# Appendix — United States v. Johnson > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0212%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1966 - **Citation:** 383 U.S. 169 ## Text INDEX Table of Contents Vol. I Page II snhceriecnsicensneennsintsiibiilomienisinisibidaieitil 1 ' POCKET ENTRIES WITH ORDERS OF IIIT sticdnintrveictotinnmnssinensinsiicicntenucsieileiinsamsabiegesait 30 D PRE-TRIAL OPINION .ecccsnsnssssetesnnensntettne 48 > MOTIONS TO DISMISS FIRST COUNT oo..ccccccccccssse 52 ee » MOTIONS TO DISMISS SECOND TO EIGHTH Be COUNTS .u....ccvsscssssssssssssssessscsssssssesssscessaserersscccessnecessseecssene | EXCEPTIONS TO CHARGE PTRIAL PROCEEDINGS ........ccemssssnnnnsennnen I I a EEE TE I a i Russell O. Hickman .0.0..........cccccccecesesessssssesscssesecesssecess | Frances Brown Kiernan a ey RE ERR NI A NEEM TEE INE Os Page I Wes SID ceccenvtnennnntemonereesanenensmeiimneaniiin 265 DE Fi CG Re teciicnrnsccecsrencnsncennnyunneneoetvnenaneintianieins 276 IE te IIIIIL inccensnountesconnsienvesievenicenonernseqiiiioniniins 277 I BE III oc cnissnestiniennetsntinsinieapianneniontodectinai 294 a csaunieniaieiedeiciens ~~ Be EE TEI le Seersettinicrinceccccnvssnnitommnenscniagts 355 OPENING STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DUP TAIT BOT IN cocescccvescevvesesceccesecccecseveverstecesenss 462 IE BID neveintccsvepircernectepnnnnrnsmrnnmencnecninn 466 Vol. II I cans aeieheivnasonnovireteinmeniecnniig 499 a ilinacidcaen 516 SN ID ociccsoveceheesencensenvitenpnnninnidaninevenpomattonrerens 532 BG FAROE ercneressccscerserercconevovevcousesonapneensnvevereopesseess 535 aI oo esscneunacitsnevennnvesnenesntiontemneovtetienis 558 ie III» srcocerinccsicnsitesorusienseenemnevennnneren 748 EE a ee 784 A Fe cadtnnrnegnernceverseovereereneneventeveseenernennveseeccesoneee 790 I II ceselaneatiingnacioneintingntinenicitiens 806 I Wis BEE vannsastetscsererssvtinreementnninpenenmmneemennan 809 Robert Francis Kennedy .........csscsesssescessseeeseecseseens 837 GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT No. 86-b (Memorandum submitted to Attorney General) ......sccsescsesereseeneseens 895 SPEECH OF MR. JOHNSON IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (EX. 91) c.ccccccsccccseseseseseeneens 931 EDLIN’S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO SE APTI - dainideeacenDersennisertnenensienarmiinniniantigienesnee 938 MOTIONS OF EDLIN FOR A NEW TRIAL AND FOR JUDGMENTS OF ACQUITTAL NOV............ 953 MOTIONS OF JOHNSON FOR JUDGMENTS OF RA tae le a 958 iii Page MOTIONS OF JOHNSON TO STRIKE TESTIMONY 964 JOHNSON’S REQUEST FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO THE JURY ooseessesen 966 MOTION OF JOHNSON FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL NOV and MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL ..... MOTION OF JOHNSON BASED UPON ARGU- MENT OF THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY SAOOe COCO e OHO E OE OLE OLE EEE EEO OE EEE EEEEEeEEEeeESeeeeeeseseoeeS RE ROA EAT DSS DEI LE LT ES I TT IE INDEX Proceedings in the United States Court of Appeals for the ith CIs Nac tnn shine nn duncan dennduenne ed ce Appellee’s appendix consisting of portions of the record from the United States District Court for the District of Mary- Transcript of proceedings (excerpts) --__...._..-.-_.____- Government witnesses: Testimony of: Jackson D. Rains: Direct Raymond J. Davis: Mary B. Mitchell: Direct T. Lamar Caudle: Direct Defense witnesses: Testimony of: Manuei Buarque: Rudolph Carrico: Cross F. DeSales Mudd: William L. Robinson: Der CEE 5.5 5. oo se dn ccc Frank W. Boykin: Cross__...-..-_-_______- Oral argument on behalf of the Government by Mr. Marion_ Argument by counsel during post-trial proceedings on August 6, 1963 on alleged improper comment by prosecutor in opening summation Opinion, Sobeloff, J Order extending time to file petition for writ of certiorari___ Order allowing certiorari 989 989 989 989 App. 499 [Tr. 2883-2899] RUDOLF A. CARRICO DIRECT EXAMINATION By Mr. Doub: Q. Mr. Carrico, where do you live? A. Bryantown, © Charles County, Maryland. Q. And you are a practicing lawyer, I believe? A. At La Plata, Charles County. Q. Your office is in La Plata? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that is the county seat of Charles County? A. Charles County, yes, sir. Q. Now, Mr. Carrico, do you recall doing any legal work in association with Mr. Johnson in early 1961? A. Yes, I do. Q. What did that case relate to? A. Foreclosure of a mortgage from D. G. & R. to Albert Ernest and assigned by Albert Ernest to the Charles County Land Company, and Mr. Johnson asked me if I would be interested in being associated with him to foreclose the mortgage. Q. Have you lost your diary for the year 19612 Robinson’s interest in politics? A. Yes. I think Mr, Robinson visited the property and I had occasion to be with him, as I state, possibly five or six times, and he told me that he had been interested in polities in Florida, and | think he had taken some part in political campaigns in Florida, and he was interested in my campaign. He felt that I should be returned. Q. That is, you were going to run for re-election that year? A. In 1960 I had my former opponent Congress- man Miller who oppesed me. Q. Now, I show you a check dated June 20, 1960, in the amoui. of $500 payable to your order, signed by W. L. Robinson, Government’s Exhibit No. 69, and ask you if you received that check, and I will call on Mr. Tydings to produce the original letter from Mr. Robinson to enclose that check, which the Government did not offer in evi- dence. A. I mean the letter from Mr. Robinson to me. (Mr. Doub) That is right. (Mr. Tydings) Your Honor, any letters or anything which the Congressman turned over to us or anybody else, all Mr. Doub has to do is ask us in advance and we will give them to him, and we wont have this unnecessary delay. I don’t think it is quite proper to make a big ceremony in front of the jury, when he can do it in the proper way and ask beforehand. (Mr. Doub) Mr. Tydings, you have a monopoly on what is said before the jury. App. 564 (Mr. Marion) Mr. Doub, you also know that we could not call either the receiver or the sender of that letter to the stand and introduce it. (The Court) It is a fact the Government did not put it in because they couldn’t have gotten it in, Mr. Doub, over objection. (Mr. Doub) Your Honor, we wouldn’t have objected to it. We wanted it in. App. 565 (The Court) All right. By Mr. Doub: Q. Now, I show you— A. I am holding this check. I have answered the question. Shall I give it back to you? Q. Now, I show you a letter dated June 20, 1960, from Mr. Robinson to you and ask you if you received that letter? A. I did. Q. And did that letter enclose this check, dated June 20, 1960, for $500? A. I did. (Mr. Doub) I offer the letter, Your Honor. (The Clerk) Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 49 marked in evidence. (Defendant Johnson’s Exhibit No. 49 was received in evidence. ) (Mr. Doub) This is on the letterhead of W. L. Robinson, Attorney at Law, Miami, Florida, June 20, 1960, addressed to Thomas F’. Johnson: ‘‘Dear Congressman Johnson: ‘‘The enclosure is with my best wishes for your suc- cess in your present campaign for re-election, and I look forward to seeing you on my next visit to Wash- ington. My present plans are such that I expect to be in Washington Wednesday and Thursday of this week. ‘‘Thanking you for your past cooperation, I am ‘*Very truly yours, ‘*W. L. Robinson.’’ By Mr. Doub: Q. Now, Government’s Exhibit 69, which you have identi- fied as the enclosure referred to in that letter from Mr. Robinson to you, a check for $500, contains an endorsement. I would like you to read that to the jury. App. 636 certain time, that it could be paid off for that amount. Otherwise, it would revert to the $5,875,000, which would be the figure with the $125,000 that was paid by way of assignment. Also, it was—there was agreement that the Ernest mort- gage which had been originally prepared in 1958 was only for a period I believe of ten years. In this agreement it was stipulated that there would be an extension of the payment plan on the mortgage to 1744 years. And also that attached were six pages of modification of the Ernest mortgage and friefly those modifications called for a 1,060 acres that could be released for immediate development from the Ernest mortgage. Q. Is it ‘‘could be released,’’ or ‘‘were reieased’’? A. Would be released. There was also provision that there would be a bridle path, if I recall, eleven feet wide around the entire perimeter of the 8,000-some acres., There were also provisions in the modification as to the timber, as to the rights there of cutting certain of the timber. And other provision in the modification. Q. Were there any changes in the release clauses of that mortgage? A. Yes, in release clauses there were changes. I don not recall for the moment just what. Q. Now, what, if anything, did you have to do with the preparation of that form of agreement which you have just summarized? A. My work, and with Mr. Robinson, we were working a loan. My work dealt with the letter to Mr. Boykin with the agreement and the modification agree- ments. Mr. Robinson at the time worked, as I recall, on a loan agreement between Charles County and Colony Sav- ings and Loan. Q. First Colony? Nae Pd 1 if ¥ L a rh ( ). _— App. 649 what did