Appendix — Harris v. New York

Supreme Court brief1971

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States i

OCTOBER TERM, 1970 t

No. 206

VIVEN HARRIS,

Petitioner, ]

—V.—

NEw YorK t

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page ,

Docket entries, conan 25, 1966 through December 29,

Serra WES 1

i Ce, 6 COU :

Complete testimony of petitioner rose , as 19 [

I a naan abbaaaduatameomninoabioiens 72 i

Charge of the trial court ___. aS tiat Shek c | at Cd hs 79 :

The jury finding _ Dee he Pee ROR ONE liar Oe Aa 103 i

Judgment of County Court, Westchester County _.. ... 106 ;

Opinion of the Appellate Division, Second eisatananania :

Supreme Court of the State of New York . 113 .

Order of affirmance, Appellate Division, Second Department 114 ‘

Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals _ iat 115 F

Remittitur of New York Court of Appeals Na 117

Order dismissing first count of Indictment, 50/66 121

Order granting motion for leave to proceed in forma pau-

peris and granting petition for writ of certiorari —.. 122

DOCKET ENTRIES

At a Term of the County Court held in and for the

County of Westchester in the Court House, in the City

of White Plains, N. Y. jon the 25th, day of January, 1966.

Court met pursuant to recess

PRESENT: HON. ROBERT J. TRAINOR, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART I

Special Deputy County Clerk F. J. McNulty

Stenographer J. W. Reberts

Proclamation made and Court opened

The Acting Foreman of the January Grand Jury came

into Court and handed up the following 29 indictments,

1 Information as his partial report and then continued

on to do his work.

Indictments

= * * =

VIVEN HARRIS

Fel. selling narcotic drug in Viol. 3305 P.H.L., viol.

1751 subd. 1 Penal Law (2 cts) Indict. #50-66

Beata BEM ROR a RRL RRP TS PRE NS AICS I a » . FT PAR RR Tig

PePeRET PER)

TE OB I RE a NETTIE baer ae

ear

ELLOS ORR HE TI

THURSDAY, JULY 21st, 1966

At a Term of the County Court held in and for the

County of Westchester in the Court House, in the City

of White Plains, N.Y. on the 21st, day of July, 1966,

Court met pursuant to recess

PRESENT: HON: P. RAYMOND SIRIGNANO,

COUNTY JUDGE, PART I

Special Deputy County Clerk F. J. McNulty

Stenographer P. Thompson

Proclamation made and Court opened

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

2 cts: Feloniously selling narcotic drug in violation

3305 P.H.L. & 1751 (1) P.L. (2); Indict. #50-66

James J. Duggan A.D.A.

L. Martin

Court fixes bail in the sum of $25,000.00.

Defendant remanded.

~~ SO ee OI BON A ee Wr om Aeras ed “SMe Nt me Oo et

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30th, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

Stenographer Bernard Fabel

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

2 cts: Feloniously selling narcotic drug in violation

3305 P.H.L. & 1751 (1) P.L. (2); Indict. 450-66

AR RT TONER ee

Thomas Facelle A.D.A.

R. Projansky

Defendant present.

Mr. Projansky challenges the array of the prospective ;

jurors. ‘

Mr. Facelle moves Indict. #50-66 for trial and opposes

the Motion.

Hearing set for Thursday, December Ist, 1966 at 9:00

A.M.

The Panel of Jurors is excused.

Defendant remanded.

* Se RS, eT Se

LLL LEA

THURSDAY, DECEMBER Ist, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

Stenographer Bernard Fabel

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

2 cts: Feloniously selling narcotic drug in viol. 3305

P.H.L. & Sec. 1751 subd. 1 Penal Law (2); Indict,

#50-66

Thomas Facelle A.D.A.

E. McHugh by R. Projansky

of counsel

Hearing on challenge to the array of prospective jurors,

Defendant present.

WITNESS SWORN

Ralph. T. Mumford

Defendant rests.

The challenge to the array is denied.

Defendant remanded for trial on December 5th, 1966.

Piet ‘ . . . nes te RE

EY RRA SL CITI GIT SOR NAT RAE SC ORS YC SERB a a

MONDAY, DECEMBER 5th, 1966

At a term of the County Court held in and for the

County of Westchester in the Court House, in the City

of White Plains, N.Y. on the 5th day of December 1966

Court met pursuant to recess

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

Stenographer Bernard Fabel

Proclamation made and Court opened

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

2 cts: Feloniously selling narcotic drug in violation

3305 P.H.L. & 1751 (1) P.L, (2); Indict. #50-66

T. A. Facelle A.D.A.

E. McHugh by R. Projansky

of counsel

Defendant present.

Mr. Facelle moves Indictment #50-66 for trial.

The Clerk advised the defendant pursuant to Sec. 369

Code of Criminal Procedure of his right to challenge in-

dividual jurors.

The following jurors were examined, challenged or ex-

cused as shown:

Dina Ebenstein by consent

Anthony Arancio, Jr. by consent

Trial recessed at 4:10 P.M.

The Court admonished jurors pursuant to Sec. 415 Code

of Criminal Procedure.

Defendant remanded.

ESPNS PINE SIS EEE RES SES Ae tg

Se ook Crys

stains

SERPS MY RANE A —

5 PELL ERASE EN PLEIN AER MSY ITT

ee ee

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6th, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PaRT II

Deputy Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

Indict. #50-66

same appearances

case continued

The selection of jurors continued.

Joseph V. Chuea Peremptory defendant

Clarance S. Bonney Peremptory defendant

Charles W. Johnson Peremptory defendant

Edward J. Burrell Peremptory defendant

Frederick G. Gylassen Peremptory defendant

Lucy K. Mead Peremptory defendant

Jurors #+1-3-4-6-9-10 selected and sworn.

George White #1

Blanche K. Brill #2

Clarence W. Ostergren #4

Gerd H. Shendler #6

Onita M. Ocasio #9

Gilbert J. Stevens #10

The Court recessed at 4:50 P.M.

The Court admonished the Jurors pursuant to sec. 415

C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

| WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7th, 1966

HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY JUDGE,

PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin 8S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

| Indict. #50-66

same appearances

case continued

Selection of jurors resumed at 11:05 A.M.

Defendant present.

Frank L. Backus by consent

Alfred J. Lalli by consent

Thomas H. Lane by consent

Prospective juror #11 Thomas H. Lane is absent—an-

other juror selected from the drum as prospective Juror

#11

George P. Farrell Peremptory

David Harris by consent

Court recessed for luncheon at 12:30 P.M.

Jury admonished pursuant to sec. 415 C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

Selection of the jury resumed at 2:00 P.M.

John H. Judge peremptory by defendant

Katherine H. Gosselina peremptory by defendant

Levon K. Nahigian peremptory by defendant

Murray Winokor peremptory by defendant

Raymond O. Walsh peremptory by defendant

Roland B, Forsgth peremptory by defendant

Edmund B. Van Hook, Jr. peremptory by defendant

Lydia G. Gallagher peremptory by defendant

Juror +11 Kenneth B. Heller sworn.

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7th, 1966

(Continued )

Juror +2 Edmond P. Donlon Juror +5 Roberta Juror

#12 Sherman Turner sworn Juror #7 William F. Holth

sworn

The Jury selected. Roll called—Jury sworn.

JURY SWORN

George R. Wyhte William F. Holth

Edmond P. Donlon Adolf E. Schlessinger

Blanche K. Brett Anita M. Acasio

Clarence H. Ostergren Gilbert J. Stevens

Roberta J. McCanney Kenneth B. Heller

Gerd H. Shindler Sherman Turner

The Court directed the Clerk to select and swear in two

Alternate Jurors pursuant to Sec. 358-a Code of Crimi-

nal Procedure.

John D. Fors by consent

Walter Freedman by consent

Two alternate jurors were selected and sworn.

ALTERNATE JURORS SWORN

Evelyn P. Nazaruk Victor J. Jenkens

Trial recessed at 4:20 P.M.

Jury admonished pursuant to Sec. 415 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Defendant remanded.

— a

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8th, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

Indict. #50-66

same appearances

ease continued

Trial resumed at 9:10 P.M.

Defendant present.

Roll called—All twelve Jurors and two alternate jurors

present.

Opening statements by Messr. Facelli and Projansky.

Trial recessed at 9:40 A.M. for the call of the calander.

Jury admonished pursuant to Sec. 415 C.C.P.

Defendant remanded. :

Trial resumed at 12:00 P.M. Defendant present. ;

WITNESS SWORN

Det. George Bernuder

Court recessed for luncheon at 12:35 P.M.

Jury admonished pursuant to Sec. 415 Code of Criminal

Procedure.

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 2:05 P.M. Defendant present.

Roll called. All 12 Jurors and two Alternate Jurors

present.

WITNESS SWORN

Det. George Bernuder (resumed)

Court recessed at 4:40 P.M.

The Court admonished jurors pursuant to Sec. 415 C.C.P. is

Defendant remanded. ‘

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9th, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

Indict. #50-66

same appearances

case continued

Trial resumed at 11:45 A.M. Defendant present,

Roll called—All 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors present,

In chambers in the presence of the defendant and the

absence of the jury, Mr. Projansky moves to dismiss the

indictment on the grounds of the grand jury minutes of

the witness George Bernuder.

Defendant remanded.

Decision reserved. Motion denied.

WITNESS SWORN

Det. George Bernuder (resumed)

Court recessed at 12:25 P.M. for luncheon.

Jury admonished pursuant to Sec. 415 C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 2:25 P.M. Defendant present,

Roll called—All 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors present.

WITNESS SWORN

Det. George Bernuder (resumed)

Court recessed at 3:30 P.M. Court admonished jurors

pursuant to Sec. 415 C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

——

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9th, 1966

(Continued )

Trial resumed at 4:25 P.M., Defendant present.

Al] 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors present. . |

WITNESSES SWORN

Det. George Bernuder

Det. Frank Scheur

Det. Richard D. Parks

People rest.

Court recessed at 6:30 P.M. for dinner.

Court admonished jurors pursuant to Sec. 415 C.C.P.

Mr, Projansky renews motion to have verdict of acquital.

Motion denied. Motion to have indictment dismissed on

the grounds defendant did not get a preliminary hearing.

Motion denied. Mr. Projansky moves to dismiss indict-

ment on the grounds that People have failed to prove

a prima facie case. Motion denied.

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 8:05 P.M. Defendant present, Mr.

Facelli, A.D.A. present, Mr. Projansky, Attorney for the

defendant present.

All 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors present.

The Court adjourned until Monday, December 12th, 1966

at 10:30 A.M.

a admonished the jurors pursuant to Sec. 415

Defendant remanded.

RABBLE LES LEGIT

‘ ST TEE A PO

MONDAY, DECEMBER 12th, 1966

PRESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART II

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

Indict. +50-66

Same appearances

Case continued

Trial resumed at 11:40 A.M. Defendant present.

Roll called—All 12 jurors and 2 alternate jurors present,

Defendant himself moves for a new lawyer. Motion de

nied.

WITNESS SWORN

Luther Harris

In Chambers, defendant present, in jurys absence, court

advised the witness of his rights to remain silent to any

question which might tend to incriminate him, the wit-

ness.

Defendant present. Trial recessed for luncheon at 12:25

P.M. The Court admonished the jurors pursuant to See.

415 C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 2:15 P.M. Defendant present.

Roll called—All 12 Jurors and 2 Alternate Jurors present.

WITNESS SWORN

Viven Harris

Mr. Projansky moves for withdrawal of a Juror and a

mistrial. Motion denied.

WITNESS SWORN

Viven Harris (re-direct)

Trial recessed at 4:00 P.M.

The Court admonished the Jurors pursuant to See, 415

C.C.P.

Defendant remanded. ;

RNS Ras wz REPRESEN E SPALL ‘ PES ey ony, <4 %

SIRE Se OOO

ne SARE GE TTR NS —

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13th, 1966

RESENT: HON: ROBERT E. DEMPSEY, COUNTY

JUDGE, PART st

Deputy County Clerk Irwin S. Bilgre

THE PEOPLE

VIVEN HARRIS

Indict. #50-66

Same Appearances

Case continued

Trial resumed at 9:25 A.M. Defendant present. In ab-

nce of the Jury, Mr. Projansky renews his objection

io the use of certain statements made by the defendant.

Motion denied.

Defendant renews his Motions to dismiss the indictment.

Motion denied.

‘Defendant moves for a direction of acquittal. Motion de-

nied.

The Jury returned to the Courtroom at 9:35 A.M.

Roll called—All 12 jurors and 2 Alternate Jurors present.

Summations made by Mr. Projansky.

Court recessed at 12:20 P.M. for the call of the calendar.

— admonished the jurors pursuant to See. 415

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 11:10 A.M. Defendant present.

Summations made by Mr. Facelle.

The Court recessed for lunch at 12:10 P.M.

a ai admonished the Jurors pursuant to See. 415

Defendant remanded.

Trial resumed at 2:10 P.M. Defendant present.

Roll called—All 12 Jurors and 2 Alternate jurors present.

The Court charged the Jury.

OPE POE GPE TEI LIE LIE IIE EEA

GF FONT,

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13th, 1966

(Continued )

Officers Devine, Wall and Davis sworn pursuant to Se.

421 C.C.P.

The Court advised the Assistant District Attorney, the

Attorney for the defendant and the defendant pursuant

to Sec. 425 C.C.P. in reference to the exhibits being sent

to the Jury room.

The Assistant District Attorney and the Attorney for

the defendant and the defendant personally, consent to

the exhibits being sent to the Jury room if requested.

The Court directed that the 2 Alternate Jurors be kept

separate and apart from the regular jury until a verdict

is reached.

At 5:30 P.M. in the presence of the defendant, the As-

sistant District Attorney, and Mr. Projansky, counsel for

the defendant, a note sent down by the Jurors asking,

“Must a verdict for acquital also be a unanimous ballot?”

was read. To which Judge Dempsey replied, “A verdict

of the acquital of the defendant must be unanimous.

Defendant remanded.

At 6:05 P.M. the Jury returned to the Courtrocm for

further instructions. Defendant present, Assistant Dis-

trict Attorney present, Mr. Projansky, Attorney for the

defendant present.

At 6:10 P.M. the jury retired to continue their delibera-

tions.

Defendant remanded.

At 6:30 P.M. the Jurors recessed for dinner.

The Court admonished the Jurors pursuant to Sec. 415

C.C.P.

Defendant remanded.

Jurors returned to deliberate at 8:05 P.M.

At 9:07 the Jurors returned to the Courtroom and a

roll call being taked and all Jurors being present, the

Foreman stated on being asked, that their was a dis-

e—7—_— a

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13th, 1966

(Continued )

ment as to the 1st count of the indictment, “Feloni-

ously selling narcotic drug in violation Sec. 3305 P.H.L.

and 1751 subd. 1 P.L.

When asked the question “How do you find the defendant

Viven Harris as to the 2nd ct. of the Indictment?” the

Foreman announced that they find the defendant guilty

as charged to Feloniously selling narcotic drug in viola-

tion of Sec. 3305 P.H.L. and Sec. 1751 Subd. 1 Penal Law.

At the request of Mr. Projansky, a roll call was taken

and to the question “Is your individual verdict the same

as that announced by your Foreman?” each juror re-

sponded in the affirmative.

The Jury was discharged with the thanks of the Court.

Mr. Projansky moves to set aside the verdict as being

contrary to the evidence. Motion denied.

All previous Motions made during the trial are renewed

by Mr. Projansky and denied by the Court.

Mr, Projansky moves for a arrest of Judgment. Motion 4

denied.

The defendant being sworn answers all questions as fol- :

lows:

Name Viven Harris Citizen Yes

Born Greensboro, No. Birth February 5th, 1942

Carolina

Resides 34 Lincoln Ave. New Rochelle, N.Y.

Married Married (Eriing) Occupation Gardner-Landscaper

Religion Protestant Education 10th grade

Temperate Abstains Parents Mother living

Narcotic drugs Yes—but not under the influence of drugs at the

present time.

Previous Convictions Stands Mute.

The defendant does not waive the two days notice of

sentence.

Defendant remanded for sentence 1 week from today.

PRE ELIE

16.

THE PEOPLE

DECEMBER 20th, 1966

vs |

VIVEN HARRIS

2nd ct: Feloniously selling narcotic drug in violation

3305 P.H.L. and 1751 subd. 1 P.L.; Indict. #50-66

James R. Cowhey A.D.A.

E. McHugh

All Motions renewed. Mr. McHugh moves for arrest of

' judgment, Motion denied.

