Study Guides (248,397)
Canada (121,509)
York University (10,209)
History (139)
HIST 3850 (19)
Midterm

HIST 3850 MIDTERM EXAM REVIEW.docx

26 Pages
426 Views
Unlock Document

Department
History
Course
HIST 3850
Professor
Patrick J Connor
Semester
Fall

Description
HIST 3850 MID-TERM EXAM REVIEW Angelique Pilotte (Ontario 1822):  Servant  1797 B.C, near Michilmackinac (Mackinac Island, Mich)  A Native to the Indian Country  Initially began her works as a servant to a woman on Drummond Island, where she eventually accompanied her mistress on a trip to France o While there her mistress died suddenly o Eventually head back onto Drummond Island and was hired as a “waiting woman” to Elizabeth Ann Hamilton and they left on a three-week voyage to the home of John Usher of Chippawa, Upper Canada  August 8 , the body of a dead baby boy was discovered in a very shallow grave near the Usher’s home  When questioned by her mistress, Pilotte confessed to being the baby’s mother “and was for the first time apprised, that she had committed a crime in the Eye of English Lw”  Later on, she made the same confession before justices, where she was held over for trial under bill of indictment for infanticide the act invoked was that of 1624 which had been passed “to prevent the destroying and murdering of bastard children”  Justice William Campbell appointed lawyer Bartholomew Crannel Beardsley as Pilotte’s counsel= she pleaded not guilty  The attorney for the crown, Henry John Boulton prosecuted the case to a quick conclusion after the introduction of Pilotte’s confession and the examination of seven witnesses  Petit jury= found her guilty but ‘strongly’ urged mercy  Campbell sentenced her to be hanged  Petition for mercy, written of September 15 , where Pilotte maintained her innocence was supported by the grand jury,  Eventually Campbell decided to respite the execution and refer the case to the administrator of the province= Samuel Smith to determine whether Pilotte was a fit object for the exercise of the Royal Mercy  Many of those who came to Pilotte’s defense had connection with the Indian community through the American revolution and War of 1812, the fur trade, the Indian Department and intermarriage  By the terms of the act of 1624 Pilotte was guilty on her own admission  Although Pilotte did not deny that the child was a bastard, her statements about its birth were contradictory  In her petition she maintained that the child had been stillborn en route to Chippawa, but her confession established that the child had been born on the Usher property that he had been born alive and that his birth had been concealed  Claiming th have given birth in a field adjoining the Usher home at about 2 A.M on the morning of July 30 , Pilotte stated that the child “moved its little legs but did not move its arms”  After staying with him for an hour or so, she left him “upon the grass then moving his legs but not crying”, wrapped the child tightly, purpose=chocking it, then buried while alive  Thomas Clark stated that the confession was freely made, neither threats nor promises being used to induce or influence her  Mary McQueen, the Usher’s servant testified that Angelique had gotten up 2-3 times during the th th night of 29 -30 and appeared sickly  Mary Usher, heard the sound of a baby but thought she imagined it  As to whether the baby had been alive or dead at birth, the evidence of the witnesses was less conclusive  Miss Hamilton and Mrs Clark reiterated Pilotte’s assertion to them that the baby had been stillborn; however Pilotte’s own confession made that possibility seem highly unlikely  Moreover, a local surgeon’s testimony that the body was perfect in form and had every appearance of mature birth  Pilotte seemed simple and stupid= testimonies  Pilotte’s petition was carefully framed, no doubt by her counsel, and emphasized the extraordinary circumstances of the case. She was a “poor girl,” with “no education whatever, nor the slightest instruction in the Principles of Christian Religion.” Utterly helpless, she was depicted as a victim of the judicial process. She had been unaware of her right to counsel and thus the lawyer appointed by the court to defend her had had insufficient time to prepare her case adequately. Moreover, some of the statements in her confession were flatly contradicted by her petition.  