The district attorney filed a nol pros motion in a Delaware County, Pennsylvania courtroom notifying the judge that he no longer would pursue charges against Alexander McClay Williams, a 16-year-old Black boy who was suspected in the murder of a 36-year-old white woman, WCAU NBC-10 in Philadelphia reports.
The motion essentially means prosecutors exonerated Williams of the crime. Upon the motion, the judge vacated the jury’s findings. The problem is, this action comes 91 years after the boy was convicted by an all-white jury and executed in the electric chair.
Vida Robare, a 36-year-old house matron at the school Williams attended, was found stabbed to death in her cottage on campus. Her ex-husband, also a school employee, reportedly found the body, and after a short investigation, Williams was arrested.
Williams was not provided counsel for the first 17 days after his arrest, and during that time he reportedly confessed to the murder multiple times and signed multiple, inconsistent statements about the events that led up to the murder.
Williams’ court-appointed lawyer, the first African American lawyer to be admitted to the Delaware County Bar Association, was only given 72 days and $10 (about $175 in today’s money) to fund the defense. The defense was not provided access to any expert witnesses, nor did they gain access to key evidence in the case.
A lot of the evidence kept from Williams and William H. Ridley, his attorney, would have exonerated Williams. For example, investigators found a man’s handprint, in blood, at the crime scene that was much larger than Williams’ hand, and there were many reports that Robare’s husband was “cruel” and abusive.
Besides the obvious element of racism in the case, the plight of Alexander Williams illustrates a number of cautions on how quickly injustice can occur, and how fragile the US justice is.
Since this case, the Supreme Court ordered in 1966 Miranda warnings–statements about the Constitutional rights afforded to an individual who is suspected of a crime–be read during every arrest. That mandatory advisement is expected to be overturned by the Supreme Court in an upcoming decision: the Court will allow individual states to determine if such advisements are needed or mandatory, and what those advisements should contain.
The Williams’ case also shows how money influences justice, and there are significant parallels to our modern justice system. Given just $10 to mount a defense is laughable, and it makes it no better when converted to today’s dollars, $176. From a 1963 ruling, Gideon, assures a defendant of a competent defense, if necessary funded by the public. As conservatives strip money from public services, public defender offices will be on the list.
Another modern-ish court requirement, the Brady Rule from another 1963 case, demands prosecutors turn over exculpatory evidence–for our Red Hat readers out there, that means evidence that supports the innocence of the accused–to the defense. That rule likely would have saved young Alexander’s life, and while it’s not currently on the Supreme Court docket, a conservative court might take up a case to also throw such decisions back to the states, some of which would lay responsibility for uncovering exculpatory evidence (MAGAts: see above) solely on the defense, regardless of an impending miscarriage of justice.
Williams’ tragic and unjust end was just one in a series of injustices that span the history of our nation, and they continue on today. The most recent case that made national headlines: the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2007 for the deaths of his children in a house fire, but exonerated years later, is a modern parallel for Williams. He was denied exculpatory evidence prior to his execution, which Texas happily conducted anyway.
The point is this: yes, we are focused on a number of very important legal and political issues now. The January 6th hearings are compelling; the fight for women’s reproductive rights has reignited; and our nation must affirm that no person is above the law. But we must be vigilant that the fundamental rights of those accused are not lost in the shuffle. Lives are literally on the line.