The aforesaid Viven Harris having been indicted for the

crimes of Feloniously selling narcotic drug in violation

3305 P.H.L. and 1751 subd, 1 Penal Law (2), and having

been convicted of the crime of Feloniously selling narcotic

drug in violation 3305 P.H.L. and 1751 subd, 1 Penal

Law, 2nd ct. of the indictment by a verdict of a Jury

and he having answered all questions under oath, and

the defendant having had two days notice of sentence

(472-CCP); now on being arraigned for sentence and

being asked if he had any legal cause to show why judg-

ment should not be pronounced against him (480-CCP)

and the defendant answering in the negative it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED by the Court, that the

said Viven Harris for the offense of Feloniously selling

narcotic drug in violation 3305 P.H.L. and 1751 subd. 1

Penal Law, 2nd ct. of Indict. #+50-66, whereof he is con-

victed, be imprisoned in the Sing Sing State Prison at

Ossining, N.Y. at hard labor, under an indeterminate

sentence, the Maximum of such imprisonment to be 8

YEARS and the Minimum to be 6 YEARS.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the sheriff of

Westchester County convey the said defendant to the

Sing Sing State Prison of Ossining, N.Y. with conformity

of this sentence.

MEY TE IIIT a TORE 1 AM AIMS ONE YS —

COUNTY COURT : WESTCHESTER COUNTY

INDICTMENT 50-66

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

. —against—

VIVEN HARRIS, DEFENDANT

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF WEST-

CHESTER, by this Indictment, accuse the defendant of

the crime of FELONIOUSLY SELLING A NARCOTIC

DRUG, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 3305 OF THE

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND SECTION 1751 SUB-

DIVISION 1 OF THE PENAL LAW, committed as

follows:

The defendant, in the City of New Rochelle, County

of Westchester and State of New York, on or about the

4th day of January, 1966, unlawfully bartered and ex-

changed with, and sold, gave and offered to give to an-

other a quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, a quantity

of heroin.

SECOND COUNT

AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this In-

dictment, further accuse the defendant of the crime of

FELONIOUSLY SELLING A NARCOTIC DRUG, IN

VIOLATION OF SECTION 3305 OF THE PUBLIC

HEALTH LAW AND SECTION 1751 SUBDIVISION

10F THE PENAL LAW, committed as follows:

The said defendant, in the City of New Rochelle,

County of Westchester and State of New York, on or

about the 6th day of January, 1966, unlawfully bartered

and exchanged with, and sold, gave and offered to give

to another a quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, a quan-

tity of heroin.

All of the acts and transactions alleged in each of the

several! Counts of this Indictment are connected together

and constitute parts of a common scheme and plan,

SPP LIFTN

SS DM ROR OGRE. Ahi MICE ne that a wit eo Taco ee

TER AOE RELATOR IN SP

18.

All contrary to the form of the statute in such case

made and provided and against the peace and dignity

of the People of the State of New York.

/s/ LEONARD RUBENFELD

District Attorney of

Westchester County

50-66

WESTCHESTER COUNTY

COUNTY COURT

Filed the -.......... day of

Pleads

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

VIVEN HARRIS

Fel. Sell, Narcotic Drug, Viol. § 3305 Public

Health Law, Viol. 1751 Sdiv. 1 Penal Law

(2 Counts)

/s/ LEONARD RUBENFELD

District Attorney

A TRUE BILL

/s/ MARTIN H. SHERWIN

Foreman of Grand Jury

—=—

VoLUME Ii

COUNTY COURT : WESTCHESTER COUNTY

Indictment #50-66

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

—against—

VIVEN HARRIS, DEFENDANT

* * * *

(fol. 388] VIVEN HARRIS, the defendant, called as a

witness in his own behalf, being first duly sworn, testi-

fied as follows:

BY THE CLERK:

Q Would you state and spell your name for the Court,

please?

A Viven Harris, Viven, Harris.

@ And your address?

A 84 Lincoln Avenue, New Rochelle.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PROJANSKY

Q Viven, how old are you? .

A 24 '

Q@ Now, would you speak up and make your voice

loud and clear so that every member of the jury can hear

you.

te. RR SS ESS 6 eM

Yes, sir.

Now, where were you born?

Greensboro, North Carolina.

Where did you grow up?

Greensboro, North Carolina.

Did you attend school there?

I did.

And far did you go in school? “

Tenth grade. :

Are you married?

1.389] A Iam.

Do you have a family?

I do.

ee Geigy saat coun

PRG REPRE P ORT A EL SF

OPO PO PO POY

2a RE rar

Q Now, did there come a time when you moved away

from Greensboro, North Carolina?

A Yes, sir.

Q When was that?

A About 1962.

Q And where did you move to?

A New Rochelle.

Q And have you lived in New Rochelle ever since

A No, sir.

Q Where else have you lived?

A North Carclina, from numerous times, from North

Carolina back to New Rochelle.

Q You’ve moved back and forth?

A Back and Forth.

Q Now Viven, have you ever been convicted of a

crime?

A Ihave.

Q And what was that crime?

A Possession of a weapon.

And where were you convicted of that?

[fol.390] A Greensboro, North Carolina.

Q Have you ever been convicted of any other crime

in North Carolina?

I have.

What was that for?

Escape.

From a sentence that you were serving?

Yes, sir.

Have you ever been convicted of any other crime?

Yes, sir.

And where was that?

Here in New Rochelle, here in White Plains, here

his Court.

And when was that?

Approximately, I believe, May or June 1.

Of this year?

Of this year.

And what was that conviction for?

POPO PO POY

OPO PO

A Possession of a weapon.

Q Now, you saw Detective Bermudez testify in this

Courtroom, did you not?

A I did.

Q Did you know Detective Bermudez before he came

here to testify?

(fol. 391] A I had saw him.

Had you ever met him before?

Yes, sir, I have.

When did you first meet him?

Oh, around about—it was about the 4th of Janu-

yo you ever seen him before that time?

I had.

Where had you seen him?

Sickles Avenue.

THE COURT: Where?

THE WITNESS: Sickles Avenue in New Rochelle.

Q When did you first have a conversation with De

tective Bermudez?

The 4th of January.

And where did that conversation take place?

Three-Fours Bar and Grill.

On North Avenue in New Rochelle?

North Avenue, 444 North Avenue.

Do you remember about what time of day that

POPOSPELOPOror

No, sir. I can’t remember.

Well, was it in the morning, evening, afternoon?

It was in the evening.

Pardon me?

It was in the evening.

1.392] Q Early or late in the evening?

A I say around about 5:30, maybe 6:00.

Q And was that inside the Three-Fours or outside?

A Inside.

Q And who else was present?

A At this time, Charlie Burkes was present, and

Ronnie Sykes.

Q By the way, did you know Detective Bermudez by

that name at that time?

PERLE IO LILO PES POS OF

6 Ee eee €

A No, sir.

Q What was the name by which you knew him?

A Well, when they introduced me to him that day

they were calling him Joe.

Q Did you know him by any last name?

A No, sir.

Q And what was the substance of that conversation?

What he said and what you said?

A Well, I can’t remember the exact conversation, it

was just small talk and everything.

Q And did there come a time when the subject of

narcotic: was discussed?

A Not in my presence, no, sir.

Q You never talked about narcotics with him at that

time?

A No, sir.

[fol. 393] Q Did Detective Bermudez ever ask you to go

buy narcotics for him?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was it at that time?

A No, sir.

Q Was it on that day?

A It was on that day, not that time.

Q And did there come a time when you left the Three.

Fours?

A Yes, sir.

Q And about when was that?

A Oh, about 7:00.

Q And did you have another conversation with him

at sometime after that? :

A No, sir, not as I can recall.

Q Well—

MR. FACELLE: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the answer,

Your Honor.

A No, sir.

THE COURT: Not that he can recall.

MR. FACELLE: Thank you.

Q Now, you testified that you had a conversation with

him?

A Yes, sir.

—

Q About narcotics, sometime on the 4th of January?

A Yes, sir.

{fol. 394 | Q Now, about what time was that?

A Approximately, maybe 6:00, 6:30, somewhere along

ere.

Q And where were you at that time?

A Three-Fours Bar and Grill.

Q@ And what did he say and what did you say?

A Well, he wanted me to go and see could I obtain a

bag of drugs for him. I told him that it was a panic on,

‘hat I wanted drugs for myself and could no drugs be

found nowhere because I was drinking Robitussin A. C.

Q What is that?

A It’s cough syrup with codeine in it.

Q Let me stop just a moment and go back. Were you

using narcotics at that time?

A I was.

Q Now, for how long had you been using narcotics,

when did you first begin?

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor, as to ma-

teriality.

THE COURT: No, I will allow it.

A You mean how many years or—

Q Yes, when did you first begin using narcotics?

A Oh, I say about 1961.

Q That was in North Carolina?

A North Carolina.

(fol. 895] Q And did you subsequently, did you after

that time become addicted to narcotics? |

A Ihave, quite a few times.

