“From time to time we are called to look back to examine our still-recent history and correct injustice where possible. I can think of no greater injustice than a violation of one’s constitutional rights, which has been proven to me in this case by a preponderance of the evidence standard.”
Judge Carmen Mullen
Introduction
In the year 1944, in a town called Alcolu, South Carolina, a young boy named George Junius Stinney Jr. at the age of fourteen was convicted and executed in an electric chair for the murder of two young girls. These girls were aged eleven and seven respectively, named Betty June Binnicker and Mary Emma Thames. What was called the unfair trial of the century, it has been seventy years since a verdict was announced in favour of Stinney. In this article, we will discuss the events that led to Stinney’s conviction and the legal scenario surrounding the same as well as re-examination of Stiney’s case which began in the year 2004!
Background
Born on October 21, in the year 1929, Stinney was imprisoned, sentenced to death, and executed by electric chair in June 1944, thus becoming the youngest American with an exact birth date confirmed to be both sentenced to death and executed in the 20th century.[1] He was only 5 feet and weighed 90-95 pounds when he was put in the electric chair. He was not only young but very small for the chair, wherein he was prepared for execution by an electric chair, using a Bible as a booster seat because Stinney was too small for the chair.[2] Stinney lived with his father (George Junius Stinney Sr.), mother (Aime Brown Stinney), brother (Charles Stinney) and two sisters (Katherine Stinney and Aime Stinney Ruffner). Back then, the town was typically divided or segregated for the black community. There were separate houses, churches and schools for the black and white community. This information is crucial, because this is one such detail that led to arresting and convicting Stinney.
On the month of March 1944, the cold bodies of Betty June and Mary Emma were found in a nearby ditch that was located on the African American side of the town. The girls were riding their bicycle from school to home, only to never actually return home. Ironically, Stinney’s father also facilitated in search for the young girls. Medical autopsy and examiner state that the Binnicker and Thames both suffered severe blunt force trauma, resulting in penetration of both girls’ skulls.[3] The medical examiner reported no evidence of sexual assault to the younger girl, though the genitalia of the older girl were slightly bruised.[4] [5]
“The case has haunted the town since it happened but garnered new attention when historian George Frierson, a local school board member raised in Stinney’s hometown, started studying it some years ago. Since then, Stinney’s former cellmate issued a statement saying the boy denied the charges. “I didn’t, didn’t do it,’ ” Wilford Hunter said Stinney told him. “He said, ‘Why would they kill me for something I didn’t do?’ ” In 2009, an attorney planned to file statements from Stinney’s family members, but waited because he heard a man in Tennessee, who was not related to Stinney, could offer an alibi for the youth. The man never came forward. It reportedly delayed the new trial but didn’t stop it.”[6]
Apparently, the girls were looking for flowers and they passed the Stinneys’ property, and they had asked Stinney and his sister, Aimé,[7] if they knew where to find “maypops”, a local name for passionflowers.[8] Stinney’s sister Aime claims that Stinney was with her at the time of the murder of these two young girls. After which, an article reported by the wire services on March 24, 1944, the sheriff announced the arrest of “George Junius” and stated that the boy had confessed and led officers to “a hidden piece of iron.[9] It is very horrifying to know the way the entire investigation was conducted. A minor surrounded by adults and not one believed in his innocence. Moreover, basic constitutional rights were broken, even the prosecutor arguing on behalf of Stinney did not cross-examine anyone, no black community was represented in the Jury, and just within two and half hours, it was decided that Stinney needed to sit on the electric chair.
In criminal law, there is a doctrine called the Blackstone’s Ratio formulated by a pre-eminent English jurist William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffers.”[10] In any heinous crime or any crime in general, the generic understanding is that “innocent until proven guilty” or simplifying the words of William – Better that a thousand criminals go scot-free than one innocent man be put behind bars.
