Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute Archives logo

Vol. XII, No. 1
November, 1966
$10.00/ issues/year

Search in this volume

Case Number: 

Enter a specific case number or use * as wildcard, e.g., 303.15, 303.*

Case Title: 

Enter keywords from the title of a case, e.g., carpenters union

Case Description: 

Enter keywords from the description of a case, e.g., segregation school





Articles: William J Brennan, Jr, Supreme Court and Meiklejohn interpretation of First Amendment. 79 Harvard 1-20.

James C Millstone, High court retreats on rights—Majority decisions strengthen hand of Southern law officers. St Louis Post-Dispatch, Key List Mailing 243.

Paul J Mishkin, The Supreme Court, 1964 term, 79 Harvard 56-102.

Benjamin G Rader, Barbara K Rader, The Ely-Holmes friendship, 1901-1912. 10 Am Jour of Legal Hist 128-47.


Articles: Henry M Holland, Jr, Cardozo on legal method. 15 Jour of Pub Law 122-49.

Justine Wise Polier, Judicial review in democracy: Dissenting opinion. 3 Houston 354-66.

Peter Feller, Karl L Gotting, The Second Amendment. 61 Northwestern 46-70.

Michael R Klein, Towards an extension of First Amendment: right of acquisition. 20 U Miami 114-47.

Alex B Lacy, Jr, The Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment: Evolution of absorption doctrine. 23 Washington and Lee 37-65.

Survey: David W Robinson II, Constitutional law. 18 SC 21-9.


Article: Kenneth Culp Davis, Judicial control of administrative action: 66 Columbia 635-78.

Note: District court has jurisdiction to enjoin FTC from violating its own procedural rule incorporated into consent decree: Elmo Div of Drive-X Co v Dixon (348 F2d 342, DC Cir 1965). 41 NYU 198-202.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY (10-99) See also Association (200-299)
Form: Memo on unconstitutionality of prior restraints on exercise of First Amdt liberties, by Victor Rabinowitz. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 135-138; and see pp 75-89.
10. Licensing (and 203, 204, 257, 264)
11. Of Meetings (see also 201)

11.18a. San Francisco Mime Troupe v Recreation and Park Commn (San Francisco Super Ct, #567442) Facts: XI DOCKET 1, 59, at 11.18. Jy 7, 1966: Super Ct issued temporary order that Pl be allowed to perform for 2 week-ends, pending re-writing of Def's regs concerning theatrical groups in parks. Def submitted two regulations to ct; ct ruled regs unacceptable: they would have censored and harrassed Pl.

Stephen Adams, Esq, Mills Bldg, San Francisco.

11.22. Chicago v Rockwell (Chicago Muni Ct) Sept 10, 1966: Def, natl head of American Nazi Party, led march through Southside Negro district. Arrested: holding public meeting and soliciting funds in public park without permit. Pending.

And see Forbes, 51.Ill.11.

11.23. Monroe v Co of Los Angeles (Los Angeles Super Ct, #882358) 1966: Organization invited Pl minister to participate in free Easter sunrise services in Def's public facilities. Pl made statement on US-Cuba trade; Organization withdrew invitation. Pl sued for Def to withdraw permission for organization to use public facilities. Pending.

A L Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R Sperber, Esqs, ACLU, 257 S Spruce St, Los Angeles.

11.24. Pls v Natl States Rights Party, Lynch, Carroll (Cir Ct, Baltimore) Jy 29, 1966: Ct issued 10-day injunction prohibiting Def-organization from holding public rallies, Defs Lynch, Carroll, Norton from speaking at them, Defs Cordle, Hindle from participating in any rallies. Aug 11: after 3 day h'g, ct held Defs "implanted . . . idea of hanging in crowd's mind"; extended injunction for 90 days.
11.25. Fowler v San Fernando Police (Saugus) (CD Calif) KKK planned meeting, leased land from US Forest Service, which forbade cross burnings. Sept 15, 1966: Pl, Calif ch of KKK, sought temporary restraining order prohibiting police from interfering with meeting. DC found no evidence Defs threatened to disturb meeting, said police could prevent hecklers from interfering, denied request.

And see Fowler, 204.20.

12. Of Motion Pictures (see also 14, 52)
Articles: David C Baldus, Pennsylvania's proposed film censorship law-HB 1098. 4 Duquesne 429-41.

John R Verani, Motion picture censorship and doctrine of prior restraint. 3 Houston 1-10.

12.13. Freedman v Mason and Maryland State Bd of Motion Picture Censors (Md DC, #16415) Facts: X DOCKET 133, XI DOCKET 1. After filing of suit, Md Ct of App ruled portions of Censorship Act unenforceable, rendering suit in fedl ct moot. Dismissed.

See Freedman, 52.76a.

- 2 -

12.14. Smith, Mullan v Crumlish (Philadelphia) (Super Ct ##327, 328) Facts: X DOCKET 133. Super Ct affirmed: §§528, 529 of Penn Pen Code unconstitutionally vague; (2) procedure used in seizing film unconstitutional, (3) §§ 528, 529 fail to specify mens rea necessary for guilt.
12.25. Cusak v Teitel Film Corp (Chicago) (Ill Sup Ct, ##40214, 40215) Police chief refused to issue permit to Def to exhibit film, "Rent-a-Girl"; Def requested Pl, Motion Picture Appeal Bd, to review. Jan 24, 1966: Pl viewed film, took it into custody. Feb 9: Pl filed complaint, seeking injunction against showing of film. Def moved to strike and dismiss: (1) ordinance under which Pl operates is unconstitutional, (a) prior restraint of expression has heavy presumption of invalidity, (b) no authority in Pl to retain custody of film, deprivation of property without due process, (c) delay between time of viewing film and time of summons to Def constitutes unconstitutional restraint upon freedom of expression, (d) no constitutionally valid definition of obscenity; (2) complaint vague, uncertain, evasive. Cir Ct denied Def's motions. Def appealed. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 S LaSalle St, Chicago 60603; Miller and Miller, Esqs, One N LaSalle St, Chicago 60602.

12.26. Re Dallas Classification Ordinance (CA 5) Aug 1966: CA upheld Dallas ordinance creating review bd to whom motion picture exhibitors are required to submit their classifications of pictures as either "suitable" or "unsuitable" for viewing by persons under 16 unless accompanied by "parent, guardian, husband or wife." Ct rejected argument ordinance unconstitutionally vague; held "a properly drafted classification statute is a constitutional method of protecting children from motion pictures obscene as to them."
12.26a. Re Birmingham Ordinance (ND Ala) 1966: Action filed contesting validity of ordinance (1) creating bd to determine whether film is `moral and proper' for viewers under 18, (2) requiring exhibitors to display sign indicating classifications. Ct granted temporary injunction staying operation of bd pending decision of suit.
12.26b. Re New York Statute (NY Ct of App) 1966: NY State Bd of Regents, censorship body, attempted to comply with Freedman, 52.76, 380 US 51, through procedural amendment of rules and regulations. Ct of App held statute and amended rules unconstitutional: failed to include required safeguards. New legislation purporting to include safeguards failed to pass NY legislature.
12.27. Fine Arts Guild v Seattle (Wash Sup Ct) Def's Film Censorship Ordinance provided for (1) city censor bd, (2) age classifications for viewing films, (3) restrictions on theatre advertisements. 1966: Super Ct held ordinance unconstitutional as prior restraint with no procedure for immediate appeal, stated age classification provisions could be reformulated as long as no prior restraint. Def's appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Ray Brown, Esq, ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

13. Of Peddlers, Literature Tables (and 112, 152)
14. Of Books, Magazines (and 22, 52)
Legislation note: Obscene literature. 18 Vanderbilt 2084-89.
14.19. G P Putnam's Sons v Calissi, Bergen Co Pros (Hackensack) (NJ Super Ct, App Div, #A-476-64) Facts: X DOCKET 87, 133. After lower ct decision, USSC handed down decision in Memoirs, 52.Mass.4, 383 US 413, holding book not obscene. Def refused to consent to dismissal: USSC decision confined to particular facts of Massachusetts case. On appeal, Pl argues: (1) decision in USSC case directly controls present case and requires reversal, (2) in any event, principles established by USSC in that case require reversal on present record. Pending.

Rembar & Zolotar, Esqs, 521 Fifth Ave, NYC.

14.21. Long v Anaheim and Garden Grove (Orange Co Super Ct) 1966: Pl, leader of Socialist Labor Party, publisher of Weekly People, sued for injunction restraining enforcement of Def city ordinances requiring license to distribute newspaper: ordinance does not apply to political parties, or, if it does, is unconstitutional under guarantee of freedom of press. Ct held ordinance properly applied. Pl's appeal to 4th Dist Ct of App pending.

Tony Geram, Esq, 8408 Sierra Ave, Fontana; A L Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R Sperber, Esqs, ACLU, 257 S Spruce St, Los Angeles.

15. Of Miscellaneous Activities

15.11. California v Forbes (LA Super Ct, App Dept, #CRA 6454) Facts: XI DOCKET 1. Conviction reversed.

Amicus for S Calif ACLU by Allen I Neiman, Esq, 849 S Broadway, Los Angeles.

15.13. Office of Communication of United Church of Christ v FCC (formerly Henry, Smith v FCC) (Jackson, Miss) (CA DC) Facts: XI DOCKET 59. Cite: 359 F2d 994 (1966).
15.14. Rivers, Inc (WJAZ) v FCC (CA DC, #19076) (351 F2d 194, 11 RRLR 58) 1965: FCC denied Pl's Albany, Ga, radio station application to broadcast at night as well as during day on ground that Pl came under Commn's rule (47 CFR §73.28(d)) that permits should be refused if as many as 10% of the residents in a proposed service area would be unable to receive the broadcasts. Pl appealed denial, argued that other stations in area did not adequately serve the interests of Negro community. Aug 24: CA affirmed Commn ruling: held (1) Pl's evidence failed to show it was the only station serving Negro community; (2) no abuse of discretion by Commn in not waiving rule—no showing decision precluded Negro groups from having at least one outlet for self-expression.
15.15. California v Camejo (Berkeley) (Muni Ct, #12131) Apr 12, 1966: street demonstration held to protest war in Vietnam; broken up by police; Defs arrested: violation of ordinance requiring sound permit from police chief for loud-speaker equipment used on streets. Je 19: Muni ct ruled ordinance unconstitutional: lacks standards to guide discretion of chief of police.

Garry, Dreyfus & McTernan, Esqs, 341 Market St, San Francisco 94105.

15.16. Tissot v Seattle (King Co Super Ct) 1966: Police denied
- 3 -

Pl dance permit because he was trying to raise money for Bohemian Festival. Pl brought suit to declare dance ordinance unconstitutional: arbitrary enforcement, void for vagueness, no set standards to determine eligibility. Pending.

John Darrah, Esq, ACLU, 2120 Smith Tower, Seattle.

15.17. Concept East Theatre, Inc v Detroit (Wayne Co Cir Ct) Def denied Pl license because of showing of two "obscene" plays by LeRoi Jones. Ct reversed, held for Pl; theatre license renewed.

John Fillion, Esq, 8000 E Jefferson (Legal Dept), Detroit.

16. Of Parades (and 55, 63)
And see Rutledge, 73.Miss.25; Benson, 55.NH.2, .3.

And see Shuttlesworth, 55.Ala.4c; Montgomery, 55.Ala.11; Cunningham, 63.54.

16.3. Hicks v Cutrer (Bogalusa) (ED La, #66,225) Aug 23, 1966: Pl brought class suit for city Negroes to declare unconstitutional a city ordinance regulating marches and parades and to enjoin its enforcement. Sept 15: Trial; decision pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

See earlier suit with same title, 63.31b, XI DOCKET 11.

And see earlier Bogalusa cases: 55.La.4, .5, .5a, .6, .7, .8, 63.31b, 73.La.1.

20. Administrative Restrictions
21. By U. S. Customs
22. By U. S. Postmaster (and 12, 14)

Article: Jay A Sigler, Freedom of the mails. 54 Georgetown 40-54.

23. On Government Information and Secrecy
24. On Students and Professors (see also 56, 262, 281, 342, 571)
List and cites: Administrative restrictions on students and professors, outline with recent cases. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 221-222.

Analysis: Academic freedom defined. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 222a-222d.

Form: Complaint for reinstatement of student, by Charles Conley. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 223-226.

And see Oregon v Buchanan, 42.26.

Symposium: Student rights and campus rules. 54 Calif 1-178.

Article: Marc Okrand, Report Card, Open Forum, ACLU, 323 W Fifth St, Los Angeles 13. June, 1966.

Opinion: Atty Genl of California: Student may be suspended or expelled for behavior inimical to welfare of other students or behavior which adversely affects school discipline, whether such behavior occurs on or off school grounds. Student may be excluded for indefinite period if school district governing bd determines he suffers from `filthy or vicious habits' or has mental disability which causes his attendance to be inimical to welfare of other pupils. Jy 12, 1966, #66/23.

24.37. California v Savio and 571 Others (U of Calif-Berkeley) (Alameda Co Super Ct, App Dept, Cr #235) Facts: X DOCKET 88, 122, 133, XI DOCKET 2, 60. Sept 15, 1966: Appts filed opening brief (445 pp), including numerous statutory and constitutional arguments, comparison of sentences, Byrne Report. Pending.

Henry Elson, Esq, 2020 Milvia, Berkeley 94704. Price of brief: $5.

And see 24.37b; Poland, 55.Calif.18.

24.37b. Atthowe v U of California; Eisen v U of California (Berkeley) (Alameda Co Super Ct) Pl-Atthowe sued Def to give her access to documents filed with Univ stating names, addresses of officers, faculty sponsors of student organizations. Super Ct ordered Def to show cause why it should not answer request. Def said it would give information to Pl-Atthowe, on advice of Univ general counsel. Oct 10, 1966: when Pl-Atthowe went to pick up documents, she was handed temporary restraining order, filed by Pl-Eisen, ordering Def-Univ to show cause why it should be forced to hand over documents: violation of First Amdt right to privacy. Super Ct denied Pl-Eisen's motion: documents part of public record. Pl-Atthowe received documents.

Arthur Wells, Jr, Esq, 2890 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley.

24.40. Stanton v Dumke. Facts: X DOCKET 134. Cite: 43 Cal Rptr 873 (Cal DCA 1, 1965).
24.42. Parker v Bd of Educ. Facts: X DOCKET 134, XI DOCKET 60. Cite: 348 F2d 464; cert den: 382 US 1030.
24.45. California v Peters, Cuddy (San Francisco Muni Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 2, 60. Appeal pending.
24.46. Schiff v Michigan State Univ (WD Mich) Facts: XI DOCKET 3. Pursuant to DC decision, Faculty Comm on Student Affairs held long h'g, found Pl guilty on 6½ of 8 charges, held Def had rightfully denied Pl readmission. Pl filed new suit, alleged Def Univ Pres told Faculty Senate meeting before h'g that Pl disciplined for having gone to ct. Jan 1966: Faculty readmitted Pl before DC h'g. Closed.

Kenneth Laing, Esq, 1502 Michigan Natl Tower, Lansing; Paul Williams, Esq, Grand Rapids; Erwin Ellmann, Esq, Detroit, for Michigan ACLU.

24.51. Jones v Bd of Regents (U of Arizona) (DC Ariz, #2142-Tucson) Facts: XI DOCKET 61. Defs moved to dismiss; order to show cause submitted. Pending.

S. Leonard Scheff, Esq, 1535 East Broadway, Tucson 85719, for ACLU.

24.53a. John S Hodge v Principal, Valley High School, J C Cantrell and Jefferson Co Bd of Educ (Jefferson Cir Ct) 1966: Pl-parent sued Defs for suspending high school junior for wearing Beatle-type haircut. He is now attending school by ct order. Pending.

Edwin W Paul, Esq, Center Bldg, Louisville.

And see Collins, 553.NJ.2.

24.53b. Poll v Knorr (Wash Sup Ct) Def suspended Pl, 13-year old honor student, for refusing to cut his long hair. Ct
- 4 -

granted temporary restraining order; at subsequent hearing for preliminary injunction, judge dismissed. Appeal to Wash Sup Ct pending.

David H Hood, Michael H Rosen, Esqs, ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

24.53c. Thompson v Redondo Union High School Dist (Los Angeles Super Ct, #C-885593) Pl denied right to run for student body office: platform advocated that student government should set standards of dress and grooming. Pl filed petition for writ of mandate. Pending.

Paul Cooksey, Esq, 9900 Lakewood Blvd, Suite 107, Downey, Calif.

24.53d. Marshall v Oliver (Va Sup Ct of App) Pl students (Richmond Professional Institute), state school, denied registration: Pls wore beards and long hair in violation of school regulation. Pls sued for admission. Cir Ct dismissed on merits. Appeal pending.

Howard H Carwile, Esq, Richmond, Va.

And see Forstner, 25.12.

24.55. Mississippi v Sellers, Smith, Jeffries, Moore (Alcorn Co Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 61. Much unrest at Alcorn A & M College: students protesting strict college regulations. Apr 1966: Defs attempted to meet with student protestors; arrested: trespassing on state property, disturbing peace.
24.56. Pickering v Bd of Educ (Will Co) (Ill Sup Ct) Sept 22, 1964: Pl-teacher submitted letter, critical of Def-school bd and supt, to local newspapers. Sept 24: letter published. Oct 8: Def-bd voted to dismiss Pl: letter contained many false statements, injurious to bd, admr, and school. Def-Bd held h'g, confirmed dismissal of Pl. Pl sought review under Administrative Review Act. Mar 2, 1966: Cir Ct affirmed Bd decision. Pl appealed to Sup Ct: (1) Pl's right of free speech infringed—(a) criticism of public officials by statements not knowingly or recklessly false is protected, (b) fact of gov't employment does not alter constitutional standards which must be applied; (2) Def-Bd lacked statutory authority to dismiss Pl; (3) grounds, even if proper for dismissal, not irremediable. Pending.

Ligtenberg, Goebel & DeJong, Esqs, 134 No LaSalle St, Chicago 60602.

24.57. Cohen v Mississippi State Univ (DC Miss) Pl, managing editor of Def-Univ newspaper, wrote articles critical of Univ policies. Pl got series of parking tickets from campus police; Pl found no provision for trial or due process, even though statute said ticket convictions automatically misdemeanors and could result in jail sentence. Def referred tickets to JP; Pl arrested, incarcerated, not released until he posted cash bond. Pl filed complaint in DC seeking to enjoin prosecution, continued ticketing of Pl. DC granted preliminary injunction barring further prosecutions and barring Def from taking diciplinary proceedings against Pl. H'g held; State Atty Genl conceded all regulations unconstitutional; regs revoked. 3-judge fedl ct upheld enabling statute, but due process failures cured.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

24.58. Shields v St Johns Univ (NY Sup Ct, App Div, #8641-1966) 1965: teachers dismissed for making complaints about academic freedom and administrative matters. 1966: 24 teachers struck in sympathy with dismissed colleagues; names of 24 listed in Univ catalogue as faculty members. United Fed of College Teachers, AFT Local 1460, sued for damages, on behalf of 24: Pls "being held up to ridicule because of this misuse of their names." June 9: Sup Ct denied order for temporary injunction against Defs. July 11: App Div vacated lower ct order.

Delson & Gordon, Esqs, 120 E 41 St, NYC.

24.59. Snyder v Bd of Trs, Univ of Illinois (Chicago) (ND Ill) State legislature passed Clabaugh Act: prohibits instructors and other Univ employees from extending "to any subversive, seditious, and un-American organization . . . the use of [University facilities] for any purpose of carrying on, advertising or publicizing the activities of such organizaiton." Defs used statute to keep Communist speaker off campus. Pls, faculty and students at Univ, seek to enjoin Defs from continuing to enforce statute. Pending.

David J Krupp, Robert Plotkin, Esqs, 208 S LaSalle St, Chicago 60604.

24.60. Dickson v Sitterson (U of NC) (MD NC, #C-59-G-66) 1963: NC legislature passed Speaker Ban Law: Chancellor of state-supported universities must give express approval before designated speakers (known Communists, those who have pleaded Fifth Amdt, those who advocate overthrow of govt of US or NC) can speak on campus. SDS invited Herbert Aptheker, historian, Communist Party member, and Frank Wilkinson, chairman of Natl Comm to abolish HUAC, to speak on campus; acting Chancellor denied clearance. SDS organized Comm for Free Inquiry (CFI), broad-based coalition of student groups, headed by Pl, student body president. Speakers given new invitation. Mar 9, 1966: Aptheker and Wilkinson spoke on campus; campus police interrupted meeting, ordered crowd off campus; they moved off campus and continued speeches. CFI sued in DC, seeking injunction against legislature: (1) legislature has no right to tell Univ president how to regulate speakers, (2) speaker ban applies only to political left, thus violating right to equal protection, (3) legislative restriction on speakers is prior restraint, violates 14th Amdt as a bill of attainder. Defense requested dismissal: question moot, based on special circumstances that would not necessarily be repeated. Pending.

MacNeil Smith, Esq, Jefferson Standard Bldg, Greensboro, NC.

24.61. TAE Assn, Inc v Birmingham Bd of Educ (Oakland Co Cir Ct) 1966: Pl-fraternity challenged constitutionality of state statute prohibiting fraternities and sororities. Def moved for summary judgment. Pending.

John B Kiefer, Esq, ACLU, 1256 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit.

25. On Miscellaneous Activities
Article: Courtland H Peterson, Rule-making in Colorado—Crisis in procedural reform. 38 Colo 137-77.
25.12. Forstner v Civil Service Commn (Calif Dist Ct of App) Facts: X DOCKET 3, 89. Aug 1966: DCA affirmed decision
- 5 -

of Super Ct: Pl wrongfully fired for refusal to shave off beard, entitled to salary for 9 mths he was off job; dismissal can be predicated only on order which superior officer is entitled to give and entitled to have obeyed, but such order must be reasonably related to duties of employee.
25.14. Percikof v NYC Parks Dept (NY Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 134. App Ct reversed June 30 ruling of Sup Ct: poet does not have to submit advance notice to be able to read poetry in Washington Sq Park.
25.15. Sokol v Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co (San Francisco) (Calif Sup Ct) Oct, 1961: Pl's phones removed without notice or h'g, business destroyed because Def received letter from Police Chief that phones being used to aid illegal purpose. H'g before PUC: held no evidence phones being so used, ordered phones permanently restored. Pl sued for damages sustained during 14 days he was without phones. Def argued Super Ct had no jurisdiction: Def acting under PUC rule that Co not liable if acting on basis of letter from law enforcement officer. Super Ct rejected defense. Calif Sup Ct granted writ of prohibition against prosecution of suit pending PUC ruling. PUC held procedure constitutional. Pl appealed. 1966: Sup Ct held PUC rule unconstitutional: (1) phone is essential means of communication, thus any restraint raises questions of free speech, (2) PUC rule does not conform to due process requirements. Sup Ct did not allow Pl to press his damage suit: Def merely following PUC rule. Calif Atty Genl filed petition for reh'g: decision will seriously hamper fight against organized crime. Pending.

Marshall Krause, Leo Borregard, Esqs, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco 94118.

25.16. NYCLU v New York Telephone Co (NY Public Service Commn) Def has tariff requiring recorded telephone messages to include name and address of sponsoring organization or individual. Pl challenges rule. Pending.

Henry Winestine, Henry M diSuvero, Esqs, NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC 10010.

25.16a. In re Proposed New Rule on Recorded Public Announcements on Telephone Co Facilities (Calif Pub Util Commn, #8335) Jan, 1966: Telephone co proposed rule requiring all subscribers transmitting recorded public announcements over facilities of Pacific Telephone to include in recorded message name of organization or individual responsible for service, address at which service provided; failure to comply to be cause for termination of service. Proposed rule arose out of controversy over weekly series of recorded announcements called "Let Freedom Ring" which attacked many groups, PTA, Anti-Defamation League. Pending.

Reed H Bement, Esq, 405 Montgomery; Marshall W Krause, Esq, 503 Market, both of San Francisco.

25.17. Minneapolis Fed of Teachers, Local 59 AFL-CIO v Obermyers (Minn Dist Ct, 4th Jud Dist) State statute bars teachers from collective bargaining and striking. Pls challenge constitutionality of statute: violation of rights of equal protection, association and speech, substantive due process. Pending.

Gary B Crawford, Esq, 760 Northwestern Bank Bldg, Minneapolis.

And see Dumpson, 62.6a.

25.18. Bagley v Washington Township Hospital District (Calif Sup Ct, #1 Civil 22323) Pl, hospital employee, member of recall committee contesting election of several incumbent directors of hospital district (a public entity). Pl fired by Def. Trial ct upheld firing: since Pl had no civil service protection, could be fired for any reason. DCA affirmed: person who can be fired `without cause' can be fired for any reason whatsoever. Pl's appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Marshall W Krause, Esq, 503 Market St, San Francisco 94118.

25.19. Firestone v 1st Dist Dental Society (NY Co Sup Ct) Def requires members to submit articles and speeches for approval prior to delivery. Pl seeks to enjoin Def from such activity. Trial pending.

Emanuel Redfield, Esq, 60 Wall St, NYC 10005.

25.20. Hillside Community Church v Tacoma (Pierce Co Super Ct) Pl contracted with city busline to place sign on buses: `End the War in Vietnam Now—Through Peaceful Negotiations'. City received complaints, ordered signs removed. Pl sued to enjoin city from removing signs. Def answered: will not allow signs `inimical to best interests of US and against established policy of US.' Trial pending.

Donald J Horowitz, Allen Overland, David Skellenger, Esqs, Tacoma, Wash.

25.20a. Kissinger v New York Transit Authority (SD NY) Pl sued to compel Def to contract subway advertising space for an anti-war poster. Pending.

Marvin Schlesinger, Esq, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC 10010.

25.20b. Wirta, Duckles v Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District and Metro Transit Advertising (Alameda Co Super Ct, #354607) 1966: Def, public transit district, refused to accept ads from Pls, members of Women for Peace: only paid ads accepted for commercial products. Super Ct ordered injunction to protect Pls' right to place ads on basis of First Amdt. Def appealed. Pending.

Joseph Grodin, Esq, 1035 Russ Bldg, San Francisco.

25.21. Tepedino v Deempson (NY Ct of App) Pls, employees of Welfare Dept, wrote letter to HEW criticizing practices of NY Welfare Dept; fired. Sup Ct denied request for reinstatement. Appeal pending.

Morris Glushein, Jerome Kauff, Esqs, ILGWU, 1710 Broadway, NYC.

And see cases at 421., 422.

25.22. Council on Religion and Homosexual v California State Fair (Sacramento Super Ct) May 1966: Def assigned Pl space for exhibit on homosexuality at fair beginning Aug 31. Aug 26: Def cancelled Pl's permit. Pl sought writ of mandate from Super Ct to compel Defs to reverse decision. Sept 1: Super Ct held Def within its rights in refusing booth: no contract signed, fair management has complete discretion. Fair police ordered Pl pamphleteers away from gate, then relented.

Herb Donaldson, Esq, 333 Franklin St, San Francisco.

- 6 -

30. Economic Restrictions (see also 251, 261, 268, 281, 571)

30.15. Weaver v Jordan (Calif Sup Ct) (64 AC 243) Facts: X DOCKET 134, XI DOCKET 3. Mar 2, 1966: Sup Ct affirmed Super Ct: Proposition 15, outlawing pay television, conflicts with guarantee of free speech. Appeal to USSC pending.

Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

30.16. NAACP v Overstreet (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 3, 61. Cites: cert dism'd as improvidently granted: 384 US 118; reh'g den: 384 US 981.
30.19. In re Virginia Collins (New Orleans) Pl-organizer in New Orleans-based OEO welfare council permitted protest meeting against police brutality to be held at OEO's community center. Je 15, 1966: Pl discharged. Appeal pending.

Gerald Federoff, Esq, American Bank Bldg, Rm 813, New Orleans.

And see Collins, 51.La.8; 17-year-old, 51.La.8; 16-year-old, 430.12.

30.20. US v Lenske (Portland, Ore) (CA 9, ##19539, 20448) Apr, 1964: DC convicted Def-atty of income tax evasion. Oct 7, 1966: CA reversed DC: (1) IRS agent who investigated Def included in his report files of FBI and local police on Def's political activities, stated he had "reason to believe Lenske is a Communist"; CA held "this ct will not place its stamp of approval on a . . . crusade to rid society of unorthodox thinkers and actors, by using Fedl income tax laws and Fedl cts to put such people in the penitentiary"; (2) IRS agent miscalculated Def's tax deficiencies and "such gross miscalculations make it evident that some element foreign to the functions and duties of a Fedl tax officer was corroding his judgment."
40. Contempt (see also 63, 330s, 390s)
Comments: The coercive function of civil contempt. 33 Chicago 120-33.

Contempt by publication. 60 Northwestern 531-50.

Criminal contempt procedure in Florida—proposals. 28 Florida 78-93.

Summary punishment for contempt: Due process requires notice and hearing before independent tribunal. 39 So Calif 463-69.

41. Of Federal Courts
See Cheff v Schnackenberg (1966) 384 US 373; Shillitani v US and Pappadio v US (1966) 384 US 364.
41.8. Harris v US (382 US 162) Facts: XI DOCKET 62.Note: 11 Villanova 622-32.
41.9. In re Sam Giancana (Chicago) (ND Ill) June 1, 1965: Pet refused to testify before grand jury investigating organized crime, in spite of grant of immunity from prosecution offered by judge; jailed for contempt of grand jury. May 31, 1966: DC freed Giancana, criticised Govt for not charging alleged crime syndicate chief with obstruction of justice and criminal contempt.
42. Of State Courts

42.26. Oregon v Buchanan (Eugene) (Ore Sup Ct, #81275) Def, managing editor of student newspaper of Univ of Oregon, refused to tell grand jury names of persons from whom she obtained material for story on marijuana. Je 28, 1966: Cir Ct convicted Def of contempt of court: no statute protecting reporters who refuse to identify their sources, "the right and remedy of the State . . . defeated and prejudiced by the respondent in her contempt." Def moved for new trial. Pending.

Arthur Johnson, Esq, 641 Pearl, Eugene, Oregon.

And see cases at 24.

42.27. Chicago v Vidnjevich (Chicago) (Muni Ct) Bldg inspector with ct order calling for inspection of hqtrs of Nazi Party not allowed into hqtrs. Pl brought contempt-of-court suit against Def. Pending.
43. Of Other Agencies (see also 270s, 330s)
50. Criminal Sanctions
Article: Burke Marshall, The protest movement and the law. 51 Virginia 785-803.
51. Against Disorderly Conduct and Similar Offenses (and 55)
Articles: Harrop Freeman, Right of protest and civil disobedience. 41 Indiana 28-254.

Elliot L Richardson, Judicial intervention in civil rights movement. 46 Boston 37-44.

Stanley A Weigel, Some reflections on civil disobedience, riots and law. 1 Lincoln 1-7.

Comments: Breach of peace and disorderly conduct laws void for vagueness? 12 Howard 318-31.

Civil disobedience in civil rights movement—to what extent protected and sanctioned. 16 W Reserve 711-24.

51.Ala.7. Tuscaloosa v Bonner (Muni Ct) Aug 19, 1966: Citizens Action Comm held march protesting slum conditions; Def called in by marchers to restore order after leaders arrested. Def dismissed demonstrators, then Negro policeman took Def aside and cursed at him; Def asked for his badge number and was arrested: disorderly conduct. Muni Ct found Def guilty; 6 mths' hard labor, $100 fine. Def's appeal pending.

And see cases at 429.

51.Ala.8. Recorder's Ct of Bessemer v Thomas, Stout (ND Ala SD, ##66,140, 64,210) Persons participating in voter registration drive arrested: using public park. Defs removed to DC. Mar 1, 1966: H'g on motions to remand in both cases. DC remanded to state ct on basis of Forman v Montgomery. 55.Ala.8. Pl's appeal to CA 5 pending.

David H Hood, Esq, Bessemer, Ala.

51.Calif.9. California v Greene (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 3. Calif Super Ct upheld statute prohibiting "tumultuous and offensive conduct," "loud and unusual noise." USSC denied cert.
- 7 -

51.Calif.10. California v Wright (San Diego Super Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 3. Defs, allegedly jumped on and beaten by police, acquitted of all but disturbing peace charges; 30 days.
51.Calif.12. Pasadena v Weger (Pasadena Muni Ct) Je 12, 1966: Def walking at 3:30 am; stopped by officer, identified self but refused to say where he lived; arrested: violation of Pen Code §647(e): disorderly conduct to "loiter or wander upon the streets or from place to place without apparent reason or business" and to refuse "to identify himself and to account for his presence when requested by any peace officer to do so, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety demands such identification." Def demurred: section unconstitutional; infringes right of self-incrimination; violates Miranda 353.41, too vague. Muni Ct sustained demurrer.

Allen I Neiman, Esq, Pasadena.

And see cases at 57.

51.Colo.2. Colorado v Perdew, Deluxe (Denver Super Ct, #S-51890) Facts: XI DOCKET 62. Jury found Defs guilty of disturbing peace; Defs fined $100 each. Appeal pending.

Harry K Nier, Esq, 1700 Broadway; Forrest O'Dell, Esq, Majestic Bldg; ACLU as amicus, 1452 Penn, all of Denver.

51.Conn.3. Turner v LaBelle (Hartford) (DC Conn) Shortly after Watts revolt (429.) North End Community Action Project scheduled public civil rights meeting to show solidarity with people in Watts. NECAP informed police of proposed meeting, told no permit necessary. Aug 17, 1965: meeting held; Pls, members of NECAP, addressed crowd of 100-150. After speeches, symbolic coffin carried to city hall; 40 demonstrators present, including Pls; scuffling—police lieutenant injured; Pls arrested: breach of peace. Pls sent other demonstrators home; some demonstrators stoned cars and broke windows. Pls released on bond until criminal term of Super Ct, beginning Oct 5. Oct 4: Pls filed complaint seeking (1) injunction against enforcement of §53-44 (inciting to riot): used to curtail free speech and civil rights activity; (2) to restrain Defs, state officers and police chief, from hindering Pls' exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights and privileges. Jan 25, 1966: Super Ct denied injunctive relief: since there is readily apparent construction available for rehabilitating statute in single prosecution and since Pls did not show bad faith of Defs in enforcing statute or that there would be irreparable harm to Pls, ct is justified in abstaining from staying proceedings in crim ct. Criminal charges pending.

Emanuel Margolis, Esq, 25 Bank St, Stamford, Conn.

51.Conn.4. Hartford v Smith, Harris (Hartford Muni Ct) Sept 14, 1966: Defs, among 150 Caucasian and Negro welfare recipients, sought meeting with Bernard Shapiro, state welfare commr, to present demands for increased welfare payments and standards. Defs arrested: Disorderly conduct. Pending.

And see 17 Demonstrators, 51.NY.33; and 420s.

51.Fla.3. Florida v Marks (Pompano Beach Muni Ct) Je 21, 1966: Def, Caucasian grocery store owner, allegedly slapped 10-yr old Negro boy; crowd of Negroes gathered at store; police escorted Def and wife to jail; Def booked: assault and battery. Pending.
51.Fla.3a. Florida v 24 Defs (Pompano Beach Muni Ct) After events in Marks (51.Fla.3) crowd grew to 600; some threw bottles at passing cars; police moved into the area, crowd threw rocks and bottles. Defs arrested: unlawful assembly, loitering, disorderly conduct. Pending.
51.Ga.8. Atlanta v 72 Demonstrators (Atlanta Muni Ct) Sept 6, 1966: Caucasian policeman shot and wounded fleeing Negro he was trying to arrest on charge of car theft. Crowd gathered; members of SNCC addressed them; later crowd became disorderly. Mayor spoke to crowd, unable to calm them. 72 persons arrested: disorderly conduct. Pending.

And see Carmichael, 51.Ga.8a.

51.Ga.8a. Carmichael v Allen (Atlanta) (ND Ga, #10421) After events in 51.Ga.8, Pls, leaders of SNCC, arrested: disorderly conduct, insurrection, riot (Code of Ga 26-901, -903, -904, -5301, -5302; sec 2-7 `disorderly conduct,' Charter, Related Laws and Code or Ordinances, Vol II, 1022). Pls brought class action to restrain enforcement of statutes: (1) they violate First Amdt rights, (2) they are void for vagueness, (3) some previously declared unconstitutional. Pls moved for 3-judge fedl ct under 28 USC 2281, 2284, to determine the proceeding. Motion granted. Dec, 1966: Ct enjoined prosecutions under insurrection and insurrectionary literature statutes, §§26-901—26-904. Ct also held Atlanta disorderly conduct ordinance unconstitutional on its face. Ct abstained from determination on constitutionality of riot law: (1) language of statute and of indictment did not show interference with First Amdt right, (2) Pls failed to carry burden of proof that purpose of prosecution is to discourage First Amdt activity. (See Dombrowski, 246.16d). Pls seek further stay to litigate the statute's constitutionality in state cts in non-criminal proceeding. Pending.

Howard Moore, Jr, Esq, 859½ Hunter St, NW, Atlanta 30314; William Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Esqs, 511 Fifth Ave, NYC 10017; Len Holt, Esq, 250 Nicholson St, NE, Washington, DC; Morton Stavis, Dennis Roberts, Esqs, 744 Broad St, Newark; Michael Standard, Esq, 30 E 42nd St, NYC 10017.

And see cases at 54.

51.Ill.9. Chicago v Gregory (Muni Ct) June 11, 1966: Def participated in civil rights demonstration; arrested: battery, resisting arrest. May 3: Def convicted by all-Caucasian jury; 5 mths and $1400. Def asked for stay of execution: he is running for office of Mayor, `even the most wanton criminal" is granted stay in such case. Ct denied motion. Appeal pending.

Jean F Williams, Esq, 366 E 47th St, Chicago.

51.Ill.10. Chicago v 32 Persons (Muni Ct) Sept 4, 1966: Chicago CORE led 250 people in march for open housing thru Cicero, all-Caucasian suburb. Spectators threw rocks and bottles at marchers; Natl Guardsmen beat them back with guns and bayonets. 32 spectators, 6 residents of Cicero, arrested. Pending.
51.Ill.10a. Chicago v Lucas (Chicago) Chicago CORE planned march for open housing thru Gage Park, all-Caucasian
- 8 -

community for Sept 11, 1966. Sept 10: Def, leader of Chicago CORE and of march through Cicero, 51.Ill.10, arrested: failure to pay fines from 3 convictions on disorderly conduct, obstructing traffic, breach of peace charges from civil rights arrest in summer 1965. Sept 11: CORE called off the march, picketed Chicago House of Corrections.
51.Ill.11. Chicago v Forbes (Chicago) (Muni Ct) Sept 10, 1966: Def-Lt in Am Nazi Party, self-professed minister, led march thru Southside Negro district, started chant. Arrested: disorderly conduct, interfering with police. Ct-appointed atty, Negro, argued Def arrested merely because his clerical garb made him stand out as leader of parade. Def waived jury trial; judge found him guilty; $300 fine. Appeal pending.

Fred Ross, Esq, Chicago, Ill.

And see Chicago v Rockwell, 11.22.

51.La.2b. Cox v Louisiana (E Baton Rouge Parish) (Jud Dist Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 135. Aug 10, 1966: CA remanded on basis of Peacock v Greenwood, 55.Miss.5a, 374 F2d 679 (1965) and Georgia v Rachel, 58.21, 382 US 808 (1965). Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

51.La.6. Brown v Louisiana (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 4, 62. Cite: 383 US 131 (1966).
51.La.7. Louisiana v Ora Magee (Bogalusa) (ED La) 1965: Def-Negro, member of Bogalusa Voters League, picketed segregated conditions at Washington Parish Fair; arrested: blocking traffic, disturbing peace. Mar 1966: Def removed to DC. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

51.La.8. Louisiana v Collins and 17-yr-old (New Orleans Muni Ct) Je 10, 1966: Son of Def arrested for allegedly breaking traffic light (16-yr-old, 430.12). Def argued with arresting police; arrested: disturbing peace, resisting arrest, reviling police, assault and battery on police. Daughter protested mother's arrest; arrested on same charges as mother. Both cases pending.

Gerald Federoff, Esq, Bank Bldg, Rm 813, New Orleans.

51.Miss.4. Guyot v Pierce (Jackson) (CA 5, #22733) Facts: X DOCKET 135, XI DOCKET 4, 63. Jan 28, 1966: Pls filed appellate brief. June 10: argument.

Marian Wright, 538½ N Farish St, Jackson, Miss.

51.Miss.8. McLaurin v Greenville (USSC, #633) (187 So2d 854) Defs, Negro civil rights workers, stood on steps outside municipal bldg while trial ct in session, shouted to crowd protesting disorderly conduct convictions of 2 Negro girls; arrested: disturbing peace, resisting arrest. Trial jury found Defs guilty. Miss Sup Ct held: (1) First and 14th Amdts do not bar convictions, (2) no evidence in record that trial ct refused to permit Defs to show pattern or practice of systematic prosecutorial exercise of peremptory challenges to strike Negroes from jury. Oct 6, 1966: Defs filed petition for cert to USSC. Pending.

Jack Greenberg, Melvyn Zarr, Esqs, NAACP Inc Fund, Suite 2030, 10 Columbus Circle, NYC 10019; Anthony G Amsterdam, Esq, U of Pennsylvania Law School, 3400 Chestnut St, Philadelphia 19104; R Jess Brown, Esq, 125½ N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39201.

51.NJ.4. Smith v New Jersey (NJ Sup Ct) (218 A2d 147) Defs attended public h'g in City Council chamber; Council president ordered Def to leave chamber; Def linked arms with 4 other Defs, refused to leave; arrested: disorderly conduct. NJ Sup Ct held: (1) City Council chamber is `place of assembly' within purview of NJ disorderly conduct statute which makes it unlawful for any person `by noisy or disorderly conduct (to) disturb . . . or interfere . . . with the quite or good order of any place of assembly, public or private'; (2) statute not void for vagueness; (3) president of Council had ample reason to believe Def intended to disrupt meeting; (4) locking arms and blocking door violated statute on interfering with any person lawfully in public or private place, even tho persons were able to get out of chamber and none was delayed more than one minute. Oct 10, 1966: USSC denied cert.

Carl Rochlin, Floyd McKissick, Esqs, CORE, 38 Park Row, NYC.

51.NY.14. New York v Callender (NY Ct of App) Facts: X DOCKET 90, at 51.63. Trial ct convicted Def of disorderly conduct for attempted citizen's arrest of Mayor. App Div affirmed. Appeal pending.

Richard Miller, Allan H Levine, Nanette Dembitz, Esqs, 60 E 42nd St, NYC.

51.NY.16a. New York v Traficant (NY Sup Ct, App Div, 1st Dept) Def, mandolin-playing troubadour, acquitted on charges of playing in "wrong part of park." 1966: Def rearrested: disorderly conduct, resisting arrest. Convicted. Appeal pending.

Martin Berger, Esq, 377 Broadway, NYC.

51.NY.31. New York v Scott, Steine (Suffern Police Ct) Jy 4, 1966: Defs, members of CORE, lay down in road to halt firemen's parade in protest of fact that volunteer fire companies virtually all-Caucasian; arrested: disorderly conduct. Pending.
51.NY.32. New York v Green (NYC Muni Ct, Crim Div, #A 7879/66) Je 23, 1966: Def participated in rent control demonstration; arrested: felonious assault. Charge reduced to assault 3rd degree, violation of §1851 Pen Law (resisting arrest). Trial pending.
51.NY.32a. New York v Gray, Vaughan (NYC Muni Ct, ##C-9936/66, C9937/66, B6204/66) Je 23, 1966: Defs took part in rent control demonstration; arrested: resisting arrest, disorderly conduct. Pending.
51.NY.33. New York v 17 Demonstrators (NYC Muni Ct) Sept 14, 1966: 50 demonstrators, mostly mothers on welfare, blocked doors of Dept of Welfare, seeking increased clothes allowances for school children. Defs arrested: disorderly conduct, trespass, resisting arrest. Pending.

And see Hartford v Smith, Harris, 51.Conn.4; and 420s.

- 9 -

51.NY.34. New York v 11 Defs (NY Sup Ct, App Div) Apr 4, 1966: Defs, civil rights demonstrators, sat in path of trucks at construction project; arrested: disorderly conduct. Convicted: 5 days of $25. Defs appealed: trial unconstitutionally refused evidence that persons whose movements were obstructed were involved in commission of crimes because of practicing racial discrimination. App Div affirmed convictions.
51.SC.2. South Carolina v Randolph (Sumter) Facts: X DOCKET 5. Correction: cite: 121 SE2d 349 (SC Sup Ct, 1961).
52. Against Obscenity (see also 12, 14, 22, 303, 580)
Articles: Anthony R Blackshield, Constitutionalism and comstockery. 14 Kansas 403-52.

Rex J Dibble, Obscenity: State quarantine to protect children. 39 So Calif 345-77.

Stephen L Wasby, Public law, politics, and local courts: obscene literature in Portland. 14 Jour of Pub L 105-30.

Comments: Blueprint for censorship for obscene material: standards. 11 Vanderbilt 125-38.

Changing standards of obscenity. 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 206-15.

New York law controlling the dissemination of obscene materials to minors. 34 Fordham 692-710.

Scope of Supreme Court review in obscenity cases. 1965 Duke 596-608.

Use of expert testimony in obscenity litigation. 1965 Wisconsin 113-32.

Venue: Its impact on obscenity. 11 S Dakota 364-73.

Speech: G Robert Blakey, Obscenity and Supreme Court. Cong Rec-Appendix. Aug 16, 1966, A4313.

Remarks: Amendment to Constitution to empower Congress to regulate distribution of pornographic literature. Cong Rec. Jy 14, 1966, 15072.

S.309—Commission on Noxious and Obscene Matters and Materials—Cong Rec—Sen: July 11, 1966, 14415; Report of Comm on Govt Operations: Je 30, 1966, 14101.

52.Calif.19. California v Thompson (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 92, 136, XI DOCKET 5, at 52.78. App Div affirmed conviction of Defs for use of word "fuck," without opinion. USSC denied cert.

Marshall W Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco; Albert M Bendich, Esq, 2890 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley 94704.

52.Calif.22. California v Demm and Bevirt (Muni Ct, Santa Cruz Co, Dept I, #13858) 1966: Defs owned bookstore; exhibited photos by Walter Chappell showing nude male figures. Police confiscated photos; charged Defs with exhibiting obscene matter to minor; exhibiting obscene matter; wilfully and wrongfully committing act outraging public decency. Judge held photos not obscene as matter of law; dismissed complaint.

Robert Bennett, Esq, Santa Cruz; Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

52.Calif.23. California v Dixon, Bright (SF Muni Ct) Aug 8, 1966: Police arrested Def-actors after performance of "The Beard," written by Michael McClure. When Defs taken to Hall of Justice, not charged with misdemeanor of obscenity (for which they were arrested), but with suspicion that they committed felony of conspiracy. When Defs appeared again in ct, charge again changed, to violation of Pen Code §647(a) forbidding lewd or dissolute conduct in public. Oct 12: Defs sought writ of prohibition in Super Ct against Muni Ct trial urging law is unconstitutional, cannot be applied to conduct of actors in theater. Super Ct issued temporary restraining order, forbidding trial until h'g set for Oct 21.
52.Calif.24. California v Cory (Oakland-Piedmont Muni Ct) 1966: Def, owner of smoke and magazine shop, placed sign in store window saying "Bull Shit" over newspaper story he disagreed with; arrested: violation of Pen Code §§650½, 415, breach of peace. Issue: applicability of breach of peace statute to speech without action or sound, attempt to by-pass more stringent requirements of obscenity statute. Muni Ct sustained general, special demurrers; amended complaint filed.

Neil F Horton, Esq, 833 First Western Bldg, Oakland, Calif 94612; Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

52.Calif.25. San Francisco v Patricia Maginnis (SF Muni Ct, Crim Div) Jy 25, 1966: Def passed out leaflets on abortion; arrested: violation of Muni Police Code, §188. Aug 18: Muni Ct dismissed: free speech necessitates means of distribution; held police ordinance invalid: it proposes additions to general law.

Herbert Donaldson, Esq, 333 Franklin, San Franciso.

52.Colo.1. Colorado v Mime Troupe (Denver Muni Ct) Sept 30, 1966: Denver police arrested 3 members of SF Mime Troupe charging lewd acts in show "Civil Rights in a Cracker Barrel." Pending.

Walter Gerash, Esq, ACLU.

52.DC.1. Stone v District of Columbia (CA DC) (350 F2d 729 (1965)) (359 F2d 275 (1966)) Facts: X DOCKET 136, XI DOCKET 64, at 52.82. Correction: 1965: CA granted Def's petition to allow appeal; denied petition for reh'g en banc. Apr 8, 1966: CA affirmed conviction, held trial ct's finding that Def had engaged in disorderly conduct independent and sufficient basis of conviction, distinct from alleged use of profane and obscene language.

Michael D Padnos, Lawrence Speiser, Esqs, 1725 K St NW, Washington, DC.

52.Fla.1. Marcel Fort v Miami (Dade Co Cir Ct, Crim App, #5835) 1965: Pl-artist publicly displayed for sale 6 of his statues; police confiscated statues. Pl convicted under Miami ordinance incorporating State's obscenity statute. Issues on appeal: were statues not obscene and thus protected by 1st and 14th Amdts; does ordinance set forth unconstitutional test for obscenity by using Roth "appeal-to-prurient interest" language and no other test; was it unconstitutionally applied in seizure of statues prior to judicial determination of obscenity. Pending.

Irma Feder, Esq, 110 N Hibiscus Drive, Miami Beach; Joseph C Segor, Esq, Seybold Bldg, Miami.

- 10 -

52.Ky.1. Austin v Kentucky (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 64, at 52.86. Cite for cert granted: 384 US 916.
52.Mass.4. A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v Atty Genl of Massachusetts (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 5, 64, at 52.83. Cite: 383 US 413.
52.Mich.7. Aday, Maxey, W Coast News Co v US (USSC, #1329) Def-publishers mailed copies of "Sex Life of a Cop" into Michigan; arrested: obscenity; convicted. CA 6 remanded for review of sentences. DC reduced sentences. US filed petition for cert. Pl asked USSC to remand to CA 6: charge to jury improper in view of Memoirs, 52.83. ACLU amicus brief: USSC should decide whether to continue present `obscenity per se' approach or change to one that can be applied to all expression, regardless of subject-matter. Pending.

John A Fillion, Esq, 8000 E Jefferson Ave, Detroit 48214; Melvin L Wulf, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC; Rolland R O'Hare, Erwin B Ellmann, Esqs, ACLU, 1256 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit 48226.

52.NY.9. Mishkin v New York (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 7, XI DOCKET 5, 63 at 52.34. Cite: 383 US 502.
52.NY.25. Redrup v New York (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 65, at 52.92. Cite for cert granted: 384 US 916.
52.NY.26. New York v Sanders (NY Co Sup Ct) 1966: Def, editor and publisher of ARTS magazine, charged with possession of obscene literature. Pending.

Isidore Silver, Gerald Zuckerman, Esqs, NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC 10.

52.Pa.1. Ginzburg v US (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 7, 91, 136; XI DOCKET 5, 64, at 52.56. Cite: 383 US 463 (1966).
52.Wash.3. Washington v Vander Schoor (Yakima Co Super Ct) 1966: Def arrested for selling lesbian magazines, other alleged obscene books, under Yakima City ordinance. Issues: whether lesbian magazines are obscene; whether ordinance unconstitutional on its face. Pending.

Raymond Brown, Esq, Wash ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

52.Wash.4. Washington v Dewitt (King Co Super Ct) 1966: Def arrested for selling obscene literature altho only difference between his store and 5 others in area was his anti-Vietnam literature in window. Pending.

Raymond Brown, Esq, Wash ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

53. Against Defamation (see also 61)
Article: Jack G Day, Mental suffering as element of damages in defamation cases. 15 Cleveland-Marshall 1-57.

Comments: Defamation a deux: incidental defamation and Sullivan doctrine. 114 Pennsylvania 241-48.

Defamation of public officials—new constitutional standard. 12 UCLA 1420-50.

Defamation of public official: New York Times case in perspective. 15 DePaul 376-97.

Race defamation and First Amendment. 34 Fordham 653-75.

Recent developments concerning constitutional limitations on state defamation laws. 18 Vanderbilt 1429-54.

Comment: Scope of First Amendment protection for goodfaith defamatory error. 75 Yale 642-56.

53.8. Ashton v Kentucky Facts: (USSC) (384 US 195) X DOCKET 8, 92, 136; XI DOCKET 65. May 16, 1966: USSC (9-0) reversed, Douglas, J: Def here judged by unconstitutionally vague standard requiring calculations as to reactions of his audience; when Def convicted under broad construction of statute which would make it unconstitutional, conviction cannot be sustained on appeal by limiting construction which eliminates unconstitutional features of law (citing Shuttlesworth, 55.Ala.1, 382 US 87); vague laws in any area are unconstitutional: "When 1st Amdt rights are involved, we look even more closely lest, under the guise of regulating conduct that is reachable by the police power, freedom of speech or of the press suffer."
54. Against Sedition, Anarchy, Syndicalism (see also 241-44)
List: State statutes re sedition, treason, subversive activities, and Communist control acts. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK, p 147o.
54.7c. Wells v Reynolds (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 9, 92, 136; XI DOCKET 5. Correct cite: 382 US 39, aff'g 238 FS 779.
54.10. Pennsylvania v Hayes (formerly v Hassan) (209 A2d 38) Facts: X DOCKET 92, 136, XI DOCKET 5. Def convicted of inciting riot in Philadelphia in Aug 1965. Aug 4, 1966: Def's petition for allowance of appeal from Super Ct to Sup Ct denied.
54.12. US v Bowe, Collier, Sayyed (CA 2) Facts: XI DOCKET 65. Cite: 360 F2d 1 (1966).
54.14. Los Angeles v John Harris (LA Super Ct) Sept 1966: Defmember of Progressive Labor Party authored pamphlets commenting on police practices in Negro ghetto, distributed during inquest into shooting of Deadwyler, see 429. Pamphlets stated, "George Washington and the American revolutionaries never went to King George's court for justice. They smashed King George's court. . . . Bring Parker, Yorty and Bova to trial for murder in a court of the people; if 80% of us don't work (in the ghetto), you don't produce. Production can be stopped." Def arrested: criminal syndicalism (illegal to "advocate, teach or aid and abet" use of force or violence to accomplish "a change in industrial ownership" or effect "any political change"). Pending.

Frank Pestana, Esq, 1680 N Vine, Hollywood; A L Wirin, Esq, ACLU, 257 S Spring St, Los Angeles.

And see 429s; Carmichael, 51.Ga.8a.

And see Dawson, 303.71.

55. Against Picketing, Leafleting, Demonstrating (see also 51, 123, 541, 542, 551, 552)
Form: Motion to dismiss indictments in Southern breach of the peace cases, by William B Murrish and Mayor B Frieden. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK 66 75-89.

Debate: HR 12047: Obstruction of Armed Forces: Cong Rec—House Oct 12, 1966, 25171; Oct 13, 1966, 25535; 25611; 25650; A5277; A5280.

Report: FBI law enforcement bulletin, Feb 1966: Communist influence is injected in civil disobedience. Cong Rec—House, Aug 29, 1966, 20074.

Speech: Request to prosecute SNCC leader Carmichael, Cong Rec—House, Aug 8, 1966, 17694.

- 11 -

55.Ala.1. Shuttlesworth v Alabama (Birmingham) (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 19, 93; XI DOCKET 6. Cite: 382 US 87.
55.Ala.4c. Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (Ala Ct of App, 6th Div) (180 So2d 114) Facts: X DOCKET 12, 93, at 55.77c, XI DOCKET 6. Nov 2, 1965: Ct of App reversed Def's conviction for parading without permit: freedom of expression and assembly occupy preferred position among constitutional rights; ordinance void for vagueness because overbroad.
55.Ala.8. Forman v Montgomery (USSC, #1556) Facts: XI DOCKET 6. Feb 17, 1966: CA affirmed. June 20: USSC denied cert. Aug 30: Defs moved for rehearing in USSC, based on Rachel, 58.21 86 S Ct 1783: Defs predict they can't enforce rights in state cts based on all-encompassing nature of discrimination within state administration of justice. Pending.

William Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Esqs, 511 Fifth Ave, NYC 10017; Martin Berger, Esq, 377 Broadway, NYC 10013; John Thorne, Esq, 510 N Third St, San Jose; Joseph Levin, Esq, 1225 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit; Charles Conley, Esq, 530 S Union St, Montgomery.

55.Ala.10a. Bd of Educ of Jefferson Co v SCLC (ND Ala) Summer 1965: Def conducted voter registration campaign. Pl asked for injunctive relief, damages of $2.5 million: interference with Birmingham public schools by getting children out of schools to participate in demonstrations. Jan 26, 1966: after h'g, DC issued injunction: Defs enjoined from going on school property or otherwise illegally inducing school children to leave school during schools hrs. Appeal pending.

Peter Hall, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham, Ala.

55.Ala.11. Smith v City of Montgomery (MD Ala, N Div, Cr #11,757-N) (11 RRLR 105) 1965: Adult, minor Negroes arrested as result of picketing store to protest alleged mistreatment of Negro customer by Caucasian proprietor and refusal of police to arrest latter. DC granted Defs' removal petitions. Jan 31, 1966: DC dismissed state prosecutions on ground Pets engaged in protected 1st Amdt activity and gave city notice of demonstrations; DC refused to pass on constitutionality of parade permit ordinance under which Pets arrested.
55.Ala.12. Selma Bus Lines v King (SD Ala) Defs boycotted Plbus lines. Pl sued for damages. Defs removed to DC. Pl moved to remand. Defs filed motion to dismiss. Feb 2, 1966: Pl withdrew motion to remand. Pending.

Peter Hall, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham, Ala.

55.Calif.17. California v Bennett, Leggett, Abbott, Boyden (Oakland Muni Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 66. Defs arrested: contempt of ct order temporarily restraining interference with loading of grapes involved in grapeworkers' strike. Case dismissed.
55.Calif.18. Berkeley v Poland (Muni Ct) Aug 24, 1966: Def arrested for distributing leaflets on Berkeley campus of Univ of Calif after police informed him of violation of Mulford Act (prohibiting certain activities on campus by non-students). Pending.

And see California v Plagowski, 126.2.

55.Ga.35. Rabinowitz v US; Jackson v US (CA 5, # #21256, 21345) Facts: X DOCKET 11, 93, 137; XI DOCKET 7, 66. Aug 1966: CA dismissed charges against leaders of Albany Movement: 1) lists for all juries must be made from pool of persons "broadly representative of the community"; 2) person need only be able to read, write, speak and understand English; he need not enjoy that degree of excellence found only among more fortunate classes; 3) system whereby prominent citizens nominate prospective jurors invalid; 4) Congress' intent when 1957 Civil Rights Act passed was to place Negroes on fed'l juries even if it meant lowering educational standards for jurors. Bell, J, conc and diss.
55.Ill.6. Chicago v Gregory, Ambrose (Ill Sup Ct) 1965: Defs picketed Mayor's house in civil rights demonstration; hostile bystander reaction; Defs arrested: violation of disorderly conduct ordinance. Issues: (1) Defs' obligation to disperse upon confrontation by hostile bystanders, (2) Defs' right to picket home of public official in residential neighborhood. Defs convicted. App Ct aff'd. Appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Marshall A Patner, Esq, 135 So LaSalle, Suite 1943; Ronald H Silverman, 19 So LaSalle, Rm 1421; both of Chicago 60603.

55.Ill.7. In re American Nazi Party (Chicago) (ND Ill) 1966: DC issued order prohibiting Nazi Party from demonstrating in Jewish neighborhoods during Jewish high holy days.
55.Ill.8. Chicago v Hennershot (Ill Sup Ct) Defs, civil rights workers, handed out leaflets advertising local civil rights rally; arrested: littering. Issue: constitutionality of trial ct's application of anti-littering ordinance, unconstitutional vagueness of ordinance on face. Pending.

Robert M Grossman, Esq, 11 So LaSalle, Suite 815, Chicago 60603.

55.La.5. Louisiana v Austin (Bogalusa) (Parish Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 7. DC remanded. Trial pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

55.La.5a. Louisiana v Austin (Bogalusa) (Parish Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 7. Defs removed to DC. DC remanded. Trial pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

55.Md.2. Maryland v 6 Students (Muni Ct, Baltimore) Mar 28, 1966: Defs, students from John Hopkins Univ, arrested in sit-down demonstration in front of Army recruiting office protesting US participation in Vietnam war. Convicted; 60 days and $50.
55.Miss.5a. Greenwood v Peacock (USSC) See report of USSC decision at 73., p 19.
- 12 -

55.Miss.15. Mississippi v Chaffee; Chaffee v Johnson (Jackson Co Ct) (229 FS 448 (1964); 352 F2d 514 (1965); cd 384 US 956) 1963: Def, Caucasian civil rights worker, participated in demonstrations; arrested: disturbing peace. During trial, Def testified police beat children in the demonstration; arrested: perjury. 1964: Def sued to enjoin state prosecution for perjury; DC denied motion for temporary restraining order. 1965: CA 5 affirmed: Def failed to substantiate charges. 1966: USSC denied cert. Settled: charges reduced to misdemeanor, small fine paid.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202. Paul O'Dwyer, Carl Rachlin, Esqs, NYC.

55.Miss.16. Jackson v Smith (Jackson) (ND Miss) December 1964: Defs, civil rights demonstrators, arrested. Defs removed to DC. DC remanded; CA affirmed DC remand, without h'g. Defs moved to reconsider. May 1966: CA reversed itself, remanded to DC for h'g. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.17. Canton v C O Chinn, Jr (DC Miss) Dec 24, 1965: Def, participant in boycott; arrested: threatening and restraining public passage on streets. Jan 3, 1966: Def removed to DC. Pl moved to remand; h'g; DC retained jurisdiction. DC dismissed prosecution.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.17a. Canton v C O Chinn, Sr (CA 5) Dec 24, 1965: Def, participant in boycott; arrested: disturbing peace. Jan 3, 1966: Def removed to DC. Pl moved to remand; h'g held. Feb: DC remanded to state ct. Def appealed to CA; DC granted stay of remand order pending appeal in CA. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.18. Mississippi v Frentz (Philadelphia) (DC Miss) Apr 23, 1966: Def, Caucasian civil rights worker, participated in demonstration; arrested: various offenses. Case removed to DC. Removal dismissed at Def's request in order to obtain bond money. Case settled, mony refunded.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.19. Mississippi v Boal (Philadelphia) (DC Miss) Apr 30, 1966: Def, Caucasian, participated in demonstration; refused to move picket sign on orders of Sheriff Rainey; arrested: refusing to obey orders of officer. Case removed to DC. Sept: DC remanded to state ct; settled for small fine because Def had left state.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.20. West Point v Lockard (West Point) (DC Miss) Apr 23, 1966: Defs, 11 civil rights workers, picketed; arrested: obstructing traffic, blocking sidewalks. Cases removed to DC. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.21. West Point v Buffington (West Point) (DC Miss) Apr 30, 1966: Defs, 128 civil rights workers, marched; arrested: obstructing traffic. Cases removed to DC; pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.22. Mississippi v 18 Boycotters (Belzoni) (Cir Ct) July 8-9, 1966: Defs, local civil rights workers, picketed in boycott of Caucasian stores; arrested: boycotting, trespassing, obstructing sidewalks, total of 24 charges. At trial, 17 charges dismissed by acquittal, 3 Defs found guilty. Defs' appeals pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.23. Mississippi v Newell (Hernando) (JP Ct) Oct 1, 1966: Def, civil rights worker, tried to get citizens to sign petition to qualify Negro to run for election to school bd; arrested: interfering with business. JP Ct ruled statute unconstitutional; charges dismissed.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

55.Miss.24. Mississippi v 43 Defs (Grenada Co Ct) Defs, civil rights workers, staged sit-in in street; arrested. Some trials scheduled for Jy 11, 1966.
55.Miss.24a. Mississippi v 35 Defs (Grenada) (Police Ct) Jy 13, 1966: Defs-Negro paraded through downtown streets, urging support for economic boycott against Caucasian merchants; arrested: obstructing traffic. Pending.
55.NJ.2. Greeman v Township Committee of Mahwah (NJ Super Ct, Town Division-Bergen Co DOCKET # PW) 1966: Pl challenged handbill distribution ordinance: requires distributor of pamphlet, flyer or handbill to first be fingerprinted, give history of himself and his organization, give place of employment, residence, describe criminal record, if any, give explanation of leaflet or product, pay $5 license fee; Police chief can deny or revoke permit without h'g. Issues: unconstitutional restraint on free speech, prior censorship, illegally discriminates between religious and non-profit organizations and other persons and organizations. Pending.

Seymour Goldstaub, Esq, 449 60th Street, West New York.

55.NY.6. Turner v New York (USSC, #399) (265 NYS2d 841, 271 NYS2d 274) Facts: X DOCKET 94. Correction: X DOCKET 131 and XI DOCKET 8 inaccurate. Nov 12, 1965: Sup Ct, App Div affirmed disorderly conduct convictions. Je 6, 1966: NY Ct App affirmed; held disorderly conduct statute not too vague to provide adequate guidelines for appropriate conduct at street meetings. Oct 24: USSC granted certiorari.

Nanette Dembitz, Esq, 55 East End Ave, NYC.

55.NY.14. Re Arrest of 64 Queens Parents (NYC Sup Ct, App Term) Oct 7, 1964: Defs demonstrated in PS 149, predominantly white school scheduled to be integrated through bussing of pupils. Asst Supt ordered their arrest. Dec 4, 1964: Crim Ct dismissed complaints: private arrests could only be made when "felony or misdemeanor" committed. Oct 1966: 3-judge panel of App Term, Sup Ct reversed; upheld citizen's arrests.
- 13 -

55.NY.15. NYC v Green (NYC Crim Ct) Sept 21, 1966: Negro pickets staged demonstration to block opening of Intermediate School 201 in E Harlem until Negro principal, Negro supervisors, teaching of African, Negro history, promotion of neighborhood school concept. Police arrested 5 Negro men, women: disorderly conduct, interfering with policeman performing duty. Pending.
55.NY.16. New York v Katz (App Term, 2nd Dept) 1966: Def distributed leaflets on Vietnam war at sidewalk table; charged with placing an obstruction on public sidewalk in violation of Admr Code. Appeal pending.

Isidore Silver, Esq, NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

55.Va.1. Baines v Danville (USSC) (321 F2d 643; 337 F2d 579; cd 381 US 939; 357 F2d 756; 384 US 890) Facts: X DOCKET 11, 24, at 55.35. 1965: USSC denied cert on DC denial of injunctive relief against pending contempt proceedings. Jan 21, 1966: CA upheld remand orders. Je 20, 1966: USSC granted cert, affirmed per curiam (5-4), citing Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 384 US 808; Warren, CJ, Douglas, Brennan, Fortas, JJ, diss, citing Douglas' diss in Peacock.
55.Wis.2. Wisconsin v Groppi, Miles (Milwaukee) (Cir Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 67. Jan 31, 1966: jury trial; Defs found guilty of obstructing construction workers; fined $100 and costs each.

Thomas Jacobson, Esq, 110 E Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee.

56. Against and Concerning Minors (incl Contributing to Delinquency) (see also 24, 430, 560)
Article: Charles E Moylan, Sr, Comments on juvenile court. 25 Maryland 310-17.
56.11. Florida v ANE (St Augustine) Facts: X DOCKET 14, 95. Cite: 167 So2d 769 (Fla DCA 1, 1964)
56.14. Florence v Myers (MD Fla) Facts: X DOCKET 14. Cite: 9 RRLR 144 (1964).
56.19. In re Long (Sunflower Co) (Miss Sup Ct) (184 So2d 86, 1966) Facts: XI DOCKET 9. 1966: Sup Ct reversed trial ct; held: (1) petition charging child with being delinquent-neglected child insufficient to bring child within Youth Control Act, (2) summons to appear failed to satisfy statutory requirement for notice.
56.24. Arkansas v Dokes (Ark Sup Ct, #5224) Defs arrested after interracial gathering in apartment: contributing to delinquency of minor. Cir Ct affirmed. On appeal, Defs argue search and seizure; racially motivated arrest; pending.

Delector Tiller, Esq, 2305 Ringo, Little Rock.

56.25. Louisiana v Hicks (Bogalusa) (ED La) Oct 1965: school children, members of Bogalusa Voters League Youth Organization, boycotted schools to protest segregated Parish Fair, held demonstrations and marches to protest inferior conditions at Negro schools. Oct 20: School Bd secured temporary restraining order against adult Voters League to enjoin them from `enticing pupils to absent themselves from school for the purpose of marching.' (See School Bd, 73.La.1.) Defs-Negroes, adult members of Voters League, beaten, arrested: contributing to delinquency of minors. May 1966: Defs removed to DC. Pl filed motion to remand. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

See Hicks v Knight, 63.31.

56.26. Louisiana v 8 Picketers (Homer) (Jud Dist Ct) Sept 9, 1966: Defs picketed Bd of Educ to protest firing of Negro janitor; arrested: enticing school children to be absent from school. Trial set for Nov 3.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

552.SC.3c. South Carolina v Carter (Richland Co Ct, #1318) Facts: X DOCKET 78. Mar 2, 1961: Def participated in civil rights demonstration at Co Ct House; arrested: contributing to delinquency of minors. Jan 2, 1962: Def moved for continuance pending USSC decision in SC v Edwards, 552.SC.3b, 372 US 229 (1963).

Lincoln C Jenkins, Jr, Matthew J Perry, Esqs, 1107½ Washington St, Columbia, SC.

57. Against Vagrancy, Loitering

57.14. Hicks v Dist of Columbia (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 96, 138; XI DOCKET 67. Cite: 383 US 252.
57.20. Minneapolis v Hadley (Muni Ct, 1st Div) Facts: XI DOCKET 67. Ct held ordinance prohibiting person to "loiter on the streets or in a public place or in a place open to the public with intent to solicit for immoral purposes" to be unconstitutionally vague.

Jonathan Lebedoff, Esq, Midland Bank Bldg, Minneapolis.

57.21. Arizona v Soffer (Flagstaff Muni Ct, #C-2524) Def stopped in Flagstaff to use toilet facilities while hitch-hiking from E Coast to California; arrested: vagrancy. Jailed 2 days til he could make bond. Def moved to dismiss: complaint failed to set forth offense. Issues: (1) denial of due process, (2) denial of equal protection: Indians specifically excepted from application of statute. Motion to dismiss granted.

Irwin L Bernstein, Esq, Chris-Town, Phoenix, Ariz.

57.22. New Orleans v Cordier (Orleans Parish Ct) 1966: 4 Free Southern Theater members arrested for vagrancy. At trial, charges dismissed but constitutionality of ordinance upheld.
57.23. Louisiana v Hill (Orleans Parish Ct) 1966: CORE worker arrested for vagrancy and held on suspicion of armed robbery. Habeas corpus filed; Def dismissed at ct hearing.

Victor P LeBeau, Esq, 234 Loyola Ave, New Orleans.

57.24. Detroit v Wedlow (Mich Ct of App) Aug 12, 1965: Def talking with friend on sidewalk; ticketed: loitering. Recorder's ct found Def guilty; $10 fine. Def appealed: ordinance void for vagueness. Pending.

Richard Krandle, Esq, 2450 Guardian Bldg, Detroit 48226; ACLU amicus brief by Sheridan Holzman, Esq, 1600 Washington Blvd Bldg, Detroit 48226.

57.25. New York v Hirshhorn (App Term, 1st Dept) 1966: Challenge to narcotics prosecution on claim seizure illegal because
- 14 -

entrance obtained unlawfully; challenge to vagrancy law making it offense for men to wear women's clothes in public. Pending.

Gerald Zuckerman, Esq, NYC.

And see Abrams, 337.1.

58. Against Trespassing
(see also 541, 542, 551, 552)

Article: M A Millner, Retreat of trespass. 18 Current Leg Prob 20-38.

58.Calif.8 and .9 Sims, Burbridge v California (Calif Sup Ct; ND Calif) (cd 382 US 947) Facts: X DOCKET 15, 96; XI DOCKET 67, at 58.16-58.18. Summer 1966: sentences from 5 days and $25 to 9 mths and $250, most Defs receiving 30 days and $56. Jy 7: Calif Sup Ct rejected appeal to obtain uniform sentences: on understanding there would be modification (to 7 days or $35) of highly disparate sentences for same offense, Defs failed to request transcripts, furnished at state expense, of lower ct trials, effectively waiving their right of appeal. Jy 18: Defs filed writ of habeas corpus in Calif Sup Ct based on systematic exclusion of Negroes from juries, atmosphere made fair trial impossible, discriminatory sentencing procedures, prejudice of trial judges reflected in rulings and comments, convicting statutes (disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly) void for vagueness, unconstitutional conduct of trial judges in trying to extract pleas of nolo contendere in exchange for reduced sentences; such offer was extended to all Defs regardless of extent of activity in demonstration, motives for participation, character or reputation, or prior criminal record; effect of such threat was to blackmail Defs out of right to jury trial and plea of not guilty; denied.

Aug 15: DC issued show cause order for release of Defs based on prejudicial conduct during trial (public statements by state and city officials, exclusion of Negroes from jury panel) and unconstitutionality of unlawful assembly and disturbing the peace statues. Aug 25: DC dismissed show cause order on ground alleged trial errors did not apply to all Defs. Sept: Muni Ct reduced some sentences for hardship; others served time. Cases closed.

Aubrey Grossman, Esq, 1095 Market, San Francisco.

58.Calif.18. California v Comfort (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 96, XI DOCKET 67, at 58.36a. May 1966: Oakland Muni Ct convicted Def of taking part in protest demonstration against Oakland Tribune. Jy 22: Douglas, J, ordered Def freed pending possible review of case. Def contends he was speaking at public meeting where sit-in was urged by others but not endorsed by Def.

Robert Treuhaft, Edward Dawley, Esqs, 1440 Broadway, Oakland.

58.Calif.24. California v Meriweather, Cooper (Pt Chicago Justice Ct) Je 26, 1966: Defs in demonstration against napalm at Pt Chicago Naval Ammunition Depot; arrested: blocking ammunition truck. Jy 16: Def-Meriweather refused to enter plea, refused to have lawyer; judge admonished Def, ordered Defs to appear for arraignment on Jy 21. Pending.
58.Calif.24a. California v Heinemann (Port Chicago Justice Court) Aug 18, 1966: Def-demonstrator tried for trespass at Port Chicago naval supply depot; judge excluded reference to int'l treaties or agreements in instructing jury; excluded evidence of war material being delivered to depot; convicted: 30 days. No appeal.

Harry Lohstroh, Esq, 1520 S Main St, Walnut Creek.

58.Calif.24b. US v Bishop, Smith, Tavalin and Kangas (ND Calif, Crim #40996) Summer 1966: Def-peace demonstrators arrested for trespass on government property, 18 USC 1382. Gov't moved to quash Defs' request for jury trial pending.

Alan Brotsky and Gabriel Werbner, Esqs, 45 Polk St, San Francisco; Peter Franck, 2890 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley; James T Heavy, 1430 Franklin St, Oakland.

58.Calif.25. California v 9 DiGiorgio Pickets (Delano Crim Ct) Oct 22, 1966: Defs, including AFL-CIO leaders and farm workers, demonstrating for union representation election, arrested after refusing to obey police order to leave lobby of DiGiorgio building: trespassing and disturbing the peace. Pending.
58.Fla.4. Adderley v Florida (USSC) (87 S Ct 242) Facts: XI DOCKET 68 at 58.52. Nov 14, 1966: USSC affirmed (5-4), Black, J: (1) Edwards, 372 US 229, and Cox, 51.25, 379 US 536, not controlling here; (2) Fla trespass statute not void for vagueness; (3) Hamm, 552.SC.4d, 379 US 306, different: This case "involves only an alleged trespass on jail grounds— . . . which can be prosecuted regardless of the fact that it is the means of protesting segregation of establishments covered by the Act"; (4) Facts do support convictions: US Constitution "does not forbid a State to control the use of its own property for its own lawful nondiscriminatory purpose."

Douglas, J (Warren, CJ, Brennan, Fortas, JJ) diss: Historical discussion of 1st Amdt rights to peaceably assemble and petition; Defs did not block entrance to jail; "We do violence to the First Amdt when we permit this `petition for redress of grievances' to be turned into a trespass action"; here "a trespass law is used to bludgeon those who peacefully exercise a 1st Amdt right to protest to gov't against one of the most grievous of all modern oppressions which some of our States are inflicting on our citizens."

58.Ga.14. Georgia v Rachel (USSC) See USSC decision on removal at 73., page 19.
58.Miss.4. Greenwood v Carmichael (City Police Ct) Je 16, 1966: Def-civil rights leaders arrested for trespass when they attempted to erect tents on public school property during course of march. Pending.
58.Ohio.1. Ohio v Mitchell, Ferguson, Shuttlesworth, Powell (Cincinnati Muni Ct, Crim Div, ##78384, 78385, 78387, 78388) Defs picketed Drake Memorial Hospital asking fair treatment for Negro employees. Hospital administrator told Defs to cease picketing: they refused; Defs arrested: trespassing. Defs moved to dismiss: on public roadway and not interfering with pedestrians. Motion overruled; Defs found guilty; 1 yr probation and costs. Defs' motion for stay of execution granted. Defs' motion for new trial denied. Appeal pending.
- 15 -

59. Against Miscellaneous Criminal Activites
Article: Carl Rachlin, Police order: Right to disobey. 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 136-61.

Comment: Legal status of therapeutic abortion. 27 U of Pitt 669-82.

Remarks: §2825: Obscene or harrassing telephone calls in Dist of Columbia—interstate or foreign commerce: Cong Rec: June 29, 1966, 14013.

Speech: Curbing terroristic activities: Cong Rec: June 14, 1966, 12503.

Symposium: Moral preemption. 17 Hastings 425-71.

59.53. Louisiana v Lewis (Ferriday) (Jud Dist Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 10. Jan 1966: Def removed to DC. Je 27: DC remanded, citing Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 347 F2d 679 (1965). Def appealed to CA for stay of remand. CA denied stay. Trial in state ct pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

59.55. Louisiana v Weary (Bogalusa) (Jud Dist Ct) Def-Negro reported two incidents of racial hostility at newly-integrated Parish fair involving people other than himself; arrested: making false statements to police. Jan 1966: Def removed to DC. DC remanded. Trial pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

And see other Bogalusa cases: 55.La.4, .5, .5a, .6, .7, .8, 63.31, 63.31a, 63.31b, 73.La.1.

59.56. Louisiana v Pamela Smith (DC La) Def, Negro civil rights worker, and Caucasian companion ordered at restaurant; owner insulted and refused to serve Def's companion; Def walked out, food untouched; arrested: theft of meal worth 97 cents. Dec 1965: case removed to DC. Def moved to dismiss: `theft' not misappropriation but rejection of restaurant's racial slur. Pl moved to remand. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans La 70113.

59.57. Louisiana v Frazier (New Orleans Crim Ct) 1966: Defs charged with disturbing the peace at integrated coffee house raided by police. Charges dropped after motion to quash on constitutional grounds was filed.

ACLU of La, 1911 Terpsichore St, New Orleans.

59.58. San Francisco v Hunter's Point Defs (SF Muni Ct) Sept 1966: 350 residents of Negro ghetto arrested: violating emergency curfew declared during racial disturbance, inciting to riot, disturbing the peace, various crimes against property. Sept 30: Defs arraigned, bail on curfew violation ranging from recognizance to $110; on inciting to riot, from $110 to $550. Judges later adjusted to more uniform bail schedule. Oct 3: DA moved to dismiss charges except for curfew violations and felonies. Pending.

Franklin K Brann, Esq, Flood Bldg, San Francisco 94102.

And see 59.59, cases at 429.

59.59. San Francisco v Jacobs (SF Muni Ct) Sept 30, 1966: 70 white students arrested for 8 pm curfew violation when they demonstrated "to show our support for the people of San Francisco," arrested in 59.58. Pending.
59.60. Berkeley v MacKaness (Berkeley Muni Ct) Sept 13, 1966: After being cited for jaywalking, Def arrested for violation of Military & Veterans Code, §614d, when he sat down on curb with American flag knotted around his neck in cape fashion. Pending.
59.61. California v Pontius and Kastama (San Francisco Muni Ct) 1966: Defs participated in street meeting; arrested: failure to disperse on order of police officer. Acquitted: order unlawful in itself, depriving Defs of right of freedom of speech and association.

Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

59.62. Hawaii v Lombardi and Kent (Honolulu) Mar 21, 1966: Defs displayed caricature of flag with dollar signs replacing stars, and with stripes dripping blood; arrested: desecrating American flag. May 25: found guilty; fines $25-$50; 30-day suspended sentence. Appeal pending.
59.63. Mississippi v Howze (Lexington) (DC Miss) Nov 1965: Def, Negro civil rights worker, arrested: Sheriff filed complaint, claimed check given him by Def for license plates had bounced. Def convicted in JP ct. Def appealed; case removed to DC; pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

59.64. Jackson v Faucette (Jackson) (ND Miss) Mar 24, 1966: Def, Caucasian, sat in integrated group in restaurant; arrested: indecent exposure. Case removed to DC; Pl moved to remand; h'g. May: DC remanded case to City Ct. Def appealed; DC granted stay of remand order pending appeal. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

59.65. Washington v Mathews (Canton) (DC Miss) Jy 1966: Pls, civil rights demonstrators, arrested. Jy 16: city passed emergency curfew ordinance; later that night demonstrators released from jail; on their way home, arrested: violation of curfew. Pls returned to jail; released on bond. Pls filed complaint in DC; curfew ordinance unconstitutional: (1) violation of First Amdt, (2) applied discriminatorily against Negroes only. State ct prosecutions against Pls continued pending disposition in DC. Before h'g on injunction city dismissed all prosecutions, rescinded ordinance. DC suit dismissed.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

59.66. Mississippi v Raymond (Canton Co Ct) August 1966: local police enforced curfew against Negro but not Caucasian cafes. Def, state director of CORE, addressed a group on street about the subject; arrested: breach of peace, interfering with officer. Sept: JP Ct found Def guilty; fine and jail sentence. Appeal pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

59.67. Mississippi v Theodore Slaughter (Philadelphia Co Ct)
- 16 -

June 1966: Def arrested while working in own cafe: public drunkenness. Def sued police in DC charging he was beaten on way to police station. Oct: Def entered his cafe, told men fighting there to "go outside and argue"; arrested by same Negro policeman: drunkenness, resisting arrest, not having driver's license. Def received medical treatment for wound from blackjack. Pending.
59.68. New York v Eisenberg (Brooklyn Crim Ct) Mar 5, 1966: Youths attacked meeting of DuBois club (see 211.16). Police arrested 6 club members, 4 assailants. Def member arrested: interfering with arrest. May 25: convicted.

Paul Chevigny, Esq, NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC 10.

59.69. Tennessee v Braden, Thomas (Sevierville) Jy 6, 1966: Defs, associated with S Conference Educational Fund, drove in separate cars from meeting; arrested: Def-Thomas charged with running stop sign, Def-Braden charged with violation of auto registration law. H'g set for Jy 13.

John Johnson, Jr, Esq, Knoxville, Tenn.

59.70. Detroit v Judith Bowden (Mich Ct of App, #1821) Jy 8, 1965: Def arrested: violation of ordinance prohibiting `known prostitute . . . to repeatedly stop pedestrian or motor vehicle operator by hailing, whistling, waving of arms' in public place. Def convicted; fine and probation. Def appealed: denial of due process—ordinance dispenses with proof of criminal intent. Pending.

ACLU amicus brief by Maurice Kelman, Esq, 1600 Washington Blvd Bldg, Detroit 48226.

60. Civil Sanctions (and Contempt Charges)
61. Against Defamation, Libel, Slander (see also 53)
Articles: Laurence H Eldredge, Spurious rule of libel per quod. 79 Harvard 733-56.

Arthur B Hanson, Impact of New York Times rules. 7 William and Mary 215-23.

Walter Jenson, Jr, Recent developments in the law of privilege and fair comment. 42 N Dakota 185-209.

Comments: Injunctive relief from libel. 19 Oklahoma 97-103.

New constitutional definition of libel and its future. 60 Northwestern 95-113.

New York Times: Public official and public figure. 30 Albany 316-25.

61.11. NY Times v Connor, Birmingham, Bessemer City Commrs (CA 5) Facts: X DOCKET 19, XI DOCKET 68. Aug 5, 1966: CA reversed libel verdict for Pls: 1) Def-newspaper's contracts with forum state held insufficient to sustain jurisdiction—mere circulation of periodical thru mails, sporadic newsgathering, solicitation of small amount of advertising does not constitute business; 2) insufficient evidence to show actual malice.
61.18d. Pauling v Globe-Democrat Publishing Co (formerly St Louis Globe-Democrat Publishing Co) (USSC, #522) Facts: X DOCKET 20, XI DOCKET 69. CA 8 held: prominent scientist who actively thrusts himself into public discussion of controversial foreign policy questions cannot recover in libel suit against newspaper that, without actual malice, published editorial which falsely stated he had been held in contempt of Congress. Sept 6, 1966: petition for cert filed in USSC. Issue: does rule of NY Times, 61.9, 376 US 254, extend to prominent scientist who is not public official or employee but who has publically expressed views on matters of public concern? Pending.

John Raeburn Green, Lewis C Green, Thomas C Coleman, Esqs, 314 N Broadway, Boatman's Bank Bldg, St Louis, Mo.

61.21. Moore v P W Publishing Co (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 99, XI DOCKET 68. Cite for cert den: 382 US 978.
61.29. Associated Press v Walker (USSC, #150) (393 SW2d 671) Facts: X DOCKET 99, 139; XI DOCKET 10. May 18, 1966: petition for cert filed. Issues: 1) is rule in New York Times, 61.9, 376 US 254, limited to "public officials" or does it apply to other persons? 2) do 1st and 14th Amendments bar application of state libel laws to news reports made without malice, re events of public interest and importance, such as fedl ct judgments and suppression of defiance thereof? 3) were lower ct's findings on issues of substantial truth and fair comment so lacking in evidentiary support that judgment based thereon constituted denial of due process? 4) is $500,000 damages award for such publication, without actual malice or any proof of pecuniary or other loss, so oppressive that it inhibits free expression in violation of 1st and 14th Amendments? Oct 10, 1966: USSC granted cert.

William P Rogers, Esq; Leo P Larkin, Jr, Esq; Stanley Godofsky, Esq; Arthur Moynihan, Esq—all of NYC; J A Gooch, Esq; Sloan B Blair, Esq—Fort Worth, Texas.

61.33. Baer v Rosenblatt (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 10, 68. Cite: 383 US 75.
61.35. Pape v Time, Inc (USSC) (354 F2d 558; 384 US 909) Facts: XI DOCKET 68. Correction: DC dismissed Pl-policeman's libel suit against Def-magazine. Dec 28, 1965: CA reversed, remanded: (1) police lieutenant is public official within Sullivan, 61.9, 376 US 254, must prove actual malice to recover for libel; (2) evidence raised substantial fact issued, precluded summary judgment. 1966: USSC den cert.
61.39. Ballard v McCannon (San Diego Super Ct) Pl-doctor charged with raping patient; criminal trial: Pl acquitted. Pl filed civil suit against Def-policewoman: Def contacted various patients of Pl, making slanderous remarks about Pl. Defense: (1) Def acting within scope of employment, (2) Def privileged. Pl requests $5,000,000. Pending.

Gostin and Katz, Esqs, Suite 725, US Grant Hotel, 326 Broadway, San Diego, Calif.

And see cases at 304.

61.40. Minsky v Stroden (Chicago) (Cook Co Cir Ct, #66-L-14547). Feb 3, 1966: Illinois FEPC held public h'gs on its rules and regulations. Def, president and owner of employment service corp, appeared at h'g of his own accord and spoke to Commn members about Pl, former acting
- 17 -

director and legal counsel of Commn, complaining about Pl's method of checking Def's employment records since no complaint filed against Def with Commn. Feb 9, 10: part of Def's statements published in Chicago Daily Tribune. Pl filed libel suit: (1) Pl injured in reputation and good standing in profession as direct result of false, malicious, defamatory statements of Def in sum of $50,000, (2) Pl prays for $65,000 damages and costs. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 So LaSalle St, Chicago.

61.41. Kahn v Fox (Pa Sup Ct) Pl candidate for public office brought damage suit against Def for allegedly defamatory remark. Jury found for Pl. Je 24, 1966: Sup Ct affirmed: jury's finding that Def knew remark to be false bars invocation by Def of First Amndt. Nov 7: USSC denied cert.

Thurman Arnold, Esq, 1229-19th St NW, Washington, DC; Richard L Raymond, Esq, 334 W Front St, Media, Pa.

61.42. Driscoll v Toledo Blade Co (Lucas City) (Ohio Ct of App) (3 Ohio App2d 351, 210 NE2d 899) Pl seeking election to succeed himself in office to which he had been appointed. Def-newspaper published story allegedly erroneous and defamatory regarding Pl's performance of official duties. Pl brought libel suit. Muni Ct held for Pl. Ct of App reversed, held under New York Times, 376 US 254, Pl must prove actual malice beyond mere preponderance of evidence since a public official. Nov 14, 1966: USSC denied cert.

Melvin M Belli, Esq, San Francisco; William D Driscoll, Esq, Toledo, Ohio.

61.43. Zeinfeld v Hayes Freight Lines (Ill App Ct, 1st Jud Dist, #51147) Summer 1958: Pl interested in buying home, financed by mortgage from Park Forest Homes, Inc. Park Forest wrote to Def, former employer of Pl, requesting verification of employment. Def replied he could not give Pl a reference, implied this was because Pl had embezzled funds. Park Forest refused to obtain mortgage for Pl. Pl also damaged in trucking industry from reports about him. Pl brought damage suit alleging: (1) libel, (2) interference with contract. Trial ct dismissed on pleadings and depositions. Pl appealed: error to dismiss on pleadings: (1) pleaded prima facie case: Def's letter went beyond scope of inquiry and volunteered certain knowing false information; qualified privilege Defs may have had was lost by Defs' volunteering false information beyond scope of inquiry and by alleged malice; further, no qualified privilege where actual malice alleged, proof of malice for trial. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 So LaSalle St, Chicago 60603.

62. By Injunction in Labor Disputes

Forms: Motion to vacate temporary injunction, affidavit, memo of law, by Victor Rabinowitz. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 131-138.

62.5. DiGiorgio v Natl Farm Workers Assn (Tulare Co Super Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 69. Defs picketed Pl's vineyards for 7 mths. Super Ct granted temporary restraining order restricting Defs' picketing to gate area of Pl's land, issued order to Def to show cause. Je 2, 1966: Super Ct ordered temporary restraining order dissolved, denied request for preliminary injunction: peacefully picketing cannot be enjoined (Labor Code, §923); tho Pl may ultimately be entitled to permanent injunction does not necessarily mean he is entitled to preliminary injunction.
62.6a. Social Service Employees v Dumpson (NY App Div, 1st Dept) 1966: Pl brought suit challenging constitutionality of Condon-Wadlin Law forbidding strikes by public employees, requiring public employees who have participated in strike to work 2 days without pay, up to 30 days, for every day out on strike. Appeal pending.

Judith Vladeck, Esq, 170 Fifth Ave, New York.

And see Minn Fed of Teachers, 25.17.

63. By Injunction in Racial Situations (see also 40s, 550s)
Article: Bradley R Brewer, Dombrowski v Pfister: Fed'l injunctions against state prosecutions in civil rights cases—New trend. 34 Fordham 71-106.

Comment: Power to enjoin state prosecutions violative of federally protected rights. 114 Pennsylvania 561-69.

63.7. Walker v Birmingham (USSC, #249) (181 So2d 493) Facts: X DOCKET 21, 100. Ala Sup Ct held: Defs' disobedience of Ala ct's temporary injunction punishable as criminal contempt even if injunction unconstitutionally restrained free expression; convictions of 2 Defs who were not served with copy of injunction sustained by evidence that each had knowledge of injunction prior to parading without required permit. Aug 18, 1966: Defs filed petition for cert. Issues: (1) did convictions violate 1st Amendment and due process and equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment? (2) may person be held in contempt of temporary injunction which unconstitutionally restrains free expression? (3) were 2 Defs convicted, in violation of due process clause, without any evidence they had knowledge of terms of injunction? (4) were other Defs denied due process by being punished in part for their constitutionally protected statements to press criticizing injunction and Ala officials? (5) was injunction void for vagueness? Oct 10, 1966: USSC granted cert.

Jack Greenberg, James M Nabritt, III, Harry H Wachtel, and Benjamin Spiegel, Esqs, NAACP Inc Fund, NYC; Arthur D Shores, Esq, and Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Esq, both Birmingham, Ala.

63.8a. NAACP v Thompson (USSC, #172) (357 F2d 831) Facts: X DOCKET 21, XI DOCKET 69. May 25, 1966: Miss Atty Genl filed petition for cert: does DC have jurisdiction to issue mandatory injunction directing Miss Governor to approve application of NAACP for domestication? Oct 10: USSC denied cert.

Jack Young, Esq, 115 Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39201.

63.47. Bd of Educ (Crenshaw Co) v Barnett (MD Ala) Pls sued in state ct for injunction, contempt citation against persons demonstrating on or near school grounds, interference with operation of school. Def removed to DC; Pl accepted jurisdiction of DC. Feb 28, 1966: DC h'g on motion for preliminary injunction. Mar 2: DC remanded.

Gray & Seay, Esqs, 29 N McDonough St, Montgomery, Ala.

- 18 -

63.48. Bd of Educ of Marengo, Demopolis v Boone; Alabama v SCLC (Wilcox Co); Bd of Educ of Greensboro v Days (Hale Co) (SD Ala) 1965: Pl Bds of Educ sued for injunctions against Defs using school children in demonstration. Defs removed to DC. Motions to dismiss, remand pending.

Charles Stephen Ralston, Esq, NAACP Inc Fund.

Same facts, status in

63.49. School Bd of Greensboro v SCLC (ND Ala)

Peter Hall, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham, Ala.

63.50. Madison Parish School Bd v Madison Parish Voters League (Tallulah Dist Ct) Jan 1966: Pl obtained ex parte preliminary injunction against demonstrations at Negro schools; Def filed motions to dissolve or modify injunction. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

And see Louisiana v Davis, Whyte, 55.La.9.

And see Bogalusa Voters' League, 73.La.1.

63.51. Liberty Grocery v Moore (Leflore Co Cir Ct) Pl-grocery, boycotted by Negroes, sought injunction against Def, member of boycott. May 16, 1966: Ct issued preliminary injunction. Def removed case to DC; pending. Pl-grocery sold to new owner; Def moved to dismiss action and dissolve injunction. Pls moved to substitute new owner as Pl. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

63.52. Guyot and US v Rainey (Philadelphia) (DC Miss) Je 1966: Pls participated in Meredith Mississippi Freedom March. In Philadelphia, Pls beaten and assaulted while Defs, Sheriff, Deputy, police officers, stood by. Pls sued to enjoin Defs from (1) interfering with march, (2) failing to protect peaceful demonstrators. Je 27: US intervened, DC denied temporary restraining order; but filing of suit resulted in highway patrol protection for marchers. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

63.53. Chinn v Johnson (Canton) (SD Miss) Jy 16, 1966: civil rights march; Pls, 50 Caucasian and Negro demonstrators, arrested: breach of peace by failure to move on when ordered by police. Pls filed injunction action in 3-judge fedl ct to (1) enjoin prosecutions, (2) declare statute unconstitutional on its face: this kind of statute declared unconstitutional by USSC in Brown v Louisiana, 51.La.6, 383 US 131. Prosecutions continued indefinitely; Pls filed motion for preliminary injunction; Defs moved to dismiss. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

63.54. Cunningham v Ingram (ND Miss, #WC6630) Civil rights demonstrators sued state, local enforcement authorities. Jy 22, 1966: DC enjoined Defs from interfering with peaceful protest activities, from withholding protection of those activities, dismissed state charges of parading without permit against members of Pls' class. Aug 24: h'g on charge of civil contempt. Motion for further injunctive relief pending.

Henry Aronson, Esq, NAACP Inc Fund, 538½ N Farish St, Jackson, Miss.

63.55. 24 Merchants v Civil Rights Organizations (Holly Springs) (DC Miss) Jy 1966: civil rights movement commenced boycott against downtown merchants. Aug: Pls sued Defs, all civil rights organizations and members; state ct granted ex parte preliminary injunction. Defs removed to DC. Picketing resumed; 3 cited for contempt of ct. CA 5 issued temporary stay on contempt proceedings in state ct. Panel of CA continued stay pending decisions in DC.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

And see Liberty Grocery, 63.51; Chinn, 55.Miss.17, .17a; Belzoni, 55.Miss..22; Grenada, 55.Miss.24a; Selma Bus Lines, 55.Ala.12; Allen, 64.11.

64. Against Miscellaneous Activities

64.7. Alabama v Mills (USSC) (384 US 214) Facts: X DOCKET 100, 139; XI DOCKET 12. May 23, 1966: USSC reversed (unan), Black, J: (1) Ala Sup Ct judgment (remanding to trial ct) is appealable to avoid long delay in judgment when Def concedes facts; held "no test of reasonableness can save a state law from invalidation as a violation of the 1st Amdt when that law makes it a crime for a newspaper editor to do no more than urge people to vote one way or another in a publicly held election." Douglas, J (Brennan, J) conc.
64.9. Massachusetts v Suzanne Williams (Groton) (Circuit Ct) Jy 21, 1966: Def-17 yr old girl arrested: civil disobedience during launching of nuclear submarine. At arraignment, Def refused to stand up in ct: 30 days for contempt; no opportunity to explain noncooperation. Aug 19: Def dragged into ct; refused to stand, defended actions on ground that ct system perpetuated injustice, punished non-cooperative draftees; additional 60 days for contempt with judge's warning: I'm sure my successor will keep meting it out until you conform.
64.10. Bardwell v Griffin (La Crosse, Wis City Ct) Def authored "Black Like Me," autobiographical recounting of experiences of white impersonating Negro in Deep South. Def lectured in city despite right wing attacks. Je 1966: Pl-13 year old sued Def-author for damages on ground of mental and moral injury suffered from reading book. Pending.
64.11. Allen v Edwards (Edwards) (DC Miss) Negroes boycotted white downtown businesses as part of civil rights movement. City passed curfew ordinance: all businesses must close at 7 pm daily and all day Sunday, when Negro stores traditionally open and busy, and white stores closed. Pls filed complaint in DC: ordinance unconstitutional: deprives Negroes of property rights without due process. Aug 1966: after h'g DC granted Pl's motion for preliminary injunction. City atty recommended ordinance be revoked. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

- 19 -

70. Procedural Problems
Practice tips: Osmond K Fraenkel, Procedural pitfalls in civil liberties cases. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 31-40.

Class suits, by Libby Wernick Ginsberg. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 151-161.

Appeals in federal courts, by Siegfried Hesse. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 187-200.

Analysis: Creative legal thinking under pressure. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 44a-44h. And see discussion of lead ideas in constitutional litigation, pp 75-89.

71. In Alleging Standing to Sue
Comment: Standing to object to an unlawful search and seizure. 1965 Washington 488-520.
72. In Raising and Preserving Constitutional Questions
Article: J Ward Driscoll, A new US judicial system; Cong Rec—Appendix, Aug 31, 1966, A4613.

Comments: State sovereignty v Court protection of constitutional freedoms. 17 S Carolina 553-67.

73. In Removing From State to Federal Courts
Forms: All forms necessary in removal of state criminal cases, from petition through appeal from remand order, plus sample briefs, by Arthur Kinoy, Anthony Amsterdam, Claudia Shropshire. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 72a-72ii.

Note: Removal aspects of cases raising other issues will be reported here, usually using the original DOCKET number.

USSC noted: No. of criminal cases removed from state to fedl cts: 1962—18; 1963—14; 1964—43; 1965—1,192 (incl 1,079 in CA 5.)

Symposium: Am Law Institute's proposals on division of jurisdiction between state and fed'l courts. 17 South Carolina 659-86.

Comments: Effect of Supreme Court change in law on exhaustion of state remedies requisite to federal habeas corpus. 113 U of Pa 1303-10.

Comments: Reexamination of civil rights removal statute: 51 Virginia 950-72; 44 N Carolina 380-402; 1965 Illinois 100-12.

Cases on removal elsewhere in this issue: Bessemer, 51.Ala.8; Smith, 55.Ala.11; Selma Bus Lines, 55.Ala.12; Austin, 55.La.5, .5a; Smith, 55.Miss.16; Chinn, 55.Miss.17, .17a; Frentz, 55.Miss.18; Boal, 55.Miss.19; Lockard, 55.Miss.20; Buffington, 55.Miss.21; Hicks, 56.25; Lewis, 59.53; Weary, 59.55; Howze, 59.63; Faucette, 59.64; Barrett, 63.47; Boone, 63.48; SCLC, 63.49; Liberty Grocery, 63.51; Merchants, 63.55.

55.Miss.5a. Greenwood v Peacock (USSC) (347 F2d 679, 986; rev'd 384 US 808) Facts: X DOCKET 13, 25, 94, 140. Je 20, 1966: USSC (5-4) reversed, Stewart, J: held (1) history of 28 USC §1443(2) "demonstrates convincingly that this . . . section of the removal statute is available only to fedl officers and to persons assisting such officers in the performance of their official duties"; (2) "The First Amdt is a great charter of American freedom, and the precious rights of personal liberty it protects are undoubtedly comprehended in the concept of `civil rights.' . . . But the reference in §1443(1) is to `equal civil rights' [which] does not include the broad constitutional guarantees of the First Amdt"; (3) 42 USC §§1971 and 1981 do qualify under §1443(1);

(4) "It is not enough to support removal under §1443(1) to allege . . . that . . . Def's fed'l equal civil rights have been illegally and corruptly denied by state administrative officials in advance of trial, that . . . charges against . . . Def are false, or that . . . Def is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state ct. . . . The civil rights removal statute does not require and does not permit . . . judges of . . . fed'l cts to put their brethren of the state judiciary on trial . . . ; [removal is limited to] rare situations where it can be clearly predicted by reason of the operation of a pervasive and explicit state or fed'l law that those rights will inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing . . . Def to trial in . . . state ct."

Douglas, J (Warren, CJ, Brennan, Fortas, JJ) diss: "A Def `is denied' his fed'l right when `disorderly conduct' statutes, `breach of the peace' ordinances, and the like are used as the instrument to suppress his promotion of civil rights"; "Initiation of an unwarranted judicial proceeding to suppress or punish the assertion of fed'l civil rights makes out a case of civil rights `denied' within . . . §1443(1). Prosecution for a fed'lly protected act is punishment for that act. . . . Continuance of an illegal local prosecution . . . can have a chilling effect on a fed'l guarantee of civil rights."

And see next case.

58.Ga.14. Georgia v Rachel (USSC) (342 F2d 336 aff'd 384 US 780) Facts: X DOCKET 16, 25, 96, 138; XI DOCKET 13. 1963: Defs arrested when they sought service at privately owned restaurants; indicted for misdemeanor refusal to leave premises when requested by owner; Defs removed under §1443(1) and (2); DC remanded without h'g; while pending in CA 5, 1964 Civil Rights Act passed permitting appeal from DC remand, and USSC decided Hamm, 552.SC.4d, 379 US 306, abating state trespass prosecutions for peaceful attempts to obtain service by establishments covered by 1964 Act. CA rev'd, remanded to DC to hold h'g on whether came within Hamm; USSC granted cert. Je 20, 1966: USSC affirmed (9-0), Stewart, J: §1443(1) requires showing of reliance on "right under any law providing for . . . equal civil rights" meaning law "providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality," general allegations ineffective; 1964 Act protects Defs from prosecution for seeking service; "mere pendency of the prosecutions enables the fedl ct to make the clear prediction that the Defs will be `denied or cannot enforce in the cts of . . . State' the right to be free of any `attempt to punish them for protected activity. It is no answer . . . that the Defs might eventually prevail in the state court"; Defs must be given h'g to prove order to leave solely for racial reasons; on such finding, DC must sustain removal and dismiss prosecutions.

And see previous case.

Prof Anthony G Amsterdam, U of Pa, Philadelphia.

73.Ala.6. Alabama v Wright (DC Ala) Facts: XI DOCKET 13. Dec 12, 1965: Prosecution for failing to obey officer, while encouraging voter registration dismissed; case closed.
- 20 -

73.La.1. School Bd v Bogalusa Voter's League (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 14. Def's appeal dismissed; case closed.
73.La.2a. Louisiana v Amos (Jud Dist Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 14. Je 27, 1966: DC remanded on basis of Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 384 US 808. CA denied Defs' petition for stay. Trial in state ct pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

73.La.3. Vidalia v Demonstrators (Vidalia) (Mayor's Ct) (DC La) Sept 7, 1966: Defs attended voter registration meeting; arrested. Sept 8, 9: marches to protest arrests on Sept 7; some marchers arrested. Defs removed cases involving voter registration to DC. Pl moved to remand. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

73.La.4. Homer v Demonstrators (Homer) (CA 5) Aug 23, Sept 9, 1966: Defs-Negroes participated in voter-registration march to Jonesboro; arrested: parading without permit, disorderly conduct. Defs removed one case to DC: (1) ordinances unconstitutional on their face, (2) voter registration activity affirmatively protected by fed'l law. DC remanded without h'g. Defs sought stay pending review of remand in CA. Pending.

Defs filed motion to quash 2d case; trial date: Oct 17.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

73.Mass.1. Pratt, Farrell v Massachusetts (USSC, ##335,383) State prosecuted Def: small loan companies for offenses re corruption of public officials. Defs removed. Je 29, 1966: CA 1 held cases not removable under §1443(1) of Judicial Code, notwithstanding Def's allegation that, by reason of discriminatory grand jury procedure eventuating in indictments, they cannot enforce their non-racial fedl civil rights in state cts. Oct 10: USSC denied cert.

Edward Bennett Williams and Raymond W Bergan, Esqs, 839 17th St NW, and Dawson, Griffin, Pickens and Riddell, Esqs, 15th and New York Ave NW, both of Washington, DC; William T Kirby, Prudential Plaza, Chicago; James W Kelleher and Daniel B Bickford, Esqs, 225 Franklin St, Boston.

73.Miss.6. Greenville v Novick (ND Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 14. Dec 22, 1965: DC granted Defs' motion to quash Pl's discovery proceedings in picketing case. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.9. Jackson v Catchings (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. May 1966: CA reversed DC remand order on Def's disturbing the peace charge for restaurant sit-in. Pending in DC.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.12. Mississippi v Archie (Jackson) (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. CA affirmed DC's remand order: compelled by Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 384 US 808. Trial pending in state ct.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.14. Mississippi v Bass, Klein, Wilcox (SD Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. Cases awaiting ruling in Coppock v Patterson, 63.37, which attacks same ordinance.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.16. Mississippi v Allen (Magnolia) (DC Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. 1966: CA reversed DC orders remanding demonstration cases to state ct; CA remanded to DC. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.18. Mississippi v Grandison (Moss Point Co Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. CA reversed DC remand order of trespassing cases, sent back to DC. DC remanded to state ct in view of Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 384 US 808. Trial pending in state ct.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

73.Miss.19. Mississippi v Davis (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. State dismissed all prosecutions for disturbing the peace; case closed.
73.Miss.19a. Natchez v Day (SD Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 15. State dismissed all prosecutions for unlawful assembly; cases closed.
73.Miss.26. Carmichael v Greenwood (CA 5, #22289) (352 F2d 86, 11 RRLR 346) 1965: Pets arrested during civil rights demonstrations, removed cases to DC. DC granted motion to remand: removal for inability to protect fedl rights in state ct must be based on provisions of state law which deny civil rights, rather than on discriminatory acts of individuals not authorized by state law. Sept 30: CA reversed and remanded for proceedings in light of CA decision in Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 384 US 808, that removal could be based on denial of civil rights in administration of state laws in arresting and charging processes.
73.NY.2. Hutchinson v New York (USSC) (86 S Ct 5) Defs in state criminal case removed to DC. DC remanded. Defs' appeal to CA 2 pending. Sept 20, 1965: Harlan, J, denied application for stay of remand order pending CA appeal.
73.Va.1. Wallace v Virginia (Prince Edward Co) (USSC) (357 F2d 107, 105; 11 RRLR 374, 377) Facts: XI DOCKET 70. Argued Oct Term 1966.
74. In Obtaining Three-Judge Federal Courts
Three-judge statutory federal courts, by Marjorie Leonard. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 163-173.

And see requests for 3-judge cts: Cohen, 24.57; Carmichael, 51.Ga.8a; Chinn, 63.53; O'Hare, 111.45; WEB DuBois Clubs, 211.16; Reed, 255.4; Krebs, 271.52; Chewie, 603.6.

90. Miscellaneous Freedom of Thought
Articles: James B Donovan, Privilege of advocating unpopular causes. 30 Albany 52-6.

Ben C Duniway, The obnoxious individual. 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 124-35.

Virginia Commn on Constitutional Government, The right not to listen. 16 Mercer 389-403.

Freedom of assembly. 15 DePaul 317-39.

- 21 -

90.6. Nick Cipy v Intl Bhd of Teamsters (ND Calif) Dec, 1965: Pl expelled from Union for malicious, slanderous, and unfounded attacks on union officials, harrassment, insults. Suit for reinstatement and damages for wages lost, injury to reputation, emotional distress and embarrassment on grounds of 1st Amendment and Labor-Management Disclosure Act of 1959 protections. Pending.

Marshall W Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St; Jerrold E Levitan, Esq, 1231 Market St, Penthouse, Whitcomb Hotel, both of San Francisco.

90.7. New York v Lewis (Queens Crim Ct) 1966: Def carried bumper sticker advocating peace in Vietnam: summons for advertising. Pending.

William Butler, Esq, 400 Madison Ave, NYC.

90.8. Chicago v Stewart (Cook Co Cir Ct, 1st Muni Dist) Def, male transvestite, periodically arrested under city ordinance prohibiting person from appearing in public dressed in clothes of opposite sex. Issue: constitutionality of ordinance. Pending.

Joan Miller, Esq, 5438 S Hyde Park Blvd; Ronald H Silverman, Esq, 19 S LaSalle St, Rm 1421, both of Chicago.


Symposium: Expanding concepts of religious freedom. 1966 Wisconsin 215-330.

110. Separation of Church and State
Article: William O'Brien, States and "no establishment"; proposed amendments to Constitution since 1798. 4 Washburn 183-210.

Symposium: Religious institutions and values: legal survey—1964-66. 41 Notre Dame 681-785.

111. In Education
S 2097: Provision for judicial review of constitutionality of grants or loans under certain acts to church schools: Cong Rec—Sen, Jy 29, 1966, 16856.

Comment: School bus law: transportation of parochial and private school pupils in Pennsylvania. 27 Pittsburgh 71-83.

111.37. McCartney v Bd of Educ (Long Beach Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 70. Dismissed.
111.39. Stearns Co Bus Case (Minn Dist Ct) 1966: Action to declare unconstitutional statute allowing bus transportation of private and parochial students by 2 Minn school districts. Pending.

D Haglund, Esq, 6500 5th Ave South, Wayzata, Minn.

111.40. Greenbush v Commr Allen (Albany Co Sup Ct) 1966: Challenge to State Textbook Law providing free loan of public textbooks to parochial students. Pending.

Marvin Pollock, Esq, 80 Pine St, NYC.

111.41. Bowerman v O'Conner, Jr (Providence Co Super Ct, #31775) 1966: Taxpayer's action seeking to have Rhode Island statute providing for loan of textbooks to students in private and parochial schools declared unconstitutional. Pending.

Milton Stanzler, Esq, 626 Industrial Bank Bldg; Harold E Adams, Jr, Esq, 302 Union Trust Bldg, both of Providence.

111.42. De Spain v De Kalb School Bd (ND Ill) Pl seeks injunctive relief to prevent continued recitation of prayer led by teacher in public school kindergarten. Pending.

Ralph Jonas, Esq, 1 N LaSalle St, Suite 505, Chicago.

111.43. Calvary Bible Presbyterian Church v U of Washington (King Co Super Ct) 1966: Pls, fundamentalist ministers, challenged right of Def to teach course "The Bible as Literature," claiming students being taught Bible written by man and not word of God. Je 6, 1966: Suit dismissed.

Michael H Rosen, Esq, ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

111.44. Utevsky v Seattle School Bd (King Co Super Ct) 1966: Suit challenging constitutionality of Public Schools having compulsory assemblies during regular school hours addressed by evangelist and Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Pending.

Irving Paul, Esq, ACLU, 2190 Smith Tower, Seattle.

111.45. O'Hare v Detroit Bd of Educ (ED Mich) 1966: Def to provide from tax money auxiliary school services (speech correction, teacher-counsellor) to non-public, parochial schools. Pls, Negro and white parents, teachers seek 3-judge fedl ct, injunctive relief. Pending.

Erwin Ellman, Esq, 1800 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit.

And see Whitehall, 281.23.