Q You say quite a few times. Were there any times

between the time that you began using narcotics and

January of this year, that you were not addicted?

A I started around about June, you know, just taking

a shot, maybe on the weekend, and it built up to around

about to the middle of December, I had a habit.

Q That’s December of 1965?

A Yes, sir.

Q Allright. Let’s go back to the Three-Fours, the 4th i

of January of this year. k

A All right.

—

Q Now, you said that, I believe, that he had askeg

you to go obtain drugs for him?

A He did.

Q And what did you say to that?

A That it was a panic on, that I was trying to get

drugs for myself and that couldn’t be done.

Q And what happened after that?

A Well, he kept asking me, asking, asking, and I kept

telling him we couldn’t buy no drugs because it was a

panic on, it wasn’t no drugs to be found, because |

needed them for myself.

[fol. 396] Q And what happened after that?

A Well, just a little more small talk and I left.

Q I’m sorry, you'll have to speak up a little louder,

A A little more small talk and things, and things like

that, and he bought me a beer, and I left and went to

the Red Rose Bar up on Huguenot Street.

Q And did you ever buy drugs for him?

A No, sir.

Q You say that you had seen Detective Bermudez be

fore the 4th of January, is that right?

A I have.

Q And who was it that introduced you to him?

A No one introduced me to him, I had just saw him.

He had never been introduced to me, but he was in his

car with Ronnie Sykes and I believe Detective Parks was

in the car, too, I’m not sure, because this was about in

the middle of December.

Q And what happened at that point?

A Well, it was, as I can recall, it was Al Payne which

was Alvin Mills, and Ambrose Rooney, and I was, you

know, scrape up enough money to buy one bag of heroine

for three of us, and he went, he come around the corner

on Sickles Avenue, he asked Ronnie to ask one of us to

see could we cop a bag of drugs for him. Cop means to

guy a bag of drugs for him, which one of the boys did

so.

(fol. 397] MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, may

we have a time or date, approximate date established?

THE COURT: Yes, I think you can fix it, Mr. Pro

jansky.

- 7

Q When did this occur?

A It was round about in the middle of December.

The date I’m not sure.

Q What time of day?

A It was mostly, it was at night.

Yes, go on, what happened?

A Well, he gave Ronnie Sykes the money to give to,

I believe it was—Ambrose Rooney. And so when we went

to this here-—

Excuse me just a moment, where was Detective

Bermudez at the time?

A He was in his car.

Q@ And where was Ronnie Sykes?

A In the car.

And where was Ambrose Rooney?

A Ambrose Rooney, Alvin Mills and I was standing

on the sidewalk.

Q Would you speak up a little louder?

A Ambrose Rooney, Ambrose Rooney,—

Q Yes.

A Ambrose and Alvin Mills and I were standing on

(fol. 398] the sidewalk. Mr. Bermudez and Detective

Parks and Ronnie Sykes was in the car.

Q Yes. And what happened after he gave Ronnie

Sykes the money?

A He handed it to—I can not remember this good,

but I believe it was Ambrose Rooney, I believe it was

Ambrose Rooney.

Q Yes, and what happened next?

A To obtain a bag of drugs for him. He handed him

seven dollars, and so we went in—

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, at this time

I'm going to object to this line of questioning as having

no relevancy or materiality on the issue here before the

Court.

THE COURT: I will allow it, Mr. Facelle.

A (Continuing) He handed him the money which

we—he handed him the seven dollars, to obtain the

drugs for him, and which we had seven dollars to obtain .

the bag of drugs for us. So we went into—we rung the :

bell. The boy comes to the door, he said he have respec-

table peoples living there.

Who said this?

This was the Spanish boy. We called him Joe.

What house was this?

It was on Stickles Avenue.

Do you know the number?

[fol. 399] A _ I believe it was 108 Sickles.

Q And where did this take place, at the front door?

A This time he say he have respectable peoples living

there and if we come in, you know, we didn’t want to

walk around, not to disturb, not to make too much noise

Q Yes, and what happened then?

A So since it was three of us getting out on one bag,

the bag that we had, you know, bought for Mr. Bermudez,

we decided to just take some of the powder, the heroine

out of his bag and put in our bag so it would be more for

us and less for him.

Q And what happened then?

A We come back out, we come out of the house, he

asked, “Did you get it? Did you get it?” and he handed

the bag to Ronnie Sykes.

Q Who handed the bags to Ronnie Sykes?

A I believe it was Rooney, Ambrose Rooney who

handed the bag to Ronnie Sykes, which Ronnie Sykes

handed it to Joe, which they called Detective Bermudez.

Q And what happened then?

A And then they drove off and we went and use it,

used the drugs that we had.

Q Now, after the 4th of January, did you ever have

another conversation with Detective Bermudez?

A I did.

[fol.400] Q And when was that?

A The Three-Fours Bar and Grill.

Q And when was that?

A On a Thursday, I believe it was. I’m not quite

sure of the day; I believe it was on a Thursday.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, may we take judi-

cial notice that the sixth of January was a Thursday.

THE COURT: No, you may ask the witness whether

this might be such a date.

Let me ask you this, Viven, you were arrested in

the month of January, were you not?

OPO PO

I was.

Do you remember the date?

Yes, sir. It was the 7th of January.

And what day of the week was that, do you re-

oro,

Ororor:

It was Friday.

And then the day before that—

It was—

It would be a Thursday, is that right?

That’s right, that’s right; that’s correct.

Now, how many days after the 4th of January was

it before you saw Detective Bermudez again.

A Oh, it was on the 6th, as you say.

Q Now, you say that you met him in the Three-

Fours?

(fol.401] A Yes, sir.

Q About what time of day was that?

A It was in the afternoon, around about, well I can-

not say exact time because—

As best as you can recall?

A The best I can recall, it was about 7:30.

Q In the early evening?

A In the early evening.

Q And who else was present? That is if anyone, be-

sides yourself and Bermudez?

A You see, usually we be talking to Charlie Burkes,

was Charlie Burkes was working as a waitress—a waiter.

Q And was he present at that time?

A He was.

Q And was anyone else there?

A Detective Parks was present but he was not talk-

ing t-—he was not with Detective Bermudez and Charlies

Burkes at that time.

Q And where in the Three-Fours did you meet Detec-

tive Bermudez?

A It was mostly—

Q At that time?

A At the back, mostly at the back, close—you see,

it’s two sections in the Three-Fours. One section of the

Three-Fours is where at the bar where you can drink.

os —

(fol. 402] In the back of the Three-Fours they have

tables where you can sit down, drink, and dance ang

have a band.

Q And do you recall the substance of the converse.

tion that you had with Detective Bermudez?

A Ido.

Q And what was the substance of that conversation?

A He wanted drugs.

Q What did he say about drugs?

A First he wanted me to see could I cop him a half.

a-load of drugs? A half-a-load which is equal to fifteen

tray bags, fifteen three dollar bags.

Q And what did you say to him?

A I told him it was a panic on, you couldn’t buy no

drugs.

Q And what happened then?

A Well, he said, “Could you buy me two bags of

drugs?”

Q And what happened then?

A I told him stil] there is a panic on.

Q And what happened after that?

A Well, one thing, this when my—a friend of mine

come in the bar.

Q Who was that?

A Henry Stanley.

Q Stanley?

A Henry Stanley.

Q And then what happened?

{fol.403] A Well, he come up and he start talking,

Bermudez, Mr. Bermudez, Detective Bermudez turned

around and asked him. “You understand, you a friend of

Viven?” and told him he was. He said, “Well, birds of a

feather flock together. You know where you can get

some drugs at?” and Henry told him the same thing,

it’s a panic on, that we was drinking terpin hydrate and

robitussin A. C.

Q Cough medicine?

A Cough medicine.

Q What happened then?

A Well, he kept asking him, kept asking him and in-

sisting, so Henry punch me in the side.

He what?

Punch me.

What do you mean by that?

To call me to the side.

Yes.

Wanted to talk to me. So—

Did you have a conversation with him?

I did.

And what was that conversation?

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection, Mr. Pro-

jansky. It’s out of the—

(fol. 404] MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, I believe

this goes directly to the state of mind of the witness at

that time.

THE COURT: No, I will sustain the objection, not

in the presence of any parties here.

Q@ You had a conversation with Henry Stanley at

that time, is that right?

A Yes, sir.

Q And that time—as a result of that conversation,

did you decide to do something?

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor, to the form

of the question.

THE COURT: Not what you decided to do, did he

do anything as a result of the conversation.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, as with—

THE COURT: You are describing a mental opera-

tion of the witness, Mr. Projansky. You may ask the

witness as a result of this conversation, if he did any-

thing.