you do with respect to a tax matter? A. I went into that but I do have before me a copy of letter to the company in Chicago because I was disturbed about the ¢2400 premium which Judge Digges originally requested. Q. And is this your letter to S. M. Simon & Company dated 5, 1961? A. That is copy of a letter addressed to me. (Mr. Doub) I offer it, Your Honor. (The Clerk) Defendant Johnson Exhibit 84 marked in evidence. (Defendant Johnson Exhibit 84 marked in evidence.) (Mr. Marion) Mr. Doub, Congressman Johnson was re- ferring to a couple of other papers up there a while ago when he mentioned some dates in June. I wonder if we might have those marked also for identification? This may be one of them, I am not sure. (Mr. Doub) Is there another letter there on this same subject? (Mr. Marion) You referred to two dates in June that you say you were in La Plata and I think you referred to something in your file and I just wondered whether you could set that aside. (The Witness) I do not believe I had anything in my file on that, no. May I say that I checked with Mr. Mudd’s diary while I was there and some others. By Mr. Doub: Q. Let us return to June prior to the foreclosure sale, did you have any occasion to work on a tax matter re- lating to this? perties and he did not [3508] feel that there was sufficient collateral for the loan. Mr. Miller was quite anxious to ask what collateral was offered, stating that there was an investigation in respect to Mr. Hoffa dealing with certain alleged income tax viola- tions. Also, at the meeting, he brought in the $100,000 loan that Mr. Dranow—not loan, but the sale of a $100,000 note which had been made to First Continental Savings and Loan, that there was quite a lot of discussion as to how that loan took place and how ultimately the Treasury note was discounted at a Bethesda Bank and the money secured on that note at that bank. In the discussion, what Mr. Miller wanted to know was the partnership if any, existing between Ben Dranow and Mr. Hoffa, and at the time of the negotiations of the $400,000 proposed loan, I told Mr. Miller that I had been told that this partnership had been affirmed by a meeting between Mr. Edlin and Mr. Hoffa in Washing- ton, and in addition to the shopping center, there was offered also an office building known as the Fashion Mart Building, so that was generally what was told to Mr. Miller. Q. Now, what was Mr. Miller’s reaction? A. Mr. Miller was quite interested. He told me that there were grand juries meeting. He mentioned specifically in New Orleans, in Miami and possibly other areas. He wanted to know a App. 714 whether or not Congressman [3509] Boykin and myself would talk to Mr. Edlin and to Mr. Robinson because in the conversation I brought out that Mr. Robinson had been present at one or more of the meetings dealing with the Dranow matter. Q. Well, what, if anything, did you or Mr. Boykin reply? A. Well, in the conversation, I talked with the Assistant Attorney General, that Mr. Edlin was under indictment on a federal charge, and I distinctly told Mr. Miller that I thought it should be made clear that there would be no favor on the part of the Government in having him go to Florida, that he realized that it would be no benefit in his case, in this case. Mr. Miller wanted to make that clear also which I assured him that would be made clear, that it evolved in the discussion about the $100,000 note. Mr. Miller was concerned whether Mr. Edlin had received part of the proceeds of the note, that if he was a party to that trans- action, it may have some effect on any testimony he may give before the Grand Jury. PA I told him that I would ask and try to find out whether or not there was any part of the proceeds that went to Mr. Edlin. Q. Now, after that meeting, what did you do to verify this? [3510] A. Well, I got in touch with Mr. Edlin. I told him that—I think Congressman Boykin was with me—that ' the Attorney General, or the Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Miller, was vitally interested in what information they ! had pertaining to the investigation, particularly in Florida, 4 dealing with Mr. Hoffa; that Mr. Miller was concerned as to what implication Mr. Edlin had as to the $100,000 treasury note. Mr. Edlin replied that he had received no benefits from it. What proceeds had been received had been credited for the shareholders in First Continental Savings and Loan. te ROWERS eas teed ae a aivar Q. Now, I show you what purports to be an office copy of a letter of yours to Mr. Miller dated May 9, 1961 and ask you whether you wrote the original of that letter to him? rs back for his inspection. At this time Mr. Johnson advised me that he expected to be in Miami for a few days very shortly, himself, and that, if he should come to Miami before I was back in Wash- ington, he was most anxious to go thoroughly into this mat- ter and he would appreciate my making a copy of the indictment available to him at that time. App. 757 Very shortly after his conference, I think it was a matter of days, I traveled to Miami. We were, of course, still in the middle of the Desser and Garfield negotiations, and under the impression that Mr. Johnson was coming to Miami, I wrote this letter that you gave me—being John- son Exhibit 69, telling him that I was in Miami and would like to see him when he came down. When Mr. Johnson came to Miami, he did come to my office. I had a recollection of my father, who is also an attorney, and has as office on the same floor—I recall [4264] taking him down there. I cannot remember now whether my father was in or whether I showed him my father’s suite. We went into my office. | sent my secretary out for coffee for the two of us at that time. I gave Mr. Johnson a copy of the indictment. I believe I also gave him a copy of a statement of facts that had been prepared by Mr. Edlin giving his recollection of all the events that occurred, leading to this particular in- dictment. I gave him a memorandum that I had previously pre- pared. I do not believe it was a very lengthy one. It had to do with particularly Mr. Bridges. It had been prepared at a time when Mr. Bridges was threatening to sue Mr. Edlin claiming a 20 per cent interest in First Continental Mort- gage Corporation. I again discussed with him certain correspondence of Mr. Bridges which was not in my possession, threats which Mr. Bridges had made against people who were on the Board of Directors of First Colony at the time of these threats. A letter, I do not remember now whether it was a letter from Mr. Bridges to Mr. Slipher or a letter from Mr. Slipher to Mr. Bridges, and a letter from Mr. Bridges threatening Mr. Edlin that he was going to have criminal charges brought if Mr. Edlin did not pay him a sum of money. I think it was $10,000. * * * * * * — App. 758 [4317] Q. Now, when was it that Mr. Johnson stopped rendering any real legal services to the land companies? A. I think his major services were pretty much over by the—I guess about August or thereabouts. Sometime along in there. I cannot pin that down to a particular date. There was not a substantial amount of work done after the execution of these papers in August when we recorded the final doeu- ments and so forth on these transactions. It does seem to me that the acquisition of an additional piece of property in Charles County, Maryland, I believe, was subsequent to that date but I could be in error on that. } Q. Now, were there any discussions that summer of 1961, with Kadder Corporation and Sayre & Fisher as potential buyers of the stock of the land companies? A. Yes, sir, there was a series of negotiations with three different com- panies. There was the Sayre-Fisher Corporation Group which I think was the first company we negotiated with. Sayre-Fisher, to my recollection, was in an out. That is, | believe that our first negotiations were with Sayre-Fisher, that then after that there were negotiations with Bruce Lumber and with a corporation [4318] known as Kadder Corporation and ultimately there were negotiations again with the Sayre-Fisher Company. 3 (The Court) You say these dealt with purchase of stock ; in the land company? ; (The Witness) These all dealt with the sale of the ; stock of the Charles County Corporation and Leisure City Corporation. (The Court) Who owned the stock of Charles County Land Company? (The Witness) That was in International Electronics. I do not remember the actual name. It was International Electronics and Oil Corporation, I believe. Q. (The Court) Who was International Electronics! i . — App. 759 You mentioned a little while ago until I think you said ‘‘we purchased the mortgage’’ and ‘‘we’’ was Charles County Land—‘‘until we acquired title to the mortgage.’’ Now, ‘swe’? was Charles County Land Company. A. That is correct. (The Court) Now, was ‘‘We’’—you were talking about yourself and Mr. Edlin? Did you and Mr. Edlin own the International? (The Witness) No, Your Honor. It may be unfortunate. I do not think I am the only attorney that indulges in that. But, unfortunately, when I speak of clients in any matter, I say ‘‘we.’’ It is perhaps not [4319] correct and not proper. When I speak on a matter that I handle for a client, I say ‘We did it.’’ It does not mean I am a party to the ‘ ane- action, no, sir. (The Court) There seems to have been a good wiiny transactions here in which Charles County Land Company and International are in that—I mean First Continental and First Colony, and the land companies, one or another of them, and the thing that is not clear to me it whether the ownership of Charles County Land Company was substan- tially the same as the ownership of First Continental Mort- gage Company, which, I believe is the company that owned the stock in, the voting stock, in the two savings and loan associations. Were they owned by the same—were First Continental Mortgage and the owners of Charles County Land Company, substantially the same? (The Witness) Mr. Edlin had stated to me and to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lykes Boykin and others that in regard to Charles County and Leisure, that he was the spokesman for a syndicate of investors who generally dealt through corporations and that they all had full confidence in him, that he was authorized to speak for them, and he through these negotiations spoke for them and set forth the terms and conditions upon which these people would be satisfied. aa App. 760 [4320] (The Court) Well, it is going to be necessary in various matters in this case for the jury, it seems to me, at some time or another to know whether the intezegts of the voting stockholders of First Continental and First Colony, which I believe was First Continental Mortgage Company by agreement of everyone, now, whether that interest was substantially the same as the interest of (1), Charles County Land Company and, secondly, Leisure City Land Company. Now, you say you do not know. Is that it, you do not know who really owned those companies, who the beneficial interest of those companies resided in? (The Witness) I told you exactly what I knew, Your Honor, that Mr. Edlin stated that he was representing a group of investors from various cities and that they were the parties principal to Charles County and Leisure City. It was my impression that the same group that was re- ferred to in Charles County was also being referred to in Leisure. I certainly knew that First Continental Mortgage Cor- poration was not owned by a syndicate or group. But I was not acquainted with nor was I advised, nor did I ever meet any members of this syndicate. (The Court) Then, it is my understanding that, to the best of your knowledge, the beneficial ownership of [4321] Charles County Land Company and Leisure City Land Company was not the same as the beneficial owner- ship of First Continental Mortgage Company and, there- fore, through them, of the Association. Now, is that what I gather from your testimony in this case? (The Witness) Your Honor, I do not believe I have any actual knowledge in that area to where I could confirm or deny that, sir. | 4 e a b| i x SS Bits CR NER, (The Court) Your answer is, you do not know whether they were the same or not? _—_ App. 761 (The Witness) I do not know who they were in Charles County and Leisure City. (The Court) You do not know whether they were the same, or not, and you do not pretend to give the jury or the Court any impression one way or the other as to whether they were the same or different? (The Witness) No, sir. (The Court) Because that may make a difference in many aspects that we were talking about at the bench at one time. By Mr. Doub: Q. Did Mr. Edlin ever tell you, or tell Mr. Johnson in your presence, the names of the investors who owned the stock of the Land Companies? A. [4322] Never in full, sir. He mentioned from time to time three or maybe four per- sons whom we knew of that he said were part of the group. He never exposed or disclosed the entire group, sir. Q. Was that to you, or was that to Johnson in your presence? A. I would say it was to Johnson in my presence. I would say Mr. Lykes Boykin was probably present, also. Q. And what names did he give? A. Mr. Vincent Albano, associated with a bank in New York. I am not certain of this. I know he mentioned him on other oceasions. I think he mentioned a Mr. Harold Green who was associated with a bank in Chicago. I believe that—and I am just not sure of this at all—I think Mr. MeKeldin might have been there. Ido not mean McKeldin. I have been reading your papers here. Mr. McDaniel, I think was mentioned. (The Court) Now, do you know who were the owners of First Continental Mortgage Company? (The Witness) Lam sorry. I did not hear the question. (The Court) Do you know who were the principal owners of First Continental Mortgage? —— App. 762 (The Witness) Mrs. Edlin held the majority, if not all of the stock in that corporation, sir. [4328] Mr. Doub, may I suggest that you let me go back a little before this? It is getting premature. By Mr. Doub: Q. All right, go back before that. A. This morning, if you will recall, Mr. Doub, I testified to my conference in February with Mr. Johnson regarding the indictment, and my later delivery to him in early March of a copy of the indictment, and at that point we went over to another subject. Q. Yes. A. Immediately after the delivery in Miami to Mr. Johnson of the indictment, and various papers, as I testified, I returned to Washington and Mr. Edlin and I went to see Mr. Johnson for the purpose of discussing with him the indictment after he had had a chance to read it. At this conference I discussed with Mr. Johnson the [4329] indictment which now he had read, paragraph by paragraph. I explained to him in detail what I believed were our legal rights and where I believed that the Gov- ernment was being highly technical and unreasonable. Further, I gave him all of the information that I had collected, or had or knew or had been told in regard to the factual situations and the factual answers to various charges in that indictment. I would say that this conference lasted for two or more hours and during this time, Mr. Edlin, of course, inter- jected himself several times into the conference to explain some things to Mr. Johnson. — When the meeting was concluded, I felt that Mr. John- son was satisfied. That my position was correct, that we did have an extremely strong defense to that charge, and that there had been undue, improper pressure in obtaining Aone Se a App. 763 the charge, and that it was not a good-faith prosecution for criminal acts. When we had completed this meeting, Mr. Johnson ad- vised me that Mr. Boykin, also, wanted an explanation of this matter and suggested that we go see Mr. Boykin at that time. I believe Mr. Johnson made the call to see whether he was available. In any event, the three of us, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Edlin and myself, then went down to— [4330] not down to, but up to Mr. Boykin’s office. Mr. Johnson advised Mr. Boykin that he had been over this indictment thoroughly with me, and he felt he under- stood the facts and background. He did not feel, he said, that he or Mr. Boykin need be concerned with the fact that Mr. Edlin was involved in this indictment. Then he suggested that I give Frank some of the ex- planation that I had given him. I then proceeded to explain to Mr. Boykin many of the items in the indictment. I did not attempt to give him as lengthy a discussion as Ihad Mr. Johnson. I thought there were many things that two lawyers could talk about and understood that would be of no interest to Mr. Boykin. I believe I was very persuasive. I was saying things with which I had the greatest of confidence, which I cer- tainly believed myself, and I was certain when I com- pleted, Mr. Boykin was likewise convinced that this was not a matter of grave concern. At the conclusion of these discussions in Mr. Boykin’s office, either he or Mr. Johnson—I can not recall which—. made this statement: ‘‘It seems to me that if this is the situation, it ought to be something for review by the De- partment of Justice.’’ There was not at that time, an offer to go or an [4331] agreement to go to the Department of Justice. The subject was raised there by this discussion and this suggestion that this seemed to be something that ought to be reviewed by the Department of Justice. Rare ecteny S12 ie OTS a Spt ree: CASI aa age aig reer pe eeeesete By marae, dd pale ea Ot ay App. 764 Mr. Edi:u made the statement that this was the kind of thing that he had always wanted. He reiterated again his innocence, his confidence in his innocence and his ability to prove it and that he looked forward to an opportunity to have some fair or impartial person review that case. The meeting broke up shortly after that with some other talk and with no further talk of the Justice Department. Either later that day or the next day, Mr. Edlin and I met with Mr. Lamar Caudle. The latter had previously been a member of the Department of Justice in the At- torney General’s office, and during our conference, he advised us that he had had many such cases come before him, that is, parties seeking a review. He further stated that he always warned any one seeking such a review that the odds were strongly against the matter being dismissed, that their only hope or possibility of a dismissal would be to make an absolute, complete, unqualified disclosure to the Department of Justice of all their defenses, of any and all evidence that they had to justify [4332] their posi- tion, their conduct and that in the event, after a review of these materials, the Department of Justice was disposed - to go ahead with the case, that all such materials would be made available to the prosecuting attorney by the Depart- ment of Justice, and that he, Mr. Caudle, thought that this was a very grave risk for any defendant under a criminal : - charge, to take. | Mr. Edlin reiterated again his absolute conviction of his | innocence: Of the fact that these charges were not brought to prosecute him but were brought to destroy him, and the companies that he was promoting. That, as long as he could have a review by someone who was impartial, this case would never be tried. So then Mr. Caudle, Mr. Edlin and I went to see Mr. Johnson. Mr. Caudie explained to Mr. Johnson the same things that he told to Mr. Edlin and again Mr. Edlin had reiterated all he wanted was a fair chance to be reviewed by some impartial body. EROS a Ye Teer ee App. 765 Mr. Johnson,—we went on in further conversations, then and Mr. Caudle, or Mr. Johnson, I am not sure who initiated it, but there was substantial discussion at this time to the effect that for review by the Department of Justice a memorandum would have to be prepared. That it would have to set forth what we thought [4333] were the answers and the defenses to all the charges. It should set forth the facts that we thought we could prove as an answer thereto, any legal defenses we thought we had, they should be extremely complete and exhaustive and should constitute a full disclosure of everything we thought we could walk into a court room with trying that case which would assist us. , So, Mr. Johnson again asked Mr. Edlin if he was sure that under those circumstances, he wanted to have his case reviewed. Mr. Edlin again insisted that he was never afraid to have this case reviewed by someone that was impartial. Mr. Johnson said then that he would contact Mr. Boykin and see if Mr. Boykin could arrange an appointment with the Attorney General. (Mr. Williams) Excuse me. Would Your Honor ask Mr. Doub to fix the point of time of this last meeting? I do not think it was done for the record. (Mr. Doub) When did this meeting occur that you have just testified to? (The Witness) It could not have been before the 15th of March and I would be inclined to place it on the 16th or 17th. but it would be within that period. * * * * * * [4346] (Mr. Doub) I am going to ask him for his ex- planation of several statements in this FBI statement. * * * * * * [4347] (The Court) On what ground do you have a right to offer it? You are not trying to cross examine him. ASE STRSTR Se i Sa telat Saha AEE hn ig ee App. 766 (Mr. Doub) I think I have a right to ask him the mean- ing of several statements he has made, Your Honor. (The Court) You may have a right if the Government uses it on cross examination. You may read it, and you may ask him questions about it on redirect, but to take a statement that a man has given just to support—you ean’t do it by proving consistent statements. I haven’t interrupted you a number of times during your examina- tion in which you got him to say that somebody else had told him something; Johnson had told him something that had happened. That is not proper evidence. If the Government uses it and reads some statements, and you don’t think they have been explained you may ask him on redirect to explain any such statement, but you can’t read a statement he has given to somebody else any more than you can put somebody else on the stand to say at some other time he said the same thing he said today. * ” a * * * [4348] (The jury left the court room.) (At the Bench:) (Mr. Genn) I am going to move for a mistrial, Your Honor. (The Court) Go ahead. (Mr. Genn) I have already stated previous grounds. I reincorporate those previously made. I think also, in addition, the Court has from time to time —and I must say, Your Honor, I think we have walked to some extent on egg shells on this—I think the Court has interjected far too rauch in the case and the examination at the time when it appears that certain statements are made that seemed harmful to the Government. I think this is one-sided. There were no objections from the Government on many of these things. The Court has interjected itself. I think App. 767 further—I am not suggesting any more than what I am stating, and I am also stating, Your Honor, that T think that the Court’s questioning of this particular witness beyond a statement of ‘‘I don‘t know”’ suggested things to the jury, which I think were improper in the [4349] case. He stated that he didn’t know certain things, and I think that that was as far as it should have gone. I again renew a motion for a mistrial on previous grounds and on the grounds I have already stated. (The Court) Motion denied. (Vol. 34) : (4401] By Mr. Weiner: [TR 4372-4374] By Mr. Doub: Q. Mr. Robinson, do you recall an air plane trip in July of 1960 from Washington to Miami with Mr. Edlin and Mr. Goldman? A. Yes, sir. Q. On that trip tell the jury whether you said at any time that you had written Mr. Johnson’s speech? A. No. That is not my statement at that time, no, sir. Nor at any other time. Q. You say you did not make that statement on that plane trip? A. I did not. Q. Or at any other time? A. That is correct, sir. Q. Did Mr. Edlin make a statement that he had written the speech? A. Yes, sir. Q. Mr. Edlin said he had written it? A. Yes, sir, he did. Q. And what did you reply? A. We had all had several drinks on that particular flight. Mr. Edlin was horsing —— App. 768 around with several of his friends on the plane. He made this statement, and when he made it, I replied, ‘‘ Mr. Edlin, you not only did not write that speech, you could not write a letter.’’ Q. In May or June of 1960 or at any other time, did you ever say to Sadie Goldman that ‘‘Mr. Johnson is on our pay roll, it is costing Ken plenty’’, or did you ever use any comparable words? A. No, sir. Q. Now, there are in evidence, Mr. Robinson certain checks of First Continental Savings and Loan payable to Mr. Johnson which he deposited in his account at the Ber- lin Bank. Did you ever tell Mr. Edlin at any time in the presence of Mr. Jackson Rains, or not in his presenee, that Mr. Johnson would not touch a First Co.atinental check with a ten-foot pole, or words to that effect? A. I have no recollection of any such statement. There was a period of time when First Continental was receiving a great deal of adverse publicity and anyone in any way associated with First Continental was being castigated in one way or another in the newspapers and it is remotely possible that during that period of time I might have made a comment something like that. I have no reeol- lection of making it but there was a period of time when I do not think anyone wanted to be around First Conti- nental when the Washington Post was working on it. [4402] Q. Mr. Robinson, let me ask you this question: Have you ever heard of a company known as Edlin, Gold- man, Robinson, Inc.? A. I have, sir. Q. Was that a New York Corporation? A. Yes. Q. Was it in existence in August through December of 1961? A. I am not that sure of the dates. It sounds like it is correct, sir. Q. And the Robinson there in Edlin-Goldman-Robinson, was that you, sir? A. It was, sir. Q. And was this not a company operated in New York ey im * om 2 iar ae mye ’ ¥ on . RNS Sayre ee SEE RL APE ARIS PRET RI as — , a _— for the solicitation of savings and loan deposits? [4403] A. That was the thing that its activities consisted mostly of. That was not its only purpose but that was primarily the only activity it ever engaged in. App. 769 Q. Those were the only activities it engaged in from August to December, 1961, is that right? A. Not quite, sir. Very close to it. There were several attempts, several unsuccessful attempts to arrange through the sale of limited partnership arrangements which were fairly popu- lar in New York at that time. Negotiations had been had on behalf of that corporation in that field bat we never did succeed in their negotiations. Q. And in this primary purpose that Edlin, Goldman and Robinson had of soliciting deposits, they were solicit- ing deposits, were they not, for First Continental and First Colony Savings and Loan Associations? A. I do not remember whether they solicited for both or not, sir. I know they were soliciting accounts for First Continental and possibly for First Colony. (Mr. Doub) Possibly what? (The Witness) Possibly for First Colony. I do not re- memi*» for certainty they did. By Mr. Weiner: Q. You do know they were soliciting accounts for First Continental? [4404] A. Yes, I am sure of that. (Mr. Weiner) Mark these, please. I think they can be offered as a group. (The Court) Mark them Government Exhibit 188-A, B and C and so forth. Is there any objection, not to the ones which nobody has seen yet but 186 for identification, is that being offered in evidence ? (Mr. Weiner) Yes, sir. (The Court) And 187 for identification? App. 770 (Mr. Weiner) Yes, sir. (Mr. Genn) I have stated all these checks are com. pletely irrelevant. (The Court) The same objection and the same ruling. Mr. Robinson, do you want an objection? (Mr. Robinson) I join in that objection. (The Court) Overruled. * [4405] (Government Exhibit 188-A through 118-K marked for identification.) By Mr. Weiner: Q. Mr. Robinson, I show you Government Exhibit 188-4 through 188K, for identification, and I ask you if it is not a fact that both the Leisure City Land Corporation and the Charles County Land Corporation between August and December of 1961, paid or advanced some $30,000 to Edlin, Goldman, Robinson, Inc.? (Mr. Doub) What