The Abolitionist Action Committee
AAC is an ad-hoc group of individuals committed to
highly visible and effective
public education for alternatives to the death penalty through nonviolent direct
action.
The Abolitionist Action CommitteeAAC is an ad-hoc group of individuals committed to
highly visible and effective
|
||
|
The 1997 Trial of the SCOTUS Demonstrators Now Online!Index:
|
|
The trial in the above-entitled action was resumed before the Honorable ROBERT E. MORIN, Associate Judge, in Courtroom 221, commencing at approximately 10:19 a.m. pursuant to the continuance of Thursday, June 26th, 1997.
PROCEEDINGS: THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, with regard to the cases of United States vs Abraham Bonowitz, Case Number M-837-97: United States vs Arthur J. Laffin, Case Number M832-97; United States vs Sarah E. Peck, Case Number M-826-97; United States vs Kurt J. Rosenberg, Case Number M-827-97; United States vs William M. Streit, Case Number M-831-97; United States vs Joseph E. Byrne, Case Number 824-97; United States vs Lorin Charkoudian, Case Number M-822-97; United States vs Lorin Charkoudian, Case Number M-822-97; United States vs Richard c. Halperin, Case Number M-838-97; United States vs. Joh R. Holsthopple, Case Number M-819-97; United States vs Marietta L. Jaeger, Case M-830-97; United States vs Thomas W. Muther, Case M-835-97; United States vs Phyllis K. Pautrat, Case M-829-97; United States vs William R. Pelke, Case M-834-97. Counsel identify themselves for the record, please. THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone, are we missing anybody this morning? MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. Marietta Jaeger is undertaking a hunger strike and she, unfortunately, has fallen ill. We haven’t had an opportunity to get a waiver from her as to her presence. We would orally move that she be allowed to proceed in her absence. We know that that’s what she would request were she here. She is simply not here to make that request personally. THE COURT: I’m not sure that I can – she’s pro se, right? MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes. THE COURT: I’m not sure I can accept a waiver request. MS. KRAUT: Could we get somebody to run over to where she is and get something in writing quickly? It’s not far from here. THE COURT: Or I can sever her case out. MS. KRAUT: Oh, I’m not sure she would like that. Maybe we could get somebody to run over? THE COURT: But I can’t do anything without her here. MR. GOLDSTONE: Can I write something real quickly? She’s over at CCNV, Your Honor. We’re talking about, you know, eight minutes or so. THE COURT: Is there any way she can come over here and put the waiver on the record? MS. KRAUT: Can we do it on the phone? Maybe somebody could call her and she could do it through the phone? THE COURT: I’ll take a break and you all figure out how we’re going to get this waiver on the record. MR. GOLDSTONE: Would you accept it by phone, because that would be so much easier. MS. KRAUT: I don’t know if we can get her on the phone. Or in the meantime – it may take eight minutes to get her on the phone, you know? THE COURT: Well, I would have to talk to her on the phone. (Recess at 10:22 a.m.) (Resumed at 10:45 a.m.) THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, with regard to the cases of United States vs Abraham Bonowitz, Case Number M-837-97: United States vs Arthur J. Laffin, Case Number M832-97; United States vs Sarah E. Peck, Case Number M-826-97; United States vs Kurt J. Rosenberg, Case Number M-827-97; United States vs William M. Streit, Case Number M-831-97; United States vs Joseph E. Byrne, Case Number 824-97; United States vs Lorig Charkoudian, Case Number M-822-97; United States vs Richard c. Halperin, Case Number M-838-97; United States vs. Joh R. Holsthopple, Case Number M-819-97; United States vs Marietta L. Jaeger, Case M-830-97; United States vs Thomas W. Muther, Case M-835-97; United States vs Phyllis K. Pautrat, Case M-829-97; United States vs William R. Pelke, Case M-834-97. Counsel identify themselves for the record, please. MR. GOLDSTONE: Good morning, Your Honor – oh, I’m sorry. MS. KRAUT: Nina Kraut for Mr. Bonowitz. MR. MARCUS: Theodore Marcus, for the United States. Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning, Ms. Jaeger. DEFENDANT JAEGER: I’m sorry. THE COURT: That’s okay. Let me just inquire. You understand that you have the right to be present during the course of the trial. You would have the right to examine any witness who appears to testify before us. You would have the right to make any objections, to make any arguments on your behalf. And you would have the right to give a closing argument on your behalf. Now, I understand that you may or may not wish to be present. You do have the right to be present during the course of the trial. If you are not present during the course of the trial, I can proceed without you and try the case in your absence. Do you understand your constitutional right to be present? DEFENDANT JAEGER: I do. And I hope that I can be. I am expecting that I can be. THE COURT: Okay. DEFENDANT JAEGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Unless I hear from you differently, if you are not present, I’m going to assume that you voluntarily absented yourself from the trial and proceed without you. DEFENDANT JAEGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Any preliminary matters? MR. MARCUS: Just briefly, Your Honor. William Emory is going to handle the redirect on Lieutenant Dolan. THE COURT: That’s fine. Can we have your witness, please. (Pause.) To Index
Thereupon,
MR. GOLDSTONE: May I inquire, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. GOLDSTONE: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Good morning, Lieutenant. A Good morning. Q Now, you testified that the Court was open on January 17th, 1997, isn’t that correct? A That’s correct. Q Now, the Court was not sitting that day, is that correct? A Yes, the were no oral arguments that day. Q Were there any special events that took place at the Court that day? A Not that I can recall. Q Was there announcing of opinions? A Not that I can recall. Q And you said there were no oral arguments? A No arguments. Q So what does it mean that the Court was open that day? A The Court was open. It’s an open office building. It’s open Monday through Friday for normal business operations. It’s a working office building. Q Is it open to the public? A That’s correct. Q You don’t need a pass to get in? A No, you do not. Q You don’t need to contact a member of Congress or a staffer of the Supreme Court to gain access? A No, you do not. Q Does the same hold true for the plaza and the steps, is that correct? A That’s correct. Q Do you recall the weather on that particular day? A I believe it was a clear and sunny day. Q Do you recall if it was a very cold day? A It was cold. Q Do you recall approximately the wind chill factor or perhaps the degree on that day? A No, I do not. Q Now, you testified on Thursday that you were alerted ahead of time that there would be a demonstration, isn’t that correct? A Yes. Q You were advised that a group would be acting peacefully and would be opposing the death penalty, is that correct? A I was advised that a group would be protesting and arrests – that they did want to be arrested on the plaza. MS. KRAUT: I’m sorry. What was that? THE WITNESS: That they did want to be arrested.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q And you were told, weren’t you, that they were – someone told you that they would unfurl a banner on the plaza, is that correct? A No. I did not know about that. Q Now, you testified as to something called a Threat Assessment Unit. What is the Threat Assessment Unit? A It’s just members of our department who receive information regarding any threats to the Courts. Q And what was the conclusion of the Threat Assessment Unit with respect to this group? A Actually, I don’t know if they reached any conclusion. I think they were just passing on information to the shift. Q Nothing that came to your attention that indicated that the plaza needed to be closed for security reasons on that day, was there? A No. Q Nothing that indicated that this group would in any way endanger the peace and good order of the Supreme Court, was there? A I received no information other than there would be – they did desire to be arrested. Q You received a message that, in fact, they wanted to cooperate with the Supreme Court Police, isn’t that correct, sir? A I didn’t receive any information, other than what I said that the group was going to be there and that they were – they did desire to be arrested. Q Why didn’t you close off the plaza? A I’m sorry. Excuse me, sir? Q Why didn’t you close off the plaza? A It’s not my authority in that capacity to close off the plaza prior to a demonstration. Q Was there any serious discussion as to whether or not the plaza should be closed on that day? A Not to my knowledge. Q Now, you testified that on January 17th, you observed a demonstration against the death penalty on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court, isn’t that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And you testified that that demonstration involved speeches and news organizations taping the speeches, isn't that correct? A I did observe people videotaping. I couldn’t be sure if they were news organizations. Q Were there banners or placards used in that demonstration? A Yes. Q Do you have any idea about the number and size and widths of those banners and placards? A I believe one was laid out on the sidewalk area. And there were some placards that were being carried. I don’t know the size or width of any of them. Q The one that was laid out on the sidewalk, that took up a significant portion of the sidewalk, did it not? A It was laid out in an area, I believe it took only a portion of the sidewalk. I wouldn’t say significant. It’s very wide at that area at the bottom of the steps. Q Now, you had no security concerns about taking up that portion of that sidewalk – the banner taking up that portion of the sidewalk? A No. Q Now, were there microphones used by the demonstrators during this demonstration? A Yes. THE COURT: You mean a sidewalk demonstration? MR. GOLDSTONE: The sidewalk, yes, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Were you aware whether or not the demonstrators opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the death penalty? A No, I was not. Q Were you aware that the demonstrators opposed the death penalty? A No. I did not pay much attention to it, to tell you the truth. Q Were there death penalty cases that were decided that day at the Supreme Court, to the best of your knowledge? A Not to my knowledge. Q Were there death penalty cases being argued that day, to the best of your knowledge? A No. Q Were you aware of any prisoners that might have been executed by a state that day? A Not to my knowledge. Q Were you made aware at any time that January 17th is an important date in our history, that it’s 20 years since the Supreme Court allowed the executions, the state executions? A No, I was not made aware of that. Q Now, you testified that a group went onto the steps and began to unfurl a banner, isn’t that correct? A Yes. Q Now you, on Thursday testified about the chanting. But isn’t it true that people on the sidewalk were also chanting? A I know there were some speeches being given on the sidewalk. There may have been some chanting as well. Q Is it fair to say that the group that displayed the banner on the steps or unfurled the banner on the steps was sympathetic with the demonstration that was taking place on the sidewalk? A I don’t have any knowledge of that. Q Did they seem to be in conflict with one another or supportive of one another? A They appeared supportive. Q And how did they appear to be supportive, the two actions, how did the two actions appear sympathetic to you? A Just the fact that some of the people who were involved in the protest or demonstration got on the sidewalk, public sidewalk, did join the protestors on the steps. Q Okay. Now, how long after the banner had been unfurled did you made the demonstration that a violation of law was taking place? A Basically it was fairly recognizable and it was after a few moments. I mean, I recognized it was a violation immediately almost. Q Would you have seized the banner, had you seen the banner before it had been unfurled? A No. Q Would you have seized the banner if the demonstrators had been unable to get it unfurled? A I’m sorry, where would – are you talking about on the steps now? Q Yes. A No. Q You would not have seized the banner? A Not at that particular time. Q In other words, your testimony is that you would have allowed for the banner to be unfurled, and then you would have called for officers to snatch the banner? A We would – we don’t approach situations if there’s a potential for danger. We always will have a backup available. Q I guess my question really is about he banner, not about security concerns. Would you have physically removed the banner, had they been unable to get it unfurled? A With the officers we had there at the time for security concerns, because of security concerns, we would not have tried to remove the banner from them, no. And there would have been no reason to at that point. Q Now, isn’t it true that you testified that you immediately gave a warning that the individuals were in violation of the law? A I wouldn’t say it was immediately. There were a few moments that elapsed before I gave the warning. Q Now, you – were you responsible for filling out the police paperwork, the Supreme Court police paperwork in this case? A No. Q Were you responsible for supervising that paperwork? A Supervising, yes. Q Okay. If one were to read the paperwork, would there be any mention of chanting by the group that gathered on the steps? A I don’t believe so. Q So if I showed you the police forms and statement of facts, that would not indicate that the chanting played a role in your determination that a violation had occurred, isn't that correct? A That would be correct that the chanting alone did no – did not affect my decision on whether they were in violation. Q And the fact that they were wearing sweatshirts on the steps with a communicative message, that did not play a role in your decision that there was a violation, isn't that correct?? A No, that did not. Q Now, on January 17th, you testified that the Supreme Court was open to the public. There was no police line preventing individuals from gaining to the steps, was there? A No. Q There were no barricades? A No. Q There was no police tape? A No. Q So if I can understand what you’re saying, people were allowed to gather there on the steps and on the plaza of the Supreme Court on January 17th, but in your determination, they were not allowed to display a banner there, is that a fair reading? A No, that is not correct. If groups gather on the steps and they’re in procession and they’re moving or they’re standing in addition to that, to hold banners or flags or anything or trying to convey a message to bring it in public notice, then they’re in violation. Q All right. What if – what if a group of 18 individuals had stood behind a banner that said – a group of school children and stood behind a banner approximately 30 feet wide, approximately 4 feet high that said, Wingate Elementary School. What would the response of your office be? MR. MARCUS: Objection, hypothetical, Your Honor. THE COURT: Yes. You can ask him if he’s ever encountered that.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Have you ever encountered that situation I’ve just described? A No, I have not. Q Was anyone’s movement to get into the Court restricted? A At what time, sir? Q At the time that the group gathered on the steps and unfurled the banner? A Once I realized that it was a demonstration in progress, I gave orders to close the entire plaza. Q Isn’t it true that Justices, staffers and visitors could have gotten into the Court during that time that you – that the banner was unfurled? A People could have entered the building. But are you talking about from that particular location? Q Yes. A As I said, once – once the demonstration began, they would not be able to enter that area. The area was closed off due to public safety reasons. Q It’s your testimony that no one could have walked around it? A At that particular time, yes. Q I believe it was your testimony on Thursday in response to Mr. Halperin that, in fact, individual’s movement was unrestricted, isn’t that correct? A He, I believe, was asking me if there was room for people to move along the side if they chose to. I said if people had chosen to walk along that side, they would have been able to get around. Q Right. And it would have taken a few seconds to walk around the group? A There was room. I think he was trying to find out if there was room on the sides, and, yes, there was room on the sides, a small amount of area on each side of the banner. Q Now, let’s turn to the video even though it’s not here. Let’s turn to the videocassette. Now, you testified that an individual spoke at the demonstration on the sidewalk of the Supreme Court. And we saw some footage of that. Now, is it true that the individual that you referred to in your testimony, spoke through – spoke through a microphone on the sidewalk? A Yes, I believe she did. Q And that wasn’t a problem for you? A No. Q She was not arrested because of speaking though a microphone? A No, she was not. Q Were you aware of whether or not she was speaking against the rulings of the Supreme Court? A No, I was not aware what she was speaking about. Q Now, it’s true that that individual was later arrested, wasn’t she? A That’s correct. Q Okay. And it wasn’t until she climbed the steps and unfurled a banner that she was arrested, isn’t that correct? A She was up on the steps and refused to leave the area. Q It wasn’t her chanting or singing that got her arrested, was it? A No. She was with a group that was protesting in violation of Title 40, Section 13(k). That’s why she was arrested. Q What specifically was it that caused you to place that individual under arrest? A She refused - she was warned twice verbally by myself and then once by the officer who actually took her into custody. Q What was she doing that caused her to be arrested? A She was acting in unison with a group taking part in a demonstration on the steps. Q By doing that, what was she doing? A She was standing in an area with a group, and they were holding a banner on the steps area that was in violation of 13(k). Q All right. If she had been with that group and holding a banner on the sidewalk, you’re saying that she would not have been arrested, isn’t that correct? A That’s correct. Q All right. So it’s the location of the gathering that’s of concern to you, isn't that correct?? A That’s correct. Q Now, it was your testimony in response to the questions from pro se Defendant Halperin that those who unfurled the banner did not use any amplification devise, isn't that correct? A Other than normal amplification, as far as I can recall. Q And there were no bullhorns or anything used by the group on the street? A To the best of my knowledge, no. Q Now, isn’t it true, Officer, that the act of unfurling the banner on the steps of the Supreme Court did not compromise the dignity of the Supreme Court? THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Isn’t it true, Officer, that the unfurling of this banner did not compromise the decorum of the Court? MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Isn’t it true, Officer, that the unfurling of the banner was not a disruptive action to the safe operation of the Supreme Court? MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Disruptive action to the safe – I think he could answer. Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Can you repeat it again? MR. GOLDSTONE: Can I ask the Court Reporter to read that back? THE REPORTER: “Question: Isn’t it true, Officer, that the unfurling of the banner was not a disruptive action to the safe operation of the Supreme Court?” THE COURT:In this Officer’s mind, is that what you’re asking? MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes. THE COURT: In your mind? Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Okay. In your mind? THE WITNESS: In my mind it was a disruption, because it was a demonstration. I viewed it as a clear demonstration that was taking place. For that, it was a disruption, I believe.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Are all demonstrations disruptive on that – in that location? A It depends on the demonstration, I suppose, that you’re talking about. Could you be a little more definitive on your question? Q So there can be a demonstration on the steps that is not disruptive, isn’t that correct? THE COURT: Not disruptive or not disruptive to the safe operation of the Court? MR. GOLDSTONE: Correct, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Not disruptive to the safe operation of the Court that could take place on the steps? A Well, I think, again we’re talking demonstrations, each time we have demonstrations, the public interest comes to mind. If it’s a demonstration in that area, it’s my responsibility to make sure no individual gets hurt, including our officers. So we take them all seriously and I think it is disruptive. Q All demonstrations? A When we’re dealing and it affects the officers around us, yes, I think it takes on a disruptive nature. Q Was there any threat to individuals – individuals on that day by the group that gathered on the steps? THE COURT: Physical threat? MR. GOLDSTONE: Physical threats. THE COURT: Any physical threat to the individuals? THE WITNESS: The fact that they were forced to be arrested, I think their being arrested on the plaza is a threat to our officers. We view it as a threat.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Was there any threat to any property of the Supreme Court? A Not that I saw. MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Officer, do you know what the distance is between – or how many columns are there at that front entrance of the Supreme Court? A Oh, I couldn’t say exactly. Q How long have you worked on the police force? A Going on 12 years. Q 12 years. Do you know what the distance is from one column to another? A One column to another? Q Yes. A No, I don’t. Q What’s the distance – how many, let’s say how many – oh – ordinary American cards, you know, mid-sized cards – THE COURT: Could you pick out a place in the courtroom? It might be easier if we just pick out a place in the courtroom, if you could estimate the width? THE WITNESS: The width of what?
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q The width, going from the top – what’s the width of the plaza? A The plaza? Q From the – I guess it would be the north side of the plaza to the south side of the plaza? A Are you talking the center or by the steps, because it’s wider in certain areas than others. Q What’s the widest part of the plaza? A It’s a wide area. I don’t know. Q In terms of the size from where the Judge is sitting or from whether you’re sitting to the doors entering, the first set of doors here entering the courtroom? A It would extend beyond that. Q Well, how many of these – A You could probably fit three courtrooms in there. Q Three? A Three lengths of the courtroom. Q At least, wouldn’t you say? A I would say you probably could, sir. MS. KRAUT: Could I have this marked? Could you mark Defendant Bonowitz’ Number – 6 or 7 – I think 6.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Lieutenant, I’m going to show you what’s been marked as Defendant Bonowitz’ Exhibit Number 6, and ask you to take a look at it – THE COURT: I’m sorry. Have the other pro se defendants look at it. MS. KRAUT: I’m sorry, Your Honor. Let me pass this one around while we’re waiting for that one.
(Pause.) DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q While they’re looking at it, can you tell the Court, please, what that is, or do you want it back? A Sure, I’d like to see it back. But does it look like it’s the front of the Supreme Court building. Q On what day? A It looks like the date of the 17th of January Q And what’s – in terms of distance, can you approximate by looking at that picture, in terms of distance from one end of the banner to the other, about how long that is, that distance? A The distance from one end of the banner to the other, you mean how long the banner is? Q Let’s say if you’re looking at the left, the left side of the banner, how much to the side, how much – how many feet would it be? A How much clearance is on each side? Q Yes. A I would like to see the picture again. Q All right. From – as you’re looking at the picture, Lieutenant, if you take the left side of the banner, bringing – going over towards the other side of the steps area, about how many feet would that be, would you say? A Using your example earlier, maybe it would be one and a half t one and three-quarters American large sized cars. Q All right. How many columns do you see on that side in the space area? A Two, it looks like towards the end, but there’s one further beyond the steps, would be a third. Q All right. Isn’t it true that – let me also give you Bonowitz Number 7 and let me ask you to identify that. Would you identify Number 7, too, please? A It appears to be the same direction as the other picture and looks like the same day. Q All right. And there - by the way, there are some people, other people on the steps, aren’t there? A That’s correct. Q All right. Not just – not just the people holding the banner, correct? A That is correct. Q And the same is true for Number 7? A That’s correct, yes. Q And they’re not being blocked or anything like that, are they? A Not at that particular time. Q Well, was anybody being – blocked at any time? A Yes, the plaza was cleared. Q Was cleared. But my question is, did the people holding the banner block anyone? A Blocked people – Q Blocked anyone? A Blocked the front area there. Q Did they – A They blocked the center portion of the steps. Q Did they block anyone from entering or leaving the Supreme Court building? A I don’t know if anybody tried to enter into that area. I don’t think – once the demonstration started, we cleared the plaza, so we didn’t permit anybody to go over to that area. Q Once the banner holding started, you cleared the plaza, right? A Correct. Q They didn’t clear the plaza, right? A I cleared the plaza for public safety reasons. Q They didn’t clear the plaza, is my question, did they? A No, they did not. Q And they didn’t block anyone from entering or leaving the front entrance of the Supreme Court, did they? A In my view they blocked the sidewalk area, the center portion sidewalk of the steps. Q Well, shall I show this to you again and you show me where n this picture it is that somebody cannot go around and e nter the front door of the Supreme Court, if they wanted to. MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor, to argument. THE COURT: I’m going to sustain it. I think I understand the testimony.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q All right. Isn’t there a side entrance to the Supreme Court on Maryland Avenue? A That’s correct. Q And don’t lawyers who want to file petitions who are served on other people who have business before the Court, don’t they, as a matter of ordinary practice, use the center – the side entrance to that – MR. MARCUS: Objection to relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I don’t know the ordinary practice. I think, because the Clerk’s office is located in that area, they probably would predominantly use that entrance, if they are aware of it.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q And in fact, if I as a strange in town wanted to file a petition or get an opinion, for example, and I approached you standing on the plaza and said, can you tell me where I can get a petition, or file my petition for served, you would probably direct me around to the side entrance because that’s where the Clerk’s office is, isn’t that correct? A That would probably be accurate. Q All right. Now, you said during Mr. Goldstone’s examination that – something about being a threat or that the people holding the banner were a threat? A In all arrest situations we view the people being arrested as a potential threat to our officers. Q My question is, what did these people do exactly that presented a threat, what was threatening? A They refused to leave the area under our direction. Q So the leaving of the area was the thing that was threatening, not the holding of the banner, is that correct? A The holding of the banner was not necessarily the threat. It was that they refused to leave and the fact that we had to place them under arrest and put hands on them, that was threatening in itself. Q So anytime you arrest somebody, that’s a threat, right? A We – we view it as a threat, yes, to our officers. Q But just so we have real clarity here, their holding the banner on the steps was not a threat, is that correct? THE COURT: He said that. Now, there’s a difference between clarity and repetition. MS. KRAUT: All right. THE COURT: I understand the testimony.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINED
Q You were contacted or your office was contacted they day before in regards to this holding of the banner? A I’m not certain on when our office was contacted. Q Well, who told you about it? A I believe it was a Sergeant from our Threats Assessment that passed it on. I don’t know if it was – Q Who was that? What is his name or her name? A I believe it was Sergeant Johnson, but I couldn’t be – Q Does Sergeant Johnson have a first name? A Would be Jackie. Q So Sergeant Johnson told you – and what exactly did Sergeant Johnson tell you? A I believe it was just the fact that there was a demonstration coming up, would be on the 17th, and the individuals involved in the demonstration did wish to be arrested. They did, in fact, indicate that they wanted to be arrested on that day. Q So, in other words, anybody who wants to be arrested, all they have to do is call your office and they can virtually decide whether they want to be arrested or not? A No, that’s not correct. They have to be in violation. Q Because they wanted to be – because you claim that you were told that they wanted to be arrested you decided to arrest them, right? A No, ma’am. Q If they had said that they didn’t want to be arrested, would you have arrested them? A No, that’s not the case. MR. MARCUS: Objection to the form, Your Honor THE COURT: I’ll let the answer stand.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q All right. Now, you have, I presume, been present in your 12 years with the Supreme Court Police when they’ve held press conferences on the plaza? A yes, I have. Q And have you ever – some of those things can be chaotic, I would say? A Press conferences? I guess it depends on your view or your definition of chaotic. Q Busy. Busy. Lots of crowds? A They can be busy. Q Lots of wires and cameras? A We try to confine it to a certain area, if we can. Q What area? A Towards the left side, normally. Q Towards the left side. So you make accommodations for the press conferences, is that correct? A I don’t personally, no. Q But the Supreme Court does, right? A They have. Q Okay. And you have never arrested any member of the press, have you? A No, I have not. Q Have you ever arrested any person or person who had T-shirts with some sort of message? A I’m not sure I follow your question. Q With a message – A Because of the T-shirt? Q With a message – T-shirt that says, I’m against the death penalty. Three or four people up there, have you ever arrested them? A I haven’t arrested – I haven’t had a situation like that, no. Q You’ve never seen three or four people up on the plaza with T-shirts that say, I’m against the death penalty? A To my personal knowledge or are you talking about this particular incident? Q No. I’m talking about your personal knowledge. In your experience of 12 years have you ever arrested anyone or do you know of any arrests taking place by your police force of people who have T-shirts on that particular message? A I’m not – I don’t know of any personal – to my personal knowledge, I don’t know of any other instance – Q So – A - with that particular information on the shirt. Q And what about in your personal experience, have you ever arrested anyone with a bunch of school children, let’s say with American flags on their T shirts? A No. MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, who told you when to arrest these individuals with the banner? A No one told me to arrest these individuals. Q What did you have in mind on the 17th of January at 10:00, when you went out to the front of the Supreme Court building, in terms of the activity that was taking place? A I’m not sure what – Q What were you looking for? A I was just trying to be a presence on the plaza. Our officers were there just in case anything occurred at all. Q At what point did you type up your report or did the reports – Supreme Court reports get typed up? MR. MARCUS: Objection to the form Your Honor. It’s two questions in the question. THE COURT: Right. I think she was intending the last question to be answered.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q At what point did the Supreme Court reporters get typed up? A You’re talking about the reports’ entirety, that would have been during the arrest process. Q During the arrest process? A No. During the actual processing of the prisoners. Q You had a typewriter right there? A No. We have a printer upstairs. Q Upstairs. So these people were arrested at 10:00 or 10:05 – A Sometime after 10:00 Q 10:05 or something. And did you run upstairs and type up this information? MR. MARCUS: Objection, relevance, Your Honor. THE COURT: It’s a Jencks inquiry. Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Did you run upstairs and type up this information? A No, I did not. Q Who did? A One of our officers would have been typing up the information. Q Was the officer already in some office – A No, he was – Q - and you were on a walkie-talkie or what? A He was part of the processing team. Q At what point did he go and type up this information? A I don’t know exactly what point in time that, you know, it was typed up. Q Isn’t it true that every single report is exactly the same for each one of these people who were arrested on January 17th? A I wouldn’t say exactly the same, no. Q You wouldn’t? A No. Q What is – what differences exist? A I think they’re individualized. THE COURT: This is a relevance problem, if its not Jencks as to him. Unless you can proffer some relevance? MS. KRAUT: No. Just inquiring, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. KRAUT: I do have one other question about it, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Isn’t it true that you actually typed up these reports the morning of or the day before this event actually occurred? THE COURT: He didn’t – MR. MARCUS: Objection. THE COURT: - type them up.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Isn’t it true that you had prepared these reporters prior to the day, to the time of the demonstration? MR. MARCUS: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I believe that we had information. What we have done in the past is prepare for any type of situation that would occur. And we have reports on file that we use as samples. Some information may have been gathered that morning in preparation for arrests, if arrests were made.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So anytime – what do you mean, do you have reports? THE COURT: He has samples of reports, he said.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You have samples of reports, for what? A For a number of different situations that occur in court. Anywhere from found property to accident reports. Q So, you have something under the heading of First Amendment activity reports? A No. MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You don’t? A No, we do not. Q Well, what are they filed under? A What are what filed under? Q What – you have characterized the activity that occurred on January 17th as demonstration activity, and I put that in quotes since I don’t agree with that. So what – what category, if you have had – if you have reporters already prepared as samples, what category are they filed under? You just said something about found property reports, you know, hurt, somebody gets physically injured, reports, what kind of reports – what is this filed under? A Arrest reports. Q Arrest reports. Just generally arrest reports? A That’s correct. Q And so all your arrest reports have – have stuff like, between certain hours and certain hours on certain date, approximately X people have held a demonstration; all of your arrest reports have that? A They may be somewhat similar. I wouldn’t say they all have that. Q Somewhat similar. So somebody threatens somebody with a knife on a plaza, you’re going to have something along that line, is that what you’re saying? MR. MARCUS: Objection. THE COURT: Yes. Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Did any of the employees in the Supreme Court complain about any of the activity that occurred there that day? THE COURT: You mean prior to the arrest or after the arrest? MS. KRAUT: Prior to the arrest Your Honor. THE COURT: Prior to the arrest, had you received any complaints from any individuals? THE WITNESS: Not that I’m aware of.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q But you would be, because you’re the officer in charge and you would be aware of that, wouldn’t you? A Oh, people in the building just complaining? Q Yes. A Not necessarily. Q Wouldn’t they call you up and say, hey Lieutenant Dolan, get – do something about it, these people are out there holding a banner? A Not necessarily. Q It bothers me? A Not necessarily. Q The amount of time that press conferences occur on the Supreme Court plaza in terms of duration, you don’t have any rules about that, do you, in terms of how long the activity can take place? MR. MARCUS: Objection to the foundation of the question, Your Honor. She hasn’t established that he would or would not have any rules with respect to that. MS. KRAUT: I’m asking – THE COURT: That’s what she’s asking, if there are rules. I think it’s an appropriate question. Do you have any rules concerning the duration, that you’re aware of? THE WITNESS: No, not that I’m aware of. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED BY MS. KRAUT: Q And you would be aware because you are – A Nothing in writing. Q Nothing in writing? A That I’m aware of. Q Now, your report doesn’t say anything, by the way, about having to – THE COURT: It’s not his report. You have to lay a foundation for it. MS. KRAUT: I think I’ll just withdraw that, Your Honor, that question, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. MS. KRAUT: And I think – one more question, Your Honor? THE COURT: Uh-huh.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q In terms of noise level that occurs on the steps or on the plaza of the Supreme Court, for example when school children are there and so on, you don’t go around with some sort of noise machine to find out how loud they’re speaking, do you? A No. Q They can – people can speak in normal voices and not risk arrest, isn’t that correct? A That’s correct. Q Your bullhorn was quite loud, was it not, when you made your announcements? A It was loud. Q Louder than the chanting that took place, isn’t that correct? A I hoped it to be, yes. That was the reason. Q But it was louder, yes? A Yes. MS. KRAUT: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin, do you have any questions? DEFENDANT LAFFIN: Nothing. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Peck, any questions? DEFENDANT PECK: No. THE COURT: Mr. Streit? DEFENDANT STREIT: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Charkoudian? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Halperin inquired. Ms. Jaeger, any questions? DEFENDANT JAEGER: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Pautrat – Ms. Pautrat? DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scahill? DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Any redirect? MR. EMORY: Yes, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Good morning, Lieutenant Dolan. A Good morning, sir. Q On cross-examination, you indicated that you closed the plaza? A That’s correct. Q Why did you do that? A For public safety reasons, because of the potential for arrests. I viewed it as a threat to other people and to ourselves and we did close the plaza to protect other individuals. Q The fact that others were able to get around the demonstrators, did that make any difference to you as far as safety? A No. Q You were asked on cross-examination questions as to the messages tat were being given by the demonstrators in support of or against the death penalty – MS. KRAUT: Objection. Your Honor, my continuing objection is still operative, I presume, so I don’t have to get up every two seconds to object to the word, demonstrators? THE COURT: That’s fine. MR. EMORY: May I continue, Your Honor? THE COURT: Uh-huh.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Did the message or the issue in any way affect your decision to make these arrests? A No, it did not. Q You provided the individuals several warnings, is that not correct? A yes. MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, it was not addressed during cross-examination about message, how many times all of that stuff was – THE COURT: Okay. Overruled.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Why did you give the warnings? A I viewed this as a demonstration that they were in violation of the Title 40 Section 13(k), and they were asked to leave peacefully without being arrested. Q The individuals – THE COURT: Can I just inquire? If it’s a demonstration, violation of the law, why don’t you just arrest just right then, why didn’t you make the arrest? THE WITNESS: It’s a personal thing. Myself, I like to give individuals warnings to leave the area first, just to make sure that there is – that it’s absolutely clear that they are in violation, that they know they’re in violation, and I usually like to give three warnings before making an arrest.
THE COURT: Thank you.
BY MR. EMORY: Q In your experience, Lieutenant Dolan, have there been other situations similar to this in which individuals were on the plaza conducting a demonstration? A Yes. Q And did you follow the same procedure? A Yes. Q You provided warnings? A Yes. Q And in any of those instances, was it also necessary to make arrests? A Yes, they were. Q On how many occasions, do you recall? A There were two other occasions that I was involved with other than this one. Q And in each of those instances did you concern yourself with the issues that were being offered? A No, I did not. Q You were asked on cross-examination, if children wearing T-shirts in support of certain issues were standing on the plaza to have their picture taken, would you arrest those children for having their pictures taken? MR. GOLDSTONE: I think that’s a mischaracterization. THE COURT: I think it’s – I’ve tried to refrain both sides from asking hypotheticals. I asked him, if he has in the past. MR. EMORY: I’ll correct it, Your Honor. I will withdraw that.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Have you ever arrested children for having their pictures taken on the plaza? A No. Q If individuals were standing shoulder to shoulder to have their pictures taken, have you ever arrested them? A No. Q If they were standing shoulder to shoulder for an extended period having their pictures taken, would you have directed them to move so that others could get through? A Yes, we have cleared the area so people can have access. Q The individuals on this date who were on the plaza, were they assembled in a group? A Yes, they were. Q You were asked if they had not unfurled the banner, would you have arrested them. A If they gathered in a group and refused to leave, yes. Q Have you arrested anyone for carrying a banner up on the plaza that was unfurled – I mean, that was folded up and not displayed? A No. Personally I have not. Q Would you have any way of knowing if it was a banner that was folded up? MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled – sustained, I mean.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You were asked about the information you received from your Threat Assessment Unit. A Yes, sir. Q What does that information allow you to do, as far as your operation? A Make sure that we have the proper manpower on duty on that particular day, should arrests be made. Q You testified that, on cross, you were told individuals wanted to be arrested? A That’s correct. Q Did you make your decision at that point, that you were going to arrest these individuals? A At what point? Q At the point when you were told that individuals wanted to be arrested, had you made your decision at that point that they would be arrested? A No. Q You were asked about the forms that were filled out. Why are those filled out in advance? A Because of the arrest process. It’s a long process. When we have mass arrests, we also have to look at different avenues that we might pursue, whether we can use a mass arrest form or not. And if we can’t use a mass arrest form, it’s a long process and time consuming. Q And the general information that’s included in there, what type of information would that be? A As far as the mass arrest or the – Q Yes, the mass arrest. A Just the basic information, very basic information about he individual and the violation that occurred. Q Is that only intended to save time? A That’s correct, it’s to save time. Q In your decision on this occasion and in the past – MS. KRAUT: Objection – MR. EMORY: I’ll rephrase the question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q In your decision to make the arrest on this occasion, was it necessary that the entire plaza be blocked? A I’m not sure I follow you. To make the arrests? Q Yes. The area – THE COURT: I’m not sure he understands. Could you rephrase the question. MR. EMORY: I’ll rephrase the question. THE COURT: Not cleared. The question is whether it should have been cleared. He’s asking you a different question. Is that correct, Mr. Emory? MR. EMORY: Yes. THE COURT: Okay.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q In your decision to make- when you looked at what the demonstrators were doing, was it necessary that they block the entire plaza, before you made the decision to arrest? MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, the form of the question – THE COURT: I understand the question. MS. KRAUT: He’s saying – he’s trying to imply that the – that the people holding the banner blocked the entire plaza. THE COURT: No. He’s asking – MS. KRAUT: And there’s no foundation at all about that. THE COURT: I think you misunderstand the question. Do you understand the question? THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. THE COURT: Okay. You may answer. THE WITNESS: No, it was not – it was not necessary for them to block the stairs to be arrested. MS. KRAUT: Who is they? I don’t know who we’re talking about here any more. Are they – THE COURT: I understand the question. MS. KRAUT: Are they the banner holders or are they the police? THE COURT: If you have an objection. MS. KRAUT: I am objecting, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Who are they? THE WITNESS: That would be the same banner holders and the demonstrators. THE COURT: Okay. MR. EMORY: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down, Lieutenant. THE WITNESS: Thank you. THE COURT: Please don’t discuss your testimony with anyone during the pendency of this case. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, if I – THE COURT: Lieutenant, if you could remain seated. I’ll just say. MS. KRAUT: Briefly. THE COURT: Yes. If there are factual matters, not try to argue your case through questions. I mean, I take fairly good notes and I have a good memory, so let’s not argue the case through questions. MS. KRAUT: All right. RECROSS EXAMINATION: BY MS. KRAUT: Q Lieutenant you referred to, you said there were two other times when – when you were involved in arrests on the Supreme Court Plaza when there were people exercising their First Amendment Rights? MR. MARCUS: Objection. MS. KRAUT: Is that correct? MR. MARCUS: First Amendment – THE COURT: He said there were two other events concerning demonstration arrests that he was involved with. RECROSS EXAMINATION: CONTINUED BY MS. KRAUT: Q Is that correct? A Yes, there were two other arrests. Q One involved, there was an anti-abortion protest, is that correct, involving about 50,000 protestors, right? A There was an abortion issue, yes. Q And there were 50,000 people in front of the Supreme Court, is that correct? A There was a large number. I can’t remember exactly the number at this time. Q And in the second one, there was also an anti-death penalty event, is that correct? A Not the one that I was involved in, no. Q You weren’t involved in the one with the coffin, when they brought the coffin up onto the – A No, I was not involved in that. Q All right. The second one, that did say anti-death penalty, right? A Yes. Q With the coffin and you were not involved in that? A No, I was not involved in that. Q All right. No, you didn’t – one last question – you didn’t tell the people who were holding the banner that they could go stand somewhere else on the plaza area, did you ? A No, I did not. THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. Please don’t discuss your testimony with anyone. Does the government have any additional evidence? MR. MARCUS: No, Your Honor, with the exception of rebuttal, we will close our case. THE COURT: Okay. Government rests at this point. Any motions, Mr. Goldstone? To Index MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, we move for judgment of acquittal. And I would like to submit on the motion to dismiss that has been filed by co-counsel this morning. THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Goldstone, on behalf of his clients, has filed what’s called a motion for judgment of acquittal, which means that as an argument that the government has failed to introduce sufficient evidence in which conviction could be rendered, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. I’m going to ask each pro se defendant whether or not they join in that motion? DEFENDANT LAFFIN: Judge, we shouldn’t be charged with any crime. We have committed no crime. Therefore, we shouldn’t be here in the first place. Therefore, I feel that the government has failed to produce any evidence supporting prosecuting us and we should be acquitted. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Laffin joins in the motion for judgment of acquittal, in addition to the reasons stated. Ms. Peck, do you join in the motion for judgment of acquittal? DEFENDANT PECK: I do. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit? DEFENDANT STREIT: I agree. THE COURT: Ms. Charkoudian? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: I agree we should be acquitted. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Halperin? DEFENDANT HALPERIN: May I ask a point of information or clarification? THE COURT: This is not a law school class. DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Well I though not. Will this motion to acquit, this is for all people sitting here at this moment? THE COURT: Each. Each individual has to join in the motion. If you wish to join in the motion, that’s fine. If you don’t wish to join in the motion, that’s fine. MR. HALPERIN: And a failure to join in the motion would result in what, Your Honor? THE COURT: That there would be no ruling in the motion for judgment of acquittal. DEFENDANT HALPERIN: I do not join. THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Jaeger? DEFENDANT JAEGER: I move for judgment of acquittal. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Pautrat? DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: I will, as well, for the same reasons as stated by Mr. Laffin. THE COURT: Thank you. And Mr. Scahill? DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I join, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Kraut? MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I need to talk with my client for a minute. (Pause.) THE COURT: Ms. Kraut? MS. KRAUT: Thank you. Your Honor, we will, as far as Mr. Bonowitz is concerned – let’s see how I can put this – in relation to the – the First Amendment motion is concerned, we ask to dismiss the case because the government has failed to adequately prove that these defendants were doing anything – that these defendants’ activities – or that Mr. Bonowitz’ activity was not protected by the First Amendment. And for my supporting reasons, I’ll cite a motion to dismiss. As far as the MJOA is concerned – I don’t want to waive that – THE COURT: You have to assert it. MS. KRAUT: So I guess I’ll assert it. THE COURT: Okay. MS. KRAUT: And at the same time, we will adopt the – maybe we can make this nun pro tunc to the beginning of the case when the government made identifications, we made a stipulation with 13 of the defendants. Mr. Bonowitz opted out of that. We’re now going to join it, because otherwise Mister – we’re going to join that stipulation nun pro tunc to the beginning of the case. So as far as the identification is concerned, that is not an issue. As far as the MJOA is concerned, that is, Your Honor, it’s kind of complex. The government didn’t make an opening statement and the Court apparently recognized – or adopted the government’s opening, so that it would be resting upon the statements of fact that existed in the government’s responses to the motion to dismiss and other papers, I guess, that had been filed. As far as the banner part of the charge of 13(k), I don’t believe the government has made out its case for the reasons stated in my motion. And as far as the first clause, I don’t believe they’ve made out its case. Nor do I think that what they alleged in their opening statement, I don’t believe that they proved whatever was in their papers, whatever it is that the Court’s going to rely on for their opening. So I’m sort of – this is like a blunderbuss attack on the entire prosecution. They failed to satisfy what they alleged in the documents that they submitted here, since they didn’t make an opening statement as both sections of 13(k). And in addition, above and beyond that, they simply failed to prove the first as well as the second facts sufficient to prove the elements of – that constituted the first and second clauses of 13(k). THE COURT: Thank you. Let me ask the government, is the government accepting Mr. Bonowitz’ offer to stipulate as to identity? MR. MARCUS: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. The government does not stipulate. With respect to motion for judgments of acquittal, I have to accept the evidence in the light most favorable to the government at this point to feel there’s sufficient evidence to support a conviction, taken in the light most favorable to the government. So with respect to those defendants who have asserted, I will deny the motion for judgment of acquittal. With respect to the motion to dismiss, I will reserve. Mr. Goldstone? MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. With respect to the defense case, I would like to waive my opening statement. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDSTONE: With respect to the defense presentation, we would like to have Ms. Tracudian conduct the direct examination of Ms. Jaeger, subject to Ms. Jaeger’s health availability. THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on one second. I know this seems a little procedurally officious, but what I want to do is ask whether or not you have any evidence on behalf of the clients whom you represent? MR. GOLDSTONE: With respect to the motion of judgment of acquittal? THE COURT: No. In your defense case, do you have any evidence on behalf of the clients whom you represent? MR. GOLDSTONE: Any physical evidence? THE COURT: Or testimonial evidence? MR. GOLDSTONE: I expect to produce testimonial evidence, yes. THE COURT: Okay. Then why don’t you do that. MR. GOLDSTONE: Okay. Your Honor, I would like to call Bill Pelke to the stand. THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Pelke. MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, would it be possible for Ms. Tracudian to begin the examination of Mr. Pelke? THE COURT: Actually, it’s easier for me to keep my notes straight, if I go in order. Why don’t we just try it this way, unless it becomes too burdensome to the defense. MR. GOLDSTONE: Very well. To Index
Thereupon,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Good morning, Mr. Pelke. Please state your name A William Robert Pelke. Q And where do you reside? A Portage, Indiana. Q How far did you go in school? A I graduated from college. Q Are you currently employed? A No, I’m not. Q What do you do with your time? A I’m traveling around the country, speaking out against the death penalty. Q Now, when you were employed, what were you doing? A I worked at Bethlehem Steel for thirty and a half years. I retired this past 14th – on the 14th anniversary of my grandmother’s murder. Q And what were you doing at Bethlehem Steel? A For twenty-eight and a half years, I was the head crane operator. Q Now, did you participate in a gather at the Supreme Court on January 17th, 1997? A Yes, sir, I did. Q And why did you participate in that demonstration – in that gathering? A Well, I have been doing whatever I have been able to do for the last ten years to speak out against the death penalty. I was at the Supreme Court, basically four years ago when we started a fast and vigil, as we do annually. We were told that freedom of speech stopped at the first steps of the Supreme Court. It struck me as very ironic, as it’s the Supreme Court that protects our free speech. And that’s why I was involved in the actions at the Supreme Court. Q Why did you choose to go to the Supreme Court of all possible locations to express your concerns? A Because it’s the Supreme Court that has made the decision that it’s all right to kill. Q What’s wrong with that? A I believe that it’s wrong to kill in any situation. It’s not necessary. Q Do you have any personal experiences that you can relate that bring you to that conclusion? MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. GOLDSTONE: Well, Your Honor, it’s just background information. THE COURT: Right. It’s sustained. MR. GOLDSTONE: It could be succinct, Your Honor. MR. MARCUS: We withdraw the objection. THE COURT: Succinct being the operative word.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Are there any personal experiences that you could tell us briefly that would allow that – that caused you to go to the Court on the 17th? A Well, basically involved with the murder of my grandmother, is what got me involved in this, is when a 15 year old girl who was involved in her murder was sentenced to death. And I became involved in that case, trying to get her off of death row. Q You came to believe in the power of reconciliation? A Absolutely. Q Now, turning your attention to January 17th, what time did you specifically arrive at the Court that day? A I’m not sure. But it was somewhere, I believe, in the area of 10:00. Q Do you recall the weather that day? A It was cold. Q What did you do when you first got to the Court that day? A When I got to the Court, came around on the side entrance and walked up the stairs with a group of people and walked up the stairs, the top stairs and unfurled a banner that said, Stop Executions. Q And what was your intention in unfurling the banner that said, Stop Executions? A My personal intention was to draw attention to the fact that there were some people in this country that are opposed to state killings, and to let other people know about it. Q You were there to communicate a message? A Yes, I was. Q You weren’t there to disrupt the Court, were you? A Absolutely not. Q Were you there to upset the integrity of the Court? MR. MARCUS: Objection, leading. THE COURT: Overruled.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You can answer the question, were you there to upset the integrity of the Court? A Probably so. I’m not quite sure what you mean by the question. Q Did you pose a threat to any persons? A No, sir. Q Did you pose a threat to any police officer? A Absolutely not. Q Did you pose a threat to any tourists? A Absolutely not. Q Did you pose a threat to any journalists? A No, sir. Q Did you pose a threat to any co – well, any of your co-defendants that you gathered with? A No, sir. Q Was it your intention to prevent from gaining access to the Supreme Court that day? A No, sir. Q Was it your intention to prevent people from exiting the Supreme Court that day? A No, sir. Q No, sir. Q Was it your intention to prevent people from exiting the Supreme Court that day? A No, sir. MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further questions of this witness Your Honor. THE COURT: Ms. Kraut? MS. KRAUT: I have no questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin? DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Peck, any questions? DEFENDANT PECK: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit? DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Charkoudian? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Yes. THE COURT: Thank you. Can you just remind me how to pronounce your last name again? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Charkoudian. THE COURT: Charkoudian, thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q If we could take a step back and do some backup. You said that you are no longer working, you retired on the anniversary of your grandmother’s death. How is that relevant to what we’re doing here today? A Um – Q Why did you mention that? A Well, I retired on May 14th, which was the 12th anniversary of my grandmother’s death. It was a symbolic date that I chose to retire, because my grandmother’s life and death has influenced what I do with my life. Q And you did say that you – in response to the question, what are you doing now, you say you travel, speaking against the death penalty. What does that mean, what do you actually do? A Basically any format, in churches, schools, speaking a message of from violence to healing. Q From violence to healing. But what do you say to people? A That the answer is not the death penalty. The answer is love and compassion for humanity. Q What was your intent in going to the Supreme Court on January 17th? A To draw attention to the fact that there are people who have dedicated their lives to see that death penalty come to an end. Q And why on January 17th? A Because it’s the 20th anniversary of the Gary Gilmore execution, when this country once again allowed the killing of individuals. Q The 20th anniversary of when, the first execution? A Right. Q And have there been any executions since then? A I believe there’s been about 397 since then. I think this country has not killed 398 people legally, since the reinstatement of the death penalty. Q Were you attempting to disrupt the Court or block the entrance? A Absolutely not. Q Were you attempting to influence the Justices? A Only through the fact that I hope that some day that they would get the word, there were people dedicated to seeing this issue, the death penalty abolished. Q What did you want them – to get the word out? A That there were people that were dedicated to the fact that they could do whatever is necessary to see that the death penalty would some day come to an end in this country. Q And were you attempting to influence anyone else? A If other people around the country wanted to start making the same sort of stand and they were influenced by what we were doing, I was all for that. Q So you were holding a banner, is that right? A Yes, I was. Q What did the banner say? A Stop Executions. Q And what side of the banner was that? A I’m sorry? Q Which side of the banner said that? A The side that was facing out to the street. Q Was there anything on the other side of the banner? A I believe that there was Q Can you walk about what was on the other side of the banner? A I’m not really sure. I know some of the people were involved in holding the banner had signed some personal statements on it. I did not have the opportunity to do that and actually have not read those. Q Do you know what the nature of the messages may have been? A Just basically, I think, personal messages as to why people were there in dealing with any of the death penalty. Q Were you chanting? A Yes, I was. Q What were you chanting? A I don’t recall the chants, but it was basically the chanting, yes, but it was basically, you know, end the death penalty. Q All right. Were you singing? A I don’t think you call it that. Q Do you remember what you were singing? A I – one of the songs was, We shall not be swayed. Q We shall not be swayed. What does that mean, what do you mean by that? A That we have dedicated ourselves that we’re not going to move on this position and we’re going to keep continuing to fight this position until the death penalty is abolished. Q Now, you’re pleading not guilty. Can you talk about why you feel that you’re not guilty? A We didn’t do anything wrong. The wrong is allowing people to be killed by the state, and we were just giving that message out, best we could. Q So you’re saying that there was a wrong committed and it wasn’t committed by this group of people, is that right? A Absolutely. Q And so, who is committing that wrong? A The United States of America. DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No further questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Halperin, any questions? DEFENDANT HALPERIN: No questions, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. Jaeger, any questions? DEFENDANT JAEGER: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms Pautrat? DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No questions. THE COURT: No questions. Thank you. Mr. Scahill, any questions? DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No. THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I do have a couple questions based on what was just asked. THE COURT: No. Mr. Goldstone? MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further questions. THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down. MR. MARCUS: May we have cross-examination? THE COURT: Yes, I’m sorry. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, Mr. Goldstone does have a couple of questions. THE COURT: We have to have cross-examination. I overlooked that.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Pelke, this wasn’t just a demonstration to bring into public consciousness the death penalty issue, was it? A That would be how I would characterize it. Q In other words, it was also a fund raising opportunity, wasn’t it? A Not to my knowledge. It cost me a lot of money to be able to come here and do that. Q But aren’t you a member of the Abolitionist Action Committee? A Yeah, but the Abolitionist Action Committee was a group that was basically formed by Marietta Jaeger and Rick Halperin and myself. It’s something through which we have never solicited money or received money or tried to receive money as a result of the demonstration at the Supreme Court. Q So you’re not a member of the Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty? A I’m on the advisory board of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Q And so you authorized post cards to be made in connection with this event, didn’t you? A I didn’t authorize post cards to be made, no, sir. Q Did someone else act on your behalf when the post cards were made in connect with this event? A There was a picture taken and there were some postcards made, I had nothing to do with the decision. Q Bt those postcards did solicit funds, didn’t they? A I’m not really sure. They indicated what we had done and 18 people had been arrested, and I would have to read it to see what it says. Q Right. So, if such a postcard were made and it did solicit funds and it did ask for those funds to be sent to Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, that would be you, isn’t that right? A Well, I could say this much, that at the time that we were arrested that I had no idea of any postcards. And I’m not sure if anybody else did, but there may have been some pictures that were taken that led to the thought of having some postcards sent out. Q And that would have had to have been approved by someone? A I’m on the advisory board. I – my – I have nothing to do with the decisions of Citizens Untied for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Q Well, how many persons are on the advisory board? A I would say there is probably about 10 or 15 people on the advisory board. Q All right. And when decisions are made that affect the entire group, you being on the advisory board, you pass off on those decisions? A If I’m asked for advice, I give advice as well as other people on the advisory board, like Sister Helen, John, and others. We could be asked for advice because of our experience with the death penalty over the years, but the decision of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, I believe is the decision of two people. Q Right. And you can’t attend ever meeting? A Well, they don’t have meetings, as far as I know. Q Well, a decision that a postcard would be made with respect to this event, that wouldn’t just come out of their air, would it? A I believe it was the decision of one person. Q You didn’t oppose it? A No, I didn’t oppose. It Q And if it has on it the Abolitionist Action Committee as well as Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, that includes you, right? A It does include me. I’m a member of both organizations, yes. Q I’m showing you what has been marked as Government’s Exhibit 4 for identification. I’m showing it now to defense counsel and I’m going to show it to the pro ses. (Pause.) MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, we need to discuss something with our clients, if we could? THE COURT: No. He’s in the middle of his cross. MS. KRAUT: Well, we need to talk. He’s now – THE COURT: That’s not the way – MS. KRAUT: Well, if they were sitting net to us at counsel table, we would be allowed to, because they would be sitting right net to us. Unfortunately right now they’re across the room. THE COURT: That’s true. You have access. MS. KRAUT: It would only take a second. (Pause.) MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, could we have the husher for just a second? THE COURT: Sure. Sorry. (Pause.) MR. MARCUS: Everyone has seen the postcard. (Laughter.)
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So, now I’m going to show you, Mr. Pelke, what has been marked as Government’s Exhibit 4 and – A Can I borrow your glasses? Q Well, I need them right now, but I’ll ask you. A DEFENDANT: You can borrow mine. THE COURT: Let’s try to keep the comments down to a minimum, please.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Do you recognize that? A Uh-huh. Yes, sir. Q And that’s the postcard that was sent out with respect to this particular arrest, isn’t it? A Yes, sir. Q And that post card does state that it’s from the Abolitionist Action Committee? A Yes, sir. Q And it’s also from the Citizens United – A For Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Q Right. Your group? A yes, sir. I’m involved with both groups, yes, sir. MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, we ask this postcard to be admitted into evidence as Government’s Exhibit 4. THE COURT: Any objection by anybody? MS. KRAUT: No objection. THE COURT: It will be admitted. (Postcard, Government’s Exhibit No. 4, entered into evidence.)
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, Mr. Pelke, what I would like you to do, if you don’t mind, if you have the glasses still, is to read right here at the top left corner, where it says, Stop Executions, if you would read that entire section? A “Stop Executions. On January 17th, 1997, 18 demonstrators from the Abolitionist Action Committee were arrested demonstrating at the U.S. Supreme Court on the 20th anniversary of the execution of Gary Gilmore. This action marks the beginning of a new era and the call to increased visibility and action against state killing. We say, don’t kill in our names. Photos by Allison P. Creiter.” Q Now, if you could just turn the cards somewhat over to the right and read that portion at the top where, what that says. A “Support the AAC and the DC 18 Legal Defense Fund. Send checks to Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. CUADP Post Office Box 67676 Los Angeles, California, 90065-0675.” Q Okay. Thank you. A Thank you. Q You would agree with me, would you not, Mr. Pelke, that if you’re going to raise funds for a cause like this, you need to be provocative, don’t you? A I’m provocative? I’m sorry? Q You need to show that you’re actually doing something, don’t you. A The intent of being at the Supreme Court was not to raise money, but I believe that once the action took place, then, yes, there is quite an expense for everybody to come back here, where we’re staying all the time for the postponements of the trial. So, yes, it’s an opportunity to get out the word around the country that there is action being taken, yes. Q And the word brings in cash? A It may. Hopefully it will. Q Good. Now, you were aware, of course, that you could have stayed right there on the sidewalk and not been arrested, were you not? A Yes, sir. Q But that wasn’t enough, was it? A No, sir. Q You had to get up on the plaza? A Yes, sir. Q And you knew you were going to be arrested if you got up on the plaza, didn’t you? A Yes, sir. MS. KRAUT: Objection, speculation. THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q And you knew that was the anniversary of the Gary Gilmore decision, isn’t that right? A Yes. Q 20 year anniversary? A Yes. Q That wasn’t an accident that you were there that day, was it? A No, sir. That date was chosen specifically for that purpose. Q It was planned out? A Yes, sir, it was. Q And you also knew that members of the United States Supreme Court, that is, Justices, were likely to be there that day, isn’t that right? A I had no idea whether there would be Justices there or not. I didn’t care if there were Justices there or not. There were people who were going to be doing the demonstration and I wanted to be part of it. Q Because you didn’t pick a Sunday? A We didn’t pick a day. They day was chosen for us by this country yon executing Gary Gilmore 20 years ago. Q You didn’t say well, let’s go on Saturday or Sunday, and make sure that nobody is in Court? A It was on January 17th. Q That didn’t dissuade you from going on a business day, did it? A It was January 17th. Q You have testified, have you not, that you did wish to influence the Supreme Court, didn’t you? A Not to influence the Supreme Court, but just to let the Supreme Court know that there were people in this issue until the death penalty was abolished, in view of the fact that there were dedicated people in this country who were opposed to the legalized killing. Q And what I’m actually using are your words. You testified, under oath of course, that you were trying to influence the Supreme Court. Those are your words, right? A Not trying to influence any particularly case or decision that was before the Court at that time, the answer would be no. Q But there were 9 Justices, right? MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I ask – this whole thing has been asked and answered, Your Honor. THE COURT: It’s cross. I’m not – well – I try not to interfere with the litigation of cases. But if you feel it’s necessary – THE WITNESS: I – I –
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q I’m just trying to examine you on the words you chose when you were on direct examination and you could say you wanted to say. I’m just trying to find out – A Right. Q - what that means? MS. KRAUT: He’s already answered about the Justices, Your Honor. Objection. THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So when you testified about influencing the Supreme Court, you meant the Justices who serve on the Supreme Court, isn’t that right? A My personal intention and hope was that people on the Supreme Court could at some point be aware of our action and realize that there were people that were dedicated to this issue, that this issue was not going to go away, that the people involved in this issue, that they were there to be heard. Q Now, it’s a fact, is it now, that there was a group of persons on the sidewalk that morning that you were not a part of, is that a fact? A There were people on the sidewalk which I had not joined or was not involved with on that morning. Q And that your access to the plaza was from a different location around the Supreme Court, isn’t that right? A Yes, sir, it was. Q Where were you, by the way? A I was at a building nearby the Supreme Court, waiting for a certain time to go to the Supreme Court – Q You weren’t by yourself, right? A No, I wasn’t. Q How many people were with you? A 18. Q These co-defendants? A Yes, sir. Q Plus Mr. Rosenberg? A Well, he came – yes, he was part of the 18. Q Right. And there was a certain time when you all decided to start walking to the plaza, isn't that correct?? A Yes, sir. Q And you didn’t walk sporadically, you all walked together, right? A We walked in a group, yes, sir. Q And you got there and assembled there? A Well, we were assembled before we got there. MS. KRAUT: Objection, Your Honor. Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, he’s using words – this is – this is –he’s using the words of the statute. THE COURT: He’s – MS. KRAUT: And it’s – and, therefore, this witness is not qualified to render a legal opinion in terms of assembled. Because that’s what the words say. And so what the prosecutor is doing is trying to get words out of this person’s mouth who thinks of the words assembled in ways in which the Court is not going to think of the word, assembled. And it’s – THE COURT: Overruled. Try not to have any more speaking objections, please. MS. KRAUT: All right. MR. MARCUS: I do object to the objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I know.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So you got there and you assembled there, isn't that correct?? A We gathered together. A At the Supreme Court – MS. KRAUT: Same objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. KRAUT: Stood. THE COURT: Overruled. MS. KRAUT: It’s in the statute. THE COURT: I would say, Ms. Kraut, once I overrule, let’s just – MS. KRAUT: All right. THE WITNESS: We walked up the stairs, unfurled the banner.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You stood there? A Yes, sir. Q And you were not in silence, isn’t that right? A No, I was not in silence. Q Nor were any of your co-defendants, isn’t that right? A Um – there were – there were others that were – there may have been some who were silent; I didn’t really pay attention to what the others were doing. Q And you observed the videotape that was put on this case, right? A Uh-huh. Q Do you agree with me that the videotape showed songs and chanting by a number of the persons who were in your group on the plaza steps? A Earlier viewed – MS. KRAUT: Objection – THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You would agree with that, would you not? A Yes, sir. Q And the arrests were not made en masse, they were made one at a time, isn’t that right? A Yes, sir. Q And you were not the first person arrested, were you? A No, sir. Q But after the first person was arrested, you didn’t cease and desist, did you? A No, sir. Q Wasn’t it true at that point that you know that that could be what would happen to you? A Yes, sir. Q And hadn’t the point been made after the first person was arrested? A No – THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection. THE WITNESS: - the point has not been made. THE COURT: Excuse me. That’s just sort of argumentative at this point. MR. MARCUS: Okay, Your Honor. THE COURT: I mean, I would just say to the lawyers on each side, it’s arguments, arguments. Cross-examination is to elicit facts. MR. MARCUS: We pass this witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Goldstone? MR. GOLDSTONE: Nothing further. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Pelke. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I do have one question. THE COURT: No. I’m just – you’re through. Thank you, Mr. Pelke. MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, I would like to call George White. THE COURT: On behalf of which client? MR. GOLDSTONE: My six, Your Honor. I need to excuse myself to get him, Your Honor? THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MARCUS: We would ask for any Jencks with respect to this witness, at this time. A DEFENDANT: As to what? MR. MARCUS: Jencks. J-E-N-C-K-S. THE COURT: Jencks material is prior written statements made by the witness concerning their testimony. If you call a witness, you’re required to turn over Jencks material to the other side. MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, for the record, there’s no Jencks on Mr. White. THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Goldstone. To Index
Thereupon,
THE COURT: Just so the parties know, I have six cases at 12:30, so – including an emergency neglect. So I’ll have to be recessing on or about that time. As soon as that neglect’s ready, I’m going to be recessing. MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Mr. White, could you please state your name and spell your last name for the record? A George White, W-H-I-T-E. Q And where do you live, Mr. White? A I presently live in Arkansas City, Kansa. Q And how are you employed? A I am co-director of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Q And what is that organization, briefly? A It is a – uh – we are a non-profit organization. Our goal and mission is to raise public awareness and further education on the issue of the abolishment of the death penalty and offering alternatives. Q How long have you been so employed? A We initiated, I believe, in November of last year is when we started the planning to initiate the Citizens United. Q And how did you get involved in this issue? A On February 27th, 1985, I was living my little piece of the American dream in Enterprise, Alabama. I was Vice-president and General Manager of an independent chain of building supplies. I was married; my wife’s name was Charlene. I had two children, Tom and Christy. I was Little League Coach, PTA President, Sunday School teacher. If you could be a yuppie in Southeast Alabama, then I guess I was. At about 5:15 that evening, I got a call after hours from an individual that said he needed a circuit breaker, kind of an emergency situation, was there any way that I could help him out. MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor, relevance. THE COURT: No. I’m assuming it’s going to be tied up. Succinctly.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You can continue. A In response to that call, my wife and I were on our way out to dinner, so I went out to – we went out to the store and went inside, waited for the gentleman to come. There was a knock on the door, I went to the door, expecting a grateful customer, instead I was confronted by a man with a gun. We were robbed. My wife was shot twice, I was shot three times and left for dead. Char, my wife, died. Obviously I lived. Sixteen months later I was indicted, arrested and charged for the capital murder of my wife. Fourteen months after than, I went to trial. Of course, I was clinging to what I had been brought up to believe that once we got to trial, the truth would come out, and justice would prevail. I knew everything couldn’t be made right, but I thought it would be brought back in some kind of balance. I was wrong. I had been charged. I faced the death penalty. But in this country, we tend not to send the yuppies to death row, even broke ones. MR. MARCUS: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. At this point I need some proffered relevance, Mr. Goldstone. MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You, yourself were personally placed on death row? A No, sir. I was convicted. I was sentenced to life. I spent two years, 103 days in Alabama prison until the conviction was overturned and then another three years in legal limbo until I was exonerated. When the proof of my innocence was presented, by motion of the prosecution, the charge against me was forever more dismissed. Q This experience caused you to become active against the death penalty, is that correct? A yes. Q And did you go to the Court on January 17th, 1997? A The Supreme Court, yes, sir. Q Yes. Why did you go there? A I conducted a legal demonstration on the sidewalk before the steps. Q And what did you – what did that demonstration consist of? A There were four speakers, as I recall, maybe five. I was one of the speakers. There were demonstrators carrying signs, activists and we – Q What did you speak about? A I talked about my experiences, both personal and the reasons, they myriad of reasons that I personally opposed the death penalty and why I advocate for viable alternatives. Q Now, when you were speaking on the sidewalk, was your voice amplified by any electronic devices? A Yes. I don’t remember whether there was a bullhorn speaker or perhaps an amplifier, microphone. I don’t specifically recall, but it was amplified. Q Now, did you express your opposition to the Supreme Court’s position which favors the state execution of people convicted of capital crime? A I did. Q Now, do you know any of the defendants that are seated in the jury box before you? A I do. Q And which if the defendants, if could please state them by name, do you know personally? A I know Marietta Jaeger, Rick Halperin, Sally Peck, Bill Pelke, Stephanie Gibson, Abe Bonowitz, Jon Holtshopple. I know Art. Some of them better than others. And some of them, their last names, I can’t – I tend to forget. THE COURT: Who is the Art? THE WITNESS: Art, the gentleman right here/ THE COURT: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Okay. Turning your attention – A Tom. I’m looking up here to see who is sitting out there. Tom Muther, Phyllis Pautrat, Lorig – and I can never remember her last name. THE COURT: Charkoudian. (Laughter.) THE WITNESS: And there’s two other gentlemen sitting there than I have met on several occasion and for the life of me right now I can’t recall their names.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, with respect to the individuals that you named, how are you familiar with those individuals? A Well, several of those, I have known for several years now. Abe Bonowitz is co-director of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, so we have a personal and professional relationship there. I am a member of the Board for Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. Bill Pelke is also on that board, Sally Peck is a Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation member. Q You need to slow down a little bit. A I’m sorry. Marietta Jaeger was a Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation member. I am a member of several national organizations – let’s see – Rick Halperin is on the board of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. I’m a member of the Board of Journey of Hope from Violence to Healing, which also gives me a relationship to Bill Pelke and Marietta Jaeger. Q Now, turning to your familiarity with the individuals that you named. A Right. Q I’m going to ask you about the person that I individually represent, not persons who are representing themselves. A Okay. Q Now, are you familiar with the reputation of Ms. Peck in the community? A Yes, I am. Q And is her reputation for truth and veracity – MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. She hasn’t testified. THE COURT: Right. MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, I ask we take this out of order. THE COURT: Okay. You’re going to proffer that there’s going to be testimony? MR. GOLDSTONE: As to Ms. Peck. It’s true there won’t be Ms. Peck. THE COURT: You can ask about peace and good order, but not about truth and veracity.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Are you familiar with the representation of Ms. Peck as to peace and good order? A Yes, I am. Q And what is Ms. Peck’s reputation for peace and good order? A She has a reputation for being opposed to violence in any form or fashion and an individual of personal integrity, and speaks for – Q Same question with respect to Bill Pelke, what is his reputation for truth and good order? A I would also give the same response there, that his reputation is both national and internationally that he is for peace and good order. Q What about Stephanie Gibson? A There again, Stephanie Gibson would have a reputation for being personally and professionally peaceful and in good order. Q And Mr. Holtshopple? A Jon Holtshopple also would have a reputation in his community here of being peaceful and non violent and in good order. Q What about Mr. Muther? A Tom Muther, in Topeka Kansas, has a reputation for being peaceful and in good order. THE COURT: Ms. Kraut?
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Mr. White, about how many people were on the sidewalk when you were – prior – oh – how many people were on the sidewalk on January 17th, participating or listening to you speak and listening to other people speak, approximately? A I would say approximately between 25 and 30. I didn’t do any actually count, but that would – I would also include in that, that there were some representatives of the press there, maybe four or five. But I would estimate maybe – probably in the range of 25 on the sidewalk itself. Q All right. You said something about you wanted to get the message out, is that correct, that’s one of the reasons you were there? A I wanted to speak out on the use of the death penalty in this country, yes. Q Was that your intent on being there on January 17th was to get the message out without the death penalty? THE COURT: Excuse me? MR. MARCUS: Objection to relevance, Your Honor, what was his intent to get- MS. KRAUT: Your Honor – THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: That was my intent, yes, ma’am. MS. KRAUT: Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin, do you have any questions? DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No, thank you. THE COURT: Thank you, very much. Ms. Peck, any questions? DEFENDANT PECK: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit? DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Charkoudian? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Jaeger? DEFENDANT JAEGER: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Pelke? DEFENDANT PELKE: No questions. THE COURT: And Mr. Scahill? DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No. THE COURT: Mr. Marcus, any questions? MR. MARCUS: Thank you.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Mr. White, you testified about the reputation for peace and good order of Ms. Peck, Mr. Pelke, Ms. Gibson, Mr. Holtshopple and Mr. Muther, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q They live in different communities, don’t they? A Yes, they do. Q And you only live in Alabama, is that what you said? A I presently live in North Kansas City. Q Oh, I’m sorry. And you are from Alabama, is that correct? I spent nearly 20 years in Alabama, yes, sir. Q But they’re not from those two places, are they? A No, they’re not. Q So they are from communities that are different from yours, isn’t that right? A Yes. But each one of those that I testified as to their reputation, I have spent time in their communities, both visiting and participating in various activities, including rallies and what have you. So – Q Sufficient time to gather information about their reputations for peace and good order? A Well, based on my own personal observations and what I have heard from people in their community, yes, sir. Q Okay. Now, peace and good order, that would include them getting arrested for demonstrations, is that right? MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Your definition of peace and good order, would include people who get arrested is that correct? A It certainly would include that, yes. Q And engage in civil disobedience, isn’t that correct, sir? MS. KRAUT: Objection pejorative term, Your Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. Cross. THE WITNESS: Restate the question. I’m not sure I understood.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q A person can be of good peace and order – I’m sorry – peace and good order, even though they engage in acts of civil disobedience, isn’t that right? MS. KRAUT: It’s a legal definition, objection. THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: Okay. I don’t think I’m following, I’m not sure what –what the interjections whether I really heard the question.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Persons who engage in acts of civil disobedience would not, in your view, defeat being characterized as persons of peace and good order? A Well, I wasn’t asked about such persons, I was asked about these individuals and I attempted from my perspective as far as I have heard relatives of theirs as to them individually. Now, as far as other people – Q Would if harm your view of these particular defendants to know that they have been participates in civil disobedience in MS. KRAUT: Objection. MS. MARCUS: - in terms of your opinion that they have a reputation for peace and good order? THE COURT: Overruled. THE WITNESS: I’m – THE COURT: Just wait. THE WITNESS: Yeah, I’m trying to get – THE COURT: When you give your testimony concerning their reputation for peace and good order, you are aware of the fact that they have been arrested? THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I was. Yes, sir. THE COURT: Does that affect your opinion about whether or not their reputation – THE WITNESS: No, sir, it does not. MS. KRAUT: Arrested for what, I guess, Your Honor?
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, you testified about your being in town on January 17th of 1997, to participate in a “legal demonstration,” isn’t that right? A Yes, sir. Q And that word, demonstration, was your word, isn’t that right? A The demonstration that I was leading on the sidewalk before the steps, yes, sir. Q And why do you say it’s legal? MS. KRAUT: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now the others, the persons who are there in this courtroom, the defendants, were on the plaza, isn’t that right? A They were arrested up on the steps, yes, sir. Q Right. And they weren’t participating in what you called your legal demonstration on the sidewalk, isn’t that right? A (No response.) Q When were they arrested? A Well, no. At least in – I wasn’t arrested. So I’m – maybe I interjected – a – at least from my perspective, the fact that I wasn’t arrested meant at least to me that what I was doing met the requirements of being legal. Q Okay. Now, did you participate in the planning of both what was taking place on the sidewalk, as well as what was taking place on the steps of the plaza? A I have knowledge that there was going to be individuals – but am I going to be indicted on rekill? Q You’re beyond this misdemeanor. This is U.S. Attorneys Office. A I was aware – Q I’ll try to restrict my questions. I’m not trying to get – what I really want to know is, do you have any knowledge of the plans for being up on the plaza as opposed to being on the sidewalk? A Yes, I do. Q Okay. Now, are you familiar with something called Title 40? MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. MARCUS: We pass the witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Goldstone? MR. GOLDSTONE: Nothing further, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MS. KRAUT: I have one question. THE COURT: No, ma’am. Once we have – you have had an opportunity to question. Otherwise I will never end this trial, ma’am. You can step down, sir. (Witness excused.) THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I have, as I indicated, another 12:30 matter, so I’m going to recess the trial until 2:00. Please be here promptly at that time. Thank you. To Index (Recess at 12:30 pm.) (Resumed at 2:23 p.m.) THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, with regards to the defendants in Case Numbers M-82-97 through 829-97, excluding M-825-97, M-828-97, and M-833-97. Counsel identify themselves for the record, please. MR. GOLDSTONE: Good afternoon. Mark Goldstone for six defendants who are present. MS. KRAUT: Nina Kraut for Mr. Bonowitz, Your Honor. MR. MARCUS: Theodore Marcus for the Government. MR. EMORY: William Emory for the Government, also, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone, any additional evidence? MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes. I have one additional witness, Your Honor. I would like to call Sam Reese Shepard to the stand. THE COURT: Thank you. MR. MARCUS: We would like to make a request for Jencks of this witness, Your Honor. MR. GOLDSTONE: We have no Jencks for this witness. THE COURT: I will assume there is a pending Jencks request by all parties. MR. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honor. (Pause.) To Index
Thereupon,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Good afternoon, Mr. Sheppard. A Good afternoon. Q Would you please state your name and spell your name for the record? A Yes. My name is Sam, S-A-M, Reese, R-E-E-S-E, Sheppard, S-H-E-P-P-A-R-D. Q And where do you live, Mr. Sheppard? A I live in Oakland, California, presently. Q What do you do there/ A I work as a registered Dental Hygienist, and I work with several organizations which search for alternatives to the death penalty. Q Could you name those organizations and when you discuss this testimony could you be as succinct and brief as possible? A yes. I have – am a member of Amnesty International. I am a founding board member of Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. I am a board member of – I’m sorry – an advisory board member of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty – and – Q Journey of Hope. A Yes, Journey of Hope. I’m a board member of Journey of Hope, from Violence to Healing. Q Now, how long have you been involved in these activities, political activities. A Well, that’s a difficult questions. Specifically, in terms of organizational activities, since 1989. Q Okay. Do you know any of the defendants that are seated in the jury box in front of you? A I do, yes. Q Which if the defendants do you know, if you could please state them by name. A Phyllis Pautrat, Mr. Muther, Lorig Charkoudian, John Holtshopple, Abe Bonowitz, Stephanie Gibson, Bill Pelke, Sally Peck, Rick Halperin and Marietta Jaeger. Q Now, with respect to , and let’s take them in order, with respect to Ms. Pautrat, are you familiar with her reputation in the community for peacefulness and good order? A In relation to the organizations that I’ve with worked with, yes. Her reputation is very good. People feel very good about her. Q Okay. With respect to Mr. Muther, are you familiar with his reputation for peacefulness and good order? A Yes. His reputation with the organizations we work with and with the public is in – is very good, yes. Q Ms. Charkoudian? A Ms. Charkoudian, yes, has an excellent reputation where she lives and the work that she does. Q Mr. Holtshopple? A And, in fact, I think Ms. Charkoudian won an award recently for that behavior. Mr. Holtshopple, yes, his reputation is very good for his activities which range back many years, I believe. Q Mr. Bonowitz? A Mr. Bonowitz has an excellent reputation, yes. Q And what about Ms. Gibson’s reputation for peacefulness and good order? A Peacefulness and good order, has been very good for Ms. Gibson, that I know about, yes, with her organizations in Maryland. Q And Mr. Pelke? A Mr. Pelke is very well known nationwide, yes, and for his many activities and good activities, yes. Q Ms. Peck? A Ms. Peck, very much so, in all her activities throughout the country. Q And about Ms. Jaeger? A Ms Jaeger has a reputation nationally, if not internationally, in terms of her peaceful activities and her good natures in those matters. Q Now, you testified you’ve been active organizationally since 1989 against the death penalty. A yes. Q Can you telling what led to your led – to your active involvement? A Yes. My active involvement stems back to the year 1944, when I was 7 years old. On Independence Day I awoke to a strange person who awoke me in my bedroom, led me out of the house where a policeman was standing in the hallway. A small crowd of people were outside and within the next few days the people let me know that my mother, who was four months pregnant, had been murdered in the night. Q Who was accused of murdering your mother? MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q What did you learn about – what did you learn about the murder of your mother? MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor, asks for the same answer. THE COURT: Sustained. MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, we’re trying to lay a foundation for Mr. Sheppard’s ability, not only to know the peacefulness and good order of these defendants, but also to explain why it is that he might be knowledgeable about the individual’s activities. And I think that some background, purely background information is proper. THE COURT: It’s really not relevant to his personal knowledge or reputation. Good order of the defendants, on or about this time is the only relevant inquiry.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Were you present at the Supreme Court on January 17th, 1997? A I was not. Q Did you hear about the activities that took place at the Court on that day? A I did, yes. Q And is it fair to say that you are supportive of the activities of the defendants on that day? A Absolutely. Q Okay. And the fact that they unfurled a banner on the steps of the Supreme Court, does that contribute to your belief in their reputation for peacefulness and good order? A Yes, it does. Q And why is that, how is that? A As to Number 1, their peacefulness, in terms of their reputation, and as a matter of fact, this morning I spoke with some of the guards who were guarding the Supreme Court building while we were presently holding a fast and vigil, their reputation is very good with the guards there as being peaceful people and cooperative people. Secondarily, I believe our country and our nation are out of order morally on the issue of the death penalty – MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. THE COURT: Sustained.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, the activities of the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 people you’ve testified about as to peacefulness and good order has that reputation been tested at other demonstrations? A Yes. It has been tested in the backwoods of Georgia, where there were supposed threats from the Klu Klux Klan. They were tested on the roads of Texas, where people were very antagonistic and threatening, at times called the police saying they were threatening their babies when our demonstrations were close to a day care center, our people stayed calm and collected and with great purpose. Q Now, you have testified as to 9 of the defendants, I believe I neglected to ask about Mr. Halperin, Rick Halperin. Can you testify as to whether you are familiar with the reputation of Mr. Halperin for peacefulness and good order? A Yes. I’ve known Mr. Halperin. I’ve known him for several years. I know he certain has a good reputation as a professor, as a teacher, as a leader international with organizations for peacefulness. Yes. Q As a death penalty opponent who’s been – who is active in a number of different organizations, there’s nothing that you heard that they did at the court on January 17th that would detract from your estimation that they were peaceful and acting in good order, is that correct? A Absolutely not. In fact, it actually helps my opinion in terms of their character and their moral stance. MR. GOLDSTONE: Thank you. I have no further questions. THE COURT: Ms. Kraut? MS. KRAUT: If I could have just one moment. (Pause.)
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Sheppard, why weren’t you there on the 17th? A I was not there, because I could not afford it monetarily, and secondarily, I did not think it would be a very effective political action. Q Why not? A The town of Washington is a very cynical one. Our government is a very cynical one – MR. MARCUS: Objection. THE WITNESS: - on these issues. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I think I have a right to ask why not. He’s giving an answer. If they don’t like the answer, it doesn’t seem to be – THE COURT: All right. I’m going to sustain the objection.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q So it was a cynical town. But you work on behalf of organizations, such as the one that the defendants are involved in? A Voluntarily, yes. And I would monetarily, if it were possible. Q What role do you play? A What role do I play? Q What do you do, what do you do with these organizations? A I participate in board decisions in terms of policy directions, in terms of how the organization should behave themselves, how we should attempt or try to raise money to support the organizations. I have spoken nationally, personally to different coalition groups in different states throughout the country. Q To do – with what purpose in mind? A I tell my personal story in relation to the death penalty issue, in terms of – to try to educate the American public on an issue that I believe it is being fooled about. Q So, in other words, you try to get the word out about the death penalty? A Yes. Absolutely. We try to get the word out. And it is a communication and educational problem, and an immediate problem. Q And I understand you’ve come out with book recently? A Yes. MR. MARCUS: Yes. THE COURT: Sustained. MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, this also goes to our motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. THE COURT: No. I’m going to sustain the objection. I think it’s appropriate to explore his relationship to these defendants and the organizations, because the government has made an issue about the knowledge – MS. KRAUT: But he’s also a witness – THE COURT: Excuse me. Let me just say – their knowledge. And to some extent, the government has implicitly made attacks on the defendants’ motivations. So I’m allowing some leeway with respect to the knowledge of reputation witnesses and their org- their knowledge of the organizations. So if you can confine your questions to those areas. MS. KRAUT: But he’s also a witness for purpose of our First Amendment motion to dismiss, based on First Amendment grounds. THE COURT: He wasn’t there on the 17th. MS. KRAUT: But it deals with the issue of getting the word out for the organizations. He’s involved on the board, he just said. THE COURT: Right. MS. KRAUT: And in terms of policy and so on, and I wanted to be able to elicit his testimony to explain more for the record and for no other purpose than to sort of – to show that there are various ways of getting the word out, just like the Post gets it word out and CNN gets its word out – THE COURT: Okay. I think I understand the proffer. I’ll sustain the objection with respect to that proffer. Thank you. MS. KRAUT: I have no further questions at this time. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin, any questions? DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Peck, any questions? DEFENDANT PECK: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit? DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you very much. Ms. Charkoudian? DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No questions. THE COURT: Mr. Halperin, any questions? DEFENDANT HALPERIN: None, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Jaeger, any questions? DEFENDANT JAEGER: No, sir. THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Pautrat? DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No questions. THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scahill? DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No. THE COURT: Thank you. Government?
CROSS EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Sheppard? A Yes, sir. Q You talked about raising money to support the organizations. What organizations were you referring to, sir? A I was referring to all the organizations, the Amnesty International, Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation. Q Including some of the organizations that these defendants belong to, isn’t that right? A Yes. Q Okay. Now, what efforts are there that you know of to raise money for these organizations? MS. KRAUT: Objection, Your Honor. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander. I am – I would like to be able to inquire. The government is going to be able to inquire about fund raising and that sort of thing. I would like to be able to inquire about that in relation to our First Amendment motion. THE COURT: All right. The objection will be sustained. You have to tie it to these defendants. CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Are you familiar with the fund raising aspect of this particular organization on January 17th 1997? MS. KRAUT: Objection. THE COURT: I’ll overrule the objection. I’ll just indicate to the government, if somehow you want to make a factual issue about the motivation of these defendants, I’ll hear you on it. I think you should contemplate whether or not that’s the best use of your cross-examination. MR. MARCUS: We’ll pass the witness, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Any redirect examination? MR. GOLDSTONE: No, Your Honor. Thank you. THE COURT: Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Sheppard. THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Any additional witnesses on behalf of the –
MR. GOLDSTONE: No, Your Honor. On behalf of my clients, we don’t have any further witnesses. We would like to address the Court.
THE COURT: Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: May I testify?
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I had actually a sort of order I had picked out, just to keep track, but hold on one second.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes?
MS. KRAUT: If you could just put the witness on in our order, is that possible?
THE COURT: But I’m going to have to do a Boyd inquiry of those people who do not testify. That’s the only reason I’m trying to keep track.
MS. KRAUT: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Jaeger, do you wish to testify?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: I do.
THE COURT: All right. Please step forward, please.
Thereupon,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
I am the mother of a murdered kidnapped victim. My youngest daughter, Susie, who was only 7 years old, was kidnapped out of our tent while we were on a camping vacation in the State of Montana. And initially, I was right in line with what most victims’ families feel: I wanted to see this guy killed.
And at that point, even though Furman was – or Furman vs. Georgia was in effect, the people in Montana, the law enforcement people informed me that it was highly liked that they could get the death penalty for this young man whenever he was caught and identified.
It took 15 months for him to finally be identified. And he was identified by virtue of a telephone call that he made to me on the first year anniversary, one year to the minute in the middle of the night, in which he called to taunt me and hadn’t been counting on the spiritual journey that I had been on during that intervening year.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, if this witness is going to testify, if she’s going to testify as to her actions on that day, I think that would be more appropriate at this time.
THE COURT: I think that is an appropriate objection. I will allow some background information. I just ask you to be as succinct as possible on the background information, Ms. Jaeger.
THE WITNESS: All right. I will
DIRECT EXAMINATION
So I asked for the alternative which was mandatory life imprisonment. I have had ample opportunity in the 20 some years since working with murder victims’ family members to understand the deleterious effect that the death penalty and all its appeals process and everything else has on the victims’ family members.
That does not promote healing. It does not help them at all. And, in fact, it exacerbates their situation. And so, I have involved myself in activities, publicly protesting the death penalty across the country, and, in fact, in other countries around the world.
And for some years now I have been wanting to do some form of civil disobedience. My own knowledge of our country’s history tells me that there have been many immoral laws, such as slavery and the refusal to grant women the right to vote, and the right or unions to organize and Civil Rights movements and the Vietnam War. And there were just a lot of policies and practices and laws that I considered immoral.
I worked for a human rights organization. We did a lot of things addressing racism in the city of Detroit where I live. And I could look at our history and I could see that you can write letters and you can lobby and you can work for legislation and you can demonstrate and you –
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
THE WITNESS: But –
THE COURT: Hold on, ma’am. When there’s an objection, just –
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry.
MR. MARCUS: Same objection, Your Honor, to relevance at this point.
THE COURT: Right. I am going to ask you to sort of try to direct your remarks.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: To the incident in question.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
And so that was – determined my decision to participate in what the government might call civil disobedience, what I would call moral obedience, or perhaps, even because I consider myself a Christian with a strong faith commitment, divine obedience.
As a Christian, I feel that God calls me to give my first allegiance to God. And if I feel that the laws of my country violate that allegiance, such as killing in my name, then I have a right to protest,. And that, in fact, it becomes my responsibility to protest, as I hear of children in Germany who are not wanting to own their country’s history during World War II and go home and ask their parents where were you when this was happening –
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I have to object –
THE COURT: I sustained that. That means-
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I have to object to that objection. People like Marietta Jaeger whose voice is so seldom heard by this government, that I mean, I think it would behoove the prosecution to listen to her.
THE COURT: Okay. That is –
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: This is a woman who has suffered immensely and is very courageous in her quest for reconciliation. I object to that objection.
THE COURT: Thank you. Could you identify yourself?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: Jeremy Scahill.
THE WITNESS: I’m attempting to give the rational for my behavior on that occasion of January 17th. And so I feel that it is relevant.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
And for me it’s a matter of complicity. If I had known when my little girl was taken that her life had been taken and I had done thing to stop that from happening, I’d have been complicit in her death, and there’s no way that I would have allowed that to happen.
And just as I know now that people are being executed in my name, I don’t –
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: - wish to be complicit in their death.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
I feel that I was acting as a good citizen, a good moral citizen of this country to call them to address the fact that this is an immoral law, and we are killing people, and we are doing nothing to address the real causes of violent crime.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Kraut, any questions?
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Your intent on January 17th was exactly what, to get arrested or to stop the implementation of the death penalty?
A My intention was not necessarily to get arrested, I understand that that would be a consequence of my behavior,
Q Was it a –
A But I needed to make a public statement.
Q - definite consequence or a possible consequence?
A A possible consequence.
Q All right. And what was the statement – the statement you wanted to make was, what?
A That I wanted executions to stop, stop being done in my name and the name of the victims, because it insults them. And to stop it being done with my tax dollars.
Q And you say you wanted to make a statement. So you have enough finances to have – to own a newspaper, to make that statement?
A No. This is my means. I mean, I’m part of grass roots folks, an this is the only means that I had after years and years of letter writing and demonstrating and vigiling. This was my means of doing.
Q And you don’t have enough money to have a newspaper?
A No. Not at all.
MS. KRAUT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone?
MR. GOLDSTONE: Yes, very briefly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Did you act in such a way that compromised the protections of the Supreme Court or the building or the grounds on January 17th?
A No, not at all. We were non violent, we were peaceful, anyone could have gotten in and out of the building. I was treated with respect by the Supreme Court police, but I treated them with respect, too.
Q Did you compromise the security of any persons on the Supreme Court grounds that day?
A I can’t imagine that I did.
Q About property, did you compromise the security of any property on the grounds?
A No.
Q Did you disturb the good order of the decorum of the Court that day?
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If she understands the question, she can answer.
THE WITNESS: No, I do not believe that the interior of the Court – maybe they didn’t – I don’t even know whether they would know about our actions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Did you, in fact, know the Court was open this day?
A No, I didn’t. We chose that date because it was relevant to the issue of the death penalty.
Q Do you feel that your actions compromised the appearance of the Court, as a body that’s unswayed by external influence?
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’m going to sustain that objection. Next question.
MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Laffin, any questions?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No questions
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Peck?
DEFENDANT PECK: No questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Halperin?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Pautrat?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. No redirect, then, ma’am, you can step down. Thank you for your testimony.
MR. MARCUS: There is no cross-examination.
THE COURT: Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, at this time may we propose a stipulation. If each and ever defendant wishes to make a similar presentation? The government is aware that they all have a personal story and that they all have personal motivations for being there and stipulate that they each have a story similar to Ms. Jaeger’s, if that would move the case along.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, each person, since it’s all the –
THE COURT: Okay. I’m sorry. Do you stipulate on behalf of your client?
MS. KRAUT: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Stipulation is not accepted.
Mr. Goldstone, are you through with your witnesses?
MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further witnesses, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Kraut, do you have any witnesses on behalf of Mr. Bonowitz?
MS. KRAUT: Yes – well, I have – I’ll put Mr. Bonowitz on. But, Your Honor, I also have a witness as far as the motion to dismiss it concerned.
THE COURT: I’ll hear all your witnesses at this time, please.
MS. KRAUT: Witnesses for the trian on the merits?
THE COURT: And the motion.
MS. KRAUT: And the motion. Okay. I’d like to call Rick Halperin.
Thereupon,
THE WITNESS: I affirm without invoking the Deity’s name. Yes, I do affirm.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Would you state your name, please.
A My name is Rick Halperin, H-A-L-P-E-R-I-N.
Q Mr. Halperin, this past weekend, where were you?
A I’ve been in Washington, D.C. since Wednesday.
Q And specifically Saturday and Sunday, what was the nature of some of your activities?
A We had in our –
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes – it has some relevance to this?
MS. KRAUT: Yes, t the motion to dismiss the information.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. On the motion. Thank you.
You may answer.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q I’m sorry. Yes, where were you on Saturday and SundaY/
A From 8:00 in the morning to about 8:00 or so in the evening we had been at a fast and vigil on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Q And what occurred there yesterday in relation to a banner that was held on the grounds of the Supreme Court?
A At – there was a rally with speakers which began about 1:00 or 1:30 in the afternoon. The speakers spoke from a station which had been set up on the sidewalk in front of the lower steps at the Court.
Q All right. And what happened after that?
A At about 3:00 or so – I’m really guessing as to the time, but I was off to the side, just watching and listening to the procession of speakers, when a group of, I would say 12 to 15 Spanish speaking individuals congregated on the lower steps, unfurled a banner in Spanish that was against – made a statement against the death penalty, made a statement, chanted some, sang some on the steps, easily 10 minutes or perhaps more, folded up the banner and left.
Q Did anybody stop them?
A I did not see any uniformed Supreme Court Police Officers present. No. They did their action completely unimpeded.
Q And at some point did a police officer talk to you about – a Supreme Court Police Officer talk to you about what had happened?
A I did not speak with any officer subsequent to that act about that act, no.
Q Were you on the plaza area of the Supreme Court during this?
A No, I was on the sidewalk, just further down the sidewalk.
Q During Saturday and Sunday, however, were you on the – did you have any occasion to be on the plaza area?
A Yesterday, after I would say 7:00 or so, and certainly well after the rally had eneded and just the vigilers and fasters were left, or almost just the vigilers and fasters, I walked up from the sidewalk on the plaza and then all the way to the top level of the Supreme Court stairs on the upper level.
Q And did you happne dto have a T shirt on of some sort?
A I did.
Q And what, if anything, did your T shirt say?
MR. MARCUS: Objection, hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled, goes to the motion to dismiss.
THE WITNESS: On the front of my T shirt, I’m looking to see if somebody might be wearing it, but I will try to describe it. It had the phrase “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” And then on the back, it gave several statements – that is the T shirt, Your Honor.
MS. KRAUT: It’s right there. Could we enter this woman into evidence.
THE WITNESS: That’s the shirt I was wearing.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, could we ask – could I read it and then it will be entered into the record.
THE COURT: I think he has summarized it.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q All right. And what does the back say? The back says, for the Court, “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.” Is that the T shirt?
A That is the shirt I had on.
Q All right. Did anybody – were you with other people who had that kind of T shirt or similar kinds of T shirts on?
A There were other – the vigilers and fasters all had on a variety of anti-death penalty T shirts, although when I went up to the top level of the stairs, I was by myself and wasn’t with anybody.
Q Did you happen to see whether or not other vigilers or other anti-death penalty people – were they also on the stairs or plaza area?
A There were a few, maybe two or three sitting on the lower stairs by the sidewalk, so that if you stood out on the top steps of the Court and looked to the street, they would be to the right. And those were the only people I saw. There were other tourists all over the plaza, but –
Q Did you happen to see whether any other tourists had any other – any T shirts or buttons, or anything along that line?
A I did not notice.
Q All right. Did any police officer talk to you about the nature of T shirts or whether – did you have any kind of discussion on the plaza with a member of the Supreme Court Police of some sort?
A When I descended from the top level, I was just walking by myself on the plaza back towards the sidewalk area, I had a conversation with a Supreme Court Office, yes.
Q And what did you learn as a result of that Supreme Court Officer?
A Well, actually he stopped me. He was very cordial. It was about a 15-20 minute conversation. He recognized me and asked if – actually he had been my arresting officer. I didn’t think he was, but we had a long chat about the event – about the day of the arrest, and other issues relating to his job and the Court and the Justices. It was just a cordial conversation, but no mention was made, and I was still wearing that T shirt, of course. What I was weraing was never brought up.
Q Did he make some reference to why he was not asking you to leave now as opposed to shift officer?
A Our conversation -
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor..
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Our conversation came to an end when his shift ended and he was replaced on the plaza by another officer and then he excused himself to go inside the Court.
Q Did the second officer and you get into any kind of conversation?
A After our conversation ended, I proceeded to sit on the top step on the lower level and was there for maybe five minutes and the new officer on the shift came and told me that I had to either remove my shirt or remove myself from the stairs, that I could not sit on the stairs, due to the political nature of the shirt I was wearing.
Q And did you ask him or question him about that?
A I did not. I made no such inquiry.
Q And what did you do as a result of his saying that to you, that you had to leave or take the T shirt off?
A Well, I was not going to take my T shirt off and so I just kind of shook my head and got off the stairs.
MS. KRAUT: May I have this marked –
THE COURT: Was this officer present during the unfurling of this banner by this other group?
THE WITNESS: Which officer, Your Honor?
THE COURT: The one you were speaking to?
THE WITNESS: When the banner was unfurled?
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
THE WITNESS: I did not see any officers at all.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q But you have no idea, do you, whether or not police were somewhere in the wings?
A I can only tell you that from my vision of what I saw from where I was, on the plaza or on the sideawlk, I did not see any police officers in my field of vision.
Q So you couldn’t see around the building?
A No, I could not.
Q You didn’t know whether or not police were looking out windows inside?
A I didn’t know that.
Q Were you aware that – were the police to your knowledge, did the police know that you were doing this vigil on the Supreme Court steps and plaz?
A Oh, yes. We had – well, we were not on the plaza, we were on the sidealk – you mean yesterday?
Q Yesterday and Saturday, yes?
A It’s been pretty hard to miss us. So, yes, I was quite certain that they knew we were there.
Q And did – and that you would be there during the 24 hour period?
A Yes. I had had, and perhaps others did as well, but I had had a conversation with the officers who had either recognized us from years in the past or asked why we were there. I explained why we were there and for how long we would be there.
Q All right. I am going to show you what’s been marked as Bonowitz Number 9, if you would take a look at it.
A (Witness complied.)
Q Hold on. And what does that depict?
A I’m looking at a photo of a uniformed officer on the lower portion of the upper stairs behind the plaza and a singular person standing on an otherwise pretty deserted plaza. And it looks to be wintertime, just by the clothing of those who were in the photo.
MS. KRAUT: Thank you.
I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone?
MR. GOLDSTONE: Just very briefly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Do you – why were you arrested on January 17th, 1997?
A I was in a group of demonstrators or protesters, if you will, who were on the upper portion of the stairs at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why I was arrested, apparently from what I’ve listened to today, I wasn’t arrested for demonstrating. I was arrested for refusing to leave.
Q You were given several opportunities to leave?
A Um – yes – yes, I was – I heard one verbal notification that I would be arrested if I didn’t leave, but I understand that I was arrested not for unfurling the banner but because I refused to leave.
Q But your charge didn’t say anything about refusing to leave, did it?
A I don’t now what the official charge was. I don’t recollect. That would be news to me, but I really don’t recollect.
MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin, any questions?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No questions.
THE COURT: Ms. Peck, any questions?
DEFENDANT PECK: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Nothing.
THE COURT: Mr. Halperin, do you have any questions of yourself?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: No.
THE COURT: Ms. Pautrat?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Marcus?
MR. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Halperin, you talked about people holding up a banner the other day, what day of the week was that, sir?
A Well, which group are you referring to, my group or the group that I witnessed?
Q One group, right?
A But which group?
Q You said that there was a group holding a banner, a Spanish-speaking people?
A Okay. Okay. That was yesterday.
Q That was Sunday?
A Sunday, Sunday afternoon.
Q What time of the day, sir?
A Again, I’m only guessing. I don’t wear or own a watch. I would say it was about 3:00.
Q The afternoon?
A The middle of the afternoon.
Q How many persons, sir?
A 12 to 15, good-sized group.
Q How big was the banner, sir?
A It was smaller than the one we unfurled.
Q Smaller than the 30 foot banner that you had, is that correct?
A Clearly.
Q About how much smaller, sir?
A I couldn’t venture a guess, I don’t know.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q How tall are you, sir?
THE COURT: I’m sorry, there’s an objection. Yes, ma’am?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Isn’t it irrelevant, the size of the banner, the banner is –
THE COURT: No. It goes to the issue of why people were arrested or not arrested. So I will allow the question. I overrule the objection.
THE COURT: Could I have your name, ma’am?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Phyllis Pautrat.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma’am.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q How tall are you, Mr. Halperin?
A Oh, about 5’10.
Q Juding in terms of your body length, about how big was that banner?
A A lot smaller than that.
Q A lot smaller than 5’10?
A Well, if you’re asking me to guess at dimensions, you know, I would say it was – this is so totally arbitrary, I’d say it was two feet, three feet, I don’t know. I can’t guess to a size. I don’t – I can’t answer your quetsion.
Q You would agree with me, then it wasn’t a banner, it was more like a placard?
A No, it was a banner. I could see clearly what they were holding.
Q What was the material, sir?
A Cloth.
Q Did it have any writing on it, sir?
A It did.
Q Was the writing in paint or did it appear to be in pencil or ink?
A It appeared to be stitched.
Q !2-15 persons were holding this two to three foot banner, sir?
A No. I said there wre about 12 to 15 people in the group. I don’t know how many people were holding it. A few.
Q I’m asking you about the persons holding the banner, I’m not asking about a group. How many persons were holding the banner?
A A few.
Q How many is a few?
A Three or four, maybe five.
Q Three or four or five persons holding a two to three foot banner, sir?
A Again, you’re asking me to justify or guess as to a size. I don’t know the size of the banner. It might have been bigger.
Q I’m asking you what you saw yesterday.
A I’m trying to tell you.
Q Yesterday.
A That’s right. Yesterday.
Q Is your testimony that four to five people were holding a two to three-foot banner, sir?
A My testimony is that I saw four to five people holding a banner, which I can’t guess a lentgth, so I gave you some numbers as to what I thought the lengths of the banner is. If the banner is bigger than that, then the banner was bigger than that.
Q You said it was smaller than you, isn’t that right?
A Well, I’m 5’10.
Q Well, the question is, you said – you testified that it was smaller than you?
A The banner was, in my opinion, I think the banner was smaller than me.
Q And you obviously know how big you are, because you have just testified that you are 5’10, isn’t that correct?
A I – yes – yes, that’s right. That’s about how tall I am.
Q Okay. And just to be clear, the banner that’s smaller than you was being held by four to five persons, is that correct?
A In my opinion, yes. It might have been bigger than me. I was off to the side. I’m – you’re asking me to give you a number.
Q So you never saw a banner?
A I saw a banner, quite clearly.
Q You never saw it well?
A I saw it. I could –
Q You can’t testify to its dimensions?
MS. KRAUT: Objection.
THE WITNESS: I can testify as to how –
THE COURT: Sustained.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, this group was between five to fifteen persons, isn’t that correct?
A That’s right.
Q Not all of them holding this banner, is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q How do you know they were all of the same group?
A They were huddled together on several of the steps. They were all singing and chanting in Spanish and they were – all appeared to be together. They left together. They were all jovial together.
Q And which steps were they on?
A The lower steps.
Q Do you recall, the first steps, the second step?
A I didn’t look at what numbered steps they were on. They were on the lower steps, several of them, because they were in tiers. They weren’t all on the same steps, they were in tiers.
Q What were the persons doing who weren’t holding the banner?
A They were either standing in front of, next to, or behind the persons who were holding the banner, chanting and singing.
Q Were they obscuring the vision of the banner at any point?
A Uh – it didn’t appear that they were.
Q From any angle, would you be able to see that banner with all of those persons standing there?
A Well, I was only off to the side. I can’t answer from other angles. I don’t know. I could only answer it from where I was standing.
Q But you are testifying that there were 12 to 15 persons assembled around a banner, something smaller than your dimensions, isn’t that correct?
A I would say that they were huddled or a few people holding a banner with certain people next to those who were holding and some behind those who were holding a banner.
Q Now, you recall where you were when you were arrested on January 17th, 1997, isn’t that correct.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection. We’re –
THE COURT: Sustained. Sustained.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q This was not in the same place as the upper plaza steps was?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection.t
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, this goes to the motion.
THE COURT: I know it. I know it. That’s a factual matter you can argue that to me. I think I understand the testimony.
MR. MARCUS: Okay.
THE COURT: I’m trying to get lawers not to argue to witnesses.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now, you said you were talking to a police officer, is that correct?
A Are you referring to yeseterday?
Q Yes.
A That is correct.
Q And he was wearing a blue shirt?
A I am quite color blind. I have no idea what color his shirt was. Sorry.
Q He was alone or with others?
A He was by himself when I had my conversation. I think I remember his name, if that will help you.
Q It will help me. What was his name?
A I believe his name was A.M. Ruggle or Ruggles, I believe was the officer’s name.
Q Did he tell you if he was a Supreme Court Police Officer?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection to relevancy.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Did he tell me he was? No, he did not tell me he was.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Were you able to ascertain in some other way to whether he was a Supreme Court Police Officer?
A I have had conversations with him earlier, and he – as I said, when we first started talking, he asked if he was my arresting officer. So he seemed to indicate to me that he was with the Supreme Court Police, andin our subsequent conversation he indicated he was with the Court.
Q How many other police officers did you see at that time?
A While I was –
MS. KRAUT: Can we get some specificity as to which police officer and at which time, so we know which event we’re talking about?
THE COURT: Would you rephrase your question, Mr. Marcus?
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Yesterday, at approximately 3:00 p.m., you tetified about talking to a police officer whose name you recall as A.M. Ruggles. Do you recall seeing other police officers at that time in that location?
A May I clarify? At 3:00 p.m. is the time I gave where I thought the demonstratin occurred. I spoke with the police officer after the rally when everybody had long gone and I would guesstimate my discussion with that officer to be at about 7:00 p.m. I did not speak with a police officer during the rally. I did not see any police officers during the rally, as I’ve said.
Q What rally?
A The speakers that spoke at the Court yesterday.
Q On the sidewalk?
A On the sidewalk.
Q I’m asking you about, how many police officers did you personally recall seeing other than Officer Ruggles?
A When I spoke with him, he was the only one that I saw.
Q At any previous time, did you see other officers?
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q That day. That day.
THE COURT: While he was speaking to Mr. Ruggles.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Prior to 7:00 p.m., as you’ve testified to?
A I didn’t see any during the rally. I did see a sproadic officer or two, prior to speaking with that officer.
Q Now, at the time that you saw these individuals on the first couple of steps of the Supreme Court –
MS. KRAUT: Objection; mischaracterization.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. KRAUT: Specificity about which steps.
THE COURT: This is not a Judge trial. I actually take very good notes, believe it or not. I remember testimony.
MS. KRAUT: I note my objection.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Well, let me ask you to be absolutely clear: what steps were they on?
A To be specific – the people I saw with the banner?
Q The individuals with the banner, what steps were they on?
A They were on the lower portion of the Supreme Court steps near the sidewalk.
MS. KRAUT: Where is that exhibit?
MR. MARCUS: Exhibit Number – which one, with all the press?
MS. KRAUT: The one with –
THE COURT: I must say this is really hard on the Reporter sometimes, when you’re bantering back and forth.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Mr. Halperin, this is Defense Exhibit 9, it’s been admitted, I believe –
THE COURT: It’s not. It’s been offered.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Do you see the steps there, sir?
A I do.
Q How many steps do you count there?
A Eight, if you include the top step onto the plaza.
Q All right. And just in front of the first step is the sidewalk, isn’t that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Now, based on that picture that you testified about, what steps do you recall, your best recollection of where these individuals holding the banner were standing, and no one else?
MS. KRAUT: Objection, asked and answered.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: I would say that they were on eithe rhte second or third step.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q It’s possible that they were on the first step, isn’t ti?
A No.
Q Not possible?
A No. I could see a step in front of them. Wasn’t anybody on that step.
Q And it’s also possible that they were on the sidewalk, isn’t that correct?
A No. They were clearly not on the sidewalk. They were on the steps.
MR. MARCUS: Objection to the side bars, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes. If you don’t have an objection, I would ask you to refrain from commenting.
THE WITNESS: I can show you where I thought they were.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Please do.
A The group itself was in this area, but they were clearly on the steps and not on the sidewalk. None of them were on the sidewalk. None.
Q And the time you saw that was approximately 3:00 p.m., is that correct?
A As a guess, guess.
THE COURT: Could I interrupt you for a second.
Could I have the attorneys come to the bench for one second? Is has nothing to do with this testimony.
It’s off the record. It has nothing to do with this case, ladies and gentlemen, I’m just advising the lawyers and it has nothing to do with this case.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, it had to do with a call we received from one of the lawyer’s family members concerning a medical appointment. I wanted to advise one of the lawyers.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So the conversation with Officer Ruggles was at approximately 7:00 p.m., correct?
A In my guesstimation of time, yes.
Q And you saw the persons on the steps at approximatley 3:00 p.m.?
A Uh-huh. Yes.
Q And you saw no other police officers –
MS. KRAUT: Objection, asked and answered.
MR. MARCUS: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Kraut?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Halperin, would I – would you please on Exhibit Number 9, make a box on the lower steps there which you testified about where this group of people holding a banner yesterday took place, and then put your intials within that box, so it’s on the record.
A (Witness complied.)
I can’t see if this is writing, sorry.
Q Okay.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, if the record could reflect that the witness has placed a box that’s about half the size of a postage stamp on the second, third, fourth and fifth steps on thelower set of steps on the Supreme Court grounds nad he’s placed in that box the intials RH.
And I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down, Mr. Halperin.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: Any additional evidence on behalf of Mr. Bonowitz?
MS. KRAUT: Yes. Mr. Bonowitz.
Thereupon,
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Would you please state and spell your last name for the record.
A My name is Abraham J. Bonowitz, B-O-N-O-W-I-T-Z.
Q How old are you, Mr. Bonowitz?
A I’m 30 years old.
Q And what do you do?
A I run an organization called Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. I am a volunteer for a number of other organizations that are concerned with human rights in the United States and around the world.
Q Like what?
A I’m a member of the Board of Directors of the United States Section of Amnesty International of the U.S.A. – the United States Section of Amnesty International. I am also active in a group called Friends of Roleau Wallenberg.
Q And what – the organization of which you’re the executive director –
A I’m the Co-executive Director.
Q What is that, that is called what again?
A Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.
Q And long has that organization been in existence?
A It was incorporated on March 24th, 1997.
Q And when you say incorporated, is that a non-profit organization?
A We’re incorporated as a non-membership, non-profit organization.
Q Why did that – did you help form that organization?
A That is correct.
Q And why did you do that?
A It was my belief and the belief of my partner in the organization, George White, as well as our third board member who is Rick Halperin, that an organization did not, or did not at that time exist which was interested in heightening the visibility of those people working at a grass-roots level to abolisht the death penalty in the United States.
Q And what are some of the activities of this organization?
A Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty?
Q Yes.
A It is our interest to support in any way possible the activism of people who are grass-roots activitist working to end the death penalty in the United States, and further to heighten the visibility of the issue of capital punishment of the availability of information so as to give the public in the United States access to information so that they can have an informed discussion about the death penalty in order to make an informed opinion about their position on the death penalty.
Q Just in terms of your own personal activity, have you done anything else aside from forming this anti-death penalty organization to have the death penalty abolished?
A I do anything I possibly can to –
Q Like what?
A Well, I have been active with – within Amnesty International, in particular in creating demonstrations that have always been non-violent and also within the law many times using assertive tactics.
I have written various Congress people and other members of the government, written to and visited with members of people that are currently incarcerated on death rows in various states of the United States. I visit and speak with activists in other countries. I visit and speak and train activists in this country. I’ve worked with murder victims’ family members, organizations to help them coordinate their activities and to become more visible.
I have, as part of our activities for Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, we have created a catalog of clothing and other materials so that people can provide information to the public without having to open their mouths. We call it AbolitionWear; it creates walking billboards, and that sort of thing.
Q Does your organization, the Alternatives organization, does that organization have a newsletter?
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
MS. KRAUT: Goes to the motion, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I sustain it at this point.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q How do you get – how do you the word out to – to –
A Without funding, our word is gotten out as – sporadically. So far we’re – the work of Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty has been to inform the activists within the United States and other countries of our existence. We’re brand new. Our work and our existence is specifically to help others that are doing this work. In particular, when we can have any impact on the general public, we’ve done that.