MR. PROJANSKY: Excuse me, Your Honor. If I

may be heard on this point, the indictment states that

the alleged crime herein was committed wilfully and

feloniously and I believe the state of mind of the de-

fendant is alwavs a key issue as to those allegations.

THE COURT: Yes, I have already ruled on the ob-

jection. I will again repeat, I will sustain the objection,

[fol. 405] but you may ask the witness to state what he

did as a result of this conversation. &:

CPO PLO PLO PO

Q_ Asa result of that conversation, with Henry Stan.

ley, what did you do, if anything?

A We beat it.

Q What do you mean by that?

A We gave him baking powder instead of heroine,

Q After you had that conversation with Henry Stan.

ley, did you leave the bar?

A Yes, sir, we did.

Q And where did you go?

A To Henry’s house.

Q And what did you do there?

A That’s where we were going to try—

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

— COURT: I will let him describe this, what he

id.

MR. FACELLE: He said that’s why we tried—and

that’s what I’m objecting to.

THE COURT: That’s where. Thet’s where.

(Whereupon the testimony referred to was read back

by the court reporter. )

Q Speak up now so everyone can hear.

A We, Bermudez, Detective Bermudez has been de

{fol. 406] posing himself as a snorter.

Q Yes.

A We know if he’s a snorter, if he snorts something—

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor, as to what

they know.

THE COURT: No, I will allow it.

A If they know they snort something and it doesn’t

have a sting to it, then it’s not heroine, but if you snort

something that has a sting to it, he doesn’t he been beat

until about maybe fifteen or twenty minutes later. So

first we tried a baby formula which mixed—mixed with

milk, we tried that but it didn’t have the sting.

Q That’s some powdered substance?

A Powdered substance, white powdered substance.

Then we tried baking powder.

Q Excuse me, when you say you tried, what do you

mean you tried?

A_ We snorted it.

PRE SENTRA PSNI MY DET NA RSE TCINE I

That’s drew it up into your nostrils?

That’s right.

You say it didn’t have a sting?

Didn’t have a sting.

So what did you do then?

Well, we tried baking powder.

(fol.407] Q Yes.

A Well, that had just the right amount of sting, so

he had two glassine envelopes which he had previous

ysed—which he had previous, you know, had use the

heroine from.

Q Yes?

A So we put them in that and taking it back to the

Three-Fours.

MR. FACELLE: May we establish, Your Honor, who

did this?

THE COURT: He and his friend went to a house

and they took some baking powder and put it in two

glassine envelopes and went back to the Three-Fours

Club, is this your testimony?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: That’s what I thought.

DIRECT EXAMINATION CONTINUING BY MR.

PROJANSKY

Q What happened then?

We gave it to him.

To whom?

To Bermudez.

When you—was that inside the Three-Fours?

Yes, sir.

Did you have any conversation with him at that

OPO ro YS

time?

A No, sir. I was kind of sick and since I had—

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

(fol. 408] THE COURT: Yes. Beyond that said he

had no—

THE WITNESS: Well—

THE COURT: ‘They had no conversation with him.

Q Did you say anything to him at all?

ST Er

BADE ALLE NTR SATII RANI INS BNE LNG ice "SAB RE AN TE a

A No more, you understand, that, you know, we

didn’t want the man to think—

THE COURT: No, Mr. Harris, did you have any

conversation when you went back?

THE WITNESS: I did.

THE COURT: You did?

THE WITNESS: I did.

THE COURT: This is what Mr. Projansky asked

you, what you said and what did he say.

THE WITNESS: Well, first we asked him to buy

a beer.

Q Yes?

A You understand, we asked to buy a beer. We did

not want the man to know that—

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor, as to what

they wanted the man to do.

THE COURT: I will allow it.

A (continuing) He bought us the beer.

Q Yes, and did you have any conversation with him

at that time?

A We did.

{fol. 409] Q Did you talk about the drugs?

A Well, I told him, you understand, that the drugs

that we would give him, you understand, was the best we

could do and might be a little light.

Q What do you mean by a little light?

A Might not give him the full effect.

Q And was there—did you put any heroine in these

envelopes?

A No, sir.

Q Were they emptied before you put the baking

powder in?

A Yes, sir.

Q And after you had that conversation, what hap-

pened?

A Well, he bought us the beer.

Q Yes?

A And so, well, since I was sick, Henry was sick, we

had a few dollars, about four dollars between us, we

were going to go downtown and try to buy ourselves

some drugs then, since we had his money.

Did he pay you for those drugs?

He paid twelve dollars.

And did you go to New York?

We did.

When was the next time that you saw Detective

Bermudez?

A The next day I was arrested.

(fol. 410] Q Did you ever sell Detective Bermudez any

drugs?

A No, sir.

Q Did you ever sell anyone any drugs?

A No, sir.

Q Have you ever been in the business of selling

drugs?

A No, sir.

Q Have you ever had a partnership, a business ar-

rangement—

No, sir.

—with Al Payne?

No, sir.

With Wayne Baker?

No, sir.

With Benny Lawson?

No, sir.

Now, you stated that you started using drugs

around 1961?

Yes, sir.

Have you ever given drugs to anyone?

I have.

Did you give drugs to anyone on the 4th of Janu-

SO POPOProOPr

No, sir.

Did you give drugs to anyone on the 6th?

No, sir.

Now, what kind of physical condition are you in

at this time?

[fol.411] THE COURT: Sustain an objection.

MR. FACELLE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. PROJANSKY: Excuse me, Your Honor, I be-

lieve the defendant’s demeanor is always in evidence, if

he can explain it then I believe—

bs)

Ororioro>r

SETI RL APES INNES H DIOLS CIT PORE rate gaa eau ara

AIP TAIL GEE ODE RRAI IY IT AMA OIE 08 a

ST I ee

THE COURT: No.

MR. PROJANSKY: —he’s entitled to it.

THE COURT: No, please. I will sustain an objec.

tion.

Q Before the 4th of January, had anyone ever told

you anything about the man that you knew as Joe?

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He may answer yes or no.

A Yes.

Q And do you remember what that was?

A _ I cannot recall the date, no, sir.

Q Was it in the month of December?

A Yes, sir.

Q Was it before or after Christmas?

A Before.

And who told you anything about Joe?

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. PROJANSKY: I didn’t hear an objection, Your

Honor. I want to know what the grounds—

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor,

THE COURT: On the grounds that the question is

irrelevant and immaterial.

(fol. 412] Q You stated that you had heard that De-

tective Bermudez was a snorter?

A Yes, sir.

Q And who told you that?

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, I will sustain the objection.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, that’s certainly

material, it seems to me.

THE COURT: No, it isn’t.

Q At that time, the 4th of January, did you know

then that it was a crime to sell drugs?

A Yes, sir.

Q But you didn’t know Detective Bermudez, did you?

A Not personally.

Were you suspicious of Detective Bermudez?

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear, Mr. Pro-

jansky.

(The question was read back by the court reporter.)

_——— e eam 8 <8 nee mite a RN

MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will sustain an objection to it, sir.

Q Were you addicted to drugs at that time?

A I was.

Q Had you ever discussed drugs with strangers?

A No, sir. }

(fol. 413] Q Now, on the 4th of January, did you have

a conversation—-with John? Did anyone ever tell you

that Detective Bermudez had used drugs? :

MR. FACELLE: Objection.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, I submit that, f

throughout, the state of mind of the defendant is very :

much in issue.

THE COURT: No.

MR. PROJANSKY: It’s something I believe the jury

is entitled to—

THE COURT: The jury will determine the state of

mind of the defendant. He has already testified as to

the transactions which he says, if in fact they occurred,

did occur. It will be the jury that will determine what

transpired on January 4th and January 6th. What he

thought on January 8th of December 25th, in this Court’s

opinion, is utterly irrelevant and I will sustain an ob-

jection to that line of questioning.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor—

THE COURT: It is going to be what the defendant

intended to do, if in fact he intended to do anything,

on January 4th and on January 6th.

MR. PROJANSKY: I’m not speaking in regard to

intent, Your Honor. f

(fol.414] THE COURT: Then the defendant’s state N

of mind does not become relevant in this type of a case, ;

“we ®

Oe rok Qe arr en

MR. PROJANSKY: I have no further questions, Your

Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FACELLE

Q Mr. Harris, in December of '65 or January of '66,

were you employed?

A Up to around December 3rd, I believe.

Vid ee tee ele A Set iG SPORTAL ety

: IY — |

PONTE Se PE RUBE HET ee ee eS

Q You were employed up to December 8rd?

A I believe so.