111.46. Alexander v Bartlett (Wayne Co Cir Ct) Pls challenged constitutionality of school bus bill providing use of public funds for transportation of students to parochial schools. Defs moved for summary judgment. Cir Ct granted Defs' motion. Appeal pending.

Leo Pfeffer, John Seaman, Esqs, 1504 Michigan National Tower, Lansing.

111.47. Holden v Bd of Educ (Elizabeth) (NJ Sup Ct) (216 A2d 387, 11 RRLR 185) Def excluded Negro children who refused to pledge allegiance to flag. Commr of Educ ordered Pls readmitted, held not necessary to decide whether Muslims is religious or political order since statutes, decisions except "religious scruples" not religious belief. On Defs' appeal, Sup Ct found children members of Black Muslim religion which prohibits pledges to any flag; affirmed order of readmittance.
112. In Public Places (and 13, 151, 152, 261)
Articles: Kenneth Cox, FCC, Constitution, and religious broadcast programming. 34 G Washington 196-218.

Lee Loevinger, Religious liberty and broadcasting. 33 G Washington 692-727.

Comment: Hospital aid and establishment clause: conflict or accommodation? 13 UCLA 1100-22.

112.28. Murray and Cree v Goldstein (USSC, ##132, 133) (216 A2d 897) Facts: XI DOCKET 16. Md Ct of App held state property tax exemption of church bldgs does not violate 1st Amdt establishment clause. Oct 10, 1966: USSC denied cert.

Leonard J Kerpelman, Esq, 500 Equitable Bldg, Baltimore; Martin J Scheiman, Esq, 3 Bayside Great Neck, Long Island.

Comment: Constitutionality of tax exemptions accorded Am church property. 30 Albany 58-69.

- 22 -

120. Conscientious Objection to War (see also 356, 362)
Constitutional right to CO status. What's New, 2/67, pp 1-8, DOCKET.

Chronological steps in Selective Service Process: Function of lawyer, student deferments, COs in Armed Forces. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 235-235jj.

Conscientious objector form: Problems, new decisions. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 235j-235r.

Forms: Motions for acquittal in CO cases. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 235x-235y.

Publications of Central Comm for Conscientious Objectors, 2006 Walnut, Philadelphia.

Book: Lynd, Nonviolence in America: A documentary history. Bobbs-Merrill. 1966. $7.50; $3.75 paperback.


Letter: Kupferman (NY), Religious Society of Friends Appeal to the President. Cong Rec—Appendix. Aug 30, 1966, A4587.

Article: William L Standard: US Intervention in Vietnam Is Not Legal: ABA Journal. July 1966. Cong Rec—Sen,


Articles: Mary M Kaufman, Appraisal of significance of Nurnberg after 20 yrs. 25 Guild Practitioner 66-87;

Mary M Kaufman, Documents leading to war crimes trials. 25 Guild Practitioner 88-95;

Francis Heisler, Problems in raising defense of international law. 25 Guild Practitioner 96-103;

Milton Koss, Bibliography on Nurnberg war crimes trials. 25 Guild Practitioner 104-110.


Comments: Wilson, Selective service system: Administrative obstacle course. 54 Calif 2123-79.

Matthews Zwerling, Selective service, 76 Yale 160-99.

Speech: Cong Ryan (NY), National service and the draft. Cong Rec—House. Aug 8, 1966, 17686-9.

Report: Dept of Defense on Study of the draft. June 1966: Cong Rec—Sen. June 30, 1966, 14166-72.

Speech: Ashbrook (Ohio), Brief Notes on the ways and Aug 8, 1966, 17753-8.

means of "beating" and defeating the draft. Cong Rec—Appendix. Aug 22, 1966, A4438-9.

Speech: Cameron (Cal), Lord Russel's War Crimes Trial: Cong Rec—Appendix. Aug 31, 1966, A4627.

121. Through Application for CO Status
Article: Robert L Rabin, When is a religious belief religious: US v Seeger and scope of free exercise. 51 S Dakota 42-69.

Clancy and Weiss, CO Exemption: Problems in conceptual clarity and constitutional considerations. 17 Maine 143.

Comments: The three eras of conscientious objector. 34 U of Cinn 487-503.

Pre-induction availability of right to claim CO exemption. 72 Yale 1459.

121.32. US v Seeger (USSC) (380 US 163) Facts: X DOCKET 26, 102.

Comments: 30 Albany 304-16, 33 G Washington 1108-26, 61 Northwestern 135-44.

121.43. R. Miller v Selective Service System, Local Bd 323 (ED Mich, #27886) Facts: XI DOCKET 73.

Memo: Attack on constitutionality of Reg. 1624.1(b) excluding counsel from local board hearings.

Eleanor Norton, Esq, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC, Jan 10, 1966. 9 pp.

121.44. US v Gearey (CA 2, #30551) 1960-1964: Catholic Def given II-S. Apr 6, 1965: Def classified I-A; ordered to report for induction May 5; postponed to Jy. May 21: Def asked Bd for Form 150. Je 7: Bd received Def's completed Form. Je 17: Bd ordered Def to report for induction Jy 8, and for h'g Jy 6. At h'g, Def said he had recently decided to become a CO; Bd voted not to reclassify Def; made no finding whether Def's change of status was beyond his control (32 CFR Reg 1625.2); sent Def no notification required in Reg 1625.4 re refusal to reopen. Jy 8: Def refused induction; arrested. Feb-Mar, 1966: DC rejected offer of proof of Def's sincere CO beliefs, permitted character evidence; convicted: 2 yrs; $2,000 bail pending appeal. Oct 21: CA 2 held: (1) when CO form filed after applicant received induction notice, Bd must determine when Def became CO; (2) strong congressional policy requires meticulous procedural protections for COs, including statutory right to appeal, if CO application timely made; (3) CO prior to receipt of induction order who does not file Form 150 not entitled to reopening and appellate procedure because no change of circumstances beyond his control; (4) registrant may become sincere CO on receipt of induction order, if so, entitled to full review; remanded to DC to determine date Def attained CO position.

Karpatkin and Karpatkin, Esqs, 660 Madison Ave, NYC.

121.45. Del Bourgo v Mansfield (ND Calif, #45849) 1965: Pl filed Form 100 after Seeger, 121.32, but without knowledge of Seeger from Def Bd or elsewhere, did not ask for Form 150. Pl later saw Form 150, assumed it did not apply to him. June, 1966: Pl refused to take Army physical to show opposition to war. Sept 1: Def ordered Pl inducted for delinquency. Sept 16: Pl consulted counsel, read Seeger, asked for Form 150. Sept 21: Pl refused induction; turned in Form. Oct 24: Pl sued Def for 3-judge ct: (1) to declare unconstitutional Def's order requiring use of pre-Seeger Form 150 because it is anti-Seeger test; (2) to order Def to consider Pl's Form 150 as if filed when Pl became CO and not when actually filed; (3) to rescind induction order. Jan 1967: oral argument for convening of 3-judge ct; pending.

Norman Leonard, Esq, 1182 Market St, San Francisco; Ann Fagan Ginger, Esq, 1715 Francisco St, Berkeley.

See What's New, 2/67, p 4.

And see Weatherall, 123.39.

121.46. US v Fargas (SD NY, #66 Cr 792) Je 1, 1966: Def received order for induction Je 13; asked draft bd for Form 150. Je 9: Def filed completed Form 150, interviewed by bd. Je 10: Bd wrote it saw no reason to reopen or reclassify
- 23 -

Def. Def filed appeal from denial of CO application. Jy 14: Bd filed summary on refusing to reopen, notified Def of continuing duty to report for induction. Oct 26: Def filed motion to dismiss indictment under Fedl Rules of Crim Proc 12: (1) 6th Amdt and Rule 7(c) FR Cr P require indictment must clearly, accurately charge every ingredient of offense to inform Def and ct, citing US v Lamont, 271.1, II DOCKET 12, 72, 236 F2d 312 (1956); (2) indictment defective for failure to allege Bd properly classified Def before ordering his induction; (3) Bd never held h'g to evaluate Def's claim to CO status or when Def became CO, citing remand in Gearey, 121.44. Pending.

Michael B Standard, Esq, 30 E 42nd St, NYC.

121.47. Storey v US (CA 9, #20932) Mar 25, 1963: Def informed draft bd he was CO, requested Form 150 to become I-O. Apr 3: Def asked Bd whether his work at Boeing was considered defense work (since his local church said it wasn't); if so, he would quit. Bd did not reply. Apr 4: Def filed Form 150 as "Ambassador for Christ." Bd classified Def 1-A, gave h'g, retained 1-A; Def appealed. Natl church decided Boeing was defense work; Def quit job. Apr 20, 1964: App Bd classified Def 1-A-O. Je 5: Bd refused to reopen to consider change in circumstance: quitting job. Je 9: Def refused induction. Jan 21, 1966: Def convicted; 4 yrs. Issues on appeal: (1) Can Bd refuse requested information, then deny 1-O because Def proceeded in ignorance; (2) Can Bd receive derogatory information re Def and use it in classifying him without notifying him; (3) Were Def's rights under 5th and 6th Amdts violated by failure to advise of right to counsel and against self-incrimination; (4) Did DC err in denying admission of Def's witnesses re his CO position. Pending.

Ralph K Helge, Esq, 285 W Green St, Suite 205, Pasadena.

121.48. US v Kronenthal (ND Calif, #39925) Dec 23, 1963: Def received induction order. Jan 7, 1964: Def wrote Bd refusing military service. Jan 10: Def did not report for induction. Jan 27: Bd mailed Def CO form; Def filled it out and returned it. Bd gave no notice of right to counsel or advice, personal hearing. Def arrested: refusal of induction. Pretrial brief alleges denial of due process, right to counsel, right to hearing, right to change claim after Seeger (380 US 163, X DOCKET 26, 102, at 121.32): Def was CO, statute unconstitutionally vague, Def did not fail to exhaust administrative remedies. Trial; decision pending.

Aubrey Grossman, Esq, 1095 Market St, San Francisco.

121.49. US v Burlich (SD NY) (257 FS 906) Def sought I-O status; Bd denied; Def did not appeal. Def sought III-A status: providing 75% of mother's support. Bd declined to reopen, ordered Def to report for induction. Def refused; arrested; tried. Jy 25, 1966: DC found: (1) Def's file showed prima facie basis for III-C; (2) Bd's refusal to reopen therefore denied procedural due process by denying Def personal h'g before Bd, and appeal; (3) since induction order invalid for refusal to reopen on dependency question, fact Def refused induction because he was CO doesn't matter; held not guilty.

Anthony F Marra, Esq, 50 E 42nd St, NYC.

121.50. US v Hodgkin (ED Pa) Def-Quaker refused induction; arrested; pleaded guilty. Je 13, 1966: DC Judge Body: 30 mths and $250.
121.51. US v Spiro (CA 3, #16,073) 1962: Catholic Def filed CO form with local bd, basing application on Catholic "just war" doctrine, with supporting material from leading Catholics, publications. Bd classified Def I-A-O; Def appealed. Dec 15, 1964: App Bd classified Def I-A. Dec 21: Bd ordered Def to report for induction Jan 6, 1965. Dec 24: Def requested II-S; denied because part-time student. Dec 29: Def applied for induction postponement to process presidential appeal; State Dir denied. Jan 6, 1965: Def refused induction; indicted. Feb 1966: trial; convicted: 2 yrs. Issues on appeal: (1) does 50 USC App §456j discriminate in favor of Jehovah Witnesses and against Roman Catholics in violation of 1st and 5th Amdts; (2) was it error to deny Def's motion to acquit since no evidence he's not a CO; (3) was Def denied procedural due process when Bd ordered induction without advising he consult Gov't Appeal Agent and without time for appeal.

Esther Strum Frankel, Esq, 455 E 42nd St, Paterson, NJ.

122. Through Application for CO Status—After Induction (see also 125, 356)
Article: Vietnam vet fed up with US effort. Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 16, 1966. 18687-8.
122.54. Re Gary A Allen (Marine Corps—Phila) May 1965: Pet applied for discharge as CO. Attacked once, harassed, Pet fled Camp Pendleton, consulted CCCO. Sept: Pet turned himself in; sent to psychiatric ward. Feb 1966: Pet court-martialed; 6 mths; returned to ward. CCCO complained in letter. Mar 18: released for unsuitability.
122.55. Re Raymond Crane (Army—Ft Jackson, SC) Pet applied for discharge as CO; denied. Refused orders. Court-martialed; convicted: 2 yrs at hard labor.
122.56. Re George Louden (Army—Ft Hood, Tex) Jan 1966: Pet applied for discharge as CO; denied. Pet refused orders contrary to his beliefs; special court-martial: convicted: 6 mths. Jy: discharged for undesirability.

But see 122.57.

122.57. Re James M Taylor (Army—Ft Ord, Calif) Jan 1966: Pet applied for discharge as CO; denied. Pet refused orders contrary to his beliefs; gen'l court martial: 3 yrs at hard labor, then dishonorable discharge.
122.58. Re John A Hills (Army—Ft Dix, NJ) Dec 1965: Pet applied for discharge as CO; chaplain, co commander supported application; denied. Pet refused orders; court-martialed; convicted: 6 mths, reduced to 4 mths, released after 1 mth for "second chance." Pet again refused orders; court-martialed; convicted: 6 mths. Je 27: discharged for undesirability.
122.59. Re Cpl John Morgan (Marines—Camp Lejeune, NC) Pet applied for discharge as CO; denied. Summer 1966: Pet published anti-war poetry newspaper, issue dedicated to "Jesus Christ and other subversives." Pet left Camp for protest rally in NYC, planned to return to face punishment. Arrested.
- 24 -

123. Through Refusal of Registration/Civilian Service
[These cases involve "total resisters" who refuse to register due to pacifism, or refuse induction due to opposition to Viet Nam war but didn't apply for CO status, or achieved CO status but now refuse to do alternative service as total resisters.]
123.38. US v Mitchell (CA 2) (354 F2d 767) Facts: XI DOCKET 17, 71. Pending on appeal.
123.39. US v Weatherall (CA 7) Facts: XI DOCKET 18, 72. Addition: At induction, Def for first time claimed CO status, refused induction, then obtained and filed Form 150. Draft bd never acted on application; clerk did not transmit to State Director. Sentence: 3 yrs probation with right to perform alternate civilian service.
123.46. US v Kurki (WD Wis) Facts: XI DOCKET 72.

David Loeffler, Esq, 119 Monona Avenue, Madison.

Kurki Defense Comm, c/o Reeve, 409 N Pinckney St, Madison.

123.56. US v Rodd (WD Pa, #64-135 Cr) Facts: XI DOCKET 72.

Marjorie H Matson, Esq, ct-appointed, 1706 Law & Finance Bldg, Pittsburgh, Pa 15219.

123.58. US v Alvelo (DC Puerto Rico, #Cr 34-65) Facts: XI DOCKET 72. Def moved to dismiss indictment: (1) grand jury did not constitute cross-section of community, violating 5th, 6th Amdts; selected under 48 US §867, which is unconstitutional; (2) draft law as applied to Puerto Ricans violates 5th, 14th Amdts; (3) draft law inapplicable to Puerto Rico and, alternatively, US does not have constitutional power to induct Puerto Rican residents for US military service abroad; (4) requirement of 48 USC §864 that all proceedings in DC be in English violates 5th, 6th Amdts. Aug 11, 1966: US moved to dismiss indictment; DC granted.

Leonard Boudin and Diane Schulder, Esqs, 30 E 42nd St, NYC; Juan Mari Bras, Lorenzo Pineiro Rivera, Esqs, Box 1082, Hato Rey, PR; Carlos Carrera Benitoz, Esq, Box 21691, University Station, Rio Piedras, P.R.

123.61. US v Duvernay (ED La) Def Negro failed to register for draft, refused induction because against fighting abroad when real battle should be against inequities in US. Aug 31, 1966: Def tried by interracial jury. Issue: denial of due process because of 100% white personnel on draft bds when Negroes are 32% of DC district. Convicted; 5 yrs. Appeal pending.

Benjamin Smith, Esq, 1006 Baronne Bldg, 305 Baronne St, New Orleans.

123.62. Nunnally v Selective Service System (DC Miss) Jy 1966: Negro Pl from Marshall Co filed suit to enjoin operation of Def as segregated and discriminatory: Co is 70% Negro, state is 44% Negro; no Negro has ever served on a Miss draft bd; Act requires bds be representative of community, selection be done in "impartial manner." Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 233 N Farish, Jackson.

123.63. US ex rel Richmond and Von Key v McNamara (SD Calif) Def-draftees refused to report for induction on grounds that, as Negroes, they are not US citizens or actually treated as citizens, and cannot therefore be compelled to assume burdens of citizenship; war in Viet Nam unlawful, in violation of SEATO and UN Charter. Defs seek writ of habeas corpus. Sept 13, 1966: at preliminary h'g, DC refused to consider broad issues, narrowing case to propriety of actions of local draft bd. Oct 10: trial.

George T Altman, Esq, 424 S Beverly Dr, Beverly Hills; Robert L Brock, Esq, 3208 S Central Ave, Los Angeles.

123.64. US v Dickenson (Philadelphia) (ED Penn) 1966: 18 yr old Quaker Def refused to register for draft; arrested; pleaded guilty. DC sentenced him to work 2 yrs in Quaker mental hospital at no more than soldier's pay, did not order him to register.
123.65. US v Grundy (ND Calif) Catholic Def, 18, arrested for refusal to register; convicted: 5 yrs probation, first 2 yrs must perform work in natl interest [similar to 2 yrs alternative service for I-O's.]
123.66. US v Conklin (SD NY) Dec 9, 1965: Def refused to report for induction "for reasons of conscience, morals, ethics, and philosophy," to prevent having to commit war crimes against Nuremberg judgment. Feb 10, 1966: Def arrested; $1500 bail, restricting Def to US. Apr 28: Def invited to join Peace Corps in Morocco; unable to leave US. Je 28: Def moved to dismiss complaint under 6th Amdt guarantee of speedy trial. Je 30: US also moved to dismiss. Jy 11: DC dismissed. Jy 12: Def received order to report for induction Jy 26; did not report.

Rabinowitz and Boudin, Esqs, 30 E 42nd St, NYC.

124. Through Civil Disobedience (see also 51-59)

124.30. US v Miller (CA 2) Facts: XI DOCKET 18, 73. Def posted $500 appeal bond. Oct 13, 1966: CA 2 upheld conviction: Congress had right to enact law against destroying draft card, rejected Def's contention his act was "symbolic" protest against Vietnam war and protected by free speech provision of 1st Amdt.
124.31. US v Smith. Facts: XI DOCKET 18, 73. No appeal. Def decided could cooperate with Selective Service, offered to do equivalent of civilian alternative service as additional condition of probation.

Craig T Sawyer, Esq, Drake Law School, Des Moines, Iowa.

124.33. US v Wilson (SD NY, #65 Cr 1139) Facts: XI DOCKET 73.
124.35. In re Tax Protestors (Internal Revenue Service) Facts: XI DOCKET 73. 1966: 100 Bay Area residents filed claims for refund of 22% of 1965 income taxes which directly financed Vietnam war on grounds: conscientious objection to war, desire to avoid prosecutions under Nuremberg judgment for participating in, financing war in violation of UN Charter, intl law, crimes against peace, humanity, genocide. Pending in IRS.

Taxpayers Against War, PO Box 3014, Temescal Station, Oakland, Calif.

124.37. Michigan v Brothman, Bloom (Ann Arbor) (Mich Dist Ct of App) Facts: XI DOCKET 73. Awaiting decision on
- 25 -

whether there is appeal as of right from verdict in Cir Ct on appeal from justice or muni ct.

And see 124.37a, b.

124.37a. Wolff and Shortt v Selective Service Local Bds 16, 66 (CA 2, #66Civ472) Pls, full-time students (U of Mich) classified II-S. Oct 15, 1965: Pls and others sat-in at Ann Arbor draft bd. See Bloom, 124.37, XI DOCKET 73. Dec 10: NYC Dir of Selective Service asked Def Bds to review Pls' classifications for violation of draft law, §12(a)—penal statute for failure or refusal to perform duty. Def sent Wolff delinquency notice; Defs reclassified both Pls I-A. Pls asked Defs to return I-A status; 2 other Defs had II-S restored by local bds; 1 restored by App Bd. Feb 17, 1966: Pls sought injunction to prevent orders of induction (28 USC §1331). Jy 11: DC granted Defs' motion to dismiss: no jurisdiction to review orders of draft bds; no exhaustion of administrative remedies. Appeal pending.

Robert Layton, Ralph Fine, Esqs, 405 Park Ave, NYC 10022; Alan H Levine, Esq, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC 10010.

124.37b. Re Smokler, 5 Others (Natl Sel Serv App Bd) Sept 19, 1966: App Bd upheld change of students' II-S classifications to I-A for participation in sit-in at draft bd. See Brothman, 124.37, 124.37a.
124.40. US v O'Brien (Boston) (DC Mass) Mar 31, 1966: Def, 19, burned draft card in front of courthouse. Je 1: Def conducted own defense; convicted by jury. Jy 1: DA asked 2 yr sentence; DC conferred with Def's father, ruled: if Def cooperates and obtains new draft card, parole; if not, 4 yrs. Issues on appeals: see Miller, 124.30; violation of 1st Amdt for imposing conditional sentence under Youth Correction Act where terms of rehabilitation include giving up CO views.

Howard Whiteside, Esq, 60 State St, Boston 02109; Marvin Karpatkin, Esq, 660 Madison Ave, NYC 10021.

125. Through Military Disobedience (see also 122, 356)

125.6. Re Bert Kanewske (US Navy, Treasure Island, Calif) (ND Calif, #45235) Facts: XI DOCKET 18. Pet applied for discharge as CO; Secy of Navy denied. Pet did not obey military order; arrested. Mar 29-May 13, 1966: in "administrative segregation." May 13-Je 29: in "disciplinary segregation"—small, solitary cell. Je 29: Pet sued for writ of habeas corpus, alleging illegal detention (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art 10; Manual for Cts Martial, ¶ 20c), threat of genl ct martial. Jy 8: DC denied petition.

Genl ct martial: 3 yrs hard labor, bad conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay, allowances. On appeal, reduced to 18 mths.

Lloyd McMurray, Esq, 228 McAllister, San Francisco.

125.8. Re Roger Newby (Army, Ft Monmouth) Facts: XI DOCKET 19. May 27, 1966: Pet released as "undesirable" after serving 7 mths of 3 yr sentence at hard labor.

Francis Heisler, Esq, PO Drawer 3996, Carmel, Calif.

125.12. Re Lt Henry Howe (formerly US v) (Army Def Center—Ft Bliss) Facts: XI DOCKET 73. Jan 27, 1966: sentence reduced from 2 to 1 yr hard labor. Pet filed petition for writ of habeas corpus for release on bail pending military appeal. Mar 22: Pet released under Commandant's Parole: may travel in US, may not wear uniform, not required to perform Army duties. Jy 25: Army Genl Counsel Fill wrote Pet he might be prosecuted if continues to make speeches against war.

Melvin Wulf, Esq, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

125.13. Calello, Dwyer, Fisher v Resor (ED Va, Alexandria Div, ##4085, 4101, 4107); Baldouf v Nitze (SD Calif, ##3518-SD-K); Borden v McNamara, Nitze (DC Mass, #66-138-F) (formerly listed as Bordon v US) Facts: XI DOCKET 73. Pls, 3 Army captains, 2 Navy Lt cmdrs suing Army and Navy Secys to require Defs to accept Pls resignations, made after completion of minimum period committed for. Pls allege being held in involuntary servitude, in violation of 13th Amdt. Pending.

Elmer R Fay, Esq, 718 Queen St, Alexandria; Mizeur, Leeger and Hunter, Esqs, 1909 US Natl Bank Bldg, San Diego; Julian Soshinick, Esq, Boston.

125.14. Mora, Johnson, Samas v McNamara, Resor (CA DC, #1733-66) Je 30, 1966: Pl draftees sought preliminary injunction against being sent to fight in Vietnam, declaratory judgment that Vietnam war illegal because undeclared, violates treaties, Nuremberg judgment. Jy 1: Pls announced at press conference refusal to be sent to Vietnam. Jy 7: order that Pls be sent to Oakland changed to Ft Dix; Pls arrested on street, taken to Ft Dix, 2 put in hand irons. Jy 7-14: kept under administrative restriction. Jy 11: DC dismissed suit. Jy 14: Pls ordered to board plane for Vietnam; Pls refused 3 times. Put in solitary confinement. Sept 2: DC refused to enjoin cts martial pending appeal in CA DC. Sept 6-9: Pls tried; convicted: 3 yrs hard labor, dishonorable discharge for 1; 5 yrs, dishonorable discharges for 2. Oct 7: Pls complained of inhuman conditions in stockade. Appeals pending from injunction suit dismissal, cts martial.

Stanley Faulkner, Esq, 9 E 40th, NYC; Selma Samols, 517 11th St NW, Washington, DC.

Ft Hood Three Defense Comm, 29 Park Row, NYC.

125.15. Pvt Adam Weber (Army—Cuchi, S Vietnam) Nov 1965: Negro civil rights activist drafted; told Army he would not kill in Vietnam; sent to Army psychiatrist; soon sent to Vietnam. Pet refused to take weapon; arrested; trial date: May 26, 1966. Pet notified parents, who retained civilian atty; trial postponed. Je 11: Pet tried without prior notice; convicted in ct martial: 1 yr hard labor, $45 mthly pay cut.

Kunstler and Kinoy, Esqs, 511 Fifth Ave, NYC.

126. Miscellaneous Cases

126.1. Eminente v Johnson, McNamara, Rusk (USSC) (361 F2d 73) Facts: XI DOCKET 19. May 3, 1966: CA DC affirmed dismissal: damage to property in foreign country said to have been caused by US armed forces non-justiciable issue. Petition for cert pending.
126.2. California v Plagowski (Super Ct, App Dept) Facts: XI DOCKET 19. Mar 9, 1966: Def's conviction reversed: right
- 26 -

of free speech includes right to distribute pamphlets; it was strained construction to find littering under circumstances. Case dismissed.

Ruth Harwitz, 123 Webster St, San Francisco.

126.3. Orr v Johnson, Crown Pt (Ind) Draft Bd (Cir Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 19. Ct dismissed: President cannot be served with summons.
126.4. Luftig v McNamara and Resor (CA DC, #20,129) Facts: XI DOCKET 74. Fall 1966: Appeal argued.
126.5. In re Smith and McClure (US Army) Facts: XI DOCKET 74. Jy 28, 1966: McClure re-enlisted.
130. Denial of Tax Exemption to Institutions (see also 202, 266)
140. Sunday Closing Laws
150. Miscellaneous Restrictions
151. In Prisons
Article: Victor Zitta, Judicial mediation of religious freedom and gov'tal authority in US. 49 Marquette 543-63.
152. In Other Places

152.12. Santa Cruz v Peterson (Super Ct) Fall 1966: Def-writer arrested for possession of marijuana. Defenses: freedom of religion (drug provides "inner harmony"); right to privacy; cruel and unusual punishment. Pending.
200. Organizational Privileges Challenged
201. As to Meetings (see also 11, 63)

201.2. Sullivan Co Comm for Peace in Vietnam v Bd of Supervisors (Sullivan Co Sup Ct) 1966: Suit to prohibit Def from denying meeting facilities to political group. Pending.

Noel Tepper, Esq, 31 New Market St, Poughkeepsie; Jeremiah S Gutman, Esq, 363 7th Ave, NYC.

201.3. Madole v Bd of Supervisors (App Div, 2nd Dept) 1966: ct issued injunction ordering Def to make available meeting facilities to right-wing Nat'l Renaissance Party. Appeal pending.

Jeremiah S Gutman, Esq, 363 7th Ave, NYC.

202. As to Tax Exemption (see also 130, 266)
Remarks: Sierra Club and its tax status: Cong Rec—House, Aug 1, 1966, 16988.
203. As to NLRB Certification (see also 245, 291)

203.3. Dennis v US (USSC) (346 F2d 10, rev'd 384 US 855) Facts: X DOCKET 28; XI DOCKET 19. Je 20, 1966: USSC (9-0-2) reversed, Fortas, J: (1) History—1956: Defs indicted under Taft-Hartley §9h, convicted, rev'd by CA 10, retried, convicted, aff'd by CA 10; 1959: Congress repealed §9h; (2) held indictments charging conspiracy to defraud US by filing false non-communist affidavits were proper, not too broad; held Defs cannot attack constitutionality of §9h under Brown v US, 244.1, 381 US 437—"There is no reason for this ct to consider the constitutionality of a statute at the behest of Pets . . . indicted for conspiracy by means of falsehood and deceit to circumvent the law which they now seek to challenge"; held unnecessary to reconsider Douds, 339 US 382; (3) reversed because trial ct denied Defs' motion to require production of grand jury testimony of 4 key Gov't witnesses re events of 1948-1955 whose trial testimony was largely uncorroborated, 2 were accomplices, 1 a pd informer, 1 admitted mistakes on cross examination; remanded for new trial.

Black, J (Douglas, J) conc and diss: flat denial of procedural due process to allow Defs to be tried for third time without passing on validity of §9h; (1) indictment had to charge Defs' alleged fraud interfered with "lawful," "proper" functions of Gov't, yet only functions interfered with were under §9h "which . . . Ct . . . [here] assumes is a bill of attainder" which "must never be given the slightest validity."

US Atty announced Defs will not be retried. [Case ended after 10 yrs.]

Telford Taylor, Nathan Witt, Esqs, NYC.

204. As to Continued Existence (see also 63, 213, 223)

204.20. Re Fowler, Honorary State Cyclops of KKK, and 100 John Does (Los Angeles Super Ct) 1946: Calif revoked privilege of KKK doing business in Calif because of affiliation with KKK hqtred in Ga. Sept 15, 1966: Atty Genl sought injunction barring KKK from doing business and recruiting members in Calif. Super Ct granted temporary restraining order. Sept 28: Resp said new KKK has no ties with Ga KKK. Super Ct denied preliminary injunction: "In a question of constitutional rights—if there is a case of doubt—the ct must sustain those rights. People have a constitutional right to be stupid. . . . "

And see Fowler, 11.25.

210. Compulsory Registration
Articles: Kathleen L Barber, Legal status of Am Communist Party. 15 Jour of Pub Law 94-121.

Robert Mollan, Smith Act prosecutions: Effect of Dennis and Yates. 26 Pittsburgh 705-48.

Comment: Registration of communist-front organizations: Statutory framework and constitutional issue. 113 Pennsylvania 1270-94.

211. Under 1950 Internal Security (McCarran) Act

211.1d-m. Albertson and Proctor v SACB (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 27, 103, 141; XI DOCKET 19. Cite: 382 US 70, rev'g 332 F2d 317.

Case note: 15 Catholic U 253-9.

211.16. WEB DuBois Clubs of America v Katzenbach (DC DC, #1087-66) Facts: XI DOCKET 75. 1966: DC granted Pl's petition to convene 3-judge ct to determine whether injunction should issue against SACB holding any further proceedings on ground of unconstitutionality of Act. Pending.

Speech: WEB DuBois Clubs. Cong Rec—House. Aug 31, 1966, 20500.

- 27 -

212. Under 1954 Communist Control Act

212.1. Int'l Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers v SACB (CA DC; SACB) Facts: X DOCKET 29. Nov 1965: CA remanded case back to SACB because evidence was "stale." Je 1966: On joint motion by Union and Dept of Justice, SACB order against Union vacated, Atty Gen'l's petition against Union dismissed. [After 11 yrs, Union won.]
213. Under State Laws (see also 204, 245)
214. Under Foreign Agents Registration Act
220. Listing
221. By the Attorney General of the United States
222. By Congressional Committees
223. By State Authorities (see also 24, 281)

223.3. Elfbrandt v Russell (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 75. Cite: 384 US 11.
240. Criminal Penalties for Membership
And see Lenske, 30.20.
241. Under Smith Act: for Conspiracy
242. Under Smith Act: for Membership Only
Article: Alvin H Goldstein, Jr, The Krulewitch warning: Guilt by association. 54 Georgetown 133-55.
243. Under 18 USC §2384
244. Under Kennedy-Landrum-Griffin Act (see also 203, 291)
Article: James R Beaird, Union officer election provisions of the labor-management reporting and disclosure act of 1959. 51 Va 1306-40.
245. Under State Laws (see also 54)

245.16b. Dombrowski v Burbank (formerly listed as SCEF v Eastland) (USSC, #118) (358 F2d 821, 1966) Facts: X DOCKET 30, XI DOCKET 76. Oct 10, 1966: USSC granted cert.
246. Under 1950 Internal Security (McCarran) Act

246.1. US v Robel (USSC, #83) Facts: X DOCKET 31, 142; XI DOCKET 20. Feb 28, 1966: CA 9 certified gov't appeal to USSC. May 16: USSC noted probable jurisdiction. Issues: (1) does indictment sufficiently charge violation of Subversive Activities Control Act §5(a)(1) (D)? (2) is Act sufficiently precise as to active Communist membership accompanied by specific intent to overthrow gov't of United States, as required by Scales, 242.2, 367 US 203; (3) whether finding by SACB that Def belongs to "Communist action organization" deprive Def of judicial determination of question with traditional constitutional safeguards and is, in effect, determination of criminality in advance of trial.

Amicus by ACLU by John J Sullivan, Esq, 2418 Smith Tower, and Michael Rosen, Esq, 2101 Smith Tower, both of Seattle; Marvin M Karpatkin, Esq, 660 Madison Ave, Melvin L Wulf, Esq, 156 Fifth Ave, both of NYC.

250. Civil Disabilities for Membership: Federal
251. In Federal Employment (see also 30, 268)
Article: Lawrence H Mirel, Limits of gov'tal inquiry into private lives of govt employees. 46 Boston 1-36.

Comment: Dismissal of federal employees—the emerging judicial role. 66 Columbia 719-41.

OEO loyalty requirements: Spring 1966: OEO Dir Shriver issued guidelines barring hiring of community action program workers for "manifestations of disloyalty," "membership in subversive organizations."

251.54. Re John O'Brien (Asst US Postmaster Genl) Feb 1966: Pet, wearing peace button, applied for PO job in San Francisco; denied: can't hire anyone with his principles. ACLU talked to Asst Postmaster in Washington; Pet invited to apply for job.

Lawrence Speiser, Esq, ACLU, 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, D.C.

251.55. Bennett v US (USSC, #143) (356 F2d 525) Pl applied for Navy job, did not report past membership in specifically identified, defunct "Communist front" organization. Navy fired Pl during probationary period without h'g. Pl sued for reinstatement, back pay. Ct of Claims held for Def: tho Civil Service regs direct that probationers and career-employees have same rights, Navy need not conduct h'g which it would have for career-employee. Pl filed petition for cert. Oct 10, 1966: on suggestion of Solicitor Genl, USSC vacated judgment, remanded to Ct of Claims.

Carl L Shipley, Esq, National Press Bldg, 14th & S Sts NW, Washington, D.C.; Samuel Resnicoff, Esq, 280 Broadway, NYC 10013.

252. As to Passport Applications and Right to Travel

Comment: Future of Am passports as restrictions on travel. 60 Northwestern 511-30.

252.35. Zemel v Rusk (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 31, 104, 142, 143, XI DOCKET 20. Cite: 381 US 1, 1965. Case note: 14 Kansas 523-6.
252.59. US v Laub (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 32, 105; XI DOCKET 21, 76. May 26, 1966: Gov't appealed. Issue: Did citizen-Defs violate Immigration Act §215(b) by departing from US for country to which their unexpired and unrevoked pasports have been marked by Secy of State "not valid." Je 13, 1966: USSC noted probable jurisdiction.
253. As to Army Discharges (see also 122, 341)

253.52. Re Leon Day (Fort Bliss, Tex) Army initiated proceedings against Rel: prior to enlisting he was active in Socialist Workers Party and similar groups. Rel delayed final determination on administrative level. Army granted honorable discharge 1 mth before termination of 3 yr enlistment.
- 28 -

Richard T Marshall, Esq, Texas CLU, Southwest Natl Bank Bldg, El Paso, Texas.
253.53. Ofsevit v Dept of Defense (DC NY) 1956: Pl-reserve officer, decorated in Korea, given undesirable discharge based on left-wing activity in high school and later. June 1966: Pl sued Def, alleging undesirable discharge proceeding was star chamber: no witnesses testified against him, no documentary evidence introduced, Pl's attys barred from files relating to case. Oct 1966: Def granted Pl honorable discharge in exchange for dismissal of case.

Selma Samols, Esq, 517 11th St NW, Washington, DC.

254. As to Veterans Disability Payments
255. As to Social Security Benefits (see also 263, 346, 422)

255.4. Reed v Gardner (SD Calif, #66-1224-TC) Pls sued for injunction and declaratory judgment against enforcement of non-Communist oath required for Medicare benefits. Jy 28, 1966: DC issued temporary restraining order enjoining Def from requiring oath of applicants, granted Pls' motion to convene 3-judge ct to decide whether order should be made permanent.

A L Wirin, Fred Okrand, Laurence R Sperber, Esqs, ACLU, 323 W Fifth St, Los Angeles 90073.

And see Weiss, 255.2, Evans, 255.3.

256. In Housing Projects (see also 423, 530s)
257. As to Federal License Applications
258. Through Deportation Proceedings (see also 358)
258.7. In re Wolf (Imm Serv) Facts: X DOCKET 33. Correction: cd 353 US 942, should read: reh'g den 353 US 989. 1966: Special Examiner held Pet not deportable, citing Gastelum-Quinones, 258.9, 374 US 469 (1963), Matter of Paul, 258.14, IX DOCKET 47, (BIA Int Dec 1315). Serv did not appeal. [Pet won after 20 yrs.]
258.15. Sherman v Immigration and Naturalization Service (USSC, #80) (350 F2d 894) Facts: X DOCKET 33, 105; XI DOCKET 21, 77. Correction: Jan 17, 1966: CA 2, on reh'g en banc, reversed order of CA panel setting aside deportation order. Motion to file amicus curiae brief by independent scholars: (1) Case involves §10(e) and §7(c) of Administrative Procedure Act, not discussed by parties; (2) Under APA §10(e) one question to be decided is exact meaning of "burden of proving" which Solicitor Genl conceded was properly on Gov't: (a) burden of proof is not quantum of proof, (b) Imm and Nat Act has no prescription concerning burden of proof, tho there is prescription concerning quantum of proof; (3) To require more than preponderance of evidence would not introduce confusion and uncertainty into deportation law; (4) Compelling reasons why more than preponderance of evidence should be required: (a) problem of staleness, (b) Pet's fate, (c) penal nature of expulsion in this case; (5) APA §10(e) (B) (1) requires that agency action be set aside because it was "arbitrary, capricious, [and] an abuse of discretion." Pending.

Frank C Newman, Esq, U of Calif Law Bldg, and Siegfried Hesse, Esq, 929 Oxford St, both of Berkeley, Calif.

259. Through Denaturalization and Naturalization Proceedings (see also 358)
260. Civil Disabilities for Membership: State, Local and Private
261. In State, Local Government Employment (see 421)
Atty Genl's Opinion—Hawaii: Je 1, 1966: Atty Genl ruled Hawaii's loyalty oath unconstitutional, no longer required of public officers, employees, under Elfbrandt, 223.3, 384 US 11.
262. In Teaching (see also 24, 267, 281, 342, 571)

262.12. Eglash v Detroit Institute of Technology. (Mich Sup Ct) (#50,423) Facts: X DOCKET 143. Mich Sup Ct affirmed denial of injunctive relief to dismissed Pl-profs.

Roger Craig, Esq, 7436 Pinehurst, Dearborn, Michigan.

262.16. Wirin v Los Angeles Bd of Educ (Muni Ct) Pl to lecture at E Los Angeles College; refused to sign Dilworth Act loyalty oath for teachers and Levering oath for other public employees. Def refused to pay token fee. Je 22, 1966: Pl sued testing constitutionality of oaths. Def settled by paying fee.
263. As to State Unemployment Insurance Benefits (see also 255, 346, 421, 422)
264. As to State License Applications
265. In Proceedings Against Attorneys and Bar Applicants (see also 345, 373)
266. Through Deprivation of Right to Tax Exemption (see also 130, 202)
267. In Private Employment—Teaching (see also 24, 262, 281, 342)
268. In Private Employment—Defense Establishments (see also 344)
269. In Private Employment—Other

269.8. E Meadow Community Assn v E Meadow Bd of Educ (NY Ct of Appeals) Facts: XI DOCKET 78. Dec 1965: Sup Ct dismissed show cause order. 1966: App Div held controversy moot since date of performance had passed, agreed Def's cancellation imposed unlawful restriction on free speech and assembly. Jy 7, 1966: Ct of App reversed, held school board's action unconstitutional.
269.9. NLRB v Ritchie Mfg Co (CA 8) Facts: XI DOCKET 78. Cite: 354 F2d 90.
270. Criminal Penalties for Nondisclosure (see also 330)
271. Before Congressional Committees (see also 222, 330)
HUAC to investigate riots: Cong Rec—Appendix, Oct 10, 1966, A5216.

Speech: HUAC: Cong Rec—House, Sept 21, 1966, 22524.

- 29 -

271.12. Gojack v US (USSC) (348 F2d 355, rev'd 384 US 702) Facts: X DOCKET 34, 143; XI DOCKET 21. Je 13, 1966: USSC (9-0) reversed, Fortas, J: (1) Found Mar 1955: Def-union organizer challenged jurisdiction of HUAC, constitutionality of inquiry, declined to answer HUAC questions without invoking Fifth Amdt; (2) refused to reconsider Barenblatt, 271.7, 360 US 109; (3) reversed because: (a) subject of inquiry never specified or authorized by HUAC, as required by HUAC's rules, (b) no lawful delegation of authority to HUAC sub Comm to conduct investigation. Black, J, conc, would hold HUAC's inquiries unconstitutional encroachment on judicial power. [Def won after 11 yrs.]

Frank Donner, Esq, NYC.

271.49. US v Nixon, Wilson, Allen (CA DC, # #19501, 2, 3) Facts: X DOCKET 106, XI DOCKET 21, 78. Aug 2, 1966: CA reversed Def's convictions for contempt of HUAC: House Speaker McCormack erred in automatically transmitting Comm's citation to US Atty for trial without inquiring into its validity since Comm voted citation while Congress not in session.
271.50. Stamler and Hall v Willis, Ashbrook (CA 7, # #15268, 9) Facts: X DOCKET 143; XI DOCKET 22, 78. Oct 18-19, 1966: After extensive debate, House of Reps voted (219-69) contempt citations against Pls. (Cong Rec—House, Oct 18, 1966, 26437-26464; Oct 19, 1966, 26601-2, App A5402-5403.) Suit in CA pending.

HUAC proceedings against Milton Mitchell Cohen, Cong Rec—House, Oct 18, 1966, 26384.

271.51. US v Shelton (DC DC) Facts: XI DOCKET 78. Sept 16, 1966: DC jury found Def guilty of contempt of Congress. DC to impose sentence after routine probation study.

Lester W Chalmers, Jr, Esq, Branch Bank and Trust Bldg, Raleigh, NC.

271.52. Krebs v Ashbrook (HUAC) (DC DC, #2157-1966) 1966: HUAC subpoened Pl-dissenters from US foreign policy in Vietnam. Aug 15, 1966: in class suit, Pls moved: (1) to convene 3-judge ct under 28 USC §2282, Reed Enterprises v Corcoran (CA DC, 1965), 354 F2d 519, to consider constitutionality of Rule 11 (authorizing creation of HUAC); (2) for injunction to prevent enforcement of Rule 11; (3) for declaratory judgment on constitutionality of Rule 11; (4) for injunction restraining operation of HUAC's subpoenas against Pls. Issues: chilling effect of HUAC on exercise of 1st Amendment freedoms, Dombrowski, 245.16d, 380 US 479; Rule 11 void for vagueness; denial of due process; violation of rights of privacy under 1st, 4th, 9th, 10th Amendments; illegal and non-legislative purpose of public exposure of witnesses to scorn and embarrassment. Aug 15: DC granted certification to convene 3-judge ct; temporary restraining order enjoining HUAC hearing and enforcement of subpoenas. Aug 16: chief judge, CA DC, ordered convening of 3-judge ct; dissolved temporary restraining order. Pls testified before HUAC. Aug 17: Pls moved for injunction restraining HUAC. Aug 18: 3-judge ct, sua sponte, postponed hearing on Pl's motion for injunction, directing parties to file memo on whether case should be before 3-judge ct or remanded to single DC judge. Pending.

Arthur Kinoy, 511 Fifth Ave, New York; Robert Knowlton, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark; Gerard Moran, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark; Robert Carter, Rutgers University School of Law, Newark; John Pemberton, Jr, American Civil Liberties Union, 156 Fifth Ave, New York; William Kunstler, 12 Tenth St NE, Washington; Jeremiah Gutman, 363 Seventh Ave, New York; Henry di Suvero, c/o New York Civil Liberties Union, New York; Beverly Axelrod, 345 Franklin St, San Francisco.

And see Kinoy, 373.20.

Discussion: HUAC hearings August 1966: Cong Rec—Appendix: Aug 17, 1966, A4353; Aug 18, 1966, A4373; Aug 19, 1966, A4405; Aug 22, 1966, A4416, A4428; Aug 23, 1966, A4449; Aug 24, 1966, A4490; Aug 25, 1966, A4522; Aug 26, 1966, A4543; Cong Rec—House: Aug 16, 1966, 18697; Aug 18, 1966, 19038; Aug 22, 1966, 19296; Aug 24, 1966, 19575; Aug 29, 1966, 20127; Aug 30, 1966, 20403; Aug 31, 1966, 20515; Cong Rec—Sen: Aug 22, 1966, 19336.

272. Before State Committees (see also 204, 213, 332)

272.3a. De Gregory v New Hampshire (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 79. Cite: 383 US 825.
273. Before Legal and Administrative Tribunals (see also 333)
274. For Refusal to Produce Records
280. Civil Penalties For Nondisclosure
281. By Teachers (see also 24, 223, 262, 342, 571)

281.20a. Keyishian v NY Bd of Regents (USSC, #105) Facts: X DOCKET 107. Jan 5, 1966: WD NY upheld NY statues, regulations, procedures by which teachers at State Univ, other state employees required under penalty of dismissal to sign certificates declaring they are not now Communist Party members and are subject to dismissal for belonging to organizations listed as subversive by Def; do not violate 1st Amdt, or constitute bills of attainder or ex post facto laws. Je 20, 1966: USSC noted probable jurisdiction.

Richard Lipsitz, Rosario DiLorenzo, Esqs, 1 Niagara Sq, Buffalo.

281.22. Ehrenreich v Kansas (DC Kan) Pl, CLU chairman, invited to be Assoc Prof at Univ of Kansas Medical Center on condition he sign loyalty oath; refused. Sept 20, 1966; Pl, joined by other profs who signed oath "under threat of discharge or loss of employment," filed suit challenging oath: vagueness, ex post facto law, bill of attainder, violates 1st Amdt. Pending.

Greater Kansas City CLU, Mo; Kansas CLU.

281.23. Whitehall v Maryland (DC Md) Pl novelist offered contract to teach at Univ of Md (College Park) on condition he sign loyalty oath; refused: violation of religious freedom as Quaker. 1966: Pl brought suit challenging Ober Act prescribing oath; pending.

ACLU, 620 N Calvert St, Baltimore.

- 30 -

281.24. Plaintiff v Nebraska (DC Neb) Pl, former secretary at Univ of Neb, fired for failure to sign state loyalty oath. 1966: Pl sued to have oath for public employees declared unconstitutional. Pending.

Richard Bruckner, Esq, Farm Credit Bldg, Omaha.

281.25. Pedlosky v Massachusetts (Suffolk Co Super Ct) Pl, Asst Math Prof, refused to sign positive loyalty oath at MIT; sued challenging requirement for all teachers in all state's colleges and schools, public and private. Pending
281.26. Plaintiff v Oregon (Ore Sup Ct) Pl, Portland State College physical education asst prof refused to sign positive loyalty oath required of teachers; sued. Lane Co Cir Ct held oath unconstitutional: violated due process, free speech guarantees of 1st and 14th Amdts, section of State Constitution. State Atty Genl appealed. Pending.

Oregon ACLU, Senator Bldg, Portland.

281.27. Regents, Univ of Colorado v Colorado (DC Colo) Pl brought suit for declaratory judgment on loyalty oath, not directly attacking it. DC dismissed: no real controversy.
282. By Others (see also 343, 344)

282.14. Minnesota v Forichette (Minn Sup Ct, #40035) 1966: Def municipal employee denied membership in Communist Party; arrested: perjury. Minn Dist Ct, 4th Jud Dist convicted. Appeal pending.

Lynn Castner, Esq, 925 Upper Midwest Bldg, Minneapolis; Joseph Perry, Esq, 516 New York Bldg, St Paul.

285. Bills of Attainder
And see Dickson, 24.60; Keyishian, 281.20a; Ehrenreich, 281.22.
290. Penalties for False Disclosure
291. Under Taft-Hartley Oath (see also 203, 245)
292. On Government Security Questionnaires
293. In Miscellaneous Cases
295. Right of Privacy (and 301, 302, 303, 421)
Article: William B Ball, Constitutional question re birth control and right of privacy. 1 Lincoln 28-38.

Article: Lawrence E Davies: Computer plan for personal dossiers in Santa Clara stirs fears of invasion of privacy: NY Times, Aug 1, 1966 (Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 5, 1966, 17560).

Articles: Mitchell Franklin, Ninth Amendment as civil law method and its implications for republican form of government. 40 Tulane 487-522.

Harry D Krause, Right to privacy in Germany—pointers for American legislation? 1965 Duke 481-530.

Edward V Long, Right to privacy: Case against the govt. 10 St Louis U 1-29.

Oscar M Ruebhausen, Orville G Brim, Jr, Privacy and behavioral research. 65 Columbia 1184-1211.

Barry S Verkauf, Artificial insemination: progress, polemics, and confusion—Appraisal of current medico-legal status. 3 Houston 277-309.

Isidore Silver, Privacy and First Amendment. 34 Fordham 553-69.

Comments: Administrative inspections and right of privacy: Frank compromise. 11 Villanova 357-69.

The polygraph in private industry: regulation or elimination? 15 Buffalo 665-69.

Blood tests and Bill of Rights—Breithaupt revisited. 17 Hastings 139-44.

Connecticut contraceptive ban v right of privacy. 34 U Missouri (Kansas City) 95-120.

Ninth Amendment. 30 Albany 89-100.

Privacy after Griswold: constitutional or natural law right? 60 Northwestern 813-33.

Right to be let alone. 17 Florida 597-608.

Proposed Legislation: S 3779, S 3703 to protect constitutional rights of gov't employees and prohibit unwarranted invasions of their privacy (eg, disclosure of private affairs, require participation in activities not within scope of employment). Provides criminal and civil sanctions; Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 9, 1966, 17814.

Speech: Constitutional rights of fedl employees. Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 12, 1966, 18351.

Symposium: Symposium on Griswold and right of privacy. 64 Michigan 197-288.

295.10. Minneman, Sosis, Berger v Producers of "Mondo Cane" (Los Angeles) Def filmed and showed Pls, 3 women, doing exercises in Vic Tanny gym. Pls sued for damages and injunction prohibiting documentary from being shown in US and Canada while scene remained in picture. Ct awarded $17,000 and injunction: invasion of privacy.
- 31 -


Interview form for clients in criminal cases. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 46-46f.

Articles: Hon J Skelly Wright, Renaissance of criminal law: Responsibility of trial lawyer. 4 Duquesne U 213-24.

Justice Stanley Mosk, The population explosion and due process. 1 Lincoln 149-65.

Henry J Friendly, The Bill of Rights as a code of criminal procedure. 53 Cal 929-56.

Alexander Holtzoff, Shortcomings in the administration of criminal law. 17 Hastings 17-40.

Monrad G Paulsen, Winds of change: criminal procedure in New York, 1941-1965. 15 Buffalo 297-318.

S Jt Res. 179: Proposed amendment to Constitution relating to power of courts of US to review convictions in criminal actions; Cong Rec—Sen, July 22, 1966, 15940.

300. Searches and Seizures (and see 295)

Practical problems: Suggestions in search and seizure cases by Manuel Nestle. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 70a-70e.

Fourth Amendment application to semi-public areas: Smayda v US (352 F2d 251, 9th Cir 1965; cert denied, 382 US 981, 1966) 17 Hastings 835-42.

Lecture: Prof William W Greenhalgh, Procedural aspects of constitutional ban on unreasonable search and seizure. Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 8, 1966, 17764.

301. By Electronic Eavesdropping
Articles: Marvin E Aspen, Court-ordered wiretapping: Experiment in Illinois. 15 DePaul 15-26.

George Templar, Admissibility of evidence secured by eavesdropping device. 5 Washburn 174-91.

Comments: Do we have to live with eavesdropping: Legislative proposal. 38 So Calif 622-33.

Reappraisal of Fourth Amendment framework. 50 Minnesota 378-414.

Electronic surveillance. 17 Baylor 338-56.

Electronic surveillance and right of privacy. 27 Montana 173-92.

Electronic eavesdropping—Inadequate protection of private communication. 40 St Johns 59-66.

Legislative note: Legislative proposal—Amendment of §605 Fed'l Communications Act and adoption of state wiretapping legislation. 34 Cincinnati 412-18.

301.20. US v Sen Harris (ED La, Baton Rouge Div, ##1422-1424) Facts: X DOCKET 36, XI DOCKET 23. Jury acquitted Def of 1 count of wire tapping; hung jury on 4 counts.
301.23. Berger v New York (USSC, #615) (18 NY2d 638) Facts: X DOCKET 36, 107, XI DOCKET 80. NY Ct of App affirmed bribery conspiracy conviction. Sept 30, 1966: cert filed in USSC.
301.27. New York v Hobel (NY Sup Ct, App Div) 1963: Dispute between Communication Workers of America (CWA) and Teamsters over who would represent Local 1101, Telephone Workers. 6 eavesdropping orders obtained between July and Dec under Code of Crim Proc §813c to listen at CWA and Teamsters' offices and Def's room. Dec 30: Local 1101 elected to disaffiliate with CWA and affiliate with Teamsters. Jan 20, 1964: Defs, Telephone Co employees and union officers of Local 1101, arrested: conspiracy. Feb 14: NLRB election between CWA and Teamsters over representation; Teamsters lost. Mar 25, 1965: Defs changed plea to guilty of misdemeanor, conspiracy to commit 3rd degree assault, reserving right to appeal motion to suppress evidence obtained by eavesdropping. Jy 25: Def found guilty. 1966: Appeal to App Div argues: 1) evidence obtained by eavesdropping violates 1st, 4th and 5th Amdts, analogous provisions of NY constitution; 2) procedure under §813c not followed, therefore eavesdropping orders invalidly issued. Pending.

Victor Rabinowitz, Leonard Boudin, Arthur Schutzer, Esqs, 30 E 42nd St; Samuel Neuberger, Esq, 30 Vesey St, all of NYC.

301.28. Osborn v US (USSC, #329) (350 F2d 497) In jurytampering trial of Hoffa's atty, DC admitted informer's secret electronic recording of Atty's request that informer offer bribe to prospective juror; convicted. CA 6 affirmed: request constituted corrupt "endeavor to influence" juror within meaning of Crim Code §1503; evidence insufficient to establish entrapment defense. Jan 31, 1966: USSC granted cert on: 1) whether Olmstead (277 US 455), On Lee (343 US 747), Lopez (373 US 427) should be overruled; 2) whether Def entrapped; 3) whether conduct violated §1503. Pending.

Jacob Kosman, Esq, 1325 Spruce St, Philadelphia; Jack Norman, Esq, 213 3rd Ave North, Nashville.

And see Hoffa, 371.9.

302. In Other Federal Criminal Cases
Comments: Administrative searches and Fourth Amendment. 30 Missouri 612-23.

Evidentiary searches: rule and reason. 54 Georgetown 593-628.

Search without warrant. 17 Baylor 312-37.

Seizure of property as evidence. 19 Wyo 172-78.

Through the front door. 19 Wyo 164-71.

US Supreme Court and law of search and seizure. 9 St Louis 549-60.

303. In Other State Criminal Cases
Comments: Constitutional standard for S Carolina. 17 SC 687-716.

Fedl standard: New state law of search and seizure? 19 Arkansas 329-57.

Search and seizure of "mere evidence"—amendment to Ore Rev Stat §141.010—effect on prior law and constitutionality. 43 Oregon 315-32.

Waiver of right against unreasonable searches and seizures by third person on behalf of accused in Delaware. 70 Dickinson 510-24.

