LDF Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Nashville, Tenn. Police Pilicy

    30 

30 

- 

President 

: Hon, Francis E. Rivers 
PRESS RELE. Director-Counsel egal refense lund Jack Greenberg 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 « JUdson 6-8397 
NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 

Director, Public Relations 

Jesse DeVore, Jr. 

FOR RELEASE 
WEDNESDAY 

September 27, 1967 

LDF ASKS SUPREME COURT TO STRIKE 
DOWN NASHVILLE,TENN.POLICE POLICY 

QUESTION PRESENTED: Did the insistence by the police that a 16-year- old boy speak words spoken by a rapist 7 months earlier violate the Constitution when the police failed to provide an attorney, or hold a line-up, or take steps to assure an objective, impartial identification of his voice? 

WASHINGTON---The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to reverse the conviction today in the case of a Negro youth facing a rape senténcé based on repetition of five words uttered seven months earlier, 

Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, (LDF) filed their brief for the petitioner in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, 

Sixteen-year-old Archie Nathaniel Biggers of Nashville, Tennessee, was arrested on August 17, 1965 and allegedly identified by a woman as the man who attempted to rape her the night before, 

Yet, young Biggers was never tried on this charge, 

Later, the same day, another woman, Mrs, Margaret Beamer, was brought to police headquarters to "look at a suspect," 

Mrs, Beamer had been raped on the night of January 22, 1965--seven months earlier, She had been accosted in a dark hallway and taken to @ nearby patch of woods where the crime took place, 

Neither Mrs, Beamer, nor her daughter, who approached the rapist in the hallway before being ordered away by her mother, could identify or describe the rapist at that time, The case lay dormant for lack of clues, 

Mrs, Beamer saw young Biggers for the first time at the police station on August 17. He was guarded by five officers, 

Neither the youth's parents nor relatives were present, nor had they been notified of what was taking place, The boy had no lawyer, No line-up or alternative procedure was utilized by police, 
The LDF attorneys argue in their brief that the police station identification without a line-up and without Biggers' lawyer was unduly suggestive, 

They further argue that, if Biggers had had a lawyer present, he could, in the youth's behalf, have "questioned the prosecutrix before she placed herself in the position of making a positive identification" 
The "mere presence" of an attorney might possibly have served to counterbalance that of the police, the LDF attorneys suggest, The police then asked Biggers to say: "Shut up, or I'll kill you," 
"From the sound of these few words,.,spoken seven months earlier during events which lasted from 15 to 30 minutes at most," Mrs, Beamer identified young Biggers as "the man who had rapéd her," the LDF asserts, 
LDF attorneys handling the case include Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg and Michael Meltsner of New York City; Anthony G, Amsterdam of Philadelphia; Avon N, Williams and Z, Alexander of Nashville, John P, Howland of New York City is of counsel, 

-30-