Marshall George Cummings, Jr. of Oklahoma was charged with snatching a purse from a woman on October 14, 1976. His case came to trial in January 1977, and Cummings asked to represent himself, which the court allowed. However, during the cross-examination of witnesses, Cummings proceeded to make what the state later described as an "unfortunate error." He conducted the cross-examination in the first person. Specifically, he asked the main witness, "Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?" The jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison.
Cummings later appealed his sentence, arguing that the court had erred by allowing him to represent himself and that "there was not a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel." As proof of this he pointed to his blunders during the trial. The state argued back that his incompetence could not have been foreseen in advance, and that he had been fully advised of his rights.
Cummings also complained that the prosecutor had used prejudicial "showboating" tactics during the trial. For instance, Cummings alleged that at one point the prosecutor had removed a document from his file "in a manner reminiscent of a musketeer unsheathing his sword to do battle with enemies of the king."
The appellate court decided that the errors cited by Cummings weren't sufficient to reverse his conviction. However, it did modify his sentence, reducing it from ten years to five.
You can read the full text of the appellate court's decision at Justia.com.
In 1977, the head of the National Peach Council, Robert K. Phillips, sent the following letter to the U.S. Department of Labor protesting their proposed ban on the pesticide DBCP, which had been found to cause sterility among male agricultural workers who handled it. Phillips noted that some men might actually want to become sterile, so for them infertility would be a welcome benefit of the job.
To: Dr. Eula Bingham, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health
Recently we received the interesting DOL news release concerning worker exposure to DBCP.
It appears to us that you and Secretary Marshall may have overreacted, or at least that is your public posture.
While involuntary sterility caused by a manufactured chemical may be bad, it is not necessarily so. After all, there are many people who are now paying to have themselves sterilized to assure they will no longer be able to become parents.
How many of the workers who have become sterile were of an age that they would have been likely to have children anyway? How many were past the age when they would want to have children? These, too, are important questions.
If possible sterility is the main problem, couldn't workers who were old enough that they no longer wanted to have children accept such positions voluntarily? They could know the situation, and it wouldn't matter. Or could workers be advised of the situation, and some might volunteer for such work posts as an alternative to planned surgery for a vasectomy or tubal ligation, or as a means of getting around religious bans on birth control when they want no more children.
We do believe in safety in the work place, Dr. Bingham, but there can be good as well as bad sides to a situation.
Above all, please don't try to get a ban on the manufacture and sale of the chemical DBCP, because that would cause some losses of agricultural production which would be serious.
Sincerely,
Robert K. Phillips
Executive Secretary, National Peach Council
Despite Phillips's appeal, DBCP got banned anyway, because in addition to the sterility it was linked to various cancers. More info: NY Times, Multinational Monitor.
In the early 1970s, there was briefly such a thing as Marlboro Beer (trademark registration). Philip Morris (having just acquired Miller Brewing) figured that many people like to smoke as they drink beer, so surely a beer that shared the same brand name as their best-selling cigarette would be a success. But apparently test marketing indicated otherwise. So that was the end of Marlboro Beer.
The few bottles of it that were sold now fetch a high price (as much as $1000) as collector's items.
We often focus here at WU on bad movies, but we have neglected the study of horrible Broadway shows. To remedy that, let's sample GOT TU GO DISCO, of which critic Michael Musto says:
Got Tu Go Disco. (17 performances in 1979). A flashy, empty musical about the disco phenomenon, featuring Studio 54's actual doorman. He should have been beaten with his clipboard. The "tu" in the title was a pretty good giveaway that this was pure doogy du.
I love that the lead character was named "Cassette."
I am very sad that the original "Mr. Omelet" pan which debuted in 1976 has been rechristened as simply "Rolled Omelet" pan, and lost its wooden handle.
I am even sadder that I can learn nothing about its illustrious inventor, Robert S. Bardin, and that the only image I have of him is a featureless smudge.
Paul Di Filippo
Paul has been paid to put weird ideas into fictional form for over thirty years, in his career as a noted science fiction writer. He has recently begun blogging on many curious topics with three fellow writers at The Inferior 4+1.