When Mason tries to argue that his clients are entitled to more time for discovery, he cites a then-recent case: "Your Honor, I think the precedent agrees with me. Supreme Court Justice Sutherland, who wrote last year in Powell versus Alabama, that the accused, which my clients are, in a capital case, which this is, to have aid to counsel for his defense, which I am, includes the right to have sufficient time to advise with counsel and to prepare a defense is one of the fundamental rights of the due process clause, the 14th Amendment." The judge rejects this interpretation, snapping, "I'll take my chances on my interpretation of the definition of 'sufficient time' versus Justice Sutherland's." What go unmentioned but implied in this exchange are its racial implications; Powell v. Alabama (287 U.S. 45, 1932) is a watershed U. S. Supreme Court decision that reversed the unjust convictions of nine young Black men who had been falsely accused of raping two white women near Scottsboro, Alabama. It established the right of the accused to have sufficient in-court representation, and required that representation be given enough time to prepare a defense. The "Scottsboro 'Boys'" Case (as it was then universally known, even though four of the nine defendants were 18 or older and therefore no longer "boys") became a national and international flashpoint and cause célèbre in racial politics; by mentioning it, Mason is (inadvertently or not) likening his (Latino) defendants' situation to the injustice and racism faced by the Scottsboro defendants.