- 32 -

303.47. Camara v San Francisco Municipal Court (USSC, #92) (237 ACA 136) Facts: X DOCKET 36, XI DOCKET 80. Oct 10, 1966: USSC noted prob juris: 1) should Frank 303.9a, 359 US 360, be overruled; 2) does housing inspection ordinance authorize unreasonable searches in violation of 4th and 14th Amdts.

Marshall W Krause; Donald Cohen, Roger Bernhardt, Esqs, ACLU, 503 Market, San Francisco; Lawrence Speiser, 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC.

And see See, 303.70.

303.49. Linkletter v Walker (381 US 618, 1965) Facts: X DOCKET 38, 144. Case note: 18 Florida 521-27.
303.69. California v Van Meter and Alexander (San Francisco Super Ct) Mar 4, 1965: Informant told policeman man and woman engaging in sexual intercourse in hotel room with door open. Officer found darkened room, asked Defs if they were married; Defs said "No"; arrested: committing lewd act in public place: Pen C §647a; saw alleged narcotics after arrest. Def claims: 1) did not have necessary mens rea; 2) police had no reasonable cause to arrest. Pending.

Ephraim Margolin, Esq, 683 McAllister St, San Francisco.

303.70. See v Seattle (USSC, #180) (67 Wash Dec 2d 465) Wash Sup Ct held: Seattle ordinance authorizing fire chief or his representative, without search warrant or showing of reasonable cause, to enter commercial premises for purpose of fire inspection is within city's police power, does not violate 4th Amdt. Oct 10: USSC noted prob juris: 1) should Frank, 303.9a, 359 US 360, be overruled; 2) does ordinance violate 4th and 14th Amdts?

Paul D Jackson, Michael Rosen, Esqs, Central Bldg, Seattle.

And see Camara, 303.47.

303.71. Pennsylvania v Dawson (Philadelphia Crim Ct) Aug 13, 1966: Acting on tip from informant, Police Commr Rizzo ordered police to raid 4 places, including SNCC hqtrs. Police found 2½ sticks of dynamite in private apartment, nothing in SNCC office. Def SNCC worker, 3 others arrested: possession and transportation of explosives, conspiracy. Conspiracy charges because Dawson had allegedly possessed explosives at one time, stored them in SNCC office. During interrogation, Dawson stated dynamite originally obtained by non-SNCC person; because situation might lead to trouble, he, Dawson, offered to take it and throw it into river. Pending.
303.72. New York v Leary (Duchess Co Ct) 1966: Def arrested on narcotics charge as result of raid on his Millbrook mansion used as workshop for study of hallucinatory drugs. Sept 23: Charges dropped: recent court decisions affecting confessions and search warrants made it "extremely unlikely" Def could have been successfully prosecuted.

Martin Garbus, Esq, 535 5th Ave, NYC.

304. Suits for False Arrest, Police Practices, Police Review Bd. (and 151, 305, 353, 454, 580, 590)
Note: All cases in this section are now reported by states. They have all been renumbered accordingly.

Articles: Robert J Bowers, Nature of the problem of police brutality. 14 Cleveland-Marshall 601-9.

Michael J Murphy, Judicial review of police methods in law enforcement—problems of compliance by police departments. 44 Texas 939-53.

Alexander M Bickel, Judicial review of police methods in law enforcement—role of US Supreme Court. 44 Texas 954-64.

Harold Norris, Toward concept of police in a democracy and citizens' advisory bd. 43 Detroit 161-272.

Kenneth E Vanlandingham, Local gov'tal immunity reexamined. 61 Northwestern 237-63.

H D Wendorf, Police education and law of evidence. 17 Baylor 245-67.

Wayne R LaFave, Improving police performance through exclusionary rule. Defining norms and training police. 20 Missouri 566-610.

William C Mathes, Tobert T Jones, Toward a "scope of official duty" immunity for police officers in damage actions. 53 Georgetown 889-914.

Bruce R Holmgren, What are reasonable grounds for arrest. 42 Chicago-Kent 101-42.

Comments: Application of deadly force to effectuate arrest. 5 Washburn 262-69.

Equal protection as defense to selective law enforcement by police officials. 14 Jour of Pub L 223-31.

The law of arrest. 17 Mercer 300-7.

Merchants liability for false imprisonment. 17 SC 729-40.

Right to resist unlawful arrest. 3 Tulsa 40-9.

Right of prisoners while incarcerated. 15 Buffalo 397-424.

Law Student Theses: Eleanor Norton, 42 USC §1983. On file, Yale Law School. 1964.

Bruce T Leitman, Section 1983 and the Negro. On file, U of Mich Law School. 1966.

And see Slaughter, 59.67; Ballard, 61.39.

304.Ala.5. Jackson v Morrow (CA 5) Pl filed suit against 2 policemen who arrested him for "drunken driving, resisting arrest," alleging they then assaulted him. Nov 3, 1965: Trial; jury verdict for Defs. Dec 3: Pls' notice of appeal filed; pending.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth Ave N, Birmingham.

304.Ariz.1. Arizona v Guinn (Maricopa Co Super Ct, ##41892-3) Def-prisoner serving felony sentence. 1965: Def had $88; Supt of State Prison took money because prison rules prohibit prisoner's possessing money, deposited in prison recreation fund. Def filed petition for order to show cause why Supt not in contempt for taking Def's property without authorization. Pending.

Sydney Block, Esq, Ford Law Bldg, Phoenix, for ACLU.

304.Ark.2. Brassfield v Pearson (ED Ark) Suit under 28 USC 1331, 1343, 1983, for injunction, damages, declaratory relief against Chief of Police, (Gould, Ark), alleging under
- 33 -

color of law he beat and injured 8 Pls on different occasions without cause or provocation. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright Ave, Little Rock 72206.

California statute: Public entity liability act, 1963: see Govt C §§815.2, 825.2(b), 825.6, 844-846, 995.2, Civ C §3294.

And see Monroe, 354.14.

304.Cal.3. Wirin v Hilden (SD Calif) Facts: X DOCKET 37, 108, at 304.13. Suit dismissed.
304.Cal.8. Lucero v Donovan (SD Calif, #776-61-EC) (354 F2d 16) Facts: X DOCKET 37, XI DOCKET 81, at 304.16. CA denied petition for rehearing. Jy 26, 1966: Pretrial conference.

Hillel Chodos, Esq, 9107 Wilshire Blvd, Beverly Hills, for ACLU.

304.Cal.12. Griffin v Kerr (ND Calif, #42245) Facts: X DOCKET 38, 145, XI DOCKET 23, at 304.35. Suit dismissed by agreement.
304.Cal.13. White v Bonnanno (ND Calif, #42556 Civ) Facts: X DOCKET 39, 109, at 304.45. DC denied Pl's motion to appeal in forma pauperis from dismissal of City as Def; Pl did not appeal. Trial pending against Def-policeman.
304.Cal.15. Garrett v Los Angeles (Los Angeles Super Ct, #853 380) Facts: X DOCKET 109, at 304.53. Jan 29, 1965: damage suit filed; awaiting trial.

Additional addresses: Taylor Morton, Esq, 654 Lincoln Ave; William A Bjornsen, Esq, 16 N Morengo, both of Pasadena; Ball, Lloyd and Hart, Esqs, 120 Lincoln Ave, Long Beach.

304.Cal.17. Hinton v Smith (ND Calif, #43801) Facts: X DOCKET 145, at 304.62. Summer 1966: Pl filed memo to set for trial.

Garry, Dreyfus, and McTernan, Esqs, 341 Market St, San Francisco.

304.Cal.25. Seward v Oakland Police Dept (ND Calif, #42662) Facts: XI DOCKET 81, at 304.87.

Oakland Police Affairs Committee: 1966—Oakland Economic Development Council and Ford Fdation allotted $23,000 for 24-hr answering service, processing complaints, suing police. John George, Esq, chairman.

304.Cal.28. Smith v Cahill (formerly listed as Council for Religion and the Homosexual v) (ND Calif, #44390) Facts: XI DOCKET 82, at 304.93. Pending trial.

Lowenthal & Lowenthal, and Ronald D Rattner, Esqs, 405 Montgomery St, San Francisco.

304.Cal.29. Harris v Aufort (San Francisco Super Ct, #533195) 1965: Pl by mistake parked car in space reserved for police outside precinct station; found car tagged; protested in station space not clearly marked. Def policeman started to cite Pl for no car registration; Pl showed registration; Def arrested Pl as drunk. Pl released, sued for false arrest. Trial; hung jury. New trial pending.

Donald L A Kerson, Esq, 341 Market St, San Francisco.

304.Cal.30. California v Gallagher (San Francisco Super Ct) Jan 20, 1966: Def policeman stopped complainant Trepanier about 1 am, asked him questions, beat him; Trepanier hospitalized 7 days for broken jaw. Feb: Def suspended from police force. Aug 30: Def tried for felonious assault; hung jury (7-5 for conviction). Sept 9: Def resigned from force. Retrial pending.
304.Cal.31. Wright v Los Angeles (LA Muni Ct, #106960) Pl alleges he was arrested and incarcerated without being taken before magistrate. Awaiting trial.

Thomas Neusom, Charles Beardsley, John Sobieski, Jr., Esqs, ACLU.

304.Cal.32. Trice v Los Angeles (2d Dist Ct of App, #29049) 1964: Suit for damages filed against police for illegal search and seizure. 1966: Super Ct sustained Def's demurrer. Appeal pending.

Hillel Chodos, Esq, 9107 Wilshire Blvd, Sheldon Bardack, Esq, 259 S Beverly Drive, both Beverly Hills, for ACLU.

304.DC.1. Gaston v Tobriner (DC DC, #3994) Facts: X DOCKET 38, at 304.33. DC granted Defs' motion to dismiss as to DC Commrs, denied as to other Defs. Pending.
304.Fla.3. Rosecrans v US (formerly US ex rel Rosecrans v Warden) (MD Fla, Jacksonville Div, #65-92-Civ-J) (11 RRLR 62) Facts: XI DOCKET 25, at 304.83. Jan 4, 1966: DC denied Pet's motion to vacate sentence, held: (1) all proceedings properly conducted; (2) Pet continually made aware of rights to counsel and to remain silent; (3) Pet knowingly waived right to counsel and voluntarily entered pleas of guilty.
304.Ga.6. Georgia v Harris (Ga Sup Ct) Def Negro indicted for burglary. Def alleges police assaulted, shot him, nearly fatally. Convicted. Issue on appeal: use of state police laws to conceal summary imposition of punishment by police. Pending.

Howard Moore, Esq, 859½ Hunter St NW, Atlanta.

304.Ill. See statutes re indemnity payments to policemen who are sued for damages for conduct in the course of their employment: Ill Rev Stats Ch 24, §1-4-5 (1963) and Ch 85, §2-302 (1965).

304.Ill.17. Gause and Avant v Chicago Police Officers (Cir Ct, Cook Co, #64-L-9071) Facts: X DOCKET 38, 108, at 304.38. 1963: City dismissed; suit pending.
304.Ill.18. Mack v City of Chicago (Cir Ct, Cook Co, #63-S-15147) Facts: X DOCKET 39, 108, at 304.39. 1963: City dismissed; pending for 1½ yrs.
304.Ill.21. Andrews v Porter and Chicago (Ill App Ct, 1st Dist, 2d Div, #50328) (217 NE2d 305) Aug 1, 1960: Def policeman shot, killed Pl's husband; Pl widow sued Def for wrongful death, joining City under indemnity act (Ch 24, Par 1-4-5 (1963). Decided with 304.Ill.22.
304.Ill.22. Fox v Chicago and Price (Ill App Ct, 1st Dist, 2d Div, #50329) (217 NE2d 305) Jan 24, 1963: Pl arrested for traffic violation, offered bond for release, refused by Def police, held for larceny on capias for man with similar name; Defs refused to verify Pl's allegations til so ordered by ct next day; Pl released, sued for damages and judgment declaring Def city liable.

Trial cts sustained Def-City's motions to dismiss in both cases. May 3, 1966: App Ct held: (1) Pl has cause of action against policeman for his tortious conduct while performing gov'tal functions; (2) gov'tal immunity in Ill abolished in part by statute in 1943, reinstated in 1945, but City can be sued for tortious conduct of its police under Moliter v Kaneland Community Unit Dist, 163 NE2d 89 (1959); (3) ch 24, §1-4-5 does not bar such direct actions; (4) causes of action for declaratory judgments premature against City til trial against policeman. Pending.

Rogers, Strayhorn and Harth, Esqs, 343 S Dearborn, Chicago.

- 34 -

304.Ill.23. Kincy v Wilson and Chicago (ND Ill, #66C1872) Feb 8, 1964: Pl arrested for robbery, allegedly identified by witness. June 1: Pl convicted; imprisoned 30 mths. Je 30, 1966: App Ct of Ill reversed for lack of evidence. Oct 17: Pl sued police chief, officers, city, and complainants for conspiracy to deprive Pl of right to life and liberty without due process in violation of 14th Amdt, 28 USC 1343(3), 42 USC 1983, 1988. Seeking $100,000 joint and several damages, $150,000 punitive damages. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 S LaSalle, Chicago.

And see 304.Ill.23a.

304.Ill.23a. Kincy v Land (Cir Ct, Cook Co, #66 L 16751) Facts: Same as 304.Ill.23. Oct 1966: Pl sued complaining witnesses only for causing his false arrest and imprisonment, seeking $25,000-$100,000 damages. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 S LaSalle, Chicago.

304.Ill.24. Kerr v Chicago and Wilson (ND Ill, E Div, #66 C 1731) June 19, 1963: 5:30 am: Def police came to house of Pl, minor, without warrant, told Pl's father they wanted to question Pl in routine investigation tho didn't think he had committed any crime; Defs took Pl to police station, questioned him about fire and burglary; Pl alleges when he said he knew nothing, he was beaten, forced to submit to lie detector test without parents' permission, not allowed to eat, use washroom, or see parents, tho he asked to do so and mother at police station. Pl finally signed confession. Je 20: Pl brought before magistrate. Trial held; Pl's "confession" admitted into evidence; jury unable to reach verdict. Dec 2, 1964: motion of nolle prosequi entered. Sept. 1966: Pl sued City and police officers under 42 USC §1983, 1988 and Ill police indemnification act, for $100,000 general damages, $500,000 punitive damages. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 So LaSalle St, Chicago 60603.

And see Fox, 304.Ill.22.

304.La.5. Bogalusa v Horton (Bogalusa City Ct) Def-Caucasian, civil rights worker, assaulted in full view of police; assailant and Def arrested: simple battery, disturbing the peace. Series of continuances. City Atty dropped charges against both men, over objections of Def. Sept 10, 1966: Def visited patient in hospital; arrested: drunkenness, resisting arrest; Def beaten by arresting officer. Def moved for contempt citations against officials based on Hicks v Knight, 63.31. Def brought damage suit against arresting officers. Trial on criminal charges pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

304.La.6. Horton v Wascom (Bogalusa) (ED La, #66,390) Sept 1966: Pl-Caucasian civil rights worker arrested without cause; beaten with nightstick. Pl brought damage suit under 42 USC 1983. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

304.La.7. Hall v Berry (W Monroe) (WD La, #12,170) Pl-Negro beaten by 5 police; arrested: resisting arrest, disturbing the peace. Pl brought damage suit under 42 USC 1983. Pending. Pl convicted on criminal charges. Sept 30, 1966: Dist Ct affirmed conviction; 6 mths in prison.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans.

304.La.8. Aronson v Giarusso (New Orleans) (ED La, #66,281) Sept 6, 1966: Pl sued to enjoin police department from photographing persons taking part in civil rights and antiwar demonstrations as intimidation and suppression of exercise of First Amdt rights. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans.

304.Md.2. McIver v Russell (Baltimore) (DC Md, #17457) 1966: Pl alleges police severely beat him without cause, then arrested him: disorderly conduct. Grand jury refused to indict; charges dropped. Jy 14, 1966: Pl sued for $300,000 compensatory, punitive damages.
304.Md.3. Lankford v Schmidt (Baltimore) (CA 4, #10,384) Pls sued to enjoin Baltimore Police Commr from unlawful searches of homes in violation of 4th Amendment. Trial ct found more than 300 unlawful searches, but denied injunction. Je 23, 1966: CA, en banc, unanimously reversed, ordered entry of injunction forbidding searches of homes solely on basis of anonymous tips, hence without probable cause.

J Mitchel, Esq, 1239 Druid Hill Ave, Baltimore.

304.Mich.4. Payne v Smith and Merrill (WD Mich) Facts: X DOCKET 39, at 304.40b. June 8, 1966: 3-day jury trial; Defs proved Pl had been involved in series of offenses; Pl discussed Defs' illegal actions. Jury found no cause of action. Case concluded.
304.Mich.8. Brown v Brauer, Frenelius (ED Mich, N Div) Facts: X DOCKET 109, at 304.58. 1966: DC sustained Defs' demurrer.
304.Mich.9. Petition of Bernard, Garrett, Graham (Detroit Common Council) May 16, 1966: Waniolek went to office of Socialist Workers Party and Young Socialist Alliance, killed Leo Bernard, husband of Pet, and wounded other Pets, active members of organizations. Def charged with murder; sanity commn said he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for past 5 yrs; committed to State Hospital for custody and treatment. Mich has sovereign immunity
- 35 -

rule, so Pets asked Common Council to pay burial expenses of Bernard, medical and rehabilitation expenses of other Pets because City had some responsibility for events: (1) Police Dept had Def's history; several citizens reported to Dept receipt of irrational letters from Def; S African Consulate reported to US Secret Service that Def said he had guns to fight common enemy, Dep't got report; US and Dept agents told by Def's wife he had potential capacity for violence. (2) Mich law gives police authority to institute commitment proceedings in such cases. Pending.

Goodman, Crockett, Eden, Robb and Millender, Esqs, 3220 Cadillac Tower, Detroit.

304.Miss.1. Pierson v Ray (Jackson) (USSC, #79) Facts: X DOCKET 37, 108, XI DOCKET 81, at 304.17. May 16, 1966: USSC granted cert: (1) does doctrine of volenti non fit injuria bar clergymen-Freedom Riders' damage suit, for arrest under segregation statute later held unconstitutional; (2) are state police officers who make allegedly unlawful arrests under statute immune from liability for damages under §1983?

Carl Rachlin, Esq, CORE, 38 Park Row, NYC; Melvin Wulf, Esq, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC; Frederick A O Schwartz, Jr, Leonard H Rosenthal, Stephen M Nagler, Esqs.

304.Miss.7. Gordon v Evans (Lexington) (ND Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 24, at 304.71. Jy 13, 1966: Case settled day before trial: $1500 paid by Def deputy sheriff out of own pocket.
304.Miss.11. Clay v Robinson (formerly Muilenberg v US Fidelity & Guaranty Trust Co) (Jackson) (SD Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 81, at 304.86. May 1965: Pl, Negro civil rights worker, participated in demonstration; assaulted; arrested; jailed 3 weeks while attempting to make bond. Case removed to DC; US Commr reduced bond from $500 to $100; Pl released. Jan 1966: City Prosecutor dismissed: investigation showed no probable cause for arrest. Pl and 5 others filed damage suit under 42 USC 1983 against Chief of Police, various police officers, their surety company charging unlawful assault, false arrest, malicious prosecution, unlawful detention. Trial pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss, 39202.

And see Muilenberg, 304.Miss.11a.

304.Miss.11a. Muilenberg v US Fidelity and Guaranty Co (Concord) (DC NH) May 1965: Pl, Caucasian civil rights worker assaulted and arrested (see Clay, 304.Miss.11). Pl sued in NH, home of Pl and place of business of Defsurety co. Def moved for (1) dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, (2) change of venue. Decision pending.
304.Miss.13. Wright v Wages (Jackson) (ND Miss) Summer 1965: Pl, Negro woman, registered to vote; one hour later, arrested; traffic violation; taken to jail; beaten. 2 local doctors and Sheriff certified Pl as insane; sent her to state mental hospital. 2 mths later, Pl discharged from hospital: diagnosis "without psychosis." When she returned home, arrested on another charge. Pl filed suit under 42 USC 1983 for beatings, unlawful arrest, unlawful commitment in mental hospital against Defs, Sheriff, deputy, doctors, Def's surety co. Trial pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish, Jackson, Miss, 39202.

304.Miss.14. Miles v Martin (Canton) (DC Miss) Je 1966: Pl, member of MFDP exec comm, beaten by police; arrested: traffic offense. Case removed to DC. Pl brought damage suit under 42 USC 1983 in DC. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss, 39202.

304.Nev.1. Fremont Hotel and Levinson v Central Telephone Co (Las Vegas Co Ct) 1966: Pls allege Def cooperated with FBI in putting 25 wire taps in Pl's and other hotels in violation of Nevada statutes, sued for $6 million damages.
304.NJ.1. Rodriquez v Free and Jersey City (DC NJ, #1335-65) Facts: XI DOCKET 81, at 304.89. May 6, 1966: pretried. One issue: responsibility of municipality for actions of police under McAndrew v Mularchuk & Borough of Keansburg, 162 A2d 820. Pending.
304.NJ.2. Bauers v Heisel (USSC, #528) Def county prosecutor prosecuted Pl juvenile as an adult, denied him speedy trial. Pl sued for damages under §1983. CA 3 held judicial immunity protects Def when conduct not clearly outside his authority. Sept 6, 1966: petition for cert filed.

Robert W. Maris, Peter Hearn, Esqs, Prof Anthony Amsterdam, all of ACLU, Philadelphia; Melvin Wulf, Esq, ACLU, 156 5th Ave, NYC.

304.NY.11. Cruz v New York City; Re Detective John Devlin (ED NY) Facts: X DOCKET 109, 145, at 304.56. Police Dept hearing cleared Devlin of using "excessive force" against Pl. Je 8, 1966: City filed general denial; DC ordered Def to let Pl see its ballistics reports to determine whether Devlin was policeman who shot Pl. Pending.

Harry H Lipsig, Esq, 100 Church, NYC.

304.NY.13. New York v Portelli (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 146, XI DOCKET 81, at 304.66. Cites: 205 NE2d 857, cd 382 US 1009.
304.NY.15. Re Police Officers Holly, Fitzpatrick (Rodriquez, Comp) (Bronx Grand Jury; Police Review Bd) Facts: XI DOCKET 24, 81, at 304.79. Comp alleges 2 policemen approached 2 witnesses to beating of Comp, seeking to coerce them; 1 witness intimidated. Grand jury returned "no bill" against officers a 2d time. NYC Police Rev Bd conducted h'g: officers permanently suspended from force. [Holly later shot patron in bar; arrested: assault with deadly weapon.] New chief asst DA hired.
304.NY.15a. Rodriquez v NYC, Holly, Fitzpatrick (NYC Sup Ct) Facts: 304.NY.15. 1966: $1,000,000 damage filed; pending.

Richard A Marlow, Esq, 70 Middle Neck Rd, Great Neck, NY.

304.NY.20. Williams v NYC Police Badge #21349 (Manhattan Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 82, at 304.91. Pending.

Raymon Rubin, Esq, 291 Broadway, NYC.

- 36 -

304.NY.23. Cassese, Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn v Lindsay (NYC) (Sup Ct) 1966: Def-mayor proposed Police Dept Civilian Complaint Review Bd composed of 3 people commrs and 4 civilians appointed by Mayor and approved by Police Commr to hear complaints of police brutality and discourtesy and make nonbinding recommendations to Commr. Pl organization of policemen sued to test constitutionality of Bd. Je 6, 1966: Ct upheld Bd as exercise of power of Commr to control and administer his Dept; actions of Mayor advisory only.

Amicus by Arnold Hoffman, Esq, NYCLU.

Jy 1-Oct 1, 1966: Report on complaints filed with Review Bd. NY Times Oct 17, 1966.

Nov 8, 1966: Referendum proposed by Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn to abolish Review Bd adopted in election.

304.NY.24. New York v La Palmer (Manhattan Crim Ct, #C2713, A2202/1966) Def arrested. May 5, 1966: tried; acquitted. Def filed claim against NYC for brutality, false arrest. Pending.

Paul G Chevigny, Esq, NYC, for NYCLU.

304.NY.25. New York v Robert Nichols (NY Co Sup Ct) Nov 7, 1965: Def Negro arrested after altercation with white bar owner; at station, Patrolman Rice struck Def with blackjack; Def hospitalized. Def charged with criminally possessing loaded weapon, assault, aiming and discharging loaded pistol at Patrolman Rivera, and escaping from hospital. Dec 19: Def captured, imprisoned pending trial. May 9, 1966: Before trial, witness told DA story told by 2 patrolmen not true; DA told Def's atty; trial cancelled; Def pleaded guilty to charge of escaping. Je 23: Ct placed Def on probation. Police Dept transferred 2 patrolmen, prepared charges against them.

William Leibovitz, Esq, Legal Aid Society, 100 Center St, NYC.

304.Ohio.1. Dayton Newspapers Inc v Starick (formerly listed as v Dayton) (CA 6) (345 F2d 677) Facts: X DOCKET 145, XI DOCKET 24, at 304.60.

Chester E Finn, John O Estabrook, Esqs, Hulman Bldg, Dayton.

304.Tex.2. Gomez v Texas (USSC, #327 Misc OT '65) Facts: X DOCKET 109, at 304.51. Tex Ct of Crim App denied habeas petition. June 23, 1965: Petition for cert filed; pending.
310. Indictment

310.1. Washington v Kanistanaux (Wash Sup Ct) Super Ct granted Def's motion to dismiss charge for failure to have preliminary h'g or grand jury indictment as opposed to direct filing of information by DA. Pl's appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Richard Young, Esq, Wash CLU, Smith Tower, Seattle.

311. Challenge to Grand Jury Composition (see also 510s)
Comment: Grand jury in Virginia. 22 Washington and Lee 325-36.
312. Attacks on Character of Evidence
Case note: Effect of prior stipulation on admissibility of results of lie detector tests: Florida v Brown (177 So2d 532, 2d DCA Fla, 1965), 18 Florida 512-20.

Comments: The constitutionality of preventive disqualifications. 39 So Cal 144-54.

Evidence suppression by the prosecution and police in criminal trials. 17 Baylor 400-7.

Informer's word as basis for probable cause in fed'l courts. 53 Cal 840-59.

312.26. Molina del Rio v New York (NY Ct of App) Facts: X DOCKET 40, 110, 146. Cite: 250 NYS2d 257.
312.36. Michigan v Kirby (Mich Ct of App) In prosecution of Def, Pl claimed to ct that Def had no alibi. Pl failed to produce an alibi witness he knew existed. Ct of App ordered new trial. Def acquitted.

James T Lafferty, Esq, 1509 Cadillac Tower, Detroit.

313. Charge of Entrapment
Comment: Defense of entrapment in Texas. 17 Baylor 426-33.

Comment: Entrapment: Analysis of disagreement. 45 Boston 542-571.

314. Charge of Conspiracy

314.10. Pennsylvania v Thomas (189 A2d 255) Def arrested in Pa: 1st degree murder; evidence showed Def entered into conspiracy outside Pa for robbery of victim in Pa; he was not physically present in Pa when fellow conspirators committed robbery, during which killing occurred. Trial Ct convicted. Pa Sup Ct: affirmed; held in spite of physical absence, Def constructively present and criminally responsible for acts of fellow conspirators including homicide; Pa had jurisdiction.

See 5 ALR3d 887.

315. Inspection of Pretrial Statements of Government Witnesses
List: State discovery statutes and decisions. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 69-69r.

Comment: Pre-trial discovery of impeachment evidence: Reexamining Arizona's new rule. 7 Ariz 283-95.

316. Inspection of Grand Jury Minutes
320. Double Jeopardy
Comments: Double jeopardy: Its history, rationale and future. 70 Dickinson 377-93.

State v Barnette: two punishments for single act. 17 Maine 252-67.

321. In Federal Cases
Articles: Walter T Fisher, Double jeopardy and federalism. 50 Minn 607-20.
- 37 -

Jay A Sigler, Federal double jeopardy policy. 19 Vanderbilt 375-405.

Case note: US v Wilkins (348 F2d 844, CA 2 1965), 63 West Va L Rev 185-90.

Comment: Twice in jeopardy. 75 Yale 262-321.

321.13. Gills v US (USSC) (357 F2 299) Facts: XI DOCKET 83. May 2, 1966: USSC denied cert: 384 US 933.
321.14. Kyles v Preston (CA DC) Def escaped from Md jail; extradited. Def filed petition for habeas corpus to set aside extradition warrant. May 9, 1966: CA DC held showing that Md Ct violated fed'l constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy would not warrant DC issuing habeas writ. Oct 10: USSC denied cert.

Andrew W Carroll, Esq, 930 F St NW, Washington, DC.

322. In State Cases
Article: Alan D Gross, Successive prosecutions by city and state. 43 Oregon 281-314.
322.7. Martinis v Supreme Ct, Criminal Term. Facts: X DOCKET 25, 83. Correction: XI DOCKET 25: ruling was on a petition for a writ of prohibition, not probation.
322.11. Kellett v Superior Court (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 83. Correction: Jan 5, 1966: Sup Ct issued writ prohibiting State from prosecuting felony charge after sentence on plea of guilty to misdemeanor charge which was not included offense; held: where more than one offense charged, Pen C directs single prosecution to avoid harassment and needless expense (not because of Calif constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy).
322.12. Josey v Mathews (formerly Georgia v Josey) (MD Ga, #624) Facts: XI DOCKET 83. Trial ct denied motion for release on own recognizance. Je 1966: Sup Ct denied petition for h'g and extraordinary relief. Je 10: Def filed fed'l habeas petition with requests for admissions. Je 22: After h'g, DC refused to rule on petition or to sign order declining to rule, made Def fed'l prisoner, released him on unsecured bond. State nol prossed prosecution. Action pending to quash indictments.
322.14. Chicago v Raby (Ill Sup Ct) 1966: Local civil rights leader charged with violating several ordinances and criminal statutes for leading civil disobedience before City Hall. Trial Ct declared mistrial. Def retried, alleges second prosecution raises double jeopardy problems because no substantial justification for mistrial. Pending.

Len Holt, Esq, 166 W Washington Street, Suite 718, Chicago.

322.15. New York v Goldstein (NY Ct of App) 1964: Def cited for contempt for failure to answer questions in grand jury investigation of Harlem riots. (See Epton, 54.7; Barnett, 333.20) 1965: Def cited second time. Appeal pending: double jeopardy, fed'l pre-emption, appropriateness of procedure in granting witnesses immunity.

Richard Green, Esq, NYCLU, 1270 Avenue of the Americas, NYC.

330. Self-incrimination: Criminal Sanctions for Exercising Privilege (see also 270)
Case note: When it is improper to require fed'l witness to claim privilege in presence of jury: San Fratello v US (340 F2d 560, CA 5, 1965). 14 Kansas 531-33.

Comment: Scope of taint under exclusionary rule of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 114 Pennsylvania 570-77.

331. Before Congressional Committees
332. Before State Committees
Articles: Paul Birzon, David A Gerard, Prospective Def rule and privilege against self-incrimination in New York. 15 Buffalo 595-614.
333. Before Grand Juries and Tribunals

333.21. Stevens v Marks and McCloskey (USSC) (345 F2d 305) Facts: X DOCKET 111, 146; XI DOCKET 83. Cite: 383 US 234 (1966).
333.22. Griffin v California (380 US 609) Facts: X DOCKET 146. Note: 11 NY Law Forum 575-83.

Comments: Exercise of privilege by witness and coDefs: Effect on accused. 33 Chicago 151-65.

Use of privilege in civil litigation. 52 Virginia 322-41.

333.22a. Tehan v US ex rel Shott (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 83. Cite: 382 US 406.
333.23. New Jersey v Davis (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 147, XI DOCKET 26. Correction: Cite: 212 A2d 859.
334. Grants of Immunity: Federal
Article: George Wendel, Compulsory immunity legislation and Fifth Amendment privilege. 10 St Louis 327-75.

Proposed Legislation: S. 2190: Permit compelling of testimony re certain crimes and granting of immunity. Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 26, 1966, 19877.

And see Giancana, 41.9.

334.9. US v Johnson (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 84. Cite: 383 US 169.
335. Grants of Immunity: State
Comments: Counselman, Malloy, Murphy, and states' power to grant immunity. 20 Rutgers 336-49.
336. Criminal Registration Laws (see also 211)
337. Miscellaneous

337.1. California v Joan Abrams (Muni Ct, Stockton Judicial Dist, San Joaquin Co, #27014) 1966: Def arrested while standing in line at farm labor office: failing to identify self and account for presence when requested by peace officer and surrounding circumstances indicate public safety demands such identification (Pen C §647e). Def contends §647e requires person to incriminate himself, therefore unconstitutional. Pending.

Marshall W Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco; Neil F Horton, Esq, First Western Bldg, Oakland.

- 38 -

340. Self-incrimination: Civil Sanctions for Exercising Privilege (see also 280)
Comment: Georgia privilege against self-incrimination. 16 Mercer 315-19.
341. Effect on Army Discharges (see also 253)

341.5. Vitelli v US (SD Calif) 1966: Office of Naval Intelligence did not advise Pl-enlistee of right to counsel, took statements from him. At Admr h'g, Pl, without atty, presented no evidence; given undesirable discharge. Pl sued for injunction to restrain processing of undesirable discharge because denied due process. Case settled: Navy allowed Pl to remain in service and to wipe all reference from his records that there had been an undesirable discharge pending.

Gostin and Katz, Esqs, 725 US Grant Hotel, 326 Broadway, San Diego.

342. Effect on Employment—Public School Teachers (see also 24, 262, 267, 281, 571)
343. Effect on Employment — Other Public Officers (see also 261)
344. Effect on Employment — Private (see also 30, 268, 269)
345. Effect on Attorneys (see also 265, 373)
346. Effect on Unemployment Insurance and Social Security (see also 263, 422)
And see Matter of G, 421.NY.1.
350. Due Process

Practice tips: Habeas corpus petitions, by Morton Stavis. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 113-119.

Articles: Kenneth A Pye, Administration of criminal justice. 66 Columbia 286-304.

Parham H Williams, Jr, Roy C Williams, Frank S Thackston, Jr, The criminal versus society: Observations on accommodation of Mississippi criminal procedure to evolving concepts of "constitutionalized" due process. 37 Mississippi 353-84.

Comment: Remedies for judicial misconduct and disability: removal and discipline of judges. 41 NYU 149-97, 564-75.

351. In Arraignment (Delay) (and see 353)
Checklist: What to do or consider before entry of plea in trial court. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 73-73b.

Comments: Arraignment, pre-trial motions, and pleas in Virginia. 22 Washington & Lee 336-53.

Constitutional limits on pre-arrest delay. 51 Iowa 670-80.

Duty of arresting officer to take accused immediately before magistrate. 17 Baylor 357-75.

Preliminary hearing—an interest analysis. 51 Iowa 164-83.

351.4. McNear v Rhay (Wash Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 41, 111. Cite: 398 P2d 732.
352. In Grand Jury Procedures (see also 311, 316, 512)

352.3. Howard v Kentucky (USSC) (395 SW2d 355; cg 383 US 924) Facts: XI DOCKET 84. Je 14, 1966: USSC dismissed cert petition under Ct Rule 60; cite: 384 US 995.
353. In Obtaining Confessions (and see 304, 371, 372)
Articles: Rupert Cross, Confessions and cognate matters: An English view, in Criminal law and its administration, symposium. 66 Columbia 31-125.

John O Rames, Wyoming procedure re admissibility of confessions. 10 Wyoming 203-12.

James R Richardson, Law and policy: Emphasis on exclusionary rules of evidence. 53 Kentucky 663-711.

Stanley Milledge, Escobedo—toward eliminating coerced confessions. 19 Miami 414-31.

Henry B Rothblatt, Police interrogation and right to counsel. 17 Hastings 53-78.

David L Sterling, Police interrogation and psychology of confession. 14 Jour of Pub L 25-65.

Arthur E Sutherland, Crime and confession. 79 Harvard 21-41.

Comments: Analysis of procedures used to determine voluntariness of confessions: and solution. 11 S Dakota 70-86.

Admissibility of evidence obtained by police officers from person or through observation of person. 17 Baylor 408-25.

Defense, dignity, reliability: Control of police interrogation. 39 So Calif 29-107.

Self-corroborating confessions. 17 Baylor 434-39.

353.22. Davis v North Carolina (USSC) (116 SE2d 365, cd 365 US 855; 196 FS 488, rev'd & remanded 310 F2d 904; 221 FS 494, aff'd (5-2) 339 F2d 770, rev'd 384 US 737) Facts: X DOCKET 41, 111. Je 20, 1966: USSC (7-2) reversed, Warren, CJ: (1) if Def's confession had been admitted in evidence at trial held after USSC decision in Miranda, 353.41, USSC would reverse summarily because Def interrogated repeatedly for 16 days with no police advice re rights, or waiver, before confession; (2) Johnson, 353.44, 384 US 719, holds Miranda not to be applied retroactively; (3) duty of USSC here to examine entire record, make independent determination of ultimate issue of voluntariness; held Def's confessions were "the product of a will overborne." Black, J, conc in result; Clark, Harlan, JJ, diss.

Charles V Bell, Esq, Charlotte, NC.

353.29. New York v Whitmore (NY Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 112, 147. May, 1966: Def convicted of rape-assault of Mrs. Elba Borrero: 5-10 yrs. Je 27, 1966: in wake of Miranda, 353.41, 384 US 436, Dist Atty "reluctantly" moved for dismissal of indictment for murder of Mrs Minnie Edmonds.

Alan H Levine, Esq, 551 5th Ave, NYC.

353.32. New Jersey v Russo, Bisignano (USSC) (384 US 889; cd 384 US 1012) Facts: X DOCKET 147, XI DOCKET 25. Je 20, 1966: USSC per curiam granted state's petition for cert, vacated judgment of CA 3 granting habeas corpus, remanded
- 39 -

to DC for further proceedings in light of Johnson, 353.44, (384 US 719); denied cert on Def's petition based on Miranda, 353.41, 384 US 436.
353.35. US ex rel Stovall v Denno, Warden (CA 2) (355 F2d 731) Facts: XI DOCKET 26. 1966: CA 2, en banc, affirmed DC order denying habeas petition.
353.35a. US ex rel Martin v Fay, Warden (CA 2) (352 F2d 418) Facts: XI DOCKET 26. DC denied habeas corpus. CA 2 affirmed: Def who voluntarily enters guilty plea on advice of counsel waives all non-jurisdictional defects in prior stages of proceedings.
353.35b. US v Drummond (CA 2) (354 F2d 133) Facts: XI DOCKET 26. 1965: CA affirmed conviction.
353.35c. US v Cone (CA 2) (354 F2d 119) Facts: XI DOCKET 27. 1965: CA affirmed conviction.
353.37. US v Curry (CA 2) (358 F2d 904) Correction: 1962: Def arrested for bank robbery during which guard killed by another. Police advised Def of right to counsel and to remain silent; Def confessed, made statements to FBI. DC suppressed statements but allowed gov't to use parts of statements collateral to issue of guilt to impeach Def's testimony; convicted. Dec 1965: CA affirmed: (1) illegally obtained evidence inadmissible to establish guilt may be used to establish collateral facts; (2) Fedl Rule of Crim Procedure 5a and 6th Amend refer to unnecessary delay before arraignment, not preliminary h'g, so DC erred in excluding statements.
353.38. New York v Friedlander (NY Ct of App) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Cite for reversal: 212 NE2d 533 (1965).
353.40. Stewart v California (USSC) (400 P2d 97, aff'd 384 US 436) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Argued with Miranda, 353.41, et al. Je 13, 1966: USSC affirmed;


353.41. Miranda v Arizona (USSC) (401 P2d 721, rev'd 384 US 436) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Je 13, 1966: USSC reversed (5½-3½), Warren, CJ: (1) issue is "restraints society must observe consistent with the Fedl Constitution in prosecuting individuals for crime"; (2) "We start here . . . with the premise that our holding is not an innovation in our jurisprudence, but is an application of principles long recognized and applied in other settings"; found in each of consolidated cases: Def questioned by police "in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world"; not given a "full and effective warning of his rights at . . . outset of . . . interrogation process"; gave history of use of third degree in US, examples of psychological coercion in incustody interrogation, quotes from police manuals on tactics for obtaining confessions; gave history of privilege against self-incrimination—

"The constitutional foundation underlying the privilege is the respect a Gov't—state or fed'l—must accord to the dignity and integrity of its citizens. To maintain a `fair state-individual balance,' to require the Gov't `to shoulder the entire load,' . . . to respect the inviolability of the human personality, our accusatory system . . . demands that the Gov't . . . produce the evidence against [Def] by its own independent labors, rather than by the cruel, simple expedient of compelling it from his own mouth."

Held "the right to have counsel present at the interrogation is indispensable to the protection of the Fifth Amdt privilege under the system we delineate today"; "With a lawyer present the likelihood that the police will practice coercion is reduced, and if coercion is nevertheless exercised the lawyer can testify to it in ct."

Held "when an individual is taken into custody . . . and is subjected to questioning, the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized. . . . [T]he following measures are required. He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an atty, and that if he cannot afford an atty one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires. Opportunity to exercise these rights must be afforded . . . throughout the interrogation. . . . After[ward] . . . , [Def] may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial, no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him."

These rules will not emasculate police work; FBI has given warnings like these for yrs.

Clark, J, diss in 3, conc in 1; Harlan, J (Stewart, White, JJ), diss; White, J (Harlan, Stewart, JJ) diss.


353.42. Vignera v New York (USSC) (207 NE2d 527, rev'd 384 US 436) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Argued with Miranda, 353.41, et al. Je 13, 1966: USSC reversed;


353.43. Westover v US (USSC) (342 F2d 684, rev'd 384 US 436) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Argued with Miranda, 353.41, et al. Je 13, 1966: USSC reversed.

ACLU amicus brief by Paul Mishkin, Raymond Bradley, Robert Fieback, Steve Goldstein, Prof Anthony Amsterdam, all of Phila; Melvin L Wulf, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

Comment: Miranda: Police Dept of Washington, DC; Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 10, 1966, 18049.

Speech: Miranda: A decision based on excessive and visionary solicitude for accused. Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 29, 1966, 20153.

Miranda Warnings by Prosecutors: See California Atty Gen'l's instructions, San Francisco information card for suspects, in Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Library.

353.44. Johnson, Cassidy v New Jersey (206 A2d 737, aff'd 384 US 719) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. Je 20, 1966: USSC held neither Escobedo, 372.34, 378 US 478, nor Miranda, 353.41, 384 US 436, to be applied retroactively; however, states may establish under own laws stricter standards than others, and apply them in broader range of cases than this decision requires.
353.45. US v Nolte (ND Calif) Def arrested: bookmaking. At conference with US Atty's office, recordings played back
- 40 -

either "to attempt to induce him to confess" or "to ask him to cooperate with Govt in Grand Jury investigation of another matter." Def asked that recordings be released to Def's atty. Nov 5, 1966: DC ordered recordings released.

James F Hewitt, Esq, Fed'l Criminal Defense Office, San Francisco.

353.46. California v Graves (Calif Sup Ct, Crim #9318) 1966: Def convicted of forgery on basis of handwriting samples obtained without informing Def of right to counsel, and right not to give evidence against himself. Appeal pending.

Phill Silver, Esq, Room 404 Taft Bldg, 1680 N Vine St, Hollywood, Calif 90028; Marshall W Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market, San Francisco, Calif 94118.

353.47. Sims v Georgia (USSC, #251) (144 SE2d 103) June 22, 1964: Negro Def arrested: rape. Def advised of right to counsel, warned statements could be used against him. Def confessed in absence of counsel. Ga Sup Ct ruled Escobedo does not bar admission of such confession, since under Ga law conviction cannot rest upon confession alone; trial judge has unreviewable power to set aside verdict he does not approve. Je 20, 1966: USSC granted cert, forma pauperis. Note: 68 W Va 190-95.

NAACP Inc Fund; James M Nabrit, Esq, Howard Univ, Washington, DC; Howard Moore, William H Alexander, Esqs, 859½ Hunter NW, Atlanta, Ga.

354. In Press Releases and Newspaper Coverage
Articles: Louis L Jaffe, trial by newspaper, in Symposium on Warren Commn Report. 40 NYU 403-524.

J Thomas McCarthy, Fair trial and prejudicial publicity: Need for reform. 17 Hastings 79-97.

Stanley Mosk, Free press and fair trial—placing responsibility. 5 Santa Clara Lawyer 107-20.

Vermont Royster, Free press and fair trial, 43 North Carolina 364-71.

Robert M Segal, Free trial and fair press, Mass L Q June 1966 (Cong Rec—House, July 13, 1966, 14807).

Telford Taylor, Crime reporting and publicity of criminal proceedings. 66 Columbia 31-125.

US Senate Bill: S. 290: relationship between free press and fair trial.

Comments on Fair Trial v free press: 51 Cornell 306-27; 34 Cincinnati 503-24; 38 So Calif 672-88; 33 Chicago 512-30; 54 Kentucky 141-54.

Comment: Publicity and partial criminal trials: resolving the constitutional conflict. 39 So Cal 275-95.

354.5. Sheppard v Maxwell, Warden (USSC; Cuyahoga Co Ct of Common Pleas) (384 US 333) Facts: X DOCKET 42, 112, XI DOCKET 27, 85. USSC, Clark, J, reversed, remanded: Def deprived of due process because of trial judge's failure to protect him sufficiently from massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution; specifically, trial ct "might well have": (1) proscribed extra-judicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or ct official which divulged prejudicial matters [such as Def's refusal to submit to interrogation or take lie detector tests]; any statement by Def to officials; identity and probable testimony of prospective witnesses; any belief in guilt or innocence; statements re merits of case; (2) requested city and Co officials to promulgate regulation re dissemination of information about case to employees; (3) warned reporters of impropriety of publishing material not introduced in proceedings; (4) continued case till prejudicial news won't prevent fair trial; (5) sequestered jury sua sponte;

"Collaboration between counsel and the press as to information affecting the fairness of a criminal trial is not only subject to regulation, but is highly censurable and worthy of disciplinary measures."

Black, J, diss. Ct of Com Pleas laid down stringent rules for press coverage of re-trial. Def acquitted.

F Lee Bailey, Esq, 40 Court St, Boston.

354.7. Estes v Texas (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 148. Cite: 381 US 532. Note: 11 NYU LF 533-46.
354.12. Texas v Ruby (Austin) (Texas Ct of Crim App) Nov 24, 1963: Def shot Lee Harvey Oswald, accused assassin of Pres Kennedy. Feb 10, 1964: Def moved for change of venue for trial from Dallas, scene of shooting. Motion denied. Mar 14: After trial, found guilty; death. Def appealed. Ct of App reversed, ordered case transferred out of Dallas: (1) ct should have granted motion for change of venue, (2) ct should not have allowed certain evidence which was not part of res gentae. Def died before re-trial.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 S La Salle St, Chicago.

354.13. In Re Arizona and Phoenix Gazette (Phoenix Super Ct) Dec 22, 1965: Def-newspapers printed details of habeas corpus hearing of accused killer. Accused filed petition charging Defs acted in contempt of ct. Pending.
354.14. Monroe v Los Angeles (Muni Ct) Oct, 1966: Pl-taxpayer seeks injunction barring Def-public officials from: (1) expending public funds by making out-of-ct statements to press regarding pending criminal cases, (2) enforcing city charter provision allowing release of arrest and criminal records of persons held by police, based on prejudicial nature of news articles if read by prospective jurors. Pending.

David Binder, Esq, 3810 Wlshre Blvd, Lawrence Sperber, Esq, PO Box 3426, Olympc Sta, Fred Okrand and A L Wirin, Esqs, 257 S Spring St, all of Los Angeles; Alan I Rothenberg, Esq, 801 Commercial Bldg, Dayton, Ohio.

And see Frye, 429.26.

355. In Admitting Perjured Testimony (see also 312)
Articles: Daniel E Murray, Convictions obtained by perjured testimony: Comparative view. 27 Ohio State 102-16.

Jack B Weinstein, Some difficulties in devising rules for determining truth in judicial trials. 66 Columbia 223-47.

355.4. Sobell v US (SD NY) (Cr #133-293, 134-245) Facts: X DOCKET 42, 113, 148; XI DOCKET 27, 85. Apr, 1966: sketch of cross section of bomb which dec'd Def Rosenbergs allegedly delivered to USSR released to Def's attorneys. Aug 22: motion for retrial based on: (1) affidavits by 2 eminent scientists, intimately involved in developing bomb, who swore sketch worthless, crucial Gov't witness who authenticated sketch unknowledgeable; (2) Gov't used forged hotel registration card to establish whereabouts of important witness. Sept 12: oral argument on motion for new trial.

Book Review: Leonard B Boudin, Invitation to an Inquest by Walter and Miriam Schneir, 76 Yale 254 (1966).

- 41 -

355.11. US ex rel Miller v Pate (USSC, #250) Facts: X DOCKET 42, 113, 148. Jy 7, 1965: Def filed petition for cert. Issues: (1) did state knowingly use perjured testimony, suppress evidence almost exculpatory in character, obstruct Def's counsel from interviewing prospective alibi witnesses, thereby depriving Def of fair trial? (2) was Def's confession involuntary? June 20, 1966: USSC granted cert and forma pauperis petitions.

Willard J Lassers, Esq, 11 S La Salle; Edwin H Conger, Esq, 120 S La Salle; George Pontikes, Esq, 11 S La Salle; Harry Golter, Esq; Robert Grossman, Esq, all of Chicago; Arthur G Greenberg, Esq, Peoria, Ill.

356. In Courts Martial (see also 125, 390)
Forms and procedures: Conscientious objection and civil disobedience in armed service. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 235dd, 235ii-235jj.

Articles: Lewis R Katz, Grant S Nelson, Need for clarification in military habeas corpus. 27 Ohio State 193-218.

Wallace S Murphy, Defense of the military accused. 17 S Carolina 506-28.

Maurer Maurer, Court-martialing of "camp followers," World War I. 9 Am Jour Leg Hist 203-15.

Robinson O Everett, Military administrative discharges—the pendulum swings. 1966 Duke 41-97.

Charles W Schiesser, Trial by peers: Enlisted members on courts-marital. 15 Catholic U 171-202. Comment: Right to counsel and serviceman, 15 Catholic U 203-33.

Case note: Right to counsel in special courts-martial: Aplication of Stapley (246 F Supp 316, DC Utah 1965) 37 Mississippi 484-87; 27 Pittsburgh 695-700; 50 Minnesota 147-69.

Comments: Investigative procedures in military: a search for absolutes. 53 California 373-901.

Accused in special court-martial must be afforded competent legal counsel. 18 S Carolina 291-98.

Survey: The Supreme Court, 1964 term. Armed forces. 79 Harvard 113-16.

357. In Naturalization Proceedings (see also 259)
Speech: Correcting inequities in Immigration Law re derivative citizenship. Cong Rec—House. Aug 30, 1966, 20410.
357.5. In re San Francisco Chinese Girl (ND Calif) 1964: Pet and sister filed for US citizenship. Sister had belonged to defunct Haiyan Club, held subversive by Naturalization Service. Pet's only connection with Club: association with her sister. ACLU indicated it would file motion for citizenship unless Service referred case to ct. 1966: Service submitted citizenship application to ct.

Ernest Besig, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

358. In Expatriation, Denaturalization, Deportation, Relocation Proceedings (see also 258, 259)
Article: Burton C Agata, Involuntary expatriation and Schneider v Rusk. 27 U of Pitt 1-48.
358.15. Williams v US (Bd of Imm App) Facts: VI DOCKET 29, 65; VII DOCKET 49. Pet sought change of status to "alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence" on showing he was defector from Communist Party for at least 5 yrs. Imm & Nat Service contended Pet could not qualify as defector until he gave information about other Communists' activities. BIA held: Pet need not inform on Communist associates to qualify as Communist defector and avoid deportation.
358.63. Afroyim v Rusk (USSC, #456) (361 F2d 102) Facts: XI DOCKET 85. CA 2 held Congress has power to expatriate US citizen for voting in foreign election. Issue in cert petition: does 1940 Nationality Act §401 which expatriates citizen for voting in foreign election violate 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments? Oct 24: USSC granted cert.
358.64. In re M T Mehdi (Imm & Nat Serv) Issue: whether alien can be deported for engaging in propaganda activities "contrary to best interests of US government." Pending.

Rhoda Karpatkin, Esq, 660 Madison Ave, Alan H Levine, 156 Fifth Ave, both of NYC.

359. In Loyalty Hearings (see also 251, 268)
361. In Bar Proceedings re Lawyers (and 265, 345, 373)
362. In Selective Service Proceedings (and 120s)
365. Speedy and Public Trial (and 390s)
Articles: Gary V Dubin, Mens rea reconsidered: Plea for due process concept of criminal responsibility. 18 Stanford 322-95.

Monrad G Paulsen, Pre-trial release in US. 66 Columbia 31-125.

Comments: Court delay—Texas style. 4 Houston 92-113.

Guilt by record. 1 Cal Western 126-35.

Lagging right to speedy trial. 51 Virginia 1587-1620.

Speech: S. 3725: National Court Assistance Act. Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 15, 1966, 18537.

365.13. Palmer v Boies (USSC, #11356) (407 P2d 64) Pet incarcerated in fedl prison (Leavenworth), then in Ariz state prison. Oct 1965: Pet sought trial in Ariz on pending robbery charges. Ariz Sup Ct denied habeas petition. Mar 3, 1966: Pet filed for cert. Issues: (1) is 6th Amdt right to speedy trial applicable to states via 14th Amdt? (2) is Def entitled to counsel in collateral proceeding, eg, writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Pending.

Robert J Corcoran, Jay Dushoff, Esqs, 1518 Arizona Title Building, Phoenix, Ariz 85003.

365.14. California v Haston, McDowell (Marin Super Ct) Defconvicts arrested for attempted escape from state prison. DA contended 60-day rule intended to apply to prevent incarceration of those awaiting trial, and Defs were already imprisoned on other charges. Aug 26, 1966: Super Ct dismissed charges for failure to bring Defs to trial within 60 days of their indictments.
- 42 -

365.15. Re Petition of Green (Lake Charles) (WD La) 1964: Pet-Negro arrested: rape of Caucasian woman. No trial. 1966: Pet filed habeas petition: any trial at this date would deprive accused of right to speedy trial. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

365.16. Arizona v Foulk (DC Ariz) While Pet serving 14-20 yr sentence, new felony charges filed against Pet. DA said Pet to be tried on expiration of current sentence. May 16, 1966: Pet sues to restrain prosecution because denied right to speedy trial. Pending.

Thomas A McGuire, Jr, Esq, 1000 Central Tower, Phoenix, Ariz.

370. Right to Counsel/Access to Courts
Form: Prayer for admission of non-resident attorneys. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 30a-30b.

Articles: Ruth Roemer, Right to counsel. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 57-67.

Brief: Cook v Cheese Co (DC Vermont, Civ #421)—argues for reasonable attorney's fees in suit brought under Fair Labor Standards Act, §16b. In Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Library.

Comment: Right to counsel and serviceman. 15 Catholic U 203-33.

Wallet cards: "If you can't afford a lawyer and you need legal advice, call Mobilization for Youth—OR 7-0400—at any time of day or night and ask for a lawyer." (Also available in Spanish.) Mobilization for Youth, 214 E 2d St, NYC 10009.

371. In Federal Cases (and 353)
Articles: Tom C Clark, Counsel for the indigent defendant. 41 St Johns 102-9.

Ben C Duniway, The poor man in the federal courts. 18 Stanford 1270-87.

Daniel G Grove, Gideon's trumpet: taps for antiquated system? Proposal for Kentucky. 54 Ky 527-81.

Albert A Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of counsel fees and the great society. 54 California 792-800.

Edward T Haggins, Right to counsel in criminal cases. 15 Cleveland-Marshall 162-70.

Lee Hargrave, Some aspects of right to counsel, 26 Louisiana 666-718.

Edward H Hunvald, Jr, Right to counsel at preliminary hearing. 31 Missouri 109-26.

Henry P Monaghan, Gideon's army: student soldiers. 45 Boston 445-64.

William B Stoebuck, Counsel fees included in costs: Logical development. 38 Colorado 202-18.

Walter G. Strong, Jr, Reimbursement of expenses of appointed counsel. 26 Louisiana 666-718.

Paul Bator and James Vorenberg, Arrest, detention, interrogation and right to counsel: possible legislative solutions. Symposium. 66 Columbia 31-125.

Comments: Constitutional right to counsel in tax investigations. 33 Chicago 134-50.

Escobedo doctrine and Texas. 17 Baylor 376-99.

Right of accused to proceed without counsel. 49 Minnesota 1133-53.

Right to appointed counsel at collateral attack proceedings. 19 Miami 432-31.