“The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. In the Cato Institute / Yougov 2016 Criminal Justice Survey posed a dilemma to the American people, asking respondents which of the following scenarios they believe would be worse: “What do you think would be worse: having 20,000 people in prison who are actually innocent, or 20,000 people not in prison who are actually guilty?” The survey found that a majority (60%) of Americans say it would be worse to have 20,000 innocent people in prison, while 40% say it would be worse to have 20,000 people who are actually guilty but not in prison. Strikingly, Donald Trump’s early core supporters (from November 2015) stand out with a majority (52%) who say it’s worse to not punish the guilty.”[11]
You might think that this percentage is not that bad, however, although the survey is fifty–fifty per cent – this still is problematic. This means that the majority of people believe in a way that innocent people should be jailed. Americans who say it’s worse to allow guilty people go free than to imprison innocent people are about 15-30 points more likely to support warrantless police stops and searches in a variety of situations.[12] Take for instance New York City’s Stop and Frisk program which failed to uncover wrongdoing in 88% of the over 2 million pedestrian stops since 2010.[13] Was this policy worth it? Observers with the same set of facts have reached dramatically different conclusions.[14] Consequently, societies must grapple with what type of “mistakes” they will tolerate more—sometimes punishing or scrutinizing innocent people or sometimes allowing guilty people to go free.[15]
In the case of Gideon v. Wainwright,[16] The Plaintiff named Clarence Earl Gideon had barely completed his education. He ran away from home when he had just about completed his eighth-grade schooling. He never stayed in one place and often moved from one place to another. During this time, he was also always in and out of prisons for various nonaggressive crimes.
Gideon was charged with a misdemeanor for breaking and entering premises, which is considered an offence under Florida law. Naturally, with Gideo’s lifestyle, he could not afford an attorney and appeared to trial without one. He asked the Judge for the same in open court and was denied this request. The reasoning of the Judge was that Florida laws only assist in the appointment of a lawyer or prosecutor for capital offences provided that such accused being accused of such crime should be poor.
As such Gideon tried to represent himself. He made arguments on his behalf, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence.[17] However, no matter the effort he put in, the Jury convicted Gideon and he was sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. Gideon, however, did not give up hope and went on to file a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of Florida. In this writ petition, he decided to challenge the previous judgement of the lower court that convicted him. In addition to this, he also challenged the refusal of the judge to appoint a lawyer for him during the trial and that it violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of Florida set aside his petition.
Another failed attempt and Gideon this time appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to entertain his petition and solve the dispute as to whether Gideon had the right to seek for counsel and if his constitutional rights were violated in refusal of the same.
The issues stated in this case was: “A prior decision of the Court’s, Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court granted Gideon’s petition for a writ of certiorari – that is, agreed to hear Gideon’s case and review the decision of the lower court – in order to determine whether Betts should be reconsidered. In this case, the ruling was reversed and remanded. In its opinion, the Court unanimously overruled Betts v. Brady.”[18]
The reasoning provided for the judgment meted out: “The Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In overturning Betts, Justice Black stated that “reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person hauled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him.” He further wrote that the “noble ideal” of “fair trials before impartial tribunals in which ever defendant stands equal before the law . . . cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.”[19]
In February 2014, the Civil Rights and Restorative Justice Project submitted an amicus curiae brief petitioning for the writ of corm nobis to redress the grave miscarriages of justice against Stinney.[20] Later that year, South Carolina’s Fourteenth Judicial Circuit Court issued an order granting coram nobis relief and vacating Stinney’s conviction.”[21] Stinney’s brother, Charles, described how Stinney’s conviction severely affected the whole family, as they believed that the conviction and execution could have happened to any one of the family members.[22] Following George Stinney’s execution, the Stinney family left South Carolina and relocated to New York fearing for their safety.’ [23] The law in South Carolina, in general, provides criminal defendants with three post-conviction avenues, one of which the legislature codified a statute to serve as an exclusive post-conviction remedy.[24]
What is Coram Nobis?
