Curious .. Footage in J Johnson Doc ..

On April 14, 1914, Jack Johnson’s appeal of his White-Slave Traffic Act criminal convictions resulted in a partial legal victory, and a partial loss. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago upheld Johnson’s convictions on two counts regarding his payment for the transport of Belle Schreiber across state lines for the immoral purpose of having sexual relations with her.

However, regarding the counts charging Johnson with inducing Schreiber to come to Chicago so that she might engage in prostitution, the Court of Appeals held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, and his convictions on those counts were overturned. Such a holding essentially meant that no rational juror applying the beyond a reasonable doubt standard could have found him guilty of the prostitution counts, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, because the evidence simply was not substantial enough.


Furthermore, the Court criticized the government for its improper methods and tactics designed to inflame the jury’s passions in order to prejudice them against Johnson, and for not dismissing counts it knew it could not prove. The Court said,

In his opening statement the government’s attorney said:

“Another immoral purpose is one too obscene to mention, the purpose being for defendant to compel these women to commit the crime against nature upon his body. …”

We must assume that the government’s attorney, when he made the statement, believed he could produce the evidence. But at some time before he closed he knew that the picture he had drawn of the negro pugilist could not be verified. Yet not until after defendant’s attorney had made a motion to that effect after the close of the government’s case were the crime against nature counts withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. A desire, if not a duty, to be fair should have led the government’s attorney to withdraw that heinous charge the moment he knew it could not be substantiated.

The Court opined similarly with respect to the unsupported and unproven claim in the government’s opening statement that Johnson from time to time had three women with him and would drop one off and put her into a sporting house to relieve himself of the necessity of spending money carrying her about the country while he had the others. There was no proof of such allegation.

Further, the Court noted that the government improperly attempted to inflame the jury with its questioning of Johnson on cross examination:

Q. As a matter of fact that sickness (of a woman called Etta) was caused by blows from your hands, wasn’t it?

A. No.

Q. Well, it was caused by blow or blows from your hands?

A. No, no.

Q. Was it not caused by blows received by Etta in Pekin Theater here in Chicago at your hands?

A. No.

Q. Did you not carry her out or have her carried out and put in the automobile and taken to the Washington Park Hospital after you had beaten her up?

A. No, no.

Q. Hattie was in the hospital while you were there, was she?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Did you have any difficulty with her about putting her in a hospital?

A. No.

Q. Did you have any similar difficulty with Belle— fisticuff difficulty?

A. What is that?

Q. You had struck Belle on various occasions?

A. Never in my life.

Q. Do you remember using an automobile tool on her?

A. Never in my life.

Q. You never did that?

A. Never.

Q. You say you did not?

A. I say no, emphatically no.

Q. And bruised her side until it was black and blue?

The government’s lawyer persistently repeated insinuating questions “with the obvious object of having his innuendoes taken in preference to the sworn answer.”

A witness for the government was asked about a conversation he had on Christmas Eve, 1910 with Johnson regarding Etta. “He asked me to go to the hospital with him to call upon her. He told me he had had a fight with her at Bob Mott’s Café on State street.” The Court noted that Johnson’s attorney duly objected to such testimony. “We find nothing in the record to justify the injection into the case of the collateral question whether defendant exercised his fighting abilities upon women.” Such questions and answers had absolutely nothing to do with the charges at hand, and therefore were not relevant.

The Court held that all of these improper questions “show the atmosphere of prejudice that pervades the record.” Hence, “When the situation thus improperly created is measured against the doubtfully sustainable prostitution counts, we are all convinced that defendant did not have a fair trial on that issue.”

Yet, despite the government’s improper inflammation of the jury’s passions, creating an atmosphere of prejudice which pervaded the record, the Court did not reverse the convictions on the sexual relations counts, for “the record demonstrates that, no matter how improperly the prejudices of jurors may have been aroused, no other verdict could properly have been reached.” Many folks, then and now, might strongly disagree. Johnson was entitled to have a fair trial with a decision made by an unbiased jury whose passions were not inflamed improperly against him. Such improperly inflamed passions easily could have affected the jury’s judgment on all counts.

 

Excellent!

 

Again, you, as a defense attorney, are arguing procedural grounds. I care squat about procedural grounds of a court drama when trying to determine to my satisfaction whether a person is guilty or innocent of a crime they were accused of. A person can be guilty of sin of a crime, there can be ample evidence of it, but for one reason or another that evidence is not allowed to be introduced. That can be for a multitude of reasons. You as a defense attorney may jump with glee that you “won” me as a private citizen doesnt care a whit about your “victory” Id rather see the guilty punished. If you really want to give the good people here an idea of what Johnson was about then dont cherry pick your testimony. Why dont you give examples of the numerous long stretches of testimony where Johnson was evasive, argumentative, and tap danced around questions only to finally admit what the prosecutor was driving at? A perfect example is the case where he went on and on and on pretending to know nothing about the two women he had with him in San Francisco only to arrive at the obvious point that yes indeed he did. And thats the thing, there were numerous instances hinted at in the questioning, specific instances, that all would have added up to charges against Johnson that couldnt or wouldnt be filed for one reason or another. The prosecutors may have “incorrectly” questioned Johnson “to inflame” the jury but those questions where clearly guided by evidence they had which could not be submitted and thus the questioned was designed to get Johnson to slip up on the stand and admit something that would allow them to admit new evidence. No other point can be arrived at given the specificity of the questions and the circumstances outlined in those questions. Furthermore, and this is a huge bone of contention with your entire thesis: You use the term “prejudice” to denote racial prejudice. That is absolutely not the context in which the judge was using that term and you know it. In fact that judge states very clearly in a passage that you truncated in your book, for no other reason that I can think of but to deceive the reader, that racial prejudice was not a motivator nor did effect the outcome of the trial. Finally, you neglect to note, for obvious reasons given your slant, that the government chose not to pursue appeal the rehearing they were granted because Johnson had fled the country making the matter costly and politically pointless. Your “victory” was no more a victory for Johnson’s proposed innocence than Rubin Carter’s “victory” was. Those are the types of victories that defense attorneys love but they dont equate to justice or innocence. I will submit again, nobody who reads that case histor, transcripts, etc can come away thinking Johnson was innocent, hence you cherry picking what you reported on it. Whether you did so out of bias writing Johnsons life or because you have a natural proclivity toward that given your career as a defense attorney doesnt change the outcome that its poor history. Your argument isnt that he was guilty or not its how and why he was caught. Pretty weak but it reminds of your indignation over the search of Michael Cohens office. You didnt care whether he was involved in a criminal enterprise which would negate his attorney client privilege, your only concern was him getting caught. I dont care for legal gymnastics or the lawyers who truck in them. You are essentially arguing something completely contrary to what I am. If I murder someone and the arresting officer who takes me into custody is a racist does that magically mean Im not guilty of murder? Of course not! Thats essentially what the judge said, that Johnson's trial was indeed fair and that he was indeed guilty. The authorities didnt set out to "get" Johnson. They were alerted to his activities by the mother of one of his women. Once they were on his scent it doesnt matter that the subject and/or nature of the case changed. Again, if the police are called on me for a domestic disturbance and then find evidence of a drug dealing operation in the course of investigating the first potential crime does that make me less guilty. So the idea that they were out to get Johnson specifically when they were prosecuting men (and women) who were far less guilty of the spirit of the law is ridiculous. From a procedural standpoint some of the prosecutors questioning was inflammatory, yes. But had the judge felt the entire proceedings were tinted against Johnson's rights then entire case, all counts, would have been thrown out. They werent because some of questioning could have potentially prejudiced the jury against Johnson. Thats what the judge meant by "prejudice" not racially prejudiced and as an attorney you know this. However, and to my point above, those questions were clearly driven by evidence and witness testimony that painted a very damning picture of Johnson. There is no escaping that. The prosecutor knew what happened and had the pieces of the puzzle he simply couldnt introduce them on procedural grounds so he was trying to get Johnson slip up to fill in the gaps. It may have resulted in one of the charges against Johnson being tossed but it also serves to paint us a much more clear picture of what was going on behind the scenes. The only question is whether you believe Johnson or the witnesses who testified against him. The problem there is Johnson comes off as wholly unreliable witness. He would make Jeff Sessions look like the proverbial elephant with his hazy memory, arguing in circles, and general combativeness often only to come back around to answering exactly what the prosecutor expected him to say. This entire discussion was started with the comment that the Mann Act was written to "get" Johnson and that he was the first person prosecuted under that law? Would you care to weigh in on that? We both know thats not true. The idea that Johnson was being persecuted because he was black and that he would have simply been allowed to run prostitutes all over the country and fund their endeavors if he were white shows a gross lack of understanding of the Mann Act and how it was applied. Instead of just looking at Johnson's case look at all of the cases and then explain to me why an innocent man attempts to bribe the justice department with $20,000 when his bail was $15,000 while he waited on appeal.