Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes Reply Brief for Petitioner

    PressRelease fae [ime 9 
203 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

JANUARY 25, 1972 

GENE HAM v. SOUTH CAROLINA 

NEW YORK, N.Y. --- On January 24, 1972, the attorneys for 

the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) received 

word that the U.S. Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in 

the case of Gene Ham v. South Carolina. LDF attorneys are 

challenging the trial court's denial of the right of a criminal 

defendant to examine prospective jurors to determine whether they 

are prejudiced against blacks. If the Court upholds the LDF 

position, it will establish for the first time the right of a 

defendant to examine jurors as to possible racial prejudice. 

On May 15, 1970 in Florence, South Carolina Gene Ham, a 

locally well-known black civil rights activist for the Southern 

Christian Leadership Conference, (SCLC) was arrested by three police 

officers who had four arrest warrants dated May 13 and 14 charging 

him with the possession of various kinds of illegal drugs. He was 

searched and approximately one ounce of marijuana was allegedly 

found. Ham claimed that the police had planted the marijuana on 

him because the local authorities were out to "get" him because of 

his civil rights activities. 

At the beginning of the selection of the jury, in the General 

Sessions Court in South Carolina, the judge refused, on the ground 

that they were not relevant, to ask jurors the following questions: 

"1. Would you fairly try this case on the basis 

of evidence and disregarding the defen- 

dant's race? 

(More) 

CP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

am T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



Gene Ham v. 

South Carolina 

Page 2 

"2. You have no prejudice against 

Negroes? Against black people? 

You would not be influenced by 

the use of the term 'black'? 

"3. Would you disregard the fact that 

this defendant wears a beard in 

deciding this case?" 

Instead, the judge asked only three general questions: 

“Have you formed or expressed any 

opinion as to the guilt or innocence 

of the defendant? 

“Are you conscious of any bias for or 

against him? 

"Can you give the State and the defen- 

dant a fair trial?" 

The process of voir dire would have enabled the defendant 

to disqualify those biased, by challenge; and very well may have 

helped to save him from being sentenced to, “eighteen months upon 

the public works of the county or in the State penitentiary." 

LDF attorneys base their challenge on what they see as a 

serious misinterpretation of the United States Constitution. 

They contend, that by denying the defendant the right to examine 

jurors with respect to racial prejudice, the court denied certain 

rights provided under the Sixth Amendment in the United States 

Constitution which says in part: 

"In all criminal prosecutions, the 

accused shall enjoy the right to a 

speedy and public trial, by an im- 

partial jury of the State and dis- 

trict wherein the crime shall have 

been committed ... and to be in- 

formed pf the nature and cause of 

the accusation; ..." 

In their brief LDF attorneys stress the fact that "unless 

the impartiality of the jury can be assured, the right to a jury 

tiral and indeed, the right to a fair trial will be drained of any 



Gene Ham v. 
Page 3 

South Carolina 

substance. It follows that an accused must be provided with a 

reasonable opportunity to examine jurors on voir dire." 

=30= 

For further information contact: Attorney Jonathan Shapiro 
or Abeke Foster, Public 

Information 

(212) 586-8397