## Facts

- White defendants were indicted in federal court for burglarizing the home of Nancy Talbot, a U.S. citizen of the African race, in Kentucky.
- Kentucky law barred Talbot from testifying against white defendants, impairing her ability to obtain equal protection of legal process in state court.
- The United States prosecuted under § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided federal jurisdiction over causes affecting persons denied rights secured by § 1 and unable to enforce those rights in state courts.
- A jury returned guilty verdicts.
- Defendants moved in arrest of judgment, arguing the indictment was deficient, the case fell outside the Act, and the Act was unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether the indictment was legally sufficient without expressly pleading the existence and content of the Kentucky statute that permitted white persons, but not Talbot, to testify.
2. Whether a burglary prosecution is a “cause affecting” the victim within § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and whether § 3 reaches prosecutions of white defendants.
3. Whether the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was within Congress’s constitutional power, including under the Thirteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion in arrest of judgment and allowed the convictions to stand.
- The indictment was sufficient because matters of public law need not be pleaded; the court could take judicial notice of the relevant Kentucky statute.
- The burglary prosecution was a “cause affecting” Talbot because state-law testimonial exclusion prevented her from enforcing rights secured by § 1 in state court.
- Section 3 was not limited to prosecutions of Black defendants; it permitted federal prosecution of white defendants when the offense affected a person denied equal legal rights in state courts.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was upheld as constitutional, treated as a remedial measure supportable under the Thirteenth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal indictments generally need not set out public statutes; courts may take judicial notice of state public law.
- Under § 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, federal jurisdiction extends to civil and criminal causes affecting persons who are denied rights secured by § 1 and cannot enforce those rights in state courts due to discriminatory legal rules.
- A state criminal prosecution may qualify as a “cause affecting” the victim when state procedural rules (including racially based testimonial exclusions) prevent equal participation in the process.
- The Act’s enforcement scheme may reach prosecutions of white defendants when necessary to secure equal civil rights for the affected person.
- The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was treated as remedial legislation and construed broadly to secure the abolition of slavery and its legal incidents under the Thirteenth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The court sustained federal criminal jurisdiction and upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1866 where state law barred a Black victim from testifying against white defendants, holding the indictment sufficient, construing § 3 to cover such “causes affecting” the victim, and finding the Act constitutionally authorized under the Thirteenth Amendment.


United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (C.C.D. Ky. 1866)