This tag was created by Anonymous.
Looting in the courts (50)
Prosecutors did not charge six of those individuals 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, Arthur Davis, Herbert Hunter and Elizabeth Tai - had the charge against them reduced to disorderly conduct after their initial appearance in court. 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 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. Seven of those arrested for looting were charged with petit larceny instead of burglary. 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 in all seven cases 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.
After the initial arraignment, prosecutors in the Magistrates Court later changed a charge of burglary to a lesser offense in eight cases: unlawful entry for Elva Jacobs; petit larceny for Henry Goodwin; and disorderly conduct for Joseph Payne, Raymond Taylor, Preston White, Elizabeth Tai, Arthur Davis and Herbert Hunter (that change is 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). The charge of unlawful entry against Jacob suggests that police presented evidence that she had entered a store or put her hand through the window but not that she had taken merchandise.
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, with slightly more of those charged with petit larceny (5 of 6) convicted than those charged with unlawful entry (8 of 11).
Individuals arrested for looting made up a substantial majority of those charged with felonies after the disorder. The grand jury indicted just seventeen men of who fourteen had been arrested for looting (one they dismissed and their decision about three others is unknown); three of those indictments were later dismissed by judges in the Court of General Sessions. All eleven of the other defendants agreed to plea bargains and pled guilty of misdemeanor offenses, petit larceny in seven cases, unlawful entry in three and attempted grand larceny in the case of Edward Larry, who had been charged with robbery.
Just over half of those arrested for looting received a sentence of one month or longer, a similar proportion as 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).