Conference on racism in the law ; no.3 Language and appearance as factors in legal proceedings ; Conference on racism in the law

I'm Leonard Weiss and I'm representing the Sams disco Bar Association's Committee on lauded. The. It's now my pleasure to introduce to us and to you all the principal luncheon speaker. Who when asked what can we say about you would you give us a little biography said there is nothing interesting about me. But I don't think that's the case his background is remarkably varied. He he was educated and born and educated at least in part in Portland also partly as educated here in San Francisco. He is a retired career Army officer and retired as a lieutenant colonel. He is also a former law enforcement officer. He's now the assistant professor and acting chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the scene at San Francisco State and he is going to address us today on the topic of language and appearance as factors in legal proceedings. I give you Professor Daniel sweat. Thank you very much for the wise ladies and gentlemen no one

prepares a something on a topic such as this never really quite sure how it's going to turn out. And although language and appearance are certainly part of what I will talk about. My conclusion after considering this is that there are a great many areas of built in bias in the American legal system. And I'd like to say why. Anthropologists take a rather different view of law than do the people who are involved in the application and administration and execution of law. The anthropologist law is just one of many institutions are organized active systems of activities that are combined into the rather ambiguous whole we call culture. Now implicit in this

in the topic of this conference is the assumption that. The law as it is and forced and administered in the United States does not deal with all persons impartially and equally but is differentially apply according to the physical and cultural characteristics of the litigants in any given case. Specific aspects of this assumption are being considered by the panels on criminal and civil proceedings here. But to the anthropologists isolation of specifics is not an end but just a point from which to begin. The specifics are symptoms of a general condition and symptomatic treatment. Specifics is just Paleo and temporary pending determination of the condition that gives rise to the symptoms.

Now if we accept the fact that prejudiced symptoms of racism and prejudice to exist in the American legal system how can we determine the condition that gives rise to our first step is to consider the nature of the legal system itself and its basic reason for being. Anthropologist consider that the function of any cultural institution is the part it plays within the interrelated whole. So what is the function of the legal system within the whole of American culture. There are many possible answers to this question such as to ensure justice to the individual maintain and protect freedom provide for an equal balance between the rights and interests of the individual and the public as a whole. But all of these answers are susceptible to varying interpretations.

Justice for example can mean retribution on an eye for an eye principle to one person. Redistribution of wealth on a per capita basis to another or equal equality of opportunity to a third. Laws not an institution unique to American society but is in some form or other a characteristic of every known human group. Another characteristic of humans everywhere is the fact of conflict conflict between individuals individuals and the group and between groups. Anthropological research on a comparative cross-cultural basis indicates that in any society conflict can be decided in one of two ways by administered rules or by fighting. That is by a law or by warfare. So anthropologists

generally consider that that law has the general function in human societies of providing a means for resolving conflict without resort to violence. Now within the broad framework of this general function there are a lot of different principles that can be emphasized. The particular rules in any given society can emphasise the principles of reason fairness justice individual freedom collective security or whatever other ideals are considered desirable as a basis for adjudicating disputes. Theoretically several such ideal principles can be involved. But my contention is that in our society the our legal system tends to sacrifice ideals as a basis for adjudicating disputes to the more practical objective of maintaining the status

quo. That is the existing social order. And I base this contention on some statements made by Justice Hugo Well black. In a series of lectures that he delivered at Columbia University Law School on March 20th 21st and 23rd of this year. In these lectures Justice Black explained his views on the constitution and on the role of judges in deciding constitutional cases. And after considering various ideals in relation to the power of the judiciary he stated and I quote him for the reasons that I have been discussing. I strongly believe that the public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of our Constitution itself and not according to the judges views of fairness reasonable ness and justice. The implications of this statement

