Private: The Measure of "Greatness:" Thoughts About The Honorable Constance Baker Motley

US District Court Judge, Southern District of New York
By Lynn Huntley, Law Clerk, l970-1971
I served as law clerk to Judge Constance Baker Motley for the year 1970-1971. I wanted to be her clerk because I aspired to a career as a civil rights lawyer and could think of no finer exemplar of excellence, achievement and courage than "the Judge." Now that the judge has gone on to her reward, I look back on my years of work, friendship and relationship with the Judge with a sense of gratitude. Few of us have the chance to be closely allied to human beings as extraordinary as the Judge.
A few highlights of her life make the case:
-Constance Baker Motley was the first Black woman to be accepted at Columbia University Law School, the institution from which she graduated. While there during her first year, she met Thurgood Marshall, who offered her a job as a clerk at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (LDF).
-During the fifteen years of her work at LDF, Constance Motley worked on school desegregation cases in 11 Southern states and the District of Columbia. She was the only woman on the legal team that won Brown v. Board of Education. She argued and won many cases before the United States Supreme Court.
-Constance Baker Motley represented Martin Luther King, Jr., Ralph David Abernathy, and others when they were incarcerated in southern jails. She stayed in Medgar Ever's home shortly before he was assassinated and was on the platform at the Lincoln Memorial in l963 when Dr. King delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech. She represented, Arthurine Lucy, who applied who to graduate school at the University of Alabama; Charlene Hunter Gault and Hamilton Holmes, who desegregated the University of Georgia; and James Meredith in his battle to gain admission to the University of Mississippi.
-She was the first Black woman elected to the New York State Senate.
-She was the first Black woman to hold the office of Manhattan Borough President.
-She was the first Black woman to serve as a federal judge and became chief judge in the Second Circuit in l982.
-During her years on the bench, Judge Motley was known for her independent thinking and her commitment to fairness in the legal process. Among other cases that she decided, she held that students had a right to a due process hearing before expulsion from school; that prisoners have a right to be free from "cruel and unusual punishment;" that suspects cannot be held form more than 24 hours without a court ruling that sufficient evidence exists to justify the arrest; and that female reporters may enter male locker rooms of professional sports players.

Constance Baker Motley, the ninth of 12 children born to parents who had emigrated to the United States from the West Indies, had humble beginnings. Her father was a cook for Yale's Skull and Bones, which boasts so many high placed members. Her mother wanted her to be a hairdresser, but Constance Baker Motley had loftier aspirations and rose above her circumstances.
I have many memories of the Judge, some that may be told, others that may not. Three stories that exemplify the type of person who she was come to mind.
I. While working for the Judge, I read a pro se complaint from an inmate who claimed that he had been convicted and put in jail because he was Black. The facts as I recall them were that he and a friend worked in a mill in an upstate town for several years. Each night, they would stop at a local "mom and pop" store to buy refreshments to eat during their night shift. The owners of the store were Asian Americans.
One night, two armed Black men with socks pulled up over their noses came into the store and demanded the contents of the cash register. During the course of the robbery, the sock fell down from one man's face and the proprietor and his wife recognized the defendant.
Several blocks away from the store, the two men were apprehended and "suspicious" amounts of change were in their pockets. The guns were not recovered.
At the trial, the defense lawyer argued that the proprietor and his wife could not have recognized the defendant because "all Blacks look alike." They surely couldn't tell one from another. The prosecutor argued that while it was true that all Blacks look alike, the proprietor and his wife knew this man and besides, another witness, a young Black girl of 15, who knew all of the "young bucks in the neighborhood," also had identified the defendant. When the defense lawyer argued that his client's hair was "kinky" and the original complaint had described someone with long hair-raising an identification issue, the prosecutor went on to explain to the jury how Blacks "conk" their hair and change its texture. Over and over throughout the trial, both sides made repeated references to "racial characteristics" related to appearance.
Judge Motley decided that this repeated use of race in the trial had denied the defendant a fair trial and ordered a retrial. I said to the judge when I learned of her decision that it might be overturned on the grounds of "harmless error" in light of the mass of independent evidence of the defendant's guilt.
All the judge said to me, half glasses pulled down on her nose, was, "Let those judges on the Second Circuit tell me that I don't know racism when I see it."
Her decision was grudgingly upheld. It would have been a simple matter for the Judge to uphold the conviction, but she was out not only to vindicate the Constitution's promise of fairness and equality before the law, she was also in her own way helping to educate her fellow jurists about how race can affect the administration of justice.
II. I began my clerkship with the Judge shortly after her landmark decision in the Martin Sostre case. That case involved a Black man who had been arrested in l968 during the course of the Buffalo race riots and charged with selling drugs to a man who was later found to be an informant. Many believed at the time that Sostre, who ran the city's only African American bookstore, was an instigator of the riots, a charge that was never proved.
Consistent with the turbulent times, Sostre refused to defend himself at trial and was ultimately sentenced to many years in prison, an effective death sentence for a man of over 50 years of age.
Years later, while in prison, Sostre was placed in solitary confinement by prison officials for almost a year because he was deemed to be a troublemaker. The warden had asked him what the initials "RNA" meant on a letter he was writing to someone outside and Sostre had said something like "Republican New Administration." Not believing him, the warden placed Sostre in solitary for this and other reasons. The conditions in solitary were horrible-cold, hole in floor for toilet, etc. The judge granted Sostre's pro se petition for a hearing, appointed counsel, and following a unique trial, held that the conditions of confinement to which Sostre had been subject constituted cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. She also held that the State of New York could be subject to monetary damages and ordered a hearing on damages.
