Com. v. Africa
| Citation | 353 A.2d 855,466 Pa. 603 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Africa AFRICA, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Merle AUSTIN, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Laverne SIMS, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Gerald FORD, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Theodore WILLIAMSON, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Conrad HAMPTON, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Donald GROSSMAN, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1976 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
[466 Pa. 609] Benjamin Lerner, Defender, John W. Packel, Asst. Defender, Chief, Appeals Div., Patrick J. Mandracchia, Douglas H. Riblet, Asst. Public Defenders, Philadelphia, for appellants.
F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Glen Gitomer, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
[466 Pa. 610] OPINION OF THE COURT
We are asked in these appeals to review 1 appellants' summary convictions for contempt of court.
Appellants were arrested on charges arising from their participation in a protest demonstration held on October 25, 1974, in Philadelphia. Trial on these charges began on January 15, 1975. At the opening of trial, the court granted appellants' motion that they be permitted to represent themselves, but appointed a public defender to act as their legal adviser. Appellants, alleging that the judge was prejudiced by pretrial publicity and by a statement of the assistant district attorney that two appellants were charged in another case, moved for the judge to disqualify himself. This motion was denied. After some preliminary discussions, appellant Africa Africa was called upon to enter her plea. The following occurred:
'THE COURT CRYER: Africa Africa, on Bill number 2794,
October Term, 1974, charging you with disorderly conduct, failing to disperse at official order and criminal conspiracy, how do you plead?
[466 Pa. 611] AFRICA AFRICA: If you are saying I'm not guilty, you are saying I'm innocent, right?
Appellants then asked that they be permitted to stand mute, which the judge allowed.
Appellants apparently had three theories of defense. They attempted to show: first, that they had been arrested primarily because they had been using profanity over a loudspeaker system at the demonstration; second, that their arrests were based upon the individual judgment of the arresting officers that they were using profane language; and third, that they were victims of selective enforcement of the law by the police department. Because they were unable to articulate either what the defense theories were, or their legal relevance to the charges, their questioning of witnesses was punctuated with Further, as a result of their inexperience in a court of law, and possibly in an effort to use the court as a platform for [466 Pa. 612] their views, their 'cross-examination' often became either argument or their own direct testimony. This is illustrated by the cross-examination of the Commonwealth's first witness by appellant Theodore Williamson:
'CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THEODORE WILLIAMSON--
Q. Because I am saying in my reference, bomb, science is profane. War is profane. I don't know what you are talking about.
Q. Officer Patton, do you say a bomb was profane?
Q. Officer Patton, do you say war is profane?
Q. Do you say rape as (sic) profane?
Q. Do you see either handcuffing and arresting and jailing innocent people is profane?
Through several rounds of questioning which followed the pattern above, it is apparent that appellants were becoming increasingly restive. Then the following occurred:
'(Appellant) CONRAD HAMPTON: I would make a motion to the Court. Have it be done on the record.
(Appellant) DONALD GROSSMAN: Bound and gag all of us right now.
THE COURT: Very well, gentlemen.
(Appellant) GERALD FORD: Just bound and gag me.
(At this point there was a general disruption in the Court room and the Judge left the Bench.)'
Following the noon recess, and with the mediation of a Philadelphia city councilman, appellants were permitted to return to the courtroom without restraints, on their promise that they would conduct themselves in an orderly manner. Shortly after the afternoon proceedings began, appellants asked the court to grant a mistrial, claiming that the court had demonstrated its prejudice against him during the morning session. They stated that if this motion were denied, they would stand mute for the 'continuance of the trial.' The motion was denied. The rest of the Commonwealth's witnesses were [466 Pa. 615] examined on direct and cross without incident. A demurrer to the Commonwealth's evidence was overruled, and appellants began to present their defense.
Q. Inspector Fencil, were you there at the date in question when Move people were arrested?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you in charge of that demonstration at that time?
A. I was in charge of the Civil Affairs Unit at the time.
Q. You were in charge?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you are telling me that you were in charge and you did not give orders to have people arrested?
A. I gave warnings.
Q. I am talking about arrested, to have Move people arrested?
A. No.
Q. You did not. Now Inspector Fencil, you say that the Move Organization used words like mother fucker, bastard and as now I am saying, do you see these words as profane?
Q. I am saying, since you feel these words are profane, why would you take them home to your wife and [466 Pa. 616] play them on tapes to your wife unless your wife was a mother fucker like you?
To continue reading
Request your trial