Here she claimed that while in France she had had “an unhappy connection” with a friend of her employer, a British officer whom she identified as a Lieutenant Luckman of the 81st Foot, and became pregnant. During the latter days of her voyage to Chippawa she went into labour. The child was stillborn and, fearing the wrath of her mistress, she wrapped the body, brought it ashore, and on the night of 29–30 July buried the baby in a shallow grave in an open field. The petition pointed out that the presence of infant’s clothing, by proving the mother’s intention to care for the child, was sufficient evidence according to English legal practice to remove a case from the purview of the 1624 act. More important, it drew particular attention to the different cultural customs of Indian women in childbirth. All Pilotte knew was the “customs and maxims of her own nation”; thus, she was guilty only of “the invariable custom of Indian women to retire and bring forth their children alone, and in secret.  Pilotte had to spend many months in prison before learning of the crown’s response to her plea for mercy. Transatlantic appeal was, naturally enough, a lengthy process and the delay eventually led Robert Fleming Gourlay* to claim that the government had not acted with proper dispatch, a charge that was completely unfounded. On 27 March 1818 Lord Sidmouth, acting on behalf of the Prince Regent, changed her sentence to one year’s imprisonment. On 13 May Bathurst notified Smith of the royal decision.  It is extremely difficult for an historian to judge on the basis of incomplete records whether Pilotte was guilty or innocent of infanticide. Certainly, according to the act under which she was charged, the grand jury (in the first instance, the petit jury) and the judge agreed that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a trial and ultimately to convict her. The peculiarities of that act aside, it cannot be known for certain whether the baby boy was stillborn or murdered. However, Pilotte’s assertions on the former count are not very convincing. What moved the juries and local inhabitants was probably sympathy for her helplessness and simplicity before a law which, in a sense, put the Indian tradition of childbirth on trial. As for Pilotte herself, it is not known what became of her. She probably served her sentence and then returned to her birthplace and her people.  Shawanakiskie (Ontario, 1817)  Ottawa convicted murdered, with at least one child, 1813-26 in Upper Canada  She fled from Amherstburg, Upper Canada with Major- General Henry Procter’s army when it retreated to the head of Lake Ontario  In the fall of 1821, he killed an Indian woman in the streets of Amherstburg he was lodged in jail before Mr. Justice William Campbell and prosecuted by Christopher Alexander Hagerman  The proceedings, according to Shawanakiskie in a later petition were conducted solely in English with no attempt to translate them into his native tongue  Shawanakiskie, according to a statement by Ironside had ‘half scalped’ a marine stationed at Amherstburg, allegedly murdered an old woman of his tribe and killed his sister by cutting her throat  Shawanakiskie’s counsel, probably William Horton, argued that in the matter at hand the accused had only avenged the murder of a parent, a custom sanctioned by native law. He further stated that the exercise of native laws and customs was guaranteed by treaty, thus rendering Indians immune from legal proceedings in such circumstances. None the less, Shawanakiskie was found guilty – the case, according to Campbell, having been “fully proved” – and sentenced to death.  It took over two years to check through the Indian Department’s records. Finally, in November 1825 Maitland reported that “after the most diligent Search . . . there appears to exist no treaty that can give color to the idea that an Indian is not to be considered as amenable to the law for offences committed against another Indian within His Majesty’s Dominions.” Armed with this information, officials at the Home Department quickly concluded that there was nothing to prevent the law from taking its course. Yet because of the possibility of extenuating circumstances of which Maitland alone would be aware, the warrant issued for Shawanakiskie’s execution included a proviso that the lieutenant governor could commute the sentence to transportation for life.  There is no evidence that Shawanakiskie received such a conditional pardon. Given his character and the threats to Ironside, it seems likely that he was executed at the Sandwich jail, probably in 1826. The legacy of his case was the resolution of a vexing legal question. Thereafter, as in the case of George Powlis*, an Indian could gain a pardon only on the grounds of legal cause and not by right of immunity. Hilda Blake (1899, Manitoba)  Born 1878, to a lower-class family in Chedgrave, England  Orphaned along with her siblings when she was 9 years old  In 1888, Hilda and her brother Tom were sent to live and work in the home of Alfred Perry Stewart and his wife Letitia at Kola, Manitoba  In 1898, Blake began to work as a domestic servant for the Robert and Mary Lane in Brandon, Manitoba  July 1899, Mary Lane (wife and pregnant mother of 4) was shot inside the parlour of her 10th Street home in Brandon  Neighbours rushed to her side  Hilda Blake soon emerged from the house to bathe Mary’s face with water while neighbours ran for help- Mary Lane died  Hilda Blake stepped forward as the only eyewitness to the horrific event, describing in great detail how a tramp had shot Mary after having been refused a meal  Police Chief James Kircaldy arrived shortly after the murder, within hours he began to see holes in Blake’s story and several days later charged her with the murder of Mary Lane  Confronted with the evidence Kircaldy had collected, Blake agreed to confess if she was permitted to see the Lane children one last time, in her confession she claimed she had purchased the gun to commit suicide but was driven to use it to kill Mary in a fit of jealousy  She did not implicate others “ I want to say that I am guilty and I want you to inflict the severest punishment upon me that is all”  Blake pled guilty and opted for a speedy trial without a jury  December 27 1899, Hilda Blake was hanged before 2 spectators at the Brandon Gaol  Friday 7 July, 1899: Blake testifies at an inquest into the death of Mary Lane. She repeats her story about the tramp to a skeptical audience. At the same time, investigators find a brooch wrapped in the same newspaper as the murder weapon in the room of Hilda Blake. Detectives are also able to trace the gun and box of shells to the Hingston-Smith Arms Company in Winnipeg, where the clerk identifies Blake from a photo as the purchaser of the gun and shells.  Motivation?  Hilda admits to shooting her mistress.  No evidence of abuse, what’s her motive?  Hilda a fan of pop-romance magazines. May have held unrealistic expectation that she shared love connection with her master, Robert Lane.  Killed Mary Lane in hopes of marrying Robert Lane. Becoming second (& legitimate) Mrs. Lane?  Unrealistic crush? Or legitimate possibility? Robert Lane never called to testify (a guilty plea meant there was no trial testimony).  Really no question that Hilda pulled the trigger. Was she encouraged to do so by Robert Lane?  On the eve of her execution, Hilda pens a cryptic poem, “My Downfall.” You can read it and decide if she was in love, or if she was deluded. Lizzie Borden (Massachusetts, 1892)  Lizzie Borden took an axe and gave her mother forty whacks when she saw what she had done she gave her father forty-one whacks.  An American woman who was tried and acquitted in the 1892 axe murders of her father and step mother in Fall River Massachusetts  Despite her father (Andrew) wealth he was known for his frugality, the Borden home for instance lacked indoor plumbing, and was not located in a fashionable neighbourhood  After the death of her mother Sarah Anthony Borden, Andrew married Abby Durfee Gray  During the inquest family live-in-maid Bridget Sullivan testified that Lizzie and her sister rarely ate meals with their parents  Lizzie indicated that she did not call her stepmother “mother” rather “Mrs. Borden” and demurred on the subject of whether or not they were cordial with each other  Tension had been growing in the family in the months before the murders, especially over Andrew’s gifts to various branches of the family  Apparently Lizzie found her father and called out to the maid  Aug 4, 1892, Andrew was slumped on the couch in the downstairs sitting room struck ten or eleven times with a hatchet-like weapon, one of his eyeballs had been split cleanly into two, suggesting he had been asleep when attacked  Sullivan discovered Abby’s body in the upstairs bedroom, he skull crushed by nineteen blows  Police found a hatchet in the basement which though free of blood was missing most of its handle, Lizzie was arrested on August 11 ; a grand jury began hearing evidence on November th nd 7 and indicted on December 2 Prominent points in the trial (or press coverage of it) included:  The hatchet head found in the basement was not convincingly shown to be the murder weapon. Prosecutors argued that the killer had removed the handle because it was bloody, but while one officer testified that a hatchet handle was found near the hatchet head, another officer contradicted this.  Though no bloody clothing was found, a few days after the murder Lizzie bu[16] a dress in the stove, saying it had been ruined when she brushed against fresh paint.  There was a similar axe murder nearby shortly before the trial, though its perpetrator was shown to have been out of the country when the Bordens were killed. [18]  Evidence was excluded that Lizzie had sought to purchase prussic acid (for cleaning a sealskin cloak, she said) from a local druggist on the day before the murders. [19][20]  Because of the mysterious illness that had struck the household before the murders the family's milk, and Andrew and Abby's stomachs (removed during autopsies performed in the Borden dining room), were tested for poison; [21no poison was found. [22] [23]  The victims' heads were removed during autopsy. [24]ter the skulls were used as evidence during the trial – Borden fainted upon seeing them – the heads were later buried at the foot of each grave.  