Legislation note: Right to counsel in Ohio—New exclusionary rule? 17 W Reserve 901-7.

Report: (No 1797): HR 5958: Applications for writs of habeas corpus by persons in custody pursuant to judgment of state courts. Cong Rec—Sen, Oct 20, 1966, 26915.

Symposium: Bazelon-Katzenbach letters on poverty, equality, and administration of criminal justice. 54 Kentucky 464-524.

371.6. Johnson v US (ND Miss) Facts: X DOCKET 43, 113, 149. Pet remanded to mental hospital for psychiatric examination.
371.9. Hoffa v US (USSC, #32-35) (349 F2d 20) Facts: X DOCKET 114; XI DOCKET 86. Pending before USSC.

And see Osborn, 301.28.

371.11. Re Frankel (NJ Super Ct, Crim Div) Facts: XI DOCKET 27. Jy 20, 1966: CA 3 affirmed DC order granting motion to remand. Mar 7: NJ Sup Ct decided Rush, Couch, 372.58: counsel assigned to defend indigents entitled to compensation from county or state. Pending.
371.12. Dillion v US (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 86. Cite for cert den: 382 US 978.
371.14. Nowakowski v Maroney (USSC, #222) Def convicted of burglary; NJ Sup Ct affirmed. DC denied habeas petition based on claim Def denied effective assistance of counsel at state trial. Jy 27, 1965: CA 3 held Def not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal from DC. Je 13: USSC granted petitions for in forma pauperis and cert. Issue: was Def deprived of his constitutional rights by CA's refusal. Pending.

Daniel J O'Hearn, Esq, Red Bank, NJ.

371.15. US v Arellanes (CA 9) Def arrested: narcotics. Prior to trial, Def's lawyer allegedly attempted to bribe narcotics agent; Def refused to name narcotics supplier. Def dismissed attorney; sought delayed trial date to get new lawyer. DC refused continuance, tried without counsel, convicted. Def argued sufficient criminal laws and procedures exist to protect ct from deception without denying Def right to counsel. CA affirmed: "clean hands" doctrine justified denial of right to counsel, since Def had attempted to deceive ct.

Anthony G Amsterdam, Esq, U of Pa Law School, 3400 Chestnut St, Philadelphia; Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU, 503 Market St, San Francisco.

And see Vitelli, 341.5.

- 43 -

372. In State Cases (and 353)
Articles: Walter A Rafalko, Indigent prisoner's new hope: old writ of habeas corpus and right to counsel. 42 N Dakota 168-84.

Articles: Jennings T Bird, Representation of indigent criminal Defs in Kentucky. 53 Ky 478-530.

Michael Moore, Right to counsel for indigents in Oregon. 44 Oregon 255-301.

John M Winters, Counsel for indigent accused in Wisconsin. 49 Marquette 1-86.

Comments: Proposed S Carolina indigent defendant act. 17 SC 741-9, 18 SC 380-412.

Equal protection clause and imprisonment of indigent for nonpayment of fines. 64 Michigan 938-47.

Legislation note: New aids to indigent—NY Pen Law §§270, 271, Co Law art 18-b. 30 Albany 334-40.

Symposium: Proceedings of conference on bail and indigency. 1965 U of Ill 1-79.

Bill: S. 3576: Jurisdiction and venue of applications for writs of habeas corpus by persons in custody under judgments and sentences of state courts. Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 26, 1966, 19883.

Comments: Escobedo in New York. 40 St Johns 51-9.

Federal exclusionary rule against confessions and admissions illegally obtained in state prosecutions. 16 W Reserve 725-779.

372.57. New York v Ressler (NY Ct of App) Facts: XI DOCKET 87. Cite: 216 NE2d 441.
372.58. New Jersey v Rush, Couch (NJ Sup Ct, #A-33) Facts: XI DOCKET 87. Cite: 217 A2d 441.
372.59. New Jersey v Loray (NJ Sup Ct) (215 A2d 539) Facts: XI DOCKET 87. Correction: 1962: 16-yr-old Def appeared before Juvenile Ct without counsel; Ct determined Def should be tried as adult for murder. 1963: convicted; life sentence. NJ Sup Ct affirmed. 1964: Super Ct vacated: failure of Juv Ct to advise Def of right to counsel, availability of free counsel if indigent. Dec 20, 1965: NJ Sup Ct modified remand order, eliminated portion vacating conviction: (1) even if some denial of due process by failure at referral hearing to advise of right to counsel, setting aside conviction, as distinct from limited remand, is not required for due process; (2) failure to inform juvenile at referral hearing of right to advance relevant facts apart from issue of guilt and to give him opportunity to do so renders hearing defective. Remanded for hearing with conviction held in abeyance pending determination of preliminary constitutional issue.
372.60. Michigan v Foster (Mich Sup Ct, #50557) Facts: XI DOCKET 87. Cite: 140 NW2d 513.
372.62. Anders v California (USSC, #98) Def arrested: narcotics charge; convicted. Ct-appointed appellate atty informed Dist Ct of App that appeal without merit; ct permitted atty to withdraw; affirmed conviction. Jy 14, 1965: Calif Sup Ct held Def not now entitled to writ of habeas corpus to reinstate appeal. Apr 4, 1966: USSC granted cert and forma pauperis. Issues: (1) was Def deprived of due process by denial of right to counsel at appellate level, (2) was Def deprived of fair trial in 1957 by prosecution's commenting upon and trial ct's instructing jury about Def's failure to testify? Pending.

Ira Michael Heyman, Esq, Boalt Law School, Berkeley, California.

372.63. Ex rel Wells v Warden (San Quentin) (USSC) 1944: Pet-Negro serving prison term for car theft; got in fight with other prisoner, given indeterminate sentence. 1947: Pet convicted of throwing cuspidor at prison guard, sentenced to death: life prisoner committing assault with malice aforethought must pay death penalty. Mar 19, 1964: Gov Knight commuted sentence, without possibility of parole. Pet petitioned for writ of habeas corpus. CA 9 held no fedl habeas jurisdiction. Je 1966: USSC denied cert.

Charles Garry, Esq, 501 Fremont Bldg, 341 Market St, San Francisco 94105.

372.64. Michigan v Winegar (Mich Ct of App, #1512) Nov 3, 1961: Def arraigned without counsel on information: assault with intent to kill. Ct entered plea of not guilty, remanded Def in custody to await trial. Nov 17: Def reappeared, without counsel, asked to plead guilty; sentenced to life. Ct of App asked ACLU to submit amicus brief on procedural questions; issue: did judge's behavior constitute compliance with Mich's General Court Rules concerning right of accused to counsel. ACLU brief argues: court must (1) ascertain whether guilty plea intelligently made, (2) inform accused of nature of accusation, (3) inform accused of consequence of plea, (4) ascertain that plea voluntarily made; brief concludes guilty plea improperly accepted. Ct of App affirmed lower court. Appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Rolland O'Hare, Erwin Ellmann, Esqs, ACLU, 1600 Washington Blvd Bldg, Detroit 48226.

372.65. California v Risenhoover (Fresno Super Ct, #19949) 1962: Def arrested: murder: convicted. Def asked for reh'g; denied. Def moved again for new trial and sanity h'g. Super Ct granted motion. Pl appealed. Dist Ct of App affirmed: Super Ct has jurisdiction to vacate 17 mths later a former order denying new trial as to guilt and sanity; application of Escobedo, 372.34, and Dorado, 372.37, would require reversing of entire case on appeal.

Roslyn Robbins Dienstein, Esq, 522 T W Patterson Bldg, Fresno, Calif.

372.66. Dowdle v New York (USSC, #204) Def-indigent charged with non-capital offense, convicted. Def appealed: denial of due process and equal protection because NY statutes provide: (1) for allowance of funds for both legal services and expert witnesses to assigned counsel in capital cases but not in non-capital cases, (2) unlimited funds for prosecutors in all cases while specifically prohibiting compensation to assigned counsel in all but capital cases. Nov 24, 1965: NY Ct of App affirmed conviction. Oct 10, 1966: USSC denied cert.

John Manning Regan, Esq, Rochester, NY.

372.67. Sandoval v Rattikin (USSC, #124) Indigent Def trespassed, allegedly to test title. Legal-aid atty furnished by county. Def convicted. Appeal: Def prevented from urging meritorious defense by appointed atty, representation provided so inadequate as to deprive Def of effective assistance of counsel. Tex Ct of Civ App affirmed conviction. October 17: USSC denied cert, Fortas, J (Douglas, J) diss.

Roger Butler, Luther E Jones, Jr, Esqs, both of Corpus Christi, Texas; John D Cojer, Esq, Austin, Texas.

- 44 -

372.68. Winters v Beck (Little Rock) (USSC, #75 Misc) Defindigent Negro arrested: `immorality.' Convicted without assistance of counsel: 9½ mths. Def applied to Ark Sup Ct for writ of habeas corpus: unconstitutionally tried and convicted without counsel or being advised of right to counsel. Ark Sup Ct denied writ. Def petitioned for writ of cert: right of indigent to counsel in misdemeanor case. Oct 17, 1966: USSC denied cert, Stewart, J (Black, J) diss.
372.69. Gilmore v Dept of Corrections (San Quentin) (ND Calif) Sept 19, 1966: Def issued new regulations limiting number of lawbooks in each prison to 11 books, penal codes, court rules, and subscription to Calif Weekly (Law) Digest. Oct 27: Pls-prisoners sought injunction against implementation of regulations: removing lawbooks previously available deprives them of due process under Fifth and 14th Amdts, and of First Amdt rights. Pending.
372.70. Mullreed v Simpson (Mich Ct of App) Trial ct denied Def assigned counsel: Def had prior appeals to Sup Ct, without counsel. Ct of App remanded to trial ct for assignment of counsel. Counsel assigned.

Ronald Reosti, Esq, 2905 Cadillac Tower, Detroit.

372.71. Arizona v Martin (Flagstaff) (Ariz Sup Ct, #1542) Def arrested: first degree murder. May 29, 1964: convicted: death penalty. Appeal pending Sup Ct requested ACLU to submit amicus brief: number of constitutional issues not raised by Def's ct-appointed atty.
372.72. Du Puis v Maxwell (Washington Sup Ct) Def-Indian arrested: carnal knowledge of 8-yr old daughter; convicted without counsel; life imprisonment. Petition for writ of habeas corpus: Def never told nature of charge against him, made equivocal pleas of guilty, made unintelligent waiver of counsel. Pending.

Michael H Rosen, Esq, ACLU, Seattle, Wash.

372.73. US ex rel Allen v Hanchey (Claiborne Parish) (CA 5) 1961: Def-Negro convicted of rape of Caucasian woman. Def petitioned for writ of habeas corpus: trial ct denied Def 14th Amdt protection by failing to advise him of right to counsel, allowing him to plead guilty without advice of counsel. DC denied writ. 1966: CA 5 reversed conviction.
373. Restrictions on Attorneys (see 265, 345)

373.20. District of Columbia v Kinoy (Ct of Genl Sessions DC) Aug 17, 1966: Def, attorney for witness Krebs, 271.52, subpoened by HUAC, vigorously argued his right to cross-examine HUAC witness testifying about his client. HUAC chairman ordered Def to "sit down." Diminutive Def seized by 3 US marshals forcibly ejected from h'g room, arrested: disorderly conduct (DC Code §22-1107). Issues: failure of proofs to include essential element of offense (congregation and assembly in public building, loud, boisterous talking or disorderly conduct); right of atty to represent his client, under 6th Amdt; use of disorderly conduct statute to regulate atty's conduct before Congressional committee beyond ct's jurisdiction since it interferes with power of HUAC to regulate its own proceedings; prosecution void for failure to comply with HUAC's rules. Appeal pending.

A G Amsterdam, Esq, 3400 Chestnut St, Philadelphia, 19104; George Cooper, 435 W 116th St, New York; Robert Drinan, SJ, Boston College Law School, Brighton, Mass; Walter Gellhorn, 435 W 116th St, NYC; Willard Heckel, 180 Plane St, Newark, 07102; Robert Knowlton, 180 Plane St, Newark, 07102; Louis Lusky, 435 W 116th St, New York; Philip Hirschkop, 1025 Vermont Ave NW, Washington; Beverly Axelrod, 345 Franklin St, San Francisco; Frank Donner, 36 W 44th St, Ira Gollobin, 1441 Broadway, Jeremiah Gutman, 363 7th Ave, William Kunstler, 511 Fifth Ave, John Pemberton, Jr, 156 Fifth Ave, all of NYC; Morton Stavis, 744 Broad St, Newark, 07102; Albert Rosenthal, 435 W 116th St, New York; Thomas Sullivan, Esqs, 135 S La Salle St, Chicago, 60603.

And see Krebs, 271.52.

And see Lenske, 30.30.

374. Opportunity for Appellate Review
Articles: Jules B Gerard, Right to counsel on appeal in Missouri: Inquiry into underpinnings of Douglas, 374.18, 372 US 353. 1965 Washington U 463-85.

Lewis Mayers, Habeas corpus act of 1867: Supreme Court as legal historian. 33 Chicago 31-59.

Comments: Cost of appeal. 27 Montana 49-54.

Late filing of criminal appeals. 17 Hastings 132-38.

Right to effective counsel in criminal cases. 18 Vanderbilt 1920-37.

Right to free transcript. 17 Hastings 113-23.

And see Mallory, 463.2; Copeland, 463.2a.

374.27. New Jersey v Welch (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 214 A2d 857.
374.29. New Jersey v Loray (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 217 A2d 450.
374.30. New Jersey v Smith (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 217 A2d 450.
374.31. New Jersey v Sullivan (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 217 A2d 452.
374.32. Lascher v California (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 414 P2d 398.
374.34. Long v District Ct of Iowa (USSC, #77) May 20, 1965: Iowa Sup Ct held indigent Iowa prisoner not entitled to free transcript for use on appeal from state ct's denial of petition for habeas corpus. May 20, 1965: cert petition filed. Feb 28, 1966: USSC granted cert and forma pauperis. Issue: did free transcript refusal deprive Pet of opportunity to obtain full appellate review and thereby deprive him of equal protection of laws? Pending.
- 45 -

374.36. Michigan v Traylor (Mich Ct of App) Def convicted without counsel. Counsel assigned 5 mths after conviction; delay in obtaining transcript of original trial. Assigned counsel filed motion for new trial, entered prompt appeal of denial. Ct of App denied appeal; failure to observe time limits established by ct, even though failure beyond control of Def.
374.37. Rinaldi v Yeager (USSC) (238 FS 960, rev'd 384 US 305) Pet, convicted felon, appealed conviction in forma pauperis; Super Ct granted his petition for trial transcript; appeal unsuccessful. 1963: Prison officials withheld Def's prison pay (20c/day) to reimburse Co $215 for transcript under NJ Stat Anno §2A:152-18. Pet sued under 42 USC §1983 for 3-judge ct to declare statute unconstitutional. 3-judge ct denied relief. May 31, 1966: USSC reversed (8-1), Stewart, J: NJ does not require repayment from Defs placed on probation (regardless of earnings), or from unsuccessful appellant sentenced only to pay fines; discriminatory classification as to unsuccessful appellants confined to institutions violates equal protection clause; act will not discourage frivolous appeals. Harlan, J, diss.

Frederick B Lacey, Esq, Newark, NJ.

375. Group Legal Services/OEO Offices (and see 420s)
Address: Charles S Rhyne before ND Bar Association June 24, 1966: Law for All. Cong Rec—House, July 11, 1966, 14383.

Articles: Clinton E Bamberger, Jr, Legal aid: Opportunity for Am Bar. 42 No Dakota 287-92.

James Lafferty, Free legal aid clinic—Detroit experience. 25 Guild Practitioner 49-59.

Gerald Dworkin, Progress and future of legal aid in civil litigation. 28 Modern L Rev 432-47.

William B Fisch, Legal aid program for North Dakota. 42 No Dakota 293-305.

Alan R Bromberg, Non-profit corporations: Organizational problems and tax exemptions. 17 Baylor 125-67.

Samuel T Gaines, Group practice and representation and significant developments in Ohio disciplinary matters. 16 W Reserve 893-914.

Charles Grosser, Need for neighborhood legal service and New York experience. 15 Buffalo 146-52.

Neighborhood lawyer programs: Experiment in social change. 20 Miami 184-91.

Norman L Miller and James C Daggitt, Urban law program of U of Detroit School of Law. 54 California 1009-15.

Monrad G Paulsen, Expanding horizons of legal services. 67 W Va 267-90.

Jerome S Sloan, Community action program and social responsibility of local lawyer. 51 Virginia 1545-85.

Philip A Stohr, German system of legal aid: Alternative approach. 54 California 801-08.

Comments: Emergence of law intermediaries furnishing legal services to individuals. 1965 Washington 313-34.

Federal defender program. 15 DePaul 313-15.

Law students—practice of law—New York State. 1 Lincoln 65-73.

Legislation note: Michigan general court rule 921 authorizes student legal aid clinics. 12 Wayne 519-24.

Providing legal services for Middle Class in civil matters. 26 Pittsburgh 811-47.

United States Supreme Court—public defender by judicial fiat. 19 Wyoming 179-88.

Report: Legal Services Program of OEO. Cong Rec—Sen, Oct 13, 1966, 25487.

376. Small Claimants' Problems (and see 424, 425)
Articles: David Daar and Leon Perlsweig, How to fight your case in small claims court—Calif. LA Pop Law Pub 65.

Papter, McCloskey and Remis, California Small Claims Court. 52 California 876. (1964).

377. Compensation for Assigned Counsel

377.1. Halpin and McGlynn v Shasta County. Pls, ct-appointed counsel in murder case, verdict for client. Ct awarded Pls total of $350 as reasonable compensation, in accord with 1951 fee schedule adopted by Bd of Supervisors. Pls claimed $6500 as reasonable compensation and expenses. Mar 11, 1966: DCA reversed, holding reasonable compensation not dependent on county ordinance, but product of independent judgment of ct; if independent ct discretion in this instance, such award was abuse of discretion.
380. Confrontation
381. In Criminal Cases
Comments: Disclosure of informers' identities. 17 Hastings 99-111.

Duty of prosecutor to call witnesses whose testimony will help accused establish his innocence. 1966 Washington 68-101.

381.5. Wilson v Gray (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 45, XI DOCKET 88. Cites: 345 F2d 282; cd 382 US 919.
381.9. Wilson v US (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 29. Cite for cert den: 382 US 864 (1965).
381.10. Brookhart v Janis (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. Cite: 384 US 1.
381.11. New Jersey v Oliver (Super Ct, App Div) Def convicted for bookmaking on evidence supplied by informer who never appeared in ct. Aug 23, 1966: Ct reversed: police must identify informer, let Def cross-examine him if informer was eyewitness to alleged crime or acts of Def which form foundation of accusation.
381.12. Cameron v Texas (Ct of Crim App, #39056; DC Tex) Def indicted for theft, prosecuted under theory of theft by false pretext, having made allegedly false representations to insurance company and thereby obtained money. Ct instructed jury under state's theory; convicted. Ct of Crim App affirmed. Def filed habeas in DC. Issue: right to know specific nature and cause of charge for which one is to stand trial. Amicus brief by Maury Maverick, Esq, for ACLU, 308 W 11th St, Austin 78701.
- 46 -

382. In Civil Cases
383. In Administrative Hearings
390. Jury Trials (see also 41, 42, 356, 360, 510)

Article: Dale W Broeder, Voir Dire examinations: Empirical study, 38 S Calif 503-28.

391. Nature of Jury Trial
Articles: Delmar Karlen, Can state abolish civil jury? 1965 Wisconsin 103-12.

Comments: Abolition of civil jury: proposed alternatives. 15 DePaul 416-39.

Case for retention of unanimous civil jury. 15 DePaul 403-16.

Right to trial by jury: is it necessary? 15 DePaul 398-403.

W W Lessley, Montana jury instruction guides (MJIG) 27 Montana 125-29.

Lewis F Powell, Jr, Jury trial of crimes. 23 Washington and Lee 1-11.

Atty Gen'l's Opinion: Idaho: Jy 14, 1966: Five-sixth of jury in misdemeanor case may render verdict under Art I, Sec 7 of Idaho constitution and Secs 19-1902 and 19-2316 of Idaho code. (AG Opin #66-4)

391.11. Michigan v Jones (Mich Sup Ct) Def arrested: attempted rape, attempted murder. At trial, court charged jury with 4 possible verdicts. Jury arrived at `guilty as charged' without specification of charge. Def received maximum sentence for most serious crime—attempted murder. Def appealed: multiple charges to jury was denial of due process. Pending.

Cornelius Pitts, Esq, ACLU, 2382 First National Bldg. Detroit.

391.12. Seattle v Jackson (Wash Sup Ct) Def-Negro arrested: disturbing peace; found guilty by jury. Def appealed: Juror gave ACLU affidavit stating jury never considered guilt or innocence of Def but convicted him solely on ground he is Negro. Pending.

ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

392. Waiver of Jury
393. Improper Comment (and see 512)
Comments: Alabama standards re comment by counsel on failure of accused to take stand. 17 Alabama 321-26.

Duty to disclose adverse cases. 17 Alabama 331-37.

Fair comment and fair mistake—extension of Sullivan precedent to other matters of public interest. 17 Hastings 347-59.

Final argument in Iowa. 15 Drake 115-23.

393.1. Michigan v Burd (Mich Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 88. May 17, 1966: Ct of App reversed conviction: information should not have included prior convictions of Def. Sup Ct denied State leave to appeal.
393.2. Parker v Gladden (USSC, #81) (407 P2d 426) Def charged with murder; during trial, bailiff said, in hearing of jury, "Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty" and "If you find him guilty and there is anything wrong, the Supreme Ct will correct it." Def convicted by jury; life. Ore Sup Ct affirmed conviction. Apr 18, 1966: USSC granted cert.

John H Schafer, Armand Derfer, Esqs, both of Washington, DC.

393.3. US v Fiorito (CA 7) (300 F2d 424, 5 ALR3d 968) Defs arrested: violation of fedl narcotics statutes (21 USC §174, 26 USC §4705(a)); convicted by jury. Defs appealed: ct made statement to jury that "this is not the final judgment," since Ct of App and USSC could review decision. CA 7 reversed and remanded: trial ct's remarks were prejudicial.
400. Excessive Bail; Parole Conditions
Forms: Application for release on own recognizance or bail. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 46d-46f, and see discussion, pp 46g-55.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus cum causa and for bail, points and authorities, by Arthur Kinoy. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 72p-72r.

Article: Lee Silverstein, Bail in state courts—Field study and report. 50 Minnesota 621-52.

Bill: US Bail Reform Act of 1966: person accused of non-capital offense must be released on personal recognizance or execution of unsecured appearance bond unless judge before whom he appears decides such release would not reasonably assure appearance of accused, in which case judge must impose one or more of five additional conditions of release.

401. Amount of Bail Set
Comment: Development of release on recognizance and Dane Co bail study. 1965 Wisconsin 156-74.
401.26. Carmichael v Allen (Atlanta) (ND Ga, #10421) Sept 9, 1966: Pl arrested for disorderly conduct, inciting to riot. Cumulative bail set: $11,000 for misdemeanors; reduced to $10,000. Pl moved in DC to have bail reset under 28 USC §1651 on ground excessive and unreasonable bail set to intimidate and deter Pl and other citizens from exercising constitutional rights. Pending.

Howard Moore, Esq, 859½ Hunter St NW, Atlanta 30314.

And see Carmichael v Allen, 51.Ga.8a.

402. Conditions Imposed

402.10. Morris v Crumlish (CA 3, #15359) Facts: X DOCKET 116, 150. Def appealed to CA: violation of due process, equal protection, self-incrimination privilege to compel Def-accused, unable to afford bail, to be placed in `line-up'. Oct 15, 1965: CA affirmed: no denial of due process: accused out on bail may be placed under surveillance, not feasible to have inmates subjected to view of victims in cell blocks, dormitories; line-up is reasonable. William F Hall, Jr, Esq, Suite 300, 1510 Chestnut St, Philadelphia 19102.
- 47 -

403. Denial of Bail
Comment: Preventive detention before trial. 79 Harvard 1475-88.

Legislation note: Right to bail and pre-"trial" detention of juveniles accused of "crime." 18 Vanderbilt 2096-2109.

403.16. Louisiana v Wyche (Madison Parish) (La Sup Ct) Jy 28, 1966: Def-Negro, head of Madison Parish civil rights movement, attempted to secure service for Negroes at truck stop on US Highway 80; arrested: `procural' of simple battery upon a Caucasian patron. Sept 28: Def convicted. Def appealed: no evidence Def committed crime charged. Trial judge refused to admit Def to bond pending appeal, in violation of settled La law. Def filed habeas petition in Sup Ct. Oct 10: Sup Ct ordered trial judge to show cause why Def should not be admitted to bail. H'g held; decision pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

403.16a. Louisiana v Wyche (Madison Parish) (DC La) As result of incident in Wyche, 403.16, Def also charged with aggravated burglary: unauthorized entering into private place with intent to commit felony. Oct 12, 1966: Def removed to DC on authority of Georgia v Rachel, 58.21. Pending.
404. Miscellaneous Bail Problems

404.4. Alabama v Collins (Mobile Recorders Ct) 1965: Def-Negro 17-yr old arrested: assault with intent to murder. Released on $500 bail. Def forfeited bail, went to Norristown, Pa, home of mother. Dec 19, 1966: Def seized by 2 armed Ala bail bondsmen impersonating Ala police officers; Def handcuffed, taken to Mobile, jailed. Def's NAACP-hired atty signed $8700 bond for Def's release. Dec 27: Def returned to Norristown to await trial in Mobile.

Vernon Crawford, Esq, 570 Davis Ave, Mobile, Ala.

410. Cruel and Unusual Punishment (and see 461)
411. In Criminal Cases (and see 461)
And see cases at 304.

Articles: Hugo A Bedau, Capital punishment in Oregon, 1903-64. 45 Oregon 1-39.

R Duncan Fairn, Paradox of penal detention. 18 Current Legal Problems 322-95.

Giles Playfair, Why imprisonment must go. 53 Kentucky 415-31.

Comment: Cruel and unusual punishment clause and substantive criminal law. 79 Harvard 635-55.

411.19. Fleishour v US (CA 7) Facts: X DOCKET 46. DC denied Pet recovery under Fedl Tort Claims Act: prison officials acted reasonably, consistent with accepted prison practice of taking `calculated risks' so that prisoners may learn to get along with other persons as part of rehabilitation; Pet failed to establish by preponderance of evidence that officials were negligent. Jy 7, 1966: CA affirmed: decision of DC not `clearly erroneous'. Pet filed petition for cert: Pet denied equal protection by allowing prison officials to draw their own standard of care based on doctrine of `calculated risk' to be applied only to fedl prisons. Pending.

Elmer Gertz, Esq, 120 South LaSalle St, Chicago 60603.

411.21. Virginia v Wansley (Lynchburg) (County Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 46, XI DOCKET 89. Feb 14, 1966: Def atty Hirshkop petitioned to have trial removed to fedl ct; Judge issued contempt ruling against Hirshkop, barred NY Atty Kunstler from practicing in his ct. DC stopped prosecution of contempt charge. Upon Hirshkop's request, CA 4 remanded case to lower ct. Sept 13: Hirshkop convicted. Appeal pending.

William Kunstler, Arthur Kinoy, Esqs, 511 Fifth Ave, NYC; Philip Hirchkop, Esq, 300 Beechwood Rd, Hollin Hills, Alexandria, Va.

411.26. Driver v Hinnant (CA 4) (356 F2d 761) Facts: X DOCKET 116, XI DOCKET 30. CA 4 reversed DC, held it unconstitutional under 8th Amdt to convict chronic alcoholic for public intoxication. Case concluded. Case note: 15 Catholic U 259-63.
411.28. California v Budd (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 116. Oct 17, 1966: USSC denied certiorari. Fortas, Douglas, JJ, diss: "The use of the crude and formidable weapon of criminal punishment of the alcoholic is neither seemly not sensible, neither purposeful nor civilized."
411.34. California v Hernandez (Santa Barbara Super Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 90. June 8, 1966: Super Ct reversed probation order of Muni Ct, barring sterilization alternative. Super Ct ruled Muni Ct "acted arbitrarily, outside law, in excess of judicial power."
411.35. Horvath v Milwaukee (USSC #617) (143 NW2d 446) Def refused to pay parking fine, argued imprisonment for such refusal violates 13th Amdt. Wis Sup Ct held statute does not impose involuntary servitude, mere imprisonment without imposition of labor does not constitute involuntary servitude. Sept 30, 1966: Def filed petition for cert in USSC.

Dorothy E Horvath, pro se, Whitefish Bay, Wis.

411.36. Alabama v Mack (Tuscaloosa Co Cir Ct, ##9189A, 9192A) Negro youths charged with rape of white girl. Possible punishment: death. Pls filed motion to quash indictments: jury discrimination, discriminatory sentencing, unfettered jury discretion, unusual punishment. Conference March 30, 1966. Pending.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth Ave N, Demetrius Newton, Esq, 408 N 17th, both of Birmingham, Ala.

411.37. In re "Joe Jones" (a pseudonym) (Philadelphia Co Ct) 1955: Def committed as "defective delinquent" to State institution on basis of intelligence test indicating he was below normal range: truancy and theft of bicycles. 1960: transferred to state correctional institution run by Pa Dept of Justice in spite of Pa Mental Health Act providing defective may be committed to school without judicial h'g, but not to penal institution. Mar 1966: another intelligence test showed Def to be of average intelligence; Ct granted habeas corpus petition; Def released.

Lisa Richette, Esq, 1921 Panama St, Philadelphia, Pa.

- 48 -

411.38. Jordan v California (ND Calif) Feb 1966: Pl-prisoner complained Soledad State Prison authorities forced him into cell stripped of all furnishings except commode embedded in concrete, no water to wash, no heat, ventilation, cell caked with human excrement, no light most of time, filed habeas corpus petition. Sept 7, 1966: DC ordered cells refitted so inmates will be supplied at least "the basic requirements which are essential to life," denied writ of habeas corpus.
411.39. Louisiana v Hays (Orleans Parish Co) 1966: Def arrested: aggravated rape. Def held 7 mths in prison altho alleged victim and witness left state and made known their unavailability. Preliminary h'g: charges dropped.

Le Beau, Dowling, Esqs, DeMontluzin Bldg, New Orleans.

411.40. US ex rel Marray v Louisiana (CA 5) 1966: Def convicted of attempted theft: sentenced to life imprisonment on basis of prior convictions. Issue: Louisiana's refusal to recognize out-of-state pardon. CA denied writ of habeas corpus.
411.41. Kaminstein v Brooklyn State Hospital (NY Sup Ct Brooklyn) Def state hospital construed new state mental hygiene law to deny patient right to periodic ct review of his case. Pl narcotics addict, brought habeas corpus action for release. Sup Ct ruled Def hospital misconstrued law, upheld writ, ordered Def to apply for ct hearing for Pl at once.
512.Ala.5. Alabama v Swain (Cir Ct of Talladega Co Cir Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 53, 119, 154; XI DOCKET 40, 100, at 512.Ala.5. Cir Ct convicted Negro of rape: death. 1965: USSC denied petition for certiorari. Pls filed Coram Nobis petition: discriminatory sentencing of Negroes for rape; unfettered jury discretion in sentencing; cruel, unusual punishment. Oct 25, 1966: h'g.

Orzell Billingsley, Peter Hall, Esqs, 1630 Fourth Ave N, Birmingham, Ala.

411.Misc. Mississippi v Cannon (Hattiesburg) (Miss Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 30. Sept 27, 1966: Miss Sup Ct affirmed conviction and life sentence of Def-Caucasian for rape of Negro girl.
412. In Extradition Cases
Article: D McKay Snow, Arrest prior to extradition of fugitives from justice of another state. 17 Hastings 767-83.
413. In Civil Cases
Comment: What is cruel and inhuman treatment? 15 Drake 125-35.
413.8. Parrish v Civil Service Commn. Now reported at 421.-Calif.a.
420. Due Process/Equal Protection for the Poor
And see: Rights of American Indians, 600.-605.

Right to Bail, 401.-404.

Rights of Citizens—Jury, Voting, 512.-513., 501.-505.

Rights of NonCitizens, 258.-259., 358.

Right to Counsel, Appeal, 371.-372., 374.-375.

Rights of Criminal Defendants, 300.-490.

Right to Education, 24., 281., 520s., 571.

Rights of Incompetents, 440.

Rights of Juveniles, 56., 430.

Right of Privacy, 295.

Criminal Charges—Vagrancy 57., Misc. 59.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment, 410.-413.

Employment Discrimination: political, 280s., racial, sex, age, 570s.

Federal Benefit Programs—Political discrimination in, 254., 255., 263., 346.

OEO Legal Service Offices, 375.

Small Claimants' Problems, 376.

Suits for False Arrest, Police Practices, 304.

Analysis: George Olshausen, Rich and poor in civil procedure. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 8a-8u.

Analysis: The poor and angry. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 287-292e.

Bibligraphy: Due process/equal protection for the poor. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK p 287b.

Legislation: Economic Opportunity Act Amdts-1966. Cong Rec—House. Sept 27, 1966. pp 23058-23068.

Articles: Carl Feiss, Progress and poverty—1965 version. 30 Law and Contemp Prob 193-98.

Fred Cohen, Law, lawyers, and poverty. 43 Texas 1072-93.

California Guild Chapters, Resolutions on Poverty Program. 25 Guild Practitioner 60-64.

Symposium: Legal needs of the poor. 66 Columbia 248-316.

Comments: General welfare, welfare economics, and zoning variances. 38 So Cal 548-93.

Participation of poor: §202(a) (3) organizations under EOA. 75 Yale 599.

Publications: Key List Mailing (KLM). SNCC. 449 14th St, San Francisco. $10/yr.

The Movement. SNCC. 449 14th St, San Francisco.

Flatlands. Bi-monthly newspaper. 933 12th St, Oakland. $5/yr.

JOIN Newsletter. 4533 N Sheridan Road, Chicago.

Welfare Rights Organization Newsletter. 520 7th St, Oakland, Calif.

Book: ten Broek, editor. Law of the poor. 500 pp. Chandler Pub Co, San Francisco. 1966.

421. Social Welfare Programs—Local (and see 251, 254, 255, 261, 263, 346, 426)
Form: OEO lawyer letter to county welfare dept. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK p 288.

Brief: Unconstitutionality of "substitute father" rules. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK 288a-288c.

Brief: Fed'l, state regulations on eligibility for AFDC. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK 288d-288g.

Hearings: US commn on civil rights, Cleveland (Apr 1-7, 1966): Welfare and education, pp 237-388.

Urban studies: US commn on civil rights, Children in need: Study of fed'lly assisted program of aid to needy families with children (Cleveland, Cuyahoga). 1966.

Publication: The Mississippi welfare rights handbook; contents: right to welfare assistance, where law of welfare is found, right to welfare assistance of families with children, old people, blind people, rights guaranteed by fedl and state law to applicants and recipients of welfare, how to determine when need exists for welfare and how much welfare grant should be. Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, Columbia U, NYC; NAACP Inc Fund.

And see Reed v Gardner, 255.4.

And see Smith v Ladner, 580.15 at XI DOCKET 109.

- 49 -

421.Calif.a. Parrish v Civil Service Commn (Calif Sup Ct) (51 C Rptr 589) Facts: X DOCKET 116, 151, XI DOCKET 90, at 413.8. DCA affirmed. Petition to Sup Ct for h'g pending.
421.Calif.10. Hercules v Dept of Social Welfare (San Francisco Super Ct, #561875) Facts: XI DOCKET 32. Atty Genl confessed error as to part of claim; Pl won.
421.Calif.11. California v Ford (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 91. 1966: USSC dismissed appeal for want of substantial fedl question. Cite: 384 US 100.
421.Calif.12. County of Alameda v Espinoza (Calif Sup Ct) (243 ACA 685) 1965: Pl filed complaint alleging Def's minor son detained and committed 18 mths by order of Juv Ct, cost: $1208, Def liable under Welf & Inst C §903. Def demurred: §903 violates 14th Amdt equal protection clause on its face and as applied by requiring parents to pay when children held due to acts which would be criminal if done by adult (§602); since Def's son held for attempt to commit murder and auto theft, detention was for society's safety so society should pay; citing Kirchner, 421.Cal.9, XII DOCKET 32, 400 P2d 321. Muni ct sustained demurrer; App Dept aff'd without opinion; DCA rev'd; Sup Ct refused to hear.

Bertram Edises, Esq, 1440 Broadway, Oakland.

See In re Dudley, 48 C Rptr 790 (DCA 1966).

421.Calif.13. Spiller v Celebrezze (CD Calif) Pl applied for social security benefits for child living with her but never legally adopted. LA office of SS denied; SS App Bd aff'd. Pl sued for review of admr decision. Before trial, referred back to SS App Bd for additional evidence. Bd granted benefits: "equitable adoption" qualifies one for benefits, is not only a defense.

Vester Grady, Esq, LA Legal Aid Society, 429 Cotton Exchange Bldg, 106 W 3d St, Los Angeles.

421.Colo.2. Fleming v Colorado State Bd of Educ (CA 10) Facts: XI DOCKET 91. DC granted Def's motion to dismiss: no allegation of violation of any fed'lly protected right. Pl appealed: right to education is fed'lly protected right, denial of this right by Def, because Pl's application not in conformity with invalid regulation, is compensable violation of 42 USC 1983. Pending.

Maley & Schiff, Esqs, 104 Broadway, Denver, Colo, 80203.

And see cases at 304, 580, 590.

421.Conn.3. In re B v Shapiro (New Haven) (6th Cir Ct, #CV6-655-24841) Sept 1965: Pet with 9 children arrived in Conn to seek employment; found temporary work; stopped work to have baby; sought new employment, but advised by social worker to go to welfare for aid. Jan 1966: Pet applied for AFDC; denied. After h'g, denial affirmed: Pet ineligible because (1) had no specific job on arrival in Conn, (2) without money to support her family for 3 mths, (3) applied for AFDC within 1 yr of arrival. Pet sued: (1) Conn statute, as interpreted by Resp, violates 14th Amend equal protection and privileges and immunities clause; (2) Ct may avoid constitutional issues by interpreting statute to disqualify only those who come to Conn to obtain AFDC or General Assistance benefits; (3) Pet arrived before effective date of statute. Pending.

Roger E Koontz, Esq, New Haven Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, 573 Congress Ave, New Haven, Conn 06519.

421.DC.3. Smith and Crowder v Dist of Col Bd of Commrs; Welfare Dir; Public Assistance Div Chief; Office of Investigations & Collections; Klugewicz and Froe, Investigators (DC DC) Pl-AFDC recipients allege: 1961-Mar 1966: Def investigators, under authority of other Defs, entered Pls' homes, searched, interrogated Pls re possible welfare fraud, guests, sexual activity, eavesdropped, threatened to terminate AFDC if Pls resisted. Je 3, 1966: Pls filed class suit for permanent injunction against investigative searches without warrant based on probable cause or consent, against terminating or diminishing AFDC for refusal to admit investigators, under 1st, 3d, 4th, 9th Amdts. Pending.

Hugh G Duffy and Francis A Cunning, Esqs, Neighborhood Legal Services Project, 3308 14th St NW, Washington, DC.

421.Ga.3. Anderson v Schaefer (Atlanta) (ND Ga, #10443) May-July, 1966: Pls-mothers notified benefits under AFDC terminated: seasonal, full-time employment available; and, under Ga statute 99.128, Co Welfare Depts prohibited from supplementing wages of mothers with full-time employment, directed to close all AFDC cases of mothers `available' for work during `full-time employment' periods (Ga Act 99.128). Pls seek injunction, declaratory judgment (42 USC §1983): Defs cannot arbitrarily exclude needy children from AFDC through restrictive policies; "employable mother regulation" denies equal protection: (1) children in fatherless families where mother works part-time receive aid if mother's income is less than Def's minimum standards; but children in fatherless families where mother works full-time do not receive aid if mother's income is less than Def's established minimum; (2) actual purpose is to cut Negro (not white) mothers off welfare rolls to provide cheap source of Negro woman and child labor for domestic and agricultural work: vague standards of regulation allow Defs to rule domestic and field work `unsuitable' and `unavailable' for whites; violation of due process by arbitrary, across-the-board denials of applications and closing of cases whenever co welfare bds determine `seasonal' full-time employment is available; conflict
- 50 -

between Social Security Act and Ga AFDC statute: Social Security Act intended to prevent disruption of families on ground of poverty alone and to enable mother to stay home and care for children. Pending.

C B King, Esq, PO Box 1024, Albany, Ga; James T Graham, Martin Garbus, Edward V Sparer, Esqs, Columbia Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 409 W 117th St, NYC; Jack Greenberg, Stephen Ralston, Charles Jones, Jr, Esqs, 10 Columbus Circle, NYC.

421.Miss.1. Holly Springs v McGee (Holly Springs) (DC Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 32. March 1966: Def arrested on charges dating back to Sept 1965. Case removed to DC; pending.
421.NY.2. Williams v New York (App Div, 3d Dept) (269 NYS 2d 786) Facts: XI DOCKET 91. 1966: App Div reversed; no cause of action by illegitimate child born to inmate of state mental hospital due to inadequate protection of mother from attack by another inmate; no supposed obligation of state to person to be conceived, damages not susceptible of ascertainment.
421.NY.3. Matter of P (NYC Dept of Welfare) Jy 6, 1966: After complaint, Dept issued bulletin (Informational #66-23): welfare clients have right to self-determination in using public assistance grants, including decision to have phone, quoted NY State Dept of Social Welfare Bull #134(d) (Dec 17, 1965) allowing extra assistance payments for phone when essential to job, health, safety.
422. Social Welfare Programs—Federal (and see 251, 254, 255, 261, 263, 346)
And see Weiss, 255.2 and .3 re nonCommunist disclaimer in Medicare.

And see Tepedino, 25.21; Turner, 51.Conn.3; Smith, 51.Conn.4; 17 Demonstrators, 51.NY.33.

Legislation: Comprehensive health planning and public health services amdts of 1966 (S 3008). Cong Rec—Sen. Oct 3, 1966. 23792-6.

Aritcle: Merton C Bernstein: The Coming Social Security Debate (Challenge, Sept 1966). Cong Rec—Sen. Oct 10, 1966, 24900.

422.2b. Chernock v Celebrezze (ED Pa) (241 FS 520) Pl-atty represented claimant before Social Security Admr; Admr set low fee under 20 CFR §404.976; Pl sued for review of fee. 1965: DC declined jurisdiction: "not alarming" fee allowed much lower than for similar work in other proceedings; no right to review under 42 USC §405(g).

Note: 26 Maryland 89.

422.6. Matter of Mrs C (NY Dept of Social Welfare) NYC Welfare Dept included Mr G's income in figuring welfare needs of Mrs C's 2 children because he lived in home and father of Mrs C's unborn child. Mrs C complained: Mr G not father of 2 children, refuses to support them, cannot be legally compelled to. State Dept ruled for Mrs C in letter to City Dept; City acknowledged in Dept Informational Bull 66-23—Jy 6, 1966.

Steven J Antler, Esq, Legal Services Unit, Mobilization for Youth, 320 E 3d St, NYC; Columbia U Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law.

422.7. Alabama v US (HEW) Pl refused to file form agreeing to desegregate all facilities receiving fed'l welfare funds. Apr 5, 1966: HEW h'g examiner recommended cutoff of funds for Ala for failure to comply with 1964 Civil Rights Act. Je 16: Pl notified Def it would go to court to avoid cutoff, charging Title VI of Act does not require third parties such as doctors' offices and nursing homes to be desegregated; HEW had no authority to cut off funds for programs such as old-age assistance and care for dependent children because of noncompliance in health-care programs.
423. Housing (and see 256, 530s)
And see Green, 51.NY.32; Gray, 51.NY.32a.

Form: Contract between tenants' organization and slumlord. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 290a-290d.

Form: Complaint for injunction against slumlord. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 290f-290k.

Analysis: State housing acts to protect tenants: NY, Calif, Pa. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 290s-290u.

Bibliography: Landlord-tenant problems of the poor. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK p 290e.

Brief: Tenants' constitutional right to complain to gov't about landlord without being evicted. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 2901-290r.

Hearings: US Civil rights commn, Cleveland (Apr 1-7, 1966): Housing, pp 18-236.

Conference papers: U of C law student papers (Nov 17-18, 1966), $3:

Bibliography on landlord-tenant;

Geoffrey A Braun, Are implied warranties the answer? 61 pp;

Edward Flitton, Rent withholding—Public and private. 40 pp;

Peggy A Hillman, Tenant unions in common law. 19 pp;

William Bowe, Model lease: Comparative study. 16 pp;

Arthur Friedman, Role of private institutions in urban housing. 6 pp;

Charles Pratt, Use of receiverships in rehabilitation of urban housing. 32 pp;

Edward A Christensen, Rent subsidies: Dream or reality? 24 pp.

Comment: Lessee's obligation under percentage lease. 60 Northwestern 677-88.

Legislation note: Abatement of rent in New York. 17 Syracuse 490-506.

Legislation: Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (S 3708). Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 19, 1966. 19202. Oct 17, 1966. 26204-26382.

Speech: Sparkman (Ala)—Housing and Urban Development Act of 1966 (S 3711). Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 11, 1966. 18214; Sec 102: Areas Affected by Civil Disorders. 18222.

Article: Joseph B Robison: Ghettos, Property Rights and Myths: Cong Rec—House. Aug 4, 1966. 17466.

423.Ala.1. Alabama v Johnson (Luverne) Facts: XI DOCKET 33. Grand jury failed to indict son of landlord for shooting Def-tenant's son. Case closed.
- 51 -

423.Calif.1. Fields and Ortiz v Sacramento Housing Authority (Sacramento Co Super Ct, ##163393, 163394) Def threatened to evict Pls, active in tenants' assn criticizing Def. Pls sued for injunction; Def claims right to evict without cause. Pending.

Lawrence Karlton, Esq, 926 J Bldg, Sacramento; Marshall Krause, Esq, ACLU-NC, 503 Market, San Francisco.

423.Ill.a. JOIN-Gutman Contract (Chicago) Facts: XI DOCKET 92. Additional facts: In return for repairs, JOIN agreed to help find tenants for 9 vacant apts in bldg.

Contract reprinted in CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK 290a-290d.

423.NY.2. Marigo v NYC Housing Authority (NYC Sup Ct, #2197/66) Facts: XI DOCKET 93. Aug 8, 1966: Ct dismissed petition: Def's standards for rejecting Pl from tenancy reasonable, based on adjudication as juvenile delinquent, youthful offender, conviction of minor offense, 7 arrests. Issue on appeal: inconsistent with prohibition against forfeiture of any right or privilege for youthful offender status or juvenile delinquent (NY Code of Crim Proc §913-n, NY Family Ct Act §782).

Nancy Le Blanc, Harold J Rothwax, Esqs, Legal Services Unit, Mobilization for Youth, 320 E 3d St, NYC 10009.

423.NY.4. NYC Tenants v NYC (Manhattan Sup Ct) 1963: Def planned eviction of 400 private tenants from downtown area to build $200,000,000 project of civic bldgs and skyscraper. 1966: 50 owners and tenants sued: Def not able

to solve financial and parking problems; unfair to evict now if project will founder and only a parking lot will result, as in similar project. Sept 23, 1966: Loreto, J, granted injunction against eviction notices.

423.NC.1. Thorpe v Durham Housing Authority (USSC, #712) (418 SE2d 290) Facts: XI DOCKET 33, 93. Oct 21, 1966: Def filed petition for cert: Was Negro tenant of low-income housing project (constructed with fedl funds, administered by municipal housing authority), deprived of 1st, 5th, 14th Amdt rights by Pl's refusal to accord h'g on reasons for terminating Def's lease after Def elected officer in tenants' organization? Pending.

M C Burt, Esq, 213½ W Main St, Durham; R Michael Frank, Esq, 1100 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC; Edward V Sparer, Martin Garbus, Howard Thorkelson, Esqs, Columbia Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, NYC; NAACP Inc Fund.

423.NC.2. Richardson v Housing Authority, City of New Bern (DC NC) Def operates 2 segregated public h'g projects built with fed'l aid: one for Negroes, one for whites. Leases require tenants to notify Def and vacate within 30 days if illegitimate children born to tenant or member of immediate family. 1965: Pls, mothers of illegitimate children, sued to restrain evictions: (1) they have right to fair h'g on adequacy, propriety of ground for eviction; (2) substantive ground for impending eviction violates equal protection and due process clauses; (3) temporary restraining order needed when irreparable harm will otherwise occur. DC entered temporary restraining order enjoining further evictions for illegitimate births until preliminary injunction h'g. Jy 1, 1966: Pls moved for prompt ruling on pending motions to dismiss; to inspect records filed. Pending.

Conrad O Pearson, Esq, 203½ E Chapel Hill St, Durham, NC; J Levonne Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte, NC; Edward V Sparer, Esq, Columbia Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law, 2 East 91st St, NYC; NAACP Inc Fund.

424. Credit Problems (and see 376)
Form: Bankruptcy information. CIVIL RIGHTS HAND-BOOK pp 291-291g.

Bibliography: Consumer credit, credit regulation, computation of interest, credit unions, credit cards, loan industry, abuses and usury, collection agencies, attachment and garnishment, wage earner plan. CIVIL RIGHTS HAND-BOOK pp 291h-291m.

Article: George Brunn, Wage garnishment in California: study and recommendations. 53 Cal 1214-53.

Legislation: NY Laws 1966, prohibit dismissal or lay-off of employee to avoid compliance with income execution, Ch 613 amending Civ Prac Law & Rules by inserting Sec 5252, effective Jan 1, 1967.

Comments: Wage earner bankruptcy: a neglected remedy? 34 Fordham 388-504.

Wage earner plans in Nebraska. 45 Nebraska 119-47.

Problem of consumer bankruptcy: is amendment of bankruptcy act the answer? 63 Mich 1449-64.

Syndicate loan-shark activities and New York's usury statute. 66 Columbia 167-77.

Unconscionable contracts under Uniform Commercial Code §2-302. 20 Ark 165-70; 114 Penn 998-1105; 41 Washington 621-8; 51 Cornell 768-79.

424.4. Mississippi v M Gordon (DC Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 33. Defs had case removed to fedl ct. Pending. Agreement by Pl to dismiss charges in next term of Police Ct.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss, 39202.

425. Warranties, Service (and see 376)
Bibliography: Misrepresentation and warranty, rights of vendor and purchaser. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 291n-291o.

Legislation: Fair packaging and labeling act—S 985. Cong Rec—House. Oct 3, 1966. pp 23856-23870.

Article: Robert W Steele, Caveat emptor under the Robinson-Patman act—Reappraisal of current developments in buyer's liability. 27 Ohio State 19-75.

Comments: Translating sympathy for deceived consumers into effective programs for protection. 114 U of Pa 395-450.

Limitations on remedy of "strict tort" liability for manufacture and sale of goods. 17 W Reserve 300-17.

426. Family Problems (and see 421, 560s)
Analysis: Jacobs ten Broek, Dual system of family law. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 292-292e.

Articles: Thomas P Lewis and Robert J Levy, Family law and welfare policies:

The case for "dual systems." 54 California 748-80;

Walter O Weyrauch, Dual systems of family law: A comment. 54 California 781-91.

Monrad G Paulsen, Juvenile courts, family courts, and the poor man. 54 California 694-716.

Herma H Kay and Irving Philips, Poverty and the law of child custody. 54 California 717-40.

Hasseltine B Taylor, Guardianship or "permanent placement of children." 54 California 741-747.

Legislation: Florida's mandatory reporting statute on battered children. 18 Florida L Rev 503-11.

Comments: The Negro family—Moyniham report, News Digest, US Dept of Labor, Week of May 2, 1966.

Carper, The Negro family and the Moynihan report. Dissent, Mar-Apr 1966.

- 52 -

426.2. Re A (San Francisco Co Welfare) 1964: Young divorced white mother of 2 became emotionally disturbed; left children with sister; hospitalized. 1965: Children placed in foster homes. Mother returned home, one child returned to her, both receiving welfare and medical care. Social worker opposed return of 2d child: mother's health; A's atty alleged opposition based on disapproval of A's active role in public housing tenant's union, relationship with Negro man.

James Herndon, Esq, 341 Market St, San Francisco.

426.3. Re B (San Francisco Juvenile Ct) 1966: 2 Negro boys, 7 and 10, pulled down pants of 9 yr old white girl in park. Police handcuffed boys, took to Youth Guidance Center. Probation officer refused to release boys to mother's custody; filed petition charging neglect by unmarried mother, seeking to place boys in foster home. Pending.

James Herndon, Esq, 341 Market St, San Francisco.

427. Employment Problems (and 263, 346, 570s)

427.4. Argo v Goodstein (Philadelphia) (Sup Ct, E Div) Pl, blind, sold brooms from door to door, including Def's business establishment. Jy 11, 1960: Pl entered Def's establishment, fell 18 feet to concrete pavement because floor not completed. Pl sued in trespass against Def as individual and against Good Co. Suits consolidated; jury found for Pl; verdict total $27,500. Def appealed: Def did not owe special care to Pl as blind man. Oct 3, 1966: Sup Ct affirmed Ct of Common Pleas: (1) Pl at least licensee on property because he had been on property before with owner's consent; therefore Def must refrain from injuring Pl by failing to tell him of latent defect in property; Def could have reasonably accomplished this by locking door. (2) Freedom of mobility is fundamental right of Amreican citizenry, including blind; others have duty of reasonable care to protect blind. (3) Duty of blind is to use due care under circumstances, by using artificial aids to discern obstacles, in order to compensate for blindness; jury properly found Pl used reasonable care.
429. Miscellaneous (and see 13, 57, 59, 490)
Speeches: Antiriot Bill permitted to die while riots continue. Cong Rec—House: Oct 21, 1966, 27485.

Antiriot Amendment, Section 502 of Civil Rights Act of 1966: Cong Rec—House. Aug 18, 1966, 19103.

Statement: Katzenbach, before Subcomm on Executive Reorganization, Sen Comm on Gov't Operation: On causes of riots. Aug 17, 1966.

Cleveland riots—Summer 1966:

Buchanan (Ala), Cleveland riots and communism. Cong Rec—House. Aug 29, 1966. 20115-17.

Lausche (Ohio), Grand jury finds communists organized riot. Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 10, 1966. 18058-9.

Sweeney (Ohio), Grand jury indictment. Cong Rec—House. Aug 18, 1966. 19041-44.

Curtis (Mo), Natl conspiracy seen in riots. Cong Rec—Sen. Jy 28, 1966. 16635.

Report: Special Grand Jury Report relating to Hough Riots. Cong Rec—Sen. Oct 20, 1966, 26954.

Riots not reported in DOCKET:

Waukegan, Ill—end of Aug 1966; Chicago, Ill—summer 1966; Omaha, Neb—Aug 1966; Philadelphia, Pa—Aug 1966; Troy, NY—Jy 1966.

And see Hunter's Pt, 59.59; Bonner, 51.Ala.7.

And see Turner, 51.Conn.3.

And see Dawson, 303.71.

WATTS REVOLT (Los Angeles, Aug 11-16, 1965)

Statistical study: Calif Atty Genl, State Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 46 pp. Sept 1, 1966.

Address: Dist Atty Evelle J Younger, Practical and legal aspects of riots, before ABA Section on Criminal Law. Je 9, 1966.

Legislation: Gov Brown signed "anti-riot" act. Je 21, 1966.

429.2b. Calif v Frye (Los Angeles Super Ct, App Div) Facts: XI DOCKET 34, 93. At trial, argued "because of Mrs. Frye's action we have 30 or 40 people dead . . . millions of dollars worth of destruction . . . blight on our city's history that is going to take 50 or 100 years to erase"; DA released report which received widespread news coverage (3 jurors saw story) absolving arresting officers of any misconduct. Conviction reversed: DA's improper statements on causal connection between Def's action and Watts riot was neither judicially established nor subject to judicial notice; prejudicial news stories denied Def fair trial.
429.2e. Brooks, Lavine v Los Angeles Super Ct (2d Dist Ct of App, #29878) Facts: XI DOCKET 34. DA dropped charges against Potts and Lavine, passengers in Brooks' car.

And see Brooks, 429.2ee.

429.2ee. California v P Brooks (Los Angeles Super Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 34, at 429.2e. Apr 24, 1966: Negro Def tried for murder of white policeman killed by another white policeman. Def contended innocence; DA alleged Def tried to seize policeman's gun, causing discharge which killed Dep Ludlow. Apr 27: After 3 days, jury acquitted Def.

Kenneth Thomas, Esq, 4840 W Washington Blvd; Benjamin Wyatt, Esq, 4034 Buckingham Rd, both of Los Angeles.

