State and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States Essay -- Suprem

State and Federal Authority in Screws v. joined States Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the aboriginal hours of January 30, 1943, Robert Bobby Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley1 while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire2 Screws, Jones and Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, shadow policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest.3 Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an capital of New York hospital that morning.4 The NAACP and FBI investigated Halls death in the following months and national official charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may under color of any law willfully deprive a person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the link ed States.5 After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held liable under Section 20. The Supreme Courts central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to interpret the life and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite temper of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co... ...41 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 151-152 (1945).42 Ibid., 143.43 Ibid., 111.44 Ibid., 145-146.45 Ibid., 149.46 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 5.47 See Justice Murphys dissent, wherein he insists that it is wakeful to speculate on other situations that might involve 20 which are not now before us. Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 136 (1945).48 Felix Frankfurter to Chief Justice muffin, November 30, 1944, Harlan Fiske gem Papers.49 Justice Frank Murphys Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.50 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 139 (1945).51 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 6.52 Harlan Fiske rocknroll to William O. Douglas, November 25, 1944, Harlan Fiske rock Papers. State and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States Essay -- SupremState and Federal Authority in Screws v. United States Outside the courthouse in Newton, Georgia, in the other(a) hours of January 30, 1943, Robert Bobby Hall was beaten unconscious by M. Claude Screws, Frank Edward Jones, and Jim Bob Kelley1 while in their custody for the alleged theft of a tire2 Screws, Jones an d Kelley were, respectively, Baker county sheriff, darkness policeman, and a civilian deputized specifically for the arrest.3 Without ever recovering consciousness, Hall died as a result of a fractured skull shortly after his arrival at an capital of New York hospital that morning.4 The NAACP and FBI investigated Halls death in the following months and federal charges were brought against Screws, Jones, and Kelley for violation of Section 20 of the Federal Criminal Code, which stipulates that no person may under color of any law willfully deprive a person of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.5 After being found guilty in the lower courts, the defendants brought their case to the Supreme Court on appeal, alleging that they had violated a state rather than federal law and, consequently, could not be held liable under Section 20. The Supreme Courts central concern in Screws et al. v. United States was to i nterpret the jailed and breadth of Section 20 in order to judge its constitutionality in doing so, the Court struggled to reach a consensus regarding the definition of state action and the indefinite temper of the rights protected by the statute. Such consensus proved difficult, indeed, as the case was narrowly decided and divided the Court along deep constitutional lines while a majority of the Court advocated reversal of the lower co... ...41 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 151-152 (1945).42 Ibid., 143.43 Ibid., 111.44 Ibid., 145-146.45 Ibid., 149.46 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 5.47 See Justice Murphys dissent, wherein he insists that it is tempestuous to speculate on other situations that might involve 20 which are not now before us. Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 136 (1945).48 Felix Frankfurter to Chief Justice Stone, November 30, 1944, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers.49 Justice Frank Murphys Notes on Screws et al. v. United States, Frank Murphy Papers.50 Screws et al. v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 139 (1945).51 Memorandum by Mr. Justice Jackson, February 2, 1945, Jackson Papers, 6.52 Harlan Fiske Stone to William O. Douglas, November 25, 1944, Harlan Fiske Stone Papers.