Commissioner GRISWOLD. Do you regard it as your responsibility to enforce them in Mississippi? Mr. Nix. I don't believe I can enforce the segregation or the desegregation of a place. Commissioner GRISWOLD. Have you not taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Mr. Nix. Yes. Commissioner GRISWOLD. Do you not regard that oath as binding? Jackson, Mississippi.-Police in Jackson adopted the policy of immediate arrest in dealing with protests. Arrests were made without any apparent effort to determine whether those arrested were engaged in constitutionally protected activity. 44 When nine college students staged a "sit-in" at the Jackson Public Library in March 1961, they were arrested for breach of the peace. When hundreds of Freedom Riders came to Jackson in 1961 challenging segregated transportation facilities, most of them were immediately arrested." When local Negroes demonstrated in 1963 for improved job opportunities, desegregation of public accommodations and facilities (including schools), and the establishment of a biracial committee, they were arrested. When demonstrations were held in 1965 protesting the convening of a special session of the State legislature to rewrite Mississippi voting laws, Jackson officials again reacted by arresting hundreds of demonstrators." 47 In every march, the participants were asked to disperse and, upon failure to do so, were arrested and charged with violating 44 45 See Jackson (Miss.) Daily News, March 29, 1961, p. 1. See, e.g., Lusky, Racial Discrimination and Federal Law: A Problem in Nullification, 63 Colum. L. Rev. 1163 (1963). 46 These demonstrations are documented in testimony presented in a suit brought by the NAACP against city officials. Record, NAACP v. Thompson, 321 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1963) [hereinafter cited as Record, NAACP v. Thompson]. 47 Jackson Daily News, June 15, 1965, p. 1. Most of those arrested were charged with parading within a permit. Guyot v. Pierce, Civ. No. 22,676, 5th Cir. June 15, 1965 (enjoining enforcement of city parade ordinance pending appeal). 48 the city's parade ordinance, an ordinance which does not specify any standards for granting or denying a permit." Negroes and civil rights workers were also arrested on various charges during attempts to use segegated city parks,50 during "pray-ins” at white churches,1 and while picketing business establishments in downtown Jackson.52 Greenwood, Mississippi.-Demonstrators in Greenwood also were ordered to disperse immediately and, in some cases, were arrested during their numerous marches in 1963 and 1964 to the county courthouse to encourage voter registration.53 Although city officials told Commission investigators that demonstrations were peaceful and orderly, every attempt to demonstrate during 1963 was repressed by police. 54 In 1964 the pattern varied somewhat. Police permitted picketing at the courthouse, but removed white civil rights workers from the picket line, took them to the police station where they were photographed and fingerprinted, and later returned them to the courthouse.55 On one occasion, pickets were arrested when they refused to comply with an order restricting picketing to one side of the courthouse. On another occasion, persons were arrested when they refused to obey an order to limit pickets to 10 voting age residents of Leflore County." 56 48 Record, NAACP v. Thompson 222; Jackson Daily News, June 15, 1965, p. 1. The one exception to this was the march permitted for the funeral of Medgar Evers. 49 The Jackson City Code provides: Section 594-That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to have any parade along, over, or upon any street or avenue of the City of Jackson, or to use by driving over or across or upon any of the streets or avenues of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, without first obtaining a permit from the mayor for such parade, and providing further that any person, firm, corporation, or association shall not use any other streets or avenues than those designated. 50 Memorandum in Commission files. Ibid.; Jackson Police Arrest Docket. 52 Record, NAACP v. Thompson; Jackson Police Arrest Docket. 53 'Interview with Samuel Block, SNCC leader in Greenwood, May 18, 1964. Greenwood City Interview. 55 Memorandum in Commission files. 56 Ibid. On October 16, 1964, the Department of Justice agreed with city officials to dismiss a Government suit against city officials alleging voter intimidation in exchange for their assurances that the city would not interfere with registration activity. See Hearings on S. 1564 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 1302-03 (1965). Americus, Georgia.-On several occasions in 1963, Negro teenagers in Americus attempted to purchase tickets at the white entrance to the town's movie theater. When they were refused, they protested by standing silently against the wall of the building. When they failed to obey the police order to disperse, they were arrested.57 Marches protesting these arrests brought further arrests under a statute prohibiting parading without a permit. 58 On August 8, violence erupted when police attempted to stop a march, which was started by a small group of Negroes and grew to nearly 200 as it moved through the Negro district. The police seized one of the leaders and jabbed him with a cattle prod when he refused to move. Stones were thrown at the police and attempts were made to free the arrested leader. The police dispersed the other demonstrators by firing shots over their heads. In the melee, several officers and at least five demonstrators were injured. Three civil rights leaders were arrested and charged with attempt to incite insurrection, assault with intent to kill, riot, unlawful assembly, attempt to escape, and aiding an attempt to escape. The rest of the summer's demonstrations ended in arrests. On one occasion nearly all those arrested alleged that they were prodded and struck with night sticks by the police. during the arrest.61 59 60 St. Augustine, Florida.-Demonstrations began in St. Augustine in June 1963 after the breakdown of negotiations between civil rights groups and local officials. The civil rights groups were seeking the formation of a biracial committee, integration of public fa 57 Americus Recorder's Court Docket, July-August 1963; Record, p. 147, Aelony v. Pace, Civil Nos. 530, 531 M.D. Ga., 1963 [hereinafter cited as Aelony Record]. Following the theater's first refusal to sell tickets, Negro teenagers began to picket the movie theater, as well as various downtown stores which refused to hire Negroes. The pickets attempted to comply with the town's extremely restrictive picketing ordinance. 58 'Record, Americus v. Turner, Nos 848-65, Recorder's Ct., Sept. 3, 1963; Recorder's Court Docket, July 19, 1963, Sept. 3, 1963. 59 Record, State v. Harris, Super. Ct., Sumter County, Aug. 20, 1963, passim; Aelony Record, passim. Aelony Record 326-27; Record, Americus v. Bowen, Recorder's Ct., Sept. 19, 1963; Recorder's Court Docket. 61 Record, Americus v. Fuller, Nos. 867 et seq., Recorder's Ct., Sept. 19, 1963; Aelony Record, passim. cilities and accommodations, and employment of Negroes in responsible city jobs.62 From June to October, sit-ins were staged at a number of lunch counters. Although many of the demonstrators were arrested and charged with breach of the peace and conspiracy, the police did not interfere with peaceful picketing." 63 In 1964 an intensive effort was begun to integrate public accommodations in St. Augustine. During Easter Week hundreds of persons were arrested at several restaurants and lunch counters; and a large number of students were arrested when they refused to comply with a police order requiring them to halt a march.65 In April 1964 Dr. Martin Luther King went to St. Augustine at the request of local Negro leaders to lead protests against segregated public accommodations. During a 10-week period, 378 persons were arrested in 58 separate incidents. Demonstrators were held under a variety of charges, such as breach of the peace, trespass with malicious intent, violation of the undesirable guest statute, and conspiracy to commit these offenses.66 BAIL In the United States a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty by judicial process. Thus, the accused must be brought before the proper officials for arraignment and in non-capital cases is permitted his freedom prior to being convicted. This traditional right to freedom before conviction 62 Interview with Dr. Robert B. Hayling, Jan. 14, 1964 [hereinafter cited as First Hayling Interview]. 63 Ibid. **Interviews with participants, August 1964; interview with Earl Johnson, Jacksonville attorney who defended many of the demonstrators, Aug. 1964 [hereinafter cited as Johnson Interview]; CCR Complaint Files, Nos. 4506, 4677; Police Records. 65 Police Records; Second Hayling Interview; Johnson Interview. Interviews with participants, Aug. 1964. 66 Police Records; interviews with participants, Aug. 1964. serves to prevent the infliction of punishment prior to 67 In order to insure the defendant's presence at trial, he may be required to deposit money or other collateral with the court as bail for his appearance at trial. Thereafter, he must appear or forfeit his deposit. He may post as bail a surety bond from an authorized bondsman, a bond secured by real or other property, or cash. In some cases, he may be released on his own recognizance without posting bail. 69 The eighth amendment to the Constitution provides that excessive bail may not be required, and this provision probably applies to the States. Most State constitutions also provide for the right to bail." When a State "has provided a right to bail it may not... engage in such administration as arbitrarily or discriminatorily to effect denial or deprivation of the right to a particular accused.” 71 Thus, neither may excessively high bail be required nor may the nature of the collateral or the conditions imposed be unreasonable.72 Moreover, pretrial bail generally may not be denied in order to protect society from possible new crimes by an accused.73 In the areas studied, how 67 Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4 (1951). 68 Stack v. Boyle, supra. 69 The Supreme Court has not in recent years ruled on this question. In Pilkington v. Circuit Court of Howell County, 324 F.2d 45, 46 (8th Cir. 1963), the court stated: "We take it for granted that contrary to earlier cases. . . the prohibition in the Eighth Amendment against requiring excessive bail must now be regarded as applying to the States, under the Fourteenth Amendment." The eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment has been declared applicable to the States. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). 70 Paulsen & Kadish, Criminal Law and Its Processes 923 (1962). See e.g., Miss. Const. art. 3, § 29. "Mastrian v. Hedman, 326 F.2d 708, 711 (8th Cir. 1964), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 965 (1964). 72 73 For example, requiring unencumbered real property and refusing to accept cash bond may effectively deny bail. See T. 326-28. Cf. Rehman v. California, 13 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1964) (Douglas in chambers); Cain v. United States, 148 F. 2d 182 (9th Cir. 1945). Williamson v. United States, 184 F.2d 280 (2d Cir. 1950); Freed & Wald, Bail in the United States: 1964, A Report to the National Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice, Washington, D.C. May 27-29, 1964, p. 5. Bail pending appeal ordinarily should be granted. Leigh v. United States, 8 L. Ed. 2d 269 (Warren, Circuit Justice, 1962). |