- 53 -

429.4. Watkins v Los Angeles Municipal Ct (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 94. Correction: Dec 6, 1965: Douglas, J, referred case to USSC (382 US 935). Jan 1966: USSC denied cert. 382 US 1010.
430. Due Process for Juvenile Offenders (see 56)

Articles: Orman W Ketcham, Legal renaissance in juvenile court. 60 Northwestern 585-98.

Nial Osborough, Police discretion not to prosecute juveniles. 28 Modern L Rev 421-77.

Monrad G Paulsen, Legal framework for child protection. 66 Columbia 679-717.

Charles W Quick, Constitutional rights in juvenile court. 12 Howard 76-109.

Joel F Handler, Juvenile court and adversary system: Function and form. 1965 Wisconsin 7-51.

Comments: Juvenile offender, some problems and possible solutions. 53 Kentucky 781-89.

A look at California juvenile court. 1 Lincoln 166-95.

Juvenile delinquents: police, state courts, and individualized justice. 79 Harvard 775-810.

Symposium: Juvenile delinquency. 11 Wayne 595-716.

430.4. Application of Gault (USSC) (pjn 384 US 997) Facts: XI DOCKET 35, 94. Je 20, 1966: USSC noted probable jurisdiction.
430.5. Kent v US (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 152; XI DOCKET 30, 94. Cite: 383 US 541 (1966).
430.8. Miller v Rhay (Washington) (USSC, #1180) Def, 16 yrs old, arrested for auto theft, placed directly in county jail, fingerprinted, photographed, rather than taken before Juvenile Ct. Def not informed of his right to Juvenile Ct h'g or allowed to attend. Juvenile Ct turned Def over to Super Ct; Def tried, convicted. Je 16, 1965: Wash Sup Ct affirmed. Apr 4, 1966: USSC granted cert and informa pauperis. June 21: USSC per curiam vacated and remanded, citing Dillenberg v Maxwell, 430.7, 413 P2d 940.

Arthur Barnett, Michael Rosen, Eqs, Wash CLU, Smith Tower, Seattle.

And see Dillenberg, 430.7, XI DOCKET 95.

430.9. Florida v Parker (Fla Sup Ct) Def-juvenile arrested: breaking and entering, robbery, auto theft. Def not informed of right to counsel; had none. Juv Ct claimed Def not entitled to notice of right to counsel. On appeal, Dist Ct affirmed: juvenile proceedings not criminal. Issue: since Def's offense would be felony if Def an adult and rehabilitation equivalent to imprisonment, Def entitled to full adversary protections, including right to counsel. Appeal pending.

Tobias Simon, Esq, ACLU, 223 SE 1st St, Miami.

430.10. Scott v Maxwell (Wash Sup Ct) Dec 1964: Def committed to juvenile institution as delinquent child. Dec 1965: transferred to Washington State Reformatory as incorrigible. Def seeks habeas corpus asserting unconstitutionality of state statute which permits juvenile to be sent to prison without being convicted of a crime. Pending.

Arthur Barnett, Arnold Barer, Michael Rosen, Esqs, Wash CLU, Smith Tower, Seattle.

430.12. In re Yulbritton Collins (New Orleans) 1966: Son of Mrs. Virginia Collins arrested for allegedly breaking traffic light. Family consultation held by Juvenile Authorities.

And see Re Virginia Collins, 30.19.

430.13. New York v Johnson (Family Ct, Westchester Co) 1966: Def, age 10, charged with arson. Challenge to interrogation procedure pending.

David Avstreih, Esq, NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

430.14. Re Crigler (King Co Juv Ct) Pet-14-yr old, adjudged delinquent, committed to juvenile institution after h'g. Pet petitioned Super Ct to set aside adjudication: h'g void of due process: Pet and parents had no notice of h'g, were not able to hire atty, were not given right of cross-examination. Super Ct granted petition. Pet released. Awaiting re-trial.

Richard Young, Esq, ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

430.15. In re Macidon (San Francisco Juvenile Ct) 1966: Judge O'Connor issued blanket order: detention proceedings to be started for every child charged with felony, contrary to Welfare and Inst Code §636 (child may be ordered detained not to exceed 15 days pending h'g on charges against him if "it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of such minor or the person or property of another that he be detained or that such minor is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the ct"). Def, age 12, charged with being one of 5 boys who snatched girl's purse containing 35¢ and bus ticket. Def denied he had been involved; at liberty 1 mth. Probation officer suddenly scheduled detention h'g; without taking evidence Judge O'Connor ordered him detained. Dist Ct of App reversed; held detention order invalid for lack of any evidentiary support.

Ralph Boches, Esq, 235 Montgomery, San Francisco.

440. Due Process for Incompetent Defendants
Articles: Richard Arens, Jackwell Susman, Judges, jury charges and insanity. 12 Howard 1-34.

Richard Arens, Defense of Walter X Wilson: Insanity plea and skirmish in war on poverty. 11 Villanova 259-322.

M Cherif Bassiouni, Right of mentally ill to cure and treatment: Medical due process. 15 DePaul 291-312.

Fred Cohen, Function of attorney and commitment of mentally ill. 44 Texas 424-69.

Fred A Dewey, Civil incompetency in Ohio: determination and effect. 34 Cincinnati 419-61.

Bernard Diamond and David W Louisell, Psychiatrist as expert witness. 63 Michigan 1335-54.

Herbert Fingarette, Concept of mental disease in criminal law insanity tests. 33 Chicago 229-46.

James K L Lawrence, Sanity: Psychiatric-legal communicative gap. 27 Ohio State 219-36.

Robert J Levy, Protecting mentally retarded: Empirical survey and evaluation of establishment of state guardianship in Minnesota. 49 Minnesota 821-87.

Travis H Lewin, Mental disorder and federal indigent. 11 So Dakota 198-254.

John Magnus, Mental incompetency. 18 Baylor 22-75.

John G Magnus, Psychiatric evidence in common law courts. 17 Baylor 1-40.

John L More, Jr, M'Naughten is dead—or is it? 3 Houston 58-83.

Barry B Swadron, Collateral attack of fed'l convictions on ground of mental incompetency. 39 Temple 117-37.

Carl R Vann, Fred Morganroth, Psychiatrist as judge: second glance at competence to stand trial. 43 Detroit 1-12.

Carl R Vann, Analysis of use of psychiatric information in administration of criminal justice. 43 Detroit 13-34.

Thomas A Welch, Delinquency proceedings—fundamental fairness for accused in quasi-criminal forum. 50 Minnesota 653-96.

Comments: Civil commitment of mentally ill: theories and procedures. 79 Harvard 1288-98.

Legislative changes in New York criminal insanity statutes. 40 St Johns 75-82.

To kill a mockingbird—stare decisis and M'Naughten in Maryland. 26 Maryland 141-48.

- 54 -

440.1. New York v Codarre (CA 2) (cd 379 US 883, 1964) Facts: X DOCKET 47, 117. 1943: Def, 13-year old epileptic, killed girl: 30 yrs to life. 1965: SD NY refused writ of habeas corpus. Je 28, 1966: CA 2 reversed conviction: constitutional rights of Def cannot be waived by his counsel where Def himself does not "intelligently and knowingly agree to be tried in a proceeding which was the equivalent of a guilty plea." Def released.
440.9. Rees v Cunningham (DC Va, Alexandria) Def, jazz musician, charged with slaying family of 4. DC Md convicted: life imprisonment for 2 of the deaths. Va state ct: convicted: death for murder of other 2. May 31, 1966: USSC ordered psychiatric and medical examination in DC Alexandria. Jy 6: DC ordered Def committed to Medical Center for fed'l prisoners at Springfield, Mo.

S White Rhyne, Jr, Esq, 515 Southern Bldg, Washington, DC; John J Brandt, Esq, 2116 Wilson Blvd, Arlington, Va.

440.10. US v Charles Freeman (CA 2) 1963: Def convicted: 2 counts of selling narcotics. Feb 28, 1966: CA reversed: person is not responsible for criminal conduct if he lacks mental capacity either to know that an act is wrong or to control himself.

Anthony F Mana, Esq, Legal Aid Society, 100 Center St, NYC.

440.11. Louisiana ex rel Joseph Jenkins v Gov Davis. 1962: Def found guilty of murder, sentenced to execution. Became insane after conviction. DC denied appeal. La Sup Ct denied appeal. Dist Ct granted habeas corpus writ, confining Def to state hospital for criminally insane. Execution stayed.

La CLU, 1911 Terpsichore St, New Orleans.

450. Post-Conviction Remedies
Form: Motion, affidavit to appeal in forma pauperis, by George W Crockett. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 189-190.

Form: Application for certificate of probable cause, notice of appeal to US Court of Appeals, by Arthur Kinoy. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK p 109.

Articles: Herbert Monte Levy, Justice—after trial (part II). 11 NY L F 369-457.

John F Raper, Post conviction remedies. 19 Wyoming 213-20.

H D Salassi, Jr, Post-conviction remedies and waiver of constitutional rights. 26 Louisiana 666-718.

Case note: Court of appeals has power under §2106 of Judicial Code to modify death sentence imposed in violation of correct sentencing procedures: Coleman v US (CA DC 1965). 11 Villanova 644-49.

Comments: Failure to file timely notice of appeal in criminal cases: excusable neglect. 41 Notre Dame 73-87.

Uncertain rules of timeliness in petitions for writ of habeas corpus. 11 Villanova 589-601.

Symposium: Post-conviction remedies. 27 Ohio State 237-336.

451. In State Courts in State Cases
Form: Application for leave to petition for writ of error coram nobis. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 98-104.

Articles: Thomas E Fairchild, Post conviction rights and remedies in Wisconsin. 1965 Wisconsin 52-71.

Jules B Gerard, Some factors influencing outcome of felony appeals in Missouri. 1966 Washington 59-65.

Comments: Habeas corpus and 1966 conviction hearing act: major Pennsylvania remedies in criminal procedure. 39 Temple 188-207.

State appeals in criminal cases. 32 Tennessee 449-71.

State post-conviction hearings and constitutional requirements. 27 Pittsburgh 129-32.

451.3. Sam v Baldwin (Saginaw Co Cir Ct) Def-Justice of Peace ordered Pl detained in padlocked room at Co Hospital: drunkenness in public place. Pl's atty obtained writ of superintending control against Def. Hospital Director ignored order to release Pl. Pl obtained writ of habeas corpus. Ct ordered immediate release of Pl.

Robert Loucks, Esq, ACLU, 597 Professional Bldg, Saginaw, Michigan.

452. In Federal Courts in State Cases
Article: Lewis Mayers, Fed'l review of state convictions: Need for procedural reappraisal. 34 George Washington 615-65.

Comments: Burden of fed'l habeas corpus petitions from state prisoners. 52 Virginia 486-507.

Incompetency and inadequacy of counsel as basis for relief in fed'l habeas corpus proceedings. 20 Southwestern 136-50.

- 55 -

453. In Federal Cases
Forms and discussions: Post-appeal procedures in federal courts, by Arthur Kinoy. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 95-111, incl forms for stay pending appeal, application for certificate of probable cause.
454. Compensation for Victims of Violence (and 304)
Articles: Paul Rothstein, State compensation for criminally inflicted injuries. 44 Texas 38-54.

LeRoy G Schultz, A proposal to compensate victims of violent crime. 10 St Louis 238-50.

Luis Kutner, Crime-torts: Due process of compensation for crime victims. 41 Notre Dame 487-506.

Comments: Compensation to victims of violent crimes. 61 Northwestern 72-104; 30 Albany 325-33; 40 St Johns 67-75; 19 Vanderbilt 220-28; 40 Tulane 649-53; 50 Minnesota 213-310.

California enacts legislation to aid victims of criminal violence. 18 Stanford 266-73.

454.1. Worthington v California (State Bd of Control) 1965: Pl approached by officer Polani with plan to burglarize Stanford mansion. Pl worked with police to foil burglary. Burglars convicted at trial with Pl key witness. Pl filed suit for $150,000 under 1965 law providing compensation for losses incurred by private citizens who assist and co-operate in apprehension of a criminal: charged loss of business, physical and mental damage. Pending.

Lewis Yapp, Esq, 1182 Market, San Francisco.

460. Sentencing and Clemency Procedures
461. Sentencing Process (and 411)
S. 3753: Commitment procedures for persons found not guilty by reason of insanity: Cong Rec—Sen, Aug 23, 1966, 19423.
461.6. Maxwell v Stephans, Warden (USSC) (348 F2d 325; cd 382 US 944) Facts: X DOCKET 47, 117; XI DOCKET 35. USSC denied cert.
461.7. Mitchell v Stephans (CA 8, #17835) (353 F2d 129, 11 RRLR 451) Facts: X DOCKET 48. Aug 4, 1964: After CA remanded for h'g on charge of discrimination on jury, DC denied habeas corpus petition; held Pet failed to establish racial discrimination in jury selection or to show discriminatory application of state rape statute. Nov 24, 1965: CA affirmed.
461.9. Michigan v Moore (Mich Ct of App, #142) Facts: XI DOCKET 94. Issue on appeal: should ct have granted credit for time served in voided conviction. Ct of App denied appeal. Appeal to Sup Ct pending.

Sol Plafkin, Esq, 4762 Second Ave, Detroit.

461.10. In re Small (Maricopa Co Super Ct, #17494) Def arrested in El Mirage; police searched his trailer without his consent; charged with misdemeanor: possessing pictures of women and women's bodies deemed obscene. Def pleaded guilty without having rights explained, without knowledge of charge against him. City Magistrate sentenced him: 330 days in Co Jail. Super Ct granted writ of habeas corpus: complaint did not validly charge commission of crime, sentence far in excess of sentence provided by law. Def released.

Robert J Corcoran, Esq, 1518 Arizona Title Bldg, Phoenix.

462. Applications for and Conditions of Probation

462.1. Faucette v California Dept of Corrections (Los Angeles Super Ct) Pl, on probation, living in Synanon, self-help center for addicts. Probation officer ordered Pl to move. State Atty Genl contends Def has absolute, uncontrolled discretion in setting conditions of probation, ct has no power to review its actions. Jan 26, 1966: Sup Ct granted habeas writ to Pl.

And see Hernandez, 411.34.

463. Applications for Parole
Article: Timothy J Walker, Lack of due process in revocations of bench paroles in Iowa. 15 Drake 35-46.
463.2. Michigan v Mallory (Mich Sup Ct, #51,212) Facts: XI DOCKET 96. 1966: Sup Ct held indigent Def entitled to appointment of appellate counsel for appeal from misdemeanor and to free transcript.

Rolland R O'Hare, Sheldon M Meizlish, Esqs, ACLU, 1256 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit.

463.2a. Michigan v Copeland (Mich Sup Ct, #51,213) Facts: XI DOCKET 96. 1966: Sup Ct held indigent Def entitled to appointment of appellate counsel.

Rolland R O'Hare, Sheldon M Meizlish, Esqs, ACLU, 1256 Penobscot Bldg, Detroit.

464. Applications for Pardons or Executive Clemency
465. Applications for Expungement or Certificates of Rehabilitation

465.1. Statman v Kelly (NY Sup Ct, App Div) Facts: X DOCKET 152. 1965: Sup Ct dismissed action to expunge arrest records. App Div affirmed; denied leave to appeal to Ct of App.
466. Parole and Probation Problems (and 462, 463)

466.2. Register v US (CA 4) 1965: DC conducted probation-revocation h'g without notice to Def of probation terms he was charged with violating; revoked probation on hearsay evidence. Apr 15, 1966: CA affirmed: adequacy of notice to probationer of request for revocation may not be challenged on appeal from revocation; acceptance of hearsay testimony did not infringe Def's right. Oct 10: USSC denied cert.

Charles Fuller Blanchard, Irvia Tucker, Jr, Esqs, Wachovia Bldg, Raleigh, NC.

490. Miscellaneous Due Process (and see 429)
Articles: F R Lacy, "Civilizing" nonjury trials. 19 Vanderbilt 73-149.

Rollin M Perkins, Some weak points in model penal code. 17 Hastings 3-16.

Comment: Retroactivity of constitutional decisions. 17 Hastings 124-31.

Symposium: Symposium on Warren Commission Report. 40 NYU 403-524.

- 56 -

490.25. Giacco v Pennsylvania (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 118; XI DOCKET 96. Cite: 382 US 399.
490.27. Michigan v Thomas (Mich Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 96. Def appealed: multiple denials of due process. Def paroled while case pending.

Ronald Resoti, Esq, ACLU, 2905 Cadillac Tower, Detroit 48226.

490.29. New Jersey v Wolf (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 96. Cite: 216 A2d 586.
- 57 -



Articles: Alfred Avins, "State action" and Fourteenth Amendment. 17 Mercer 352-63.

Gil Cantor, How black is black? Legal Intelligencer (Philadelphia, Pa), Jy 21, 1966.

John E Duda, Damages for mental suffering in discrimination cases. 15 Cleveland-Marshall 1-57.

Ferdinand F Fernandez, Constitutionality of Fourteenth Amendment. 39 So California 378-407.

Melville B Nimmer, Proposal for judicial validation of previously unconstitutional law: Civil rights act of 1875, 65 Columbia 1394-1426.

Harold J Spaeth, Race relations and Warren court. 43 Detroit 161-272.

George W Crockett, Civil rights in Michigan. Mich State Bar J (Mar 1966).

500. Elections
Article: Elbert P Tuttle, Equality and the vote. 41 NYU 245-66.
501. Racial Discrimination (and see 51)

Articles: Alfred Avins, Fifteenth Amendment and literacy tests: Original intent, 18 Stanford 808-22; Contemporary understanding, 30 Albany 229-60.

Warren M Christopher, Constitutionality of 1965 Voting Rights Act. 18 Stanford 1-37.

Charles V Hamilton, Southern judges and Negro voting rights: Judicial approach to solution of controversial social problems. 1965 Wisconsin 72-102.

Comment: Fedl protection of Negro voting rights. 51 Vanderbilt 1051-1213.

Mississippi: Subversion of right to vote, SNCC research department, Key List Mailing 190.

Dilemma facing Supreme Court: Constitutionality of section 4(E) of Voting Rights Act of 1965. 12 Howard 253-69.

1965 voting rights act and state literacy tests. 30 Albany 112-23.

Address: Archibald Cox, Constitutionality of proposed Voting Rights Act of 1965. 3 Houston 1-10.

501.Ala.6. US v Penton (MD Ala, N Div, Civ #1741-N) (236 FSupp 511, 9 RRLR 1794; 11 RRLR 256) Facts: VIII DOCKET 37, 83. Dec 17, 1964: DC granted Pl's motion to order Defs to register certain Negroes; denied Pl's motion to appoint fed'l referees; denied Defs' motion to dissolve 1962 injunction against discriminatory registration. 1965: Defs moved to have appointments of fed'l registrars under 1965 Voting Rights Act declared void or have registrars enjoined from registering persons other than those qualified under state law. Dec 8: DC held (1) motion challenged Act's constitutionality and Ct lacked jurisdiction; (2) Defs directed to continue compliance with 1962 injunction; (3) injunction modified to be consistent with less stringent requirements of Act.
501.Ala.17a. US v Alabama (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 37. Cite for USSC denial of leave to US Atty Gen'l to file original bill of complaint to challenge directly state ct decision in 501.Ala.17: 382 US 897.
501.Ala.20. Gray v Main (MD Ala, #2430-N) May 3, 1966: Election officials conducted various discriminatory practices against Negro voters, candidates. Jy 5: Pls filed suit to modify, void primary elections. DC granted motion for temporary restraining order to preserve ballots, other election records. DC on own motion ordered US to participate. Most Defs entered motions to dismiss. Pls entered motions for interrogatories, production of documents. Pending.

Solomon Seay, Esq, 205 20th St N, Birmingham.

501.Ala.21. Gilmore v Greene Co Democratic Party Executive Comm (ND Ala, #66-341) May 3, 1966: Election officials discriminated against illiterate voters, defrauded Negro candidates in primary. May 31: Pls filed suit to void or modify election. DC granted temporary restraining order to preserve ballots, overruled Def's motion to dismiss.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1640 Fourth St NW, Birmingham.

501.Ala.23. US v Alabama Democratic Executive Comm (Dallas Co) (DC Ala) May 3, 1966: primary election for nomination for Co sheriff. Def-comm announced it would not accept votes from 6 predominantly Negro voting boxes; without those votes, Baker, moderate on race issues, would receive only majority of votes cast, with those votes, he would have plurality. May 5: US sued under §12(d), 1965 Voting Rights Act to enjoin Defs from (1) destroying or altering any ballots, (2) failing to allow fed'l observers to keep watch over ballots, (3) failing to folow Ala laws requiring formal declaration of results prior to challenges. May 7: DC ordered Def to appear for show-cause h'g May 16, issued temporary injunction forbidding tampering with ballots.

US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC.

501.Ala.24. Agee v Freeman, Dept of Agriculture (DC DC) Aug 9, 1966: Pls-Negro sharecroppers sought injunction to bar election in Ala to determine comm that administers local programs of US Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service: elections dominated by Caucasians who use bribery, fraud, violence. Pls sought postponement of elections until Dept has informed and explained to Negroes their rights and protects them during voting. Def-Dept Secy argued: (1) no differences in goals of Def and Pls, (2) ct has no jurisdiction in administrative matter unless Def has been arbitrary, capricious, abused discretion. Pending.

Donald Jelinek, Esq, Selma, Ala.

501.Ariz.1. Apache, Navajo, Cococino Counties v Katzenbach (DC DC) Under 1965 Voting Rights Act, all tests used to qualify voters suspended in states or subdivisions in which less than half voting age populations participated in 1964 presidential elections. Feb 4, 1966: Pl-Cos sued for 3-judge fed'l ct for judgment that for last 5 yrs no test has been used in Cos to deny right to vote on account of race or color. Je 8: Def-Dept of Justice agreed to entry of judgment requested by Pls, based on affidavits and extensive investigation.
- 58 -

501.Ark.2. Faubus v Fields (Ark Sup Ct, #5-3618) (388 SW2d 558, 11 RRLR 258) 1965: Pls sued to invalidate changes in voter registration affidavit requiring: (1) each registrant to list race and party affiliation, (2) providing for additional persons before whom affidavit might be sworn. Trial Ct held (1) invalid, upheld (2). Apr 5, 1965: Sup Ct held all changes invalid.
501.Calif.1. Spanish-Speaking Political Assn v California (ND Calif) Pl sued for preliminary injunction to halt statewide elections: State requirement that person must be able to read Calif constitution in order to vote: (1) contrary to Calif constitution which guarantees voting open to all, whether their language be English or Spanish, (2) discriminates against Spanish-speaking citizens. Oct 27, 1966: DC denied motion: action filed too late for any practical consideration.

Ricardo A Callejo, Esqs, 625 Market St, San Francisco.

501.Ga.5. Bell v Southwell (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 37. Pl's appeal pending in suit to void election in Americus because of segregated voting booths.
501.La.8. US v Fox (Plaquemines Parish) Facts: X DOCKET 49; XI DOCKET 37. Cite for cert den: 381 US 436 (1965).
501.La.13. US v Harvey; US v Palmer (W Feliciana Parish) (CA 5, ##21646, 21647) (11 RRLR 260) Facts: X DOCKET 49. Feb 8, 1966: CA reversed DC denial of injunction, included proposed injunction on remand.
501.La.13a. Louisiana v Jackson, Williams (W Feliciana Parish) (Jud Dist Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 38. Aug 10, 1966: CA 5 affirmed DC's remand order on state criminal charges against first Negro voter registrants for making false statements on registrations. Trial pending in state ct.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, 70113.

501.La.14. US v Palmer (E Feliciana Parish) (CA 5) (356 F2d 951) Facts: X DOCKET 49. Feb 8, 1966: 1966: CA reversed DC refusal to order Def-registrars to keep offices open during hrs required by state law and to process applications.
501.La.18a. Gallinghouse v Katzenbach (Orleans Parish) (ED La, #15863) Facts: XI DOCKET 38. DC held against Pl; no appeal taken.
501.La.19. Louisiana v Dawson, Martin, Johnson (Tallulah) (Jud Dist Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 38. Case removed to fedl DC. Je 27, 1966: DC remanded on basis of Peacock, 55.Miss.5a, 304 US 808. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

And see Bannister, 503.La.2.

501.Miss.3. US v Ramsey (CA 5, #20596; SD Miss, #1084) (353 F2d 650, 11 RRLR 294) Facts: X DOCKET 50. Aug 4, 1964: DC found pattern and practice of discrimination against Negroes in voter registration process, enjoined Defs from engaging in any practice denying Negroes right to register, using procedure different from and more stringent than that used in qualifying Caucasian applicants. Dec 1: DC ordered Def to file monthly reports on Negro applicants rejected. Pl appealed: sought writ of mandamus from CA to determine whether trial ct had accorded effective, timely, adequate relief. Nov 12, 1965: CA reversed and remanded: (1) standard consistent with 1965 Voting Rights Act must be applied, (2) DC erred in failing to make its findings on pattern and practice of discrimination an affirmative finding so clear as to guide parties, (3) DC erred in its order of monthly reports as CA mandate called for monthly reports as to all applicants, (4) Voting Rights Act requires 5-yr freeze on every voter qualification test, whether or not previously applied to Caucasians.
501.Miss.8. US v Cox (formerly v Dogan) (Tallahatchie Co) (ND Miss, Delta Div, #D-C-53-61) (11 RRLR 269) Facts: X DOCKET 51, 153. Mar 15, 1965: DC ordered Def, registrar, to permit certain Negroes already accepted to complete their registration by signing registration book, to allow others rejected to complete registration, to give notice of compliance. DC found Defs guilty of civil contempt in numerous instances of discrimination in registration procedure. Dec 10: DC modified earlier orders to prohibit use of literacy tests, ordered Def to comply with all previous orders to purge himself of contempt, under $200 a day fine until compliance.
501.Miss.20a. Campbell v Hamer (USSC, #311) (358 F2d 215) Facts: X DOCKET 153, XI DOCKET 98. Mar 11, 1966: CA 5 reversed DC, held 2 yr poll tax requirement deprives Negroes of right to vote, voided 1965 election. Jy 5: Def-Miss Atty Genl petitioned for cert: (1) did Negro Pl have standing to bring class action, (2) did CA abuse its discretion in enjoining election? Oct 10: cert denied; Black, J, diss.
501.Miss.20b. Hamer v Registrar (Sunflower Co) (ND Miss, #GC6522) Spring 1965: Pl-voters sought to enjoin municipal elections in Co on ground of discriminatory registration practices. DC denied relief. Elections held. March 11, 1966: CA reversed, invalidated elections as to one town, remanded to have new election. Nov 1966: Pls sued to void other elections in Co, that new elections be held, and liberal registration and candidate qualification procedures be inaugurated. Pending.

L H Rosenthal, Esq, 221 N President St, Jackson, Miss; Arthur Kinoy, 511 Fifth Ave, NYC; Benjamin Smith, Bruce C Waltzer, Esqs, 305 Baronne Bldg, New Orleans; Morton Stavis, Dennis J Roberts, Esqs, 744 Broad St, Newark, NJ.

501.Miss.21. Mississippi v Willis (Rolling Fork) (Sharkey Co Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 39. Grand jury indicated Def for perjury, forgery when taking mother to register. Case continued indefinitely, pending injunction in Willis v Carson, 515.2.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson 39202.

501.Miss.26. US v Allen (Chickasaw) (ND Miss, E Div, #EC-6457) (11 RRLR 263) 1965: Pl sued to enjoin discriminatory registration practices. May 27, 1965: DC issued injunction prohibiting Def Registrar from engaging in racial discrimination in registration process, requiring Def to make monthly reports to DC—name, race of each applicant, action taken on each application, reasons for all rejections—all records to be made available to Pl.
- 59 -

501.Miss.27. Allen v Mississippi Elections Comm (SD Miss) Oct 4, 1966: Pl-Negroes sued to stop Nov 8 general election unless Negroes given proportionate representation on Co election commission, which determines eligibility of independent candidates for local offices and prepares official ballots; to unseat present election comms on ground Negroes had been excluded. Pending.
501.Miss.28. Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party v Mississippi State Democratic Party (CA 5) Pls brought action to: (1) enjoin holding of Democratic Primary on Je 7, 1966, (2) to postpone primary until after summer: massive registration drive to take place during summer, Negroes systematically disenfranchised would need additional mths to overcome previous discrimination. May, 1966: DC held h'g, denied injunction. May 30: emergency appeal to CA. Je 1: CA held h'g. Je 3: CA denied injunction, while recognizing that "long hard grip of discrimination is difficult to break." Case dismissed.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish, Jackson 39202.

501.Miss.29. Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party v Ladner (Jackson) (SD Miss) Mississippi State statute requires that persons who intend to vote in Nov 8, 1966 general elections must have been registered at least 4 mths prior to election. Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides that persons registered with Fedl Examiners up until 45 days prior to election may vote. Pls filed suit to enjoin Mississippi voting officials from prohibiting about 5,000 Negroes to vote under Miss law: (1) fedl law preempts state law under supremacy clause, (2) state law constitutes denial of due process. Pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, 603 N Farish St, Jackson 39202.

And see Connor, 503.Miss.2.

501.NY.3. Cardona v Power (USSC) (384 US 672) Facts: X DOCKET 52, XI DOCKET 39. Je 13, 1966: USSC vacated (5-4), Brennan, J: Not alleged Pl successfully completed 6th grade in Puerto Rican public schools so as to be covered by §4(e), 1965 Voting Rights Act; remanded so NY ct can determine NY English elitracy requirement not in terms prohibited by §4(e) have continuing validity. Douglas, J (Fortas, J) diss: Heavier burden on NY's Puerto Ricans to prove literacy violates equal protection clause. Harlan, J (Stewart, J) diss.
501.NY.4. Katzenbach v Morgan; NYC Bd of Elections v Morgan (USSC) (384 US 641) Facts: XI DOCKET 39, 98. Je 13, 1966: USSC reversed (7-2), Brennan, J: (1) §4(e), 1965 Voting Rights Act is enactment to enforce Equal Protection clause; (2) it prohibits NY from denying right to vote to many in Puerto Rican community; (3) enhanced political power will help Puerto Ricans gain nondiscriminatory treatment; (4) this need warranted fed'l intrusion on state interest in English literacy requirement. Harlan, Stewart, JJ, diss.
501.NY.5. In re O'Keefe v NY Co Bd of Elections (NY Co Sup Ct, #12412; SD NY) Facts: XI DOCKET 39. Cite: 246 FSupp 978.
501.NY.6. US v Monroe Co Bd of Elections (WD NY, #11590) (248 FSupp 316, 11 RRLR 307) Facts: XI DOCKET 39. Dec 8, 1965: DC found that Puerto Ricans denied registration had been educated in "American Flag" school and under Voting Rights Act could not be denied right to vote. DC held insofar as NY law conflicts with Voting Rights Act, latter prevails.
501.SC.1. South Carolina v Katzenbach (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 98. Cite for opinion: 383 US 301.
501.SC.2. US v Clarendon Co Democratic Executive Comm (DC SC) Je 14, 1966: Def officials refused to allow fed'l observers, assigned under 1965 Voting Rights Act, to watch entire election process, aid illiterate voters in casting ballots unless such aid specifically requested. Je 20: US sued to permit such observation in run-off primary and future elections. Je 21: DC ordered Def in Je 28 run-off to allow fed'l observers to accompany illiterates into voting booths when voter requests assistance in marking ballot, and he may specify some one other than fed'l observer.
501.Tex.1. US v Texas (USSC) (252 FSupp 234, aff'd 384 US 155) Facts: XI DOCKET 39, 98. May 2, 1966: USSC affirmed, per curiam, 3-judge ct holding that poll tax unconstitutional.
501.Va.1. Butts v Harrison (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 52, 119, 153, XI DOCKET 39, 99. Cite: 383 US 663.
501.Va.3. Harper v Virginia State Bd of Elections (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 119; XI DOCKET 39, 99. Cite: 383 US 663.
501.Va.3a. Haskins v Davis (ED Va) Facts: X DOCKET 153. 1966: DC held state poll tax unconstitutional.

And see 501.Va.3.

502. Political Discrimination

502.Calif.4. Jarris v Hite (Los Angeles Super Ct, #883051) 1966: Pl sued to enjoin placement of Communist candidate on ballot. Super Ct denied injunction.

Amicus brief for ACLU of S Calif by Laurence R Sperber, Esq, P O Box 3426, Olympia Sta, Beverly Hills.

502.Ga.1. Bond v Floyd (USSC) (251 FSupp 333) Facts: XI DOCKET 99. ACLU and Ga ACLU filed amicus brief: (1) lower ct construed free speech issue in conflict with principles announced by USSC, (2) function of free debate and special obligation of public officials in democracy require explicit recognition of principle that elected official cannot be penalized for expression of views which relate solely to public issue.

Melvin Wulf, Eleanor Norton, Esqs, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC; Morris Brown, Esq, 1122 Healey Bldg, Charles Morgan, Jr, 5 Forsyth St, NW, both of Atlanta, Ga.

502.Miss.1. Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party v Mississippi (SD Miss) Facts: X DOCKET 53, 119. 1966: MFDP fed'l
- 60 -

suit to enjoin state injunction dismissed when state dropped its case against MFDP.

Douglas, Shrader, Goldstein and Peck, Esqs, Bridgeport, Conn.

502.Miss.2. Whitley v Mississippi State Democratic Party (ND Miss) Pls, MFDP candidates for Congress, wished to run in Je 7, 1966 Democratic Primary but without required oath of loyalty to Miss Democratic Party and to winning candidates. Pls sued: (1) for declaratory judgment that loyalty oath unconstitutional, (2) to enjoin its operation. May 1966: Atty Genl conceded loyalty oath could not be bar; candidates permitted to be on primary ballot. Case dismissed.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson 39202.

503. Urban Discrimination
Note: The DOCKET can no longer report malapportionment cases unless they contain a specific allegation of racial gerrymandering. For complete coverage of malapportionment litigation, see materials by Nat'l Municipal League, 47 E 68th St, NYC.

Articles: Lawrence R Caruso, Lucas case and reapportionment of state legislatures. 37 Colorado 433-56.

William B Cassin, Reapportionment: Problem that will not go away. 3 Houston 310-26.

J D Hyman, Home rule in New York, 1941-1965: retrospect and prospect. 15 Buffalo 335-69.

William E Oden and Roy Lee Meek, County reapportionment: Rebuttal. 18 Baylor 15-21.

Josephine Y King, Reynolds standard and local reapportionment. 15 Buffalo 120-45.

E F Roberts and Paul T Shultz, Reapportionment cases: cognitive lag, malady, and its cure. 27 Pittsburgh 633-52.

Leonard G Ratner, Reapportionment and the constitution. 38 So California 540-47.

Joseph E Schwartzberg, Reapportionment, gerrymanders, and notion of compactness. 50 Minnesota 443-52.

Arthur J Sills, Alan B Handler, Imbroglio of constitutional revision—another by-product of reapportionment. 20 Rutgers 1-28.

Comments: Congressional apportionment — population prime factor. 16 Mercer 446-49.

Legislative reapportionment—Scope of fed'l judicial relief. 1965 Duke 563-95.

Reapportionment. 79 Harvard 1226-87.

Rule of state and fed'l courts in state legislative reapportionment—New York conflict. 50 Minnesota 714-36.

News release: Supreme Court to rule on electoral college: Cong Rec—Sen: Oct 4, 1966, 24178.

503.La.2. Bannister v Davis (ED La, #2,818) Pl, member of La Legislature, filed suit for legislative reapportionment. Ct ruled for Pl: legislature allowed until Jan 1, 1967 to present acceptable plan to ct. Scholarship, Education and Defense Fund for Racial Equality intervened on behalf of all Negro citizens of La on question of legislative commn's proposed plan, which operates to dilute Negro voting strength. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

503.Miss.2. Connor v Johnson (formerly MFDP v) (Jackson) (ND Miss) Facts: XI DOCKET 40. Oct 19, 1965: Pls, on behalf of local Negroes and MFDP, sought 3-judge ct to: (1) reapportion Mississippi legislature based on population, (2) enjoin present legislators from acting because Negroes systematically excluded from participating in their election. Defs, Governor and members of legislature, moved to dismiss: lack of jurisdiction. Jan 7, 1966: 3-judge ct h'g; held for Pls. Complaint amended to attack Congressional districting. Jan: another 3-judge h'g; ct, without ruling, stated it would give 1966 session of Miss legislature chance to act on redistricting and reapportionment before ct would act. 1966: legislature changed congressional districts. Jy 1966: trial before 3-judge ct; Pls claimed: (1) redistricting invalid and gerrymandered to discriminate against Negroes, (2) no action taken by legislature on reapportionment. Ct directed legislature to reapportion itself by Dec 1, 1966. Sept 30: ct ruled Congressional redistricting valid, dismissed Pl's complaint as to that part of case.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson 39202. Peter Marcuse, Esq, 49 Leavenworth St, Waterbury, Conn.

503.Va.1. Burnette v Davis (formerly Mann v) (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 99. Cite: aff'd per curiam: 382 US 42.
504. 14th Amendment §2 Enforcement
Comment: Apportionment section of 14th Amdt: Neglected weapon for defense of voting rights of southern Negroes. 16 W Reserve 965-94.
505. Residence Requirements

505.3. vanBerkel v NYC Bd of Elections (NY Ct of App, #58) Facts: X DOCKET 53, 119. Ct of App reversed decision of Sup Ct: §150, NY Election law, which requires 90-day waiting period after naturalization before eligible to register to vote, is constitutional.

Nanette Dembitz, Janet Ann Johnson, Esqs, NYCLU, 55 E End Ave, NYC 10028.

506. Miscellaneous Problems

506.1. Delaware v New York (USSC) Pl-state files original action, under 28 USC §1251, against all states challenging constitutionality of state statutes by which total of each state's presidential electoral votes cast for candidate receiving plurality of popular votes, denying voting rights of minority voters. Issues: (1) whether state's unit system of awarding all state's presidential electoral votes to winner of plurality of votes denies to minority voters within state due process and equal protection by misappropriating their voting power and asserting it for candidate they oppose; (2) whether combined nat'l effect of all state unit systems operates to deny Pl's citizens due process; (3) whether state unit systems denies to small states' citizens privileges of US citizenship unfairly favoring few large states.

David P Buckson, Esq, Delaware Atty Genl, Dover, Delaware; Special Counsel: Robert G Dixon, Jr, Esq, 720 20th

- 61 -

St, NW, Washington, DC 20006; James C Kirby, Jr, Esq, 357 E Chicago Ave, Chicago 60611; John A Gosnell, William J Durkin, Henry J Cappello, Esqs, 1225 Nineteenth St, NW, Washington, DC 20036.

510. Jury Selection; Appeals to Prejudice (see also 311)
511. Involving Federal Employees
512. Involving Racial Discrimination
Form: Question to ask in selecting petit jurors. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 74a-74f.

Practice tips: Procedure for proving systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand and petit juries in state cases, by Kinoy, Stavis, Conley, Bradley. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 125-129.

512.Ala.5. Alabama v Swain. Facts: X DOCKET 53, 119, 154; XI DOCKET 40, 100. Cites: aff'd 380 US 202; cd 382 US 944. Reported at 411., page 48.
512.Ala.7. Billingsley v Clayton (USSC, #408) (359 F2d 13) Facts: X DOCKET 120, XI DOCKET 40. Apr 5, 1966: CA 5 affirmed convictions, held "house canvass" system of Ala Co jury bd, which puts reasonable percentage of available Negro names on venire rolls handed over to cts, cannot be enjoined as systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury duty, even though few Negroes actually serve in some districts. Oct 10, 1966: USSC denied cert.

Charles Morgan, Jr, Esq, 5 Forsyth St NW, Atlanta; Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Peter A Hall, J Mason Davis, Oscar Adams, Esqs, 1630 Fourth Ave N, Birmingham; NAACP Inc Fund.

512.Ala.11. Mitchell and US (Pl-intervenor) v Johnson (Macon Co) (MD Ala, E Div, Civ #649-E) (250 FSupp 117; 11 RRLR 428) Je 3, 1964: Pl-Negroes brought class action to enjoin Co jury commn from excluding qualified Negroes from jury service. Oct: DC stayed proceedings to give Defs opportunity to comply with state ct order directing compilation of new jury box and jury roll. Jan 18, 1966: DC issued injunction requiring Defs to abandon jury roll and empty jury box, to recompile them in accordance with non-discriminatory principles; ordered no less than 1000 names must be placed in jury box; found never more than 11% of jurors called were Negroes, tho Negroes comprise 80% of persons qualified for jury service; held that if Defs fail to comply immediately, DC will appoint master to perform recompilation.
512.Ala.12. Gurley v Alabama (Ala Ct of App, 8 Div 992) (179 S2d 159, 11 RRLR 462) Def appealed murder conviction alleging new trial should be granted because remarks by prosecution during argument injected racial prejudice into trial. Aug 31, 1965: Ct of App affirmed; held claim of prejudice not warranted since remarks did not directly mention Negroes but only an unidentified groups of "lawless persons" designated as "they."
512.Ala.13. McGinnis v Hale (SD Ala, N Div) Def-Negro convicted. Def filed fed'l habeas corpus raising jury discrimination, alleging lack of effective state collateral remedies so exhaustion not required. DC issued order to show cause. State responded: lack of exhaustion, moved to dismiss. Oct 26, 1965: DC denied motion to dismiss; gave Def time to file coram nobis. Pl filed coram nobis to exhaust state remedies. Fall 1966: Trial.

Fred Gray, Esq, 34 N Perry, Montgomery.

512.Ala.14. Jones v Wilson (Jefferson Co) (ND Ala, #66-92) Feb 25, 1966: Pls filed civil suit against jury bd for injunctive relief against continued discrimination in jury selection. DC denied Defs' motions to dismiss. Pending.

Demetrius Newton, Esq, 508 N 17th, Birmingham.

512.Ala.15. Bokulich v Alabama (Greene Co) (DC Ala) Je 20, 1966: Pl, SCLC voter registration worker, arrested for grand larceny: "flim-flammed" 2 Negroes by posing as govt employee and stealing their welfare checks. Before case went to grand jury, Pl filed fed'l suit claiming grand jury illegally made up: (1) Negroes systematically excluded: about 65% of eligible jurors Negro, but of names on current jury list, only 30% Negro; (2) Alabama jury laws allowing Co jury commn to reject anyone not "of high moral character" or who appears "unfit" unconstitutional on face for vagueness; (3) Co Jury Commn which chooses jurors unconstitutionally made up: has never included Negro. Oct 1966: DC stopped grand jury from evidence against Pl until 3-judge panel could look into Co's entire jury system. Pending.

Donald A Jelinek, Esq, LCDC, P O Box 956, Selma.

512.Ala.16. Mitchell and US v Thomas (Macon Co) (MD Ala, #649-E) Pl sued to compel inclusion of Negroes on jury panels. Jan 18, 1966: DC held for Pl.

Fred D Gray, Esq, 34 N Perry St, Montgomery, Ala 36104; NAACP Inc Fund.

512.Ala.16a. Turner and US v Spencer (Perry Co) (SD Ala, N Div, #3871-65); Black and US v Curb (Hale Co) (SD Ala, N Div, #3872-65); McNeir and US v Agee (Wilcox Co) (SD Ala, N Div, #3945-65) Nov 30, 1966: Pl-Negroes sued Def-members of Co jury commissions for systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury service. DC held: that jury rolls be emptied and refilled according to Ala law; that jury commissions be enjoined from engaging in discrimination in selection of jurors.

Charles Morgan, Jr, and M Laughlin McDonald, Esqs, 5 Forsyth St, NW, Atlanta, 30303; Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Esq, 1630 4th Ave, N, Birmingham.

512.Ala.16b. Reese v Cobb (Dallas Co) (SD Ala, #3839-65); Jones v Holliman (Marengo Co) (SD Ala); Brandon v Coyle (Madison Co) (ND Ala, #65-738); Nixon v Parker (Sumter Co) (ND Ala, #65-619) 1966: Suits filed to compel inclusion of Negroes on juries. Pending.

Charles Morgan, Jr, Esq, 5 Forsyth St, NW, Atlanta, Ga; Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Esq, 1630 4th Ave, N, Birmingham, Ala; Melvin L Wulf, Esq, 156 5th Ave, New York City; Charles S Yesley, Atlanta, Ga; Peter A Hall, 1630 4th Ave, N, Birmingham, Ala.

512.Alas.1. Crawford v Alaska (Alaska Sup Ct, #637) (408 P2d 1002, 11 RRLR 444) Pet indicted for murder by Anchorage grand jury, moved for dismissal because of illegal composition of grand jury: only persons living within 15-mile radius of city called for jury duty resulting in systematic and arbitrary exclusion of certain economic, social, racial and geographical groups, depriving Pet of equal protection. Super Ct denied petition. Dec 20, 1965: Sup Ct affirmed; held: (1) Pet failed to show denial of equal protection because not shown that any members of class of which he is member were systematically excluded; (2) those selected for jury duty represent fair cross-section of groups within district.
- 62 -

512.Ark.7. Brown v Arkansas (Ark Sup Ct, #5131) (395 SW2d 344, 11 RRLR 449) Def-Negro, convicted of murder, appealed to Sup Ct alleging Negroes systematically excluded in selection of petit juries, and tsatute providing for peremptory challenges in capital cases prevents Negro defendant from having Negro on jury. Nov 8, 1965: Sup Ct affirmed conviction; held (1) "absolutely no evidence" to show discrimination in selection of petit jury, (2) similar statute upheld by USSC in Swain, 380 US 202, 512.Ala.5.
512.Ga.5. Whitus v Georgia (formerly Whitus and Davis v Balkcom, Warden) (USSC, ##253, 650) (112 Ga App 328, 145 SE2d 83; 149 SE2d 130) Facts: X DOCKET 54, 120, 154. #253: Ct of App held Ga statutes requiring grand juries be selected from lists compiled from tax digests designating race do not deprive Def-Negro of due process or equal protection, evidence failed to show arbitrary and systematic exclusion of Negroes. Je 20, 1966: USSC granted cert and forma pauperis petitions. #650: Ga Sup Ct held Def's showing that small percentage of Negroes on Co jury list did not reflect large percentage of Negroes in Co insufficient to establish invidious discrimination. Oct 10: USSC granted cert and forma pauperis petitions.

Charles Morgan, Jr, Esq, ACLU, 52 Fairlie, Morris Brown, Esq, Healy Bldg, both of Atlanta; P Walter Jones, Esq, 505 Park Place, Albany, Ga; Clarence Mayfield, Esq, 901 W Broad, Savannah, Ga; Melvin L Wulf, Esq, ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

512.Ga.12. Gamble v Grimes, Smithwick (ND Ga, Atlanta Div, #9991) Def-Negro convicted of murder by jury with two Negroes. 1954-1961: Def served his sentence; escaped. 1965: Def picked up in Philadelphia, sent to Ga jail. May 1966: petition for habeas corpus filed; pending.

Morris Brown, Esq, Healy Bldg, Charles Morgan, Esq, 52 Fairlie, both of Atlanta, Ga.

512.Ga.13. US v Mobley (MD Ga, Americus Div, Crim #1500) (11 RRLR 455) Def-Negro moved to dismiss robbery, murder indictment because of systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand jury, to transfer case to another district because of local racial prejudice, to challenge array of petit jury because of discriminatory selection. Feb 4, 1966: DC denied motions; held: (1) 4 of grand jury's 23 members were Negroes, statistically consistent with percentages of Negroes in area presumed qualified for jury duty, (2) during past 14 yrs no systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury service, (3) newspaper reports not "unduly prejudicial," affidavits offered by prosecution from residents of community indicated fair trial could be had in district.
512.Ga.14. Broadway and US v Culpepper (Terrell Co) (MD Ga) Je 23, 1966: Pls-Negroes sued for injunctive relief against discrimination against Negroes and women in jury selection, asked for appointment of Negro jury commrs. Aug 16: US filed motion to intervene, asked that Def-Co officials be enjoined from "failing to take all necessary steps to ensure that jury lists reflect truly representative cross-section of adult population of County." Pending.

C B King, Esq, P O Box 1024, Albany, Ga; US Dept of Justice, Washington, DC.

And see Rabinowitz, 55.Ga.35.

512.La.3. Labat v Sigler (CA 5, #22,218) Facts: X DOCKET 55, 120, 154; XI DOCKET 40. Aug 1966: CA overturned convictions of Pet-Negro, convicted of rape by all-Caucasian juries: exclusion of Negroes from juries unconstitutional.

Benjamin E Smith, Esq, Baronne Bldg, New Orleans.

512.La.10. Edward Davis v Gov Davis (CA 5, #21976) Facts: X DOCKET 55, 120; XI DOCKET 41. May 31, 1966: CA found systematic exclusion or token inclusion of Negroes in selection of juries; reversed conviction; remanded to DC to issue writ of habeas corpus releasing Def from custody, subject to reindictment and retrial by state.
512.La.12. Louisiana v Barksdale (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 55, 155; XI DOCKET 100. Cites: 170 So2d 374, cd 382 US 921.
512.La.18. Hall v Hoyt (Rapides Parish) (WD La) 1966: Pls filed suit seeking injunction against parish jury commission, parish officials for denying Negroes opportunity to serve on grand, petit juries. Pending.

Louis Berry, Esq, 1406 9th St, Alexandria, La.

And see McLaurin, 51.Miss.8.

512.Miss.11. Mississippi v Woodruff (DC Miss) 1961: Def-Caucasian convicted of burglary; 15 yrs. Def wrote own habeas corpus petition to DC: systematic exclusion of Negroes from jury which convicted him was unconstitutional denial of due process. DC appointed counsel. H'g pending.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss, 39202.

512.Miss.12. Hopkins v Mississippi (Miss Sup Ct, #43,777) (182 S2d 236, 11 RRLR 459) Def-Negro appealed conviction for grand larceny to Sup Ct, alleging systematic exclusion of Negroes from juries in Montgomery Co. Jan 24, 1966: Sup Ct reversed: prima facie case of systematic exclusion made out by fact that for more than 16 yrs no Negro had been drawn for jury service in Co.
512.NJ.2. New Jersey v Roberts (NJ Sup Ct, Crim #M-201) Facts: XI DOCKET 100. June 6, 1966: Sup Ct ordered retrial of Def's conviction because trial judge used word "nigger" during jury selection, evidencing prejudice, denying Def fair trial. Oct 17, 1966: Def found innocent of manslaughter on retrial.
512.NY.6. Chestnut v New York (NYC Crim Ct) 1966: Grand Jury charged 8 Defs with criminal contempt. Def removed to SD NY alleging exclusion of Negroes and Puerto Ricans and low-income individuals from grand jury by selection process. DC granted motion to remand. CA 2 denied stay. Harlan, J granted stay pending USSC decision in Rachel, 58.Ga.14, 384 US 780.

Sanford M Katz, Esq, 845 3d Ave, NYC, 10022.

- 63 -

512.SC.1. Bostick v South Carolina (SC Sup Ct, #18426) (145 SE2d 439, 11 RRLR 460) 1964: Def-Negro petitioned for habeas corpus after murder conviction alleging systematic exclusion of Negroes from grand and petit juries. Nov 30, 1965: Sup Ct affirmed denial of writ; found state laws on jury qualifications constitutional, jury need not be of particular racial composition to assure equal protection, Def's evidence failed to establish prima facie case of exclusion.
512.Va.1. Goldman v Virginia (USSC) Facts: XI DOCKET 100. Cite for cd: 383 US 969.
513. Involving Economic Discrimination
And see Crawford, 512.Alas.1; Chestnut, 512.NY.6.
514. Involving Political Discrimination
515. Involving Discrimination Against Women

515.2. Willis v Carson (Sharkey Co) (DC Miss) Feb 1966: Pls, Negro man and woman, filed class suit attacking: (1) constitutionality of Mississippi jury statute: (a) excludes women from serving on juries, (b) permits Bd of Supervisors to select people for jury service of `good moral character'; (2) systematic exclusion of Negroes from juries in Co. US intervened, joined Pls on racial issue only. Def's answered: 1966 Miss legislature contemplated making change in statute excluding women, but adjourned without making changes. Pls moved for summary judgment on that issue. Ct reserved decision, asked for briefs; US filed amicus brief on women issue; decision pending. Trial pending on balance of case.

Alvin J Bronstein, Malcolm Farmer, III, Esqs, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson 39202.

And see Willis, 501.Miss.21.

516. Involving Other Discrimination
520. Education

Checklist: Integration in education—approaches, incl 1964 Civil Rights Act §§402-407. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 301-305.

Articles: Charles J Bloch, Does 14th Amdt forbid de facto segregation. 16 Reserve 532-44.

Robert L Carter, De facto school segregation: Examination of legal and constitutional questions presented. 16 W Reserve 502-31.

Jim Leeson, Crumbling legal barriers to school desegregation, Southern Education Report, Oct 1966, p 10.

Comments: The elementary and secondary education act of 1965 and First Amendment. 41 Indiana 302-27.

Right to dress and go to school. 37 Colorado 492-99.

Legislation note: Pupil placement statutes. 16 W Reserve 800-8.

Symposium: De facto school segregation. 16 W Reserve 475-607.

521. Challenges to Unequal Facilities

521.3. Georgia v 90 Negro Demonstrators (Cordele) (Super Ct) Apr 4, 1966: Negro students arrested for disturbing public education when marched on Negro school in protest over inferior accommodations.
522. Suits to Enforce Integration
Bill: House Amendments to Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Cong Rec—House, Oct 6, 1966, 24574.

Bibliography: US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, Public school desegregation in North and West, Jan 1966.

Bibliography: US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, School Desegregation: Changing Policies and Practices, Sept, 1965.

Book: Reed Sanatt, The ordeal of desegregation, Harper & Row, 348 pp.

Review: Bob Smith, Charlotte News, Sat, Oct 1, 1966 (Cong Rec—Sen, Oct 14, 1966, 25697.)

Comments: Desegregation of public school facilities. 51 Iowa 681-96.

Duty to integrate public schools? Some judicial responses and a statute. 46 Boston 45-82.

Report: Virginia Human Rights Comm, Negro enrollment in all-Negro schools of W Virginia, 1965-1966.

Statements: US Dept of Health, Education and Welfare, Statements of policies under Civil Rights Act of 1964 respecting desegregation of elementary and secondary schools, Mar 1964, Apr 1965.

Student Research: Permelia Hulse, Education v Poverty: The issue defined. Boalt Law School. 1966. In Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Library.

William Stahl, School disciplinary procedures in Oakland School District. Boalt Law School. 1966. In Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Library.

And see 63.47, 63.48, 63.49, 63.50.

And see SCLC, 55.Ala.10a.

522.Ala.2a. Armstrong and US (Intervenor) v Bd of Educ (Birmingham) (ND Ala, #9678) Facts: X DOCKET 56. Apr 7, 1966: US filed notice of motion and motion to intervene as Pl. Apr 15: Pls filed for further relief. May 9: DC granted motion to intervene. Aug 29: Pls filed additional motion for further relief complaining of rejection of students who applied for transfers, absence of steps to integrate teachers.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth St NW, Birmingham; Norman Amaker, Esq, 351 W 24th St, NYC.

522.Ala.5. Lee and US v Macon Co Bd of Educ, State Bd of Educ (Tuskegee) (MD Ala E Div, #604-E) (10 RRLR 1512, 231 FSupp 743; 253 FSupp 727, 11 RRLR 690) Facts: X DOCKET 57, 155. DC held hearing on Pls' objections to Defs' denial of transfer applications of certain Negro students. Aug 27, 1965: DC ordered 5 applications be granted. Jan 13, 1966: DC filed plan. Feb 18: Pls filed objections March 11: DC accepted stipulated plan resembling HEW guidelines: freedom of choice plan in all grades by Fall 1966.

Fred Gray, Esq, 34 N Perry St, Montgomery; Charles H Jones, Esq, 109 Dearborn, Chicago; Robert Belton, Esq, NAACP Inc Fund.

- 64 -

522.Ala.11. Miller and US (Intervenor) v Bd of Educ (Gadsden) (ND Ala, #574) Facts: XI DOCKET 41. Apr 20, 1966: Pls filed motion for further relief.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth St NW, Atlanta; Norman Amaker, Esq, 352 W 24th St, NYC.

522.Ala.12. Harris v School Bd (Bullock Co) (MD Ala, #2073N) (232 FSupp 959; 253 FSupp 276, 11 RRLR 687) Facts: X DOCKET 58, 155; XI DOCKET 41. Mar 11, 1966: CA ordered new plan resembling Montgomery Co plan (522.-Ala.13) desegregating 2 grades/yr and HEW guidelines: desegregation of grades 1 and 5-12 by Fall 1966, grades 2, 3, 4 by Fall 1967.

