Walker v. Georgia Reply Brief in Opposition to Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 5, 1964

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Walker v. Georgia Reply Brief in Opposition to Certiorari, 1964. 3b23053b-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/acff7691-cd4f-4335-87ee-7c674c96e256/walker-v-georgia-reply-brief-in-opposition-to-certiorari. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
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