I think are clear. As used by Justice Black the term public welfare is really synonymous with maintenance of order order supersedes ideals and when ideals are in conflict with order the ideals have you have to be sacrificed. I think this was consistent with Mr. White's remarks in the panel just preceding this luncheon. In justice blacks view the role of the judiciary and legal proceedings as to determine the validity of the Ligeti litigants positions as indicated by whatever evidence may be introduced on the basis of the law as written and without regard to other principles. Now this attitude assumes that the law as written is equally applied to both two and equally understood by all Americans and that the rules as to what evidence may be introduced are equally fair to all who

are brought before the court. It assumes In other words that Americans are culturally homogeneous. Actually this is not the case. We are a culturally heterogeneous society with marked differences among various groups and speech dress and above all values. Yet by its failure to recognize and take cognizance of these differences the legal system as a whole contains many biases against the culturally different. One such bias occurs in cases in which the conflict to be resolved is among the culturally different themselves. In these cases standard trial practices rules of evidence and jury selection procedures all mitigate against an understanding on the part of the judge and jury of background factors that may be most pertinent to the race. Just die.

An example occurred in the homicide case tried in a Bay Area jurisdiction in which the deceased the accused and all the witnesses other than police officers were negro and residents of a de-facto segregated area. Now cultural processes in the United States have combined to encourage development in urban negro communities of a rather unique vocabulary. The meanings of which are not shared by the rest of the English language community. Testimony of witnesses in this case as to the events leading up to the actual homicide was phrased in this vocabulary and as a consequence both the judge and jury were left completely in the dark on what I thought was at least one crucial point in the case. This testimony brought out the fact that prior to the actual homicide the deceased had quote This put the defendant in the dozens. Efforts

of the defense counsel to procure a clarification of this use of the word dozens was objected to by the prosecution on the grounds that the witness was not an expert in semantics. The objection was sustained by the court so both judge and jury were denied knowledge of the fact that the homicide was a consequence of an extreme form of verbal aggression initiated by the deceased against the defendant. In this case the inability of both defense counsel and prosecutor to communicate with witnesses in terms understandable to the judge and jury beclouded the issues to questions that were put to witnesses were responded to by blank stares or non-committal monosyllables or completely irrelevant verbiage communications were so difficult that during one court recess the prosecutor remarked to me that it would have been easier to bring out the facts of the case if the

witnesses had been unable to speak English so that competent interpreters could have been used. This remark points up the fact that although everybody all the protests of Bunsen the case were ostensibly speaking English they were really using two different vocabularies with two different sets of meanings. Witnesses didn't understand or share the meanings of the vocabulary used by the defense counsel. The prosecutor and the judge and neither these gentlemen nor the jury understood or shared the meanings of the vocabulary used by the witnesses. When questioned on the stand witnesses could either remain silent or admit they didn't understand the vocabulary words of the question or guess at the meaning of the question either the first or the third choice reflected gravely on their credibility as in the case of one witness after denying having had felony and misdemeanor convictions. I was asked if he had served time in a Corona

correctional institution and responded No sir but I was a steward in the Merchant Marine for 20 years. The witness's credibility was destroyed when it was revealed that he had had several misdemeanor conviction convictions and once been sentenced to 10 years on a felony. The what. The witness wasn't taken aback by these revelations either but admitted readily to the convictions and to having been imprisoned but was not what was not brought out was that the vocabulary words felony misdemeanor Correctional Institution were unintelligible to him. He didn't know what they meant. They were meaningless to his answers to the questions using these words were based on the attempt to guess their meanings. And he his guess was wrong. After the trial several members of the jury were asked their opinion of the testimony and how they arrived at their verdict. They indicated that most of the testimony had been quite comprehensible to them

and that they thought the witnesses were either morons that couldn't understand or speak plain English or unconscionable liars. Well now they weren't morons of course in the vocabulary of the court room possibly but their vocabularies were certainly adequate to enable them to function quite capably in their own culture but not in the culture of the courtroom. At any rate they said their verdict had been a compromise to get out the mot of the confusion of the situation. Now similar situations have been encountered by other anthropologists concerned with legal resolution of conflict in which other minorities are involved. Dr. Mary Shepherdson we're example has found in her investigation of legal practices involving Navajo that members of the American legal system consider witness Indians to be poor witnesses with little concept of

