Due process of law

[00:05 - 00:09]
The following tape recorded program is distributed by the National Association of educational
[00:09 - 00:12]
broadcasters.
[00:12 - 00:17]
A country that cherishes individual freedom is as much concerned with the means used to
[00:17 - 00:22]
bring criminals to justice as it is with the ends and sells.
[00:22 - 00:26]
That was the actual voice of William O Douglass associate
[00:26 - 00:31]
justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr Douglas will appear on
[00:31 - 00:36]
today's program. The case of the stomach pump evidence the first in a series of
[00:36 - 00:41]
13 authoritative discussions and authentic dramatizations of High
[00:41 - 00:45]
Court cases in which your rights are our right.
[00:45 - 01:07]
What is your right to due process of law. This question will be answered
[01:07 - 01:13]
as we present the true story. An official opinion of a Supreme Court case in
[01:13 - 01:20]
which your rights are on trial.
[01:20 - 01:24]
Your rights are on trial as produced by the University of Minnesota radio
[01:24 - 01:30]
under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National
[01:30 - 01:35]
Association of educational broadcasters and the University of Minnesota Law School.
[01:35 - 01:40]
On today's program you will hear William Douglas associate justice of the United
[01:40 - 01:45]
States Supreme Court and federal Judge Frank author of courts on
[01:45 - 01:45]
trial.
[01:45 - 01:50]
But first to set the stage for the exciting and shocking case of the
[01:50 - 01:55]
stomach. Everyone. Here is one of the consultant commentators for E. Your
[01:55 - 01:59]
rights are on trial. Professor of law at Columbia University.
[01:59 - 02:04]
Mr. Mann read Paulson some authorities have referred to the Supreme Court of the United
[02:04 - 02:09]
States as the conscience of the nation. Like any good conscience the Supreme Court
[02:09 - 02:14]
does not act in a vacuum. It acts upon principles that are established and
[02:14 - 02:19]
upon concepts to which we are all committed. These principles and
[02:19 - 02:24]
concepts are embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States.
[02:24 - 02:30]
Despite this virtually sacred tradition the Supreme Court is often attacked.
[02:30 - 02:34]
This is understandable however we often get angry with our personal conscience too
[02:34 - 02:40]
when it points out how we have failed to live up to our principles and commitments. We should
[02:40 - 02:44]
remember however for example that it was not the Supreme Court which invented
[02:44 - 02:49]
desegregation and equal rights but the founding fathers of our nation and the
[02:49 - 02:54]
heritage of a democratic philosophy Christian behavior and civilized
[02:54 - 02:58]
traditions throughout all of our history. While it may not be precisely
[02:58 - 03:03]
leaderless take this tradition of decency is taken into consideration by the Supreme
[03:03 - 03:08]
Court in reaching its most important decisions. This occurs too
[03:08 - 03:12]
because sometimes the Constitution just isn't specific enough to provide all the
[03:12 - 03:17]
answers. Then the Supreme Court must try to determine the spirit if
[03:17 - 03:22]
not the word of this basic document. Perhaps the least specific
[03:22 - 03:27]
and the most controversial part of our Constitution over the years is the due
[03:27 - 03:30]
process clause in the 14th Amendment.
[03:30 - 03:35]
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or
[03:35 - 03:39]
property without due process of law.
[03:39 - 03:45]
What is due process. Is it a process. Do the individual any
[03:45 - 03:50]
individual. If so what view or evaluation of man do we have in
[03:50 - 03:54]
mind when we say that we will give him his due. Is any
[03:54 - 03:59]
consideration do the killer in the dope peddler the kidnapper in the Communist
[03:59 - 04:04]
or is due process just a right for nice people. It would appear as if
[04:04 - 04:09]
the due process clause is too big an abstract to be of much practical use
[04:09 - 04:15]
in the Supreme Court decision in our case today however Mr Justice Frankfurter feels
[04:15 - 04:20]
that the abstract nature of the Due Process Clause is advantageous he
[04:20 - 04:24]
writes in dealing not with the machinery of government
[04:24 - 04:27]
but with human rights.
[04:27 - 04:31]
The absence of formal exactitude or want of fixity of meaning is not an
[04:31 - 04:36]
unusual or even regrettable attribute of constitutional provisions
[04:36 - 04:41]
even though the concept of due process of law is not final and fixed. These
[04:41 - 04:46]
limits are derived from considerations that are fused in the whole nature of
[04:46 - 04:50]
our judicial process due process of law is a
[04:50 - 04:55]
summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal
[04:55 - 05:00]
immunities which are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
[05:00 - 05:02]
ranked as fundamental.