Fred Gray, Esq, 34 N Perry St, Montgomery; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.Ala.13. Carr v School Bd (Montgomery Co) (MD Ala, #2072-N) Facts: X DOCKET 58, 155; XI DOCKET 41. 1966: DC ordered desegregation at rate of 2 grades/yr.
522.Ala.18. Brown v Bd of Educ (Demopolis) (SD Ala) Facts: XI DOCKET 42. Sept 1965: Def filed motion to dismiss. Apr 12, 1966: Def filed answer to complaint; submitted desegregation plan approved by US Commr of Educ. Apr 27: Pl filed reply, requested DC decision be postponed pending CA 5 decision of 12 school cases May 24-25.

Orzell Billingsley, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham, Ala; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.Ala.19. US v Bd of Educ (Greene Co) (SD Ala) Jan 11, 1966: US filed suit under Title IX, 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging Bd maintains 3 schools for Negroes, 6 for whites; requested prohibition of dual school system, equal educational opportunities for all in public schools. Pending.
522.Ala.20. US v Bd of Educ (Lowndes Co) (MD Ala, N Div, #2328-N) (11 RRLR 692) Feb 10, 1966: US brought desegregation suit. DC ordered Def to end segregated school system, create remedial educational programs, provide equal educational opportunities for all students, execute plan of desegregation. Plan is to operate on freedom of choice basis, desegregation of grades 1 and 7-12 by start of 1966-67 school term, 2-7 at start of following term.
522.Ala.21. US v Huntsville, Gadsben, Madison Co Bds of Educ (ND Ala) Apr 12, 1966: US filed suit under Title IV, 1964 Civil Rights Act to speed, expand desegregation by Defs thru: 1) elimination of use of racial criteria in assigning students to schools, establishment of either unitary geographic system of assignment or freedom of choice plan, 2) desegregation of all grades as soon as administratively practicable, 3) designing and providing remedial educational programs to eliminate effects of past discrimination. Pending.
522.Ala.22. US v State Bd of Educ (DC Ala, Montgomery) Aug 30, 1966: US filed suit to prevent Ala from paying tuition for students to attend racially segregated private schools. Pending.
522.Ala.23. US v Bd of Educ (Choctaw Co) (DC Ala, Mobile) Aug 31, 1966: US filed suit to desegregate Def's public schools which abandoned desegregation plan. Pending.
522.Ala.24. Reynolds v Anniston City Bd of Educ (ND Ala, #66-533) Aug 29, 1966: Pls filed desegregation suit. Pending.
522.Ark.7. Rogers v Paul (Fort Smith) (USSC, #532) (382 US 198) Facts: X DOCKET 58, 121, 156; XI DOCKET 42. Dec 6, 1965: USSC (5-4), per curiam, reversed lower ct decision, ordered Pls admitted immediately to white high school with more extensive curriculum; held Pl students at segregated school had standing to challenge racial allocation of faculty: it denies them equal educational opportunity, it renders inadequate an otherwise constitutional pupil desegregation plan. Clark, Harlan, White, Fortas, JJ, would have plenary consideration of case.

George Howard, Jr, Esq, 329½ Main, Pine Bluff, Ark; John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright Ave, Little Rock, Ark.

522.Ark.9. Kemp v School Dist (Eldorado) (CA 8, #18,050) (352 F2d 14, 10 RRLR 1513) Facts: X DOCKET 156, XI DOCKET 42. Oct 27, 1965: CA vacated DC order: Held: (1) HEW standards to be heavily relied on, but not conclusive upon cts, Negro students now attending grades 11 and 12 should have right to continue their education in unsegregated school; (2) "freedom of choice" plan "could prove practical in achieving the goal . . . and should be allowed to demonstrate its efficacy to afford the constitutional guarantees which Pls are entitled to as a matter of right," (3) Defs' plan inadequate: no provision for assignment when student fails to choose under plan, dual attendance zones not eliminated; (4) desegregation of teaching staffs to be dealt with during transitional period, (5) since Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not authorize awarding of legal fees in school segregation cases, lower ct did not abuse discretion in failing to award such fees to Pls. CA directed adequate desegregation plan be in operation by middle of 1965-66 school year. May, 1966: After remand, DC ordered Bd to submit revised plan, permitted Negro pupils in grades 11, 12 to transfer to desegregated schools, ordered bd to hire teachers for 1966-67 term on non-racial basis.
522.Ark.10. Mary Brown v Bd of Educ (Dewitt) (ED Ark, Pine Bluff Div, PB-65-C-44) (11 RRLR 695) Negro high school students brought class action to enjoin segregation in district allegedly having 3-yr desegregation plan approved by HEW. Pls argued Bd sends students to all-Negro school with inferior curricula in other district. Jan 19, 1966: DC ordered Bd: 1) to admit all Negro pupils in grades 10, 11, 12 wishing to transfer to white school; 2) to offer annual choices of schools; 3) ruled desegregation plan approved by HEW not sufficient.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock, Ark.

522.Ark.11. Rainey v Bd of Educ (Gould) (DC Ark) Pls protested site selection and construction of school, alleging it would increase segregation; asked DC to order Bd to immediately admit Negro students to white schools in midsemester. Nov 24, 1965: DC approved desegregation plan. Bd filed appeal.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock, Ark.

522.Ark.12. US (Intervenor) v Bds of Educ (Childress, Howard Co Training School, Nashville & Mineral Springs Dists) (WD
- 65 -

Ark) Dec 20, 1965: Negro parents sued for integration. Feb 7, 1966: US intervened, seeking merger of 2 white and 2 Negro school districts with coextensive boundaries; integration of pupils and staffs, alleging great disparity between expenditures for Negro and white pupils, violation of districts' certificates of compliance filed with US Office of Education. Pending.
522.Ark.13. Kelley v Public School Dist #22 & Stowers Const Co (Altheimer) (ED Ark) Feb 15, 1966: Pls filed suit: 1) to enjoin construction of new school which will allegedly perpetuate segregation, 2) Defs to make plan for teacher desegregation. DC denied relief; Pls filed appeal.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock, Ark.

522.Ark.13a. Spriggs v Altheimer School Dist #22 (ED Ark) Aug 22, 1966: Pls sued to enjoin tuition requirement alleging it is designed to deny Pls their right to attend integrated schools. Pending.
522.Ark.14. McGhee and US v Nashville Special School Dist #1 (Nashville, Childress) (WD Ark, Texarkana Div, #962) (11 RRLR 698) Pls brought class action to enjoin segregation. US intervened as party Pl. March 3, 1966: DC held school system excludes Negroes from participating in program receiving fed'l funds thus violating Title VI, 1964 Civil Rights Act, ruled dual school districts unlawful, must be integrated after June 30, 1966 using DC desegregation plan which includes 1) desegregation of grades 1-6 in Sept 1966, 7-12 in Sept 1967, 2) freedom of choice plan.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock.

522.Ark.15. US v Bd of Educ (Crawfordsville) (ED Ark, Jonesboro) Negro parent complaint to US Atty Genl that Def-Bd maintained 1 school for whites and 1 school with inferior facilities and opportunities for Negroes. US notified Def; Def made no changes. Jy 11, 1966: US sued under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Pending.
522.Ark.16. Marks v Edinburg School Dist (DC Ark) Aug 30, 1966: Pls sued to enjoin misuse of freedom-of-choice plan, alleging Pls applied for transfer to prior all-white-schools, were denied solely because of race. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.Ark.17. Jackson v Marvell School Dist #22 (ED Ark) Aug 17, 1966: Pls filed desegregation suit, alleging Defs refused to comply with HEW Guidelines requiring school desegregation, injuring Pls. DC approved plan.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.DC.1. Hobson v Hansen (DC DC) 1966: Suit filed against DC school system alleging use of "tracking system" results in unconstitutional de facto segregation. Pending.
522.Fla.5. Augustus v Bd of Pub Educ (Escambia Co) (ND Fla, #1064) Facts: X DOCKET 58, 156, XI DOCKET 42. Mar 8, 1966: Pls filed motion for further relief based on HEW guidelines. Je 7: DC granted motion for further relief in part. Jy 3: Pls filed appeal from relief denied by DC.

Charles F Wilson, Esq, Pensacola; Leroy D Clark, Esq, 2765 Bernon Terrace, Jacksonville, Fla.

522.Fla.6. Tillman v Bd of Pub Inst (Volusia Co) (SD Fla, Jacksonville Div, #4501) Facts: X DOCKET 59, 156; XI DOCKET 42. Feb 10, 1966: Defs filed plan to desegregate all grades by 1967-68.

Earl M Johnson, Esq, 625 W Union, Leroy D Clark, Esq, 2765 Bernon Terrace; both of Jacksonville.

522.Fla.12. Steele v Bd of Pub Inst (Leon Co) (ND Fla, #854) Facts: X DOCKET 59, 156; XI DOCKET 42. May 2, 1966: Pls argued appeal from denial of motions for further relief. Aug 20: Pls filed motion to require Defs to admit 30 Negroes to white schools, to transfer Negro teacher. Hearing: Sept 8, 1966. DC ordered 30 students admitted.

Theodore Bowers, Esq, 1018 N Cobe Blvd, Panama City, Fla.

522.Fla.18. Youngblood and US v Bd of Educ (Bay Co) (ND Fla, #572) Facts: X DOCKET 59, XI DOCKET 42. Aug, 1966: Pls filed motion for further relief when Defs refused to admit 20 Negroes who applied for transfers to white schools. Dept of Justice intervened. Sept 16, 1966: DC granted motion.

Theodore Bowers, Esq, 1018 N Cobe Blvd, Panama City; Leroy D Clark, Esq, 2765 Bernon Terrace, Jacksonville.

522.Fla.20. Bradley v Bd of Educ (Pinellas Co) (MD Fla, #64-98-T) Facts: X DOCKET 60, 121, XI DOCKET 43. Pls filed interrogatories to support refiling of motion for further relief on Dec 30, 1965. Apr 1, 1966: DC dismissed: no facts alleged in support of motion.

Earl M Johnson, Esq, 625 W Union, Leroy D Clark, Esq, 2765 Bernon Terrace, both of Jacksonville; James Sanderlin, Esq, 1407 22nd St S, St Petersburg.

522.Fla.23. Harvest v Bd of Pub Inst (Manatee Co) (MD Fla, #65-12-Civ-T) (10 RRLR 1522) Facts: X DOCKET 121, 156; XI DOCKET 43. DC granted freedom of choice plan, disputes to be resolved on basis of closeness to school; ordered faculty and administration integration.

James Matthews, Esq, 5022 NW 7th Ave, Miami; Earl M Johnson, Esq, 625 W Union, Jacksonville; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.Fla.24. Zimmerman v Bd of Pub Inst (Columbia Co) (DC Fla, MD #64-264-J) (11 RRLR 155) Facts: X DOCKET 121. Jan 24, 1966: Final decree providing: (1) for assignment of pupils to schools on freedom of choice basis; (2) covering all grades immediately. Apr: Under plan approved by HEW, 33 Negro children assigned to previously all-white schools; 12 Negro students admitted to Junior college.
522.Ga.6. Roberts v Stell (SD Ga, #1315) (10 RRLR 1044, 11 RRLR 705) Facts: X DOCKET 60, 121, 157; XI DOCKET 43. Apr 1, 1966: DC ordered Def to end school system maintained with any distinction based on age, mental qualifications, establish uniformly administered program.
522.Ga.13. Harrington v Bd of Educ, Bd of School Commrs (Moultrie) (MD Ga, Thomasville Div, #728) (10 RRLR 150) Facts: X DOCKET 122, 157. Apr 28, 1965: Ct concluded "the Bds have clearly shown that immediate integration of the entire systems would be unwise and impractical"; denied Pls' requests for injunctive relief.
- 66 -

22.Ga.15. Turner and US v Goolsby (formerly Pls v Bd of Educ) (Taliaferro Co) (SD Ga, Augusta Div, #1226) (11 RRLR 158) Facts: XI DOCKET 43. Receiver for Def-Bd, appointed by 3-judge ct, recommended: Negro pupils who apply for transfer to white schools to be given same chance as whites; Negro pupils who indicate no choice to be assigned temporarily to Co's Negro school with right to transfer. Oct 28: DC approved recommendations. Jan 12, 1966: US filed desegregation suit alleging Def maintains only 1 school attended, staffed exclusively by Negroes, has taken no steps to operate desegregated school system. Pending.
522.Ill.5. Tometz v Bd of Educ (Waukegan School Dist # 61) (Cir Ct 19th Cir, #65-6917) (Lake Co) Pls brought desegregation suit under Armstrong Act alleging Act applies to de facto segregation. July 20, 1966: Ct ruled Act does apply to do facto segregation, state action to deal with problems of racial imbalance; imbalance in schools is unconstitutional, ruled Bd violated Act, enjoined it from further violations.

Ill ACLU, 110 S Dearborn St, Chicago; Alexander Polikoff, Esq, 231 S LaSalle St, Suite 1705, Charles R Markels, Esq, 120 S LaSalle St, Suite 600; Ronald H Silverman, Esq, 19 S LaSalle St, Rm 1421, all of Chicago.

522.Ind.2. Copeland, Gentry, Husband, Warren, Washington v S Bend Community School Corp (ND Ind, S Bend Div) Pls brought action for temporary and permanent injunction to enjoin Defs from building new segregated school. Pending.

Charles H Willis, Esq, 209 Commerce Bldg, J Chester Allen, Jr, Esq, 412 Lafayette Bldg, Thomas F Broden, Esq, Notre Dame Law School, all of South Bend, Ind; F Laurence Anderson, Jr, Esq, 1109 Broadway, Gary, Ind; Robert L Carter, Esq, NAACP, 20 W 40th St, NYC.

522.La.2. Hall and US v Bd of Educ (St Helena) (ED La, #1968) (335 F2d 481 on mandamus; 233 FSupp 136) Facts: X DOCKET 61, 122, 157; XI DOCKET 43. 1966: US moved for civil contempt against Def because of failure to give prospective transferees notice of desegregated plan. Pending.

A P Tureaud, Esq, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans.

522.La.16. Conley v Bd of Educ (Lake Charles) (WD La, #9981) Facts: X DOCKET 62, 122, 157; XI DOCKET 44. Apr 5, 1966: DC entered order requiring complete desegregation by Sept 1967. Aug: Pls filed motion for further relief. Pending.

A P Tureaud, Ernest M Morial, Esqs, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans.

522.La.17. Williams and US v Iberville Parish School Bd (Plaquemine) (ED La, #2921) Je 7, 1966: US filed motion to intervene in Negro parents' suit to desegregate; US seeks broadening of prior decree.
522.La.20a. Redman v Bd of Educ (Terrebone Parish) (ED La, #15663) Facts: XI DOCKET 44. Mar 23, 1966: DC granted Pls' motion for summary judgment.

A P Tureaud, Esq, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans.

522.La.28. Carter v Feliciana School Bd (ED La) Facts: X DOCKET 158, XI DOCKET 44. Aug 24, 1966: Pl filed motion for further supplemental relief, pending decision of CA 5 in Claiborne Parish, 522.La.44.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans, La 70113.

522.La.29. Smith v School Bd (St Tammany Parish) (ED La) Facts: X DOCKET 158, XI DOCKET 44. Aug 1966: DC issued amended order, similar to that in Bogulusa, 522.-La.43.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

522.La.31. Monteilh v Bd of Educ (St Landry Parish) (WD La, Opelousas Div, #10,912) (10 RRLR 634, 244 FSupp 583) Facts: X DOCKET 158, XI DOCKET 44. Feb 17, 1966: By official resolution at special meeting, Bd agreed to desegregate grades 3, 4, 9 and 10 at next school session.
522.La.33a. Holliday v La State Bd of Educ (ED La) Aug 11, 1966: Pls filed suit to desegregate La Schools for Deaf, temporary restraining order for Pl's admission to School, preliminary and permanent injunction against compulsory bi-racial school system for deaf. Pending.

Murphy Bell, Esq, 214 E Boulevard, Baton Rouge.

522.La.33b. US v La State Bd of Educ (ED La, New Orleans) Aug 19, 1966: Under 1964 Civil Rights Act, US requested DC to invalidate La program of state tuition aid for students in private elementary, secondary schools which maintains racially segregated system. Pending.
522.La.37. Jones v Caddo Parish School Bd (WD La, #11,055) Facts: X DOCKET 44. DC approved plan for desegregation in 1st, 12th grades in 1965 with completion by 1968, revised order to require 7th, 11th grades included for 1965, 4 grades in 2 yrs.

Jesse N Stone, Esq, 854½ Texas Ave, Shreveport; A M Trudeau, Esq, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.La.43. Jenkins v School Bd (Bogalusa) (ED La, #15,798) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. Aug 1965: DC issued desegregation plan. Aug 1966: DC expanded decree to include bus transportation, faculty desegregation, equalization of expenditures for Negro and white schools, desegregation of extracurricular activities. Pls moved for injunction against 6 white students who attacked Negro students transferring according to DC decree. DC granted motion. Pls propounded written interrogatories to Def re non-compliance on bus transportation and faculty desegregation. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

And see Hicks, 56.25.

522.La.44. Banks v School Bd (Claiborne Parish) (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. Pls appealed from DC desegregation plan: not up to minimum standards established by CA 5 and USSC. Spring 1966: case argued before CA; decision pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

522.La.45. Johnson and US v Bd of Educ (Jackson Parish) (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. 1966: US intervened in appeal
- 67 -

by Negro parents, seeking more rapid desegregation than ordered by DC. Pending.
522.La.47. Charles and US v Bd of Educ (Ascension Parish) (ED La, #3257) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. Je 6, 1966: US moved to intervene in Negro parents' suit to desegregate, seeking broadneing of prior decree.
522.La.48. Williams v Kimbrough (Madison Parish) (WD La, Monroe Div, #11329) (10 RRLR 1581) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. DC approved Def's plan: desegregation of grades 1, 2, 11 and 12 beginning Jan 1966, grades 3, 4, 9 and 10 in fall 1966, rest by beginning of 1967-68 school year; new students may attend formerly all-white or all-Negro school of their choice nearest residence, dual districts abolished.
522.La.50. Boyd cnd US v Bd of Educ (Pointe Coupee Parish) (ED La, #3164) Facts: XI DOCKET 45. Je 6, 1966: US moved to intervene in Negro parents' suit to desegregate to broaden prior decree.
522.La.52. Thomas v Bd of Educ (St Martin Parish) (WD La, Lafayette Div, #11314) (245 FSupp 601, 10 RRLR 1575) Aug 17, 1965: Pls brought desegregation suit. Sept 2: Defs submitted plan; DC entered permanent injunction restraining Defs from operating segregated schools, approved freedom of choice for all grades.
522.La.53. Andrews v Bd of Educ (Monroe) (WD La, Monroe Div, #11297) (10 RRLR 1541; 349 F2d 1022) Pls filed desegregation suit. DC declined to sign ex parte order desegregating schools without h'g. Pls appealed. Aug 26, 1965: CA remanded case. DC entered permanent injunction against Defs, Defs submitted plan. Sept 17: DC issued own plan: desegregation of grades 1, 2, 11, 12 in 1965-66; grades 3, 4, 9, 10 in 1966-67; grades 5, 6, 7, 8 in 1967-68; set out non-racial criteria for considering transfers; new students in any grade may attend formerly all-white or all-Negro school nearest residence; dual districts to be abolished as plan reaches grades.
522.La.54. Moses v Bd of Educ (Washington Parish) (ED La, New Orleans Div, #15973 Div B) (11 RRLR 171) Pls brought desegregation suit. Oct 13, 1965: DC prescribed plan: desegregation of grades 1, 12 in 1965-66; grades 2, 3, 8, 9, 10 in 1966-67, remaining grades in 1967-68; Defs to present to DC plans for single system of geographic school districts.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, LCDC, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans.

522.La.55. Gilbert v Bd of Educ (Webster Parish) (WD La, Shreveport Div, #11501) (11 RRLR 168) Pls brought desegregation suit. Nov 29, 1965: DC entered permanent injunction against segregated system. Defs submitted plan approved by DC: gradual freedom of choice plan; Defs must publish that students in grades 1, 2, 11, 12 have right to transfer by May 1: similar publication for grades 3, 4, 9, 10 for 1966-67 school year; all grades to be desegregated by 1967-68 school year; new students may attend all-white or all-Negro school nearest residence regardless of grade.
522.La.56. Smith v School Bd (Concordia Parish) (WD La, Monroe Div, #11577) (11 RRLR 173) Pls brought desegregation suit. Dec 15, 1965: DC issued permanent injunction restraining Defs from operating segregated system, effective Jan 1966. DC approved Def's plan for gradual freedom of choice, similar to 522.La.55.
522.La.57. Hill v School Bd (La Fourche Parish) (ED La, #16167) Mar 1966: DC granted Pl's motion for summary judgment for desegregation.

A M Trudeau, Esq, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans.

522.La.58. Celestain v School Bd (Vermillion Parish) (WD La) Apr 3, 1966: Pls filed desegregation suit. May 5: DC ordered Defs to submit desegregation plan.

A P Tureaud, Esq, 1821 Orleans, New Orleans.

522.La.59. US v Bd of Educ (Lincoln Parish) (WD La, Shreveport) Je 8, 1966: US filed desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 10 schools for whites only, 9 for Negroes only. Pending.
522.La.60. US v Bd of Educ (Plaquemines Parish) (ED La) Jy 21, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 6 schools for whites only, 3 for Negroes only. Pending.
522.La.61. US v Bd of Educ (Richland) (DC La, Shreveport) Jy 21, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 8 schools for whites only, 8 for Negroes only. Pending.
522.La.62. US v Bd of Educ (Bienville) (DC La, Shreveport) Jy 25, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 6 schools for whites only, 5 for Negroes only. Pending.
522.La.63. US v Bd of Educ (La Salle) (DC La, Shreveport) Jy 25, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 10 schools for whites only, one for Negroes only. Pending.
522.La.64. US v Bd of Educ (Grant Parish) (DC La, Shreveport) Aug 27, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd gave Negro students inferior educational opportunities, facilities; pending.
522.La.65. US (Intervenor) v Bds of Educ (Jackson, Claiborne, Caddo, Bossier Parishes, La; Fairfield, Bessemer, Jefferson Cos, Ala) (CA 5) US moved to consolidate 7 appeals, challenging adequacy of desegregation plans approved by DCs. US contended all plans fell short of legal standards in student transfer procedures, desegregation of faculties and activities. Pending.
522.Miss.2. Singleton and US v Bd of Educ (Jackson) (CA 5, #22527) (355 F2d 865; 11 RRLR 179) Facts: X DOCKET 63, 123, 158; XI DOCKET 45. US intervened as party Pl. Jan 26, 1966: CA held it is not bound by HEW standards, refused to require immediate desegregation; approved 4 grades/yr desegregation; held (1) Def must have total desegregation by Sept 1967, (2) students in segregated grades may transfer to schools from which otherwise excluded on account of race, (3) Def must make adequate start toward eliminating discrimination in employment, allocation of teachers, (4) validity of "freedom of choice"
- 68 -

plan depends on (a) proper notice, (b) no dual attendance zones, (c) permitting students to make annual choice of schools.

Jack Young, Esq, 115 N Farish; R Jess Brown, Esq, 5161 Gault St, both of Jackson, Miss.

522.Miss.3. Bd of Educ v Hudson (Leake Co) (CA 5, ##21851, 21852, 21878) (10 RRLR 175) Facts: X DOCKET 63, 123; XI DOCKET 46. Jan 26, 1966: CA affirmed judgment of DC, rejecting appellants' argument that alleged innate racial differences in aptitude for education justifies continued school segregation.
522.Miss.8. Henry v Bd of Educ (Clarksdale) (ND Miss, Delta Div, #DC6428) (11 RRLR 719) Facts: X DOCKET 63, 123; XI DOCKET 46. Defs submitted new revised plan for establishment of attendance zones for elementary schools, requesting it not be put into effect til Sept 1966 and Defs be given permission to revise boundaries as need arises due to changing patterns of pupil population. Dec 13: DC approved Def's plan except for permission to revise boundaries.
522.Miss.10. Anderson and US v Bd of Educ (Canton) (SD Miss) Facts: X DOCKET 123; XI DOCKET 46. Je 29, 1966: US intervened, contending DC order failed to meet minimum legal requirements for school desegregation, as defined in ct rulings since order issued.
522.Miss.12. Barnhardt and US v Bd of Educ (Meridian) (SD Miss, #1300) Facts: X DOCKET 158, XI DOCKET 46. Jy 15, 1965: Def-Bd submitted freedom of choice plan, approved by HEW. US intervened as party Pl. H'g held. DC tentatively approved plan.

Marian Wright, Esq, NAACP Inc Fund, 538½ N Farish St, Jackson.

522.Miss.14. Blackwell and US v Bd of Educ (Issaquena and Sharkey Cos) (SD Miss, #1096) (10 RRLR 1591) Facts: XI DOCKET 46. Defs implemented plan temporarily approved by DC; Pls filed no objection but have right to seek modification in future. Pls appealed. Feb 24, 1966: US intervened: plan should be revised to meet present standards, ending segregated transportation, inferior Negro schools, segregated facilities.
522.Miss.15. Cowan v Bd of Educ (Bolivar Co) (ND Miss, #6531) Facts: XI DOCKET 46. DC entered permanent injunction against racially discriminatory assignment of pupils, ordered implementation of plans, approved plans subject to future modification.
522.Miss.17a. Baird v Bd of Educ (Benton Co) (ND Miss, W Div, #WC6513) (10 RRLR 1583) Pls, Negro parents, sued to desegregate schools. Je 24, 1965: DC issued preliminary injunction. Jy 1: Defs submitted freedom of choice plan: 2 grades/yr. Aug 7: DC entered permanent injunction: 4 grades/yr, freedom of choice for all grades.
522.Miss.19. US v Bd of Educ (Carroll Co) (ND Miss, #GC6541) (10 RRLR 1609) US brought desegregation suit. DC issued preliminary injunction. Def proposed desegregation of grades 1, 2, 3, and 12 in 1965-66, then at least 4 grades/yr, with freedom of choice. DC found plan "substantially complies" with order, should be "temporarily approved as interim measure."
522.Miss.20. US v Muni Sep School Dist (Aberdeen) (ND Miss, E Div, #EC6564) (10 RRLR 1605) US sued under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Aug 31, 1965: DC held in abeyance pending ruling by US Commr of Educ on Defs' plan. Sept 4: Commr rejected plan. Sept 10: DC entered preliminary injunction; ordered Defs to give individual written notice to all parents of Negro children in grades 1, 2, 7, 12 of right to select school of choice, to enroll children without regard to race or color, to permit any qualified pupil attending all-Negro school to transfer to all-white school for course not available in his school.
522.Miss.21. Ayers v Western Line Consolidated School District (ND Miss, #GC66-1) Jan, 1966: Pls filed suit against Def and 2 other districts providing bus transportation for pupils in Dist, seeking injunctive relief against segregated transportation and various hardships resulting from Bd's adoption of freedom of choice plan. Pending.

Marian Wright, Esq, 538½ N Farish, Jackson, Miss; Henry Aronson, Esq, NAACP Inc Fund.

522.Miss.22. US (Intervenor) v Miss State Educ Finance Commn (SD Miss) Negro citizens sued to enjoin implementation of state tuition grant statute, other state support of private segregated education. Mar 14, 1966: US intervened: alleges 22 private schools for Caucasians only, attended by students receiving state tuition grants, chartered in counties carrying out desegregation under ct order or voluntarily. Pending.
522.Miss.23. US v Bd of Educ (Sunflower Co) (DC Miss, Oxford) Jy 14, 1966: Pls brought desegregation suit, alleging student bodies, staffs of all schools in district racially segregated. Pending.
522.Miss.24. US v Bds of Educ (Indianola, Sunflower Co, Miss) (ND Miss) Jy 18, 1966: US sued to desegregate Sunflower schools. US alleges both school districts segregated as to staff and pupils. Pending.
522.Miss.25. US v Bd of Educ (LeFlore Co) (ND Miss, Oxford) Aug 1, 1966: US brought desegregation suit alleging Bd operates "in accordance with an official policy of racial segregation of students and teachers." Pending.
522.Miss.26. US v Bd of Educ (Amite Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 9, 1966: US brought desegregation suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging Bd operate 3 schools for white students, 2 for Negroes "in accordance with an official policy of racial segregation of students and teachers." Pending.
522.Miss.27. US v Bd of Educ (S Pike Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 9, 1966: US brought desegregation suit under Civil Rights Act alleging Bd operates 3 schools for geographical attendance zones based on race. Pending.
522.Miss.28. US v Bd of Educ (Calhoun Co) (ND Miss, Oxford Aug 12, 1966: US filed desegregation suit charging "community hostility" negated freedom of choice plan, Def to assure all students free choice or adopt plan based on non-racial geographic attendance Pending.
- 69 -

522.Miss.29. US v Bd of Educ (Lauderdale Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 17, 1966: US filed desegregation suit, asking for DC order implementing freedom of choice desegregation plan, begun year before. Pending.
522.Miss.30. US v Bd of Educ (Philadelphia) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 18, 1966: US filed suit stating freedom of choice plan deterred by community hostility, additional relief necessary. Pending.
522.Miss.31. US v Bd of Educ (Louisville) (ND Miss, Oxford) Aug 22, 1966: US filed suit to accelerate desegregation, asking DC to allow students in grades 9-12 wider choice of schools to attend, to equalize expenditures, equipment between traditionally all-Negro, formerly all-white schools. Pending.
522.Miss.32. US v Bd of Educ (Noxubee Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 27, 1966: US brought desegregation suit, alleging Bd gave Negro students inferior educational opportunities, facilities. Pending.
522.Miss.33. US v Bd of Educ (Kemper Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Aug 31, 1966: US filed suit to desegregate public schools in Co which abandoned desegregation plans. Pending.
522.Miss.34. US v Bd of Educ of Iuka (Tishomingo Co) (ND Miss, Oxford) Negro students applied for admission under freedom of choice plan, Bd refused. Sept 8, 1966: US filed desegregation suit. Pending.
522.Miss.35. US v Bd of Educ (Wilkinson Co) (SD Miss, Jackson) Sept 8, 1966: US filed desegregation suit alleging Bd operates 2 schools for whites, 3 for Negroes. Pending.
522.Miss.36. US v Grenada (Oxford) (ND Miss) Sept 12, 1966: Negro children seeking entrance, with their parents, to 2 of 3 schools desegregated under DC order assaulted, beaten by armed whites. Sept 13: US filed suit alleging Def city officials wilfully failed, refused to disperse crowd, disarm its members, protect children, parents, arrest those who committed assaults; seeking order that Defs provide protection to children in future and arrest, prosecute those who assault or threaten them. Pending.
522.Miss.37. US v Bd of Educ (Corinth) (ND Miss, Oxford) Oct 3, 1966: US filed suit to broaden desegregation of schools alleging Bd's freedom of choice desegregation plan fails to meet minimum legal requirement: 1) fails to equalize educational opportunities, 2) does not permit new students to attend school of choice; seeks order requiring Bd to proceed with desegregation in conformity with law. Pending.
522.NJ.6. Byers v Bd of Educ (Bridgeton) (NJ Commr of Educ) Aug, 1962: Pls brought desegregation suit. Jan 24, 1966: Commr noted racial imbalance existed, found Bd made no effort to eliminate it, ordered Bd to formulate plan with "all possible speed."
522.NY.4. Article, John Kaplan, Segregation, litigation and schools: New Rochelle experience, 58 Northwestern 1-72.
522.NY.12. Davis v Bd of Educ (Glen Cove) (NY Commr of Educ) Nov 1962: Pls protested school districts drawn along racial lines, no showing of convenience or concept of neighborhood schools to account for segregation. Commr discontinued action to eliminate racial imbalance by stipulation after Bd agreed to modifications of desegregation plan, including remedial program in predominantly Negro elementary school until it is closed.

Jawn A Sandifer, Esq, 271 W 125th St, Robert L Carter, Barbara A Morris, Esqs, NAACP, 20 W 40th St, all of NYC.

522.NY.13. Bristow v Union Free School Dist #8 (Roosevelt) (NY Commr of Educ) Pls filed complaint. Nov 22, 1965: Commr of Educ ordered Bd to submit plan by Mar, 1966. Mar 16, 1966: Bd submitted "Princeton Plan" which would pair all schools in system.
522.NY.14. Students v NYC Bd of Educ (E Brooklyn) (ED NY) 1966: Pl-students sued to prevent construction of 7 schools to serve segregated neighborhoods, for order compelling Bd to set up educational park: cluster of schools serving wide area with ethnically varied population. NY Commr of Educ restrained construction pending outcome of suit.

NYCLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

And see Green, 55.NY.15.

522.NY.15. Hall v Union Free District #6 (Freeport) Bd of Educ agreed to desegregate remaining imbalanced school by Sept, 1966.
522.NY.16. Bedford v Union Free School Dist #6 (Babylon) (NY Commr of Educ) Commr ordered Bd to submit plan for elimination of racial imbalance by Mar 15, 1966.
522.NY.17. King v Bd of Educ (Mt Vernon) (NY Commr of Educ) Commr ordered Bd to correct racial imbalance by Sept, 1966. Bd offered plan creating "children's academy" to which all school children taken by bus for 2 hrs of every school day to study arts, nature, literature, spending other 3 hrs in "neighborhood school." Mar 16, 1966: Commr held h'g on acceptability of Bd's integration plan. Pending.
522.NC.11b. Swann and US v Bd of Educ and Gill, Treasurer (Charlotte-Mecklenburg) (WD NC, Charlotte Div) Jan 11, 1966: US intervened to enjoin payments under state tuition-grant statute to subsidize private school attendance by white pupils. Pending.
522.NC.14. Wheeler v Spaulding (MD NC, Durham Div, #C-54-D-60, C-116-D-60) (249 FSupp 145; 11 RRLR 190) Facts: X DOCKET 64, 159; XI DOCKET 47. July, 1965: DC entered consent order establishing plan for schools during 1965-66. Jan 19, 1966: DC approved Defs' plan, denied Pls' application for order assigning teachers without regard to race, found plan gives each pupil unrestricted freedom to attend school of his choice; Bd's assignment of teachers on racial basis does not interfere with pupils' free choice of schools. Jy 7, 1966: CA 4 reversed DC's denial of relief on faculty segregation.

Conrad O Pearson, Esq, 203½ E Chapel Hill St, Durham, NC; James M Nabrit, Esq, Howard Law School, Washington, DC.

522.NC.27. Gill v Bd of Educ (Concord City) (MD NC, #C-233-S-63) Facts: X DOCKET 65, 159; XI DOCKET 47. NC Teachers
- 70 -

Assn filed motion to intervene. Mar 1966: Pls filed motion for further relief from intimidation, teacher segregation, and interrogatories. Jy, 1966: h'g; Bd to present modified plan Aug 18, 1966.
522.NC.42. Pls and US v Bd of Educ (Franklin Co) (ED NC, Raleigh Div, #1796) (11 RRLR 743) Pl Negro parents sued to enjoin school discrimination, complained of intimidation of Negroes seeking transfers to white schools, non-compliance with Def's desegregation plan; Pls sought DC order that Bd enroll Negroes whose transfers denied, not divulge names of pupils seeking transfers to white schools, take steps to insure free choice under open enrollment or establish nondiscriminatory closed enrollment. Jan 1966: US intervened. Feb 21: DC found Def failed to give proper notice of approved grounds for transfers; held Pls not prejudiced by failure since requests not made on approved grounds, Pls failed to show clear constitutional right to admission to chosen schools or irreparable damage from denial of transfers, denied preliminary injunction.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade, Charlotte, NC; James Nabrit, Esq, Howard University, Washington, DC.

522.NC.43. Hawkins v NC State Bd of Educ (WD NC, Charlotte Div, #2067) (11 RRLR 745) Suit to declare invalid, enjoin enforcement of NC tuition grant statute. Mar 1966: 3-judge fedl ct held statute unconstitutional, issued permanent injunction against Def and State Treasurer.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade, Thomas Wyche, Esq, 2500 Beatties Ford Rd; both of Charlotte; Conrad Pearson, Esq, 203½ E Chapel Hill, Durham, NC.

522.NC.44. Boomer v Bd of Educ (Beaufort Co) (ED NC) Pls sued for replacement of Def's "free choice" plan by unitary non-racial assignments based on geographic zones. DC ordered Def to propose modifications of plan by Jy 22, 1966.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade, Charlotte, NC.

522.Ohio.4. Cragget v Bd of Educ (Cleveland) (CA 6, #16,042) 1964: Pls brought desegregation suit arguing that Bd building new segregated schools purposely. DC held against Pls. Appeal pending.

Russell T Adrine, Esq, 1404 E Ninth St, Jack G Day, Esq, Standard Bldg; both of Cleveland, Ohio; Robert L Carter, Lewis M Steel, Esqs, NAACP, 20 W 40th St, NYC.

522.Ohio.5. Deal v Bd of Educ (Cincinnati) (SD Ohio, W Div, #5483) (244 FSupp 572; 10 RRLR 1623) Pls, Negro children, brought desegregation suit. At end of Pls' case, Defs moved for summary judgment. Jy 1965: DC found Pls failed to isolate and define issues; held: (1) DC had no right to order "any program to attempt to balance race in schools," Pls failed to prove any loss of legal rights, (2) denied motion for injunctive relief; held for Def. Pls amended complaint. Aug 9: DC dismissed amended complaint with prejudice. Appeal pending.

Norris Muldrow, Esq, 415 Rockdale Ave, Cincinnati, Ohio; Robert L Carter, Esq, NAACP, 20 W 40th St, NYC.

522.Pa.5. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commn v School District (Chester) (Dauphin Co Ct of Com Pleas, #637, 1964) Facts: X DOCKET 124. Feb 7, 1966: Trial ct concluded: (1) Commn had power to initiate desegregation suit, lacked authority to deal with de facto segregation in public schools, (2) Commn's findings re de facto segregation beyond its jurisdiction; (3) Commn's determination Def discriminated against pupils on racial basis not supported by substantial evidence, therefore arbitrary, capricious.
522.SC.2a. Miller and US v School Dist No 2 (Clarendon Co) (ED SC, #8752) 1965: Pls filed desegregation suit. Feb 21, 1966: Parties held pretrial conference; US intervened. DC ruled Bd's plan inadequate. Je 14: DC ordered Bd to operate under plan similar to HEW guidelines.

Matthew Perry, Esq, 1107½ Washington, Columbia, SC.

522.SC.12. Adams v School Dist #5 (Orangeburg Co) (DC SC, #8301) Facts: X DOCKET 67. Desegregation order outstanding. Defs filed motion to amend, vacate. Aug 25, 1966: DC ordered Bd to follow HEW guidelines.

Matthew Perry, Esq, 1107½ Washington, Columbia; Earl Colbyn, Zack Townsend, Esqs, 205 Amelia, Orangeburg, SC; NAACP Inc Fund.

522.SC.26. Wheeler v School Dist #3 (Clarendon Co) (ED SC) Pls filed desegregation suit. Feb 21, 1966: Parties held pre-trial conference.
522.Tenn.1. Kelley v Bd of Educ (Nashville)


522.Tenn.9. Maxwell v Bd of Educ (Davidson Co) (MD Tenn) Facts: X DOCKET 67, 124. Bds accelerated old 12-yr desegregation plan to desegregate all grades by Sept 1966; pupils who previously transferred out of their zone no longer to be furnished transportation by Bd, no more transfers to be granted.

Avon Williams, Esq, 327 Charlotte, Nashville.

522.Tenn.11. Vick v Bd of Educ (Obion Co) (WD Tenn, #1259) (11 RRLR 776) Facts: X DOCKET 68, 159. Aug 26, 1966: DC ordered Defs to eliminate all racial discrimination in curricular, and school-sponsored extra-curricular activities.
522.Tenn.12. Monroe v Bd of Commrs (Jackson) (WD Tenn, #1327) (11 RRLR 209, 774) Facts: X DOCKET 68, 159; XI DOCKET 48. Apr 22, 1966: DC enjoined Defs from adopting or enforcing any rules of conduct governing relations between pupils based on race, from recognizing or enforcing right of pupil to choose friends or social contacts unless right of all pupils so to choose is recognized, enforced.

Avon Williams, Esq, 327 Charlotte, Nashville, NC; James Nabrit, Esq, Howard Univ, Washington, DC.

522.Tenn.15. Hill v Bd of Educ (Franklin Co) (ED Tenn, Winchester Div, #668) Facts: X DOCKET 68, 159. Bd closed all Negro schools, did not re-employ non-tenured teachers. Feb 23, 1966: Pls filed motion to reinstate case on active docket, to correct abuses of freedom-of-choice plan, to require meaningful teacher desegregation. Pending.
522.Tenn.18. US v Bd of Educ (Crockett Co) (WD Tenn) Je 8, 1966: US filed desegregation suit alleging white students attend schools in 6 city districts, only Negroes attend 4 schools, seeks abolition of 6 districts. Pending.
- 71 -

522.Tenn.19. McFerren and US v Bd of Educ (Fayette Co) (DC Tenn, #C-65-136) Def submitted proposed freedom-of-choice plan. Jy, 1965: US intervened as Pl. Aug 9, 1965: Pls filed objection. Pls seek proof to support allegations Negro schools so inferior they should be closed and all pupils assigned on non-racial basis. Pending.

Avon Williams, Esq, 327 Charlotte, Nashville.

522.Tenn.20. US v Bd of Educ (Dyersburg) (DC Tenn, Memphis) Jy 1966: Def adopted desegregation plan: transfer of all Negroes in 12th grade at Negro high school to predominatly white school. Aug: Def rescinded plan. Aug 26: US sued for order to Def to reinstate plan, add transfer of all Negro junior high students. Pending.
522.Tex.5. Britton v Folsom (Dallas) (ND Tex, Dallas Div, #6165) (350 F2d 1022) Facts: X DOCKET 68, 124, XI DOCKET 49. Def's plan provided for desegregation of every grade except 10, 11 as of Sept, 1966. July 25, 1966: Pls filed motion for further relief. Pending.
522.Tex.7. Ross v Eckels (Houston) (SD Tex, Houston Div, #10444) Facts: X DOCKET 68, XI DOCKET 49. Jan 25, 1966: Defs answered some interrogatories. Jy 7, 1966: Pls filed motion for further injunctive relief.
522.Tex.10. Flax v Potts (Fort Worth) (ND Tex, #4205) (315 F2d 284) Facts: V DOCKET 40—IX DOCKET 26. Feb, 1966: Bd adopted resolution to assign teachers on non-racial basis; grades 10, 11, 12 still segregated. Jy 25: Pls filed motion for further relief. Hearing: Sept 6. Pending.

W J Durham, Esq, 2600 Flora, Dallas.

522.Tex.28. Hightower v McFarland (Houston) (SD Tex, Houston Div, #65-H-111) (11 RRLR 214, 355 F2d 468) School Bd denied Negro student's application for transfer to all-white school; Pl filed suit to compel admission to school which is closer than all-Negro school he attends. Defs contended earlier suit a class action which finally determined rights of Negro minors in area, DC lacks jurisdiction over case. Mar 25, 1965: DC granted motion, dismissed case. Pl appealed. CA 5 held Pl alleged denial of personal right due to race, reversed and remanded.
522.Va.. Editorial: Desegregation guidelines for Franklin, Va., public school system: Tidewater News, Southampton, Va. Sept 19, 1966. (Cong Rec—Appendix, Oct 10, 1966, A5202.)
522.Va.1. Bd of Supervisors v Griffin (Prince Edward Co) (CA 4; USSC #562) Facts: X DOCKET 124, 160; XI DOCKET 49. CA 4 held: Va school bd's disbursement of public funds to parents of students attending private segregated schools while its right to do so under consideration by CA 4 constituted civil contempt even though ct issued no injunction against such disbursement. Sept 17, 1966: Defs filed cert in USSC.
522.Va.4f. Beckett v School Bd (Norfolk) (ED Va, Norfolk Div, #2214) (349 F2d 414, 11 RRLR 218) Facts: X DOCKET 69. CA remanded to consider propriety of several features of most recently approved plan. Dec 1, 1965: Defs filed plan which gives Negro children integrated schools, administrative transfers allowed for reasons other than race. Mar 1966: Parties negotiated and produced consent decree covering faculty, pupil desegregation.
522.Va.14a. Bradley v Bd of Educ (Richmond) (#3353) (317 F2d 429, 345 F2d 310, 382 US 103) Facts: X DOCKET 69, 160; XI DOCKET 49. Nov 15, 1965: USSC, per curiam, reversed and remanded for h'g on faculty desegregation. Apr 1966: Consent decree entered.
522.Va.30. Gilliam v Bd of Educ (Hopewell) (USSC) (382 US 103) Facts: X DOCKET 70, 160; XI DOCKET 49. Nov 15, 1965: USSC granted certiorari; per curiam, reversed and remanded for full h'g on faculty desegregation issue. Apr 1966: Parties negotiated plan for desegregation of pupils, faculty; consent decree entered.
522.Va.38. Wright v Bd of Educ (Greenville Co) (ED Va, Richmond Div, #4263) (11 RRLR 793, 252 FSupp 378) Facts: XI DOCKET 49. Mar 1965: Pls filed desegregation suit. Jan 1966: Bd, to comply with Title VI, 1964 Civil Rights Act, adopted plan approved by US Commr of Educ: freedom of choice for pupils annually in all schools. Pls contended all pupil assignments should be on geographical basis, but DC ruled freedom of choice encompasses non-restrictive assignment system which more than satisfies requirements of 14th Amdt. Jan 27, 1966: DC ordered faculty desegregation. Defs filed plan; Pls filed exceptions. May 13, 1966: DC sustained exceptions. DC approved Defs' amended plan.

Otto Tucker, Esq, 214 E Clay, Richmond, Va.

522.Va.39. Brown v Bd of Educ (Greensville Co) (ED Va, #4263) Facts: XI DOCKET 49. May 13, 1966: DC ordered Def to submit plan for faculty desegregation. Defs filed plan; Pls filed exceptions. Je 21: DC entered order approving plan.
522.Va.41. Green v Bd of Educ (New Kent Co) (ED Va, #4266) Facts: XI DOCKET 49. May 4, 1966: DC ruled order will enter for faculty desegregation. Defs filed desegregation plan; Pls filed exceptions. DC approved plan. Defs filed notice of appeal.

S W Tucker, Esq, 214 E Clay, Richmond.

522.Va.45. Turner v Bd of Educ (Goochland Co) (ED Va, Richmond #4343) (11 RRLR 783) (252 FSupp 578) Suit to desegregate school system. Jan 27, 1966: DC ordered faculty desegregation.

Otto Tucker, Esq, 214 E Clay, Richmond.

522.Va.46. Kier v Bd of Educ (Augusta Co) (WD Va, Harrisonburg Div, #65-C-5-H) (249 FSupp 239; 11 RRLR 227) Facts: XI DOCKET 49. Pls brought desegregation suit. DC concluded that under freedom-of-choice plan facilities must be desegregated so Negro children would not tend to remain in all-Negro school; Pls need not prove segregated faculties cause actual adverse effects; DC held percentage of Negro teachers in each school should approximate percentage of Negro teachers in whole system. Jan 5, 1966: DC approved free choice plan, ordered faculty desegregation. Aug 6: DC ordered injunction dissolved, held sufficient compliance.
522.Va.47. Bell v Bd of Educ (Staunton) (WD Va, Harrisonburg Div, #65-C-6-H) (249 FSupp 249; 11 RRLR 223) Pls
- 72 -

brought desegregation suit because of delay in establishing freedom-of-choice plan. DC ordered by Sept 1967: integration of faculty, staff all Negro schools closed, all students assigned on basis of unitary, non-racial geographic zones.
522.Va.48. Thompson v Bd of Educ (Hanover Co) (ED Va, #4274) (11 RRLR 778; 252 FSupp 546) Pls brought desegregation suit. Defs made plan. Sept 1965: HEW approved plan—annual freedom-of-choice by all pupils in all grades, beginning Sept 1966. Pls objected: failure to assign pupils on geographical basis. DC held freedom-of-choice aspect of plan constitutional, citing Wright v Co School Bd (Greensville Co) (ED Va, #4263). Jan 27, 1966: DC ordered faculty desegregation. Negotiations produced consent decree on pupil, faculty desegregation.

Otto Tucker, Esq, 214 E Clay, Richmond, Va.

522.Va.49. Franklin v Bd of Educ (Campbell Co) (WD Va, #65-C-23-L) 1965: Pls filed suit to desegregate schools. Bd adopted free-choice plan. DC approved, ordered teacher desegregation to proceed.

S W Tucker, Esq, 214 E Clay St, Richmond.

523. Suits to Prevent Integration (see also 204, 213, 223, 522)
Comment: Racial imbalance in public schools: constitutional dimensions and judicial response. 18 Vanderbilt 1290-1338.
523.Conn.1. Guida v Bd of Educ (New Haven Co) (Super Ct) (213 A2d 843, 10 RRLR 1521) Jy 7, 1964: Def adopted attendance zone plan, pairing 2 junior highs in single zone, all 7th graders in area attending one school, all 8th graders attending other, thus reducing racial imbalance. Pls, parents of jr high students, sued to enjoin Def from carrying out plan, arguing racial imbalance requires legislative enactment beyond Def's power. Super Ct held no statutory or constitutional prohibition which precludes Def, in carrying out duty to maintain sound educational system, from considering factor of racial imbalance; for Defs.
523.Ga.5. Bd of Educ v US (Taylor Co) (DC Ga) Pl sued to enjoin US from forcing communities to bus Negro students outside districts, against wishes of Negro students, in order to obtain racial balance. Jy 22, 1966: DC ruled fed'l funds cannot be cut off from local bds that do not integrate when Negroes prefer to go to Negro schools.
523.NJ.2. Fuller v Volk (Englewood) (CA 3, ##15043, 15044) (351 F2d 323; 10 RRLR 1614; 250 FSupp 81, 11 RRLR 753) Facts: X DOCKET 71, 125. White Pls against Def's integration plan appealed. CA 3 remanded for determination of jurisdictional question, set guidelines for DC's consideration in ruling on merits, if jurisdiction exists. Feb 3, 1966: DC dismissed 1 group's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, considered 2nd group's complaint on merits; concluded: 1) not to alter original determination; 2) no justification for invoking fed'l doctrine of abstention or requiring parties to exhaust state administrative remedies; 3) granted Defs' motion for summary judgment.
523.NJ.2a. Clarke v Bd of Educ (Englewood) (NJ Commr of Educ) Mar 1966: Pls filed complaint because Def did not fulfill prior order of Commr of Educ. Pending.
523.NY.2. Mitchell v Bd of Educ (Malverne) (Vetere v Mitchell: 206 NE2d 174; cd 382 US 825) Facts: X DOCKET 71, 125; XI DOCKET 49, 50. Commr of Educ ordered complete desegregation of district's 3 elementary schools by Mar 1966. White parents sued (DC Brooklyn) alleging unconstitutional to assign pupils by race to achieve integration. Commr delayed desegregation order because of suit. Pls applied for writ of prohibition (Albany Co Sup Ct) to prevent Commr from rescinding his order. DC dismissed Brooklyn suit. Commr ruled prohibition motion moot. Sup Ct decided for Pls, ruled Commr of Educ may not delay desegregation because of nuisance suits filed in fed'l cts.

And see Olson, 523.NY.2a.

523.NY.2a. Olson v Bd of Educ (Union Free School Dist #12) (Malverne) (ED NY, #65-C-1170) (250 FSupp 1000, 11 RRLR 756) Pls sued to enjoin application of new attendance zones for kindergarten—5th graders designed to correct racial imbalance. Feb 11, 1966: DC ruled: 1) present action not precluded by previous litigation (523.NY.2) which resulted in new plan; 2) 1964 Civil Rights Act not relevant to legality of plan; 3) Commr's conclusion that racially imbalanced school is one having 50% or more Negroes not arbitrary determination: concluded Commr's motivation for change not discrimination but assistance to minority groups in providing equal educational opportunities; held complaint fails to state cause of action, dismissed.
523.NY.4. Addabbo v Donovan, Bd of Educ (Queens) (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 71, 125, 160; XI DOCKET 50. Nov 8, 1965: USSC denied cert: 382 US 905.

And see 64 Queens Parents, 55.NY.14.

523.NY.8. Etter v Littwitz (Monroe Co) (NY Sup Ct) (262 NYS2d 924, 10 RRLR 1620) Taxpayers, parents of students sued to enjoin school officials from executing transfer plan from racially, culturally imbalanced districts. Sup Ct held plan not arbitrary or capricious, does not violate state or fed'l constitutions; denied Pls' motion for preliminary injunction.
523.NY.9. Offerman v Nitkowski, Bd of Educ (Buffalo) (WD NY, #11546) (248 FSupp 129, 11 RRLR 188) White parents sued to enjoin Def from carrying out desegregation plan, charging plan based on racial considerations. Dec 9, 1965: DC held: 14th Amdt, while prohibiting invidious discrimination, "does not bar cognizance of race in a proper effort to eliminate racial imbalance in a school system"; ruled Pls did not state cause of action.

Harold Fahringer, Esq, One Niagara Sq; William L Reith, Esq, 70 Niagara St; Eugene M Steel, Esq, Liberty Bank Bldg; Herman Schwartz, Esq, 77 Eagle St, all of Buffalo.

523.Va.2. Wanner v Bd of Educ (Arlington Co) (CA 4, #10,208) (11 RRLR 788) Facts: XI DOCKET 50. Feb 4, 1966: CA held: (1) DC in error in holding Constitution forbids to end existing conditions resulting from past racial (2) since case is product of "invidious racial distinguishable from other decisions fed'l cts may not compel Bd to realign attendance area
- 73 -

effect racial balance; (3) Bd did not act arbitrarily; (4) Bd constitutionally forbidden to maintain attendance area system; reversed DC order.
524. Misc Suits to End Segregation (and 555)

524.3. Carthan and US v Mississippi State School Bd (formerly Cartban v) (SD Miss, #3814) Facts: XI DOCKET 50. Pending.

See US Atty Gen'l's Memo of Points & Authorities.

525. Treatment of Minority Groups in School Books
News letter: Interracial Books for children. Council on Interracial Books for Children, 9 E 40th St, NYC 10016. (Quarterly) $1/yr.

Booklet: Bobbi and Frank Cieciorka, Negroes in American History: A freedom primer. The Student Voice. 1965. 53 pp.

Legislation: California Educ C §§7604, 7700, 9310.5, 9958, 9959, 10013 (1965) require inclusion in elementary, jr and sr highs of "study of role and contributions of American Negroes and other ethnic groups in history of this country and this state."

Pamphlets: Margaret Young, How to bring up your child without prejudice. Public Affairs Comm. 1965. 20 pp.

The Negro in history. Conn Comm on Civil Rights. 1966.

Report: Discrimination in TV: Program & legal background for its elimination by FCC. 35 pp. (Oct, 1965) Comm on legal problems in integrated society. Natl Lawyers Guild (NYC).

See also 576.

530. Housing — Racial Discrimination (see also 423)

List: State statutes and ordinances prohibiting discrimination in housing. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 314-317.

Article: Alfred Avins, Literacy tests, Fourteenth Amendment, and District of Columbia voting: Original intent. 1965 Washington 429-62.

Booklet: "Dueno Inquilino, Sus Derechos y Responsabilidades" describes law of landlord-tenant relation: Rights and responsibilities, in Spanish (also English); 10 pp; Chicago Commn on Human Relations, 211 W Wacker Drive, Chicago.

Comment: Discrimination in public accommodations and housing: State and fed'l remedies available in Oregon. 44 Oregon 123-31.

531. In Public and Publicly-Assisted Housing—Urban Renewal (Title I)
Article: Charles E Rice, Bias in housing: Toward new approach. 6 Santa Clara Lawyer 162-71.

Comment: Public accommodations legislation: Ohio and fed'l. 34 Cincinnati 368-89.

531.17. Redevelopment Agency of Fresno v Buckman (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 160, XI DOCKET 50, 101. Cite: 413 P2d 856.
532. In Publicly Assisted Housing—FHA and VA
533. In Private Housing
Articles: Bruce A Miller, Anti-open occupancy legislation: historic anomaly. 43 Detroit 161-272.

Laurence D Pearl, Benjamin B Terner, Fair housing laws: halfway mark. 54 Georgetown 156-72.

Joseph B Robison, Possibility of frontal assault on "state action" concept, re right to purchase real property guaranteed in 42 USC §1982. 41 Notre Dame Lawyer 455-70.

Russell E Van Hooser, Subtle, sophisticated or simple-minded: Detroit's home owners' ordinance, 43 Detroit 161-272.

