Goosby v. Osser Brief Amici Curiae

    I n  t h e

(Em trl at %  llxxxUb S ta te s
O ctober T e e m , 1971 

No. 71-6316

A ndrew  C. G oosby, et al., 

vs.
Petitioners,

M aurice  O ssee , et al.,
Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO 
THE UNITED STATES COURT OB’ APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., AND NATIONAL 

OFFICE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENT 
AS AMICI CURIAE

J ack  Greenberg  
S ta n ley  A . B ass

10 Columbus Circle 
Room 2030
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Attorneys for Amici Curiae



I N D E X

PAGE

Statement of Interest of the Amici Curiae .................  1

Issue Presented..............................................................  4

A r g u m en t

A Substantial Constitutional Question, Sufficient 
To Warrant the Convening of a Three-Judge Dis­
trict Court, Is Presented by a Complaint Alleging 
the Denial by Pennsylvania of the Fundamental 
Right of Unconvicted Prisoners To Vote, Which 
Denial Has Not Been Shown, by the State, To Be 
Reasonably or Necessarily Related To Its Only 
Legitimate Interest of Guaranteeing the Presence
of Accused Persons At T ria l.................................  5

C o n clu sio n  .............................. ...........................................................  8

T able oe A u t h o r it ie s

Cases:
Anderson v. Nosser, 456 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1972) (en 

banc) .................................................................. ........ 7

Brenneman v. Madigan,-----F. Supp.------ , 11 Cr. L.
Rptr. 2248 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 1972) ........ ................ 7

Bundy v. Cannon, 328 F. Supp. 165 (D. Md. 1971) ......  3
Butler v. Crumlish, 229 F. Supp. 565 (E.D. Pa. 1964).... 6
Chicago Connections v. Bensinger, No. 71C2382 (N.D.

111. Mar. 30, 1972) .....................................................  3
Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. Cal. 

1971) 3



11

Carothers v. Follette, 314 F. Supp, 1014 (S.D.N.Y.
1970)     3

Collins v. Schoonfield, -----  F. Supp. ----- , Civil No.
71-500-K (I). Md. May 15, 1972) ...... ......................... 4

Conklin v. Hancock, 334 F. Supp. 1119 (D. N.H. 1971) 7
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) ........................ ......... 2

Davis v. Lindsay, 321 F. Supp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).... 4

Fortune Society v. McGinnis, 319 F. Supp. 901 (S.D.
N.Y. 1970) ..............................................    3

Goodwin v. Oswald, -----  F.2d ----- , 11 Cr. L. Rptr.
2360 (2d Cir. June 19, 1972) .....................................  2

Gray v. Creamer,-----F.2d------, No. 71-1714 (3rd Cir.
Aug. 14, 1972) ............................................................  2

Haines v. Kerner, 404 H.S. 519 (1972) ......................... 2
Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182 (E.D. Ark. 1971) 4
Holt v. Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 ( 8th, Cir. 1971) ...............  3

Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller,
453 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1971) ..................... ................... 2

Inmates of Boys Training School v. Affleck, -----  F.
Supp. ——, No. 4529 (D. R.I. July 28, 1972) ..........  3

Inmates of Cook County Jail v. Tierney, No. 68C504
(N.D. 111. Aug. 22, 1968) ............................................  4

Inmates of Milwaukee Jail v. Petersen, 51 F.R.D. 540
E.D. Wis. 1971) ....................................     4

In Re Cisson (N. J. Super. Ct., Som. Cty., Mar. 24,1972) 7
In Re Winship, 397 H.S. 358 (1970) ............................  5

Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1968) ........  3
Jackson v. Hendrick, No. 71-2437 (C.P. Phil. Apr. 7, 

1972) ........................................................................... 7

PAGE



Jones v. Rouse, 457 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1972) ............ 2
Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F. Supp. 93, 330 F. Supp. 707 

(N.D. Ohio 1971), aff’d sub nom. Jones v. Metzger,
456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972) .....................................  4

Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U .S . 144 (1963)-... 5

Little v. Cherry, No. LR-71-C-89 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 30,
1971) ..........................................................................  3

McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394
U.S. 802 (1969) ____________ __________________ 4

Mead v. Parker,----- F.2d------ , No. 71-2462 (9th Cir.
July 20, 1972) ................... ........................................  2

Moore v. Ciccone, 459 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1972) ......... 7
Morris v. Travisono, 310 F. Supp. 857 (D. R.I. 1970).... 3

National Prisoners Reform Association v. Sharkey,
-----F. Supp.------ , No. 4884 (D. R.I. May 9, 1972).... 3

Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 451 F.2d 545 (1st Cir. 1971)......  3
Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, reh. en banc denied, 456 

F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1972), pet. cert, filed sub nom. 
Sellars v. Beto, No. 71-6789 O.T. 1971 .....................  2

Palmigiano v. Travisono, 317 F. Supp. 776 (D. R.I.
1970) ............................... ................... .......................  4

Payne v. Whitmore, 325 F. Supp. 1191 (N.D. Cal. 1971) 7
Rodriquez v. McGinnis, 456 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1972) (en 

banc), cert, granted,----- U .S.------  (June 19, 1972) 2

Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971) ............... ...... 3
Seale v. Manson, 326 F. Supp. 1375 (I). Conn. 1971)—. 4
Smith v. Robbins, 454 F.2d 696 (1st Cir. 1972)............ 2
Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969) 2

I l l

PAGE



IV

Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1971) (en
banc) .............. ............................................................  3

Sostre v. Otis, 330 F. Supp. 941 (S.D.N.Y. 1971)..........  3
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) .................................  5

Taylor v. Sterrett,----- F. Supp.------ , Civ. Action No.
3-5220-B (N.D. Tex. June 5, 1972) ....................... . 4

Tyler v. Ciccone, 299 F. Supp. 685 (W.D. Mo. 1969).... 7

United States ex rel. Jones v. Bundle, 453 F.2d 147
(3rd Cir. 1971) ...... .............. .................. ................... 7

United States ex rel. Ivendzierski v. Brantley, 447 F.2d 
806 (7th Cir. 1971) ........... ........... ..............................  3

Wayne County Jail Inmates v. Wayne County Bd. 
Comm’rs, No. 173217 (Cir. Ct. Wayne Cty., Mich.
May 18, 1971) ............................................................  7

Wilkinson v. Skinner, —•— F.2d----- , 11 Cr. L. Bptr.
2417 (2d Cir. June 28, 1972) ____ _____ ________ 2

Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) ..................... 2
Wright v. McMann, 460 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1972)..........  2

Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15 (1971) ..................... 2

Text:
Blackstone, Commentaries (1765) ................................ 6
Foote, The Coming Constitutional Crisis In Bail: II,

113 U. Pa. L. Bev. 1125 (1965) .................................. 3
Mattick & Aikman, The Cloacal Begion of American 

Corrections, 381 Annals of the American Academy 
of Political and Social Sciences 109 (1969) .............. 3

McGee, The Administration of Justice: The Correc­
tional Process, 5 N.P.P.A.J. 225 (1959) ...................  3

PAGE



V

Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Conditions of 
Pretrial Detention, 79 Yale L.J. 941 (1970) .............. 3

Note, Incacerating The Innocent: Pre-trial Detention 
In Our Nation’s Jails, 21 Buf. L. Rev-. 891 (Spring
1972) .................    3

Rankin, The Effect of Pretrial Detention, 39 N.Y.TT.L.
Rev. 641 (1964) ....    3

1970 National Jail Census (Sup. Doc., U.S. Gov’t 
Printing Off., Wash., D.C.) ......................................  3

Black Hole of Manhattan, Time Magazine, Aug. 24, 
1970, at 28-29 ................................. „..........................  6

Revolt of the Powerless, 5 Newsletter of the Correc­
tional Association of N.Y. (No. 3, June 1971) ..........  6

PAGE



I n t h e

g a tp ra ttT  (E aurt o f %  S ta te s
O ctober T e r m , 1971 

No. 71-6316

A ndrew  C. G oosby, et al.,

vs.
Petitioners,

M aurice  O sser , et al.,

Respondents.

o n  w r it  o f  c e r t io r a r i to

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., AND NATIONAL 
OFFICE FOR THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIGENT

AS AMICI CURIAE

Statement of Interest of the Amici Curiae

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
is a non-profit corporation formed under the laws of the 
State of New York in 1939. The Fund was incorporated 
to assist black people to secure their constitutional rights 
by the prosecution of lawsuits. Under its charter, one of 
its purposes is to provide free legal assistance to Negroes



2

who suffer injustice because of race and who are unable, 
on account of poverty, to employ legal counsel.1

A central purpose of the Fund is the legal eradiction 
of practices in our society that bear with discriminatory 
harshness upon black people and upon the poor, deprived 
and friendless, who too often are black. To further this 
purpose, the Fund in 1967 established a separate corpora­
tion, the National Office for the Rights of the Indigent 
(N.O.R.I.), having among its objectives the provision of 
legal representation to the poor in individual cases and 
the advocacy before appellate courts of changes in legal 
doctrine which unjustly affect the poor. E.g., Williams v. 
Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970); Sniadach v. Family Finance 
Cory., 395 U.S. 337 (1969).

