: Advocate of the Rule of Law

David Miller

Historical Paper Senior Division Leon Jaworski spent a lifetime furthering the rule of law and our legal system’s core principles and, in doing so, was an individual with a profound impact on the lives of many other individuals as well as the course of our country’s history. Jaworski, who was best known for his role as Special Prosecutor in the Watergate break-in investigation, demonstrated from the beginning of his law practice that he understood that the basis for a civilized, developed democracy is adherence to the rule of law under a fair and equitable legal system that assures individuals access to due process and that places no one above the law. Jaworski diligently carried out his role in the judicial system whether the case was of menial or legendary proportions and whether his cause or client was popular or not.

Jaworski graduated from at the age of nineteen in 1925 and was the youngest person to receive a law license in the State of . Jaworski began his legal career in

Waco, Texas as a sole practitioner. From the humble beginning of his legal career, Jaworski would ultimately become a very successful and well-known attorney, but his entire career reflected his dedication to the rule of law and the ideals of the legal profession. He was a wise legal counselor and an able trial attorney whose career included many significant cases. A common thread throughout his career was his devotion to the rule of law as he carried out his role as an advocate in the judicial system. Specific examples of this devotion are his representation of an indigent young black man accused of murder, his prosecution of the governor of Mississippi for defying a federal court order in connection with the integration of the University of Mississippi, and his most famous role, serving as Special Prosecutor in the Watergate break-in investigation.

Jaworski’s commitment to the rule of law was tested early in his career, when he was given the responsibility of defending a young black man named Jordan Scott. Jaworski was 23 years old

1 and was practicing law in the small town of Waco, Texas at the time. In the spring of 1929, Judge

Richard Munroe appointed Jaworski as counsel for the indigent Scott, who was accused of murdering Mr. and Mrs. Pedigo, a white couple. Judge Munroe made it clear the case would be on a pro basis. Many people were inclined to take matters into their own hands and hang Scott without a trial, but Jaworski accepted the unpaid appointment and worked zealously to provide Scott the best possible representation. Jaworski understood that it was the obligation of a lawyer to take a case of this nature.1

Upon meeting Scott, Jaworski discovered that Scott had confessed. According to Scott, however, the confession was coerced. Scott implicated Son Miller, another young black man.

Though Jaworski cast doubt on Scott’s confession through grueling cross-examinations of the police officers, and Scott’s testimony implicated Son Miller as the real murderer, the jury found Scott guilty. However, Jaworski moved for a mistrial on the grounds of prejudicial remarks by the prosecution, and Scott was granted a new trail.

In Scott’s second trial, Jaworski located Son Miller, but Miller revealed he had a solid alibi and was nowhere near Waco at the time of the murder. After this new discovery, Scott admitted to

Jaworski that he had killed the Pedigos. Rather than letting frustration and disappointment diminish his representation, Jaworski continued his vigorous efforts to provide Scott the best defense possible.

In a 1976 interview, Jaworski stated, “I never did give thought to withdrawing. I believed strongly in the rule of law, and … I felt it my duty to stand up for the rights of the accused, insisting that he be tried according to our rules of law.”2

Scott was again convicted in the second trial and sentenced to death. The conviction was upheld on appeal. Even after Jaworski had exhausted all appeals, Jaworski visited an unstable and

2 distraught Scott more than once before his execution. Jaworski eventually helped Scott accept his fate, and before his execution, Scott told Jaworski, “Thanks for everything.”3 Scott’s last two wishes were for Judge Munroe to know his true story and for God to have mercy on his soul.4 Jaworski’s willingness to act on his commitment to the ideal that our legal system guarantees every individual fair treatment made a difference in the life of Jordan Scott. In addition, the representation of Jordan

Scott undoubtedly prepared Jaworski for future challenges when Jaworski’s commitment to the rule of law would be tested in cases with far wider ramifications.

Later in Jaworski’s career, he again accepted the call to serve in an unpopular role in a controversial case. In 1962, after having established himself as a well-known attorney and becoming a partner in one of ’s most prestigious law firms, Jaworski took on the challenge of prosecuting the governor of Mississippi, . In a South that still was in shock over the

Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, Barnett refused to surrender his segregationist beliefs. James Meredith, a 29 year-old Air Force veteran, attempted to enroll at the

University of Mississippi but was prevented from doing so by the actions of Barnett. Although the issue had been fully litigated, and a federal court had ordered Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi, Barnett and his deep South supporters maintained that the rights reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment allowed Barnett to bar Meredith access to a state college. After denying Meredith entrance onto the University of Mississippi campus, Barnett was charged with civil contempt and was to be tried in New Orleans. However, Barnett did not appear for his court date and was found guilty in absentia. Barnett and other state authorities continued to resist

Meredith’s entry onto the University of Mississippi campus for several weeks, but the federal

3 authorities, with the help of the U.S. Army, were finally successful in achieving Meredith’s enrollment in classes.