A writ of coram nobis (also writ of error coram nobis, writ of coram vobis, or writ of error coram vobis) is a legal order allowing a court to correct its original judgment upon discovery of a fundamental error that did not appear in the records of the original judgment’s proceedings and that would have prevented the judgment from being pronounced.[25] After the United States obtained independence from England, state governments, as well as the federal government, provided courts the authority to continue to rely upon writs as a source of law unless issuing the writ violated the state or federal constitution or if either the state or federal government subsequently enacted a statute restricting the writ.[26] Writs also evolved independently in the federal judicial system and each state’s judicial system so that a writ within one judicial systems may have a vastly different purpose and procedures from the same writ in other judicial systems.[27] Tennessee is an example of a state where its legislature enacted a statute expressly authorizing courts to issue, by name, the “Writ of Error Coram Nobis” and regulated how this writ should be issued.[28] For example, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted a law on January 25, 1966, that expressly abolished the name “writ of coram nobis” and enacted the state’s Post Conviction Relief Act, which is now the sole means for obtaining post-conviction relief.[29] The 1914 Supreme Court case United States v. Mayer, expanded the scope of the writ of coram nobis to include fundamental errors, but the Court declined in this case to decide whether federal courts are permitted to issue the writ of coram nobis.[30] In 1954, the Supreme Court determined in United States v. Morgan that federal courts are permitted to issue the writ of coram nobis to correct fundamental errors, such as those where discovery of new information is sufficient to prove a convicted felon is actually innocent.[31]
Brief Information of South Carolina’s Available Post-Conviction Relief Remedies: Broadly speaking, post-conviction remedies are intended to buffer against “unjust, unconstitutional, and erroneous confinements.”[32] Post-conviction relief is often referred to as “collateral review,” which is [an attack on a judgment in a proceeding other than a direct appeal.”[33] Avenues of collateral review stand apart from the process of direct review,[34] which includes remedies such as post-trial motions, and includes requests for relief is often based on constitutional violations,[35] habeas corpus review,[36] and review by writs of error such as audita querela,[37] or coram nobis.[38] In South Carolina, there are three post-conviction remedies available: (1) the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act (UPCPA); (2) state level habeas corpus; and (3) motions for a new trial based on after-discovered evidence.[39] The first post-conviction remedy available is the UPCPA, which provides that any person who has been convicted of or sentenced for committing a crime may initiate a post-conviction relief proceeding.[40] The purpose of post-conviction relief under South Carolina’s UPCPA is to provide convicted persons with a method to address any unresolved or previously unmentioned questions of fact or law relevant to their sentences.[41]
“This is an important book to read, not only to get a clearer picture of what could happen to a young Black boy accused of a crime in the Jim Crow South, but to better understand what is still happening today. In this present time, due to racial bias and stereotypes, Black males of all ages are, more often than Whites, seen as a threat, viewed as sexual predators, suspected of violent crimes, presumed guilty by police, incarcerated at higher rates, and have more violent and deadly encounters with the police. The protests of the death of George Floyd, the calls for police reform and defunding, and the constant hashtags of another Black male killed by police tells us the legacies of Jim Crow still linger on and we need to get serious about criminal justice reform for Black people in this country.”[42]
Investigation and The Trial
George Floyd was not an exception case. The black community was looked down on and continued to do so as history clearly proves. Stinney was not an exception case, there are other young boys just like Stinney who have been wrongfully detained and punished for something they never did. Police officers who arrested Stinney state that Stinney confessed to the crime and that he further showed them the murder weapon as well. It is impossible to understand how police officers came to the conclusion that a fourteen-year-old boy not only murdered two young girls but also had ample amount of time on his hands to dump the bodies and hide the murder weapon as well. The police officers further went on record to state that Stinney had the intention to sexually abuse one of the victims and that Stinney confessed to the same as well.
However, there were no oral, written or signed statements from Stanley that prove he confessed to these crimes. Nor the police have ever presented these so called “confession” into evidence in the court of law. Moreover, no one in the Jury panel, or the Judge or the lawyer ever seemed to have pointed this fact out. The trial lasted only for two and half hours, consisting of an all-white male jury which within ten minutes decided that no form of leniency shall be shown and found him guilty and pronounced capital punishment on him.
Stinney was not only unlawfully arrested but did not even receive help from counsel, which was his right. At that time one part of the criminal law stated that the age of fourteen was the age to understand and know criminal responsibility. Due to this reason, and many others Stinney’s lawyer did not argue on behalf of Stinney, nor did he cross-examine any witnesses. Overall, he did not see any merit in the case and most probably did not care about Stinney’s life. What is worse, Stinney’s case could have easily continued for a longer duration of time, had his lawyer appealed Stiney’s case. However, the lawyer never saw Stinney again after his sentencing was pronounced by the Jury.
Stinney’s trial started a month after the date when he was arrested. During this time, his parents were not allowed to meet him. Stinney never saw or heard from his parents again after being arrested. He was kept in confinement all alone until his trial. After which he was executed just six weeks after his conviction. Stinney weighed less compared to the ones who had been on the electric chair as such it was a struggle for the authorities to strap him to the electric chair. When they were finally able to strap him, the initial jolt of electricity when it Stinney – his mask fell off – which revealed the true horrors of electrocution.
