Due process of law

The following tape recorded program is distributed by the National Association of educational

broadcasters.

A country that cherishes individual freedom is as much concerned with the means used to

bring criminals to justice as it is with the ends and sells.

That was the actual voice of William O Douglass associate

justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr Douglas will appear on

today's program. The case of the stomach pump evidence the first in a series of

13 authoritative discussions and authentic dramatizations of High

Court cases in which your rights are our right.

What is your right to due process of law. This question will be answered

as we present the true story. An official opinion of a Supreme Court case in

which your rights are on trial.

Your rights are on trial as produced by the University of Minnesota radio

under a grant from the Educational Television and Radio Center in cooperation with the National

Association of educational broadcasters and the University of Minnesota Law School.

On today's program you will hear William Douglas associate justice of the United

States Supreme Court and federal Judge Frank author of courts on

trial.

But first to set the stage for the exciting and shocking case of the

stomach. Everyone. Here is one of the consultant commentators for E. Your

rights are on trial. Professor of law at Columbia University.

Mr. Mann read Paulson some authorities have referred to the Supreme Court of the United

States as the conscience of the nation. Like any good conscience the Supreme Court

does not act in a vacuum. It acts upon principles that are established and

upon concepts to which we are all committed. These principles and

concepts are embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of the United States.

Despite this virtually sacred tradition the Supreme Court is often attacked.

This is understandable however we often get angry with our personal conscience too

when it points out how we have failed to live up to our principles and commitments. We should

remember however for example that it was not the Supreme Court which invented

desegregation and equal rights but the founding fathers of our nation and the

heritage of a democratic philosophy Christian behavior and civilized

traditions throughout all of our history. While it may not be precisely

leaderless take this tradition of decency is taken into consideration by the Supreme

Court in reaching its most important decisions. This occurs too

because sometimes the Constitution just isn't specific enough to provide all the

answers. Then the Supreme Court must try to determine the spirit if

not the word of this basic document. Perhaps the least specific

and the most controversial part of our Constitution over the years is the due

process clause in the 14th Amendment.

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or

property without due process of law.

What is due process. Is it a process. Do the individual any

individual. If so what view or evaluation of man do we have in

mind when we say that we will give him his due. Is any

consideration do the killer in the dope peddler the kidnapper in the Communist

or is due process just a right for nice people. It would appear as if

the due process clause is too big an abstract to be of much practical use

in the Supreme Court decision in our case today however Mr Justice Frankfurter feels

that the abstract nature of the Due Process Clause is advantageous he

writes in dealing not with the machinery of government

but with human rights.

The absence of formal exactitude or want of fixity of meaning is not an

unusual or even regrettable attribute of constitutional provisions

even though the concept of due process of law is not final and fixed. These

limits are derived from considerations that are fused in the whole nature of

our judicial process due process of law is a

summarized constitutional guarantee of respect for those personal

immunities which are so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be

ranked as fundamental.

The words sound good. How do they work out in practice. This is the question

this radio series will try most to answer. You will not just hear

authoritative opinions on these programs. You will learn about the actual cases

in which the good words are put to the hard test of reality. In

some of these cases the individuals faced with infamy and punishment are good ordinary

people. Here you will be able to appreciate what is involved because you may feel

it could happen to me. In most of our cases however such

as our story today you may not see much connection between the defendant

and yourself. This is the most important moment then when you face the challenge

of the democratic idea. The problem of precedent and the demands of your own

conscience and the traditions of decency to be specific. All of these

concepts and you were very much involved that morning of July

1st one thousand forty nine when a deputy sheriff in Los Angeles County got a

hot tip. This is an authentic version taken from the court records of what

actually happened in the case of Roshan versus California.

Mike Mike he must have calmed down. Bell It's a day I think I got that

lead I've been waiting for.

You know he's passing the morphine for sure. It could be though. Anyhow I'm sure I know where we can

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

those can you guys think you're going to sing Bill knows where we can find some of that morphine. Got a search warrant.

No the leads not that substantial.

I better come along.

Keep you boys out of trouble.

Are you sure this is the place. Yeah this is the address All right. It's supposed to be a two story

house checks. Let's go. All right come on let's see what this is all about. You're

right.

I don't see anyone around. I'll look for that. Oh

yeah the doors are locked. I don't think we all are cloak this

guy's probably past all the stuff in the store still be sleeping.

OK take the downstairs Franklin bill and I'll check up stairs you got there. Who

are you what do you want.

He's supposed to have a sister mother and a wife. Which one are you. What do you want.

We're from the county sheriff's office Miss Elliott. He's

upstairs just like his bedroom door.

Which room is he unless you break in ready yet or just for we find a locked door upstairs or break it out a

lot.

And it's not just one come on.

This is the one that's locked. OK Roshan. Open up open up.

Open up petal I said all plan take it easy make it easy enough and give me a shoulder bill. You're ready

now.

OK go all the beer you can really just give us

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

piece well done the small goes killed there goes our evidence how much you want to bet.

Okay Russian your slimy rat Come on come up out at your orders to

call k I'll shake a lot of you and I want your mouth you're right there all

right on the credits of the quadrille on it since.

You will shake that out of I'm going no you won't give us a hand crank this guys right now right

okay just all right slap the cuffs on them now. Do what with this. Oh.

Shut up. What a wise guy

you're going with us. We're going to get those pillows. You think we've been

rough on you so far. Just watch wise guy just watch.

When I looked back it gave him a shot. You have got him quieted down so why

can't you do it. It just doesn't seem right. I probably have to force a tube into his stomach so

force it doesn't seem right.

Right Doc. Have you ever seen a teenaged kid that guy's like this

got started on that stuff. Now we've got to put him away since we haven't got any evidence on him

no.

I look back. Just give him something that will really upset his stomach

a bit.

Don't they give suspects blood tests and examinations of this would be any worse than I am all right all right.

But it's against my better judge will take all responsibility very well but you'd better come

with me. He's just about out. But he still might put up a fight. OK

let's go. Was.

In Volume Three hundred forty two of the United States reports in the case of

Roshan vs. California it states at the direction of one of the officers

a doctor forced an emetic solution the tube into Roshan's stomach against his will.

As a result of the stomach pumping he vomited two capsules which were found to contain

morphine. Roshan was brought to trial before a California Superior Court

on the charge of possessing a preparation of morphine. Roshan was convicted

and sentenced to 60 days imprisonment. The chief evidence against him

was the two capsules they were admitted over petitioners objection

although the means of obtaining the morphine capsules was frankly set forth in the testimony by one

of the deputies substantially as here narrated.

When Roshan appealed his case to the District Court of Appeals in California his

conviction was affirmed. The stomach pump evidence was allowed even though the court noted

that the officers were guilty of unlawfully breaking into and entering

defendant's room and were guilty of unlawfully assaulting and battering defendant

while in the room and were guilty of unlawfully assaulting battering torturing and

falsely imprisoning the defendant at the hospital. One of the three judges in the

District Court of Appeals in California while finding that the record in this case

reveals a shocking series of violations of constitutional rights

concurred only because he felt himself bound by the decisions of the

California Supreme Court. Here is the crux of the matter. It

is one thing to say that the police methods were shocking and unlawful. It is

another thing to be able to do something about it at this time one thousand forty nine.

It was the law in California not to reject illegally obtained evidence.

The California decision on this one which the district court evidently had in

mind was written into the law in the case of people versus Mahan in one thousand

twenty two.

We are not prepared to impose upon the Court of this state the duty and

burden of injecting into a criminal prosecution the collateral investigation of every

objection that may be raised as to the source from which and the manner in which

evidence in the hands of public prosecutors has been obtained.

This by the Supreme Court of California meant that no matter how the evidence

against Roshan was obtained even by a stomach pump this evidence could be

used to convict him. In his opinion our case today Mr

Justice Frankfurter stated the due process clause places upon the court

the duty of exercising judgment in revealing state convictions

upon the interests of society pushing in opposite directions. This is

precisely what we have in the case of Roshan vs. California. It is to the

interest of society to see that one who possesses narcotics illegally be

punished. It is also to the interest of society to see that

efforts are made to stop the use of brutality by the police. The first

interest runs contrary to our laws. The second runs against the grain of

our traditions of decency. What happens when the interests of society

are pushing in opposite directions. In any given situation sometimes the

situation as in the legal case such as this one goes to the Supreme Court

of the United States. This is one reason why we must have a Supreme Court.