High court's civil rights
1984Hayden Perry 1984-09Read it in the scan (PDF at ETOL), page 1 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 1
In 1974 Roger Trenton, a Virginia resident, was convicted of possessing nine ounces of marijuana with intent to sell. He was sentenced by the state court to 40 years imprisonment. On appeal the Federal District Court declared that the 40-year sentence was cruel and unusual punishment out of proportion to other marijuana sentences. The fact that Trenton was a Black man married to a white woman must have been a factor in the savage sentence. Even the prosecutor in the case declared that the sentence was "extremely unjust."
The case wound up in the U.S Supreme Court on appeal. In January 1982 the justices rendered their verdict. The 40-year sentence for marijuana possession was not cruel or unusual. Furthermore, the court declared, it would lead to "anarchy" in the courts if sentences were challenged in disregard to previous court decisions.
This opinion was reached by a 6-to-3 vote and summarily handed down without hearing arguments or allowing lawyers to file briefs on the legal issues.
This is one of a series of rulings by the Supreme Court headed by Warren E. Burger that curtail the rights of defendants in the interest of "law and order."
One decision partly negates the Miranda rule that gives a defendant the right to remain silent while under arrest. Another declares that illegally obtained evidence may be entered in a trial under certain circumstances. A third says that juvenile suspects can be incarcerated from the time of their arrest until they go to trial. Their constitutional right to reasonable bail is taken away from them.
Barriers have been put in the way of prisoners who appeal directly to the Supreme Court for justice. They cannot raise new issues that were not heard in lower courts, and "frivolous" appeals will be penalized. In 19 cases out of 19 the Burger court has come down on the side of the government and against the rights of the individual.
In civil rights the court is striving to reverse many of the gains made in the last decades. The Black worker must now prove discrimination is 'inten(continued on page 3, in “Antiwar protesters compete at Olympics”)