Tom C. Clark

Name: Williams v. Georgia — Dissent
Author: Tom C. Clark

Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

Summary

“Williams v. Georgia — Dissent”, is a work by Tom C. Clark. It explores elements such as Georgia, Court and Patterson.

Quotes from Williams v. Georgia — Dissent (Tom C. Clark)

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ A state court's decision cannot be overturned if any one of the grounds supporting it is independent and adequate. There is one ground here which appears so unassailable that the majority does not even attack it. Georgia law makes a showing of due diligence on the part of the movant a prerequisite to granting extraordinary motions for new trial. The state court in this case found that due diligence had not been properly pleaded, and that the facts of which the Georgia court could take notice conclusively demonstrated that diligence was indeed completely lacking. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ The majority dwells on the extreme circumstances of this case, discusses in great detail the Georgia cases affording discretionary relief in less strong cases involving individual jurors, and warns that 'we are not concluded from assuming jurisdiction and deciding whether the state court action in the particular circumstances is, in effect, an avoidance of the federal right.' Although I find it difficult to ascertain exactly what ground the majority could give for striking down the Georgia result, it is clear to me that no theory ever before accepted by this Court could lead to reversal. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ The majority concedes that ' (a) state procedural rule which forbids the raising of federal questions at late stages in the case, or by any other than a prescribed method, has been recognized as a valid exercise of state power.' Even if the majority could somehow strike down the Georgia court's holding that it lacked discretion, it is not enough to show that Georgia has the power and refuses to exercise it. There is no case to support the implication that the exercise of discretion against a federal right is, without more, an evasion. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ Second, where the state law, honestly applied though it may be, and even dictated by the precedents, throws such obstacles in the way of enforcement of federal rights that it must be struck down as unreasonably interfering with the vindication of such rights. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ To see just how far the Court has 'stretched' here, it is only necessary to compare today's majority opinion with Patterson v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 600, 55 S.Ct. 575, 79 L.Ed. 1082, the decision relied on to support the Court's remand. In that case, Patterson and one Norris had been charged in a common indictment. Prior to trial, both interposed constitutional claims of systematic exclusion of Negroes from the jury. Patterson, however, failed to file his bill of exceptions within the time prescribed by state law. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ Due diligence would certainly have required the defendant and his attorney to make themselves familiar with the opinions of this court on the question now raised.' [7] 210 Ga. 665, 668, 82 S.E.2d 217, 219.
It is evident on this record that, even if the Georgia court is deemed to have discretion in this matter, it could adhere to its present decision and not be reversed in this Court without a major departure from our doctrines requiring respect for state procedural rules affording a 'reasonable opportunity' to present federal questions. Cf. Parker v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 571, 68 S.Ct. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Tom C. Clark, Williams v. Georgia — Dissent

“ Challenges to the poll are 'directed solely for objections which are inherent in the individual jurors,' Georgia Practice and Procedure, supra, at 455. Circumstances require that challenges to the array be made before trial. If permitted thereafter-and upheld-the judgments in many, if not all, other cases tried before juries obtained from the same panel would be subject to like attack. For example, illegality in the array summoned for March 9, 1953, from which the Williams jury was selected, might result in the overturning of all verdicts returned in the county during their tenure. ”

Tom C. Clark

Summary

Quotes from Williams v. Georgia — Dissent (Tom C. Clark)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature