What Happened To George Stinney's Case?

Extreme racism and Jim Crow Laws in the Southern United States in the 1940s led to prejudice and tension between blacks and whites. This tension prompted the Judicial System to demonstrate bias in the favor of whites. The trial and execution of George Stinney supports this idea of a biased court system. In 1944, law enforcement in Alcolu, South Carolina convicted Stinney, 14, for the murder of two young white girls, Betty June Binnicker, 11, and Mary Emma Thames, 8 (Chapell). After the initial arrest, Stinney supposedly confessed, but no written or oral proof actually existed.. In trial, he received a lawyer that had no experience representing criminal defendants. As the trial proceeded, Stinney’s lawyer failed to call a witness for his defense.

While researching, Frierson found many facts that supported the idea of an unfair trial and George Stinney’s Innocence. In a statement, Frierson said, “Nothing added up. No physical evidence against him…” (McVeigh). Frierson discovered was testimonies from Stinney’s sisters and cellmate. According to Wilford Hunter, his cellmate, Stinney said, “I didn’t do it, I didn’t do it” and “Why would they kill me for something I didn’t do?” (Smolowe).Frierson also discovered the autopsy reports of Mary Emma Thames and Betty June Binnicker. The original report for Mary Emma Thames states, “There is a long laceration, just about two inches, just above the right eyebrow and another vertical one on forehead above the medial end of left eyebrow. Both of these are jagged and deep…” (South Carolina Department of Archives and History). According to Frierson, Stinney, a small boy, could not have inflicted wounds such as these (Baker). Following the discovery of this new evidence, lawyers Steve Mackenzie and Matt Burgess wanted to help Frierson in any way they could. (Baker). With the help from Frierson, Mackenzie and Burgess, the Stinney family decided to move forward with the

State officials approved a new trial shortly after. In the hearing, lawyers for the Stinney family presented the jury with testimonies from Stinney’s sisters and former cellmate. Mackenzie and Burgess also explained how the prosecutor in the original trial violated his sixth amendment rights. By calling no witnesses to his defense, the prosecutor denied Stinney the right to a fair public trial (Cornell University Law School). Since most of the testimonies and evidence supporting Stinney’s innocence neared 70 years old, they could not completely accurate. (Eleftheriou-Smith) Because of this, lawyers for the Stinney family focused on the original trial being unjust and made it clear to the jury that Stinney had no chance of winning the