In 1970, the Fund commenced a national program for 
the purpose of promoting efforts toward prison reform. 
Its objectives include research to identify the most serious 
and fundamental problems in corrections, and test litiga­
tion or suggestion of administrative or legislative reform 
when appropriate.2

1 The Fund’s charter was approved by a New York Court, author­
ing the organization to serve as a legal aid society. I t  is entirely 
independent of other organizations, and is supported by contribu­
tions from the public.

2 See generally, Cruz v. Beta, 405 U.S. 319 (1972) ; Haines v. 
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) ; Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U.S. 15
(1971) (amicus) ; Gray v. Creamer, ------ F.2d ------No. 71-1714
(3rd Cir. Aug. 14, 1972) • Mead v. Parker, -----  F.2d ------ , No.
71-2462 (9th Cir. July 20, 1972) ; Wilkinson v. Skinner, ——- F.2d
•----- , 11 Cr.L. Rptr. 2417 (2nd Cir. June 28, 1972) ; Goodwin V.
Oswald, —— F.2d ------ , 11 Cr.L. Rptr. 2360 (2nd Cir. June 19,
1972) (amicus) ; Wright v. McMann, 460 F.2d 126 (2nd Cir. 1972) ; 
Jones v. Rouse, 457 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1972) ; Rodriquez v. Mc­
Ginnis, 456 F.2d 79 (2nd Cir. 1972) (en banc), cert, granted,-----
U.S. ------  (June 19, 1972); Smith v. Robbins, 454 F.2d 696 (1st
Cir. 1972) (amicus) ; Novak v. Beto, 453 F.2d 661, reh. en banc 
denied, 456 F.2d 1303 (5th. Cir. 1972), pet. cert, filed sub nom. 
Sellars v. Beto, No. 71-6789 O.T. 1971; Inmates of Attica Correc­



3

Recognizing also the discriminatory features of the 
American bail system,3 and the fact that actual conditions 
of pretrial detention throughout the country,4 1) are incon­
sistent with the presumptively innocent status of awaiting 
trial prisoners, 2) threaten to adversely affect the funda­
mental right to a fair trial,5 and 3) frequently bear little 
relationship to the State’s legitimate interest of insuring 
the presence of the accused at trial,6 LDF has developed

tional Facility v. Rockefeller, 453 F.2d 12 (2nd Cir. 1971) ; Nolan 
v. Fitzpatrick, 451 F.2d 545 (1st Cir. 1971) ; United States ex rel. 
Kendzierski v. Brantley, 447 F.2d 806 (7th Cir. 1971) ; Holt v. 
Sarver, 442 F.2d 304 (8th Cir. 1971) ; Sostre v. McGinnis, 442 
F.2d 178 (2nd Cir. 1971) (amicus); Jackson v. Godwin, 400 F.2d 
529 (5th Cir. 1968) ; Inmates of the Boys’ Training School v.
Affleck, ------ F. Supp. ------ , No. 4529 (D.R.I. July 28, 1972) ; Nat’l
Prisoners’ Reform Ass’n v. Sharkey, ----- F. S upp .-------, No. 4884
(D.R.I. May 9, 1972); Chicago Connections v. Bensinger, No. 71C 
2382 (N.D.”lll. Mar. 30, 1972) ; Little v. Cherry, No. LR-71-C-89 
(E.D. Ark. Dec. 30, 1971) ; Sostre v. Otis, 330 F. Supp. 941 (S.D. 
N.Y. 1971) ; Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. Cal. 
1971) ; Bundy v. Cannon, 328 F. Supp. 165 (D. Md. 1971) ; Fortune 
Society v. McGinnis, 319 F. Supp. 901 (S.D. N.Y. 1970) ; Carothers 
v. Follette, 314 F. Supp. 1014 (S.D. N.Y. 1970) ; Morris v. Travi- 
sono, 310 F. Supp. 857 (D.R.J. 1970).

The issues presented in the above cases cover a broad spectrum 
of the difficulties faced by prisoners in realizing their fundamental 
rights as American citizens.

3 See, Foote, The Coming Constitutional Crisis In  Bail: II, 113 
U. Pa. L. Rev. 1125 (1965). In  Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 IT.S. 357, 372 
(1971), this Court upheld an Illinois law which “brought reform 
and needed relief to the State’s bail system.”

