Skip to main content

Prejudice - The Womb Of Injustice

This is the thirteenth post of the series 'LegalTrek'. The last post was 'Scottsboro Boys case - First Round Supreme Court'. This post explains - what happened in the second round before the US Supreme Court; how the  Scottsboro Boys case ended; how prejudice breeds injustice; and most importantly what is the duty of a lawyer.

There was not a single Black in the jury in the second trial of the 'Scottsboro Boys case'. During trial, Liebowitz had taken objection that blacks were available, yet, not a single black person was ever called for jury service; and the names of the Blacks were forged afterwards in the jury roll. The trial court had negated the forgery part and had held that the names of the Blacks were included. The Alabama Supreme Court thought this question to be immaterial.

Leibowitz took up this objection before the US Supreme Court.  The Chief Justice asked him if he could prove it. Leibowitz answered in affirmative and jury roll was produced; this is mentioned in the first footnote in the judgement: perhaps the only time that it so happened. The US Supreme Court in Norris Vs. Alabama 294 US 587 negated the conclusion of the trial court that no forgery was committed by holding,
'We think that the evidence did not justify that conclusion'
The Court also set aside the conviction and remanded the case.  The court held,
'We think that the evidence that for a generation or longer no negro had been called for service on any jury in Jackson County, that there were negroes qualified for jury service, that according to the practice of the jury commission their names would normally appear on the preliminary list of male citizens of the requisite age but that no names of negroes were placed on the jury roll, and the testimony with respect to the lack of appropriate consideration of the qualifications of negroes, established the discrimination which the Constitution forbids. The motion to quash the indictment upon that ground should have been granted.
Whenever by any action of State, whether through its legislature, through its courts, or through its executive or administrative officers, all persons of the African race are excluded, solely because of their race or color, from serving as grand jurors in the criminal prosecution of a person of the African race, the equal protection of the laws is denied to him, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.'
After the case was sent back by the US Supreme Court1, the defence realised that Leibowitz was treated as an outsider by Southerners and it would be better if a southern lawyer defended the case. A local attorney Charles Watt became the leading lawyer. Leibowitz assisted from the sideline.

After remand, the charges of rape against five of them were dropped. Out of these five, one (Ozie Powell) pleaded guilty to the charge of assaulting the Deputy Sheriff. The remaining four were convicted of rape. Out of these four, only Norris, was sentenced to death. Their conviction was upheld by Alabama Supreme Court. Later death penalty of Norris was converted for imprisonment for life by the Governor.

Their pardon was refused but they were granted parole. Norris was granted parole in 1946 and he jumped the parole but later showed up in New York city in 1976. He was considered as a fugitive by Alabama State.  He died on 23.1.1989. He has published his autobiography 'The Last of the Scottsboro Boys' describing his ordeal.

Patterson also jumped his parole. He published his book 'Scottsboro Boy' in 1950,  while he was a fugitive.  Shortly after its publication, Patterson was arrested by the FBI, but the Governor of Michigan refused Alabama's extradition request.  

This is how the saga of Scottsboro Boys that inspired 'To Kill a Mockingbird' ended. The case is a blot on American legal system.  No one believes that the boys were guilty, yet they were convicted because 'prejudice is the spider of the mind; it is womb of injustice. One has to stand up against the prejudice and fight the injustice. It is for this reason that a lawyer's creed is to take up a case irrespective of the unpopularity of the cause or the accused.

In the next post, we will talk about duty of lawyers and unpopular case that I did, before we will talk about some other good legal biographies.

#LegalTrek #YatindraSingh 

#Courtroom #SamuelLeibowitz


Popular posts from this blog


Two areas are close to my heart, namely uniform civil code and population control. I had drafted bills in late 1990's before I was  offered judgeship. The bills were distributed in the Parliament at that time but before they could be introduced (whether as a bill from the public or as a private member bill) the Parliament was dissolved. 
The Central government has asked the Law Commission to examine the issue of implementing the  Uniform Civil Code in detail and submit a report. I thought of publishing the bill relating to Uniform Civil Code that I had drafted.


Sometime ago, there were headlines in the newspaper 'Night Drama that did not succeed'. Here is the story of a night drama that succeeded. 
Kalyan Singh was the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Romesh Bhandari was the Governor. He,  illegally dismissed the Kalyan Singh Government on 21st February, 1998.  A writ petition was filed the smae night and he was reinstated. This is the only time that the a deposed head of a State was pput back in saddle by the court. Here is the account of the same. 
The writ petition at the Allahabad High Court was filed by Dr. NKS Gaur, an MLA from Allahabad North and Minister of Higher Education in UP, but for the sake of convenience, the case is referred as 'the Kalyan-Singh case'.  
During my tenure as a judge, it has been matter of speculation/ complaint how I became Additional Advocate General and why was this case entrusted to me. This is explained in Appendix-I to this article. In order to complete the picture, Romesh Bhandari's …


Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees right to the life and liberty. Right to move to the court to enforce Article 21 was suspended under Article 359 of the Constitution during internal emergency (1975-77). Soon a question arose if, in such a situation, a writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable? ADM Jabalpur Vs Shiv Kant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207 : (1976)2 scc 521: 1976 UJ (SC) 610: 1976 Cr LR (SC) 303: 1976 CrL J 1945 (SC) (the Habeas Corpus case) dealt with this question. This article, written 20 years after the aforesaid case was decided, narrates about the incidents, lawyers and judges connected with that case and what has happened to them.
‘The time has come’ The Walrus said ‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax-
Of cabbages - and kings-
And why the sea is boiling hot-
And whether pigs have wings’ Through the Looking Glass; Lewis Carroll