54 RI Bar J., No. 5, Pg. 11 (Mar/Apr 2006). A Case of Racial Justice: Quince and Ward v. State of Rhode Island.

• Author: Milton Stanzler, Esq.

Rhode Island Bar Journal

Volume 54.

54 RI Bar J., No. 5, Pg. 11 (Mar/Apr 2006).

A Case of Racial Justice: Quince and Ward v. State of Rhode Island

Rhode Island Bar JournalMarch/April 2006 pg. 11A Case of Racial Justice: Quince and Ward v. State of Rhode IslandMilton Stanzler, Esq.Milton Stanzler received the Rhode Island Bar Association's Ralph P. Semonoff Award for Professionalism in 2005.

On June 9th, 2005, I was honored to receive the Rhode Island Bar Association's 2005 Ralph P. Semonoff Award. In my acceptance remarks, I referenced a case I was privileged to participate in with Ralph P. Semonoff. The case involved two young migrant workers who were arrested and unlawfully detained for six months as material witnesses to an alleged murder. Two decisions regarding this case, Quince and Ward v. Langlois, Acting Warden, 88 R.I. 438 (1959) and Quince and Ward v. State of Rhode Island, 94 R.I. 200 (1962), resulted in liberty and damages for these young men who were deprived of their liberty and their dignity by the police.

In September 1958, General Quince of Baltimore, Maryland, and Titus Ward of New Orleans, Louisiana, came to the Hollis Chase Farm in West Kingstown, Rhode Island to work as migrant workers for several months. They allegedly witnessed a murder committed in South Kingstown in October 17, 1958. For two days, they were held without charge. On October 19th, they were brought before the District Court for the Third Judicial Court in the Town of Westerly, at which time the court was asked to hold them as material witnesses. Bail was set for each petitioner at $5,000, which neither was able to raise. There was no inquiry as to whether they were material witnesses, nor was either asked whether or not they planned to stay in or leave the State of Rhode Island. Neither was asked any questions and no findings were made as to whether they were material witnesses with regard to the alleged crime. Quince and Ward v. Langlois, 88 R.I. at 439 - 441. The statutes pursuant to which they were committed provided that a court could bind by recognizance, with or without surety, such witnesses as shall be material, see RI Gen. Laws 12-13-12, (repealed by P.L. 1972, Chapter 169, Section 22), and that any witness who refused to comply with the order requiring him to give such recognizance could be committed to prison. See RI Gen...