4 E.g., Mattick & Aikman, The Cloacal Region of American Cor­
rections, 381 Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences 109 (1969) ; McGee, The Administration of Justice: 
The Correctional Process, 5 N.P.P.A.J. 225 (1959) ; 19701 Nat’l 
Jail Census (Sup. Doc., U.S. Gov’t  Printing Off., Wash., D.C.).

6 Rankin, The Effect of Pre-trial Detention, 39 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 
641 (1964).

6 Note, Constitutional Limitations on the Conditions of Pre-trial 
Detention, 79 Yale L.J. 941 (1970) ; Note, Incarcerating The In ­
nocent: Pre-trial Detention In  Our Nation’s Jails, 21 Buf. L. Rev. 
891 (Spring 1972).



4

and participated in substantial nationwide litigation on 
behalf of pretrial detainees, beginning with the case of 
McDonald v. Board of Election Commissioners, 394 U.S. 
802 (1969).7

As will be discussed further below, the lower federal 
courts in the past few years have consistently applied the 
fundamental constitutional principles of due process of law 
so as to protect the rights of accused persons, incarcerated 
while awaiting trial, not to be subjected to measures that 
are, in reality, punitive, and which bear no reasonable rela­
tionship to the central purpose of pretrial detention: assur­
ing presence of the defendant at trial. The decisions of 
the courts below in Goosby v. Osser appear to sanction the 
loss of a citizen’s most precious and basic right, the vote, 
without requiring a strong showing by the State that such 
disenfranchisement is either necessary or the least restric­
tive means of serving some legitimate State interest. For 
this reason, we respectfully present our views on the issue 
before the Court. The parties have consented to the filing 
of a brief by amici, and copies of their letters of consent 
are being submitted to the Clerk with this Brief.

Issue Presented
1. Whether a substantial constitutional question, suffi­

cient to warrant the convening of a three-judge District

7 See generally, Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F. Supp. 93, 330 F. 
Supp. 707 (N.D. Ohio 1971), aff’d sub nom. Jones v. Metzger, 456 
F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972) ; Hamilton v. Love, 328 F. Supp. 1182 
(E.D. Ark. 1971); Seale v. Manson, 326 F. Supp. 1375 (D. Conn. 
1971) ; Davis v. Lindsay, 321 F. Snpp. 1134 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) ; 
Palmigiano v. Travisono, 317 F. Supp. 776 (D.R.I. 1970) ; Inmates 
of the Milwaukee Jail v. Petersen, 51 F.R.D. 540 (E.D. Wis. 1971) ;
Taylor v. Sterrett,  -----  F. Supp. ----- , Civ. Action No. 3-522003
(N.D. Tex. June 5, 1972) ; Collins v. Schoonfield,  -----  F. Supp.
■------, Civil No. 71-500-K (D. Md. May 15, 1972) ; Inmates of the
Cook County Jail v. Tierney, No. 68C 504 (N.D. 111. Aug. 22, 1968).



5

Court, is presented by a complaint alleging that pretrial 
detainees in Philadelphia are absolutely denied their funda­
mental right to register and vote, by virtue of the combina­
tion of a state law, which specifically precludes absentee 
ballots, and administrative practices and policies, which 
foreclose alternative methods of voting by unconvicted 
prisoners, which denial has not been shown, by the state, 
to be reasonably or necessarily related to its only legitimate 
interest of guaranteeing the presence of accused persons 
at trial.

ARGUMENT

A Substantial Constitutional Question, Sufficient To 
Warrant the Convening of a Three-Judge District Court, 
Is Presented by a Complaint Alleging the Denial by 
Pennsylvania o f the Fundamental Right o f Unconvicted 
Prisoners To Vote, Which Denial Has Not Been Shown, 
by the State, To Be Reasonably or Necessarily Related 
To Its Only Legitimate Interest of Guaranteeing the 
Presence of Accused Persons At Trial.

Although the merits of petitioner’s constitutional claims 
need not be decided at this point, the discussion below will 
demonstrate the substantiality of the question presented.

It is now established, as a matter of rudimentary due 
process, that a person may not constitutionally be punished 
without trial, or before his or her guilt is proven beyond 
a reasonable doubt. Kennedy v. Mendozar-Martmez, 372 
U.S. 144 (1963); In Re Wimhip, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). This 
Court, in Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), took note of 
the important role which bail, or pretrial release, plays 
in preserving the fundamental presumption of innocence.

