ABSTRACT
The Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling in Bell v. State demonstrated importance of appellate courts, as all-white juries were likely to convict brutalized Black defendants despite incidents of police brutality. Appellate judges were more likely to weigh such issues with more consideration. The split decision demonstrated that the nascent federal consensus against police brutality was beginning to fray, an unraveling that would only be exacerbated the following year in Screws v. United States. With that permission slip in place, ensconcing itself ever since the Screws decision in the immediate wake of World War II, the Court seemed reluctant for the rest of the century and into the twenty-first to wrestle with the issue of police brutality. The Supreme Court has, perhaps intentionally, not been the principal arbiter of police brutality claims and incidents in the United States, but evolution of its few rulings over time has had an inordinate impact on the willingness of law enforcement to engage in violent behavior.
