Ÿþm Icrosoft W
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Africa Defense and Aid Fund Africa Defense and Aid Fund of the American Committee on Africa 164 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 (212) 532-3700 September 11, 1975 To; Persons Concerned Abbut the Trial of Tapson Mawere & Synos Mangazva From: Gebrge M. Houser MAWERE ACQUITTED; HANGZVA FOUND GUILTY ON THREE COUNTS The trial of these two Africans, who were arrested and beaten in a racist incident in Delaware on June 7th, began the day after Labor Day. The prosecution and the defense rested their case on Friday afternoon, September 5th. The jury was out from the afternoon of the 5th until the end of the afternoon on Saturday the 6th. Paul Irish and I attended one day of the trial (Wednesday, September 3rd) while Judge William Booth, President of ACOA, appeared as a character witness on Friday morning September 5th. Throughout the trial we have kept closely in toucb with defense attorney, Conrad Lynn, the defendants, and others who were on the Aane To summarize the outcome, after two days of deliberation, the jury acquitted Mawere of the one charge against him - obstructing the police in the performance of their duty. (Tapson had, by his own admission, attempted to stop the police and some men dressed in civilian clothes from beating his companion). Mang4zva w6 found quilty on three charges - disorderly conduct, offensive touching ( or none felonious third degree assault), and resisting arrest. Mangazva was acquitted on the other charge of public intoxication. The judge has 60 days in which to give a sentence which he has not yet done. In spite of the fact that the three counts against Mangazva are all misdemeanors, one of them (resisting arrest) carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and the other two 6 months. The Setting The courtroom was not large. There are benches which would hold perhaps 75 or so visitors. Most of the time these seats were rather well-filled. The case has received a great deal of local Delaware publicity with front page stories in the Wilmington and Dover Press. During most of the days that the trial was in pro. gress, there were pickets outside the courthouse demanding the release of the two Zimbabweans - they made their presence felt. On one occazion the chanting was so loud that the court was recessed while the pickets were asked to be less noisy, The Jury The jury of 12 plus two alternates was chosen from a panel of 39, including 8 blacks. The jury finally chosen was composed of 4 men and 8 women mostly middlee aged and middle-class. Two of the women were black. The process of choosing the jury took one day. The system which is followed in Delaware is that the attorneys do not have the right of quest.oning the prospective jurors. The judge alone has this right. The attorneys may submit to the judge in advance a series of questions which they would like the judge to take into consideration. The defense attorney objected to this process at the beginning of the trial. Of the 13 questions which Conrad Lynn submitted, only one was granted. This was a question about whether any members of the panel felt that a police officer's word was more reliable than that of a civilian. Other questions such as whether any members of the panel had relatives who were law enforcement officers, whether any members of the panel were residents of Harrington (the town in which the restaurant where the arrests took place is located), whether any members of the panel had ever been victims of any crime, whether any mc.nber of the panel had s:. 1a relationships with black people, etc., were all not granted. The Witnesses About 20 witnesses were called by the prosecution. These included the two 17 or 18 year white waitresses, the white woman proprietor of the restaurant, two white lads ages 15 and 17 who were employees of the gas station next to the restaurant, the one male customer who was in the restaurant when the defendants came in on June 7th, local Harrington police, two state troopers, the white bus driver, etc. There were only three defense witnesses and they all appeared as character witnesses. They were William Booth, William Johnston, President of the Episcopal Churchmen for South Africa, and Davis M'Gabe, a Zimbabwean who teaches at the City University on Staten Island. The main case for the prosecution seemed to revolve around the charge of intoxication,. Circumstantial evidence was allowed by the judge over the objection of the defense. This included six empty cans of beer allegedly found near the seat on the bus where Mawere and Mangazva were seated, and an almost full bottle of scotch which was presented in a paper bag which some of the witnesses said they had seen in the hands of one of the defendants. No witnesses, however, indicated they had seen either of the two men drinking from either cans of beer or from the bottle. BothoMawere and Mangazva seemed to make an impact on the jury in their own tes. timony. They were quiet and deliberative in what they had to say. Their basic facts on what had happened on the occasion differed from the prosecution witnesses, who as indicated above, made the case that they were both drunk. From the outset the defendants had said that they had two empty beer cans which they had given to one of the waitresses when they first went into the restaurant to ask her to dispose of them in the paper bag in which they were held. They had not consumed the contents of the beer in the restaurant. The virulent racism of many of the Witnesses was quite apparent throughout the testimony, as the witnesses refused to refer to the defendants by name, but talked of "the short coloured fellow',' and "the tall one". At one point the brother of the Harrington police chief had Synos Mangazva, a PhD candidate, saying "me no understand"g to the arresting plainclothesman, in the manner of an illiterate. The defense was quite effective in exposing numerous contrAdictions in the testimony of those from Harrington. For example, one state trooper claimed that Synos showed no visible signs of injury at the police station, while the defense produced the jacket Mangazva was wearing, which was drenched in blood stains. Another witness claimed that Synos "tripped" into the glass door, when in fact the witness was in no position to see Mangazva's feet since his vision was blocked by a wooden door panel. One of the waitresses said sEie was visited by the FBI after the incident, which for unknown reasons to date, is interested in this case. (3) The Verdict The jury was out from Friday afternoon until Saturday afternoon. The judge instructed and charged the jury on at least four occasions - when they first got the case on Friday afternoon, at 9:45 a.m. on Saturday morning, at noon on Saturday and again at 4:00 p.m. on Saturday. Apparently he was concerned that it was taking the jury so long to reach a decision. At noon on Saturday the foreman of the jury had sent a message to the judge in which she said "We are in total disagreement". Ordinarily this would have meant a hung jury. However the judge did not allow it because the technical language which was supposed to be used was that the jury is "hopelessly deadlocked". The judge instructed the jury to this effect and made them go back for the Saturday afternoon session. At 4:00 in the afternoon the judge called the jury in to explain Delaware law in regard to the charge of resisting arrest. He said that it was a violation of the law for a person to resist arrest, even though the arresting officer may have been acting illegally. Apparently this"clarification" by the judge moved the jury to come to an agreement within the judge's interpretation of the Delaware law. Perhaps the most significant aspect of the verdict is that the charge of drunkeness was not upheld. And yet this was the key to the whole case which the prosecution was making. One prosecution witness after another, all local citizens, had claimed that Mawere and Mangazva were staggering, were bloodshot in the eyes, were loud and boisterous as soon as they left the bus and went into the small restaurant. The rest of the charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and offensive touching (assault) all depended upon the charge of intoxication. And yet Mangazva was acquitted of this charge. What's Next? The judge has 60 days to give his sentence on the three charges against Mangazva. There are some legal aspects of the case which should be appealed to a higher court. If Mangazva is sentenced to prison, surely the case must be appealed. If the case is appealed, it will demand an additional expenditure of $3,000 at a minimum, it is estimated. So far, $2,000 has been raised and spent by the Africa Defense and Aid Fund of the ACOA on this case. Another $1,000 is necessary to fully cover the expenses of this trial. Conrad Lynn, the principle defense attorney, has given a great deal of his time, including the whole week during the trial and has only been partially compensated for his work. The Delaware attorney, James Gilliam, has not yet received anything from the Defense and Aid Fund. Letters to Delaware officials have had an important effect in demonstrating the importance in this case and in expressing solidarity with the Zimbabweans.