It may be that the State’s legitimate interest of insuring 
the presence of accused persons at trial could justify the



6

detention of some persons while awaiting trial. It does 
not follow, however, that such incarceration of unconvicted 
persons authorizes the extent of oppressive institutional 
treatment that exists in most local jails. As Blackstone 
appropriately observed:

“This imprisonment, as has been said, is only for safe 
custody, and not for punishment; therefore in this 
dubious interval between commitment and trial, a 
prisoner ought to be used with utmost humanity; and 
neither loaded with needless fetters, nor subjected to 
other hardships than such are requisite for the pur­
pose of confinement only.”

4 Blackstone, Commentaries 300' (1765).
And Circuit Judge Freedman, sitting as a District Judge, 

in Butler v. Crumlish, 229 F. Supp. 565, 567 (E.D. Pa. 1964), 
stated:

“The constitutional authority for the State to distin­
guish between criminal defendants by freeing those 
who supply bail pending trial and confining those who 
do not, furnishes no justification for any additional 
inequality of treatment beyond that which is inherent 
in the confinement itself.”

In accordance with these basic principles, numerous 
courts around the country have granted relief to pretrial 
detainees who complained of unconstitutionally inhumane8

8 Barbaric and decrepit conditions of penal confinement have 
been cited as one of the causes of prison insurrections—the ultimate 
tactical resource available to inmates who want to force change. 
See, The Black Hole of Manhattan, Time Magazine, Aug. 24, 1970, 
at 28-29; Revolt of the Powerless, 5 Newsletter of the Correctional 
Association of N. Y. (No. 3, June 1971). Respect for the law might 
be enhanced if pretrial detainees were treated in a non-punitive 
manner, in accord with their legal presumption of innocence.



7

and punitive jail conditions. In such eases, the courts 
determined, on the basis of the record, that the challenged 
restrictions were not inherent in the concept of pretrial 
detention, and were not reasonably or necessarily related 
to the State’s only legitimate interest—-guaranteeing the 
presence of accused persons at trial.9

It cannot be lightly assumed, without evidence,10 that 
effective disenfranchisement of unconvicted prisoners is 
actually necessary for the maintenance of pretrial detention 
in Philadelphia. Indeed, it appears that the frequently 
used and simplified procedure of registering and voting by 
absentee ballots would not cause any substantial inter­
ference with the operation of the jails in Philadelphia. 
In any event, it would seem incumbent upon the District 
Court to hear testimony, and make specific findings of fact, 
on this critical point. Accordingly, the case should be 
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in this 
clearly justiciable matter.

9 See, Anderson v. Nosser, 456 F.2d 835 (5th Cir. 1972) (en 
banc) ; Moore v. Ciccone, 459 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1972) ; United 
States ex rel. Jones v. Bundle, 453 F.2d 147 (3rd Cir. 1971) ; 
Conklin v. Hancock, 334 F. Supp. 1119 (D.N.H. 1971) ; Tyler v. 
Ciccone, 299 F. Supp. 685 (W.D, Mo. 1969); Payne v. Whitmore,
325 F. Supp. 1191 (NJ). Cal. 1971); Brenneman v. Madigan, ------
F. Supp. ----- , 11 Cr.L.Rptr. 2248 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 1972) ;
Jackson v. Hendrick, No. 71-2437 (C.P. Phil. Pa. Apr. 7, 1972) ; 
Wayne County Jail Inmates v. Wayne County Bd. Comm’rs, No. 
173217 (Cir. Ct. Wayne Cty., Mich. May 18, 1971); In Be Cisson 
(N.J.Super. Ct., Som. Cty. Mar. 24, 1972) ; and cases cited in n. 7, 
infra.

10 The Partial Transcript of proceedings in the District Court on 
October 6, 1971 shows that an offer of testimony was made relative 
to possible administrative burden on the Registration Commission 
and on the prison system, but that it was rejected as unnecessary 
because of the Court’s disposition of the case on grounds of justi­
ciability.



8

CONCLUSION

The reasoning of various courts which have granted 
relief from unconstitutional conditions of pretrial deten­
tion, bearing’ no reasonable or necessary relationship to 
the State’s interest of insuring the presence of accused 
persons at trial, is in accord with this Court’s fundamental 
pronouncements on the presumption of innocence before 
trial, and warrants Supreme Court approval. The judg­
ments of the courts below appear to be in conflict with 
those principles, and they should therefore be reversed, 
and the case remanded to the District Court.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack  G r e e n b e r g

S ta n ley  A. B ass

10 Columbus Circle 
Room 2030
New York, New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

Attorneys for Amici Curiae



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219