Powell v Alabama

Powell v. Alabama

Connections

Importance / Significance

In the 1930's lynching had spiked up.

"To Kill a Mockingbird"

Brian Banks falsely accused of rape.

The case started out as Powell v Alabama . After 1931, over the seven years, the case became known as the Scottsboro case.

Scottsboro case inaugurated the modern ci rights movement.

-The Communist Party supported the "Scottsboro boys"

Bibliography

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1932/1932_98

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar30.html (Plaintiff v Defendent )

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/287/45/case.html ( Case )

http://www.4lawschool.com/case-briefs/powell-v-alabama

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Powell+v.+Alabama

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scottsboro/SB_chron.html

http://www.scottsboromusicallondon.com/history/

http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1456

Majority Decision

"SCOTTSBORO BOYS"

-Alabama Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-1, affirms the convictions of seven of the boys

-Supreme Court 7-2, reverses the convictions of the Scottsboro boys in Powell vs. Alabama

-Patterson was tried alone. With in three hours he was pronounced guilty and sentenced to death. (Court Room was silent) (4-8-31)

-(4-9-33) Patterson is guilty for a second time.

+ Hughes Court : Jackson County Circuit Court

+Decision: November 7, 1932

Facts

Case: Powell v. Alabama

Description:

1 .Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson, Andrew (Andy) Wright, Leroy (Roy) Wright and Eugene Williams

2. March 24, 1931

-November 7, 1932

3. A fight between the two groups leads to the white group being kicked off the train

4. The nine males were arrested with rape charges.

5. Alabama Court= 7-2 ruling that it was fair.

Opinions

Luther Morris: "I Have seen plenty"

Justice Sutherland : wrote the 7-2 opinion. “No attempt was made to investigate…. Defendants were immediately hurried to trial.…”

Grover Hall: "The advertiser knows the sicking of this story...Nothing can be gained.. Throw this body of death away from Alabama"

Judge A.E. Hawkins : Sentenced to death

-Alabama Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-1

-The U. S. Supreme Court announces that it will review the Scottsboro cases

-7-2, reverses the convictions of the Scottsboro boys in Powell vs. Alabama

-Judge William Callahan

Plaintiff

Each State conducts it own criminal justice system that is separate from federal authority. Alabama has its own bill of rights that recognizes the right of the accused to obtain counsel, but does not require the State to pay for attorneys to defend accused persons.

Defendant

The boys were convicted through a discriminatory system. The case proceeded without a defense attorney

Whether this would be so in other criminal prosecutions, or under other circumstances, we need not determine. All that it is necessary now to decide, as we do decide, is that in a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble-mindedness, illiteracy, or the like, it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a necessary requisite of due process of law; and that duty is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case. ... In a case such as this, whatever may be the rule in other cases, the right to have counsel appointed, when necessary, is a logical corollary from the constitutional right to be heard by counsel.

In the light of the ... ignorance and illiteracy of the defendants, their youth, the circumstances of public hostility, the imprisonment and the close surveillance of the defendants by the military forces, the fact that their friends and families were all in other states and communication with them necessarily difficult, and above all that they stood in deadly peril of their lives—we think the failure of the trial court to give them reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel was a clear denial of due process. But passing that, and assuming their inability, even if opportunity had been given, to employ counsel, ... under the circumstances just stated, the necessity of counsel was so vital and imperative that the failure of the trial court to make an effective appointment of counsel was likewise a denial of due process within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Andy Wright, and Olen Montgomery v. State of Alabama