533.Cal.17. Thomas v Goulis (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 73, 125, 160; XI DOCKET 50, 101. Cite: 413 P2d 854.
533.Cal.20. Wagner v O'Bannon (Los Angeles Co Super Ct, #East C-2148) Facts: X DOCKET 73, 126 at 533.65; XI DOCKET 160. In his trial brief, Pl argues: (1) Pl entitled to damages under Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ Code §51); (2) violation of Unruh Act for multiple listing service to accept racially restricted listing; (3) Defs did not use good faith or do all within their power to serve Pls; (4) acceptance by multiple listing service of racially discriminatory listing, so all member-brokers carry out discriminatory instructions, converts apparatus of listing service into conspiracy between member-broker's offices, listing service itself, and its individual members. Pending.

Daniel N Fox, Esq, 632 North Park Ave, P. O. Box 2692, Pomona, Calif 91766.

533.Cal.26. Reitman v Mulkey (USSC, #483) (413 P2d 825) Facts: X DOCKET 126, 161; XI DOCKET 50, 101. Aug 25, 1966: Def filed petition for cert; granted.
533.Cal.27. Prendergast v Snyder (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 126 at 533.86, XI DOCKET 50, 101. Cite: 413 P2d 847.
533.Cal.28. Hill v Miller (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 126 at 533.87, XI DOCKET 50, 102. Cite: 413 P2d 852.
533.Cal.29. Grogan v Meyer (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 126, 161 at 533.88, XI DOCKET 50, 102. Cite: 413 P2d 845.
533.Cal.31. Peyton v Barrington (Calif Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 102. Cite: 413 P2d 849.
533.Cal.33. Tan v Wong (San Francisco Super Ct, #569978) Sept 4, 1963: Pl leased premises from Def, requiring Def's consent for assignment of Pl's interest. Je 1, 1966: Pl notified Def of intent to assign to one willing and able to assume obligations of lease. Def refused consent. Aug 19, 1966: Pl sued Def for wrongful withholding of consent to assign: nonconsent based on Negro race of proposed assignee, in violation of Calif Civil Code §51. Pl seeks: (1) declaration that Def acted unreasonably in withholding consent, which is contrary to law as limitation on use of real property based on racial discrimination; (2) Def be restrained from bringing unlawful detainer for Pl's nonpayment of rent during pendency of action; (3) rescission of lease, restoration of premises to Def; (4) specific performance of lease by granting consent to assignment. Aug 22: Super Ct ordered Def to show cause why he should not be restrained from suing Pl for unpaid rentals and unlawful detainer; temporary restraining order enjoining Def from instituting such actions; ordered Pl to pay into Ct accrued unpaid installments of rent.
- 74 -

Ephraim Margolin, Esq, 683 McAllister St, San Francisco.
533.Cal.34. Ray v Briarwood South (Orange Co Super Ct) Def-housing tract accepted deposit from Pl-Negro. Aug 29, 1966: Pl obtained temporary restraining order prohibiting Def from selling house which Pl offered to buy. Pending.

David Cadwell, Esq, 1923 W 17th St, Santa Ana, Calif.

533.Conn.5. Conn Commn on Civil Rights v Eastlake Estates (Danbury) (Cir Ct) May 18, 1966: Negro couple agreed to purchase home in previously all-white tract community. Def-builders sought to block sale by invoking "recapture clause" in original sale contract, whereby Def could repurchase property within 30 days after agreement to sell. Jy 21: Pl sought injunction against Def to enjoin sale of house to anyone but Negro couple. Jy 22: Def announced intention to allow Negro couple to buy home. Pl dropped injunction suit.
533.Mich.5. Chisom v Deremo & Son; McClinic v Gordon Williamson Co (Mich Civil Rights Commn) Aug 23, 1966: Pl-Negroes filed formal complaint of discrimination against Def-real estate broker who carried racially discriminatory listings where owner insists on racial restriction. Commn scheduled public h'g.
533.Mich.6. Roy v Mavant Homes (Detroit) (Mich Civil Rights Commn) Dec 7, 1964: Commn obtained agreement from Def not to refuse sales of homes to Negroes; complaint concluded. Fall 1966: Commn held public h'g on new complaint against Def for refusal to sell to Negro.
533.NJ.3. Conover v Packanack Lake Country Club and Community Assn (Hackensack) (NJ Super Ct, App Div, #A-34-66) Facts: X DOCKET 161. Je 17, 1965: Super Ct declared Defs' restrictive covenant invalid: unreasonable restraint against Pls' alienation of property, held Defs, bd of directors of country club, proper representatives of class. Defs appealed. Pending.

Hoffman, Mumphreys & Lafer, Esqs, 600 Valley Rd, Wayne, NJ.

533.Pa.3. Philadelphia v Price (Ct of Com Pleas, ##4628, 4667; Pa Sup Ct ED, #316) (215 A2d 661, 11 RRLR 399) Facts: XI DOCKET 51. Apr 23, 1965: Com Pleas Ct granted nonsuit to Defs after Pl introduced record of Commn on Human Relations as only evidence. Pl appealed alleging Def's failure to appeal from Commn order prevents collateral attack, ordinance does not provide for de novo trial in enforcement proceedings. Jan 4, 1966: Sup Ct affirmed, held: where no direct appeal from Commn order, collateral attack valid; de novo trial required where no requirement that testimony given at Commn hgs be transcribed, penalties set for violations of Commn orders, and review limited to Commn's record requires de novo trial.
533.Pa.8. Re Huber (Pa Human Relations Commn) Facts: XI DOCKET 51. Je 10, 1966: Negro husband and wife filed complaint with Commn: Huber refused to sell his house to them because they are Negroes. Je 27: public h'g held. Je 28: Commn ordered Resp to sell and rent housing subject to Pa Human Rights Act without regard to race, color, religion, ancestry, or national origin; to apply same terms and conditions to all applicants for housing; to submit statement of policy concerning compliance with law.
533.Pa.10. Re Altman, Dolgenos, Feinberg (Pa Human Relations Commn) Resps refused to rent apartment to Negro family. Je 13, 1966: public h'g. Je 29: Commn ordered Resps to rent apartments without regard to race or color; to notify Commn in writing within 15 days as to steps taken to comply with order.
533.Pa.11. Re Starner (Pa Human Relations Commn) Resphomebuilder used word `restricted' in advertising homes. Jy 21, 1966: Resp waived public h'g, agreed to issuance of order against him by Commn.
533.Wash.. Remarks: Racial discrimination in housing in Tacoma, Wash. Cong Rec—House. Aug 2, 1966, 17063.
534. Omnibus Suits to End Housing Segregation (and see 575)

534.2. Bratcher v Akron Bd of Realtors (ND Ohio, Eastern Div, Civ #C 65-205) (11 RRLR 405) Facts: X DOCKET 126, 161. Dec 23, 1965: DC dismissed complaint for want of jurisdiction: Pls did not establish claim within fedl statute, failed to establish that Defs' local activities substantially affected interstate commerce.
535. Miscellaneous Housing Suits (and 423, 575)
Article: Morton Gitelman, Fair housing in Colorado. 42 Denver 1-31.
535.3c. NAACP v Detroit (Wayne Co Cir Ct, #38272) 1966: Pl challenges 1964 Homeowners' Ordinance, Detroit Muni Code, chap 1, sec 1-19 (see 535.3, .3a, .3b, IX DOCKET 118, X DOCKET 74, 126): right to occupy and enjoy property in any lawful fashion; freedom from interference with property by public authorities attempting to give special privileges to any group; freedom of choice of persons with whom he will negotiate as to such property and reject for his own reasons; right to employ real estate brokers, authorize them to act in accord with instructions; wilful interference or denial of such rights punishable by $500/90 days. Ordinance attacked as unconstitutional: (1) attempts thru state action to indirectly further racial discrimination in housing; (2) fails to meet constitutional requirements of certainty in definition of acts which it seeks to punish; (3) vagueness of provisions infringes on exercise of First Amdt freedoms. Pending.

Amicus brief for ACLU by Gerald G Wigle, Esq, 1763 Guardian Building, Detroit.

See 43 Detroit 161-272.

535.4. Crowell v Isaacs (Calif Dist Ct of App, 1st Dist) (45 Cal Rptr 566) Facts: X DOCKET 75, 161; XI DOCKET 52. Jy 16, 1965: DCA held Pl had cause of action for of contract, no cause under Unruh (Fair Housing) Pl petitioned Cal Sup Ct for h'g; denied. Case back to trial ct. Settled.

Milton Nason, Esq, 2907 Telegraph Ave, Berkeley, 94705.

535.8. Chicago Real Estate Bd v Chicago (Cook Co Cir Chanc Div, #63 S 33989) Facts: XI DOCKET 102. 11 RRLR 386.
- 75 -

535.10. Elsea v Watts (Wayne Co Cir Ct, #27865) (11 RRLR 392) 1964: Detroit Commn on Community Relations filed complaint in city recorder's court that Pls issued brochure offering to sell apt bldg occupied by white tenants in violation of Fair Neighborhood Practices Ord. 1965: Pls sued to have ord declared unconstitutional, prevent city ct from entering judgment against them. June 7: Cir Ct held ordinance valid: valid exercise of police power, did not infringe Pl's freedom of speech in making reference to race unlawful in advertising, remanded, finding (1) Pls had not played upon racial fears or tensions so as intentionally to affect price of real estate; (2) not shown anyone precluded from obtaining occupancy as result of brochure; (3) brochure did not create racial tensions or affect property values.
535.11. Rhodes, Little v Various Trailer Parks (Oceanside, Calif) (Super Ct) Pl-Negro, Marine stationed at Camp Pendleton, attempted to place house trailer in several parks in area; Pl refused housing; Caucasians who came after Pl offered housing. Pl filed suit against 6 trailer parks for damages for himself and family and for cost of trailer, since it is of no use to him and must remain unoccupied. Pending.

Gostin and Katz, Esqs, Suite 725 US Grant Hotel, 326 Broadway, San Diego, Calif.

535.12. Williams v Detroit Civil Service Commn (Mich Ct of App, #2347) Pls, Negro and white city employees, challenge Rule VII of Def-Commn: vests in Def power to require or waive residence in Detroit as condition of employment. Trial ct held for Def: "Equal protection clauses only require that the laws treat equally, persons who are similarly situated." Pls appealed: Rule VII states no criteria for exercise of Def's discretion. Ct of App affirmed trial ct.

Gilbert Donohue, Esq, ACLU, 1600 Washington Blvd Bldg, Detroit 48226.

540. Transportation — Racial Discrimination
541. In Interstate Facilities (and see 51, 54, 55, 58)
542. In Intrastate Facilities (and see 51, 54, 55, 58)
550. Miscellaneous Racial Discrimination (and see 42, 51, 54, 55, 58, 63)
Articles: Richard W Power, Racially discriminatory charitable trust: Suggested treatment. 9 St Louis 478-501.

Charles E Rice, Fed'l public-accommodations law: Dissent. 17 Mercer 338-46.

Eugene V Rostow, Negro in our law. 9 Utah 841-61.

Articles: Richard and Elizabeth Dyson, Commission enforcement of state laws against discrimination: comparative analysis Kansas act. 14 Kansas 29-58.

Wallace F Caldwell, State public accommodations laws, fundamental liberties and enforcement programs. 40 Washington 841-72.

Joseph P Witherspoon, Civil rights policy in the federal system: proposals for a better use of administrative process. 74 Yale 1171-1244.

Comments: Current racial legal developments. 12 Howard 146-57, 299-318.

Public accommodations laws and private club. 54 Georgetown 915-39.

Public accommodations: Justification of Title II, 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964. 16 W Reserve 660-710.

Public accommodations and 1964 Civil Rights Act. 19 U Miami 456-79.

State legislative response to fed'l civil rights art: Proposal. 9 Utah 434-58.

551. In Recreational Facilities
Comment: Substitution of private transfers for municipality does not exclude public park from 14 Amndt. 18 S Carolina 282-90.
551.Fla.8. Edwards v Fort Myers (MD Fla, Tampa Div, #65-48-Civ T) Facts: XI DOCKET 52. Cite: 11 RRLR 385.
551.Ga.10. Evans v Newton (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 76, 127; XI DOCKET 52, 103. Cites: 138 SE2d 573, rev'd 382 US 296.
551.Md.2. Statom v Bd of City Commrs (Md Ct of App) (195 A2d 41—1963) Nov 1963: Ct of App reversed dismissal of complaint by Cir Ct, held sufficient allegation of denial of equal protection: city allowed segregated Boys Club use of city recreation facilities, remanded. Settled: Boys Club changed rules to admit all children on non-discriminatory basis.

Isaac N Groner, Esq, 1730 K St NW, Washington, DC 20006.

551.Miss.2a. Mason v Biloxi (USSC) (184 So2d 113) Je 1963: Def-Negroes swimming on beach, arrested: trespass; convicted. Mar 21, 1966: Miss Sup Ct affirmed. Jy 8: Def filed petition for cert: Does 14th Amdt bar trespass conviction on beach constructed with fed'l, state and local funds, freely used by whites tho title to beach has been declared to be in abutting private landowners.
551.NY.8. Re Am Legion Post (Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn) (NY Commn on Human Rights) April, 1966: Resp refused to rent its hall to Negro sorority for fashion show and dance. Soon after 2 Caucasian members of FOCUS, neighborhood civil rights group, able to rent hall for same date. Commn found Resp guilty of discrimination, ordered it to pay $100 damages for compensatory costs, embarassment.
552. In Dining Places (and see 51, 54, 55, 58)

552.Ala.15. US v Lakeview Dining Club; US v Pat's Dining Club (Tuskegee, Eufala) (MD Ala) Facts: XI DOCKET 103. DC granted Pl's motion for injunction against Defs, enjoining them from discriminating against Negroes.

Nicholas deB Katzenbach, US Atty Genl; Ben Hardeman, US Atty, P O Box 197, Montgomery, Ala.

552.Ala.16. US v Chitwood (Prattville) (MD Ala, #2385-N) Facts: XI DOCKET 104. DC issued writ enjoining Defs from discriminating against Negroes; default judgment against Def-Chitwood.

Nicholas deB Katzenbach, US Atty Genl; Ben Hardeman, US Atty, P O Box 197, Montgomery, Ala.

552.Ala.18a. LeShore v Carter (SD Ala, #3614-65) 1965: Pls filed suit to desegregate restaurant under 1964 Civil Rights Act. May 20, 1966: H'g on motion to compel answers to Pl's interrogatories.

Peter A Hall, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham.

- 76 -

552.Ala.19. Davis v Hill (SD Ala, S Div, Civ #3857-3865) (11 RRLR 425) 1965: Pls-Negroes brought class action to enjoin discrimination in operation of food and beverage stand. Nov 12, 1965: DC issued preliminary injunction; found Def's business within 1964 Civil Rights Act; by serving only white customers at 2 service windows and only Negroes at another Def practicing discrimination.
552.Ark.6. Daniel v Paul (ED Ark) Aug 18, 1966: Negro-Pls filed suit against restaurant alleging violations of Title II, 1964 Civil Rights Act by Def's refusing Pl's entrance or service at establishment which is public, but operated under guise of private club. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright St, Little Rock, 72206. 72206.

552.Fla.7. Lance v Plummer (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 78, XI DOCKET 104. Cites: 353 F2d 585, cert den 384 US 929.

And see Smith, 59.56; Frazier, 59.57.

552.Miss.6. US v Gus Stevens (Biloxi) (SD Miss) Sept 8, 1966: US sued to end racial discrimination by restaurant, alleging Def refused to serve Negroes on same basis as whites in bar and lounge. Pending.
552.Miss.7. US v Taylor, Phillips, Simmons (Jackson) (SD Miss) Je 29, 1966: US sued to enjoin Defs from maintaining segregated restaurants. Pending.
552.Miss.7a. US v Fortenberry, Garner, Williams (Jackson) (SD Miss) Jy 8, 1966: US sued to enjoin Defs from maintaining segregated restaurants. Pending.
552.Miss.7b. US v Spencer, Portera, Johnson (Grenada) (ND Miss) Jy 21, 1966: US sued to enjoin Defs from maintaining segregated restaurants. Pending.

And see Faucette, 59.64.

552.NC.15. US v Wansley, Miller (Greensboro) (MD NC) Je 29, 1966: US sued to enjoin Defs from maintaining segregated restaurant. Pending.
552.NC.16. New Bern Citizens & US v Moore (New Bern) (DC NC) Nov 10, 1964: Pl-Negroes sued Def-restaurant owner for refusal to serve Negroes on same basis as whites under 1964 Civil Rights Act. July 22, 1966: US intervened on behalf of Pls. Pending.
552.NC.17. Hardie v Forrest d/b/a Oceanway Restaurant and Truck Stop (ED NC) Negro Pls brought desegregation suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mar 1966: Pls filed interrogatories. Apr: Def filed motion to dismiss. Je: Defs filed interrogatories; Pls filed objections. Jy: Pls filed motion, order requiring answer to interrogatories. Aug 15: DC entered consent order providing for restaurant open to all without regard to race or color.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 304½ E Trade St, Charlotte, NC.

552.NC.18. Felton v Burgess (ED NC) Aug 30, 1966: Pls filed suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging Defs denied Pls service at restaurant under continued practice of discriminating against Negroes. Pending.
552.SC.14. US v Causey, White, Edwards (Columbia) (ED SC) Je 29, 1966: US sued to enjoin Defs from maintaining segregated restaurants. Pending.
552.Va.15. US v Moorefield (Danville) (DC Va) Je 29, 1966: US sued to enjoin Def from maintaining segregated restaurant. Pending.
552.Va.16. US v Worsham (Powhatan) (DC Va) Jy 18, 1966: US sued Def-service station and restaurant owner for refusal to serve Negroes on same basis as whites under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Pending.
553. In Other Facilities (and see 42)
Comment: Exclusion from private associations. 74 Yale 1313-24.
553.Ala.2. Bevel v Mallory (SD Ala, #3714-65) Apr 26, 1965: Pls sued for injunctive relief from segregation in any courtroom. Defs' motions to quash, strike pending. Dec 1: Pl filed motion for summary judgment. Apr 21, 1966: DC granted motion for summary judgment.

Peter Hall, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham.

553.Ala.3. Hill v Bowlo-Mac (#66-502); Hill v Eastwood Bowl (#66-502); Robinson v Ensley Bowling Lanes (#66-503) (ND Ala) Aug 12, 1966: Pls filed suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Pending.

Demetrius Newton, Esq, 408 N 17th St, Birmingham.

553.Ala.4. Washington v Lee (MD Ala, N Div, #2350-N) Feb 18, 1966: Class action for preliminary injunction to end racial segregation in state penal institutions. Trial pending.

Charles Morgan, Jr, Esq, 5 Forsyth St NW, Atlanta, Ga 30303; Orzell Billingsley, Jr, Esq, 1630 4th Ave N, Birmingham; Melvin Y Wulf, ACLU, 156 5th Ave, NYC 10010.

553.Ark.2. George v Bd of Managers (ED Ark, #PB-66-C3) May 5, 1966: Negro Pls brought action to enjoin juvenile ct judges, officials of Ark reformatories from maintaining segregated reform schools. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock, 72206.

553.Ark.3. Kyles v Culberson (ED Ark, #LR66 C-150) Def denied Pls' use of public facilities, operating under guise of private club. Jy 19, 1966: Pls sued alleging violations of 1964 Civil Rights Act. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright St, Little Rock.

553.Ark.4. Robinson v Humble Oil Co (DC Ark) Pls brought Tit II suit against gas station. Defs filed answer.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright St, Little Rock.

553.Fla.2. Jackson v City Commissioner of Jacksonville (SD #64-87-Civ J) Facts: X DOCKET 80. 1964: Pls sued to segregate prisons. DC granted Pls' motion for judgment. Feb 16, 1966: DC gave Defs 6 mths to gate prison.

Earl M Johnson, Esq, 625 W Union St, Jacksonville.

- 77 -

553.La.2. Bryant v Guillory (WD La, Opelousas Div, Civ #10877) (11 RRLR 426) 1965: Negro Pls brought class action to enjoin discrimination in operation of theater. Sept 15, 1965: DC granted injunction, held: (1) Def's theater covered by 1964 Civil Rights Act since films move in interstate commerce; (2) Def's practice of seating Negroes in balcony only constitutes segregation.
553.La.3. Reynolds v Orleans Parish Prison (Orleans Parish Dist Ct) Pl, CORE worker, serving sentence in Def-prison. 1966: Pl sued for injunction to have prison desegregated. Pending.

Robert Collins, Nils Douglas, Richard Sobol, Esqs, all of 2209 Dryades, Revius Ortique, Esq, 2140 St Bernard; all of New Orleans.

553.Mich.3. Spencer v Flint Memorial Park (Mich Ct of App, Div 2, #318) Facts: X DOCKET 128. Sept 13, 1966: Ct of App affirmed lower ct: Pl-Negro undertaker's civil rights denied when Def-cemetery refused to let Pl bury his mother in the cemetery. Def's appeal pending.

A Glenn Epps, Esq, 2501 N Saginaw St, Flint, Mich.

553.NJ.1. Sellers v Philip's Barber Shop (formerly v Gatti) (NJ Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 105. Cite: 217 A2d 121.

And see Triolo, 553.NJ.1a.

553.NJ.1a.. Triolo v State Bd of Barber Examiners (Madison) Facts: XI DOCKET 105. July 22, 1966: Respondent's barber's license suspended for cutting hair of Negro in unprofessional manner. Resp's appeal viewed as test of NJ Sup Ct decision in Sellers, 553.NJ.1.
553.NJ.2. Collins v Graff (Riverhead) (Human Relations Commn) May 21, 1966: Pl-Negro 11-yr old got haircut with two bald spots and stripe down center of head from Def-Caucasian barber. May 31: Pl's father filed formal complaint of discriminatory service. Pending.
553.NC.1. Hawkins v YMCA (Charlotte) (WD NC, Charlotte Div, #1988) (11 RRLR 424) Facts: X DOCKET 128. Sept 28, 1965: DC dismissed upon consent of all parties, following Def's implementation of non-discriminatory policy.
553.NC.3. Little v Sedgefield Inn (MD NC, C-180-G-65) Facts: XI DOCKET 105. Oct 12, 1965: Pls filed suit to enjoin Country Club from prohibiting Negroes to play golf. Apr 1966: DC entered consent order.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

553.NC.4. Polk v Charlotte Park & Recreation Commn (WD NC) Pls brought suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act to enjoin use of stadium for, cooperation of school Bd with, Shriner-sponsored football game where Negroes not permitted to play. Defs argued future games will be desegregated.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

553.NC.5. Standbacks v Arrowhead Inc. May 3, 1966: Pls brought suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act, 5th, 14th Amdts to enjoin discrimination at golf course financed with fed'l funds. Je 1966: DC entered consent order.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

553.NC.6. McCoy v Dismukes t/a Coffee Cup Restaurant (WD NC) May 31, 1966: Pls filed suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act against coffee shop. DC filed consent order.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

553.NC.7. Leonard v Peek (DC NC) 1966: Pls brought suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act against drive-in's segregation policy. Pending.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

553.Pa.3. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commn v Whitemarsh Memorial Park Cemeteries Co (Montgomery Co) Facts: XI DOCKET 105. Je 3, 1966: Commn held refusal to bury any but Caucasian bodies violation of Pa Human Relations Act, ordered Resp to remove racially-restrictive provisions from its regulations, agreement of sale forms, and deed forms for lots in cemetery.
553.Utah.1. Cuevas v Sdrales (CA 10) Facts: X DOCKET 129, XI DOCKET 54. Cite: 344 F2d 1019. Note: 15 Catholic U of Amer 248-59.
553.Va.7. Jackson v Circle Lanes (ED Va, #1182) Def restaurant, bowling alley owner, denied Pls service, accommodations. Jy 28, 1966: Pls filed suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act. Aug 16: Def filed motion to dismiss urging exemption from Act as private club. Pending.

Al Smith, Esq, Hampton, Va.

554. In Hospitals (and 575)

554.Ala.2. Stout v Hospital Bldg Authority (Bessemer) (ND Ala, #65-745) Dec 1965: Pls sued for injunction to compel desegregation of hospital. Dec 16: Defs moved to dismiss. May 16: DC denied motion. Oct 4: trial.

Oscar W Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth Ave N, Birmingham.

554.Ark.2. Burton v Bd of Trs, Ark Tuberculosis Sanatorium (ED Ark, #LR66C-51) Mar 1966: Pls filed desegregation suit. DC ordered institutions desegregated; state decided to consolidate them.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock, 72206.

554.Ga.1. Bell v Georgia Dental Assn (formerly v Fulton DeKalb Memorial Hospital Auth) (ND Ga, Atlanta Div, #7966) (10 RRLR 3347, 11 RRLR 413) Facts: X DOCKET 80; XI DOCKET 54. 1965: Pls filed motion for further relief. Jan 13, 1966: DC ordered Defs to furnish Pl application for membership in dental assn; if Pl unable to gain membership, DC would return case to calendar to determine whether such events were result of racial discrimination.
554.La.1. Rax v State Dept of Hospitals (ED La, Baton Rouge Div, #3265) (11 RRLR 384) Pls-Negro residents of La brought class suit under 1964 Civil Rights Act to enjoin racial segregation in state hospitals. Dec 23, 1965: DC issued injunction restraining Defs from maintaining segregation in wards, clinics, diagnostic or treatment areas, or other hospital facilities.
554.Miss.1. Thorton v Washington Co General Hospital (SD Miss) Pl sued to desegregate Def-hospital. Pending.
- 78 -

Henry Aronson, Esq, 507½ N Farish St, Jackson, Miss.
554.Miss.2. US v Marion Co General Hospital (SD Miss) Sept 1, 1966: Pl sued under Title III, 1964 Civil Rights Act to desegregate Def-hospital. Pending.
554.NC.2a. Eaton v Grubbs (CA 4) Facts: X DOCKET 81, 163. DC ordered hospital desegregated, but Bd of Mgrs later refused application of Negro physician. Pls moved for further relief. CA 4 failed to rule on merits.

Robert R Bond, Esq, 612 Red Cross St, Wilimington.

554.NC.3. Hawkins v NC Dental Society and Second Dist Dental Society (CA 4, #9612) (355 F2d 718, 11 RRLR 414) Facts: X DOCKET 81. Jan 20, 1966: CA reversed, found Def's membership procedures racially discriminatory; held Def's influence in state profession was exercise of "state action" and Def subject to 14th Amdt.
554.NC.8. Veasey v Wake Co Hospital System (ED NC, #1833) Mar 1966: Pls filed hospital desegregation suit. Apr 4: Def moved to dismiss. Pending.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

554.NC.9. Nesmith v Trs, Rex Hospital (ED NC, #1837) 1966: Pls filed desegregation suit. Mar 30: Defs filed answer. Pending.

Julius Chambers, Esq, 405½ E Trade St, Charlotte.

554.Ohio. And see Mitchell, 58.Ohio.1.
554.Va.3a. Smith v Hampton Training School for Nurses (Ca 4, #10,312) (243 FSupp 403, 360 F2d 577) Facts: X DOCKET 81, 163; XI DOCKET 54. 1966: CA reversed, remanded: DC should not have granted Def's motion for summary judgment on basis Def did not have constitutional obligation to Pls at time they were dismissed: Simkins, 554.NC.1, 323 F2d 959, cert den, 376 US 938, could be applied retrospectively where case still in litigaiton when Simkins decided; directed DC to order back pay and costs to Pl-Negro nurses fired for eating in white-only cafeteria.

William Alfred Smith, Esq, 17 E Lincoln St, P O Box 242, Hampton, Va; NAACP Inc Fund.

555. In Government Facilities: Omnibus Suits
Form: Complaint for desegregation of public facilities, edited by Osmond K Kraenkel. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 351-357.

Speech: Horton, Race bias by FCC in deciding broadcast licenses. Cong Rec—House, Je 29, 1966: 13970.

555.Cal.1. Re San Bruno Prison Riot (San Bruno Co) Sept 5, 1966: prisoners rioted to protest conditions at jail: racial discrimination, poor food, unsanitary conditions, few recreational opportunities, lack of satisfactory rehabilitation methods. Administrators met with Inmates Activities Comm; some token changes made. Sept 29: small riot at jail; 7 placed in isolation cells.

Joseph Rhine, Esq, 1445 Laguna, San Francisco.

555.DC.1. Edwards v Sard (Lorton Reformatory) (DC DC) Facts: XI DOCKET 106. DC held cts will review prison procedures to determine if prison officials are discriminating on account of race, found Def officials not practicing discrimination as charged.

George Cooper, Herbert Dym, Esqs, NCA-ACLU, 1101 Vermont Ave NW, Washington, DC.

560. Family Matters—Racial, Religious Problems (see also 56, 426)
561. In Marriage and Divorce
Articles: Orma Linford, Mormons and law: Polygamy cases—Part I. 9 Utah 308-70.

David E Seidelson, Miscegenation statutes and Supreme Court. 15 Catholic Univ 156-70.

561.6. Loving v Virginia (USSC, #395) (147 SE2d 78) Facts: X DOCKET 129, XI DOCKET 106. Appeal pending.
561.7. Jones and Marquez v Lorenzen (Okla Sup Ct, #41685) Facts: X DOCKET 129; XI DOCKET 55. Cite: 11 RRLR 326.
561.8. Kober v Kober (NY Ct of App) Facts: XI DOCKET 106. Cite: 211 NE2d 817.
562. In Adoption Proceedings

Article: John R Wilson, Adoption. 18 Baylor 1-14.

562.5. Burke v NJ Bureau of Children's Services (Super Ct, App Div, Trenton) Aug 1966: Pl brought suit challenging requirement prospective adoptive parents give religious affiliation, be recommended by religious leader: violation of 1st Amdt by abridging free exercise of religion by adoptive parents and by establishing religion for child to be adopted. Oct: Deputy Atty Genl agreed to rescind regulation as to state agency; suit withdrawn.

Marc J Gordon, Esq, NJCLU, 45 Academy St, Newark.

563. In Custody Proceedings

563.11. Eilers v Eilers (Ky Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 82, XI DOCKET 106. Apr 14, 1966: 3 of 5 children testified they preferred not to live with their mother and Negro husband. Jy 7: Jefferson Co Cir Ct awarded custody to father; held: writ of habeas corpus could not be directed against children's home because it no longer had custody of children. Oct 9: Sup Ct dismissed appeal.
563.12. Painter v Bannister (USSC, #518) Facts: XI DOCKET 107. ACLU amicus brief: (1) right of fit parent who has not abandoned child to live with and raise his child, and concomitant rights of child, protected by 14th Amdt, may not be abridged by State unless child's welfare would be put in jeopardy; (2) consideration of father's religious beliefs and political attitudes as relevant, if not controlling factors in determining his right to custody of child, is violation of First and 14th Amdts: promotes establishment of religion, abridges religious liberty of father, abridges political rights guaranteed by First and 14th Amdts. Pending.

Amicus brief for ACLU and Ia CLU by Ephraim London Helen L Buttenwieser, Esqs, 1 East 44th St, NYC; Wulf, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC; Payer & Vanderbur, Esqs, Main St, Ames, Iowa; Val L Schoenthal, Esq, 400

- 79 -

Bldg, Des Moines; Elizabeth Palmer, Esq, Deputy Calif Atty Genl, 6000 State Bldg, San Francisco.

563.13. Barnes v Catholic Charities of Joliet (Cook Co Cir Ct, Co Div) Pl-adoptive parents contracted to adopt child, gaining de facto adoption-right to child for 6 mths probation period. Quebec agency with custody delegated Catholic Home Bureau in Chicago to act as its agent in servicing adoption; case transferred to Joliet Diocese. Child injured in Pls' home, hospitalized. Director of Catholic Charities ordered hospital not to permit Pls to visit; after conference with Pl's parish priest, reversed order but arranged for child to be put in foster home. Pls filed petition for adoption: dismissed on jurisdictional grounds: Quebec agency refused consent required by Ill statute until it received recommendation from its agent. Pls filed petition for habeas corpus for custody of child. May 1966: Ct granted habeas, allowed Pl to file petition for adoption.

Luis Kutner, Esq, Bankers Bldg, 105 W Adams St, Chicago.

563.14. Halstead v Halstead (Iowa Sup Ct, #52129) 1958: Pl's mother, Mrs Lee, divorced Pl's father; Pl, 4-yr old son, lived with paternal grandparents. 1965: boy's father died. Fayette Co Dist Ct awarded custody of child to mother. Sept 20, 1966: Sup Ct reversed, remanded: child should be left with grandparents instead of thrice-married mother.

Darold J Jack, Esq, 8 E Charles, Oelwein, Iowa.

564. In Miscellaneous Proceedings
Article: Glanville Williams, Euthenasia and abortion. 38 Colorado 178-201.
564.7. Louisiana ex rel Francis v State Bd of Health (La Ct of App, 4th Cir, #1937) (179 S2d 681, 11 RRLR 464) Pl sued to order issuance of birth certificate designating race as Indian after Def-Bd refused issuance, contending Pl a Negro. Nov 2, 1965: Ct of App affirmed judgment for Pl; Ct found confusion exists in La in use of racial designation, while evidence tended to establish some Negro blood in Pl's lineage, no justification for changing present registration as Indian.
570. Employment
Form: Complaint in employment discrimination suit, by Chester I Lewis. CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK pp 366-371.

Articles: John Feild, Melvin Mister, Civil rights, employment opportunity, and economics. 43 Detroit 161-272.

Sanford Jay Rosen, Law and racial discrimination in employment. 53 California 729-99.

Arnold H Sutin, Experience of state fair employment commissions: Comparative survey. 18 Vanderbilt 965-1046.

Comment: California FEPC: Stepchild of state agencies. 18 Stanford 187-212.

Comment: Illinois fair employment practices act. 1965 Illinois 267-96.

State FEP laws and impact of Title VII of 1964 Civil Rights Act. 16 W Reserve 608-59.

Opinion: Calif Atty Genl: Violation of §3095, Labor Code, making it unlawful to discriminate because of race, creed, color, or national origin in selection or during apprenticeship does not incur criminal penalties. Possible sanctions: withdrawal of recognition of apprenticeship program by Calif Apprenticeship Council, making such apprentices ineligible for employment on state and fed'l public works.

571. Racial Discrimination Against Teachers (and 24, 522)
Comment: Discrimination in hiring and assignment of teachers in public school systems. 64 Michigan 692-702.

And see Hill, 522.Tenn.15.

571.14. Henry v Bd of Educ (Coahoma Co) (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 83, XI DOCKET 55, 107. April 1966: USSC denied certiorari.

Jack Young, Esq, 115½ N Farish; R Jess Brown, Esq, 5161 Gault St; both of Jackson.

571.15. Ross and Simmons v Bd of Educ (Taylor Township) (Mich Civil Rights Commn) Facts: X DOCKET 83. 1960: FEPC found Def guilty of discrimination; ordered Def to provide employment for Pls, Negro school teachers. 1960: Wayne Co Cir Ct held School Bd had right to completely new trial with jury. 1965: Sup Ct reversed; held appeals from FEPC orders to be based on FEPC record. Aug 18, 1966: by stipulation Pls received $17,500 and job offers.
571.18. Franklin v School Bd (Giles Co) (CA 4) Facts: X DOCKET 163, XI DOCKET 55. Pls filed suit when Def closed Negro school, laid off 7 Negro school teachers. DC ordered Pls given preferential hiring. May 23, 1966: CA 4 reversed, remanded. Pending.

S W Tucker and Henry L Marsh, III, Esqs, 213 E Clay St, Richmond.

571.24. Chambers v Bd of Educ (Hendersonville) Facts: XI DOCKET 56, 107. Je 6, 1966: CA 4 reversed DC decision against Pls. Jy: Defs filed motion for judgment on mandate. Pending.
571.28. Oakland Unified School Dist v Sawyer (formerly In re Irene Sawyer) (Alameda Co Sup Ct) Facts: XI DOCKET 107. Jy 8, 1966: Sup Ct ruled Def-Negro teacher could be fired for breaking variety of school regulations, denied her claim of discriminatory treatment.
571.29. Smith and US v Bd of Educ (Morrilton) (CA 8, #32) Facts: XI DOCKET 107. May 19, 1966: Argument on appeal; pending.
571.47. Black v Ramey (Hale Co) (4th Jud Cir, Ala) Apr 5, 1966: Pl Negro teacher, dismissed by Def-Bd, filed petition for mandamus, seeking reinstatement. Aug 19: at h'g, state said Pl not entitled to benefit of tenure law since held only emergency certificate. Pending.

Oscar Adams, Esq, 1630 Fourth St NW, Demetrius Newton, Esq, 408 N 17th St; both of Birmingham.

571.48. Gibson v Bd of Educ (Rison) (ED Ark) 1966: Pls filed suit to enjoin assignment, employment, promotion of teachers on basis of race. Pending.

John Walker, Esq, 1304 B Wright, Little Rock.

571.49. Wall v Bd of Educ (Stanley Co) (DC NC) Aug 1965: Pls filed complaint seeking to enjoin Defs from hiring, assigning, dismissing teachers on basis of race or color. DC denied Pls' motion for preliminary injunction. Trial: Apr 28, 1966.
- 80 -

Julius Chambers, 405½ E Trade, Charlotte, NC.
571.50. Williams v School Dist (Sumter) (ED SC, #AC-1534) Pl-teacher dismissed for activity in local desegregation movement. Sept 14, 1964: Pl sued for reinstatement. Je 16, 1966: DC ordered Pl reinstated, requested counsel to agree on order being finally entered. Counsel agreed on all issues except counsel fees.

Matthew Perry, Esq, 1107½ Washington, Columbia; Ernest Finney, Esq, 16½ Liberty St, Sumter; both of SC.

571.51. Palmetto Educ Assn v Bd of Educ (Clarendon Co) (ED SC) Feb 26, 1966: Pl, Negro teachers' group, sued for relief against Def-Bd's policy of paying Caucasian teachers on separate, higher wage scale. Pending.

Matthew Perry, Esq, 1107½ Washington, Columbia, SC.

571.52. Fayne and US v Bd of Educ (Tipton Co) (WD Tenn, #C-65-274) Sept 1965: Large number of Negro students enrolled in Caucasian schools. Bd dismissed Uls-Negro teachers. Pls sue for reinstatement. US intervened. Pending.

I H Murphy, Esq, 626 Vance Ave, Memphis, Tenn.

571.53. Rolfe v Bd of Educ (Lincoln Co) (ED Tenn, #781) Loss of enrollment in Negro high school. Bd discharged Pls, non-tenure Negro teachers; transferred teachers with tenure to elementary division; 15 new non-tenure Caucasian teachers hired. Pls sued for reinstatement. Aug 30, 1966: DC ordered back wages and reinstatement for 2 Pls, adoption of non-racial standards for hiring and discharges in future. Def appealed. Pending.

Avon Williams, Esq, 327 Charlotte, Nashville, Tenn.

571.54. Dobbins v Bd of Educ (Decatur Co) (WD Tenn, #1608) Def-Bd discharged Pls, Negro teachers, when student body of Negro school transferred to Caucasian school. Jan 1966: Bd rehired Pls in temporary jobs as remedial teachers. Pls sue for reinstatement: temporary jobs not adequate relief.

Avon Williams, Esq, 327 Charlotte, Nashville.

571.55. Macklin v Bd of Educ (Houston Co) (MD Tenn, #4392) Def-Bd dismissed Pls-Negro teachers. Pls sued for reinstatement. Pls obtained consent judgment: reinstated with full tenure status, full back salary, inactive status.
571.56. Harkless v Bd of Educ (Sweeny) (SD Tex, Galveston Div, #66-G-34) Pls-Negro teachers dismissed. May 23, 1966: Pls sued for preliminary injunction requiring their reinstatement. Pending.

Weldon H Berry, Esq, 618 Prairie, Houston, Tex.

571.57. Bonner v Texas City School Dist (SD Tex, #65-G-56) Def-Bd dismissed Pl-Negro teacher. Pl sued for injunctive relief: denial of constitutional rights. Jan 30, 1967: trial. Pending.

M W Plummer, Esq, 412 Main; Conrad K Harper, Esq, both of Houston.

571.Tex.58. Steward v Ind School Dist (Stanton) (CA 5, #23291) Bd dismissed Negro husband, wife from teaching positions as part of desegregation plan. Pls filed suit. Nov 30, 1965: DC denied relief. Oct 18, 1966: CA 5 heard argument on appeal.

Weldon H Berry, Esq, 618 Prairie, Houston.

572. Racial Discrimination by Government Agencies
Program: June 7, 1966: Mich Civil Rights and Civil Service Commns began program to insure no discrimination in recruitment, qualification, evaluation, appointment, promotion of state employees, and concerted effort to recruit more Negro professional trainees.

Report: Southern Regional Council: Discrimination in fed'l court system in South. 5 Forsyth St NW, Atlanta.

572.13. Re Bowers (US Civil Service Comm, Bd of App) Facts: XI DOCKET 56. 1966: Bd of App failed to find racial discrimination in not promoting trainee at Naval Air Station; claim of reprisal pending before Sec of Navy.
572.16. Felder v School District (Franklin Area) (Pa Human Relations Commn) Mar 1966: Pl fired from job as school custodian, allegedly because he is Negro. Sept 22: h'g pending.
572.17. Howard v Detroit Civil Service Commn (Mich Civil Rights Commn) Aug 23, 1966: Pl-Negro employee in city water dept filed complaint of discriminatory rating on promotional exam dealing with education and experience. Commn scheduled public h'g.
572.18. Re Harding, Weddington, Bailey (NLRB—NYC) 1966: Pl Negroes allege: NLRB, particularly Negro director, 2d Reg Office, deprived them of promotion because of race; procedure under Executive Order for handling complaints by fed'l employees failed to accord due process because fed'l agencies permitted to process, decide merits of complaints against them, with right of appeal only to US Civil Service Commn. Oct 20, 1966: h'g before trial examiner. Pending.

W Eugene Sharpe, Esq, 209 W 125th St, NYC.

573. Racial Discrimination Involving Government Contracts (Exec Order 10925)

573.7. NAACP v Bhd of Ry Car Men of America, Intl Molders and Allied Workers Union, United Steel Workers, United Mine Workers, US Steel, St Louis-San Francisco RR Corp, H K Porter, Alabama By-Products Corp, Am Cast Iron Pipe Co (ND Ala, Birmingham) Sept 9, 1966: Pl brought 6 suits: job discrimination against Negroes: allege Defs maintain separate job categories based on race, have different hiring rates for Negroes and whites, separate lines of progression and promotion, segregated facilities for employees. Pending.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

574. Racial Discrimination by Transportation Companies

574.18. Nunn v Missouri Pacific Railroad Co (ED Mo, E #65 C 198(2)) Facts: XI DOCKET 108. Cites: 248 304, 11 RRLR 322.
575. Racial Discrimination by Unions, Trade Associations
Article: Herbert L Sherman, Jr, Union's duty of fair
- 81 -

sentation and 1964 Civil Rights Act. 49 Minnesota 771-820.

Comments: Applicability of LMRDA Section 101(a) (5) to union interference with employment opportunities. 114 Pennsylvania 700-8.

Union racial discrimination—recent developments before NLRB and implications under Title VII, 1964 Civil Rights Act. 53 Georgetown 1103-15.

Racial integration of professional assns. 18 Florida 490-502.

Speech: Amendment to Civil Rights Bill of 1966 to bring AMA and other professional groups under equal employment opportunity title of 1964 Act. Cong Rec—House. Aug 3, 1966, 17369.

Report: Edward B Toles, Negro lawyer in US. Cong Rec—App, Oct 20, 1966, A5458.

575.18. Howard v St Louis-San Francisco RR Co (361 F2d 905) (USSC, #651) Facts: X DOCKET 84, 130; XI DOCKET 108. CA 8 held: failure of Negro train porters to exhaust contractual and administrative remedies under Ry Labor Act precludes them from resorting to fed'l cts re alleged conspiracy between RR and union to assign white brakemen to duties usually performed by Negro porters; DC has no jurisdiction to order change of class or craft of porters since under Act only Mediation Bd has power to make such determinations. Oct 10, 1966: Pls filed petition for cert; pending.

Robert L Carter, Barbara A Morris, Esqs, NAACP, 20 W 40th St, NYC; Frank D Reaves, Esq, 2330 Good Hope Rd, Washington, DC; Clyde Cahill, Esq.

575.24. Todd v Jt Apprenticeship Comm, Steelworkers of Chicago (USSC) Facts: X DOCKET 84, 130. Cite: cert den: 380 US 914 (1965).
575.40. Morris v South Bend-Mishawaka Bd of Realtors (St Joseph Super Ct, Ind) Facts: XI DOCKET 57. 1954, 1959, 1964: Def rejected Negro Pl's application for membership by secret vote without giving valid reason. Pl brought anti-trust action. Ct issued injunction prohibiting Bd from denying membership without reason: Def's action violated Indiana 1907 Anti-Monopoly Act; Def, quasi-public service, in position to restrain competition, can therefore be required to admit all eligible applicants.
576. Other Racial and Religious Discrimination

576.27. Birbaum v Trussell (CA 2) Facts: XI DOCKET 57.

Paul J Clippard, Esq, 1 Land Lane, Westbury, NY.

576.28. Brinkley v A & P (ED NC, Wilmington Div, #1107) Facts: XI DOCKET 57. Je 22, 1966: Agreement between parties re charge of race, sex discrimination in hiring clerks; suit dismissed.
576.34. Asa Smith v Scotty Pen Co (Calif FEPC) Dec 1965: Def rejected job application of Pl-Negro; asked State Dept of Employment not to refer Negroes. Oct 14, 1966: FEPC ruled Def guilty of illegal race discrimination; ordered firm to cease and desist from such actions; awarded Pl $490, earnings lost between Def's refusal of employment and finding job with other firm.
576.35. Steverson v Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc (Penn Human Relations Commn, E-2068) 1966: Pl charged Def with dismissing him as technical aid because of racial discrimination. Je 9: Public h'g.

Herman Steerman, Esq, Land Title Bldg, Philadelphia.

576.36. Hicks v Crown Zellerbach (Bogalusa) (ED La, #16638) Je 1966: Pl, civil rights leader employed in Def's Box Plant, brought suit under Title VII, 1964 Civil Rights Act, against Def, to enjoin Def's devices to continue de facto segregation: written tests as prerequisite for promotion or employment, establishment of lines of progression that prevent Negroes from securing seniority promotions to formerly all-Caucasian jobs. Pl moved to bring discrimination at Def's other plants within scope of action. Oct 20: Pretrial conference.

Alvin J Bronstein, Esq, LCDC, 603 N Farish St, Jackson, Miss 39202.

576.37. Brandt v US Lines (SD NY) (246 FSupp 982, 11 RRLR 317) Jewish chef sued to compel Def employer, and union to arbitrate discharge, alleging Def and union discriminated because of religion. Jan 28, 1964: DC found union made thorough investigation of discharge, concluded Pl's claim without merit; Pl failed to state sufficient facts to support allegation; granted Def's motion for summary judgment: Pl had no right to compel arbitration.
577. Nationality Discrimination
578. Sex Discrimination

Article: Pauli Murray, Mary O Eastwood, Jane Crow and the law: sex discrimination and Title VII. 34 George Washington 232-56.

Memorandum: Wisconsin FEPC, Re Amphenol Borg Electronics Corp, Janesville and Intl Assn of Machinists, Local #1266, wage differential based on sex not in violation of FEP if its removal would result in lowered wages for majority of employees, Dec 17, 1963.

Speech: Oakland, Calif Postmaster prohibits discrimination in jobs. Cong Rec—App. Aug 15, 1966, A4292.

578.6. Lockhart v San Francisco (San Francisco Super Ct, #569410) Pl stood highest on eligibility list for Sr Management Asst to City Water Dept or Dept of Public Health; not notified or certified to positions. Aug 8, 1966: Pl sued, charging City, Water Dept, Dept of Public Health, Civil Service and Public Utilities Commrs acted pursuant to unconstitutional scheme to discriminate against female civil service employees; asked for writ of mandate compelling Defs to show cause why they do not end alleged discriminatory practices. Pending.

Ephraim Margolin and Arthur Brunwasser, Esqs, 683 McAllister, San Francisco.

579. Age Discrimination
Comment: Age discrimination in employment: Problem of older worker. 41 NYU 383-424.
579.2. Walker Co v Industrial Commn (Wis Sup Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 85, XI DOCKET 109. Cite: 135 NW2d 307 (1965).
- 82 -

579.5. Humphrey v Bloomfield Township Fire Dept (Mich Civil Rights Commn) Pl, reserve fire fighter for 12 yrs, refused regular, full-time employment because of age (48). Sept 7, 1966: Commn held public h'g on possible violation of FEP Act. Pending.
580. Civil Actions Under §1983 and Other Civil Rights Laws (see 304, 551-555, and 590)

580.16. Toomer v Crowe (Franklinton) (ED La, #66,182) Pl-Negro prisoner, suffering from tuberculosis, sued under 42 USC §1983 to secure adequate medical attention. Pl moved for preliminary injunction. Defs scheduled complete examination for Pl at State Regional Chest Clinic. Motion for injunction denied. Pending.

Richard B Sobol, Esq, 2209 Dryades St, New Orleans 70113.

590. Criminal Prosecution Under Civil Rights and other Laws (and see 304, and 580)
Comment: Discretion to prosecute fed'l civil rights crimes. 74 Yale 1297-1312.
590.6. US v Mills, Fillingame. Facts: X DOCKET 131. Apr 2, 1965: US Commr's complaint dismissed on request of US Atty.
590.10. US v Price, Rainey (CA 5) (383 US 787) Facts: X DOCKET 121, XI DOCKET 110. Sept 27, 1966: Justice Dept asked VA to dismiss indictments against Defs, 17 Caucasians accused of conspiracy in murder of civil rights workers Schwerner, Chaney, Goodman: grand jury returning indictment failed to include representative number of Negroes under Rabinowitz, 55.Ga.35. Pending.
590.12. Alabama v Thomas (Hayneville) (Recorders Ct) Facts: X DOCKET 165, XI DOCKET 110. Sept 30, 1966: Def acquitted of slaying of civil rights marcher Viola Liuzzo.
590.12a. US v Eaton, Thomas, Wilkens (CA 5) Facts: XI DOCKET 110. Defs, accused slayers of Viola Liuzzo, convicted of conspiracy to deprive citizen of civil rights. Def's appeal pending.
590.13. US v Guest (MD Ga, Athens Div, #2232 Crim) Facts: X DOCKET 165; XI DOCKET 110. Jy 8, 1966: Jury found Defs Sims, Myers guilty; Defs Guest, Lackey, Phillips, Turner not guilty of conspiracy to deny civil rights to Negroes as result of murder of Lemuel Penn. Jy 9: Sims, Myers filed notice of appeal.

Statement: Charles J Bloch, Interpretation of Guest before Sen Judiciary Subcomm on Constitutional Rights. Cong Rec—Sen, Je 30, 1966, 14121.

590.19. US v 15 Mississippi Klansmen (Biloxi) Facts: XI DOCKET 110. (Dahmer murder) Je 23, 1966: Fedl grand jury indicted Defs re death in Jan of Negro civil rights leader for violation of 1965 Voting Rights Act: (1) §12c, forbidding conspiracy to violate irghts secured by act; (2) §11b prohibiting intimidation or coercion of anyone attempting to vote or urging others to vote. Pending.
590.19. Alabama v Coleman (Lowdes Co) Facts: XI DOCKET 58. Ala Atty Genl Flowers sought indictment for assault with intent to murder re near-fatal shooting of Rev Richard Morrisroe. Co grand jury (11 Negroes and 7 Caucasians) indicted Def only for assault and battery. Sept 26, 1966: State Judge Thagard dismissed indictment with prejudice.
590.24. US v Elder (ND Miss, #ER6620) Facts: XI DOCKET 111. Apr 1966: Def-patrolman, accused of beating prisoners in violation of 1870 law, acquitted by jury.
590.26. Mississippi v Todd, Bennett (Grenada) Jy 1966: Defs fired gun at civil rights lawyers and fed'l representative; arrested: assault and battery with intent to kill. Pending.
600. Suits Involving Constitutional Rights of American Indians
Article: Albert E Kane, Negro and Indian: Comparison of constitutional rights. 7 Arizona 244-51.

Publication: Federal Indian Law. Assn on American Indian Affairs, Inc, 432 Park Avenue South, New York; $25.

Speech: Indian and great society. Cong Rec—Sen. Aug 25, 1966, 19716.

601. Civil Actions Between Individuals and Tribes

601.2. Maryland Casualty Co v Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc (CA 5) May 13, 1966: CA held Indian tribe, as quasisovereign nation dependent on US, immune from judgment creditor's garnishment action absent waiver of immunity by Congress. Oct 19, 1966: USSC denied cert.
602. Civil Actions Against Reservation Indians
Comment: American Indian—tribal sovereignty and civil rights. 51 Iowa 654-69.
602.6. Warren Trading Post v Arizona State Tax Commn. Facts: X DOCKET 132, XI DOCKET 111. Cite: 380 US 685 reversing 387 P2d 809.
603. Criminal Actions Against Reservation Indians
And see DuPuis, 372.72.
603.6. Oklahoma v Johnnie Chewie (DC Okla) 1966: Def-Indian arrested by state game rangers while hunting on Kenwood Indian Reserve. Mar: DC granted temporary injunction restraining state officials from prosecuting Def until 3-judge panel could rule on Def's claim that state hunting laws constitutionally invalid re Indian hunting in Indian country.

A F Ringold and Gerald E Kamins, Esqs, Midstate Bldg, Tulsa, Okla.

604. Actions Involving Property Rights

604.5. Washington Dept of Games and Fisheries v Kautz (Wash Sup Ct, #38560) Facts: IX DOCKET 71, 125, X DOCKET 86. Appeal pending.
604.7. In re Haidas Tribe (Hydaburg, Alaska) (Dept of Interior) Facts: XI DOCKET 111. Apr 1966: BIA confessed it had made errors in assessment of situation; proposed compromise tentatively accepted by Indians.
604.10. Washington v Gregory and Gregory (Thurston Co Super Ct, # #C-3161, C-3162) Facts: XI DOCKET 111.

Jack E Tanner, Esq, Puget Sound Bank Bldg, Tacoma, Wash.

- 83 -

604.10a. Washington v Janet McCloud (Thurston Co Justice Ct) Oct 13, 1965: Defs, 7 Indians, charged with obstructing public officer at fish-in. Defs argue: (1) state had no jurisdiction on fed'l-trust property; (2) Defs merely acting in self-defense against brutality of police. Pending.

Michael Rosen, Esq, Wash ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

604.11. Powless v New York State Tax Commr (USSC, #919) Facts: XI DOCKET 111. Cite: 212 NE2d 445; cert den 383 US 911.
604.12. Washington v Robert Moses (King Co Super Ct) 1965: 4 Muckleshoot Indians arrested: illegal fishing in Green River. Defense raises right of State to interfere with treaty rights of Indians. Pending.

William Hanson, John Riley, Esqs, Wash ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

604.13. Washington v Edith McCloud (King Co Super Ct) 1965: Def arrested at fish-in. Defense is unreasonable use of force by police. Pending.

Al Ziontz, Esq, Wash ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

604.14. Washington Dept of Games and Fisheries v Puyallup Indians (Wash Sup Ct) 1964: Ct granted Pl injunction prohibiting Defs from fishing off reservation. Defs appealed. Wash fishing laws unconstitutional as applied to Indians: contravene Art 6, US Constitution: treaties made under authority of US supreme law of land. Pending.

Alvin Ziontz, Michael Rosen, Esqs, Washington ACLU, Smith Tower, Seattle, Wash.

And see Kautz, 604.5.

604.15. Daney v US (DC Kan, Civ #W-3406) (247 FSupp 533, 11 RRLR 409) 1958: While "noncompetent, restricted" Indian, Pl paid tax levy on money he received as cash bonus for execution of oil and gas lease. 1962: Pl filed claim for refund. Oct 12, 1965: DC granted refund with interest; held: Statute of limitations for refund claims applied only after restrictions on land lifted and Pl became competent; tax statutes do not impose liability on Indian income unless Congress expressly so provides; applicable statutes provide tax-exempt status for restricted Indian land.
604.16. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes v US (USSC) May 13, 1966: Ct of Claims held US made unlawful appropriation and use of Indian tribes' funds to pay expenses of Govt survey of reservation lands under 33 Stat 302 (1904), but this did not constitute "taking" of property within purview of 5th Amdt so as to entitle tribe to interest on amount so taken. Oct 24, 1966: USSC denied cert.

John W Cragun and Richard Baenen, Esq, 1616 H St NW, Washington, DC.

605. Condemnation of Land of Indian Reservations