Evening star., 1944-05-07
Society Penalized
by Court Ruling
BIZ John n. Cline.


A decision by the Supreme Court last
week, which is deserving of great deal
more attention than it has received,
| begins in this fashion:
About 3 o'clock on the morning of
Thursday, June S, 1941, Mrs. zelma
Ida AShcraft got in her automobile
| at her home in Memphis, Tenn, and
| set out on trip to visit her mothers
| home in Kentucky. Late in the
afternoon of the same day her car
| was observed few miles out of
Memphis standing on the wrong side
of road which she would likely have
taken on her journey. Just off the
road, in a slough, her lifeless body
was found. On her head we're cut
| places inflicted by blows sufficient to
have caused her death.
This is the courts detached way of
| saying that Mrs. Ashcraft, an unexcep-
tional woman whose counterpart might
be found in any American town, was the
victim of vicious murder. The rest of
| the opinion is devoted to an exposition
by the court majority of new and
disturbing legal doctrine which serves
to shield the convicted murderers-the
husband and hired accomphce-from
the penalty imposed upon them by the
courts of Tennessee.
After several days of preliminary in
vestigation, the Tennessee authorities
arrested the husband, E. E. Ashcraft.
Questioned over a period of SO hours,
Ashcraft confessed and named a Negro
youth, John Ware, as being the actual
killer Ware was arrested and confessed
promptly, asserting that he had been
At the trial Ashcraft denied that he had
ever made confession. There were no
witnesses to the crime, and the con-
victions of Ware and Ashcraft could not
be supported without the confessions
The controlling question before the
Supreme Court was whether Ashcraft's
confession was voluntary" within the
meaning of the law or whether it was
product of unlawful coercion. The
ultimate decision was that it was not
voluntary, which means that, in the
absence of new evidence, Ashcraft will
be freed The case against Ware was
sent back to the Tennessee Supreme
Court for determination as to what
should be done about his conviction, in
view of the invalidation of Ashcrafts
alleged confession.
If this were all-if the Supreme Court,
after weighing the evidence pro and con,
had come to the conclusion that Ash
craft had been exposed to such coercion
that his confession was made involun-
tarily-there would be nothing in the
case to attract attention. We simply
would have another laudable instance
OF the exercise by the court of its power
of review to protect suspects against the
use of third-degree methods. But this
is not what the court did at all.
The majority opinion is muddled and
it CLOSES over facts which have vital
bearing on the issue. 1t speaks darkly
of secret inquisitions" and alludes
somewhat irrelevantly to the evil use of
police organizations by foreign govern
ments. but it never gets down to the
point Of determining whether Ashcraft
did confess to the murder of his wife,
or whether, if he did so, the confession
actually was made involuntarily. What
the majority opinion really does is to
promulgate the new doctrine that a
period OF interrogation extending over
SO hours is SO inherently coercive" that
it invalidates a confession, even if it be
entirely true and willingly made. And,
1t Is worth noting, this doctrine is i'm
posed on the State of Tennessee in the
face of the contrary conclusions of the
trial judge, the jury and the State ap-
pellate courts.
AS suggested however, tse majority
decision CLOSES over highly relevant
facts. To bring them into the open,
where they belong, 1t Is necessary to
turn to. the powerful and lucid dissent
ing opinion written by Justice Jackson
ON behalf of himself and Justices
Roberts and Frankfurter.
These three men yield to no one in
their hostility to the third degree. They
always have fought with vigor and de-
termination against any weakening Of
the great constitutional guarantees that
Americans shall not be deprived un-
justly of their lives Or their liberty, but
they also recognize that the safeguards
which the Constitution throws around
the individual must be reconciled and
brought into harmony with the right of
society to protect itself against GRIM
1nals. They do not believe, as the ma
jority seems to hold in this case that
our individual safeguards should be
stretched and strained to an extent that
permits man, be, he sufficiently clever.
to commit murder in the knowledge
that society will not be able to punish
him even though his guilt can be es-
tablished beyond all reasonable doubt.
1t is important to bear in mind in con-
nection with this case that the basic
purpose Of the ban on third-depree
tactics is to guard against the use of
eXtorted confessions to convict innocent
persons. 1t also is important to remem-
Der that Ashcraft did not claim that he
had been forced to confess. His story
was that he had never made any con-
1esSlon. But the facts, which the ma
Jority brushed aside, show otherwise.
After his arrest Ashcraft made a
number of false statements. AS these
contradictions accumulated, he said he
knew that all the circumstances pointed
10 MIN, but he denied his guilt. A little
later, however, he sent for one of the
otncers and said that he wanted to tell