Powell v. Alabama and peremptory challenges in criminal procedure

POWELL vs. ALABAMA & PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES

The objective of this work is to discuss the circumstances of the case and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling regarding the right to counsel in Powell v. Alabama (1932) and to explain what a peremptory challenge is and why it is legal to use such challenges in a racial discriminatory manner.

Peremptory Challenge Defined

The right to a peremptory challenge is the right to challenge a juror, without assignation or requirement for assignation of a reason for the said challenge. Both parties to a case are allowed during jury selection to challenge potential jurors in regards to a lack of impartiality and this is known as a "challenge for cause." An unlimited number of potential jurors may be challenged.

However, as the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that peremptory strikes based on race and gender are not allowed making this right more difficult for parties to exercise. Peremptory challenges are based upon case law and statute rather than upon federal constitutional rights. In federal proceedings each side to a case are allowed three peremptory challenges.

II. Powell v. Alabama

The U.S. Supreme Court case Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) is one in which the petitioners, stated to be "negroes charged with the crime of rape, committed upon the persons of two white girls...on March 25, 1931" in which an indictment was returned and the defendants upon arraignment entered not guilty pleas. The defendants were tried in three groups. All three trials were conducted in one day's time.

The defendants were found guilty by the jury which imposed the death penalty. Motions for new trials were overruled by the trial court and the state supreme court affirmed the judgments. However, Chief Justice Anderson believed that the defendants had not received a fair trial and is stated to have "strongly dissented. (Weems v. State, 224 Ala. 524, 141 So. 215; Patterson v. State, 224 Ala. 531, 141 So. 195; Powell v. State, 224 Ala. 540, 141 So. 201 cited in: U.S. Supreme Court Powell v. State of Alabama, 1932)

Not only was the crowd very hostile at the time these nine young Black men were tried for their alleged crime but as well the failure of the judge overseeing these trials to specifically appoint counsel to these young men effectively created am imbalance in the process of criminal justice.

The argument posed by Justice Sutherland is based on the grounds that due process of law was denied to the defendants as well as was the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and specifically in that:

(1) the defendants did not receive a fair, impartial and deliberate trial;'

(2) the defendants were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity of preparation for trial; and (3) they were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded. (Justice Sutherland, Powell v. Alabama, 1932)

The failure of the Judge hearing this case in the courtroom to appoint a specific attorney for representation of these individuals was noted at the time of the court proceedings and this resulted in the defendants being effectively denied a fair, impartial and deliberate trial and as well being denied the right of counsel and finally denied a jury trial before their own peers because there was exclusion of Black individuals from the juries in these specific cases.

III. The Stringent Application of Due Process Rights in Potential Death Penalty Cases

The standard applied in this instance by the U.S. Supreme Court is one in which the specific decision of the court is not between prison and freedom but instead is one that is between the defendant's life and death. Therefore, the standards applied to rights of the defendant and due process of law is of the nature that is stringently applied and detail oriented in that what might be permissible in the trial of someone accused of theft or up on drug charges might not be accorded the same depth and expanse of due process rights as the individual who is attempting to defend their very right to live on the basis of the decision concerning their innocence or guilt.

IV. Justice Sutherland's Argument (1932)

Justice Sutherland argued that the defendants in the Scottsboro Boys trial were only youth and were illiterate and uneducated. The sole inquiry, according to Sutherland "is whether the Federal Constitution was contravened...to the inquiry whether the defendants were in substance denied the right of counsel, and if so, whether such denial infringes the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." (Justice Sutherland, Powell v. Alabama, 1932)