While he was detained Stinney had to be moved because an active mob was feared to lynch him. The murders of these two young girls evoked widespread ruckus. Sadly, the Stinney family feared for their life and could not help or fight for their son. It was suggested to leave the town quickly and George was left all alone.
Conclusion
It is saddening that a mere fourteen-year-old George Stinney Junior was electrocuted in the year 1944, on June 16th for murdering two girls in Alcolu, South Carolina. George’s sham of a case has as expected bothered various civil rights organizations and advocates for years. Did people forget that he was still a child? Questioning him well-knowing the fact that he did not commit a crime and went on to further defame his and his family’s name. It is horrifying to know that Stinney – a child kept in isolation, interrogated by adults without any lawyer of his own, without seeing his parents and stayed all alone till the time of his death. One officer went an extra step ahead to claim on record that Stinney confessed to not only the two girls but also confessed that “he wanted to have sex with the 11-year-old and after killing them he engaged in necrophilia”.
Stinney’s family was forced to vacate from their own home, his father too had to quit his job or forcefully resign. It was bad enough losing one of their children to a false accusation of murder, but they had to think about the rest of their family members amidst threats to their lives. It is one matter that people claimed that Stinney was guilty but also that these are the same people who also did not present any evidence to support their own claims. Stinney was not even put in protective custody until there was a threat that a mob might attempt to lynch the young Stinney he was only then moved to a jail out of the town.
Why is this a one sham of a trial? It almost seems like Stinney was rushed through the entire legal process because the authorities feared someone might find the actual killer. It is a true mystery why the trial even lasted as long as two and a half hours when Stinney’s side of the story was never heard. A Story that probably an all-white jury would not have sided with anyway. In addition to this, no member of the African American community was even allowed to enter the court. There is so many things that went wrong Iin this case and out of all the reason to not have any African American present in the court is more suspicious. After the trial ended within ten minutes Stinney was pushed to sit on the electric chair. Was ten minutes enough to decide someone’s fate. A fate that will lead him to death for a crime not committed. We will never know.
Is this the first case where an African American have been punished on false grounds? A once in a lifetime horrible event marked in the history. Sadly, no. An African American teenager who was convicted and sentenced to death in Pennsylvania on false charges that he had murdered a white woman has been exonerated, 91 years after he was executed.[43] It is not shocking to know in William’s case as well as an all-white jury convicted him of a death sentence. He was only 16 years old and considered to be the youngest person in Pennsylvania to be executed. However, in his case, it was later found out that William who was alleged to have murdered a white woman (name: Vida Robare) who was his school doyenne was actually murdered by her ex-husband who was abusive, and she had also attained divorce from him on the grounds of extreme cruelty. In the year 2022, on June 13th the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Kevin Kelly overturned his conviction and death sentence. A motion for the same was filed by Alexander McClay William
[1] Banner, Stuart (March 5, 2005). "When Killing a Juvenile Was Routine". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 12, 2016. [2] "He was 14 when he was executed. 70 years later, this boy has been exonerated". The Independent. December 18, 2014. [3] "South Carolina Deaths, 1915–1965," database with images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FGBH-P91 : 18 July 2017), Betty June Binniker, 24 Mar 1944; citing , Binniker, Betty June, 1944, Department of Archives and History, State Records Center, Columbia; FHL microfilm 1,943,933. [4] McVeigh, Karen (March 22, 2014). "George Stinney was executed at 14. Can his family now clear his name?". The Observer. [5] "CRRJ Brings Justice to Youngest Person Executed in US History" (Press release). Archived from the original on January 3, 2015. [6] Lindsey Bever, The Washington Post, Dec 18th 2014, retrieved from: It took 10 minutes to convict 14-year-old George Stinney Jr. It took 70 years after his execution to exonerate him. - The Washington Post [7] McVeigh, Karen (March 22, 2014). "George Stinney was executed at 14. Can his family now clear his name?". The Observer. [8] "Youth Admits Slaying Girls". The Milwaukee Journal. AP. March 25, 1944. Archived from the original on October 31, 2023. [9] "State Prison Protects Negro after Slaying". St. Petersburg Times. INS. March 25, 1944. [10] Alexander Volokh, "n Guilty Men," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146 (1997): 173-216. [11] Blackstone's Ratio: Is it more important to protect innocence or punish guilt? | Cato Institute [12] For instance, roughly 7 in 10 Americans who prioritize protecting the innocent oppose police conducting routine vehicle searches during minor traffic stops or home searches of suspected drug dealers without a court order, while those who prioritize punishing wrongdoing are about evenly