

form.

Because the evidence in these two reports may at some point come

before the Supreme Court in the McClesky case or some related

proceeding, I am concerned that my transmittal of these reports to you

could raise ethical questions. If despite these potential problems,

Ms. Sara J. Sonet

December 16, 1983

Page 2

you would like to see the reports, please let me know and I will

gladly forward the request to counsel for Warren McClesky and the

State of Georgia.

Finally, I would like to clarify the question we discussed earlier

by phone concerning the dates these reports were prepared. Data

collection on the project was not completed until the spring of 1982 and

the June 1982 report was a tentative preliminary statement of our

results to that date. Our analysis continued through the balance of

1982 and the spring and summer of 1983. The findings embodied in the

1983 report were not finalized until late July this past summer.

I very much appreciate your interest in our research and hope I can

be of service to the Court in the future.

Sincerely,

David C. Baldus

Joseph B. Tye

Professor of Law

DCB/mss

The University of lowa
lowa City, lowa 52242

College of Law

1847

November 16, 1983

John C. Boger

NAACP Legal Defense and

Educative Fund, Inc.

99 Hudson Street

New York, NY 10013

Dear Jack:

In the course of moving to Iowa from Syracuse I mislaid two

depositions that you gave me a couple of years ago. I would appreciate it

if you could send me duplicates, as the J. of Crim. Law and Criminology is

after me for copies. The depositions are:

* Dennis York, Nov. 13, 1978

in House v. Balkcom

N 78-1417A

* Dennis York, May 14, 1979

in McCorquodale v. Balkcom

N 79-95A

Thanks for your help.

Best regards,

DCB/mss dil,

LINDA KOOBRICK ADLER
MICHAEL O. ALBERTINE
CESAR L. ALVAREZ
RUDOLPH F. ARAGON
REUBIN O'D. ASKEW
JAMES L. BACCHUS
HILARIE BASS
NORMAN J. BENFORD
MARK D. BLOOM
BURT BRUTON
ROBERT K. BURLINGTON
ALBERT G. CARUANA
ALAN R. CHASE
SUE M. COBB
KENDALL B. COFFEY
MARK B. DAVIS
ALAN T. DIMOND
CHARLES W. EDGAR, IIT
GARY M. EPSTEIN
THOMAS K. EQUELS
RICHARD G. GARRETT
LAWRENCE GODOFSKY
ALAN S. GOLD
HARVEY A. GOLDMAN
STEVEN E. GOLDMAN
STEVEN M. GOLDSMITH

BRIAN K. GOODKIND

MATTHEW B. GORSON

MELVIN N. GREENBERG

MARILYN D. GREENBLATT

ROBERT L. GROSSMAN

GARY M. HELD

LARRY J. HOFFMAN

BARRY D. HUNTER

ARNOLD M. JAFFEE

SETH P. JOSEPH

MARTIN KALB

TIMOTHY E. KISH

STEVEN J. KRAVITZ

STEVEN A. LANDY

STEVEN B.'LAPIDUS

ALAN S. LEDERMAN

WALLACE L. LEWIS, JR.

NORMAN H. LIPOFF

GARY D. LIPSON

CARLOS E. LOUMIET

JUAN P. LOUMIET

DEBBIE RUTH MALINSKY

GREGORY A. MARTIN

PEDRO A. MARTIN

ALAN M. MITCHEL

LOUIS NOSTRO

Mr. James M. Nabrit, III

Associate Counsel
Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street

New York, New York 10013

Dear Mr. Nabrit:

LAW OFFICES

ANTHONY J. O'DONNELL, JR.

ROGER D. OSBURN

BYRON G. PETERSEN

VICTOR. H. POLK, JR.

ALBERT D. QUENTEL

RONALD B. RAVIKOFF

FLORENCE T. ROBREBINS

NICHOLAS ROCKWELL

DAVID L. ROSS

ROBERT M. RUBENSTEIN

CLIFFORD A. SCHULMAN

MARK SCHWIMMER

MARTIN B. SHAPIRO

EUGENE ‘SHY, JR.

MARLENE K. SILVERMAN

TIMOTHY A. SMITH

DARLENE STOSIK

HERBERT M., SUSKIN

LILLIANA TORREH-BAYOUTH

ROBERT H. TRAURIG

YOLANDA I. VILLAMIL

STANLEY H. WAKSHLAG

JONATHAN H, WARNER

DAVID M. WELLS

JULIE A. S. WILLIAMSON

JERROLD A. WISH

November 7,

Thank you for the McCleskey brief.

GREENBERG, TRAURIG, ASKEW, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF & QUENTEL, P. A.

AMBLER H. MOSS, JR.

