State Offered Weak Argument in Mack Ingram Appeal

    NaanCP LiGaL vb FeNSE AND EDUCaTIUNaL FUNU, INC. 
107 Wes 3 Street € New Y Ne £5 e ee, °° 

Thurgood Marshall, Director and Counse] 

FOR RELEsSL: February 5, 1953 

STATE OFPERKLD WEAK “ARGUMENT 
IN MaCh INGRAM APPEAL February 3, 1953 

RaLEIGH, N.C., Feb. 3.-- The state offered a weak argument in 

support of the six-month suspended sentence imposed on Mack Ingram, the 

share cropper convicted of "assault by leering” at a white farm girl, 

in answer to the appeal taken to the Supreme Court by NaACP attorneys. 

The appeal to the North Carolina State Supreme Court to have 

Ingram's conviction sst aside came up for argument today. The state 

Attorney General's office admitted, when questioned by the court, that 

it hadi no constructive evidence that the convicted man had committed a 

crime, 

Ingram was convicted in November of 1952 end given six months for 

"assault by leering" at the young woman from a distance of 75 feet. 

The 6-month's sentence was suspended, but he was put on a 5-year 

probation and was ordered to report to the court every November and 

produce three character witnesses to "substantiate his good behavior." 

Immediately following the conviction, NAACP attorneys filed an 

appeal with the State Supreme Court on the grounds that the conviction 

violated both the state and federzl constitutions. The systematic 

exclusion of Negroes from the jury and the vagueness of the statute 

under which Mack Ingram was convicted were also attacked by the NaACP 

lawyers. 

Jan. 28, the state attorney General's otfice filed a joint brief 

with the NaaCP asking that the State Supreme Court scrutinize the case. 

While it did not question the evidence or the verdict, the brief did 

admit thet Ingram was denied his constitutional right in that Negroes 

were excluded from the jury and that the jury list had been selected 

frou the registr:tion books of qualified voters, which was in violation 

of the North Carolina law. The only qualifications for jury service in 

the state's requirements are the payment of taxes, good character and 

sufficient intelligence. 

In his argument before the high court, the prosecuting attorney dia 

not argue too strongly against any of the points raised by the NaaCF 

lawyers. He did say he thought there might be sufficient evidence for 

the court to examine. 

However, he told the court the decision was left entirely up to the 

state's high judiciary. 



> énd 
Ce. 

Releases--February 5 -2- Le 

Should the court hand down a decision on the conviction, it is 

felt that the lower court's decision will be reversed and the case 

Jury thrown out. But should the ruling be made only on t 

there might be a new trial ordered. 

However, it is believed that even if a new trial is ordered, the 

lower court might see fit not to try the case again. 

The appeal was argued for Ingram by NAACP attorneys Martin A. 

Martin of Richmond and &. F, Upchurch of High Point, N.C. 

a30ce