Q And you were not from December 3rd until Jany.

ary 7th?

A The 7th of January? I don’t think so.

Q Were you or weren’t you?

A No, I wasn’t.

Q Were you living with your wife and your child

at the time?

A I was.

Q Where were you living?

A 149 Guion.

Q The City of New Rochelle, is that right?

A That’s right.

Q And prior to December 3rd, where were you em-

ployed?

A Fred Magneri Landscaping Gardner.

Q Now, this weapon that you say you were convicted

(fol. 415] of possessing, what was the date that you

possessed that weapon to which you pleaded guilty in

New Rochelle?

A_ I cannot recall the date.

Q Would it refresh your recollection, Mr. Harris, if

I mentioned to you the date of December 11th, 1965?

Would that refresh your recollection?

A Is that the date I was convicted?

Q Not the date that you were convicted, the date that

you admitted that you possessed this weapon.

A_ I admitted possession of weapon when I pleaded

guilty to a case.

Q Did you plead guilty to possessing a weapon on

December 11th, 1965? Not that you pleaded on that

date, but that you possessed the weapon on that date?

A _ I did possess a weapon on that date.

Q And what type of a weapon was that?

A A knife.

Q And is it not a fact, Mr. Harris, that with that

knife you stabbed one Gus Fowler in your apartment?

A I cut Gus Fowler, that’s right.

Q And is it not a fact that that stabbing of Gus

Fowler was in a dispute over drugs?

a ae a — " > m/e h

PP RITA OP CMymemin t ENT pOiy ey leet eran Dintieae DD tis

ny yew :

—S— _—

A No, sir.

Q It was not?

A No, sir.

(fol. 416] Q Where did you stab him?

A In my house.

Q Where did you stab Gus Fowler, what part of his

4 I did not stab him, I cut him.

Q Where did you cut him?

A Across the chest.

Q Part of the chest?

A Part of the chest.

And is it not a fact that you broke the blade of

the knife in the cutting?

MR. PROJANSKY: I’m going to object, Your Honor.

The defendant’s already admitted the act.

THE WITNESS: Can I ask a question?

MR. PROJANSKY: And I believe that since the

details of that act certainly are not in issue here, and

since the defendant has admitted that the District At-

torney—

THE COURT: Does the law permit on cross examina-

tion interrogation as to the circumstances as to the crime?

MR. PROJANSKY: I don’t believe so, Your Honor.

He’s already admitted.

THE COURT: Well, I think—excuse me, I will over-

rule your objection.

MR. PROJANSKY: May we have a limiting instruc-

tion.

(fol.417] THE COURT: You may continue, Mr. Fa-

celle, and you may have an exception, Mr. Projansky.

MR. PROJANSKY: May we have a limited instruc-

tion as to this type of testimony?

THE COURT: The cross-examiner is never restricted

to the mere admission of the commission of the crime.

He may, at his option, go into the details thereon, so I

will overrule your objection, sir.

MR. PROJANSKY: May we have an instruction to

the jury, as for what purposes they may consider this

evidence?

—_—_—_ PRATER RRR LE NTE cor |

Pela) ie

SN heii 8 a 8 a ig)

PS SOLE OOS LE CELIA LI ELT TS

THE COURT: You interrogated the jury, the jury

understands that this goes to the credibility of the wit.

ness, and not as to evidence of guilt of the commission

of this crime. It simply goes to the issue of the witness’

credibility and I am sure the jury understands that nov,

CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUING BY MR.

FACELLE:

Q Mr. Harris, I believe you said that the first time

that you spoke to the Detective Bermudez was on the

4th of January, is that correct?

A That’s right.

Q In the Three-Fours?

A Three-Fours.

Q And Charlie Burkes and Ronnie Sykes were pres-

ent?

{fol.418] A That’s right.

Q Did anybody introduce you to Detective Bermudez?

A Charlie Burkes.

Q He introduced you?

A Introduced me.

Q Did you not have a conversation with Detective

Bermudez at that time about a guitar?

A No, sir.

Q No conversation whatsoever?

A No conversation whatsoever.

Q Did you sell a guitar to Detective Bermudez?

A No, sir.

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the answer.

A No, sir.

Q Did you, Mr. Harris, steal a Kent guitar in a

carrying case with a blue and white tag with a number

WTG, 67066, from Grant’s in the City of New Rochelle?

A No, sir.

Q Did you sell a guitar for $25.00 to Detective Ber-

mudez on the 4th of January?

A No, sir.

Q At any time, Mr. Harris, was Detective Bermudez

ever in your apartment?

A No, sir.

oot Ay ran

s PES as

Q At any time did Detective Bermudez ever meet

your wife?

(fol. 419] A No, sir.

At any time did you ever have any conversations

with Charlie Burkes and Detective Bermudez about buy-

ing a guitar which was hot?

A No, sir.

Q Do you understand what I mean by hot, Mr. Har-

ris?

A I understand what you mean by hot.

@ What was the first time you had a conversation,

discussion with Detective Bermudez about drugs?

A Drugs. The 4th of January.

Q And what was that discussion, again?

A He wanted me to purchase some drugs for him,

which I told him that I could not because it was a panic

on.

Q Well, had you told Detective Bermudez that you

were a user of drugs?

A Had I ever told him that I used—

Q At that point, before he asked you to buy drugs

for him, had you ever told Detective Bermudez that you

used drugs.

A No, sir.

Q Did he ever see you use drugs?

A No, sir.

Q Up to that point? And I believe you testified on

Direct that you never discussed drugs with strangers, is

that right?

A That’s right.

Q So that Detective Bermudez, then, not knowing

(fol. 420] that you ever were a user of drugs—

A That’s right.

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor, that’s

aot what the witness said. He said that he didn’t tell him

that.

Q You never told him you used drugs? You never

used drugs in his presence?

A That’s right.

Q Asked you to buy drugs for him?

A That’s right.

Sea S Ty AERA WEL WINER OTS NAAR ERIE GOP I TR NR MEO, SRR EE 8

We 2 ong

pret

Pe eee eee ee ee ee ee LSD 10 RRS tr ERD

Q And you say there was a panic on?

A That’s right.

Q That you couldn’t any?

A I didn’t say I didn’t use it, I said it was a panic

on and that I needed drugs, but it was a panic on, you

could not get no drugs.

Q Did you tel! him that you couldn’t even get drugs

for yourself?

A That’s right.

Q So that on the 4th day of January, 1966, Mr. Har.

ris, did you sell anything to Detective Bermudez?

A No, sir.

Q On the 4th day of January you didn’t even make

up this bag of baking soda or whatever it was that you

concocted on the 6th?

{fol.421] A No, sir.

Q You passed absolutely nothing to this Detective for

which you received any money?

A Nothing.

Q Now Mr. Harris, referring to People’s Exhibit 2,

just the little glassine bag, not the brown tapes, did you

ever see that before you appeared in court?

A_ I have saw bags similar to these.

Q That bag?

A I’ve saw you all handle this in court.

Q Listen to my question. Did you ever see that bag,

that one?

A Before coming to Court?

Q. That’s right.

A No, sir.

Q And of course you did nct sell that bag to Detective

Bermudez?

A That’s right.

Q You didn’t sell anything to him or you didn’t give

anything to him?

A That’s right.

Q You gave him the narcotics?

A That’s right.

Q You have him no bag that contained any substance

that even looked like narcotics?

(fol. 422] Q Did you have any conversation with him

relative to half-loads at that time?

A I was—he wanted to buy a half-load. You cannot

buy half-loads—

Please answer my question. Did you have any con-

yersation with him at that time about half-loads?

MR. PROJANSKY: He’s answered that, Your Hon-

or, He’s given the substance of the conversation.

THE COURT: You may answer the question, Mr.

Harris.

A Hee wanted to buy half-loads. He wanted us to go

to New York and buy him half-loads. It was no half-

loads, it was no dope, or nothing present. It was a panic

on.

Q Because of the panic. I see. And you told him

you couldn’t do it?

A Couldn’t do it.

Q Did you have any further conversation with him

on that day about narcotics?

A No, sir.

Q By the way, did you ever personally see Detective

Bermudez or Detective Parks snort drugs?

A Not I, myself, no, sir.

Q Or snorting what would appear to be drugs?

A No, sir, I didn’t.

Q You do know Al Payne, do you not?

(fol.428] A I do.

Q What’s his real name, true name?

A Alvin Mills, I believe.

Q Pardon?

A I believe it’s Alvin Mills, I’m not for sure.

Q Did you see Al Payne or Alvin Mills on the night

of January 4th, 1966?

A No, sir.