[05:02 - 05:08]
The words sound good. How do they work out in practice. This is the question
[05:08 - 05:13]
this radio series will try most to answer. You will not just hear
[05:13 - 05:18]
authoritative opinions on these programs. You will learn about the actual cases
[05:18 - 05:23]
in which the good words are put to the hard test of reality. In
[05:23 - 05:28]
some of these cases the individuals faced with infamy and punishment are good ordinary
[05:28 - 05:33]
people. Here you will be able to appreciate what is involved because you may feel
[05:33 - 05:38]
it could happen to me. In most of our cases however such
[05:38 - 05:43]
as our story today you may not see much connection between the defendant
[05:43 - 05:48]
and yourself. This is the most important moment then when you face the challenge
[05:48 - 05:53]
of the democratic idea. The problem of precedent and the demands of your own
[05:53 - 05:58]
conscience and the traditions of decency to be specific. All of these
[05:58 - 06:02]
concepts and you were very much involved that morning of July
[06:02 - 06:07]
1st one thousand forty nine when a deputy sheriff in Los Angeles County got a
[06:07 - 06:12]
hot tip. This is an authentic version taken from the court records of what
[06:12 - 06:15]
actually happened in the case of Roshan versus California.
[06:15 - 06:21]
Mike Mike he must have calmed down. Bell It's a day I think I got that
[06:21 - 06:22]
lead I've been waiting for.
[06:22 - 06:27]
You know he's passing the morphine for sure. It could be though. Anyhow I'm sure I know where we can
[06:27 - 06:32]
pick up some of the stuff real evidence for once. What are we waiting for. I've been itching to lay my hands on one of
[06:32 - 06:37]
those can you guys think you're going to sing Bill knows where we can find some of that morphine. Got a search warrant.
[06:37 - 06:39]
No the leads not that substantial.
[06:39 - 06:41]
I better come along.
[06:41 - 06:50]
Keep you boys out of trouble.
[06:50 - 06:55]
Are you sure this is the place. Yeah this is the address All right. It's supposed to be a two story
[06:55 - 06:59]
house checks. Let's go. All right come on let's see what this is all about. You're
[06:59 - 07:00]
right.
[07:00 - 07:07]
I don't see anyone around. I'll look for that. Oh
[07:07 - 07:13]
yeah the doors are locked. I don't think we all are cloak this
[07:13 - 07:18]
guy's probably past all the stuff in the store still be sleeping.
[07:18 - 07:23]
OK take the downstairs Franklin bill and I'll check up stairs you got there. Who
[07:23 - 07:25]
are you what do you want.
[07:25 - 07:30]
He's supposed to have a sister mother and a wife. Which one are you. What do you want.
[07:30 - 07:34]
We're from the county sheriff's office Miss Elliott. He's
[07:34 - 07:37]
upstairs just like his bedroom door.
[07:37 - 07:42]
Which room is he unless you break in ready yet or just for we find a locked door upstairs or break it out a
[07:42 - 07:48]
lot.
[07:48 - 07:49]
And it's not just one come on.
[07:49 - 07:58]
This is the one that's locked. OK Roshan. Open up open up.
[07:58 - 08:03]
Open up petal I said all plan take it easy make it easy enough and give me a shoulder bill. You're ready
[08:03 - 08:07]
now.
[08:07 - 08:12]
OK go all the beer you can really just give us
[08:12 - 08:17]
the stuff I don't know what you're talking about one of those pills on the dresser is making a break for a quick little
[08:17 - 08:22]
piece well done the small goes killed there goes our evidence how much you want to bet.
[08:22 - 08:26]
Okay Russian your slimy rat Come on come up out at your orders to
[08:26 - 08:32]
call k I'll shake a lot of you and I want your mouth you're right there all
[08:32 - 08:35]
right on the credits of the quadrille on it since.
[08:35 - 08:40]
You will shake that out of I'm going no you won't give us a hand crank this guys right now right
[08:40 - 08:46]
okay just all right slap the cuffs on them now. Do what with this. Oh.
[08:46 - 08:50]
Shut up. What a wise guy
[08:50 - 08:56]
you're going with us. We're going to get those pillows. You think we've been
[08:56 - 09:01]
rough on you so far. Just watch wise guy just watch.
[09:01 - 09:11]
When I looked back it gave him a shot. You have got him quieted down so why
[09:11 - 09:16]
can't you do it. It just doesn't seem right. I probably have to force a tube into his stomach so
[09:16 - 09:18]
force it doesn't seem right.