The Donnelly Family (Ontario, 1880)  1846: Donnelly family arrives in Lucan, Ontario, part of widespread Irish “famine migration”  Family sets up as ‘squatters’ on empty farm land  Donnelly’s are Catholic, but try to avoid entanglement in Catholic/Protestant Irish feuds  Viewed with suspicion by many neighbours  Donnelly 100 acre farm sold to legitimate buyer (Pat Farrell) who has to give up 25 acres of it in respect to improvements the Donnelly’s have made over the last decade  This fairly standard ‘pay off’ to squatters a normal thing in 1850s Ontario, but leads to bad blood  1857, Pat Farrell fights James Donnelly at barn-raising bee, Farrell dies and Donnelly sentenced to 7 years in Kingston Pen for manslaughter  Donnelly family continues to prosper in Lucan much to the annoyance of their neighbours  Family’s sons set up successful stage business in competition with neighbours  One son wishes to marry a Protestant woman  Woman father sends her away saying it would be a cold day in hell before one of his daughters marry a Catholic  Local residents harass the Donnelly family, but they give as good as they get  Parents: James and Joanna, Children: James Jr, William, John, Patrick, Michael, Robert, Thomas, and Jenny, Cousin: Bridget= murdered on Feb 4 1880  Arsons, assaults, etc= common  Locals established : “Vigilance Committee “ of about 200 local names; 40 active members, including district constable and local priest  “Vigilance Committee” said to exist to protect locals from arsons, thefts, and so on but really an excuse to persecute unpopular Donnelly family th  4 Feb 1880:  Gang of about 40 men on horseback arrive at Donnelly farm at midnight  Enter Donnelly home, parents are beaten to death, son beaten to death with shovel, cousin Bridget also murdered in the house  Mob heads to another Donnelly son’s farm, set his barn on fire and shoots him dead when he emerges to investigate  Eyewitness to massacre a young (11 year old) Jimmy O’Conner who identifies many involved in the killings (he’d been vising the Donnelly’s and hid under a bed)  On basis of young Jimmy O’Conner’s evidence a number of leading citizens of Lucan indicted for murder, tried at next sessions of court in nearby London, Ontario  Court case but no one talks, murder charges fail when jury unable to agree on verdict th  Second similar case abandoned when it becomes clear no one will talk about the night o Feb 4  Both these cases are examples of local communities taking the law into their own hands. (and, perhaps even, ignoring the “formal law” altogether).  Is it a positive thing when people ignore the “official” law laid down by the state, and regulate their own communities with laws (or expectations) that better reflect the reality of “real life” in these neighbourhoods?  What if the “informal law” that is used to regulate such communities is racist and unjust? Clara Ford (Ontario, 1895)  Check notes in notebook Frank V. Magnum (Georgia 1915) th  Murder of Mary Phagan, National Pencil Factory, 27 , April, 1913  Jim Conley: said that Frank used office for rendezvous with women  Trial: o Defense introduces 200 witnesses o Prosecution based on anti-Semitism o Conley: 16 hours of cross-examination o Jury deliberates for four hours o Frank and his lawyers not present when verdict delievered o Request for a new trial o 103 motions, lawyers believed that the only option is for a new trial: must be able to overturn the facts of the case but cannot do that within the existing legal structure since facts cannot be over-turned in appeals  Georgia Supreme Court o Appealed to Georgia Supreme Court arguing that jurors were prejudiced/ 3-2 against Frank o Court states that judges actions were appropriate and reject defence argument on three important points about the jury o Request for new trial based on new evidence o Defense has new evidence about Jim Conley o This is result of investigation of detectives hired for Frank o This motion is denied and appealed to Georgia Supreme Court where it is also denied o New motion states that when the verdict was read, the defendant was not present and that th is a violation of the 14 amendment o Judge told lawyers: “counsel might be in danger should they be present at the reception of the verdict” counsel agreed and they and Frank were absent o State refuses to argue the point that enters a demurrer, i.e. even if the facts were