The federal government had won the showdown with Barnett, but Barnett’s defiance was too serious for the federal government to simply overlook. Having avoided his civil case in New

Orleans, Barnett was now to be prosecuted on federal charges of criminal contempt of court.

Attorney General Robert Kennedy asked Jaworski to serve as prosecutor of Barnett. Jaworski considered the repercussions of prosecuting an individual whose defiance was deemed heroic by so many in the South. Barnett had strong support in Mississippi, and his actions incited crowds to wave the Confederate flag in his support. Jaworski felt obligated to respond to the Attorney General’s request and realized that adherence to the rule of law is not always easy or popular and does not always bring praise for one’s actions.5

Jaworski accepted the position of prosecutor in the Barnett case and soon encountered his first obstacle in the case. Barnett sought a jury trial on the criminal contempt charge, and Jaworski argued that Barnett was not entitled to a jury trial. The issue was appealed all the way to the United

States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided with Jaworski, finding that Barnett was not entitled to a jury on the criminal contempt charge so long as the punishment did not exceed that for a petty criminal offense (not more than six months in jail). By the time the Supreme Court determined this issue, it was two and one-half years after the confrontation over Meredith’s enrollment, and Barnett was no longer governor. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that changed conditions had brought about compliance with the court’s orders, and the suit was dismissed.

Although Jaworski’s role in the Barnett case was a courageous one and resulted in a significant Supreme Court victory, Jaworski was not lauded for his efforts. Throughout the

4 prolonged case, Jaworski was threatened, shunned, and berated by strangers as well as acquaintances.

He was subjected to hate mail, and many business partners back in Texas broke off ties with him as a result of this case. People that Jaworski had respected now treated him with disdain. Jaworski commented in his memoir that he “was anguished to find that so many attorneys, and our more sophisticated citizens, failed to understand that Governor Barnett’s acts struck directly at the supremacy of the law.”6 In the face of fierce public resistance to mandated integration, Jaworski upheld not only the rule of the law, but the essence of government and a civilized society. In

Jaworski’s words:

A more dangerous issue than the Meredith case was at stake. Put simply, it was: Can

a state, or a public official, or a mob, defy the authority of the of

America? Is the federal government indeed sovereign and paramount, or can the

orders of its courts be ignored and the authority to enforce them resisted? In this

context, the Meredith case…reached to the very soul of our system and, indeed,

brought into question whether we had any government at all.7

Jaworski participated in many significant cases throughout his long legal career, but nothing would compare to his role as Special Prosecutor in the investigation of the 1972 break-in of the

Democratic national headquarters in the Watergate building. Jaworski was appointed to be Special

Prosecutor on November 1, 1973. His appointment followed the “” in which numerous people connected with the Watergate investigation were fired, including the Special

Prosecutor before Jaworski, . The Nixon administration was resisting the release of tape recorded conversations between Nixon and his advisors, and Nixon released an edited transcript of the tapes to divert some of the heat he and his staff were taking in refusing to hand

5 over the tapes. Many people, within and outside the Nixon administration, expected that Jaworski would not pursue recovering the tapes. However, Jaworski subpoenaed Nixon for the original, unedited tapes despite pressure not to do so. The investigation had resulted in indictments of the

Watergate burglars and various Nixon campaign workers and administration officials, and Jaworski felt that he needed the subpoenaed tapes of sixty-four conversations to develop fully the cover-up case before it went to trial and to provide the defendants with any exculpatory information in the tapes.8 Strong in Jaworski’s mind was the President’s refusal to supply eighteen conversations that turned out to be most significant to the case.9 Nixon refused to turn over the tapes and argued that excused him from having to comply with the subpoena. Of course, this was an unprecedented situation, but Jaworski was convinced that he was taking the reasonable approach to the matter and that the courts would adopt as the applicable rule of law the reasonable approach.10

Nixon’s refusal to turn over the tapes led to the landmark case of United States v. Richard

Nixon, in which the Supreme Court decided that the executive privilege Nixon asserted did not exempt him from complying with the subpoena for the tapes. Nixon had tried to evade the firm principles of our legal system by arguing that his role as president placed him beyond the reach of our laws. Jaw