Scipio Jones' Brief to the Supreme Court Regarding the Elaine Twelve

Scipio Jones, a prominent African-American attorney from Little Rock, represented the twelve men convicted for their supposed involvment in the Elaine Race Massacre in 1919. Jones wrote this brief, entitled "Arkansas Peons" and published in the NAACP's magazine The Crisis in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court's review of the case.their being charged with connection with an insurrection against the white people, and that four or five white men were killed, on account of the fact that they are Negroes, and those who run the court, the Judge upon the bench, the Sheriff, the Clerk and all the jurors are white men, on account of the fact that it was stated and widely published that the purpose of the Negroes was to kill the whites and take their property, and on account of all the race prejudice which normally exists and which was enhanced a thousandfold at the time, by bitterness beyond expression, it was impossible for them to get a fair and impartial trial in said court before a jury of white men; that the attorney appointed to defend them knew that the prejudice against them was such that they could not get a fair and impartial trial before a white jury of said county, yet he filed no petition for a change of venue, did not ask the court for time to prepare for a defense, and did nothing to protect their interests; that the court did not ask them whether they had counsel, or desired to employ counsel, or were able to do so, but simply said a lawyer, whom he named, would defend them; that they have, therefore, not had a trail, have had no opportunity to make a defense but that their case was closed against them as virtually and effectually as on a plea of guilty; that if they had been given the opportunity they would have employed counsel of their own choice and have made a defense, their ability to do so having been demonstrated since their conviction; that the feeling against petitioners was such that it overawed the Judge on the bench, the jury, the attorney appointed to defend them and every one connected with said court; that all, Judge, jury and counsel, were dominated by the mob spirit that was universally present in court and out, so that if any juror had had the courage to investigate said charge with any spirit of fairness, and vote for an acquittal, he, himself, would have been the victim of the mob; that such was the intensity of feeling against petitioners and the other defendants, that had counsel for them objected to the testimony of the two witnesses against them said Wards, Green and Jefferson, on the ground that it was extorted by beating and torture, as they are advised he should have done, he himself would have been the victim of the mob; that it is possible counsel did not know how the evidence against them was obtained, and they do not desire to appear to criticize him, yet he knew that if the evidence against them was acquired as before stated, it was incompetent and should have been excluded, a fact which petitioners did not know, that petitioners were ignorant of their rights, had never been in court before, and had counsel asked them about this testimony they would have told him how it was obtained, that through fear of the mob spirit no witness was called in their behalf and they themselves were advised not to take the stand on their own behalf; that as a result of the mob domination of court, counsel and jury, the court, although a court of original jurisdiction in felony cases, lost its jurisdiction by virtue of such mob domination and the result was but an empty ceremony, carried through in the apparent form of law, and that the verdict of the jury was really a mob verdict, dictated by the spirit of the mob and pronounced and returned because no other verdict would have been tolerated, and that the judgment against them is, therefore, a nullity. Petitioners further say that the entire trial, verdict and judgment against them was but an empty ceremony; that their real trial and condemnation had already taken place before said Committee of Seven; that said Committee, in advance of the citing of the court, had sat in judgment upon them and all the other cases and had assumed and exercised the jurisdiction of the court by determining their guilt or innocence of those in jail had acquired the evidence in the manner herein set out, and decided which of the defendants should be electrocuted and which sent to prison and the terms to be given them, and which to discharge; that when court convened, the program laid out by said Committee was carried through and the verdict against petitioners was pronounced and returned, not as the independent verdict of an unbiased jury, but as a part of the prearranged scheme and judgment of said Committee; that in doing this the court did not exercise the jurisdiction given it by law and wholly lost its jurisdiction by substituting for its judgment the judgment of condemnation of said Committee. Petitioners further say that, ever since the law of Arkansas for the selection of jury commissioners was enacted, all of the judges of the courts have been and are now white men, and that ever since then said judges have appointed, without exception, white commissioners to select the jurors, both grand and petit, and that such commissioners have uniformly selected only white men on such juries; that all of this ha