ZACHARY H. WOLFF

OF COUNSEL

BRICKELL CONCOURS

1401 BRICKELL AVENUE

MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131

TELEPHONES

MIAMI (305) 579-0500

BROWARD (305) 523-8I1|

TELEX 80-3124

TELECOPY (BOB) 579-0718

WRITER'S DIRECT NO:.

Very truly

TKE/bwp

Linda M. Trice

June 19,1985

John Boger

Assistant Counsel :

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc.

Suite 1600

99 Hudson Street

New York NY 10013

Dear Mr. Boger:

Than you for discussing the MtClesky case with me a few weeks ago. It

cave me a better understanding of the case and helped me in writing my

paper for my Law and Scoial Science course at Brooklyn Law School. I've

enclosed a cooy of the paper and sent another to Deval Patrick.

I'd like to work on the case and have enclosed my resume. When I spoke

with you you impressed upon me the need for work on the historical aspect.

I am a former Afro American Studies professor (Trinity College, Lincoln Univ.

City Univ.) and would be eager to contribute what I could.

I'm working at the Children's Rights Project of the ACLU(944-9800)

as a legal intern until mid August and can be contacted there during the day.

My home address and phone number are above.

Thank you again for the insights/you gave me on the case.

Sincérels;

§
A

ADr.) Linda Trice

Linda M. Trice

EDUCATION

BA Howard University. History, Education, Black Studies

MFA Columbia Univ. Creative Writing and Afro American Culture

PhD Union Graduate School. Center for Minority Studies.

Presently attending Brooklyn Law School. Expected date of graduation -1987

ACTIVITIES IN LAW SCHOOL

Honors

Moot Court Honor Society - 2 years

Finalist- Jessup International Law Competition

Scholarships and Fellowships

Bainbridge Scholar- New York Bar Assn. Earl Warren Scholar-NAACP LDF

Brooklyn Law School Scholarship

School Organizations

Black law Students Association National Lawyer's Guild
International Law Society contributor to school newspaper "Justinian'.
Critical legal Studies- Executive Director- 2 years

Parents-at-Law. Founder and Chairperson- 3 years. This is an organization of parents who

are students at Brooklyn Law School. Through group discussions and with the guidance of

guest speakers we hope to become better parents and lawyers. Speakers at the 1984

syvmposium( all lawyers who are parents) included Janette Seraille, Elizabeth Schneider,

Haywood Burns and Patricia Murphy.

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP

National Lawyer's Guild -1LSOC representative to the Executive Committee, NYC Chapter

Critical Legal Studies 1985 conference on Feminism, BLS student delegate.

National Conference of Black Lawyers

American Assn. of University Women
New York State Bar Assn.

Assn. of Minority Political Women.

WORK EXPERIENCE

1985 Summer. LSCRRC grant. Summer intern to Lauren Anderson, Children's Rights Project

ACLU :

1984 Summer. LSCRRC grant. Summer intern to Hon. Margaret Burnham, National Director ,
National Conference of Black Lawyers . Also-

- work with Shiela Abdus Salaam on NCBL Women's Project

- work with Gail Wright on Dec. 1984 luncheon honoring 3 black women judges.

1984-1985 law clerk to Javier White, Stevem ,Hinds and White, W. 125 St. NYC

Non Legal Experience

College Professor- Afro American Studies, Writing.at:Lincoln Univ. Master of Human

Services Program, Trinity College (Ct.) City Univ. of NY
Teacher- Public Schools in New York, Washington DC., Connecticut

Public Relations - Studio Museum in Harlem, Port of N.Y. Authority, Russell Sage Foundation

Director of Publications- Richard Clarke Assn., NYC- a minority executive search agency

Writer- Free lance. Published since 1957.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION National Headquarters

132 West 43 Street

New York, NY 10036
(212) 944-9800 ;

Norman Dorsen
PRESIDENT

Ira Glasser
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Eleanor Holmes Norton
CHAIR

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

June 19,1985

Deval Patrick, Esq.

Assistant Counsel

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Suite 1600

99 Hudson Street

New York NY 10013

Dear Mr. Patrick:

Thank you for sending the information and materials I needed for

my paper on the Baldus Study in the McClesky case for my Law and Social

Science class at Brooklyn Law School . I've enclosed a copy of the paper. .

(I haven't received the grade for the course yet! )

I'd like to work on the case and have enclosed my resume. When I talked

to Jack Bolger( I sent him a copy of the paper too) he told me work was

needed on the historical aspect.I am a former Afro American Studies professor

(Trinity College, Lincoln Univ., City Univ.) and would be eager to contribute

what I could.

I'm working in the Children's Rights Project as a legal interne until mid

August and can be contacted here. My home address and phone number are on the

resume.

Thanks again for helping me with the paper.

Sincereld;
Yall 4

| rd

(DF. Linda Trice

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Correspondence - General Vol. 3 of 6 (Redacted)

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in