Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-04-20
FORMER PAGE WINS
SLAYER NEW TRIAL
IN SUPREME COURT

Continued From First Page.)
one of the colored men. Alfred Scott
Aldridge denied firing the shot that
killed the officer.
PrOpriety of Inquiry.
In the majority opinion, the court
says
IF the defendant was entitled to
had any racial prejudice by reason OF
the fact that the defendant was a
Negro and the deceased a white man
which would prevent their giving a fair
and impartial verdict we cannot prop
erly disregard the courts refusal merely
because of the form in which the in
quiry was presented. The propriety OF
such an inquiry has been generally
recognized"
After citing several precedents for its
decision, the court said the practice OF
permitting questions as to racial preju-
dice is not confined to any section OF
the country, land this fact attests the
widespread sentiment that fairness de-
mands that such inquiries be allowed
The court next took up the reference
of the District Court of Appeals to con-
ditionS in the District of Columbia, In
which the Appellate Court pointed out
that the colored race here is accorded
all the privileges and rights under the
law that are afforded the white race
and especially the right to practice in
the courts and serve on juries. Com
menting on this, the Supreme Court
said:
But the question Is not as to the
civil privileges of the Negro. or as tc
the dominant sentiment of the commu-
nifty and the general absence of any
disqualifying prejudice, but as to the
bias of the particular jurors who are
to try the accused. If, in fact, sharing
the general sentiment, they were found
to be impartial, no harm would be done
in permitting the question, but If any
prejudice which would preclude his rem
dering a fair verdict, gross injustice
would be perpetrated in allowing him
to sit. Despite the privileges accorded
to the Negro, we do not think that 1t
can be said that the possibility of such
prejudice is so remote as to justify the
risk in forbidding the inquiry. And
this risk becomes most grave when the
issue is of life and DEATH"
As to Detriment.
Discussing the Government argument
it would be detrimental to administra-
ton of law to allow such questions, the
Supreme Court continued
I'VE think 1t would be far more in
furious to permit it to be thought that
persons entertaining a disqualifying
prejudice were allowed to serve as
jurors, and that inquiries designed to
elicit the fact of disqualification were
barred"
In his dissenting opinion, Justict Nc
Reynolds upheld the conclusions reach
ed by the two local courts and ex-
pressed the view that the courts should
not increase the difficulties by magni-
flying theoretical possibilities"
Solely because of the refusal of the
trial judge to PROFOUND an undisclosed
question Of relative to racial prejudice
(whatever that may mean we are
asked to upset judgment approved by
the judges of both local courts, who, 1t
is fair to presume, understand condi-
lions in the District better than we do,
Justice McReynolds said in his opinion
Nothing Is revealed by the record
which tends to show that any juror
entertained prejudice which might have
impaired his ability fairly to pass upon
the issues. 1t Is not even argued that
considering the evidence presented there
was room for reasonable double Of guilt. u
Enforcement Ineffective.
Justice McReynoIds concluded his
dissenting opinion as follows:
"Unhappily, the enforcement OF our
criminal law is scandalously ineffective
Crimes of violence multiply; punish
ment walks lamely. Courts ought not
to increase the diff1culty by magnifying
theoretical possibilities. 1t is their
province to deal with matters actual
and material, to promote order and not
to hinder 1t by excessive theorizing, OF
by nagnifying what IN practice Is moi