period is that? (Mr. Weiner) August through December. (Mr. Doub) 1961. (Mr. Weiner) Yes. (The Witness) I did not actually total these but they appear to be in the approximate sum you mentioned in your question. I would say these sums of money were paid by Charles and Leisure to Edlin, Goldman and Robin- son, ves, sir. * * * * * * [4409] (The Court) 1 think we can simplify this if Mr. Doub is willing to admit that Mr. Edlin controls both of them so far as the case against Johnson is concerned and Mr. Williams is willing to admit it so far as Mr. Boykin is concerned and Mr. Robinson is willing to admit it as he said he would testify that that is true, as to them that « va EELS NOS RELEASE, MEIN RT LIE Gi LEIA EDO SIO ELT LER NS: — App. 771 would be admissible, but it would not be admissible against Kdlin, and I will stop any further testimony along this line. (Mr. Tydings) I think it has to go further than that. He had to tell the jury on the stand that what he told the Court yesterday was not a fact. (The Court) This control has never been admitted. (Mr. Genn) Your Honor, I have said it is not conceded. It is irrelevant to this particular case. Furthermore, Your Honor, may I state something further? I think that this proceeding to use these checks while it may be designed for one purpose [4410] with re- spect to this particular witness has the other effect upon the defendant Edlin of suggesting improprieties or sug- gesting something in reference to Mr. Edlin that I believe as to the issue of materiality and as to the issue of the purpose for which it is given goes beyond what is neces- sary and I think it is improper. (The Court) I do not think it suggests impropriety. I think it suggests just exactly what is was offered to prove, that Edlin dominated both of the corporations or that he directed them. (Mr. Tydings) And that he owns them. (The Court) So far as owning is concerned, if the con- cession were made on domination, I would say that owner- ship was unimportant. But if they cannot make the con- cession on it, I will let it stand as it is. On the other hand, if these other three defendants will now coneede for their purposes that Edlin dominated those corporations, then I will not allow further testimony simply to prove that point. oan g ERT ee ee RE ISSR Se eg RAAT ROR PS OR ENA AN I RR RED I: ‘ ‘ App. 772 [Tr. 4413-4419] CROSS EXAMINATION By Mr. Weiner: Q. Now, there is in evidence, Mr. Robinson, as Govern. ment Exhibit 54, a letter and preliminary speech draft which appear to be over your signature, dated May 3 | believe. A. Yes. Q. Of 1960? A. Yes. Q. That is your signature there? A. Yes, sir. Q. And the speech draft which is with the letter is the speech draft that was included in that letter when it was sent to Mr. Heflin by you, was it not, on May 3, of 1960! A. That is correct, sir. Q. And this, Mr. Robinson, is a Congressional, is a pre- liminary draft of a Congressional speech, is it not? A. It certainly is, sir. Q. And it was submitted to Mr. Heflin as a speech to be delivered by a Congressman, is that right? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And that is the reason why Mr. Heflin has the marks ‘‘Mr. Speaker’’ throughout it—referring to the House of Representatives? A. I would presume that is why he made those alterations and changes, yes, sir. Q. You told him it was a speech to be delivered in the House of Representatives by a Congressman, did you not? A. No, sir, Mr. Weiner. If you wish the explanation, I will be glad to make one for you, sir. Q. All right. A. I first met Mr. Heflin to my best recol- lection, I believe it was in April of 1960 when he came to Miami. I think that was his testimony. I met him at that time along with Mr. Edlin and I believe one of the other personnel of First Continental Mortgage was present. I do not remember who it was at this moment and we dis- cussed at that time his engaging in the public relations field on behalf of the Institute, and the independent sav- ings and loan associations. LP TINA LEENA A OLA NERS RD aN ar Ri Le ee cD Me ati a I a _ App. 773 We discussed these only generally at that meeting and as to whether or not he would undertake it. He agreed that he would. Thereafter, on one of my trips after that meeting to Washington, I met and conferred with Mr. Heflin. We discussed various methods and means of pub- lic relations. I had previously to this sent him a rather lengthy letter setting forth the various matters that we considered problems, or matters to be promoted in a pub- lic relations campaign. In this meeting and after further discussing the matters in my letter, Mr. Heflin said that he felt that there was enough materia] here where he could ultimately persuade some Congressman to make such a speech in this field which might promote our interests. No Congressman in particular was picked or selected. There was the hope that some Congressman could be per- suaded to become interested in this subject matter. He did mention one or two that he knew or had knowledge about that were connected with the banking committees in the House that he thought possibly might become inter- ested in this subject and he suggested that I prepare a proposed speech. Q. Did he say whether or not he had already contacted those people? A. It was my understanding that he had not contacted anybody at all, but had merely thought this was something that might be done and, as a preliminary to that, he suggested that I prepare what I thought would be a proper speech in that area. Therefore, in May, I did prepare a speech which I sent to Mr. Heflin. I had no Con- gressman in mind and I do not believe that he had any Congressman in mind. Q. Yeu did not have a Congressman yet who would de- liver that speech? A. We had not even discussed any Congressman. I felt—and Mr. Heflin felt—that the sub- ject matter and the wrongs that I was complaining of were something that some Congressman, if made aware of these things, would react to and probably would make a speech on this subject. App. 774 Q. But you knew it would be a Congressman and not a Senator, did you not? A. I did not know who it would be. Mr. Heflin in making with me this—well, in talking with me, he had talked about Congressmen. Now whether by that he meant someone in the House or someone in the Senate, I would not know and I would not know to this day whether it would be preferably one place or the other, Q. Did you not have any discussion with him before he put in the words, ‘‘Mr. Speaker?’’ A. No, sir, the only discussion we ever had in regard to this draft was his advising me that this was entirely too strong, that, in his opinion, nobody in Congress would give a speech in the form that I had prepared and that it was completely u- satisfactory. Q. Now, are you saying then that he undertook on his own to pick someone in the House of Representatives or to have someone in the House of Representatives do it rather than a Senator? A. I think he exercised his own judgment. I do not like the selection of the words ‘‘to have someone’’. We felt, and I still feel to this day that there are matters here that are improper which, if properly pre- sented by any public-spirited member of the House or the Senate, that they are subject matters for a speech—for a proper speech. I still think there are matters here that are subject mat- ter of a Congressional investigation. There are some very serious matters in the field and I think a Congressman, if made aware of them, would likely make a speech whether he be in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. Q. Tell us this, if it did not matter whether it was a member of the House of Representatives or a Senator, did you raise any objection when he tailored it to be a speech for a Congressman? A. Mr. Weiner, until it was intro- duced in Court, I never saw the corrections made on this particular draft. I would have made absolutely no objection had I known of them, and it very well may be that Mr. Heflin had many App. 775 more contacts in the House of Representatives than he did in the Senate. Why he chose the House, I do not know, sir. . This was only one of several drafts that you pre- pared for Mr. Heflin, was it not? A. I am not absolutely certain but I think I prepared a subsequent draft. It was very close to this and he turned that down, too. Q. Now, Mr. Robinson, I believe you also testified that it is not your recollection but that you do not deny that you went with Mr. Heflin to Congressman Johnson’s of- fice some time in May when he was turned over or was in- troduced to Mr. Buarque? A. I do not deny it. I do not remember it but I do not see any reason why he would have said it if it had not happened. Q. Didn’t he confer with you from time to time while he was working with Mr. Buarque? A. No, I do not be- lieve he did, sir. I gave Mr. Heflin the materials and my thoughts on this and I did that over a period of about three meetings. There was no need for me to sit down and tell him the same thing all over again. I had told Mr. Heflin what my thoughts were, what my theories were, what the things were that I thought something ought to be done about. I had delivered that to him. There was no reason for me to tell him the same thing all over again. He was a very intelligent man. * * * * * * Q. And that Mr. Edlin said that these charges were being brought not to prosecute him but to destroy him? A. That is correct, sir. Q. And then you, Mr. Caudle and Mr. Edlin all went over to Congressman Johnson’s office? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that Mr. Johnson, on page 4333, again asked Mr. Edlin if he was sure that under those circumstances he wanted to have his case reviewed, and that Mr. Edlin again insisted that he was never afraid to have his case reviewed by someone that was impartial? A. That was my testi- mony, sir, and still is. VESSEL gr mapper sem seamen pamper RE Ne SPE BEE —aay Q. Isn’t it true, Mr. Robinson, that Mr. G. C. A. Ander. son, the man who was representing Mr. Edlin in that par- ticular criminal case, was not consulted or even informed | that the Congressmen were going to go over to the Depart- ment [4498] of Justice and discuss this case or make any disclosures of what defenses there were in that case? A. To the best of my knowledge that is absolutely correct. I cer. tainly never informed him. Mr. Edlin never told him in my presence, and generally speaking, when Mr. Edlin talked with any of these lawyers I was with him. Actually I was collecting the evidence in the case, and at that particular time Mr. Edlin was treating me as his counsel in the ease, I was not his counsel of record, but I was assisting with the case. App. 776 Q. Is it not also true that the chief defense lawyer in that case was Mr. Paul Berman, who had entered his ap.- pearance for First Colony Savings and Loan Association! A. I think that might be so. (The Court) What do you mean chief defense counsel! If he had entered his appearance for First Colony. (Mr. Tydings) I think the witness has just answered the question, Your Honor. (The Witness) I did not answer the question. By Mr. Weiner: Q. Mr. Berman was the one who ‘vas supervising gen- erally the preparation for the trial of that case, wasn’t he? A. I am not sure I ean go with you on that, Mr. Weiner. I think it is almost a fair characterization possibly [4499] to say insofar as Baltimore counsel is concerned, he was generally considered chief counsel. I don’t mean in any way to try to put myself in the field of criminal law above Mr. Berman, because it would be ridiculous, but nevertheless Mr. Edlin at this period of time was discussing this case almost solely with myself. He never had a conference that I know of with any of these attorneys without taking me along. I was the only man that was familiar with every LR IST LY ERE SI NT SEE TLE GE ET OE EE oe a — | App. 777 facet of what had been going on, and while I would never characterize myself as the chief counsel in the case, be- cause I wasn’t, at this time the relationship was such that these matters, when they were discussed, were discussed primarily with myself. [4497] By Mr. Weiner: Q. Now, I believe you testified yesterday that Mr. Edlin and you met with Mr. Caudle, and there was a discussion about a review of the case, and that the only hope or pos- sibility of dismissal Mr. Caudle told you would be an abso- lute, complete, unqualified disclosure to the Department of Justice of all of the defenses and of any and all evidence that there was to justify the defendant’s position; was that your testimony yesterday? A. Yes, sir. [4502] CROSS EXAMINATION By Mr. Williams: * * as * * * [4506] Q. * * * First of all, with respect to First Colony Savings and Loan Association, who named the officers of that company? A. I would say Mr. Edlin insofar as any officers that were named after I became associated with him. (Mr. Genn) Your Honor, just so the record may be clear. I object to and continually object to this line of questioning and will not repeat the objection, so we may proceed. (The Court) Overruled. By Mr. Williams: Q. Who named the directors of that Association? A. Mr. Edlin. Q. Insofar as you had a relationship with that associa- tion who made the policy decisions of that Association? A. Mr. Edlin. byl Bi. it Ree oe — ages ir ase St sigh eeceteeie se EDR POPPA PINE CALAN RR I SSO EID Te EN REI App. 778 Q. Who hired and discharged the employees of that Association? A. Well, that is a slightly different situation, Mr. Williams. This would, I suppose, depend on the type of employee. Stenographic help and things of that nature might [4507] well be hired and fired without Mr. Edlin’s participation in any way. Q. Would such personnel be hired and fired by someone superior or subordinate to Mr. Edlin?. A. Well, somebody that—the person doing the hiring and firing would be some- body that Mr. Edlin had approved as being an officer or having been qualified. Q. At any time to your knowledge was there held a stock- holders meeting of First Colony Savings and Loan Asso- ciation? es PEP ‘ 7 pre $295 WAS eee OY App. 811 Q. Can you tell us when, Mr. Boykin, he brought these people in to you?’ A. I would not have remembered it, but I looked it up. It was January 6, 1961. Q. Who wasit? A. Mr. Kenneth Edlin. [5106] Q. Will you tell His Honor and the jury how many meetings you, yourself, attended regarding the proposed loan from the Edlin group to the Desser and Garfield group? A. Mr. Williams, I imagine I went to a dozen meetings. Q. Over what months were these? A. Oh, all of those months. They were right—all the time, right from J anuary, about the 10th, I think when—maybe the 15th—right on up until they closed the deal. They id not get together. Mr. Edlin I believe, and all the rest of them had wanted the same thing—fifteen per cent. Mr. Desser would not pay it and Mr. Desser wanted the right to O.K. all the money he was going to furnish, $2,300,000 and he wanted the right to 0.K. how Mr. Desser was going to spend [5107] every nickel of that money and what information— Q. You said Mr. Edlin wanted fifteen per cent. What do you mean by that? A. Interest on the money. Q. What do you mean, he wanted the right to O.K.? A. Well, if he is going to spend so much on a golf course, Mr. Edlin would want a right to approve any amount he spent on that or anything else of the money that he was loaning. Q. Was this acceptable to Mr. Desser? A. No, sir. Q. Did the negotiations go forward to consummation or did they break down? A. They blew up. Q. Now, did there come a time, Mr. Boykin, when Mr. Edlin made a different proposition from the loan proposi- tion that he had advanced? A. Yes, sir. He agreed to pay Desser and Garfield $159,000 for all the stock and their interest in the proposition and to pay Albert Ernest nag App. 812 $130,000 and he brought over two certified checks for that purpose. * * * * w 2 [5108] Q. Was there a time limit placed on the acceptance of this proposition? A. Yes, sir. They gave a certain time to accept, return the checks. Q. Within that time did you, in fact, reject the deal? A. Yes, sir. Both Mr. Desser rejected the deal and Colonel Ernest rejected the deal. Q. Well, Mr. Boykin, thereafter, did you have [5109] any dealings with Mr. Desser regarding his making a payment on the mortgage? A. I did. He said, ‘‘What had Edlin offered you as a payment down on this proposition?’’ I said, “$125,000.” He said, ‘‘Would you accept $100,000 from me and let me go on and not foreclose?’’ I said, ‘‘I will be delighted to do it.’’ When I went to go, Mr. Desser said, ‘‘ Frank, I would like to do this this way. I would like to pay you $25,000 now, and $25,000 in thirty days and thirty days and thirty days, and not pay the $100,000 now.’’ [5111] That is when it blew up again. Q. What did you say tohim? A. I did not say anything then. I just got up and walked out. I had been oh, well, been fooling with him for four or five years, you know, and promises and promises and never any of them come through. There was a banker to give him the check and every time I made a deal with him, he wanted to change it just a little, and get just a little better deal. Q. Now, thereafter, did you, in fact, make a deal with Mr. Edlin’s group? A. Yes, sir. App. 8138 Q. Can you fix that in point of time? A. We had been practically agreeing if anything happened, all the time— I think this was in April, Mr. Williams—April, 1961—I think that is when it was. Q. Now, what did Mr. Edlin agree to pay? A. Provided we changed the mortgage to the way he wanted it, and what else—extend the time, that he would let me keep not only the pine timber on the land, but the hard wood, too, and the gravel. He would have a right to use whatever sand and gravel needed in his housing and in his development. And that he would pay up the interest on the mortgage of $125,000. And that he would pay the expenses of foreclosing the [5112] mortgage, which was pretty rough, the fore- closing. * * * * * * Q. And did you make a deal with him on the Brooke, Virginia tract? A. Identical. The same time, the same night and the same moment that we made it on the Waldorf tract. Q. And what were the terms of the deal on the Brooke, Virginia tract? A. Our price on the Brooke, Virginia tract was $4,250,000. I showed him a contract I had made with a developer, Mr. Sigmund Pines, and showed him the maps [5113] and the drawings and the marina, the plans that Mr. Sigmund Pines had had his engineers to draw, but he never would agree to give but $3 million for the 5,000 acres and us reserve the timber and the gravel—for him to use all he needed of it. Q. How long did you negotiate with him on this? A. At the same time I did but we reserved the timber which was worth $500,000. We had over 100,000 cords of pulpwood at $5 a cord. Q. What did he agree to pay you for Brooke? A. $3 million. Q. And under what terms? A. The same as the other property, $125,000 down and seventeen and a half years to pay the other at one per cent. * * . * * * NN Ne Io ESE RS i AES a Rae oP A ——— App. 814 [5129] By Mr. Williams: Q. Taking you back, Mr. Boykin, to early 1961, was there a time when you had a conversation with either Mr. Edlin or Mr. Robinson about what we have referred to in this trial as the Dranow Treasury note? A. Yes, sir, it was Mr. Edlin. Q. About when was that? A. Oh, that was soon after I met Mr. Edlin. Q. Now, thereafter, did you have a conversation with Mr. Robert Kennedy regarding this subject? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Where did that conversation take place? A. My wife and I were having dinner with the Kennedys in their home. Quite a group was there. I remember the Secretary of the Treasury and his folks were there and after dinner the subject of Jimmy Hoffa came up, and [5130] Mr. Edlin had told me about buying a United States Treasury Note for $80,000—a $100,000 Treasury Note—and he said later he found it was a stolen treasury note and they were suing him for it. He was having a terrible time. He had to go to Miami about it. He happened to tell me about it when we were driving over the properties. After dinner, when they were talking about Jimmy Hoffa, I just casually mentioned this to the Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, and told him what Mr. Edlin had told me. He asked me if he could send a man up to my office to get more information on this. I told him that I did not know— that was all I knew but that Congressman Johnson repre- sented this group of bankers and people and that I was sure he would be glad to help, too. So, that is what happened there, Mr. Williams, and he said he would like to send a man up to get the information. Q. Now, at the time that you told Mr. Robert Kennedy about the Dranow treasury note, did you, Mr. Boykin, know that Mr. Edlin was under indictment? A. I did not. [5133] Q. Now, what did you do when you found out that App. 815 Mr. Edlin was under indictment? A. I called Congressman Johnson. Q. What conversation did you have with him? A. I asked Tom to hurry and come up to my office; I had some- thing pretty important to tell him. He came right up. I told him, and he said, ‘‘ Well, let us get Mr. Edlin as quick as we can and confront him with this [5134] information.”’ And either he or I called and M r. Edlin and Mr. Robinson came right on up. I was trying to get the Dranow matter for them at that time but I had not gotten it. That was about two weeks after we had been out to the Attorney General’s house. [5136] By Mr. Williams: Q. Had you asked for a memorandum on the Dranow treasury note? A. Yes, every day, and every night from the day Mr. Sheridan came up to get it. The Attorney General sent him up to get the information that I had given him about this Dranow note that Mr. Edlin had told me about. [5137] Q. Did you finally get a memorandum on the Dranow treasury note? A. \ ell, we had a little fuss about it, and—may I tell you about it? Q. Did you get it? A. Finally. Q. When did you get it? A. I got it that night. Q. What did you do with it? A. Sent it down by mes- senger to the Department of Justice, and I never read it. I had had an awful lot of trouble in getting it because they did not wani to give me this note because Mr. Edlin said he did not want to have J immy Hoffa and Bob Kennedy both against him. I kind of sympathized with him. Q. I am going to hand you, Mr. Boykin, an exhibit which has been received in evidence, marked Government exhibit A REDO PT IR NR : I setae Water App. 816 90 and ask you whether that is the memorandum you re- ceived, or a thermofax copy of it? A. Didn’t I send a letter with it? Yes, sir, that is my writing on there, to Herbert Miller. Yes, sir, that is it. I never read it. [5138] Q. Mr. Boykin, at the time that you sent the memo- randum to the Department of Justice, had you yet seen the Attorney General regarding the Edlin indictment? A. I had not. Q. To whose attention did you send the memorandum regarding the Dranow note? A. Whose what? Q. To whose attention? A. Mr. Herbert Miller. I think I sent two. I think I sent one to the Attorney General and one to Mr. Miller. [5139] Q. Mr. Boykin, did you know at that time that a memorandum regarding the Edlin indictment was in the process of being prepared? A. I did not. I had never heard about it until that day when I am telling you about now, when we did get the memorandum. Q. Did there come a time when Mr. Edlin, or Mr. Robin- son explained to you the circumstances regarding the indict- ment pending in Maryland? A. They did it that very day. Q. What was said? A. Well, Mr. Edlin told me about the Chicago proposition. I think he said it happened 30 years ago when he was a young man, and he told me the case and the cause and so forth and so on. (Mr. Genn) Your Honor— (Mr. Williams) Talking about the Maryland indictment. (Mr. Genn) The same objection. (The Court) Overruled. This is a conversation a [5140] day or so before he went to the Attorney General. App. 817 [5148] By Mr. Williams: Q. Now, Mr. Boykin, on March 25, did you go to the Department of Justice? ali th oe tre nat App. 844 were communicated to the Congressman or to some other of the defendants. Do you propose to follow that up by showing that Mr, Miller’s decision was communicated to the Congressman by this witness or by Mr. Miller? (Mr. Tydings) By Mr. Miller, and the next question would be, what was the subject of the visit between the Congressman and the Attorney General in the fall of 19611 (The Court) I will defer my ruling until we have the result of that, but remind me to make the ruling unless it is cleared up. By Mr. Tydings: Q. Do you recall what was the subject of the conversations and visits between yourself and Congressman Johnson and Congressman Boykin in the summer and fall of 1961? You may continue to answer the question that I have asked you previously. A. Mr. Miller had been reviewing this matter as to whether the Edlin indictment in the matter involving First Colony should be followed through. He had reached the conclusion that it was a strong case, and that it should be. He had had a meeting with Congressman Johnson, I believe, and had communicated this to Congressman John- son. Thereafter Congressman Boykin contacted me about that decision, and then we had these meetings on August 31, 1961, in which concern was expressed about the fact that we were going to go through with this matter, as far as Mr. Edlin was concerned. (Mr. Wenn) If the Court please, I am going to object to this response to the question as purely hearsay testimony with respect to the defendant, and I assume that the Court will— (Mr. Tydings) This is a conversation between Mr. Boykin and the Attorney General. (Mr. Genn) In respect to this particular defendant, I App. 845 suggest this is hearsay and not admissible at this time, nor connected up. (Mr. Tydings) It is clearly in furtherance of the con- spiracy. (The Court) The last answer the Attorney General stated that concern was expressed or something like that. I think we better know who expressed concern and so forth. (Mr. Tydings) Who expressed concern? (The Court) I will reserve ruling again. (The Witness) My best recollection is that at this period of time after the decision had been made and communicated to Congressman Johnson, Congressman Boykin contacted me about the decision. He eame to see me. He said how effective he was and how much he admired Mr, Miller, but that he felt that this decision had not been a correct decision, and that he would hope that I would review it, and he ex- pressed concern about the fact that we were moving ahead with the Edlin indictment. I said I would see what I could find out about it. I had been working on a number of other matters during this period of time. After this meeting on August 31st I asked Mr. Miller to prepare a memorandum summarizing the Edlin matter. I said to Congressman Boykin that I would be glad to see him again after I reviewed the matter personally with Mr. Miller again. Mr. Miller prepared a memorandum within the next few days and I read that memorandum and then I believe I re- ceived a telephone call. The record shows I received a tele- phone call from Congressman Johnson to make an appoint- ment and on September 7th, which was just a week after seeing Congressman Boykin, Congressman Johnson came to see me about this same matter. I said that I have reviewed the case and that in our judgment the case was a strong case, He still expressed concern about it and felt that this whole App. 846 investigation and our pursuit of Mr. Edlin was motivated by prejudice, and that we should not proceed. .Q. And did you have a final meeting with Congressman Boykin? A. I might say, that I said that this was being handled by Mr. Miller in the Criminal Division, and that their conversations and conferences should really be held with Mr. Miller regarding this matter. Q. All right. Now, during the year 1961, specifically, from March of 1961— (The Court) I think I might make my ruling on Mr, Genn’s objection. I will strike out the statement by the Attorney General, by this witness that Miller had told him that he thought it was a strong case, and only as against Edlin because he is the only one who had made