perjury apt to make a statement and pretrial discussion and then change their testimony completely on the witness stand. Unfortunately the problem a built in bias against the culturally different goes much deeper than courtroom resolution of cases. It's an anthropological tenet that language change reflects a culture change. So when social cleavage is between a minority in the majority become so sharp that they use different vocabularies. It's almost certain that the operating values of the two groups will be equally different. Not only will there be little sharing of common meanings for vocabulary words but little sharing of standards of behavior. Now this situation becomes acute in context between law enforcement officers as representatives of the legal system and of the majority and members of the minority the minority

convinced by experience that their vocabulary values and behavior will be misunderstood and misinterpreted by law enforcement officers shun contact with them officers investing investigating cases within minority communities come up against a solid wall at least in their estimation of silence and non cooperation. So this in turn and genders on their part and distrust of the minority as a group. These attitudes of mutual distrust become cumulate of least self-reinforcing saw that ultimately law enforcement officers in the minority regard each other as enemies. And the disastrous turmoil in our country today is probably more a consequence of these impersonal cultural forces than of manifest ill will of. One group toward the other.

A different type of bias against the culturally different is encountered when the conflict to be resolved is between the cultural majority and the culturally different either on an individual or a group basis. The attitude the subordinate's ideal principles to the practicality of maintaining the status quo is not confined to actual threats against the existing shows social order but is extended in practice to potential threats as perceived by the individuals who comprise the American legal system in operation stress as perceived. Because what one perceives is not always what is. Human share the general characteristic of sentients organisms

of theory and thus considering as a threat. What is strange to them and what they do not understand. Despite some opinions to the contrary law enforcement officers prosecutors even judges and juries are human and they have this characteristic and tend to consider individuals or groups who exhibit culturally different characteristics as a threat to the existing social order. This is perhaps not a conscious bias. It'd be easier to deal with if it were. But instead it occurs tends to occur at the subconscious level where the individual who manifests this bias is not aware that. He manifests it is not aware that it exists as a result. The extent to

which any person. Who would be parts from what is generally accepted as the American norm in physical appearance speech behavior or any other cultural characteristic is the extent to which he is apt to be subconsciously perceived as a threat to the existing social order by members of the cultural majority as part of this cultural majority. Thus the operating personnel of the legal system will be subconsciously biased against the culturally different to the extent that the difference is visible. Now here this bias begins right at the enforcement level. In one jurisdiction in this area applicants for appointment of police as police officers are required to state in their application why they seek a

career in law enforcement. I have begun a statistical study of these applications over a last two year period I haven't yet completed but the preliminary examination indicates that the modal reason that is the one most often cited is some variation on the theme. I want to keep this community a good place to live. Now there's a reason for desiring to become a law enforcement officer this statement is I think quite significant. It implies that the individual is satisfied with the community as it is that he doesn't want to change that he wants to maintain the existing social order. And I submit that he's going to have an automatic subconscious bias against any individual or group that he perceives as a threat to that existing social order. Now to my own

knowledge gained by my own participation in field situations as a law enforcement officer this characteristic of law enforcement officers is manifested by a tendency to subject the culturally different to a more intensive scrutiny in any given situation than those who conform to the officers idea of the cultural norm. Now in social situations actions give rise to reactions. The culturally different soon realize that they are considered a threat and scrutinized more intensively by a law enforcement officers. So their action reaction their reaction is to build a negative stereotype of all law enforcement officers. Now because of this negative stereotype the culturally different will tend to

display hostility even in the innocent contacts with law enforcement officers on the basis of the uniform and the badge rather than of the individual. And the result again is accumulative self reinforcement of the negative stereotype on both sides. And this becomes most acute in cases of law enforcement officers who are themselves members of a minority that is regarded as culturally different within the minority community such an officer is not only associated with a negative stereotype of. The law enforcement officer and within the. Community the law enforcement officer he's a social with a negative stereotype of the minority but within the minority community such an officer is also regarded as a traitor and sometimes considered worse than the non minority officers. Now another example of built in bias against a culturally different in

our legal system occurs in the official documents that are generated in the law enforcement process such as traffic citations arrest report reports of investigations and bookings. I haven't yet encountered an American jurisdiction in which the forms use for these purposes do not provide for an entry under the title race. And local jurisdictions the usual entries for race are white. Negro Oriental Indian or Mexican. Aside from the fact that these designations are technically correct. The utility of this practice is an aid to and identification is highly questionable. As an example a few years ago I had occasion to examine all arrest reports in several local jurisdictions over a two year period in which subjects were classified as Indian in a disconcertingly large number of cases individuals

classified as Indian by arresting officers turned out to be non Indian. Similarly a considerable number of cases were found involving Indians who were not so classified on arrest. The explanation obviously lies in the fact that these so-called racial classifications weren't made scientifically or are not made scientifically but on the basis of phenotypical appearance or guesswork. And as physical anthropologists always stress. This characteristic is quite misleading since there is more variation in appearance within each of the three principal racial groups than there is among them. Another source of built in bias occurs in the practice of municipal state and federal agencies of releasing crime statistics on the basis of racial classifications. This practice combined with that of racial classification in case

document documents not only leads to the stereotype that a particular group has a propensity to commit a particular type of offense or that one group is generally more criminal than another but it also functions as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now by self-fulfilling prophecy I mean that when members of the legal system raid in the Department of Justice annual Uniform Crime Reports that Indians or negroes commit more crimes per capita than Caucasians or commit more of a certain type of crime. Enforcement officers will be more inclined to make arrests of Indians or negroes and of Caucasians under similar circumstances. And prosecutors will be more inclined to prosecute and judges and juries more inclined to convict now at the moment I can't submit evidence on this it would be admissible in any court. But I

can present an empirical illustration. There is absolutely no scientific basis to indicate that any national or ethnic group has a lower tolerance for alcohol than any other. Yet in the course of an investigation of Indians arrests I was asked by a high ranking police officer who incidentally also has a degree in law. What factor in the somatic structure of Indians and Samoans makes him get drunk so easily. Now it's funny but I still nonetheless I submit that this officer's acceptance of the stereotype of Indian and Samoan susceptibility to alcohol will unconsciously influence him when he's called on to make recommendations or decisions and cases in which drunkenness is a factor and the subject is classified as Indian or Samoan might add

to that the acceptance of this drunken Indian stereotype as to my knowledge shared by some of the judiciary. Now there's further built in bias based on lack of understanding of the culturally different and the consequent considering of them as a threat to the existing social order is provided in the composition of jury panels. The practice of compiling jury panels from the roster of registered voters automatically ensures that juries book conform to the dominant cultural characteristics of the jurisdiction of the venue. The slight alleviation of this built in bias that is provided by the defense right to peremptory challenges is effectively counterbalanced by the prosecution's exercise of the same right. So the usual result is that most juries are so to speak stacked against understanding of the culturally different

and well thus tend to fill out gaps in the testimonial evidence on the basis of stereotypes. A case illustrating this point occurred in the trial in a bayed jurisdiction of a 20 year old negro male on charges of battery and felonious assault on police officers. I want to stress I'm not citing this to argue guilt or innocent of the defendant but just to illustrate the effect of cultural difference on juries. The young defendant had been interviewed in the course of one of our research projects several times prior to the events that. Led to his trial. Exemplified in almost every detail the negative stereotype of the antisocial anti-social as far as the white community was concerned. The anti-social young negro male Not only did his hair

style is dress bearing vocabulary pronunciation stresses cultural deference but his tone and manner of speech were such as to create an impression of hostile belligerence on anyone not familiar with his cultural background. These characteristics were so marked that Darr research field worker after an interview conducted in the jail while the young man was awaiting trial commented that while the subject was convinced of his innocence and convince that the jury would acquit him. He was so totally unaware of the effect his appearance and manner and bearing would have on the jury. After observing the trial the field worker reported that the jury appeared as much impressed by the defendants way of life demeanor attitudes a manner of speaking and other things as by the actual evidence and this