[09:18 - 09:23]
Right Doc. Have you ever seen a teenaged kid that guy's like this
[09:23 - 09:28]
got started on that stuff. Now we've got to put him away since we haven't got any evidence on him
[09:28 - 09:28]
no.
[09:28 - 09:33]
I look back. Just give him something that will really upset his stomach
[09:33 - 09:34]
a bit.
[09:34 - 09:39]
Don't they give suspects blood tests and examinations of this would be any worse than I am all right all right.
[09:39 - 09:44]
But it's against my better judge will take all responsibility very well but you'd better come
[09:44 - 09:49]
with me. He's just about out. But he still might put up a fight. OK
[09:49 - 09:53]
let's go. Was.
[09:53 - 10:05]
In Volume Three hundred forty two of the United States reports in the case of
[10:05 - 10:10]
Roshan vs. California it states at the direction of one of the officers
[10:10 - 10:16]
a doctor forced an emetic solution the tube into Roshan's stomach against his will.
[10:16 - 10:21]
As a result of the stomach pumping he vomited two capsules which were found to contain
[10:21 - 10:26]
morphine. Roshan was brought to trial before a California Superior Court
[10:26 - 10:31]
on the charge of possessing a preparation of morphine. Roshan was convicted
[10:31 - 10:36]
and sentenced to 60 days imprisonment. The chief evidence against him
[10:36 - 10:40]
was the two capsules they were admitted over petitioners objection
[10:40 - 10:45]
although the means of obtaining the morphine capsules was frankly set forth in the testimony by one
[10:45 - 10:49]
of the deputies substantially as here narrated.
[10:49 - 10:54]
When Roshan appealed his case to the District Court of Appeals in California his
[10:54 - 10:59]
conviction was affirmed. The stomach pump evidence was allowed even though the court noted
[10:59 - 11:04]
that the officers were guilty of unlawfully breaking into and entering
[11:04 - 11:09]
defendant's room and were guilty of unlawfully assaulting and battering defendant
[11:09 - 11:14]
while in the room and were guilty of unlawfully assaulting battering torturing and
[11:14 - 11:19]
falsely imprisoning the defendant at the hospital. One of the three judges in the
[11:19 - 11:23]
District Court of Appeals in California while finding that the record in this case
[11:23 - 11:27]
reveals a shocking series of violations of constitutional rights
[11:27 - 11:32]
concurred only because he felt himself bound by the decisions of the
[11:32 - 11:37]
California Supreme Court. Here is the crux of the matter. It
[11:37 - 11:42]
is one thing to say that the police methods were shocking and unlawful. It is
[11:42 - 11:47]
another thing to be able to do something about it at this time one thousand forty nine.
[11:47 - 11:52]
It was the law in California not to reject illegally obtained evidence.
[11:52 - 11:57]
The California decision on this one which the district court evidently had in
[11:57 - 12:02]
mind was written into the law in the case of people versus Mahan in one thousand
[12:02 - 12:03]
twenty two.
[12:03 - 12:08]
We are not prepared to impose upon the Court of this state the duty and
[12:08 - 12:13]
burden of injecting into a criminal prosecution the collateral investigation of every
[12:13 - 12:18]
objection that may be raised as to the source from which and the manner in which
[12:18 - 12:22]
evidence in the hands of public prosecutors has been obtained.
[12:22 - 12:27]
This by the Supreme Court of California meant that no matter how the evidence
[12:27 - 12:32]
against Roshan was obtained even by a stomach pump this evidence could be
[12:32 - 12:37]
used to convict him. In his opinion our case today Mr
[12:37 - 12:42]
Justice Frankfurter stated the due process clause places upon the court
[12:42 - 12:46]
the duty of exercising judgment in revealing state convictions
[12:46 - 12:51]
upon the interests of society pushing in opposite directions. This is
[12:51 - 12:56]
precisely what we have in the case of Roshan vs. California. It is to the
[12:56 - 13:01]
interest of society to see that one who possesses narcotics illegally be
[13:01 - 13:06]
punished. It is also to the interest of society to see that
[13:06 - 13:11]
efforts are made to stop the use of brutality by the police. The first
[13:11 - 13:15]
interest runs contrary to our laws. The second runs against the grain of
[13:15 - 13:20]
our traditions of decency. What happens when the interests of society
[13:20 - 13:25]
are pushing in opposite directions. In any given situation sometimes the
[13:25 - 13:30]
situation as in the legal case such as this one goes to the Supreme Court
[13:30 - 13:35]
of the United States. This is one reason why we must have a Supreme Court.