true, this would be insufficient to set aside the verdict  Appealed to Georgia Supreme Court/ appeal denied o Federal court: on a writ of Hebeas Corpus th o Held in violation of the 14 amendment “that no person should be denied their life, liberty, or property without due process of law” o Defense/argument: o Defendant not present at reading of verdict: so as to bring about “loss of jurisdiction and the nullification of the verdict”  Violation was due to the action of the Court  Dominated by mob proceedings; ‘to which the presiding judge succumbed’ this brought about the dissolution of the court  Has right to appeal to federal courts once has exhausted all other appeals at state level  Government Argument o Prosecution: asking decision to be over-turned without submitting to Court parts of trail record o Georgia Supreme Court has set aside verdicts in cases where hostile demonstrations have impeded deliverance of justice o State law determines what ‘due process of law’ o 14 means law operates on all alike and do not subject individual to arbitrary action of government o Verdict should not be set aside on trifling error of judge o Claims of rex judicata, that these issues have already been raised by a court of competent jurisdiction and should not be raised again; i.e. the USC has no jurisdiction in the case  The decision of the USSC o Known as Frank v. Magnum (Magnum is the jailor) o Writ of habeas corpus can only be used if the defendant Is held in violation of the Constitution o What does due process mean? That the law is not repugnant to the Constitution and is conducted according to the laws of the state o Re. Disorder in courtroom/ there is a corrective, this is appeals process o Where there is no appeals process, then this would be violation of due process o Federal courts should not substitute their judgement for the state courts nor act as overseers of state courts o However have duty to see that the prisoner’s liberty is not taken from him arbitrarily o Mob can intimidate jury and this would be a violation of due process/however, the corrective is the appeal court  Justice Holmes Dissent o 1. Trail began on 28 July 1913 o 2. Judge conferred with lawyer of the accused o 3. Court has not lost jurisdiction; only temporarily; ‘the loss of jurisdiction is not general but particular, and proceeds from the control of hostile influences o 4. Questions of facts/case of life and death o In this case, the state ourt ruling does not make the matter rex judiicata, the federal ourt has an obligation to inquire into the matter ‘when the question of the constitutional right that one necessarily involves the other’  Commutation and Death o Governer commutes death sentence o Frank kidnapped and hanged by mob Aug 1915  Leo Frank (1884-1915)  Leo Max Frank= Jewish American factory superintendent who was hanged in 1915 by a lynching mob planned and led by the prominent citizens in Marietta Georgia, drew attention to anti- Semitism in the United States  U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "I very seriously doubt if the petitioner ... has had due process of law ... because of the trial taking place in the presence of a hostile demonstration and seemingly dangerous crowd, thought by the presiding Judge to be ready for violence unless a verdict of guilty was rendered."  In October 1914, William Smith, Jim Conley's own lawyer, announced that he believed Conley had murdered Phagan, but neither the state nor the police pursued this.  Eventually endured a lynching  Jim Conley, a black factory worker who testified against Frank — of being especially disposed to lying and murdering because of his race  here was jubilation in the streets when Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. By June 1915 his appeals had failed, but Governor John M. Slaton believed there had been a miscarriage of justice, and commuted the sentence to life imprisonment—to great local outrage. A crowd of 1,200 marched on Slaton's home in protest, and two months later Frank was kidnapped from prison by a lynch mob of 25 armed men who called themselves "Knights of Mary Phagan"  Some evidence at the crime scene was improperly handled by the police investigators. The boards from the door with the bloody prints were removed and subsequently lost before any analysis could be done. Bloody fingerprints were found on the victim's jacket, but there is no [23] indication that they were ever analyzed. A trail in the dirt along which police believed Phagan had been dragged was trampled and no footprints were ever identified  Moore V. Dempsey (1923, Arkansas)  12 defendants  30 September 1919, Ed Ware et. Al.  1 October 1919: Frank Moore Et. Al.  Farmers Progressive Household Union of America  The Trials  Held in November  Six characteristics  Intervention of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) founded in 1903  Appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court  Motion for new trail/clam torture used  Two separate appeals/ Ed Ware et. Al. (also known as Hicks)  Ware: sent back to trail  Moore: convictions confirmed  Restated Facts of the Case  Phillips County: population 44,530; 11,601 white, 32,929 black  Debt peonage/cotton growers  Bratton/Robert Hill  U.S. Supreme Court  Writ of habeas corpus before federal court/ Eastern district  Writ: 14 points/dismissed  Problems with appeal  Frank case/due process/ was a corrective process/findings of fact  Positives/ retirements/ Holmes dissent in Frank/Brandies  The Decision 1923  Reverses order of the district court and orders a hearing re: the factual allegations made in the writ of habeas corpus  3 points  was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled 6-2 that the defendants' mob- dominated trials deprived them of due process guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and reversed the district court's decision declining the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus.  The case resulted from the Elaine Race Riot in Phillips County, Arkansas, which followed the shooting death of a white railroad security employee on September 30, 1919 after shots were exchanged outside a church where a black tenant farmers union was meeting. Who fired the first shot is unknown  In the aftermath of the violence, a grand jury made up of local landlords and merchants decided who would be indicted. Those blacks willing to testify against others and who agreed to work on whatever terms their landlords set for them were let go  According to the affidavits later supplied by the defendants, many of the prisoners had been beaten, whipped or tortured by electric shocks to extract testimony or confessions and threatened with death if they later recanted their testimony  The trials were mob-dominated, as crowds of armed whites milled around the courthous  Thirty-six other defendants chose to plead guilty to second-degree murder rather than face trial. Sixty-seven other defendants were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment.  There was never a chance of an acquittal, as the jurors feared the mob  The NAACP also took on the task of organizing the defendants' appeal.  The defendants' lawyers were able to obtain reversal of the verdicts by the Arkansas Supreme Court in six of the cases in which death sentences had been imposed on the ground that the jury had failed to specify whether the defendants were guilty of murder in the first or second degree; those cases were accordingly sent back for retrial. The Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the death sentences of the six other defendants, rejecting the challenge to the all-white jury as untimely and finding that the mob atmosphere and use of coerced testimony did not deny the defendants the due process of law to which they were entitled. Those defendants unsuccessfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision.  The defendants petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the proceedings that took place in the Arkansas state court, while ostensibly complying with the requirements of a trial, were in fact only a form, and that the accused were convicted under the pressure of the mob with blatant disregard for their constitutional rights.  The state of Arkansas took a narrowly legalistic position, based on the United States Supreme Court's earlier decision in Frank v. Mangum. The State did not dispute the defendants' evidence of torture used to obtain confessions or mob intimidation, but argued that, even if true, this did not amount to a denial of due process.  The Court considered not the guilt or innocence of the accused black men, but rather whether their rights were abridged under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In a 6-2 decision, Justice Holmes wrote for the Court that a mob-dominated trial violated the due process provisions guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and that federal courts, upon being petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, were compelled to review such claims of discrimination in state trials and to order the release of defendants thus unfairly convicted.  Moore is significant for establishing precedent for wider use of federal writs of habeas corpus to oversee state court convictions that occurred in violation of federal constitutional rights, as well as marking the beginning of stricter scrutiny by the Supreme Court of state criminal trials. Powell V. Alabama (1934)  was a United States Supreme Court decision which determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process  All of the defendants, except for Roy Wright, were sentenced to death in a series of one-day trials. The defendants were only given access to their lawyers immediately prior to the trial, leaving little or no time to plan the defense. The ruling was appealed on the grounds that the group was not provided adequate legal counsel. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the trial was fair (the strongly dissenting opinion was from Chief Justice Anderson). This ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The majority opinion reversed and remanded the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, holding that due process had been violated. The ruling was based on three main arguments: "(1) They were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; and (3) They were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded."  March 25, 1931  Nine African- American teenagers hitching ride on regional freight train  Fight with a group of white teens on same train  Arrested at next stop- Scottsboro Alabama- and charged with assault and attempted murder  Two young white women also discovered on train Ruby Bates and Victoria Price  When questioned by authorities about their presence on the train, claim they were raped by the nine black teens  Nine brought to Scottsboro jail amidst growing local hostility  The nine are split into four groups for trail  No attorneys to represent them, so judge appoints entire bar of Scottsboro to act in this capacity  Four trails conclude in four days; all defendants convicted of rape (a capital offence in Alabama) and sentenced to death  NAACP- National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People  IDL – International Defense League – affiliated with Communist Party of the USA  Both group rally to support Scottsboro Boys  NAACP believes case will highlight reality of racial discrimination in South; IDL seeks to use case to highlight oppression of workers and the poor in the south  IDL lawyers chosen by Boys to mount appeal  Case appealed to Alabama Supreme Court  States supreme court rejects their arguments by a 5-1 decision  Arguments heard but rejected  Supreme Court of Alabama: The Majority View; o Decision upheld 5-1 o 1. Accused properly indicated o 2. Can be tried jointly o 3. Appellants claimed that they did not receive a fair and impartial trail. In what ways? Court disagrees o 4. New evidence about Ruby Bates is not relevant o 5. Defense claims that accused were tried too speedily o Eugene Williams: Trial of a juvenile  Alabama: The Minority View o Details the way in which the accused had little opportunity to talk with counsel. Why does this become important? o ”No matter how revolting the accusation, how clear the proof, or how degraded, or even brutal the offender, the Constitution, the law, the very genius of Anglo- American liberty, demand a fair trial. Let not an enraged public, or one which is itself outraged, stain its own hands, on the false plea that it is the avenger of the innocent”  Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court o Case (Powell vs Alabama) heard by US Supreme Court. o Appeal focuses on lack of legal representation for the defendants. o Although trial judge had casually appointed all local lawyers as attorneys of record, (thus attending to the requirement – in the 6 Amendment – that accused in capital cases must have counsel), defense now argues that this representation was not meaningful, and the trial did not provide “due process” for the Boys  US Supreme Court 1932 What is the question before the Court? 1. Accused not as if they had counsel 2. Accused should have the right to acquire counsel of their own choice 3. Accused were illiterate, poor, and from out of state (no local support or family) 4. Trial was so swift that the defendants had no opportunity to craft a proper defense th  Supreme Court agrees defendants 14 Amendment right to due process was violated  Meaningful and effective representation by counsel is an essential characteristic of ‘due process’  Overturns their convictions and orders a new trial Norris V. Alabama (1935)  ( Scottsboro Boys were tried in two main “batches”- “Powell Vs. Alabama was the first appeal, and “Norris V. Alabama” concentrated the second group, and approached the appeal on somewhat different grounds)  Norris el al were tried by a jury following Alabama procedure, BUT what sort of jury???- An ALL-WHITE jury! There were many qualified black jurors in the area, black citizens had been systematically excluded from actually participating in trials  Before the Supreme Court of the USA o Defense team questions whether the it is possible to have a trial which follows ‘due process of law’ if blacks had be
More Less

Related notes for HIST 3850

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit