United States v. Blanchard McLeod United States of America v. Dallas County

policy at- indiscriminate happily his integrity of all those con- upon the

tack him.

cerned appeal far this dealt with

haveWe de-

greater deserves. detail than it make We peremptory dismissal. serves so that this trouble and taken effort

this permanent rec- clear there Patterson’s toward our attitude

ord irresponsibility makes claims he prove. cannot

Affirmed. America,

UNITED STATES Appellant, al., Appellees. McLEOD et

Blanchard America, STATES of

UNITED Appellant, al., Appellees. COUNTY et

DALLAS

Nos. Appeals States Court

Fifth Circuit.

Oct. Judge:

WISDOM, Circuit product of ra These cases are County, cial unrest Alabama, of which Selma different seat. “Yet Selma was police in the the usual clash between groups Negroes protesting South rights For out of workers. civil grew Voting Rights of 1965.” Selma League The Dallas Voters encourage organized local register Early and vote. League,

request the Stu of the Voters Coordinating Committee Nonviolent dent in aid sent volunteers Selma registration the main drive. One League projects was the of the Voters voting publi sponsorship of clinics. To League clinics, be these the Voters cize gan May sponsor in mass meet 19.63 Negro ings The local churches. at urging League distributed literature County Negroes register to vote kept the successful and records of applicants. unsuccessful arrangement By special James Sheriff charge po- in Clark was Selma G. regard matters. Sher- lice to racial deputy sher- iff stationed Clark officers — iffs, posse, and members of the sheriff’s police local and around the various —in meetings. These made mass officers during meetings, took down charg investigation respect Eventually these with to est than the Brown Sheriff. Lafayette police acquitted When the booked and es. was tried of the offense nearly thirty concealing jail, identity.7 at the he had of his pockets. dollars cash in Never his County United States Dallas came theless, County prosecut Dallas officials hearing for on a in the United States Lafayette vagrancy. for was ac ed He for District Court the Southern District quitted upon testimony his that the July 25, At con- of Alabama 1963. the paid living expenses. his SNCC hearings, day’s of the clusion judge that trial hearing continued The the case. June the United States filed completed and complaint was resumed October a County. in United v. Dallas States alleged 1963. that the surveillance meetings, along of the with the arrest July Meanwhile, 29, 1963, officials of prosecution Lafayette and of Reese and twenty-nine the Sheriff’s office arrested Negro tended to threaten and the coerce attending registra- were a who County citizens of the Dallas exercise charge meeting. In the tion each ease right vote, to of their and that coun- operating a im- was motor with vehicle ty officials acts to intended their have proper license-plate lights. Septem- In just complaint prayed that effect. The early of ber and the streets Sel- October that same and acts en- similar be large ma several scale demonstra- saw Ray, 1967, 3. In Pierson v. person vote of other to vote or to such ” Supreme * * * 18 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. may choose, 42 U.S.C. as he judges held that immune from Court are 1971(b). § damages liability 4 for in suits under “Any person changes his who or 6. alters not, of § U.S.C. 1983. case does The or defraud or her name the intent course, en mean that not be any payment the intent avoid joined pursuing unlaw from course of identity, debt, to conceal his or her or ful conduct. misdemeanor, and, guilty of a be shall (1958). 4. § 14 Ala.Code conviction, punished by fine of shall acting person, under color 5. “No whether dollars.” not more than five hundred intimidate, otherwise, law or shall § Ala.Code intimidate, coerce, attempt threaten, insuf- person held was threaten, court that there any The for or coerce other purpose interfering to convict. with the ficient evidence registration relief in both relating court denied district to voter tions County it found that public cases. In Dallas equal accommodations. access allegedly large coercive acts was numbers of each of the justified arrested Local officials Negro demonstrators, juveniles surveillance both —that contending meetings necessary keep States, or mass The United adults. protect Negroes; September arrests der and to October that the probable cause be to the Sheriff Clark had relevant vagrant; Lafayette awas con- Bernard would lieve that the defendants likelihood molesting sought activity, Bosie in fact Reese “was their coercive tinue intervening in that he was line these the voter evidence introduce hearing. persons requesting information of there arrests October * * *";8 and that judge on the Alexander this evidence excluded trial using occurring an alias. The ground after the Brown fact that events judge hearing concluded “that no federal ad- district in the case were first rights of those whom constitutional missible. plaintiff have violated in sues been hearing evening the final * * * way 15, 1963, County, Dr. Dallas October County, S.D.Ala.1964, F.Supp. Dallas King an address Martin Luther delivered (Emphasis added.) “This Shortly various thereafter in Selma. added, opinion,” “that he court charged a Justice Alabama officials proof plaintiff failed its has transported lawyer Department had Dr. * * * ”. Ibid. Birmingham King in a to Selma from disposed gov- paid federal district In McLeod court rented car denial, 1971(b) initial After an count with ernment. of the section say, Department the sub- admitted other than to “Since Justice discussion charges. County November deal with and case does stance Dallas dispose Jury aspect, will sub- Court the Dallas Grand * * * lawyers poenaed itself a number confine here County 9 Right Jury phase of the case.” De- Civil Division Justice Grand phase appear regard case partment November to to that before With Negroes subpoenaed judge It of held that the court 13. number district the grand jury op as No- in the drive well. with a active voter could interfere faith; good erating filed Dallas its that the United States in vember McLeod, complaint Jury County in investi in fact United States v. Grand Jury seeking enjoin gating good faith; it could that the Grand and and in Rights compelling compel Divi from other officials Civil therefore government lawyers appear. appear lawyers it. before the complaint sion alleges that the mass arrests along lies natural division Since October, together September and with of along rather than line of issues Jury subpoe- of in the action the Grand together cases, discuss of we line naeing lawyers Department Justice and alleged and arrests and Negroes active voter grand cases, proved then the in both drive, respect intimated with to jury aspect peculiar to McLeod case. right of 42 vote violation their I. 1971(b). The United States U.S.C. § injunction prevent county for an asked Rights Act of 1957 Civil continuing any person officials coercive “to unlawful makes it intimidate, threaten, or coerce other actions. grounds County, S.D.Ala., Leod as on the same 8. v. case United States Dallas County pros- F.Supp. 1014, Dallas arrests 1017. 229 —that justified; that defen- ecutions were McLeod, S.D.Ala.1964, no one’s constitutional ants violated 9. United States v. rights; F.Supp. 383, failed and that the Government 229 The district 385-86. proof. judge disposed Mc its issue in 740 then, interfering task, purpose is to determine person first Our required right person the record district other to whether

with the of such arrests, prosecu- may 42 court to find that the he choose”. vote or to vote as complained 1971(b). judge of had and other acts did tions The trial U.S.C. § pur- statutory a coercive effect' and were not decide the case on this right interfering pose Rather, with ruled that no fed standard. he register rights and to vote. eral constitutional had been vio clear, however, may lated. It is acts These acts cannot be viewed isola though they 1971(b) violate section even They against tion. must be considered deprive no one of his constitutional background contemporaneous rights. entirely Acts within otherwise general and the climate events Selma they if the law violate the statute According prevailing at the there time. proscribed purpose. have effect and the United States Commission on Civil Original United States Katzenbach v. 18,- only County’s Rights, 163 Dallas Klan, Knights of the Ku Klux E.D.La. voting age Negroes cent) (0.9 per 000 F.Supp. 330; 250 United registered compared in 1959. This Bruce, Comm, Cir. 353 F.2d United 8,800 12,000 U. whites. S. Beaty, States v. 653; Rights, Report (1959). In Civil W.D.La.1961, Deal, United States v. unchanged. percentage 1960the remained Note, Rel.L.Rep. 6 Race Private Comm, See Rights, Report U. on Civil S. Rights Economic Coercion and the Civil (1961). By per 2.2 cent of the Act of L.J. 71 Yale eligible Negroes registered. had been inquiry, therefore, is not whether Clark, S.D.Ala.1965, States v. transgressed the defendants have the F.Supp. 720, In this Court Constitution. It is whether have Registrars found that the Board of " .......... violated the statute. County engaged and Dallas gaging had was en discriminatory practices. Judge pointed As Rives has entry injunction broad ordered the out, 1971(b) “essentially requires section prescribing procedures to be followed proof (1) of two ultimate facts: Atkins, the board. United States intimidation, threat, there was an or co- year A 323 F.2d 733. after ercion, attempt intimidate, or an complained here, the acts a three- coerce, (2) threaten or in- judge court found that the officials of timidation was for the of inter- arrests, made initiated fering to vote.” United prosecutions, engaged in other in States v. Board of Educ. of Greene Coun- timidating activity designed and coercive ty, Mississippi, 1964, 40, 5 Cir. 332 F.2d right to interfere with the (concurring opinion). right 46 The to Clark, to vote. United States v. S.D.Ala. encompasses right register. vote 1965, F.Supp. United 249 720. The Registration critical, inseparable voting rights is “a filed its first suit County April part process “Four of the electoral in Dallas years, in 1961. which must great suits, of in two and a deal necessarily concern the United States registration later, Negro in timidation registration voting since to vote covers County way risen all the had in federal as as in well state elections. 385”.10 Louisiana, United States v. State E.D. La.1963, 353, F.Supp. imagine anything 225 380 aff’d U.S. is difficult physical 145, 817, which would short violence11 13 L.Ed.2d 709 85 S.Ct. 1961, Negro Wood, Comment, v. Cir. 11. See United States 5 Protection of 10. Federal 850, 772, denied, 1051, Voting Rights, F.2d cert. 1054. 295 Va.L.Rev. 51 933, Hearings L.Ed.2d United States Sub- 8 H.R. before on 6400 See 575, Edwards, 1964, F.2d 333 5 House Committee No. 5 of the committee J., dissenting). Sess., (Brown, Cong., Judiciary, 1st 579-581 on the 89th (remarks B. de Nicholas of Hon. at 11 Katzenbach). Negro chilling prospective more effect on voter coerced voters have a County. pattern registration in Dallas than the drive prosecutions reveal baseless arrests and II. Thompson, in NAACP v. ed this record. States is not entitled 831, denied, F.2d cert. 5 Cir. relief unless the defendants’ acts were NAACP, U.S. Johnson v. interfering purpose of with the L.Ed.2d This case does S.Ct. 58. Negroes’ United States v. “single vote. incident”. See involve County, Board of Education of Greene Edwards, 5 Cir. United States v. Mississippi, 5 Cir. 332 F.2d 40. id. But see at 579-581 us, In cases such as the one before (Brown, dissenting); J. United States purpose cannot defendants’ coercive Wood, 5 Cir. 295 F.2d cert. proved by direct evidence. We must denied, S.Ct. 933. Nor look circumstantial evidence and de extraordinary is it a case which cir velop adequacy a standard to measure the produced overriding an cumstances state government’s proof. There is lit legitimately arresting voting interest controversy tle or no over the actual workers. Leflore See United States v. happened. dispute facts —what be County, parties tween the over inference The attendance statistics of the Dallas be drawn those facts. County League Voters Clinics demon- strate the effectiveness of intimida- We note that all of the defendants’ February through May 1963, tion. From place acts took within the context of a average persons drew of 40 pattern classes an of racial discrimination each month. registration Several individual classes an intensive voter drive. prospective attracted more than ten vot- A. The arrests and began, only ers. After the arrests on July category. June and one fall into In people one occasion did than more two case, person prom- each arrested was July attend a class. A class 2 at- inently registration active in the drive. persons. Thereafter, tracted five each, In there was no basis for the arrest. League suspended the clinics. (1) Lafayette, In the case of Bernard The defendants introduced affidavits Sheriff Clark testified that he La- knew Negroes stating of several had fayette by reputation, and that he knew they attempt not been intimidated when Lafayette representative was a from an register gov ed to to vote. When the organization Atlanta, “try- which was persons court, ernment examined these organize niggers”.- Lafayette however, it became clear that the affi was, fact, directing the Dallas period davits referred to the of time drive. Sheriff testified persons actually these waited in line and that he swore out the affidavit for La- spent Registrar’s office. The affi fayette’s reports arrest on the basis of possibility did not davits exclude the Lafayette gainfully was not em- intimidation at places. other times or ployed, begging money. and had been any event, In the failure of the arrests By his own admission Sheriff did not and other coercive acts to intimidate a investigate any reports of these to de- persons negative gen few does not termine their truthfulness. When the eral coercive effect.12 police Lafayette, they booked found near- ly thirty pockets. dollars in cash in his judge We hold the that trial the Between arrest and the trial no coun- clearly failing erred in to find that the ty sought official determine to whether threatened, intimidated, defendants’ acts require Federally Affecting Successful intimidation does not Guaranteed Civil Rights: convictions. Harassment often is carried Removal Federal and Habeas through process. Trial, Corpus out mesne See NAACP to Abort Jurisdiction State Thompson, 5 Cir. U.Pa.L.Rev. 909-10 838; Amsterdam, Prosecutions Criminal charges Lafayette NAACP, against the in fact only reasonable conclu- is L.Ed.2d 58. overwhelm- true. inference were facts is that be drawn from these the reason sion to was that harassment Brown, Lafayette, and Lafayette’s prosecution. the and arrest for registra- hamper the Reese arrests was to for (2) con- arrest Alexander Brown’s tion drive. cealing identity also baseless. was his discrepancy between The reason place took after B. The arrests which and the license on the the name driver’s hearing initial in fall the gave is undis- the Sheriff name Brown groups: of adults into three the arrests but “Love” puted. “Brown” born was inciting riot, disturbing peace, to for grand- infancy his had with lived since offenses; like the arrests numer- and was Brown. He whose name mother truancy; juveniles ous ar- name, grandmother’s taken his had meeting leaving persons a mass rests of required on his the name to use had been charge license-plate improper on a driver’s obtain certificate birth lighting. All All mass arrests. were case, Lafayette’s how- As in license. against group persons directed were county ever, listen to refused to officials engaging activity. the time in at voter investigate any explanation categories in the took Those first two story. of Brown’s truth peaceful place demon- in course of Negro registra- (3) support Bosie in arrested strations Sheriff Clark interviewing per- he tion. because was Reese registration line. Reese sons (1) deal with the arrest of We first No one disturbance. caused demonstrating. the adults for de according complained. to Sher- But line testimony speaks own elo fendants’ Clark, unwritten Reese violated an iff McLeod, quently. Circuit Blanchard “molesting” against rule lines Fourth Judicial Circuit Solicitor Courthouse. Negroes although that testified did nothing carry forth arrests that “the defend but walk These show back every opportu ing signs, advantage reaction of the took ants violent trivial,” promi nity, onlookers serious or to arrest white led officials voting Negro registration were in workers. the conclusion that nent testimony quoted citing Thompson, a riot. His NAACP v. margin.13 831, 838, denied, At least since Termi cert. Johnson they testimony Q cards. What were for? as follows: arrested McLeod’s was inciting twenty-fifth Septem- For Is that what Q A riots. Q Between charged They October, they A were with? were and the ber seventh of assembly. charged with Q made around unlawful Is a number arrests was registra- Selma, they carrying pickets voter who were what courthouse carrying did— assembly? No, signs? signs registration A A tion voter —unlawful inciting they you the fact that were Q Did consult with was public, That correct. public coming Clark, respect ar- and the was those Sheriff going were A I in consultation with the riots demonstrations rests? was start, stop constantly during peri- proceeded and we it. Clark Sheriff people you any signs dealt Did arrest white Q You knew Qod. those days you registering vote, not? of those the courthouse? did around seeing any days I white A people doing anything don’t remember or three A After the first two demonstrations, incite a riot. them most of of those actions, pickets’ fact, say, practically felt Q all You In I did. would but, signs, carrying registration signs, those was had voter of them start, a riot? A It would incite After the first conduct did not. question doing mainly days, they it. It not a one was or three two actually percent registration. I felt. what I saw. what on voter hundred doing pickets people was Q that ar- All that those were knew those were Q You carrying forth, regis- walking merely carrying voter back and for voter rested doing signs? They signs? registration No, A were A not true. that is tration they apparently They things were not that showed is not A were Q That true? riot, ready getting registration carrying Q to a What cause for voter arrested 1, Chicago, 1949, was the fate for [the demonstrators] nello v. seeking right.” 1131, precious 894, it has been others this L.Ed. S.Ct. peaceful reaction that hostile clear (2) conflicting There evidence on was justify arrest speech does not question whether the demonstrations respect also with speaker. This is true during place took school hours. Since Lou v. State of demonstrations. Cox part evidence of the McLeod this was 536, 453, isiana, 1965, 379 85 S.Ct. record, judge finding made no trial South Edwards v. L.Ed.2d 471.14 See if on the issue. Of the demon- course 229, Carolina, 1963, 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. place hours, strations took after school 680, Kalven, Con 9 L.Ed.2d no in fact for there would be basis cept Cox Lou of the Public Forum: truancy But numerous arrests. even as- isiana, 1. There exists 1965 S.Ct.Rev. suming violating justification constitutionally that the children were for no valid truancy no law, these arrests. There alternative to is makes the context clear the conclusion that was to their truancy for that was not the reason and to deter obstruct voter drive oth prosecutions. arresting arrests and taking part Judge in it. ers As made between officers no distinction said, dissenting in Brown United States juvenile adult and the demonstrators. Edwards, They simply everyone onto herded buss- 581, “Nothing discourag could be more Only jail. and took es them to when it happened than the fear that what prosecution came time for did the you apparently indication people eligible register that did have these not even going was to cause A things. a riot? I saw the doing to vote These were those people coming any people eligible in on Q people away them. Was were not even under the attempt keep register made to laws of the Alabama to State of attempts. from them? A things. make doing We did Q to vote that those were any any people? Was (Mr. Q arrest made continuing) Do I Doar understand necessary any A It was not why they make ar- that one of the were reasons rest, they obeyed Q because our orders. protect Yes, arrested was to them? A your get them, What were A To orders? back if we had not arrested I for feared you Then, and mind the safety. you Q officers. But then afterwards Q pickets? went A prosecuted ahead arrested I went ahead and them? A right, Subsequent- That ly, Q we did. prosecuted prosecuted You Q them. reports on the No, basis of the inciting offense them A a riot? you arrests, that were filed those assembly. For unlawful as- unlawful sembly, Q prosecuted people under those un- their conduct was cal- assembly Yes, lawful statute? A provoke peace? it is culated A And positive, Section I am outrage believe. I was calculated to sense something. right. it is four Q As I un- decency morals. That you it, derstand the law to be understood police per- that a officer could arrest a the con- “[T]he State contends picketing, peacefully purely son who was because of viction should be sustained apparently his because conduct like- expressed by was fear some of the state wit- ly likely riot, erupt’ to incite a to incite law was about to nesses ‘violence they First, breakers? A don’t think I because tually is vir- demonstration. doing peaceful picketing. were Their however, undisputed, the stu- conduct, it, I deemed and all the rest of not violent dents themselves were they the law enforcement officers deemed fear of vio- threatened violence. The doing things going were in- upon that were seems to been based lence have riot, duty cite and we it was our felt group of white citizens reaction of the it, stop protect ** and at time * the same looking on from across the street. getting them from Their hurt. conduct so, ‘compelling Conceding this was provocative inciting riots. Mr. * * * constitutional answer is that they doing walking Doar: All up were simply rights may because not be denied down, carrying voter hostility or exercise.’ to their assertion signs? No, they inciting A were City Memphis, 373 U.S. * Watson v. * * * * * public. Doar: Mr. L.Ed.2d you say they inciting riot, When were They 85 S.Ct. at doing? 529.” 379 U.S. at what were A Now, marching signs. around with those Factually boys, facts. we think is dis- separate men from the the officials Leflore assembly tinguishable from this case. In charging unlawul some with Leflore staged Negroes inescapa- truancy. a mass demonstration The others with midnight near in a residential section. were these children is that inference ble They participants hooky. The caused at least some playing for arrested demonstrating sup- disorder. The state’s interest in enforc- for arrested urgent not, preserve the law We are port to vote. the of —to community night. question order in the strength The of the therefore, the faced with legitimate of this state interest alone enforce- interest state’s points police to the conclusion that in United the raised criminal law ment of its legitimate for County, acted reasons. But Leflore justi- sec- there were other indicia of violate These arrests Leflore fiable enforcement. There was no his- 1971(b) same reason tion tory reg- of official interference the with the Act. arrests violate adult many istration drive. There had been improper (3) for The arrests previous meetings disturbance. without lights license-plate do raise the Leflore affirmatively cooper- Local authorities Leflore, question. the Court In said: meetings by maintaining ated with these Clearly, its subdivi- the state and parking areas near the church. There reasonably may their enforce sions nowas evidence that of the defend- en- such valid criminal laws. Often reg- ants had interfered with the actual may incidentally in- have an forcement hibiting process. istration intimidating upon effect or hand, every Here, indica- other on the right. Yet, protected of a the exercise police arrests not made tion that the is may effect the unfortunate incidental law, but sim- of to redress violations ply setting grounds for aside not be enjoining voting is com- harass workers. justifiable otherwise knowledge police over- often mon law. enforcement of the valid criminal relatively traf- trivial of look violations 371 F.2d at 371. Rarely police mount if ever do fic laws. language This broad be taken could eradi- drives to law enforcement massive guilty person of a driving mean that no arrest practice sinful cate the 1971(b). case, section lights. could violate license-plate When out burned however, proposi- reg- not stand for that evening does they of a voter so on the do exempt from its fortuitously tion. prohibition does not meeting and, Act istration course, against persons Negroes twenty-nine acts directed on catch guilty exempt meeting of crime. It does acts done way from that home their interfering purposes justifiable other than else, inference of one right to It is here that vote. compelling so enforcement Leflore guilt probable the person or innocence of the little force its force. What much of loses history becomes relevant. If dissipated by arrested left is is clearly guilty, person proba- regis- voting is official obstruction bility police acted for a clearly have process established so tration legitimate greater reason is much than purpose this record. clearly pro- if the is purpose is arrest baseless. voting workers—a harass person guilty the fact that But by the Act. scribed inquiry. not end the Police ar- does discussion, foregoing we ex- From the guilty people for other than reasons rest measuring criteria tract several guilt example for reason —for purpose sufficiency of the evidence regis- are who want to 1971(b) note that case. We in a section ter vote. history systematic racial dis- Selma’s ingredient case, then, in each of crimination an In sort Leflore context we conclude inquiry criteria. In this is on real focus prosecu- arrests, arrest and that a baseless and the inference to first person prominently surrounding in a depends active tion all drawn

745 directing the defendants of an a decree voting compels inference drive convictions, fines, expunge return all all interfere unlawful unlawfully constitutionally Second, reimburse the arrested right to vote. maintaining persons peaceful vot- for the costs of their interference with invalid proceed- in- in the state criminal requires that defenses ing demonstrations ings. Third, indiscriminate drawn. ference be violating persons a valid mass arrests A is A. federal court al law, together or unconstitu- with baseless ways to interfere state reluctant engaged in the of others tional arrests proceedings, because of statu criminal activity voting-related shows same 15 tory respect restraints and because of Finally, mass ar- purpose to interfere. comity.16 for the doctrine of “But the minor viola- those who commit rests sharp edge Supremacy Clause cuts course of voter tions of state law generalizations. all across such When a strong activity as must considered State, pretext preserving under purpose of the arrests evidence laws, law and order uses local valid to vote. to interfere with face, punish to harass and citizens judge * that on this record * * We hold exercise of their feder failing clearly in error below ally protected statutory rights, gen required inferences. draw the principle yield exception: eral must to the system imperiled.” federal Cox III. Louisiana, 1965, v. State 5 Cir. 348 question 750, 752. now to the F.2d We turn original the United States relief. When Congress In this ease neither nor com- actions, sought injunctive ly filed these ity requires stay the court to hand. its prevent prosecution relief pro- 2283 of the Section Judicial Code persons deter Since we have arrested. vides : these violated mined A court of the United States 1971(b), the United States was section grant injunction stay proceedings an injunction to an under the au entitled expressly except in a State court as thority Wood, of United States v. 5 Cir. Congress, authorized Act of 1961, 772, denied, cert. 369 295 F.2d necessary juris where in aid of its 850, U.S. 82 district S.Ct. 933. diction, protect or to or effectuate its government’s court, however, denied judgments.17 injunction, motion for an and this Court injunction pend rights area, denied its motion for an In the civil this Court has Unrestrained, appeal. the Dallas found such authorization in 203 section proceeded pros (c) Rights officials with the of the Civil Act of 1964. appeal, government Riner, ecutions. On 1965, Dilworth v. 343 enjoin 226, asks this Court not similar ques 227.18 We need not reach the arrests, prosecutions, 1971(b) (c) and other coercive tion whether sections future, entry acts in express but to order the constitute authorization19 See, g., 2283, forbidding general e. 28 U.S.C. § 17. For a discussion of section 2283 injunctions against proceedings Injunc- Developments a State see in the Law — Court; 2254, forbidding tions, 994, 28 § U.S.C. 79 Harv.L.Bev. 1045-53 corpus pe issuance of habeas unless the ; (1965) Note, 74 Harv.L.Bev. titioner exhausted his remedies. has state (1961). See, g., Douglas City Jeannette, e. 1943, 157, 877, 63 S.Ct. generally 18. For a favorable comment see 1324; Schnettler, 1961, L.Ed. Wilson v. (1966). 114 U.Pa.L.Eev. 620, 365 U.S. 81 S.Ct. 5 L.Ed.2d 632; Minard, Stefannelli v. 342 U.S. controversy 19. A 96 L.Ed. Mar- current whether shall, Eights (1964); express Federalism and Civil U.S.O. constitutes an au- § 1983 Wechsler, Hart and The Federal Courts thorization under section Dom- 2283. See System Pfister, 1965, and the Federal 862-64 browski v. 380 U.S. held, recognized First, when this Court23 have Court has reasons. this two comity occurs, Wood, must 295 this deference to United States locally yield protect un denied, to the need cert. rights against popular ap 933, federal invasion not that section 2283 does S.Ct. governments. by by brought ply the United state and local actions Minerals, Inc. also Leiter v. States. See The defendants’ reliance 220, States, 1957, 77 352 U.S. comity misapprehension of indicates Second, by 287, 267. its S.Ct. 1 L.Ed.2d the nature suit. of this When the Gov applicable own terms section is not 2283 proceedings ernment initiates under sec proceedings no state to this case because 1971, acting simply pro tion it is not progress. pending are in Com now rights particular tect the individ pare Pfister, 1965, Dombrowski v. 380 uals who have been harassed but also 479, 1116, 2, 14 484 n. S.Ct. L.Ed. U.S. 85 prevent the intimidation of 22; N.D.Miss.1967, Nichols, 2d Ware v. group generally as a of citizens who F.Supp. (concurring opinion). 266 564 frightened away regis from the comity, developed The doctrine of as polls tration office and the because others stemming Doug in the line of eases from unjustly have been harassed. See United City Jeannette, 1943, las v. of 319 U.S. Manning, E.D.La.1962, States v. 215 F. 157, 877, 1324, S.Ct. L.Ed. has as 63 87 Supp. 272, (3-judge).24 295 Thus in primary its basis two considerations: Wood, 781, United States v. 295 F.2d First, a trust that state courts will ade Judge pointed Rives out: quately protect an individual’s constitu asserts the here Government [T]he rights tional with direct review Negro rights in citizens of all those Supreme correcting any Court in errors reg- qualified county] who are [the interpretation constitutional into which rights of these ister and vote. might fall;20 the state courts and sec are not at issue state citizens [the ond, promote orderly a desire to ad prosecution, and remedies defendant’s] justice by refraining ministration of trial his are available [him] unnecessary interference with state way Thus, them. if no available to proceedings.21 prosecution of state defend- [the present Neither consideration is in this injure them, they have no does ant] Douglas case. Unlike the situation in v. adequate in his trial. relief City Jeannette, local law is here in solely voked non-litigants rights of harass The cannot be Supreme ment. Both guaranteed through appellate Court22 and the state 1116, 479, 2; 1963, 14 Cleary Bolger, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d n. Cam 21. See v. 371 U.S. Johnson, 1965, 741, 390; 392, 385, eron v. 381 U.S. 85 Wil L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. 9 1751, curiam). (per Sehnettler, 381, S.Ct. 14 1961, L.Ed.2d 715 son v. 365 U.S. Compare Cooper Hutchinson, 620; 632, v. 3 Cir. 81 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Stefannelli 5 1950, 119, Minard, 1951, 117, 184 F.2d and Tribune Review v. 342 U.S. S.Ct. 72 W.D.Pa.1957, Thomas, 118, v. Pub. Co. F. 153 L.Ed. 96 138. Supp. 486, aff’d, 1958, 3 Cir. 254 883, City Danville, Pfister, 1965, with Barnes v. 4 22. v. U.S. Dombrowski 380 1964, (en banc), 1116, Cir. 337 F.2d 479, 579 cert. 22. 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d denied, 381 939. See also Ware v. Nichols, N.D.Miss.1967, F.Supp. 1965, Louisiana, 266 v. State of 5 Cox opinion). (concurring (3-judge) Wood, 750; 564 348 United States v. remand, 1961, On the district court in Camer- F.2d 772. 295 on v. Johnson held that section does 2283 injunction, just bar a section 1983 S.D.Miss. “It is a suit vindicate 1967, F.Supp. (3-judge). rights particular 262 873 indi- constitutional presented viduals as to whom evidence Douglas City Jeannette, 1943, 20. See v. public interest to vindicate 319 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed. all the constitutional citizens 1324; NAACP, 1959, Harrison v. racial discrimination ex- be free from 1152; S.Ct. U.S. Marshall, L.Ed.2d ercising voting rights.” United Rights Federalism and Civil Manning, F.Supp. 272, at 295. contrary, proceedings. To Supreme rev criminal Court process or direct clear it in Peacock made the Court iew.25 deciding question of federal was not comity— principle The second basic ism, its consideration to limited but had justice— administration efficient there in of the statute the construction place in case. The State this also has emphatically re Explicitly and volved. say, and federal intervention has had its power courts of the federal affirmed piecemeal point not result will at this federally flagrant denials to redress Bolger, Cleary litigation. Compare guaranteed rights, means of whether 9 L.Ed. injunction, corpus,29 direct habeas Su Schnettler, 390; 2d Wilson v. review, prosecu preme criminal Court 381, 5 L.Ed.2d U.S. 81 S.Ct. 241,30 civil tion under liability or 18 U.S.C. § 117, Minard, 1951, 342 U.S. v. Stefannelli 1983.31 384 42 under U.S.C. § 118, L.Ed. 138. 72 S.Ct. 96 828-830, 86 1800. U.S. at S.Ct. proceed in state Federal intervention seeks B. The an unusual Government ings judgment ear dates from the after Usually remedy in when a this case. days Republic. Direct liest preme Su court the return of fines and the directs perhaps the is most Court review expungement convictions, or reversal of example. Martin v. Hunter’s obvious Lessee, 1816, sitting acting or it is on direct review 97; 304, 4 L.Ed. 1 Wheat. entering corpus than habeas rather Virginia, of Cohens v. Commonwealth 1821, statutory injunction. Yet cannot we 264, But 6 L.Ed. 257.26 Wheat. 5 similarity permit remedy traditionally have inferior federal courts traditionally sought here to remedies re- 27 grant also, corpus habeas intervened proceedings of served to other form enjoin the and to enforcement of void fashioning deter us from relief effective judgments.28 state civil 1971(c). under N. L. R. section Cf. B. urge The defendants George Light Co., 1967, Boat v. E. 5 Cir. Supreme City Court’s decision of 762, 373 F.2d 767-768. 1966, Peacock, Greenwood v. 384 U.S. Harassment in the form of 808, 1800, 944, S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 86 limit arrests and baseless one rights cases, of removal civil putting of most means of effective policy general applicability indicates a a halt to a voter drive. See to restrict federal interference state 255, 1915, 115, way, S.Ct. 236 U.S. 35 25. One of bases the decision 492; Douglas City L.Ed. Public Service Co. 59 v. of Jeannette was ab- Corboy, 1919, irreparable Northern Illinois v. 250 showing injury. sence of a 153, 440, 905; L.Ed. U.S. 39 S.Ct. 63 Because the interest of the United States Fargo Taylor, 1920, 254 rights & Co. v. County Wells and groes Ne- all Dallas 175, 205; 93, represented 41 65 L.Ed. Chi U.S. S.Ct. cannot be trials state Callicotte, cago, Ry. R. P. appeals, irreparable injury pres- I. & Co. v. 1920, 799; Wood, 267 F. Griffith v. 8 Cir. ent here. See United States v. York, 1945, F.2d Bank of New 2 Cir. 147 F.2d at 295 784. 899, 160 A.L.R. 1340. Today palatable 26. is more direct review 1966, Connor, 365 29. v. Cir. by See Warren 5 than the inferior fed- intervention 1966, 590; Tolg Grimes, Note, F.2d v. Cir. 5 eral courts. See Theories Fed- 988, 92, denied, cert. Rights, F.2d U.S. 355 384 eralism and Civil Yale L.J. 75 1887, 16 (1966). days L.Ed.2d 1005. 1007, 86 S.Ct. In the 1009-10 Lessee, however, v. Hunter’s di- Martin 1966, Price, 383 v. 30. United States See ; rect review issue. See Hart live 787, 1152, L.Ed. S.Ct. 16 U.S. 86 267 Weehsler, Federal Courts Guest, 1966, U.S. v. 383 United System (1953). the Federal 418-21 239; 745, 1170, Wil 16 86 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d States, 1967, Fay Noia, 1963, 391, 5 376 v. Cir. kins 27. v. U.S. See 372 415-416, 822, F.2d 552. 9 L.Ed.2d 83 S.Ct. 837. 167, 1961, Pape, 1891, Holmes, 589, U.S. v. 365 31. Monroe 141 U.S. See Marshall v. 870; 473, 62, But cf. L.Ed.2d 492. 81 5 12 McDaniel v. S.Ct. 35 L.Ed. S.Ct. 547, 369, Ray, 1967, 415, 87 Traylor, 1905, 196 S.Ct. Pierson U.S. 25 v. 533; 1213, Rail- 18 L.Ed.2d L.Ed. Southern S.Ct. 49 Simon v. 748