that motion, and the evidence that they had decided to proceed with the indictment was clearly com nunicated and was the basis for these other acts to which the witness has testified. (Mr. Genn) If the Court please, I think the jury should be cautioned with respect to that testimony as well. They have heard the testimony and simply striking out— (The Court) I will tell the jury not to consider as part of the case against Edlin the opinion of Mr. Miller whether or not it was a strong case. Now, all of the rest of the testi- monv as far as I can see, is properly admissible. By Mr. Tydings: Q. All right. Now, Mr. Kennedy, during the period from March of 1961 through November of 1961, did either Con- gressman Johnson or Congressman Boykin contact you on any matier which was not concerned with the testimony which you have just given to the jury? A. No. I might say that I think that while they were visiting, we might very well have discussed other matters. The purpose of their visiting me was in connection with Mr. Edlin. Q. Allright. Now, Mr. Kennedy, directing your attention to November 6, 1961, did you receive a letter from Congress- % App. 847 man Boykin in connection with the Edlin indictment on that date? I ask that this be marked for identification. (The Clerk) Government’s Exhibit No. 122 marked for identification. (Government’s Exhibit 122 was marked for identifica- tion.) (The Witness) That is correct. By Mr. Tydings: Q. And was a photostatic copy of the original letter made in the Department of Justice at the time it was received by your office? A. That is correct. Q. And do you have the original letter of November 6, 1961? A. I do not have it, and we cannot find it in the De- partment of Justice. Q. Have your secretary and office staff made a diligent search in an effort to find the original? A. They have. Q. I show you Government’s Exhibit 122 for identifica- tion and ask you whether or not that is a photostatic copy of the original letter? A. Yes, it is. (Mr. Doub) May I see that a moment, Joe? (Mr. Tydings) I am not offering it at this time. Iam just identifying it. (Mr. Tydings) If Your Honor please, at this time I will offer into evidence and ask that it be shown to the jury Government’s Exhibit 108 heretofore marked for identifica- tion. (The Court) Does anybody have any objections to it? (Mr.Genn) As I understand, Your Honor, that is a sum- mary which was prepared, am I correct? The secretaries prepared that summary. App. 848 (Mr. Tydings) That is correct. Miss Lahey testified last week as to the method. (The Court) We have her testimony. Before admitting it, I want to know whether the defendants have any q objection. 3 (Mr. Genn) I don’t think there is a proper foundation, : Your Honor, to show this is all or this is— (The Court) You will have to review the testimony of | Miss Lahey. I remember she said they were copies from F those books which were here. The books, I believe, are stil] 4 here. é (The Clerk) Mr. Tydings has them. 4 4 (Mr. Marion) The objec‘ion at that time was relevancy 4 on the ground it was not shown for the purpose for these F contacts and visits. PY (Mr. Tydings) If Your Honor wishes to withhold your ; ruling, we will defer giving it to the jury until later. ‘ (The Court) Counsel have asked about other visits which % might be in the various books. The witness has used this to refresh his recollection without objection. d (Mr. Genn) For that purpose we have no objection, for 5 the purpose of refreshing the recollection, but for the pur- pose of the proof of the document itself as to the specific calls, I think we do, or at least this defendant still objects. (Mr. Williams) Your Honor, I didn’t understand the witness to say that his recollection was refreshed with 3 respect to the precise time reflected on these notes. I think 3 it is a fair characterization of his testimony that he adopted a the dates shown to him. I have no objection to this going in for that basis as far as the Defendant Boykin is concerned. (The Court) The books have been here for comparison to show those were from the books. (Mr. Williams) We are not permitted to look at those books. Bevo. BV se CUS sg keene App. 849 (The Court) The only question open was whether there were any possible entries which would be relevant and material, as I recall. (Mr. Genn) That I think it correct. (The Court) Do you object to it going in? (Mr. Genn) Not for that purpose. I thought that there was some question in connection with the books themselves. (The Court) Is it offered for any other purpose, Mr. Tydings ? (Mr. Tydings) No, Your Honor. (The Court) Then let it be admitted for the limited pur- pose stated. (Mr. Williams) Would Your Honor state the limited purpose, please? (The Court) The purpose that you stated and Mr. Genn adopted. (Mr. Tydings) The purpose would be that the records of the Department of Justice show the visits and the calls made on the days indicated. (Mr. Williams) That it was a document the Attorney General had before him when he testified. (The Court) And that the books which were here show these entries without any indic»‘ion that they do not show other entries. (Mr. Tydings) And they were prepared by Miss Lahey. (Mr. Williams) I do not know what the books show be- cause we are not permitted to look at them. (The Court) You were permitted to look at every entry on there. It is simply that the books show those entries without any question as to whether the books show other entries and J will rule on other entries as they come up on cross examination. } : 4 i 4 4 3 Pagal cies App. 850 (Mr. Williams) That is my understanding. (The Court) Is that the understanding of all the de. fendants? (Mr. Genn) That is correct. (The Court) They are admitted in evidence for the pur. pose stated. (The Clerk) Government Exhibit 108 marked in evidence, (Government exhibit 108 marked in evidence.) By Mr. Tydings: Q. Directing your attention to on or about October 17, Mr. Kennedy, does Government exhibit 108 indicate an appointment with you by Congressman Boykin? A. Yes. Q. And do you recall—wha, is your best recollection for the purpose and subject of that conference or visit? A. Congressman Boykin was anxious that we contact Mr. Edlin for further information regarding this $100,000 bond. He thought that Mr. Edlin could be extremely helpful to the government and that we had not realized how helpful Mr. Edlin could be to the government and he was extremely anxious that we understand the fact that Mr. Edlin was available and willing to testify and to help the government in this matter and that this is my recollection of the purpose of that visit. (Mr. Doub) What was the date of that, Mr. Kennedy? (The Witness) October 17, 1961. (Mr. Tydings) No further questions, Your Honor. [Tr. 1694-1762] CROSS-EXAMINATION By Mr. Doub: Q. Mr. Kennedy, directing your attention to the first meeting you had with Mr. Boykin and Mr. Johnson at App. 851 which you testified you requested that they provide you with a memorandum of the Edlin Mail Fraud Case, it is undis- puted that Mr. Johnson thereafter mailed you such, or sent you such a memorandum. You did not read that memo- randum? A. I believe I did not. Q. You have testified as to the substance of what said at that meeting and later meetings. Did you dictate a memo- randum of what was said at each of those meetings? A. No, I did not. Q. And as a matter of fact, you would have on an average as an Attorney General of the United States, many meetings and conferences a day, would you not? A. That is correct. Q. So you did not intend to suggest that you were quoting exactly the language of either Mr. Boykin or Mr. Johnson in those meetings? A. That is correct. I think I made that quite clear. Q. Now, when you referred to the fact that Mr. Johnson said that this development was being affected by the pend- ing case against Mr. Edlin, that is, this development in Southern Maryland? A. Yes, sir. Q. You do recall that? A. Yes. Q. Then I think you said this case was prejudicing the interests of Maryland. Is it possible that he could have said it was prejudicing the interests of Southern Maryland? A. Very possible. It was people in Maryland or the area of Maryland, something like that. Q. Yes. If any other written material was supplied to the Department of Justice by either Mr. Johnson or Mr. Boykin, you did not read that, did you, relating, of course, to this Edlin Mail Fraud Case? A. Well, I would have to look at the particular document to try to determine whether I read it or not. Some things I read and other things I did not. I believe the memorandum to which you referred, the original one was 90 pages long, or something like th: t. I am quite certain I did not read that. se 5 : re i App. 852 Q. Are there not pending at all times in the Criminal Division in the United States Attorney’s office—as crim. inal cases are subject to the supervision of the Crimina] Division—are there not pending at all times about sixt thousand criminal cases or is it more or less? A. I think that is a high figure. Q. That is a high figure; about 50,000? A. Well, there are many thousands. I would have thought that was a high figure, also, but there are a great number of criminal cases pending in the Department of Justice. Q. You had never heard of this Edlin mail fraud case before it was brought to your attention by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Boykin?