dissent">Francis, J.

(dissenting). Roberts was given a scrupulously fair trial. The proof of his guilt was clearly adequate. In fact, as the majority note, a verdict of a higher degree of criminal culpability could well have emerged.

The record fails to reveal the slightest indication of bias or prejudice or unfairness on the part of the presiding judge, in his conduct of the trial, or treatment of witnesses, including the defendant.1 I believe, as I am certain the trial judge does, *292that justice should be administered equally to all persons regardless of race, creed or color. In my judgment in the guilt or innocence determining process the defendant was given the *293benefit of that principle in full measure by both court and jury. Por my colleagues to reverse the resulting conviction *294when they find no error, is not to achieve equal justice for the defendant; it is to impose unequal justice on the trial judge.

Eor these reasons I would affirm the conviction.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall and Sci-iettino— 5.

For affirmance — Justice Francis — 1.

In this most unusual situation, the public record of the trial judge should not he ignored by either State or defendant. It was established before the Roberts case in many criminal cases involving white and non-white defendants, and in many public activities. Por hundreds of years lawyers and judges engaged in practicing and administering law, have been acutely aware of the probative strength of ante litem, motam evidence. A few pertinent examples ought to be set out here.

In March and December 1965 this Court had occasion to review first degree murder convictions of non-white defendants arising out of a murder committed in Essex County on May 9, 1963. See State v. Blanchard, 44 N. J. 195 (1965); State v. Green, 46 N. J. 192 (1965). Trial of the case which ended on April 22, 1964 was conducted by Judge John P. Crane before whom Roberts was tried. During the drawing of the jury in Blanehard and Green an incident took place which is particularly revelatory of the Judge’s attitude on the subject of racial bias.

A prospective juror was called and with the court conducting the interrogation the following took place:

“John Doe previously sworn.

By the Coubt:

Q. Where do you live? A. * * *

Q. How long have you lived in * * *?

A. Twenty years.

Q. What is your occupation?

*292A. Vice-president of * * *.

Q. What business are they in?

A. Social engravers.

Q. Where is your place of business?

A. * * * New York City.

Q. Do you know of any reason why you could not serve as a juror on this case?

A. Yes. I don’t feel that I could be fair to the defendants in this situation in the light of all the activity that has taken place in the colored business in the last six months. Previous to that, I probably could.

Q. That has nothing to do with this case, you understand?

A. I understand the defendants are colored men.

Q. Yes, they are. They are seated over here.

A. I don’t think I could be fair to them under the circumstances.

Q. Because of the integration movement that has been goixxg on?

A. Not the integration movement, but the general attitude regarding law and order by those people.

Q. You feel that you might be prejudiced?

A. Definitely.

The Court : All right. You are excused, sir. I’m frankly shocked at your attitude, sir. It surprises me that a man of your stature in the business world has this attitude.

The Witness : I think it’s only fair to tell you if I have that feeling.

The Court : That’s right. I must condemn the attitude. I must ask, however, that you try to search your conscience and decide.

The Witness : That’s the way I feel.

The Court: You had an obligation to reveal it. I will ask that you not discuss anything that was asked of you or any answer that you gave with any member of the jury panels. You may be — as a matter of fact, I think I will strike you from the jury rolls.

The Witness : All right” (Name and address of juror omitted for obvious reasons.)

The Nutley Sun of May 28, 1963 highlighted on its front page an account of a memorial service for a young Negro sailor who went down with the submarine U. S. S. Thresher, April 10, 1963. The service featured an address by Judge John F. Crane.

On March 18, 1965, the same newspaper contained a front page article entitled “Aftermath of Selma. Civil Rights and Nutley.” It featured an account axxd pictures of a freedom marchers’ parade and rally at the Nutley Oval. The march and the meeting were designed as a public protest against the treatment of the Negroes and the freedom marchers in Selma, Alabama; particular protest was regís-*293tered about the death of Reverend James J. Reeb, who was beaten fatally by “racist hoodlums” in Selma. In describing the march and rally the article said, among other things:

“Two other local officials, Commissioner Carl A. Orechio and Judge John F. Crane, participated in the march along the Chestnut Street— Passaic Avenue — Centre Street — Franklin Avenue route. * * *”

In the picture of the Oval rally Mrs. John F. Crane, wife of the Judge, appears in the front row.

The Montclair Times of March 18, 1965 contains a front page story entitled “Pastor Hits Segregation.” It reports that on Sunday morning a capacity congregation of the Unitarian Church heard the minister pay tribute “to my beloved colleague in the Unitarian ministry, Rev. James J. Reeb, murdered in Selma, Ala., this past week.” The account continued:

“At the close of the service, the members of the congregation formed three long lines before three tables to sign their names to a petition to President Johnson previously drawn up by the trustees of the church, Judge John F. Crane, president. A special offering was taken, half to go to the Reeb family and half to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, headed by the Rev. Martin Luther King.

The petition to the President asked him to ‘direct the Department of Justice to take all necessary action immediately, including the use of United States Marshalls, to ensure that such constitutional rights (freedom of speech, the right to assemble peaceably, to petition the government for redress of grievances and to vote) are guaranteed to all American citizens in Alabama and that persons guilty of depriving citizens of such rights be brought swiftly to the bar of justice.’ * * *”

On April 8, 1965 the same newspaper carried a story entitled “Money Is Given For Civil Rights,” headed by a picture of a Negro minister, a white minister of The Unitarian Church, and Judge John F. Crane. The picture footnote says:

“The Rev. D. C. Rice, president of the Clergy Club of Montclair, presents a $775 check for the Reeb family to Dr. Norman D. Fletcher, minister of the Unitarian Church, while Judge John F. Crane, president of the Unitarian Church looks on.”

The article followed. It said :

“A check for $775 for the family of the Rev. James J. Reeb, the young Unitarian minister murdered recently in the civil rights struggle at Selma, Alabama, was presented to the Montclair Unitarian Church at the service Sunday at 11 A. M. by the Rev. D. C. Rice, Minister of Union Baptist Church and President of the Clergy Club of Montclair and vicinity. The check, ‘a gift of love from the citizens, churches and synagogue of Montclair’ was presented to Judge John F. Crane, president of The Unitarian Church, to be forwarded to the Reeb family.

*294Judge Crane announced that a contribution of $705 from The Unitarian Church would be . combined with the chock presented by Mr. Rice, making a total of $1480 to be sent to the Reeb family. The amount presented by Mr. Rice came largely from an offering taken at the mass meeting at Union Baptist Church on March 17 following the civil rights march from Trinity United Presbyterian Church on High St., to the Municipal Building, thence to Union Baptist Church.

Following this presentation, Judge Crane presented a check for $705 to Mrs. Bertha G. Edwards representing Dr. Martin Luther King’s organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. This contribution from the Montclair Unitarian Church represents half of an offering taken at the church, the other half being for the Reeb family.”

It seems fair to say we are dealing here with a man to whom civil rights and equality are not just the catchwords of a principle, and with a judge to whom justice is not just a cloistered virtue; nor freedom a mere intellectual abstraction. Rather we are dealing with a judge who practices publicly what he professes privately.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress