This tag was created by Anonymous. The last update was by Stephen Robertson.
Looting in the courts (50)
Prosecutors did not charge six of those who appeared in court with the offense for which they had been arrested, but instead with disorderly conduct. An additional five men and one woman — Joseph Payne, Raymond Taylor, Preston White, Herbert Hunter, Arthur Davis, and Elizabeth Tai — had the charge against them reduced to disorderly conduct after their initial appearance in court (that change was not recorded in the docket book for Davis and Hunter, but the magistrate convicted them, which he could only do if they were charged with disorderly conduct). A smaller proportion of those arrested for looting faced that lesser charge (12 of 50, 20%) than of those arrested for breaking windows (11 of 20, 55%) and assault (8 of 13, 62%) — although given that the basis for the arrest of sixteen of those charged with disorderly conduct (32%) is unknown, that pattern has to be considered uncertain. If the change in charge indicated police lacked evidence to charge those individuals with looting, the decision to nonetheless proceed with their prosecution indicated some evidence that associated them with the disorder. The variety of acts encompassed by disorderly conduct fell between being a bystander and a participant in acts of violence and theft, including "offensive, disorderly, threatening, abusive or insulting language, conduct or behavior," acting to "annoy, disturb, interfere with, obstruct, or be offensive to others," refusing "to move on when ordered by the police," and causing a crowd to collect. Possible scenarios might involve acting in a way that police interpreted as indicating an intention to participate in violence, amounting to "disorderly" conduct or behavior — most likely by being parts of crowds in the vicinity when stores were looting. Magistrates found guilty two thirds (8 of 12) of those charged with disorderly conduct after being arrested for looting (the white man released in the Magistrates Court, Louis Tonick, had been charged with robbery not disorderly conduct).
The charge brought against individuals who were prosecuted for looting was burglary. A charge of burglary required breaking into a store, entering it, and taking merchandise — all the elements that made up looting. If police did not have evidence of all three elements, the charge had to be to another offense that carried lesser penalties. After investigation, prosecutors changed the charge against Elva Jacobs from burglary to a lesser offense, unlawful entry. That charge punished entry into a property with the intention to take merchandise, to commit burglary, suggesting police had evidence she had been in a store but not that she had taken merchandise. Seven of those arrested for looting were charged with petit larceny instead of burglary. After the initial arraignment, the charge against an additional man, Henry Goodwin, was changed from burglary to petit larceny. In those cases police likely had evidence an individual had taken merchandise but not that they had broken into and entered a store to take those goods. What form of larceny that evidence supported depended upon the value of the goods allegedly stolen. A charge of petit larceny indicated that the goods were worth less than $100. Police charged the remaining two men with robbery. That offense involved taking property from a person rather than taking merchandise from a store.
Magistrates sent just over half (28 of 50) of those arraigned for looting to the grand jury to be charged with the felony offense of burglary. In ten of those cases, the grand jury saw the alleged offense differently, and voted misdemeanor charges that sent those individuals to the Court of Special Sessions not felony charges that would have sent them to the Court of General Sessions. Magistrates sent nine others arrested for looting to the Court of Special Sessions. There the judges convicted thirteen of the seventeen tried in that court where the outcome is known. Apart from Elva Jacobs, convicted of unlawful entry, all those convictions were for petit larceny.
Individuals arrested for looting made up a substantial majority of those charged with felonies after the disorder. The grand jury indicted just seventeen men, fourteen of whom had been arrested for looting (one case they dismissed and their decision about three others is unknown); two of those indictments were later dismissed by judges in the Court of General Sessions. Eleven of the other defendants agreed to plea bargains and pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges, petit larceny in seven cases, unlawful entry in three cases, and attempted grand larceny in the case of Edward Larry, who had been charged with robbery. A judge directed the acquittal of the final man, Joseph Moore (Arnold Ford, on trial with Moore, agreed to plead guilty to a charge of petit larceny).
Just over half of those arrested for looting received a sentence of one month or longer, a similar proportion as of those arrested for breaking windows and a far greater proportion than of those arrested for riot and assault. However, almost all of those arrested for looting received terms of three months or longer (16 of 18), compared with only a third of those arrested for breaking windows (3 of 9).