Amsterdam, presented. Af Prosecutions borne in mind Criminal evil We have Rights: duty fecting Federally eradicate the effect is our Guaranteed Corpus past discrimination, in as to as well and Habeas Federal Removal Trial, against in the future. sure discrimination To Abort State Court Jurisdiction States, 1965, 793, It 380 Louisiana 842 v. United 113 U.Pa.L.Rev. ;35 145, 817, L.Ed.2d 709 crim U.S. 13 the state makes no difference that Southwell, acquittal, proceedings may Bell Cir. F.2d v. 5 376 result inal 659; Campbell, upon appeal. Hamer 358 5 Cir. of conviction reversal denied, worked, F.2d the most cert. Harassment “is 79; part, by judgments S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d United States of convic final 767; Dogan, process. tion can be mesne County [remedy] cf. stopped United States v. Jefferson as a federal Education, Amsterdam, Board broad as the evil itself.” banc, supra Although anticipa en Macon 380 F.2d Lee v. 909-10. Education, tory Board of M.D.Ala. and habeas remedies removal32 F.Supp. (3-judge). corpus foreclosed, post- have been corpus il conviction habeas is often an enjoined Specifically, prose have we lusory remedy,34 injunc the section Wood, cutions. Cir. United States v. 5 tion remains available at least in those 1961, temporar 295 F.2d We have 772. voting willing cases Government ily .qualifications. frozen United voter prosecute. Since section 1971 stands as Duke, Cir., 1964, States v. 5 332 F.2d against harassing a bulwark and coercive 759; Ward, 1965, United 5 Cir. States v. prosecutions, federal courts should con 795; Lynd, 349 F.2d United States v. 5 liberally protective strue it to fulfill the 1965, Cir. 349 F.2d 785. order We have aspect of American Federalism. specified Negroes. ed the of States, provides: State of 1971(c) Alabama United Section v. 5 1962, 583, aff'd, 1962, Cir. 304 F.2d 371 any person engaged “Whenever has 37, 112; 145, U.S. 83 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 9 grounds or there are reasonable Lynd, 1965, United States v. 5 Cir. 349 any person believe that is about to en- enjoined poll F.2d 790. We have tax gage any practice act or which requirements pro and ordered that nunc deprive any person would other payment tunc be allowed. United States privilege or secured subsec- Dogan, 1963, v. 5 Cir. 314 F.2d 767. (a) (b) tion Attorney section, or of this injunctions against We have issued broad General institute for the economic coercion and intimidation. States, United or in the name of Bruce, 1965, United States v. 5 Cir. 353 States, United a civil action or other F.2d 474. See also United States v. proper proceeding preventive re- Beaty, 1961, 653; 6 Cir. 288 F.2d United lief, including application an for a Deal, W.D.La.1961, States v. 6 Race Rel. permanent temporary injunction, re- L.Rep. 474. We have set elec aside straining order, or other order.” Campbell, tions. 1966, Hamer v. 5 Cir. 215, denied, 851, 358 F.2d construing language In cert. 385 U.S. “or 76; 87 Southwell, S.Ct. other willing Bell always order” v. this Court 5 has been remedy 1967, tailor the Cir. to fit the 376 659. F.2d But see Mis- City Peacock, 1966, 32. punishable only by of Greenwood v. 384 of which are jail fines or 1800, 808, 86 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 16 944. sentences so short that habeas actions they become moot before can be decided. Hillegas Sams, 1965, 33. v. 5 Cir. F.2d 349 859, denied, 928, cert. 383 U.S. 86 S.Ct. 35. “We bear mind that the court has 927, Bayfield, merely power duty 15 L.Ed.2d Brown v. but 1963, denied, 96, pos- 5 Cir. 320 F.2d cert. will far render decree which so as 11 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. discriminatory eliminate effects sible 143. past as well as bar like discrimina- future.” 380 U.S. at prosecutions may tion 34. Harassment be based laws, at 822. on of minor violations infractions Party Negroes seeking brought de an action sissippi Democratic Freedom lay payment Party the election to allow the State Democratic v. poll pro tax nunc tunc so that Mississippi, eligible participate. against injunction would be also the broad See relief, district court denied and this Court private and intimidation of coercion acts injunction pending appeal. Original an denied issued United scheduled, Klan, The election went off as Knights E.D.La. Klux of the Ku appeal (3-judge). this Court held that it should F.Supp. enjoined. have been Faced with the States, In Alabama State accompli election, fait court 'd, aff 371 U.S. 304 F.2d 5 37, “drastic, staggering” chose the step if not spe we 9 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. voiding than election rather powers cifically equity noted the broad allowing product discrimination upon fed 1971(c) section conferred years. continue its effect for four more approved the dis There eral courts. we The Court remanded to district court assumption de of most trict court’s “a “with instructions to set aside the elec day-to-day op supervision tailed initially enjoined”. tion it should have registration.” eration of voter F.2d at Court, Judge Brown, for the at 585. said: present indistinguishable case is government sought from Hamer. The re- the ful- at stake is “Here the matter entitled, lief to which was but because wrought policy after out fillment of a granted relief was not promptly, what Con- extensive consideration prosecutions sought enjoined contemporary gress thought evils to be carried to conclusion. “Our absence of agencies of States States and rectify rapidly facilities to should not sophisticated, spurious, sometimes prevent according now us full relief crude, practices which sometimes ” * * * Campbell, Hamer F.2d v. Negroes effectively denied were anything, presents If case this right of color and to vote because stronger case for relief than Hamer. did race alone. brought evil which this Setting aside a criminal few convictions incon- about the It is statute. disruptive is far less of the normal func- Congress ceivable in its enactment tioning government of state than grant language to meant this broad voiding Compare of an election. Mis- judicial com- less than tools to effective sissippi Party Freedom Democratic bat it.” Party Democratic the State Missis- agree analysis. Judge We Brown’s sippi, 5 Cir. 362 F.2d 60. having court, It is inconceivable that grant In order full relief in precise against found a gress which Con- evil case, pos this we must see that as far as directed section should be persons sible the who arrested and powerless remedy that evil. prosecuted (b) in violation of section 1971 Campbell, Hamer 5 Cir. placed position they are which point. particularly There county would stood have had the not act Negroes County, Mississippi in Sunflower unlawfully. Only ed in this manner systematically had been denied possibility we be sure that the of unlaw enjoined the to vote. The district court prosecution ful arrest and will not deter registrar’s discriminatory practices and Negroes participating voting from in the period entered a freeze order process. supra. See note 32 Of course year. Unfortunately one those completely no court order eradicate can advantage who took of the order country’s If actions. effect of the registered, came too late order anguish nothing remains, else the mental part in the forth- to allow them to take having to defend coming group the nuisance municipal election. A Southwell, F.2d at 659. 36. Bell v. government, however, the defend- Ne prosecutions deter could well baseless groes deputies’ explanation mere registra of the ants’ participating in the from meetings must, presence was so incred- at the process. Court can The tion judge require to draw power as to the trial however, to eradi ible its do all within prosecu motive was the inference that the real of the unlawful cate the effect explo- In the intimidation or coercion. therefore hold in this case. We tions prevailing situation in Selma order sive the requiring court should enter an district it would been a dereliction appropriate have officials duty county provided fines, for the not to have all Dallas to return coverage of these mass expunge law enforcement from all arrests and the record meetings. presence resulting prosecu While convictions deputies may had an incidental co- have tions form the for these suits. which basis effect, prosecuted evidence of a ercive there was The would not individuals so legitimate cannot find the had motive. We have to bear costs of their de judge clearly enjoin district on erroneous this fense had these been they score. Cf. County, Leflore ed as United States v. should have been. dis trict court’s order in should therefore requirement county clude a that the re V. imburse the for the individuals involved costs, including attorneys’ reasonable government advances two basic fees, incurred defense of the state support position that the theories to its prosecutions.37 criminal The district enjoined the district court should have court should take whatever ac additional county County grand jury and the necessary