impression seemed to weigh heavily in the verdict and sentence in the field worker closed his report with the statement. If his hair had been cut shorter if he had shaved close or if his dress it been more conventional. And if he had been aware of his speech and of the dialect difference between himself and the jurors he might have gotten off entirely. The point to stress here is that in this case the cultural difference up the defendant as far as the jury was concerned was extreme. Now I realize that the case I'm presenting here has to build in biases in the American legal system does not rest on solid evidence. That would be acceptable in court and that therefore as I am presenting it it doesn't provide a basis for seeking remedial changes in our legal system. But I do submit that I am presenting empirical

observations that warrant the general hypothesis that the American legal system is biased against the culturally different and that from from this general hypothesis and a raid of specific hypotheses can be derived. Each of which can be tested so as to produce the evidential data that would be acceptable to the legal system itself. Let me propose a few specific hypotheses. First individuals classified as nonwhite. In arrest reports are more often brought to trial than those classified as white. Second for any given offense adverse verdicts are more often rendered against defendants classified as nonwhite

than against those classified as white. Third four defendants found guilty of any given offense sentences handed down against non-whites are more severe than those handed down against whites. For. Four non-whites found guilty of any given offense sentences are more severe in cases in which the victim is white. Then in cases in which the victim is also nonwhite. I could go on for quite some time proposing specific hypotheses along these lines. Each of these however can be tested statistically by careful analysis of available public records. Science the scientific technique of statistical

testing would I believe not only enable either substantiation or refutation of any of these hypotheses. But in the event of substantiation it would provide the hard type of evidence that would. Be acceptable to the legal system. So all that a sound basis for seeking remedial changes in that system could be established. Now I'd like to propose that consideration be given to establishment. And of course funding of a research project in legal anthropology to be conducted jointly by members of the bar. And anthropologists. The purpose of this project would be to examine closely the empirical data. And on the basis of this data. Formulate and test hypotheses such as

those I've outlined and others as well. These other type of hypotheses may cover areas such as recruitment of culturally different minorities into the legal system as law enforcement officers and as members of the bar composition a jury panels duty assignments of culturally different minorities who become law enforcement officers relations between law enforcement agencies and the culturally different. While a prediction of the ultimate findings of any research is risky. Nonetheless hopeful that such a project would be productive of sufficient legally acceptable evidence to demonstrate the need for seeking sound scientific remedies. And finally I believe that if we if we can find remedies to and implement

them to correct what I hold our deficiencies of bias in the American legal system then our legal system will be rendered more effective for us all. More effective in dealing with all of the ills including crime that. We are a threat to all of us regard less of whether we are culturally. The same or culturally different. And I think when it's me close by saying that this that it is in it's a matter of fact the de facto segregated culturally different communities. That the people are preyed on to a greater extent by the ills that. Our legal system is unable to deal with that on the American public at large.

Thank you. Thank you for what. Our next speaker is Mr. Charles R. Gary of the San Francisco a law firm of Garrett Dreyfus McTernan and brought us together as a well-known trial lawyer in the Bay Area and was a graduate of the San Francisco Law School. I've heard him described recently as House counsel for the Black Panthers. I've also heard him call a White Panther. So I would like to introduce at this time if this tells our Garr who will talk on juror selection. Mr. Dog Crockett

members of the panel and ladies and gentlemen I want to say at the outset that I'm sorry that I am a white man and I intend to get a natural so that I can fit into the proper setting of my black brothers. On a serious vein I'm very happy to hear that my black brother lawyers are interested in this fight just as much as the white lawyers are. There is plenty for all of us to do. Right now we have a injunction suit on the United States Civil Rights Act

asking that the Oakland Police Department the Oakland Superior Court and the Oakland establishment cease and desist from the unlawful conduct that we allege that they have been performing against black citizens in the black ghetto of Oakland. We've asked them to stop the trial of Huey Newton and that case is going to be argued before the federal district court. There's going to be a three man Court on the 14th of May and I hope that my black brothers will join me in that case as attorneys of record and argue and participate in that case. We hope that the facts that we will be able to present through that two to three man Court.