Sostre v. McGinnis was a landmark case that helped to usher in a new era of prison reform litigation. Though the case was highly controversial and the Judge was, in making her decision, swimming against the tide of popular opinion, she was fearless. She simply didn't think that anyone should be treated the way that Sostre was by persons paid by the taxpayers of the State of New York.
Postscript: Later, while at LDF, I was able to secure executive clemency for Mr. Sostre from Governor Hugh Carey, and this man who had suffered so much was finally released from prison.
III. The Judge's practice was to take one of her law clerks to court with her each time she sat. While in motions part, one day, a young, Black mail fraud defendant was brought before the Judge for a bail reduction application. The Legal Aid attorney representing the defendant, who had been a postal employee, argued that his client should be reduced on his own recognizance. The defendant had been in jail for a month because he could not make a $500 bond and his offense was the alleged stealing of one letter. He had no prior record. He had lost his job. The lawyer argued that his client had suffered enough, probably wouldn't get a sentence, if convicted, as long as his pre-trial detention, had lost his job and was not a flight risk. The assistant US attorney argued that mail fraud was a very serious violation and opposed release on the defendant's own recognizance.
The Judge called the defendant up before her and read him the "riot act" about what would happen in the event that he failed to show up for his court dates. Having suitably chastened the frightened young man, she then ordered him released on his own recognizance over the objection of the prosecutor.
As the defendant was turning to leave, the prosecutor asked the Judge to remand the defendant for fingerprinting and photographing prior to release. The defense counsel objected on the grounds that the defendant had been fingerprinted and photographed by the Postal Service, fingerprinted and photographed at arraignment, fingerprinted and photographed at the jail, etc and said that this was nothing but needless punitive harassment to require further delay.
The Judge asked whether it was standard practice in the US Attorney's office to require refingerprinting and rephotographing in circumstances such as these. The prosecutor represented that that was the case. Under those circumstances and in light of these representations, the Judge ordered the defendant refingerprinted and rephotographed.
Several weeks later, I received a call in chambers from a Wall Street lawyer who asked for a special arraignment for his client and several other counsel and clients outside of the regular motions part. He explained that it would be difficult to get the multiple defendants and counsel all together at the time of the regular motions part, take up a lot of time, etc. When I advised her of this request, reluctantly, the Judge agreed to have an afternoon arraignment of the defendants.
That afternoon, distinguished, well-clad, White Wall Street counsel and distinguished, well-clad White defendants appeared before the judge. The charge was some form of securities fraud and the defendants were all well-placed Wall Street finance types. After the first defendant plead not guilty, his counsel asked for his client's release on his own recognizance. The prosecutor agreed without a murmur of protest. The Judge granted the defendant release on his own recognizance.
Just as the defendant and counsel were turning to leave, the Judge said to the prosecutor "Do you wish to have this defendant fingerprinted and photographed?" "Oh, no, your honor," said the prosecutor, "that will not be necessary. We have the fingerprints and photograph already on file."
I could see the Judge's brain working. "So you are telling me that it is not required to have the defendant refingerprinted and rephotographed?" she asked. "Oh, no, your honor" was the swift reply.
The judge paused and then she told the whole story of the young postal fraud defendant, his incarceration for inability to make bail, the representations made by the Assistant US Attorney about standard procedure, and asked again, whether the prosecutor before her wished for the defendant to be refingerprinted and rephotographed. "No, your honor. That is unnecessary." "So you are telling me that your office does not have a standard practice of refingerprinting and rephotographing defendants in these circumstances," the Judge again queried. "No, your honor," said the prosecutor.
"Well," said the Judge, "there will be equal justice in this court. And the defendant shall be remanded for fingerprinting and photographing."
The prosecutor and defendant complained vehemently but, with a sweep of her arm, the judge said to the bailiff: "The defendant shall be remanded for fingerprinting and photographing."
This scenario repeated itself for each of the 8 or 9 defendants who were being arraigned. All were remanded for fingerprinting and photographing.
When the hearing was over, I said to the judge, "Oh, Judge, you were so great. I can't believe that you did that," to which she replied, without smile or reaction, "I want you to draft a letter to the United States Attorney. I want to know what is the policy." That was all she said.
That incident, so alive in my memory banks today, was a sterling example of a fair-minded and sensitive person who was determined to treat rich or poor, Black or White people before her the same. Her attention to this small thing showed me the quality of her mind and her attentiveness to details at all levels when it came to matters of fundamental fairness.
**
These small vignettes and many others that I could tell will never be able to capture the brilliant essence of this great person named Constance Baker Motley. Words are inadequate to convey the admiration that I have in my heart for her. She was an enormous force for good in this world.
The judge made a large contribution to my development as a lawyer, but also as a person. Watching her comportment, balance, rigor, intellectual prowess and creativity helped to inspire me to try to be bigger than I was.
The last time I saw the judge in person was at the funeral of her longstanding secretary, Roberta Thomas. The judge was there with Mr. Motley, a kind and supportive man for whom I also have great affection. I will miss her.
Judge Constance Baker Motley, an outstanding pathbreaker and pacesetter, jurist, wife, mother and friend is now at rest. But the battles to which she devoted her life rage on. Though millions whom she helped in her lifetime will never know her name, those of us who were privileged to work for and with her know the measure of this remarkable person and will always love her. She defines the meaning of the term "great."