Walker v. Georgia Reply Brief in Opposition to Certiorari

    I n  t h e

#ttpr£Ui£ (ta rt nf ttjr Hmtrd Stairs
O ctober T e rm , 1964 

No. 1072

M ardon E. W alk er ,

Petitioner,

—v.—

T h e  S tate of G eorgia,

Respondent.

REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

D onald L. H ollowell 
H oward M oore

859V2 Hunter Street, N. W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314

Attorneys for Petitioner
S h e ila  R u sh  

Of Counsel



TABLE OF CASES

PAGE

Blow v. North Carolina, 379 U. S. 684 ............... — ....  2

Hamm v. Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306 ----- --- --------- --- -  2

McKinnie v. Tennessee, 33 U. S. Law Week 4319 .......  2



I n  t h e

g>nvt?mz Court of %  luitrft States
O ctober T er m , 1964 

No. 1072

M ardon R . W alk er ,
Petitioner,

T h e  S tate op G eorgia,
Respondent.

REPLY TO BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI

The state, unable to garner evidence of misconduct by 
petitioner, has in its brief in opposition relied on the trial 
evidence of the conduct of her companion demonstrators 
who are not parties in this case. The impact of the state’s 
account of the evidence is that petitioner was a member 
of an unruly group and by necessary implication, a par­
ticipant in the disorder. This conclusion might be tenable 
only if there was no evidence of petitioner’s good conduct. 
Such is not the case. From the same witnesses who de­
scribed the behavior of some of Miss Walker’s companions, 
we have statements clearly vindicating her.1 Indeed, some

1 Captain Hamby on direct examination, testified:
Q. There was nothing which you saw relating to the con­

duct of this defendant which would give rise to an arrest 
other than the fact that she was sitting there awaiting some 
service and did not leave upon being asked in your presence, 
is that correct? A. That is the only reason (R. 741-742).

Hamea Quinn, who described most of the offensive acts, testi­
fied that none of them were engaged in by Miss Walker (R. 806, 
811-812).



2

of the events mentioned in the state’s brief relate to an 
entirely different demonstration at another time and place 
(Brief in Opposition, p. 4).

Unless we are to fashion a new rule of imputed miscon­
duct applicable to the abatement of trespass convictions, 
petitioner can in no way be held accountable for the be­
havior of the other demonstrators. Miss Walker was not 
charged with conspiracy or with disorderly conduct of any 
sort. The record is clear that she was indicted, tried and 
convicted for refusing to leave a restaurant after having 
been asked to leave by the manager (R. 5). The only 
conduct relevant to this charge was Miss Walker’s conduct. 
Similarly, the only conduct relevant to the determination 
of the abative effect of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is Miss 
Walker’s conduct. We submit that petitioner’s case is 
clearly controlled by Hamm v. Hock Hill, 379 U. S. 306; 
Blow v. North Carolina, 379 U. S. 684; and McKinnie v. 
Tennessee, 33 U. S. Law Week 4319.

W herefore, it is resp ectfu lly  subm itted  that the p e ti­
tion  fo r  w rit o f  ce r t io ra r i should  be granted .

Respectfully submitted,

S h e ila  R u sh  
Of Counsel

J ack  Greenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

D onald L. H ollowell 
H oward M oore

859U> Hunter Street, N. W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30314

Attorneys for Petitioner