Will bring to light the injustices and brutality that we maintain that's been going on in the black ghetto of Oakland and for that matter San Francisco is not exempt from that either. On March the 1st nineteen hundred and sixty eight the Kerner report came down and brought out clearly what many of us have known for years that some 60 to 70 percent of the white community are racist. Melvin Bell II tells the story during the Ruby trial when he was trying to make bail for Mr. Ruby

and he collected a series of. Texas appellate court. Cases. Whereby a person who is charged with murder can be enlarged on bail. And there were a long line of those cases. And Melvin Bell I proceed to argue to the judge who was presiding over that Ruby trial and he stated to the court. All of the cases where his client pursuant to the precedence that had been set before that he was entitled to bail. The judge said Mr. Belli. I want you all to come to my chamber. And he took Mr. Belli to his chamber and left the rest of the attorneys who were co-counsel worse. What Mr. Bell live

and he said Mr. Bell he said I don't want to embarrass you all in front of that courtroom. Those cases to two sided are all nigger cases. You know. One law for the black one law for the white. Several years ago some twenty years ago I was asked by a civil rights group if I would go down to one of our southern counties. And defend a man a black man. We call them Negroes those days we've been in jail for eighteen months and had men brought to trial. I went down to see him and I found that he had been brought to trial for 18 months because each time that a local court

would get him a lawyer he would challenge that lawyer and say that he was a racist because the lawyer kept referring to him as a nigger. Finally they decided that he was paranoid that he imagined that people were discriminatory towards him and they sent him to the mental hospital and there he languished for months and months and then finally they would send him back and the same thing would repeated repeat itself. I went down there and filed a suit attacking the establishment. As a result we got a new sheriff. When the criminal case came on. I challenge the entire judiciary and the Judicial Council. By the way to judiciary was

challenged on the basis that they too referred to a negro as a nigger. They did not even file counter affidavits to deny the charge. The Judicial Council appointed a outstanding jurist who subsequently at a later time went on today appellate court and during the course of negotiations and a few other things the district attorney at the present time is a federal district judge during the negotiations and want not only made what lawyers call a compromise. The district attorney dismissed this longstanding criminal charge against my client and I dismissed the civil suit that I had filed. After the pleasantries were exchanged the court said to me the judge who had been sent there by the Judicial

Council. He said Mr Gary said what kind of a nigger is your client. Now. These are the kind of things that occurred 20 years ago during some of the sit in cases here in San Francisco some of the judges were accused of using that terminology. And they couldn't see anything wrong with it why I'm not prejudiced says the judge. I'm not going to go into any further details on this. But the thing that bothers me as a trial lawyer. And particularly a trial lawyer who's now involved in. Some some very serious cases that tells the entire story that is that the black community has been faced with for hundreds of years

as how are we going to project. As lawyers in our present day system. When we are told by the presidents commission the Kerner a part that there are two worlds in America two communities the black community and the white community and this black community was not created by the choice of the black man but it was done by white races. How are we going to be able to project the problems that we are faced with today in Alameda County and San Francisco County. San Mateo County and all of the counties Los Angeles County how are we going to be able to project. The obvious and intended racist attitudes of the community who become jurors

when admittedly six to seven out of 10 are racist. A study was made not so long ago where they took a scene like we would take a scene here where there was a white man and a black man. The white man had a razor ready to hand the black man had nothing in his hand. An altercation allegedly occurred and a group. And this is a selective group of. White people from the cross section of the community. They were asked to deep pick the picture. The great majority of them put a razor in the hands of the black man.