divided. [13] NYCLU, "Stop-and-Frisk Data," New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016, http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data. [14] For instance, the NYCLU has presented the Stop and Frisk error rate as evidence that the program has over-stepped, while a Breitbart writer touted the exact same set of facts as evidence of the program's success. Milo Yiannopoulos, "Milo Talks Who Illegal Immigration Hurts, and Who Stop & Frisk Helps," YouTube, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2qHRMW7284. [15] This dilemma is analogous to Type 1 and Type 2 errors found in empirical research. In this case, Type 1 errors would mean convicting innocent people of crimes they didn't commit or subjecting them to added scrutiny despite their innocence, and Type 2 errors would mean failing to convict guilty people of crimes they did commit and allowing them to go free unpunished. [16] 372 U.S. 335 (1963) [17] Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright | United States Courts (uscourts.gov) [18] Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright | United States Courts (uscourts.gov) [19] Id 17. [20] Abby Phillip & Chico Harlan, Hundreds March in Charleston, Columbia to take down Confederate flag, WASH. POST (Jun. 20, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/20/hundreds-march-in charleston-columbia-to-take-down-confederate-flag/. [21] See United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 494-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying the defendant's petition for the writ of audita querela because he should have requested postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). [22] Defendant's Brief at 31 (citing SH Affidavit of Bishop Charles Stinney, ¶ 10). [23] Id. [24] The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act, S.C. CODE ANN. § 17-27-20 (2015). The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides: Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime and who claims: (1) That the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this State; (2) That the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence; (3) That the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law; (4) That there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; (5) That his sentence has expired, his probation, parole or conditional release unlawfully revoked, or he is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint; or (6) That the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error heretofore available under any common law, statutory or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding or remedy; may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this chapter to secure relief Provided, however, that this section shall not be construed to permit collateral attack on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. (A) This remedy is not a substitute for not does it affect any remedy incident to the proceedings in the trial court, or of direct review of the sentence or conviction. Except as otherwise provide in this chapter, it comprehends and takes the place of all other common law, statutory or other remedies heretofore available for challenging the validity of the conviction or sentence. It shall be used exclusively in place of them. Id. [25] State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 672 (Tennessee Supreme Court 1999). Google Scholar. [26] Chemerinsky, E. (1986).Thinking About Habeas Corpus. Case W. Res. L. Rev., 37, 748, 751. [27] Wilkes, Donald E., Federal and State Postconviction Remedies and Relief. Harrison Company, 2001. p. 55-58. [28] "2017 Tennessee Code :: Title 27 - Appeal and Review :: Chapter 7 - Writ of Error Coram Nobis". Justia Law. [29] Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 497-502 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court 2016). Google Scholar. [30] United States v. Mayer, 235 U.S. 35, 69 (United States Supreme Court 1914). [31] United States v. Denedo, 129 S. Ct. 2213, 2220 (United States Supreme Court 2009). [32] John H. Blume, An Introduction to Post-Conviction Remedies, Practice and Procedure in South Carolina, 45 S.C. L. REv. 235, 236 (1994). [33] Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. 545, 552 (2011) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 298 (9th ed. 2009)). [34] Id. [35] Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) [36] Id. (noting how the Court has used the terms "habeas corpus" and "collateral review" interchangeably). [37] See United States v. Gamboa, 608 F.3d 492, 494-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying the defendant's petition for the writ of audita querela because he should have requested postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). [38] Wall, 562 U.S. at 552 (2011) (citing United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 510- 511 (1954)) (noting how the Court has described coram nobis as a means of collateral attack). [39] See Blume, supra note 23, at 238 (providing a general overview of the three postconviction remedies available in South Carolin [40] S.C. CODE ANN. § 17-27-20(A) (2015). [41] Id. [42] Law, Tamara (2021) "Book Review: The Child in the Electric Chair: The Execution of George Junius Stinney, Jr. and the Making of a Tragedy in the American South," South Carolina Libraries: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 , Article 9. [43] Pennsylvania Teen Exonerated 91 Years After Sham Trial and Execution on Racially Motivated Charges that He Had Murdered a White Woman | Death Penalty Information Center
