Hello!
This week, yet again, I am going to do a live reaction to a court case that I have not studied beforehand. This time, however, due to feedback from my last live reaction, I am going to make this one more thorough.
A Preface...
Much like last post, I want to touch on something before we get into the reaction again. While I am prideful of where I come from I want to yet again acknowledge that Alabama has a dark history when it comes to dealing with minorities in the state. As a white person, I do not feel qualified to give the insight into how racism affects minorities. It is not my place to speak on this issue at all. I want to bring light to the issue in the best way I can, but I understand that I can only do so much.
Before Reading...
This time around, I'm going to take brief look at the background of the case on Oyez. Afterwards, I found an article that breaks down the case and the decision in the JMU library database. If needed, I will look for another article that answers any questions I have left over. So let's break down this case!
During Reading...
Something already looks really fishy based on the very first paragraph I read on Oyez... I see that 9 black youth sexually assaulted 2 white women on a train car? And the court cases only took a day? I already don't like this... and I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the red flags.
Again, Oyez says that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment is being questioned in this case... I'm still very confused as to what is going on here. I'm going to take a look at this archive (I will link this below at the end of the article).
I already like this source better, as it quotes exactly what is being questioned here. The article discusses the defendants' right to council, which supposedly was very restricted as the council provided to the supposed assailants did very little preparation for them, resulting in an unfair trial. Since their council was not well prepared for trial, they (no surprise here) lost. The question being answered in the courts was whether or not this lack of preparation violated the Due Process Clause. This makes a lot of sense to me and I feel that it would violate this clause. Their liberties were 100% deprived! They barely at all met with council before their trial and this infuriates me.
The article then continues to go into more detail about how the conviction happen, and here I continue to get more enraged. This statement in particular from the article strikes me:
"There is a further recital to the effect that, upon the arraignment, they were represented by counsel. But no counsel had been employed, and aside from a statement made by the trial judge several days later during a colloquy immediately preceding the trial, the record does not disclose when, or under what circumstances, an appointment of counsel was made, or who was appointed."
This is disgusting. I don't mean to make this about my political opinions at all, but this makes me feel sick. History books in high school really like to leave stuff like this out. It's unsettling to know that I wasn't taught this about my home state in schools. Withholding information like this in my opinion is belittling the severity of the treatment of minorities in Alabama. I still want to be proud of where I have come from, and I understand that we as a state have grown from this, but how much have we grown if we can barely acknowledge this happened? This is something I don't feel I can properly answer at the moment. With time and maturity I will begin to be able answer that.
The article then goes on to point out that in the state of Alabama, the constitution requires council be appointed to anyone accused of a crime. The article states beforehand that this was already a gray area and this was brought up in the original trial, but if I'm honest I'm still a little confused in how that played out, but it's important that this was disputed in the original court. After this, the article cites MANY cases in which question the bounds of the 14th Amendment and play scenarios for how this case should be decided. In my personal opinion, the court should rule in favor of the plaintiff and declare the case a mistrial on the grounds of the Due Process Clause. The new trial should take place with new council, a new jury, and a new judge. A fair trial was not given to the defendants.
In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled in favor of the defendants. What I like the most about this decision is that the majority opinion outlines exactly where the original court was out of line:
"In this court, the judgments are assailed upon the grounds that the defendants, and each of them, were denied due process of law and the equal protection of the laws in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically as follows: (1) they were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) they were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity of preparation for trial, and (3) they were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded. These questions were properly raised and saved in the courts below."
I want to touch a little bit more on that last reason that the majority opinion felt that the Due Process Clause was violated. I cannot even begin to comprehend how it would feel to be one of the defendants in that courthouse during the trial. A minority in the Jim Crow south being tried by a jury of their white "peers" sounds horrifying. The jury for these people were all white. In what world is that fair? This wouldn't be fair even in this day and age! I am absolutely blown away that this was even allowed to happen. That is a BLATANT violation of the 14th Amendment! This is the furthest thing from "Due Process".
After Reading...
I'm super angry that I was never taught about this in depth in high school. I vaguely remember something about this case, but I was never told a name or exactly what happened. Not to be a conspiracy theorist or anything, but was this intentional? I guarantee you if you walked down the streets of Birmingham, the most populous city in the state, not one person would be able to tell you anything in depth about this case. That's upsetting. I feel that if we as a state have truly grown from our racist past, we would acknowledge our wrongdoings when being taught about our history, not sweep it under the rug. Personally, now I understand even more the all so famous phrase on here "Alabama is a great place to be from". I feel that now that I'm done with my time there I only continue to learn more and open my mind more about the world around me and the dark history of my home state. I want to learn more about it, and uncover more secrets that might have been hidden from me.
That's all from me today, folks!
Signing out. See you next week and stay curious!
Links to sources:
Oyez: Powell v. Alabama
Legal Collection Database: Powell v. Alabama