How are you under those circumstances. Going to get a fair trial for a black man when it's a black man versus DEA stablished place officer. How are you going to do it. I challenge anyone to tell me how you're going to do it. How are you going to get a jury and a limb an 8 7 out of the 10 who are obvious racist who will supply the missing link of the testimony that's never needed needed to convict the defendant. How are you going to do it. I don't know are your going to do it and I'd like the help of anybody that can tell me how you're going to do it. Hollow as that man who is charged with a crime and a prosecuting

witness is a police officer or a white person and especially a defendant black man who is crying out against the press and oppression by Dio pressers hollow as that jury going to be picked. I challenge each and every one of you I challenge to do judiciary to tell me how they're going to do it. You cannot depend upon a benevolent So the white man to do that. Because the Kerner report and many reports preceding this have told us that 6 to 7 out of 10. White people are prejudiced. How am I going to wait that prejudiced person. Seven out of 10 out of that jury panel. We have asked the help.

Sociologist psychiatry us anthropologist to find us and Ensor because soon we are going to go to trial and we're going to be faced with these problems. And the answers are not easily forthcoming. I'm presenting the picture to you not of something that's in the story books or in the law books yet to come. I'm presenting the picture to you because these are the problems that we have been faced with. I've heard Clinton White in the court room say. In a criminal case she looks out there at the jury panel and he says Judge I don't see any black faces out there. I've heard him say this. How are we going to

find that answer. I don't know the answer. I don't see how a black person today who's involved in the militancy of the period in which we are living and who is fighting the establishment who is fighting the racist policies of the police department the brutality and the harassment that they go through. I don't see how we're going to get a white jury to be able to give us a fair trial. I don't see how you can get a fair trial. But the type of an atmosphere that's created. Accidentally this morning 10 minutes to one I turned on the Joey Bishop Show and who should be on there but the chief of

police from Oakland. Parading the pictures of the so-called shoot out of April a sext. Lying in his tape he accuses us of lying. He was lying. I challenge that Chief to present all of the reports of all of the police officers who present documentary evidence as to what happened that night. And his own police department. He has 600 Stull words. Only 19 which are Negroes and the negro officers can even join clubs that the other white officers can join they have to have their own separate organisation called the Apollo club. Amongst the Alton police department it's infested But Birch eyes.

Under these circumstances how can you get a fair trial. How can you get a fair across section of the jury that's not infested. What this racism that's destroying America which has created two worlds right within its own so called Unity. These are the problems that we white lawyers and black lawyers are faced with a nice court rooms. You think that Huey Newton Eldridge Cleaver Seale and others are just isolated cases. There's hundreds of them. Here we know Tim's right and Open in San Francisco and the other parts of the community. If we were to keep a log on what's happening today right now we

would find at least six people were murdered by the Oakland police in the past six months. Young Puerto Rican and Redwood City nice Paltrow jumped out of a car and was running away. The police know he was 19 years of age. Handsome. His friends were plot people. He preferred them please shot him in the back and killed him. The cemetery a coroner's jury wouldn't even hold an inquest or an investigation. Bobby Hutton who was killed after the police had knocked him down and kicked him. And what is hands upraised was shot and killed. What a volley of some twenty five shots. The chief said that's not true. Well you know it is and we're

prepared to prove that it's true. How are you going to get a fair trial with a white jury who's infested seven out of 10 six out of 10 five not attained 10 with racism and especially someone who is fighting for the right of survivorship. I wish I could give you some answers. I wish I could present to you a beautiful picture and say that it's going to be fine. I wish I could tell you that our judiciary is informed. And then meeting as important as this which is an initiative step towards some understanding of the problem. I see a total and almost complete absence of the

judiciary with the exception of one or two. Oakland San Francisco right into the heart of this particular area. What a conference call by his nine respectable organizations. We see a absence a dearth of judges. I you know that I will be criticized for taking on this sanctimonious body where ropes and I can't help that. If any warning that we ever got. By the President's Commission. And the rebellions to it are going on throughout the United States it's high time that the white community way the white community awaken to our responsibility and say that this type of racism stops. Of all the complaints to the ghetto of America have

us on top number one according to the Kerner report as Kate white lace on of our backs. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Gary.