Joseph Weintraub

Joseph Weintraub (1908–1977) was Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court from 1957 to 1973. He previously served as an Associate Justice of the same court from 1956 to 1957.

Biography

Among the landmark decisions authored by Weintraub was Robinson v. Cahill, which declared that the constitutional rights of urban school children were being violated by the state's failure to provide an equitable system of educational funding. He also authored State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297 (1971),in which the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that a lawyer and a health services worker who came to a farm to help migrant workers were not trespassing when they refused to leave at the farm owner's demand. In that opinion the Chief Justice wrote: "Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end and limited by it." On that basis he concluded that the farmer could not isolate the migrant worker from the outside world. Another remarkable opinion was his concurrence in In re Adoption of E, 59 N.J. 36 (1971). The court had held that a prospective adoptive family could not be disqualified simply because the couple were atheists. The Chief Justice's concurrence would have gone even further; he wrote that religious belief should not be considered at all in deciding whether a family should be allowed to adopt because judges have no ability to evaluate the quality of religious beliefs.

During his sixteen year tenure as Chief Justice, the New Jersey Supreme Court played a leading role nationally in transforming and modernizing the common law to accord with realities of life in the mid-twentieth century. With Justices John Francis and Nathan Jacobs in particular, the Court struck a new course in the areas of consumer protection, product safety, rights of tenants and liability for negligence. For a perceptive survey of his career by a later Justice of the N.J. Supreme Court, see O'Hern, Brennan and Weintraub: Two Stars to Guide Us, 46 Rutgers Law Review 1049 (1994).

Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Controversy

In the mists of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, Justice Weintraub presided over one of the more controversial cases in New Jersey's state history. Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, a professional prize fighter, along with Jon Artis, lost their appeal on a very questionable murder case, resulting in both of the defendants' life sentences. Justice Weintraub acknowledged several holes in the prosecutions testimony. Despite damning evidence implicating Carter's and Artis' innocents, Weintraub's court denied the appeal. Weintraub's chilling language resonated throughout the African American community of New Jersey - an African American community undoubtedly subjected to a bevy of discriminatory practices and racially charged social barriers that went over-looked and ignored in New Jersey's history during the 60s and 70s.

In writing his opinion, Justice Weintraub stated:

"The State failed in its effort to prove a dying declaration by Mrs. Tanis. We know only that she and also the surviving patron were unable to identify either defendant, but the testimony does not suggest that either patron was able to say affirmatively that the defendants were not the offenders." State v. Carter, 54 N.J. 436 (N.J. 1969).

Moreover, Justice Weintraub gave substantial deference to two witness' testimonies - Alfred Bello and Arthur Dexter Bradley - who both provided "direct evidence" of Carter's and Artis' involvement in the murders.

"Bello and Bradley, both involved in other criminal charges, provided evidence directly incriminating the defendants. Bello said it was Carter who carried the shotgun and Artis who held the pistol; that he recognized both at once when he was confronted by them outside the tavern, and that he had withheld this information because of his own criminal activities that night and his fear of retaliation. Bradley, who also saw both men, testified that Carter was one of them. He was unable to say whether Artis was the other." Id. at 441.

However, Justice Weintraub, earlier in the same exact trial, while reading same exact decision of the court, offered very telling information regarding both Bello's and Bradley's personal characters:

"Alfred Bello was a key witness for the State. He and Arthur Dexter Bradley were in the area on a criminal mission of their own. Bradley was attempting to break into a building about two blocks away while Bello was at the intervening intersection looking out for the police. Bello ran out of cigarettes and was walking to the tavern to buy some when he heard the shots. As he neared the tavern, two men, Negroes, came toward him, one with a shotgun and the other with a pistol. They were talking loudly and laughing. When Bello realized they were not detectives, he took off and ducked into an alleyway. Presently a white car passed by. Bello recognized it as a 1966 Dodge and noted it had New York license plates. Bello entered the tavern, and seeing the dead and the dying, he went to the cash register to obtain a dime to call the police. The sight of money was too much for Bello who, explaining he was a thief, admitted he scooped some bills from the register." Id. at 439 -440.

Thus, Justice Weintraub, gave substantial deference to two men, who were not only convicted criminals, in order to deny two African American's appeal for their murder convictions - which were subsequently reversed - Justice Weintraub gave substantial deference to two men, who were literally committing a crime on the scene of where the murder occurred, and used their testimony to uphold Carter's and Artis' life sentences.

Justice Weintraub, Bello, and Bradley never publicly expressed regret for their decisions.