It is our goal to have to produce mass media communications devices, such as televisi commercials, billboards, radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, newspaper advertisements to heighten the visibility of the issue and to let people know of their complicity, their blind complicity in most cases, in active state killing.
Q The post cards that Mr. Marcus inquired about this morning?
A Uh-huh.
Q What do you know about that post card?
A Well, I created that post card.
Q Can we have that –
A I’ve got some small stacks of them over here, if you want.
Q All right. I think we can talk. Maybe we can talk about it, without evening getting it out or while we’re talking we can get them out.
Who created – what do you know about the creation of that post car?
A Well, the post card – we have a number of friends that made photographs of the action in question on January 17th. It was only after we had the chance to look at these post cards – or these photographs, that we said, you know, this would be a great way to help us get the world out about the activism that we did.
It was at that time that we chose some of the appropriate photographs that would fit well together. The photograph that is pictured on the card is actually a compilation, electronically generated, where you would have the main photograph and then an inset picture that brings closer the demonstration itself, the banner. So you can see, if you look with a magnifying grass, the faces f most of the people that are pictured there.
Additionally, there is another inset photograph that shows Defendant Pautrat beign dragged by two police officers in her arrest.
On the reverse side of the postcard is the standard. Here’s where your stamp goes. There’s a little bit of information why we did – what action there is and what was done.
I could read that, if you like.
Q The one that says, Stop Exectuions?
A That’s right.
Q No. Actually what I would like you to do is read the other part of it where it starts with “Support the.”
A All right.
MR. MARCUS: Objection, Your Honor. This has been read into the record already.
THE COURT: I do have it in the record. I have it in my notes.
MS. KRAUT: But I’m going to be inquiring about ti.
THE COURT: Well, why don’t you just inquire what it says.
MS. KRAUT: All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q This is Government Exhibit Number 4, by the way post card. It says, Stop Executions on the front. It says on one little blurg here on the other side of the post card it says, Support the ACC and the DC 18 legal defense fund. Send checks to Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, and so on.
Why – why – why do you have that on the post card?
A Well, in preparing for the action, there was a lot of extensive planning that took place, including conference calls and other long distance telephone calls, mail, announcements to people within the movement, that they could participate in this sort of activity. All of this raised significant expenses.
Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty as an organiation that at that time was in the process of forming – was participating in or practicing its ethic of supporting grass roots activists absorbed those costs. And we ask at every opportunity for people to help us, who are interested in helping us, to raise the visibility of people doing work to abolish the death penalty in the United States.
Therefore, because we were producing this post card, we thought it would be a waste not to give people the opportunity to help support the efforts. As it happens, income is far, far below the cost of producing the cards. So it has not been a fund generator. Additionally, many people within the movement expressed to us their displeasure within the fact that we had asked for mony to help defendants who had, you know, willingly gotten arrested when there are so many people in the United States who face the death penalty who have no legal representation and no access to legal representation that is being paid for independent of the government.
Q So just so I understand, is the Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, is that commercial organization or money –
MR. MARCUS: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: He testified it’s a non-profit non-member organization.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q So you’re not a commercial organization, is that right?
A No.
Q All right. On January 17th, 1997, were you – where were you on the morning of January 17th, 1997?
A Well, I started that morning at the facility called Community for Creative Non-Violence, which is several blocks from here. We made our way to he –
A Let me just get right over to the plight of this event. Where were you at aroud quarter to ten?
A I was participating in a press conference and a demonstration that took place at – on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to the left.
Q And why weren’t you – and then did you go up onto the plaza nd the upper tier of steps later on?
A Yes.
Q And were you arrested at that time?
A I was arrested.
Q For doing what?
A Well, presumably for refusing to leave the plaza.
Q What did you actually do up there on the steps?
A I gave the nod to unfurl the banner and grabbed and held the banner and I sang and I chanted.
Q What did the banner say?
A The banner said, Stop Executions, exclamation point.
Q Why did you find it not adequate to be on the sidewalk, not that it matters for any First Amendment reasons, but why did you not just stay on the sidewalk and hold onto your banner –
A Well, at the –
Q - hold onto your banner there?
A I have been a participant in the annual fast and vigil to abolish the death penalty, which takes place in front of – on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court annually.
Last year was the first year I participated in person and fasted and I should say that I’m fasting now, which may be responsible for the slurring of some of my answers.
So last year was the third annual fast and vigil. I was participating then. And reguarly we have police officers at the Supreme Court come down and show us the first step and say look, where marble starts and you’ve got crushed brick sort of sidewalk, and then the steps are made of marble, and the line actually is. Where the marble starts, free speech ends.
And this to me, as a citizen of the United States –
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: This to me is abhorent to the entire concept of freedom of speech, to be told from kindergarten on that the United States is the great protector of freedoms and that the freedom of speech is one of the most vital and important of the right that we have as citizens of this country and to be told that the place that protects that you cannot take a step onto this marble and exercise free speech. It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
So, therefore, I came into agreement, once I experienced that with some of my friends, that we needed to do something that, you know, that – demonstrated on the plaza that it is a place where free speech must exist.
And because the issue that I committed my life to is the death penalty, you know, it could have been any number of issues that I give – that I give my support to, but my life is focused on the death penalty, and the action was to be on the death penalty and it was – I went and exhibited that banner on the steps of the Court, because that was the right thing to do to create – to send the message.
Q If you had the funds to own a newspaper would you- let me ask you, do you have the funds to own a newspaper?
A No.
Q And what about a television station?
A No.
Q Or radio station?
A I do not have the funds to own any mechanism of mass media communication.
Q Personally or in relation to the Citizens United for –
A Alternatives.
Q - Alternatives to the death penalty, are their sufficent funds in that organization to own newspapers, radio stations, or television stations?
A Currently, no.
MS. KRAUT: Thank you. No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone?
MR. GOLDSTONE: Thank you, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Bonowitz, good afternoon.
Did you unfurl the banner in such a way that you compromised the protection of the Supreme Court building or grounds?
A The protection?
Q Protection?
A No.
Q Did you unfurl the banner in such a way to compromise the security of persons at the Supreme Court?
A No.
Q Did you unfurl the banner in such a way to compromise the security of property at the Supreme Court?
A No.
Q Did you disturb the peace and good order of the Supreme Court?
A No.
Q Did you distrub the decorum of the Supreme Court?
A Decorum? Can you define decorum, please?
Q In your estimation, can you –
MR. MARCUS: Objecion, Your Honor.
MR. GOLDSTONE: Did you upset the decorum?
THE COURT: I think you have to ask him if it was intent, his intent to upset.
DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Was it your intent to disturb the decorum of the United States Supreme Court on January 17th?
A It was my intent to improve the decorum of the Supreme Court of the United States on that day.
MR. GOLDSTONE: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Laffin, any questions?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: None, thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Peck?
DEFENDANT PECK: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions.
THE COURT: Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Halperi?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: None, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: No.
THE COURT: Ms. Pautrat?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: Nope.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Marcus.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Bonowitz, you testified about a press conference you gave about quarter to ten on January 17th, 1997, is that correct?
A I participated in a press conference, that’s correct.
Q Who was the press?
A We had invited any member of the press that would like to participate. It’s my understanding –
Q Who was it?
A I’m sorry?
Q Who was it?
A Who was it? There were three separate news organizations, or what they call, I guess tringer organizations that were sent by – they came to cover these organizations. And my understanding that they then resell the footage that they get to the major news organizations.
Q Where did you give the conference?
A I’m sorry?
Q Where did you give the conference?
A Where?
Q Yeah.
A The conference was called and did take place on the sidewalk in front of the United States Supreme Court to the left of the center.
Q And the press stayed on the sidewalk while you gave that conference, correct?
A While I gave the conference, yes.
Q And it wasn’t until after that conference was over that you joined the group up on the plaza steps?
A To be precise, the press conference was still ongoing. I believe Mr. White who testified earlier, was speaking at the time, that myself and Defendant Jaeger walked onto – up the stairs onto the plaza and joined the group at the top of the stairs.
Q Was a press release issued?
A Yes.
Q To that particular event?
A Yes.
Q Did you bring a copy of that?
A I do have a copy of that.
Q May I see it, please?
A Certainly.
Q Now, you approved this press release, isn’t that correct?
A I’m sorry, I could not hear the question.
Q Now, you approved this press release, did you not?
A Yes.
MS. KRAUT: May we see the press release, please? May we see it?
MR. MARCUS: I haven’t had a chance to see it, counsel.
MS. KRAUT: Well –
DEFENDANT BONWITZ: I’ve got more copies.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, I haven’t asked any substantive questions.
THE COURT: I know. You have to take time to look at it, get it marked.
THE WITNESS: I can also provide you with the rest of the press packet which has lots of information about the death penalty.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, there is standing Jencks with respect to the witness who is testifying. I would like to have had the opportunity before this to actaully have a chance to look into this. Now I’m getting it and they’re asking for it at exactly the same time that I’m getting and it’s been in their hands all along.
I think that’s inappropriate and I’m going to object to it.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t really think it was a Jencks inquiry.
MR. MARCUS: Wel, it’s a statement of this individual and he’s testified to his – his role with respect to this group and the issuance of press releases and his having given a press conference at which a press release had been issued.
And we think under the circumstances that would constitute – at least reasonably put them on notice that this is possible Jencks and they should have turned it over.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MARCUS: May I have the press packet, please?
THE WITNESS: Certainly. It I may, the attorneys did not come into this picture until after the demonstration.
THE COURT: Let me ask – excuse me – if a defendant leaves the courtroom, could you announce who you are and that you’re leaving voluntarily.
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: Jeremy Scahill; I have to use the bathroom. I apologize.
THE COURT: I can take a recess. I’ll take a five minute recess.
(Recess at 3:43 p.m.)
(Resumed at 3:49 p.m.)
THE DEPUTY CLERK: Your Honor, with regards to the defendants in case number 822-97 through 829-97, excluding 825-97, 828-97 and 833-97.
Counsel for the record, please?
MR. GOLDSTONE: Mark Goldstone for six defendants. All of them are present.
MS. KRAUT: Nina Kraut for Mr. Bonowitz.
MR. MARCUS: Theodore Marcus for the Government.
MR. EMORY: William Emory for the Government.
THE COURT: Thank you.
In the future, if any person needs a rest, please let me know. I don’t like people walking in and out of the courtroom unless I’m put on notice of what the purpose is.
Thank you. You may proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Mr. Bonowitz, I’m showing you what has been marked for identificaiton as Government’s Exhibit 5. This is the press release you were talking about, right?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you issued this the day of the event, right?
A I’m sorry?
Q You issued that the day of the event, right?
A Prior.
Q Prior to the day of the event?
A Yes.
Q All right. And you have the date of January 17th, 1997?
A Yes.
Q Okay.
A That was the date of the activity. We actually issued it at least the week in advance.
Q But it says January 17th, isn’t that correct?
A That’s the date of the press release, yes. Let me correct myself. We issued several other releases, which I do not have copies of, prior to which would be termed probably press advisories.
Q But the event was January 17th, correct?
A That’s correct.
Q And that was issued at least a week before the event, isn’t that correct?
A Similar – this is the one that went out the day of the event.
Q Okay. And it says, for immediate release?
A That’s correct.
Q But you testified that one went out before the event?
A Let me – that’s right. Starting at some point after midnight or after 12:01 a.m. on the 17th.
Q Right.
A This was released.
Q Okay. And you were arrested smetime later that morning around 10:00 or so a.m., right?
A Sometime after 10:00 a.m., yes.
Q Okay.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, we would ask that this be admitted into evidence as Government Exhibit Number 5.
THE COURT: Any objection by anybody?
MS. KRAUT: No.
THE COURT: All right. It will be admitted without objection.
(Document Government Exhibit No. 5, entered into evidence.)
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Now Mr. Bonowitz, would you please read this top paragraph on the backside of this document out loud from the beginning of the “B” to the period to the last period?
A I’m sorry. You’re going to have to speak directly to me.
Q I apologize. That’s right. You have hearing aids.
Would you just please read this top paragraph, right here?
A Yes. “The 18 people arrested were charged with violating 40 United States Code Section 13” – sounds like a typo – “which forbids demonstrations on the Supreme Court Steps or plaza. Each person arrested could face a find of up to $100 and imprisonment of up to 60 days.”
Q Mr. Bonowitz, after you issued this press release, you were locked in, were you now?
A I was what?
Q You were locked into that – you were committed to this action after you released this press release, isn’t that right?
A We were committed to this action well before the planning even started.
Q And you fully knew what you were doing was against the law, isn’t that right?
MS. KRAUT: Objection, calls for a legal conclusion of the witness who is not a lawyer.
THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q According to this document –
THE COURT: No, no. I’m sorry. There’s a question pending.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Okay. Would you answer the question, please?
A Could you restate it, please?
Q You fully knew that what you were doing was against the law, isn’t that correct?
A Well, we were fully aware given the warnings we had repeatedly received during the fast and vigil, the annual fast and vigil against the death penalty, wherein we had been told on numerous occasions repeatedly by the police officers that the plaza, the Supreme Court plaza, that it we touchor step on marble, were in any way giving an indication of our opinions or activism against the death penalty, that we could be arrested.
And at various points we had asked the police officers to show us the law, whereupon they usually pull out a laminated card and they refused to let us hold it,but they will show it to us and read it to us and say where it spells out precisely what are the potential punishments, if you are found guilty of violating the code.
Q Okay. Now, with respect to Government’s Exhibit 4, which is this post card, this is your brain child, isn’t it?
A You could say that.
Q I mean, the way it’s framed here with the two inset pictures, that’s your creation, isn’t it?
A That’s right. It’s also my idea to highlight the etching into the front of the, you know, you can’t really see it in the photograph, so we highlighted the part that says “equal justice under law.”
Q You actually superimposed black ink –
MS. KRAUT: Objection.
MR. MARCUS: On that, isn’t that correct?
MS. KRAUT: Let the witness finish his statement.
THE COURT: Overruled.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q You actually superimposed black ink on the “equal justice under law” portion –
A Well, what we did was, we had the computer technician who was enhancing the photographing – it’s – the technical term is to enhance the visibility of the words that are carved into the façade of the Court, so that the hypocrac of the term “equal justice under law” could come out very, very clearly.
Q Now, there’s something asthetic involved in that, isn’t there, this picture post card?
MS. KRAUT: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q Isn’t it a fact that the equal justice under law, which you saw was computer enhanced, is exactlly the same distance as the Stop Executions banner thatyou all have here?
A (No response.)
Q Let me show it to you.
MS. KRAUT: Objection.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection as to relevancy.
THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS EXAMINATION: CONTINUED
Q Mr. Bonowitz, you have given me an entire packet of documents that you call a part of the press packet. Were all of these documents given to the press prior to January 17th?
A These documents were presented to the press who attended the press conference that was held on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on January 17th, the 20th anniversary of the execution of Gary Gilmore.
Q And by my count I have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 –
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection as to relevancy.
THE COURT: I don’t know what the question is yet. He apparently is going to count something.
CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED
Q - 7, 8 documents plus the press release, all prepared as part of the press packet, is that correct?
A That’s right. All of those documents you will not are from a variety of organizations and all of them were provided free of charge by those organizations in order to help us provide to the media the latest accurate information about capital punishment.
Q Every document in this press packet was provided free of charge?
A That is correct.
Q But they were not created without funds, isn’t that correct?
A That is correct.
Q Okay.
A They were not created by any funds generated by me.
Q Didn’t ask that.
A All right.
Q Now, Mr. Bonowitz, did you go to the Court yesterday with Mr. Halperin?
A I was there.
Q How many other persons in this defendant group went to the Court with Mr. Halperin?
A Many of us were there. I believe that there are only two people here that I did not – I do not recall seeing.
Q What two?
A I don’t recall seeing Jeremy Scahill and Gerald Byrne.
Q And did you see these persons with the banenr?
A Which banner?
Q The banner that Mr. Halperin testified about.
A I did.
Q Okay. And what was the size of it in your recollection?
A Of that group?
Q What was the size of the banner?
A Oh. The banner is precisely 3’ X 5’.
Q And do you agree with Mr. Halperin that four or five persons were holding the banner?
A That’s about right.
Q Let me pin down these dimensions a little bit better. You say about three – two to three feet?
A No. The banner actually belongs to Amnesty International United States, the midAtlantic regional office.
Q I’m not asking who it belongs to. What I’m asking about is the dimensions –
THE COURT: He said 3’ X 5”.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Okay. 3’ –
A Yes. The reason I know, I actually provided that banner to the Amnesty International Office several years ago. It was created by a friend of mine who sewed – it has an Amnesty candle on it. It reads No Acceptamos la Pena de Muerte – which means, we do not accept the death penalty.
MR. MARCUS: That is hearsay, Your Honor.
CROSS-EXAMIANTION CONTINUED
Q Mr. Bonowitz, did you see where they were standing on the plaza?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Where were they standing?
A They were standing precisely at the point that Mr. Halperin pointed out on the photograph.
Q Which is where?
A Which is from the second or third step up to the 6th or 7th step, probably at the widest point, six or seven people wide. They had enough people to be filling in the area. They were posing for photographs.
Q At no point were they on the sidewalk?
A Well, at the point before and after ascending the stairs they were on the sidewalk.
Q So, then it was possible that they were on the sidewalk at some point?
A Of course.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection, this is already of record.
THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Do you agree with Mr. Halperin that there were 12 to 15 person in this group that you identified as being around the persons with the banner?
A That’s an appropriate approximation, yes.
Q Okay.
A I did not count them.
Q It’s appropriate. Not all of them were holding this banner?
A No. Many of them were standing on the steps higher up. The people in the front were holding
the banner.
Q And the banner said what?
A “No Acceptamos la Pena de Muerte”, which means “We Do Not Accept the Death Penalty.”
Q Okay. Now, did you see police officers there?
A Where?
Q All right. I’m trying to make this simple.
A Yes.
Q With respect to your going to the United States Supreme Court grounds yesterday at approximately 1:00 to 1:30, where you saw these individuals, approximately 12 to 15 individuals you said were an appropriate approximation, that were standing on the second or third steps of the United States Supreme Court, with respect to that testimony, okay?
A Uh-huh.
Q Did you see any police officers around them?
A While they were on the plaza?
Q Yes.
A I wasn’t actually paying attention to if there were any police officers standing around. I can say with certainty that I was watching for police officers throughout the day.
Now, I did not see one police officer until at least halfway through our rally, which would have been after 2:30 p.m. I did not personally see any uniformed Supreme Court Police Officers until after 2:30 p.m.
Q And what was the duration of time the persons standing with these Spanish signs –
A At least ten minutes.
Q At least ten minutes. And they started holding it at about 1:00 to 1:15, isn’t that correct?
A Somewhere in there.