tion is to return individuals acting First, it. officials concert with quo their status ante.38 grand jury asserts that had authority investigate the activities ÍV. Department, Justice and that en- """Weturn next to the surveillance of subpoenas forcement served public meetings. ar- Government rights lawyers civil division should there- gues only possible that the reason enjoined. sub-theory, it fore be aAs presence deputies meetings at the was urges offi- the statements of potential Negro to intimidate voters. grand jury investigat- cials that the The defendants insist that sent ing only violations of state law were af- deputies meetings solely pre- to the terthoughts, purpose and that the real protect Negroes. serve order and to the investigation was the obstruction rights recognize operation of We the civil division’s that surveillance meetings County. govern- may Second, of in Dallas the tend to deter the exer federally guaranteed theory cise of ment’s rights. second is that the entire N.L. grand jury investigation designed Friedman-Harry R.B. Clothing v. was Marks Co., 1937, 58, to intimidate and coerce Dallas 301 U.S. 81 interfering agree purpose L.Ed. 921. of We cannot with the they succeeded, Clark, In v. where should have United States S.D.Ala. they diligent seeking F.Supp. 720, to have this 249 were in the court amended injunction by prior provide its failure rectified our reversal to relief of this regard at 222. same nature with to the election.” to arrests and 358 215 diligent prosecutions Here, too, government place the which took was in 1964. pursuing remedy. do in its We therefore question Campbell relief such The Court Hamer not face the whether v. cau- may as that we order or should be tioned that: “This action here does not mean government necessarily every granted that first we would set when the at- aside long election in which a tacks convictions substantial number of they right v. have become final. In Bell citizens have been denied the after Southwell, vote. This is not a where an the case elec- challenged Hamer caveat is not tion is the noted that the first time Court appellants All rule. after is held. at- to be considered a mechanical Here diligence. required enjoin election, tempted reasonable the and fail- that is is (5) participated m manner vote, there- and should with fomenting riots, insurrection, and civil enjoined as violation a fore have been in- McLeod also 1971(b). disobedience. Defendant of section jury Department that the formed the grand urge that the The defendants investigate implications that would Sher- only investigation with viola- jury dealt iff Clark had lied which were contained They con- further of state law. tions Department con- Justice statements investigation was if the that even tend cerning King the incident. jury’s grand scope beyond the the of lawyers introduced no government defendants authority, the testify- a appearing to indicate even evidence whatsoever immune from not ing. charges. testing of these scintilla substance proper method overwhelming claim, by that the authority, jury’s evidence grand investigation grand jury asserting privilege refuse answer of state questions propounded not to ascertain violations specific was law, and obstruct jury. rather to harass Department in operations of the Justice study that makes clear the record A County, hold that We Alabama. in that defendants’ assertion the vestigation contrary finding the trial court’s deal with violations was to investigation initiated was patent At the is a sham. of state law clearly good faith was out carried outset, announced McLeod Defendant erroneous. publicly principal business Supremacy Clause investigate Both grand jury be to would sys federal principles our general Department in the the role of the Justice state that a government dictate area, par tem racial with unrest op investigate jury grand King’s regard ticular use to Dr. agency. Martin See federal eration of a Department. car rented Defend 304, 4 Lessee, 1 Wheat. charged grand Hunter’s specifically v. ant Hare Case, Wall. 97; jury regard Only L.Ed. Tarble’s to this incident. 597; Tennessee State 20 L.Ed. after this Court in ordered such L.Ed. Davis, 1880, vestigation v. the theme be restrained did Owlett, M.D.Pa. 648; change. Only then did the defendants Warren, Federal F.Supp. proclaim investigation limit was Interference, Harv. Court ed State to violations of state law. Note, (1930); Limitations L.Rev. We need list the state “crimes” Federal Interference Judicial State grand jury the defendants insist the Activities, 51 Colum.L.Rev. investigating expose the feeble nature supra, Owlett, argument. of their The defendants seri- United States ously grand jury closely point. a com contend There that the is most Senate, going inquire government Pennsylvania whether State mittee of lawyers (1) with, fearing the Works consorted concealed local unit that the building a dope Progress and harbored known and criminals Administration addicts; working (2) political than consorted and rather associated machine perverts; any unemployment, with part set (3) admitted sex had for the alleviation enticing away investigate up children the WPA. from to a committee during brought participate school school an action hours to The United States Finding enjoin investigation. street demonstrations in the defiance of law; (4) by investigation acted in manner the [committee] contribut- “[t]he ing gov- delinquency minors; proper to the an interference with the is ease, Although In the MoLeod district relief. the the district court denied it appeal, grant injunction pending temporary refused to a restrain- denied an court ing jury apparently appeal, grand taken no On has order. immediate we re- the versed.- The district in the matter. court dissolved the further action restraining when, hearing, order after the argument States,” The defendants’ the United function ernmental subpoenaed a granted the must assert individuals F.Supp. the Court at answering ques privilege against specific judge said: injunction. district The merely First, is merit. tions calling without respondents, by attempt “The govern employees of the federal by appointed the Senate committee jury grand ment before the would have investigate a state, sovereign proscribed disruptive effect on the agency invasion is an purely federal agency. As administration of a federal the United sovereign powers of Owlett, F.Supp. the court said in committee If the of America. States 743: investigate under power to has the suggestion employees “The that federal power do resolution, has obey subpoenas, could refuse to furtherance additional acts by corpus or seek relief habeas subpoenas investigation; to issue imprisonment disobedience, for is no compel and of witnesses the attendance Although might relief. in these documents, remedies production and individuals, protect a measure imprisonment punish by for and fine any degree protect do not in power is as- this disobedience. When United States of America from an in- sovereignty by over the serted a state sovereignty vasion of its or from vexa- sovereignty, in contraven- federal it is interruptions tious of its functions.” government form of tion of our dual powers derogation and Second, method which the sovereignty. the federal The state validity privilege of the claimed could having subpoena may power to be by determined proceedings would by constantly power abuse that grand state court of which the long requiring periods em- federal jury arm, was an review ployees necessary federal records state finally Supreme courts and investigating to be before an commit- Court of the United States. This ais power embarrass, tee. This could im- totally unsatisfactory protect- method of pede, and obstruct the administration sovereignty of the United States. * ** agency. of a federal No fed- Such are, very nature, matters agency properly eral can function if prompt determination the federal employees being constantly its are call- courts. duties; ed from their if its records privilege The issue is not one of constantly kept use; are from official questions. refuse to answer certain employees subjected if illegal its are validity issue is the of the entire investi- imprisonment.” fine gation. investigation If the entire Owlett, F.Supp. 736, States v. invalid, as we have determined this one grand jury of a interference state be, require it would be futile to wit- just as intolerable as that of a state appear privilege nesses to claim legislative committee. For the reasons regard question. to each Owlett, stated in hold we that the United VI. injunction was entitled to an against grand jury’s investigation. urge that this defendants Pennsylvania See Turnpike also Comm’n They point case is moot. out that since McGinnes, E.D.Pa.1959, F.Supp. three-judge 1) the trial of these cases: A 578, aff’d, 278 F.2d Clark, court in United States v. S.D.Ala. denied, cert. F.Supp. 720, enjoined has engaging L.Ed.2d 51.40 officials from in various ground Capitol Co., 40. N.B.R.B. v. Fish that “exclusion of the investi- Cir. gating attorney a on which as witness violated the the defend- rely, statutory bearing provisions governing proceed- ants has no on this case. ings explicitly We based our decision there under the Act.” 1971(b), arresting including viewpoint and of 42 U.S.C.A. acts, § coercive I seeking proscribes interference. exercise such persons which prosecuting registrars holdings court the trial vote; 2) that right concur in the federal 10,000 failing facts Ne- find on the registered in than erred more have threaten- County; 3) defendants groes Sher- of the the conduct in Dallas to vote coerced, prospective ed, and November intimidated not re-elected iff Clark was purpose of grand jury Negro had un- for the 4) which voters and right investigation interfering to vote. with dertaken the invalid adequate necessitates relief Department dismissed has been follows that Justice eight jury convictions grand expunging replaced the arrests a and/or from suits Negro do of these events form the basis members. While these which costs Dallas All fines state records. indicate the situation defense paid and all improved last four must in the be refunded has attorneys’ years, including incurred fees think render costs we do not Atkins, prosecu- criminal case moot. See United in the defense I also concur tions must be reimbursed. 739. Certain- grand jury ly regard disposition expungement of the of con- fines, questions. victions return of the case surveillance not moot. Nor the mere cessation does investigation grand jury im- The activity of unlawful render case moot. sovereignty proper as in view federal Co., United States v. W. T. Grant govern- system it exists our dual S.Ct. 97 L.Ed. ment. The to investi- state had Depart- gate the of the Justice activities question ment. This was settled Nevertheless the Government concedes light Founding case, supra, Fathers on formation the Clark light adoption changes and in the Union and the of the Su- various premacy County, situation in Clause. less than requested all the relief in the trial court may necessary. now be We hesitate to just determine what relief must be now granted, particularly on this record is, say least, which stale. We judgments therefore reverse the district court and remand the cases to grant that court of such relief NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS as we have hearing ordered and a BOARD, Petitioner, scope determine further re- lief which necessary at this time. TRW-SEMICONDUCTORS, INC., judgments of the district court are Respondent. reversed, and the eases are remanded No. 21549.

