Fact Sheet on Baton Rouge, LA. "Sit-In" Cases to be Argued Before the Supreme Court Oct. 18

This item is featured in:

Student Activists Lead in the Fight for Civil Rights

    PRESS RELEASE 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
TO COLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEW YORK 19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS See THURGOOD MARSHALL 
President Director-Counsel 

October 16, 1961 

FACT SHEET ON BATON ROUGE, LA. "SIT-IN" CASES 

TO BE ARGUED BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OCT. 18 

On Wednesday, October 18, the U. S. Supreme Court is scheduled 

to hear, for the first time, argument in cases involving "sit-in" 

demonstrations by Negro students. 

These cases, Briscoe, Garner and Hoston v. State of Louisiana, 

will be heard on a consolidated basis by the Court. 

Jack Greenberg, recently appointed General Counsel of the NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund, will argue the defense of the 

students. 

The cases involve lunch counter demonstrations in Baton Rouge, 

La., in April, 1960, in the Greyhound Bus Terminal, a Kress store, 

and a drugstore. 

The students, from Southern University in Baton Rouge, were 

arrested under a Louisiana "disturbing the peace" statute by city 

police captain Robert Weiner. They were convicted by a Baton Rouge 

trial court in April, 1960, and a Supreme Court of Louisiana deci- 

sion of October 5, 1960, upheld the convictions, NAACP Legal Defense 

attorneys then petitioned the U. S. Supreme Court. On March 20, 

1961, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and scheduled hearing 

for October 18. 

Captain Weiner, in the trial court, testified that the "sit- 

iners" were “disturbing the peace" simply "by the mere presence 

of their being there." 

It was brought out at the trial that there was no violence, 

threat of violence, or public disturbance in any of ths cemonstra- 

tions. 

In the bus station case, for instance, Fund attornays contend 

in their brief that "...the waitress' testimony contains no hint of 

anything other than an occasion profoundly peaceful.... Her refu- 

sal to serve petitioners was based solely on their race in itself." 



aoe 

The Fund brief asks the Supreme Court to rule that racial 

segregation of the type which exists at the Baton Rouge lunch 

counters, is "...in obedience to a statewide custom...." of segre- 

gation, publicly endorsed and practiced by the state, and by state 

officials. 

"(TJheir convictions," it is argued, "clearly contravene the 

decisions of this Court that racial segregation, enfurced by state 

authority, violates the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

The Fund brief also contends that the Louisiana statute under 

which the convictions were made is "vague, indefinite and uncertain," 

and that the conviction unwarrantly penalizes the Negro youths for 

the exercise of their constitutional right to freedom of expression. 

Argument of State of Louisiana 

In its brief, attorneys for the State of Louisiana contend 

that "the only real issue in these three cases is whether a normally 

peaceful and law abiding community, facing an explosive situation in 

which racial tensions are at an all time high, can preserve the 

peace and order of the community by having its law enforcement offi- 

cers order persons creating the explosive situation to cease and 

desist from such action and arrest them if they refuse to do so.” 

The Louisiana attorneys argue that the statute under which the 

students were convicted "is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain 

as to offend the due process ckause of the Fourteenth Amendment; 

the arrests do not constitute "state action" which would bring them 

within prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment; the defendants are 

not deprived by the state court decisions of freedom of speech as 

protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and "the facts 

and circumstances of the Briscoe case do not bring it within the 

prohibition of the Interstate Commerce Act." 

Attorneys for Petitioners and Respondents 

Legal Defense Fund attorneys for the petitioning students, in 

addition to Mr. Greenberg, are A. P. Tureaud, of New Orieans, La., 

Johnnie A. Jones of Baton Rouge, La., and Charles L. Black, Jr., 

Elwood H. Chisolm, William T. Coleman, Jr., James M. Nabrit, III 

and Louis H. Pollak of New York City. 



eae 

Attorneys for the respondent State of Louisiana are Jack P. F. 

Gremillion, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana; N. Cleburn 

Dalton, Asst. Attorney General, and Sargent Pitcher, Jr., District 

Attorney, 19th Judicial District, Baton Rouge, La., and John F. 

Ward, Jr., Asst. District Attorney. 

STUDENTS IN THE BATON ROUGE CASE 

1. Mary Enola Briscoe 9. Sandra Ann Jones 
Sunset, La. Baton Rouge, La. 

2. Eddie Charles Brown, Jr. 10. Vernon Jordan 
Baton Rouge, La. Baton Rouge, La. 

3. John B. Garner 11. Jo Ann Morris 
Baton Rouge, La. Shreveport, La. 

4. Janet Hoston 12. Donald T. Moss 
Monroe, La. Winnfield, La. 

5. Lawrence Hurst 13. Larry L. Nichols 
Greensburg, La. Shreveport, La. 

6. John Johnson 14, Charles Peabody 
Cullen, La. East St. Louis, 111 

7. Kenneth L. Johnson 15, Felton Valdry 
Baton Rouge, La. Bueche, La. 

&. Mack Jones 16. Marvin Robinson 
Fort Worth, Texas St. Louis, Mo. 

OTHER "SIT-IN" CASES PENDING BEFORE THE U. S. SUPREME COURT 

Randolph vy. Virainia (Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed 
in July, 1961. Involves 34 Negro students convicted for 
lunch counter demonstrations in a Richmond, Va. department 
store. The Supreme Court has not acted on the petition. ) 

Avent _v. North Carolina and Fox v. North Carolina (Petition for 
writ of certiorari filed in May, 1961. Involves lunch 
counter demonstrations by two white and seven Negro students 
in Durham and Raleigh, N. C. The Court has not acted on the 
petitions.) 

Drews v. Maryland, Griffin v. Maryland, Henry v. Virginia, and 
Tinsley _v. Virginia, are other "sit-in" cases in which peti- 
tions for writ of certiorari have been filed, but the Court 
has not acted. Legal Defense Fund attorneys are associated 
in these cases. 

Tinsley v. Virginia is technically not a "sit-in" case, but LO 
involves the arrest of the wife of the Virginia NAACP 
president while she was observing a "sit-in" demonstration. 

For further information please contact Thomas Dent, Public 

Information, at the Hotel Shoreham in Washington, D.C.