Q Okay. Now, Mr. Halperin testified that it was approximately 3:00. That’s not correct, isn’t that right?
MS. KRAUT: Objection, already asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q How long were you there, sir?
A I was in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, without leaving, between the hours of a quarter to one and 4:30 p.m.
Q What movement did those Spanish-speaking individuals belong to?
A I spoke to them after they descended the stairs. They are a group of Human Rights activists that are in town for a meeting and they’re from Guatemala and El Salvador.
Q Had you known them prior to yesterday?
A I have never seen them prior to this –
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection as to relevancy.
THE COURT: I’m going to sustain the objection.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q You speak Spanish?
A I understand Spanish and I can sometimes be understood with my Spanish, yes.
Q Is that understanding of Spanish that allows you to tell us what the translation of the sign says?
A Yes, it’s pretty easy to understand.
Q Why?
A Oh, because Spanish is a language that shares many words, and if you understand the context of the – where the banner was – and part of the demonstration and the rally that was taking place, it wouldn’t be difficult to assume the meaning.
Q But if you don’t have any knowledge –
A If you don’t know what –
THE COURT: The Court Reporter is here. You shouldn’t talk over one another. Excuse me.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Mr. Bonowitz, your last statement was what?
A If you don’t understand the Spanish language, you would not know what “La Pena de Muerte” means.
Q And this is America, correct?
A This is the United States.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection to relevancy.
THE COURT: Sustained. Strike the last remark.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q What was the time that you saw the first police officer that you saw that day, yesterday?
A Well, I can tell you with certainty that the first police officer in uniform that I saw, that was part of the United States Supreme Court Police, was sometime after 3:30. I don’t know exactly what time.
Q What about any other –
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection, the police court cameras, the police officers are always in view of what is going on the steps there. They have a camera 24 hours a day that faces those steps.
THE COURT: Okay. Sustained.
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q And just to be clear, you had no conversations with any type of police officer yesterday at all, is that correct?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Objection to relevancy to the last statement.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Did you have any conversations with the police officers?
THE WITNESS: I’m trying to think. The closest contact I had with police officers –
CROSS-EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Conversations?
A No. No conversations.
MR. MARCUS: Pass the witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Kraut, any redirect?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q Mr. Bonowitz, what’s the purpose of your press release and your press kit?
A I’m sorry?
Q Your press release and your press kit?
A Uh-huh.
MS. KRAUT: If I might?
MR. MARCUS: Sure.
REDIRECT EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q What’s the purpose of your press release kit?
A The purpose of the press release is to entice the press to come and hear the people that are quoted in the press release say those statements or similar statements in person preferably on camera so that those statements can then be rebroadcast to the general public, and –
Q And what do you hope the press – oh, I’m sorry, what was the last part?
A The purpose is that – or the desire of any press release is that the press, the media, pays attention, comes and records you actually stating and then rebroadcast that or does then broadcast that or prints it or somehow presents it to the general public, so that they can be – um – so that they can be hopefully enlightened as to the opinions and information presented by the people making the statements.
Q So you can get the word out, is that right?
A Precisely, to get the word out about the death penalty.
Q Okay.
A And the problems with it.
Q I’m going to show you what’s been marked as DEFENDANT BONWITZ’ Number 10. Would you take a look at that?
A (Witness complied.)
Q And would you tell the Court what that it?
A Okay. What you have here are a series of documents. The first one on the left –
THE COURT: Is that the press kit?
THE WITNESS: I’m sorry. This is the press kit.
THE COURT: You’re identifying the press kit that’s been distributed?
THE WITNESS: This was distributed to the media that attended the press conference which preceded the action in question on January 17th.
What you have is a banner which – or a placard which creates – you actually –
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. It’s been identified as a press kit.
Do you have any additional questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Is that press kit some kind of substitution for a television statement or a television –
A Absolutely not.
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
REDIRECT EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q Absolutely what?
A Absolutely not.
MR. MARCUS: Objection.
THE COURT: Yes, when the objection is sustained –
MS. KRAUT: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: That means don’t ask the question.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, we ask that Number 10 be admitted.
THE COURT: Any objection to Number 10 being admitted?
MR. MARCUS: Yes, Your Honor. We object. It’s all heresy. This was put in as an admission by a party opponent, no foundation has been laid with respect to the press kit –
THE COURT: That’s correct.
MR. MARCUS: - and we didn’t move it in.
MS. KRAUT: Well, it’s – it’s –
THE COURT: Are you offering it on the motion or the trial?
MS. KRAUT: We’re offering it on the motion.
THE COURT: It’s being offered on the motion. Any objection?
MR. MARCUS: Same objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The objection will be overruled. Defendant’s 10 will be admitted for purposes of the motion only.
(Press kit, Defendant’s Exhibit No. 10, entered into evidence.)
MS. KRAUT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. You may step down, Mr. Bonowitz.
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Your Honor, may I inquire?
THE COURT: I’m sorry, I thought I had given you the opportunity. No. Thank you. You may sit down. I’m sorry, you may take your seat.
MS. KRAUT: Don’t you want her to inquire?
THE COURT: I have allowed everybody during the trial one shot, including the government. So that will be it.
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I don’t know that I got my opportunity, Your Honor?
THE COURT: You didn’t? I took notes on it. You went through your seriatim of questions.
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I don’t recall that.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Any additional questions of Mr. Bonowitz? Any additional evidence on behalf of Mr. Bonowitz?
MS. KRAUT: Yes, Your Honor. I want to call –
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, she said she had two witnesses. In the interest of moving this case, she should be held to that.
THE COURT: I’ve had a number of lawyers say that they had one more question –
MS. KRAUT: This is the –
THE COURT: I’m sorry. Let’s not talk to one another. Do you have any other witnesses?
(Pause.)
MS. KRAUT: All right. We’re going to rest at this time.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Bonowitz rests.
Ladies and gentlemen, with respect to each pro se defendant, I’m going to advise you that you have the right to testify, you have the right not to testify. If you wish to testify you will be placed under oath. You may make whatever relevant statements are appropriate and then you’re cross-examined by any party.
If you do not wish to testify, it won’t be held against you since you assumed to be innocent. It’s the government’s burden to prove you guilty.
With respect to each individual, I’m going to ask you if you wish to testify to present any evidence.
Mr. Laffin?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Peck?
DEFENDANT PECK: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: No.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms.Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No. Marietta Jaeger did a beautiful job of representing us.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Halperin?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Pautrat:
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Yes.
THE COURT: You wish to testify?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:: Do you solemnly affirm –
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Can I just affirm to tell the truth?
Thereupon,
THE COURT: Would you say your name for the record, please?
THE WITNESS: Phyllis Pautrat.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Would you like to make a statement concerning the incident on January 17th, 1997?
THE WITNESS: No. I wanted to talk about what happened to me at the Court shortly after midnight on Saturday night, which would have been yesterday.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Very briefly –
MR. MARCUS: And this on the motion. Objection.
THE WITNESS: Yes, this is on the motion.
MR. MARCUS: Strictly on the motion, Your Honor?
THE WITNESS: Oh the motion, strictly.
THE COURT: Okay. I must say, as I understood it, Ms. Pautrat, you did not join in the motion, did you?
THE WITNESS: Uh – no, I did not.
MR. MARCUS: Can we have a poll on that, Your Honor? I think we can verify if she did or did not.
THE COURT: She did not join in the motion.
MR. MARCUS: Then she shouldn’t be able to give testimony with respect to it.
THE COURT: Okay. That’s why I asked you early on whether people were joining in the motion or outside the motion.
Let me ask Mr. Goldstone or Ms. Kraut whether you wish to inquire of Ms. Pautrat?
MS. KRAUT: I’ll ask her about what happened to her on Saturday night.
THE COURT: Okay. I will allow the testimony concerning Mr. Bonowitz on the motion.
MS. KRAUT: Right.
THE COURT: Please let me hear the examination.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q What happened to you – where were you on Saturday night, and we’re talking about June 29th?
A June 29th at 12:15 a.m.
Q Okay.
A Approximately at 12:15 a.m., I was with a group of individuals who were on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court participating in a ceremony to commence the four day fast and vigil, June 29th specifically commemorating the Furman vs. Georgia decision, striking the death penalty in the United States.
I took a break for a moment, wearing exactly what I’m wearing now. For the record it’s a blue-gray sweat shirt, with no writing on it. I sat down on the second step of the Supreme Court two steps from the sidewalk, and a Supreme Court Officer approached me and told me – he asked me initially if I was with the group on the sidewalk. I said “Why” and he said “You have to get up.”
I said “Why do I have to get up?” He said “Because – are you with that group or not?” And he kept insisting and asking me that, and I said, “Yes, I’m with that group.” Undefined group, but that group. And he said, “You’re going to have to get up.” And I said, “Why? I am not wearing anything that states anything. I’m not speaking. I’m doing nothing other than sitting on the second and third steps of the Supreme Court, making no statement, speaking nothing.” And he said, “You will have to get up.”
And I could belabor the point, but I did not. I got up, against my wishes.
MR. MARCUS: Your Honor, I object. I just would like to note that – to the government’s objection to the relevance of anything that has taken place after the relevant time period.
THE COURT: All right. Except you spent about 20 minutes cross-examining the last witness about it.
MR. MARCUS: Because my object was overruled the first time.
THE COURT: No. No. Any additional questions?
MS. KRAUT: Just a couple, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATIONCONTINUED
Q How – did you know what group this officer was talking about?
A Yes.
Q What group was that?
A It was the group, those of us who come out every year and we commence our fast and vigil at 12:01 a.m. on June 29th, the anniversary of the Furman vs. Georgia decision. And we were doing that exactly as we have done since 1994.
Q How far approximately were you from this group?
A I was on, again the second and third step and the group was on the sidewalk.
Q And in terms –
A Different jurisdiction.
Q In terms of distance, how far were you?
A I just took a walk, maybe 10 feet away from the closest person.
Q And how do you know that the person you spoke to was a Supreme Court Police Officer?
A By his uniform, badge and uniform.
Q Did you have –
A And nameplate, which I didn’t read.
Q All right.
MS. KRAUT: No further questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Goldstone?
MR. GOLDSTONE: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Laffin, any questions?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Peck?
DEFENDANT PECK: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: No questions.
THE COURT: Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: No questions.
THE COURT: Mr. Halperin?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: No questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Marcus?
MR. MARCUS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
You may step down. Thank you for your testimony.
THE WITNESS: Okay.
THE COURT: Do you have – Mr. Scahill, do you wish to testify?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: As regards to testimony?
THE COURT: Excuse me?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: As regards to testimony?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: No, thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
All defendants have rested their evidence.
MR. MARCUS: We do have one rebuttal witness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Could I have a proffer on the rebuttal, Your Honor?
MR. MARCUS: The proffer is that there’s been testimony from Mr. Halperin about a conversation with Officer Ruggles who clearly was on duty at some point yesterday, and we’d like to ask him if he remembers that conversation, if he remembers the events Mr. Halperin testified about.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand the questions you wish to ask. Do you have a proffer concerning the relevant rebuttal testimony? You have a to make a proffer regarding –
MR. MARCUS: It’s relevant, Your Honor, on the motion –
THE COURT: What do you expect the witness to say?
MR. MARCUS: We anticipate that the witness is going to say that there was no demonstration type activity taking place on the plaza.
THE COURT: At that time of the conversation?
MR. MARCUS: At the time that he was on duty after he testified to.
THE COURT: You may cal the witness for that purpose.
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Your Honor, may I object to that?
THE COURT: Yes, I’ll hear your objection, Mr. Halperin.
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Well, I believe that the testimony will show, and maybe the Court Reporter will read it back, but I stated that at the time that my conversation with the officer that there was –
THE COURT: That was about 7:00 p.m., right?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Right. That there was no demonstration going on, and it goes to relevance, if that’s what he’s asking the officer.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand your point.
MR. MARCUS: But Mr. Halperin doesn’t know how long the officer was there, and I don’t know how long the officer was there. I would like to at least be able to establish that he would have been there at around 2:00, if he was there around the 2:00 –
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: But my conversation –
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MARCUS: Or was aware of any activities that took place from what he heard from other officers. It goes –
THE COURT: The testimony before me – are you talking about the unfurling of the banner on or about 1:15 p.m., 1:15 to 1:30?
MR. MARCUS: I couldn’t pin the testimony between the two individuals. It could be from 1:00 to 1:15 to 3:00, according to the testimony –
THE COURT: I would just say to you, Mr. Marcus, that the testimony before me by both witnesses who testified to that event, that there were no police officers around at that time.
MR. MARCUS: That they didn’t see any police officers, Your Honor. But I need to verify that with my officers to whether there were other officers on the –
THE COURT: So you’re going to proffer that there were no police – that’s the testimony?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: May I make an objection?
THE COURT: Yes, ma’am.
MS. KRAUT: Again, as I stated earlier that there are observation cameras –
THE COURT: I understand. That’s not an objection, ma’am, that’s a factual dispute.
Yes, sir?
MR. MARCUS: I believe that Officer Ruggles can testify to his knowledge, whether it comes from his personal observations on the shift or becoming aware of if from having the regular chain of communications from other officers who had different shifts, whom they have or may not have seen, who can tell – he can tell this Court whether he was aware of any kind of activity.
THE COURT: What’s your proffer?
MR. MARCUS: The proffer is that he will testify that he’s not aware of any such activity, whatsoever, either on his shift or before.
THE COURT: That’s fine. I expect short testimony.
MR. MARCUS: It will be very short, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s the status of the testimony before me, but if you want to make the record on that, that’s fine.
MR. MARCUS: So that’s the status of the record?
THE COURT: I informed you that there is no evidence that any police officer was in or about the area in which the banner was unfurled.
MR. MARCUS: We won’t call him.
THE COURT: That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you, Mr. Marcus.
MR. MARCUS: I apologize. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: That’s what I’ve been trying to say the last –
MR. MARCUS: I apologize, Your Honor. The government is being obtuse. We will rest our case as well, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. What is the parties’ desire at this point? I have 4:30 matters.
MR. GOLDSTONE: Your Honor, we would renew our motion for judgment of acquittal.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. GOLDSTONE: Submit on the evidence.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, we would renew our MJOA and as far as our motion to dismiss is concerned, I don’t know whether the Court wants to rule –
THE COURT: I have that under advisement at this point.
MS. KRAUT: And I don’t really feel as though it’s necessary to connect all the links and –
THE COURT: No, I think I understand your argument, but I’m not going to –
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Your Honor –
THE COURT: I’m sorry. Let me just speak one at a time, okay? I understand your argument, but I’m not going to preclude you from arguing.
Are you renewing your argument for judgment of acquittal?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. On behalf of each pro se defendant as to the close of all evidence, if you wish to renew your motion for judgment of acquittal, you must do so at this time.
Mr. Laffin?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: Yes, for the same reasons I said earlier.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Ms. Peck, do you wish to renew your motion for judgment of acquittal?
DEFENDANT PECK: yes.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Streit?
DEFENDANT STREIT: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Mr. Halperin, do you wish to renew your motion for judgment of acquittal?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: I didn’t make one, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, I’m sorry, sir. That’s right. I have it in my notes.
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: May I ask a technical question?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: I was going to ask you if you could explain what a MJOA means?
THE COURT: That’s a motion for judgment of acquittal. It means taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government that there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: I would renew.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma’am.
Ms. Pautrat?
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Likewise, yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: I didn’t join.
THE COURT: Oh. I’m sorry. That’s right. My notes reflect.
Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. All motions have been renewed –
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor, we have one more –
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just deny for the record. I have to – the record has to support a ruling on the motion for judgment of acquittal. So at this time, based on the previously stated reasons, I’ll deny the motions for judgment of acquittal.
MS. KRAUT: Your Honor –
THE COURT: Yes, ma’am.
MS. KRAUT: I’m going to ask for motion to dismiss the entire case. I just learned that the Supreme Court apparently has videos, cameras that are running 24 hours a day directed at the front of the steps, the plaza area, the steps, and so on.
And when we had discovery, we requested that the government produce all videos and tapes of the event that occurred there.
If, in fact, the government – or the Supreme Court tapes, videos, internal videos, rather than, you know, some fellow out there, like the witnesses testified the other day, you know, with the video camera and all that sort of thing, but if, in fact, the Supreme Court and the government has video tapes of that event which were taken form the video cameras that are mounted on the Supreme Court building, we’re entitled to that.
And because that was not given to us, I believe that it is very relevant to both the trial on the merits, as well as the motion to dismiss, and that the government has an obligation to produce that.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Marcus –
MS. KRAUT: That could be exculpatory.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Marcus – I believe under the rules of discovery, you’d be entitled to that, if they intended to introduce it to their case-in-chief.
MS. KRAUT: No –
THE COURT: This is not a discussion. It’s a statement for the record.
Are you aware of any existence of any video tapes of this matter on any Supreme Court video?
MR. MARCUS: I’m not aware of any such video tapes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MARCUS: And we did give them copies of the video tapes that the government was aware of.
THE COURT: And that you intended to introduce into evidence?
MR. MARCUS: Absolutely, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s correct. Are you aware of any evidence, video tapes or otherwise, that would provide any of the defendants with exculpatory information concerning the charge?
MR. MARCUS: Absolutely none, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. So I’ll deny the motion to dismiss based on the government’s representation.
Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, I don’t think that we can get closing arguments today. 10:00 tomorrow morning, is that sufficient time for everybody?
We have to go through the same process of signing notice and all of that.
Hold on one second. Let me just say this 10:00.
THE DEPUTY CLERK:: Each of you defendants are being released on your present bond to reappear in this courtroom tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m., tomorrow being July 1st, without further notice.
If you fail to appear tomorrow, a warrant may issue for your arrest and you are subject to a $100 fine, 130 days imprisonment, or both, just for failing to appear.
Does each of you understand?
THE COURT: We need individual responses.
Mr. Bonowitz?
DEFENDANT BONWITZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Gibson?
DEFENDANT GIBSON: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Laffin?
DEFENDANT LAFFIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Peck?
DEFENDANT PECK: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Streit:
DEFENDANT STREIT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Byrne?
DEFENDANT BYRNE: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Charkoudian?
DEFENDANT CHARKOUDIAN: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Halperin?
DEFENDANT HALPERIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Holtshopple?
DEFENDANT HOLTSHOPPLE: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you for hearing us tomorrow.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Ms. Jaeger?
DEFENDANT JAEGER: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Muther?
DEFENDANT MUTHER: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Pautrat:
DEFENDANT PAUTRAT: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Pelke?
DEFENDANT PELKE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Mr. Scahill?
DEFENDANT SCAHILL: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
If you could step forward and sign this notice.
(Thereupon, proceedings were adjourned to be resumed on Tuesday, July 1st, 1997.)
|
|
|