with directions. Appeals United States Court of BELL, Judge (concurring Circuit Ninth Circuit. specially): Nov. one, No defendants, not even the could doubt the arrests and

here designed involved were to interfere rights with of Selma and Dallas County Negroes to the franchise. Court, District majority points as the out particularly comprehen- learned and opinion, sive fell ap- into error in its proach. questions presented should have been determined the overall notes area, license of cars in the numbers spoke other and with with each two-way portable ra- sheriff’s office dio. Greene, Doar, Harold H. John Da- Reese, young 17, 1963, June Bosie a Justice, Norman, Attys., Dept, vid L. worker, local volunteer went the Dal Washington, .C., Jansen, R. D. Vernol County to interview some las Courthouse Jr., Atty., Mobile, Ala., appel- U. S. for waiting registration people lant. He that line. testified his Gayle, Wilkinson, Jr., T. G. J. E. Sel- names to obtain and addresses ma, Ala., Pitts, Selma, Wm. McLean League.2 kept records the Voters Ala., Atty. Flowers, Richmond M. Clark testified that Reese was Sheriff Gen., Madison, Atty. Gen., Gordon Asst. “molesting” line and Montgomery, Ala., appellees. for young Negro he told to leave WOODBURY,* Before in conflict WISDOM and Courthouse. The evidence is BELL, Judges. Circuit whether Reese did fact leave the * Circuit, sitting by designation. charge Lafayette, the First Of who was Bernard registration drive, he testified that Comment, Voting Federal Protection of for that sent Reese to purpose. Courthouse Rights, 51 Va.L.Rev. Rights later, joined Courthouse; as in the Civil time violation of but some 1971(b).5 1957, 42 him Act of arrested U.S.C. § Sheriff Clark Courthouse, disobeying Coun his order to leave. 'Lfór hearing, on for Before case came charge changed ty dis officials Clark, vicinity patrolling in the Sheriff resisting turbing peace arrest. meeting, stopped one of a mass two tried and convicted Reese was Brown, driving workers, for Alexander judge, a defendant trial offenses. headlight operating. a car with one case,3 pay him to sentenced in this name, and Brown Clark asked Brown his replied, plus costs. fine of two hundred dollars asked for “Brown”. Then Clark The name in driver’s license. Brown’s arrested, day after Reese was was Alexan which the license was issued out a warrant Clark swore Sheriff promptly ar Love. Sheriff Clark der Lafayette, field the arrest of Bernard concealing his identit rested Brown charge secretary for SNCC who was y.6 voting drive. The the Dallas charge: vagrancy. attempted explain testi Clark the dis Sheriff Brown Lafay crepancy he was fied that not aware time of to Sheriff Clark support arrest; ette had visible means of not would his the Sheriff reports La had confidential that he He was interested ex listen. man, fayette, planations, an had been able-bodied he Brown found testified. begging.4 candidly ad seen Sheriff other officials whom engaged he mitted that had further had no more inter he was forced deal

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Blanchard McLeod United States of America v. Dallas County

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Oct 16, 1967

Citation: 385 F.2d 734

Docket Number: 31475, 21477

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.