Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, a former boxer, was convicted, along with a co-defendant, John Artis, of murdering a bartender and two patrons in a Paterson bar in the 1960’s. The case became a celebrated one. Bob Dylan wrote a song, “Hurricane,” and Denzel Washington starred in a movie, “The Hurricane,” about Carter and the case.
The case went to the Supreme Court of New Jersey several times. After Carter and Artis were convicted and sentenced to life sentences, the Court affirmed the convictions in 1969, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Weintraub. State v. Carter, 54 N.J. 436 (1969). The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari.
Thereafter, defendants sought a new trial. When the issue reached the Supreme Court, the Court vacated the convictions and granted a new trial. State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420 (1976). Justice Sullivan, writing for a unanimous Court, held that the State had knowingly allowed two witnesses to testify falsely that no promises, except protection, had been made to them, which frustrated defendants’ efforts to argue that there may have been some inducement for that witness testimony against them. The Court also found that the State had wrongfully withheld material evidence from the defense.
The new trial, which began in 1976, again resulted in guilty verdicts. Defendants again appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court granted defendants’ petition for review. On this date in 1982, the Court affirmed the convictions by a 4-3 vote. State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982). Justice Schreiber wrote the majority opinion, for himself and Justices Pashman, Handler and Pollock. The dissent was authored by Justice Clifford, who was joined by Chief Justice Wilentz and Justice Sullivan.
Defendants raised a number of points, one of which was that the State had improperly appealed to racial prejudice at the retrial. The Justices were unanimous in rejecting that and all but one of the other defense contentions. The remaining issue– an alleged violation of the requirement of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which requires the prosecution to turn over to a defendant material evidence favorable to the defense, gave rise to the 4-3 split.
All seven Justices acknowledged that the State had violated the Brady doctrine by failing to turn over information regarding a polygraph examination of a key prosecution witness, one of the same witnesses whom the State had wrongly allowed to testify falsely at the first trial. The majority, however, found the Brady violation harmless, while the dissenters began their opinion by stating that “[a] more egregious Brady violation than the one presented by this case is difficult to imagine,” and found nothing harmless about it.
That was not the end of the story, though. In 1985, defendants sought a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Judge Sarokin granted the writ, on the grounds of (1) the Brady violation, and (2) the State’s improper appeal to racial prejudice at the retrial. Carter v. Rafferty, 621 F. Supp. 533 (D.N.J. 1985). The Third Circuit, speaking through Judge Aldisert, affirmed that ruling, on the Brady issue, as to Carter, while dismissing the State’s appeal as to Artis. Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299 (3d Cir. 1987). The Supreme Court of the United States again declined to review the case.
The “Hurricane Carter” saga is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns. It is well worth reading about in more detail.