Q Did you stop around to the pool room that night?

A No, sir, I was at the Red Rose.

Q You were at the Red Rose. But you didn’t see Al

Payne at the pool room at all that night?

A No, sir.

Q You’re quite sure?

A Y’m—I’m quite sure.

CELE Ti GIR

ES OG PAT RG OL MA LORIE SETAE PLOT Be

a ee te tent tena Wee Eee Cone nt Oi Dis ae ay

How long have you known Al Payne?

Oh, about two years.

How long have you known Ambrose Rooney?

About a year and a half.

How long have you known Wayne Baker?

Same, about a year and a half, two years maybe.

How long have you known Ronnie Sykes?

About a year.

By the way, this address to which you made refer-

ence, 108 Sickles Avenues, about the transaction with |

OPO pO pO pO

{fol. 424] Ambrose Rooney, et cetera, you say that took

place in front of 108 Sickles Avenue?

A It did.

Q Do you know any people that live at 108 Sickles

Avenue?

A I didn’t know one personally who lived there.

Q Mr. Harris, do you know Benny Lawson?

A I know Benny Lawson.

Q Yes. Do you know where Benny Lawson lives?

A I know he stay on Sickle Avenue, but I don’t know

if it’s 108 or not?

Q You’ve never been in his apartment?

A No, sir.

Q Now, after the 4th of January, you say you didn’t

have any other conversations with Detective Bermudez

until the night of January the 6th, is that right?

A That’s right.

Q And that was a Thursday night. Where did you

meet him?

A Three-Fours Bar and Grill.

Q Tell us about the conversation again.

A Well, it was small talk at first, and—understand?

So Charlie Burkes and I was there. He wanted to pur-

chase two bags of heroine.

Q First he wanted to buy a half-load, right, on the

night of the 6th. Isn’t that what you testified to on di-

rect?

A He wanted two bags of heroine.

[fol.425] Q Let me ask you this, Mr. Harris. Didn't

he first ask you again on the night of the 6th to purchase

a half-load for him and then settle for two bags?

A He might have.

Q Well, did you tell this Court on direct that you had

conversation about a half-a-load on the night of the 6th?

A Mostly everytime I saw Mr. Bermudez he wanted

gs half-a-load.

You only saw him twice?

That’s right.

Before his arrest?

Not twice, correction, three times.

You had conversations with him twice?

Twice, that’s right.

And you say the first time he discussed a half-

load with you and on the 6th he discussed a half-a-load

also?

A That’s right.

Q But you say you couldn’t get it, there was a panic

on?

A Panic on.

Q And tell us about the rest of the conversation.

A Well, since it was a panic on and everything, we

was talking, he was begging for the drugs; he had a way

of convincing peoples—

Not—please tell us what the conversation ‘vas.

(fol.426] A The conversation was relative to drugs.

I, was small talk about drugs. That’s when Henry Stan-

ley come in.

Q By the way, who—where does Henry Stanley live?

A At the present, I do not know.

Q Well, did you know where he lived on January 7th,

1966?

A If you—! mean I know the house, but you get a

map I can point out the street to you.

Q Well—

A But I do not know the street.

Q Not te me, Mr. Harris, do you know where he

lives?

A I know where he lives.

Q Do you know where he lives today?

A I do not.

Q Did you know where he lived on January 7th,

1966?

OPO PO PO

2A OTH ERIE Od he

POLAT PGT RMT

QLD

A I did.

Q Do you know where he works?

A Ido not think he was working.

Pardon?

I do not think that he was working at the time,

By the way, do you know the name of the street

that he lives on?

A No, sir, I do not know the name of the street.

(fol. 427] That’s what I say, if you get me a map, I

will point out the street; map of New Rochelle, I will

show you the street.

He lives in the City of New Rochelle?

He do.

You don’t know where he works?

No.

Is he married?

Yes, he is.

How old is he?

I say round about 25, 27.

How tall is he?

Maybe about six, six and a half, six-one. Maybe

about six, six and a half or six-one.

Q_ All right. And what else can you tell us about him?

A Only thing I can tell you about it, that he’s a

hustler, he uses drugs, he’s a pool shark, he’s a hustler.

Q How long had you known him?

A Henry?

Q Yes.

FPOPO PL Po PO

Mostly ever since I come to New Rochelle.

How long is that?

I come to New Rochelle in ’62.

Q And Henry was present when all these conversa-

tions took place on the night of the 6th, is that right?

A Not when all the conversations took place, no, he

was not present.

[fol.428] Q Was he present when you had a conversa-

tion about a half-load?

A_ No, he was not.

Q Did you have a—when he present when you had

the conversation with Bermudez about scoring the two

bags?

———— — = 2 2 et

EPRI ek MTN I we 80e ane BT aE yap SEILER MIELE ER Ee Ee eee

—a——_, ooo a RE SE IRIE

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor. The wit-

ness didn’t say anything about scoring two bags, Your

onor.

“ By purchasing the two bags?

A He come in, at the time that Mr. Bermudez was

begging for someone to buy drugs for him. Buy it, I

mean purchase drugs for him.

He came in and was present when Bermudez—

A He was asking this, he comes up to me, he knows

me, and he knows Charlie, and he was usually be around

she Three-Fours all the time.

Well. did he hang out at the Three-Fours, Stanley?

A Most of the time.

Q Was he around the Three-Fours almost every

night?

‘A I wouldn’t say because I was around the Three-

Fours every night.

Q Well, would you usually see him in the Three-

Fours when you were there?

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor, what he

usually saw is immaterial.

(fol. 429] THE COURT: No, I will allow it on cross-

examination, but reaching a point of irrelevancy, Mr.

Facelle.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, may I be per-

mitted to pursue this on the question of relevancy as to

the location of this individual?

THE COURT: No, you have already explored that.

Let’s give him a map. _ He can show you where he lives.

MR. FACELLE: Referring to Defendant’s E for

identification.

Q Mr. Harris, do you recognize that as a map of the

City of New Rochelle?

A Yes, sir, I do.

Q Can you please point out to us the street on which

this Henry Stanley lives?

A As soon as I can find Guion Place.

Q Pardon?

A As soon as I ean find Guion Place.

THE COURT: While the witness is looking, Mr.

Foreman, we will take a recess at this time for five min-

br ogthien ea er Se ere ——

ee... ae ee ER RE ay 0 oe

EEO RET IO I PE II PE SF NY

— |

utes. Please don’t discuss this case nor form an opinion

on it. We will take a recess of five minutes.

(Recess declared at 3:15 p.m.)

(Resuming at 3:43 p.m. The jury is present in the

courtroom. The defendant and both counsel are

present. )

[fol.430] THE COURT: You were interrogating the

witness to whom the map was given, Mr. Facelle.

MR. FACELLE: Yes.

(The witness defendant Viven Harris having been

previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand

and testified further as follows:)

CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUING

BY MR. FACELLE

Q Have you been able to locate the street that This

Henry Stanley lives on?

A I have.

Q May we have it please? What’s the name? With-

out marking the map, would you just tell us?

Prior Street—Prince.

Prince Street?

Prince Street.

Between what avenues, on what streets?

That’s between Lincoln and Sickles.

And what street?

Sickles Avenue.

Sickles Avenue?

That’s right.

And on what side of the street does he live? Can

you give us any landmarks, any buildings or places of

business on the street that you can identify?

[fol.431] A Well, it was a house he was living in,

just been freshly moved there, it wasn’t built, it was just

moved there.

Q Is it a private house or an apartment?

A It’s apartment.

Q An apartment house?

A It is.

OPOPoOpOrply

How many apartments?

A I really couldn’t say.

Q Pardon?

A I do not know.

Well, can you estimate?

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, this is all imma-

terial, I think.

THE COURT: Yes, I will sustain it. I think we

have explored it far enough.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, may I ap-

proach the bench with counsel? I’d rather not have the

argument in the presence of the jury.

THE COURT: You don’t even need to come up. I

feel that it has gone far enough, Mr. Facelle, I will sus-

tain the objection.

Q What was the color of the house?

A White.

Do you know the address?

(fol. 482] A No.

Q How many stories?

A I think it was two.

In the middle of the block or near a corner?

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, I’ll make the same

objection.

THE COURT: Yes. I did sustain Mr. Projansky’s

objection a bit ago, and you are now pursuing it.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please—

THE COURT: [I'll sustain—

MR. FACELLE: I feel this is most material that we

be able to try to locate—

THE COURT: I'll sustain—I will sustain the objec-

tion.

Q Have you seen Henry Stanley since January 7th,

1966?

A No, sir.

Q Now, after this conversaton you had relative to

narcotics, with Detective Bermudez and Henry Stanley

and Detective Bermudez said he wanted two bags, is that

correct?

A That is correct?

Q And you had a conversation with Stanley after

A I did.

Q Where did you go?

A Well, we still in the Three-Fours. We just stepped

about from Mr.—Detective Bermudez, a few feet away

{fol. 483] from Detective Bermudez so he wouldn’t over.

hear what we was talking about.

Q And how long did you talk privately with Henry

Stanley?

A Oh, approximately two or three minutes.

Q And then where did you go?

A Start back to talk to Mr. Bermudez.

Q And what conversation did you have with him

then?

A We told him that we might, you know, be able to

come up with something.

Q How much?

A He wanted two bags.

Q So after all this conversation you had about the

panic and you couldn’t even get junk yourself, you came

back and teld him you might be able to do something for

him. What did Bermudez say?

A Well, he act like he was kind of skeptical—-

Q Now, how did he act, what did he say?

A First act like he was kind of skeptical and then he

said okay.

Q And then what did you and Stanley say and/or do?

A We proceeded to Stanley’s house.

Q Well, let’s just take it step by step, Mr. Harris.

You left the Three-Fours Bar and Grill.

A That’s right.

Did you turn to the right or to the left?

[fol. 484] A We turned to the—come out of Three-

Fours, it’s on the corner, you turn to the left.

Q You walk to the corner of Sickles?

A Walked to the corner of Guion.

Q Guion and North, is that right?

A Guion and Lincoln,

Q All right. Let’s take it from the beginning again,

Mr. Harris, please. When you leave the Three-Fours,

you were on North Street, is that correct?

A When you leave the Three-Fours, you’re on North

Avenue.

ee ee 2 I IN A EERE Es

Q@ You say you went to the left and you walked to

the corner?

A Come out of the Three-Fours, went to the left,

made a right turn, that’s Lincoln Avenue.

Q All right. You made a right turn at Lincoln and

North, right?

A That’s right.

Q All right, and then where did you walk to?

A Walked down to Guion.

Q Which is the block that you live on.?

A That was a block that I lived on?.

Q And then when you reached Lincoln and Guion,

which way did you turn?

A We turn up—what’s the name of the street, Ro-

chelle Place—Remington.

(fol.435] Q Make a left onto Remmington?

A Right.

Q All right.

A Cross the field, just cut across the field, across the

field.

Q Yes, go ahead.

A Open fields. And you right there at his house,

where he was standing.

Right there at Prince Street, is that right?

Prince Street.

At his house?

At his house.

And you went—where did you go when you arrived

is house?

To his apartment. His apartment.

What floor was it on?

Second.

Was anybody home?

Not that I can recall.

How many rooms in the apartment?

Well, I wouldn’t—kitchen, bedroom and a _ bath, ;

three rooms.

Q There was nobody home at the time?

A No, sir.

LEE OE DE RNS LEER IEE NG EINE IED

iE ee

FPO PO POF sO ro ro

ENR TINT A ERE FT,

(fol. 486] Q What did you do in the apartment?

A That’s when we proceeded to the—test baby for.

mula and the baking powder thing, we tried to fool him,

Q You take some baby formula you say?a

A Baby formula.

Q And you and Stanley snorted some?

A That’s right.

Q And you found that it didn’t give the sting, is that

right?

A Didn’t give the sting.

Q Then you got some baking soda?

A That’s right, powder.

Q Baking powder. And you both snorted the baking

powder?

That’s right.

Did that give you the sting?

We agreed on that.

What did you do with the baking powder?

Well, he bagged it up.

What do you mean by bagged it up?

He put it in two glassine envelopes.

Where did he get the glassine envelopes?

Which he had previous used the heroine from.

What heroine?

That he had used from.

This heroine that he had gotten before the panic

{fol. 487] and you couldn’t get any drugs you had to use

robitussin A.C.?

A He heroine that he had got before the panic and we

using robitussin A. C., then the envelopes that he put it

in.

Q I see. And tell me, in all the years that you've

been using drugs, Mr. Harris, had you ever saved the

glassine bags after you used the drugs?

A Well, you don’t never—

Q Not—have you ever saved, in all the years you've

been using drugs, have you ever saved the glassine bags

after you’ve used the heroine?

A You don’t save them, you just leave them around,

they had by laying around.

OPO PO PO PL PO

DIT EER AS ET HMI EEL ETOP ST

—

Q Did you ever save the bags or even have them lay-

ing around after you have used them?

‘A Yes, I’ve had them laying around after I’ve used

them.

Q Just the empty bags?

A Just the empty bags laying around.

Q Was there anything in these bags that you placed

this baking soda, this baking powder?

A No, sir.

Q Just plain empty bags?

A Plain, empty bags.

Q Mr. Harris, I ask you to take a look at People’s

Exhibit 3, just the two glassine bags, and I ask you, Mr.

Harris, are these the glassine bags that you sold to De-

(fol. 438] tective Bermudez for twelve dollars?

A No, sir.

Q They are not?

A No, sir.

Q Positive?

A Positive.

Q How long did it take you to test this baby for-

mula? The baking powder, bag it, snort, et cetera?

A Maybe fifteen, maybe twenty minutes, something :

like that? :

Q And then what did you do?

A As I said, he proceeded to bag it up in two glassine

envelopes.

Q And then you left?

A We left.

Q And where did you go?

A To the Three-Fours.

Q And you met Detective Bermudez again? {

A We did.

Q Both of you? j

A Both of us. f

Q You had a conversation with Bermudez? 3

A We did. t

Q All right, tell us about the conversation with Ber-

mudez

A Well, he asked us did we have the stuff? And so

(fol. 439] we didn’t want, you know, seems suspicious, let

him know thing that we was beating him or nothing,

something like that, you know, so we asked him, “Yes, we

got what you want. What about buying some beer?” §

he bought us a beer.

Q That’s both of you, you and Stanley?

A Bought both of us a beer.

Q Was Stanley present when you had the conversa-

tion about, “We have the stuff for you.”?

A Stanley present?

Q Yes.

A He was present, yes.

Q He was present?

A He was present.

Q And where did you hand these glassine bags to

him?

I did not hand them to him.

Who handed it to him?

Stanley.

Stanley had them all along?

Stanley had them all along.

Where did Stanley hand them?

In the Three-Fours.

At the bar?

At the bar, you know how you—you make like

you’re just shaking hands or something, hand it to him.

{fol.440] How many people were in the bar at the time?

A Quite a few.

Q Quite a few, and this is where the pass took place?

A That right.

Q Was that where Detective Bermudez gave you the

twelve dollars?

A It was.

Q You didn’t go into the car with Detective Bermudez

at that time, did you?

A No.

Q Where was Detective Parks?

A It was—see, it’s two bars, one on one side to eat,

another side you drink. Detective Parks was eating. He

had

Q Did you see him?

RPO PO PO PO >

REA EHTS ATER cy Ro CREE DEAE ETE ENS

A Isawhim. He had on a black Russian—what you

call it, cap or hat or something.

And at no time did you get in the car with Detective

Bermudez this night?

A No time.

Q At anytime did you ever tell Detective Bermudez

that you were out of action for a while but that now—

you were back in action?

“A No, sir.

Q You know what I mean by action, don’t you?

A Yes, sir.

(fol. 441] Q What do I mean?

A By action?

Q Yes.

A That I’m selling drugs, right?

Yes.

A Well, I guess that’s what you mean by action.

Q At any time did you ever tell Detective Bermudez

that you had a partnership with Wayne and with Al Payne,

and with—with Wayne and Al] Payne?

A No, sir.

Q At any time did you ever ask Detective Bermudez to

sell drugs to you in New Jersey?

A No, sir.

Q At any time did you ever teil Detective Parks or

Detective Bermudez that you were selling drugs in Con-

necticut, New Rochelle, New York?

A No, sir. I don’t know nothing about Connecticut,

never been in my life.

Q By the way, when was it that you testified about go-

ing down with Gus Fowler and Rooney to buying the drugs

for seven dollars of your own money and seven dollars that

Bermudez gave you?

A I didn’t testify that I went down with Gus Fowler

and Rooney, I said I went down with Ambrose Rooney

and Alvin Mills, which they called Al Payne.

(fol.442] Q I-see. You went down with Al Payne?

A That was on Sickles Avenue.

Q To buy drugs?

ROE FO ETN ERE EOE EAI BOLE eo eH Oe SOUS BNE AEA NT RT ON a

A That was on Sickles—we met him on Sickles Avenue.

aay -

PPS OR Me hy NY REI

MEY OME BRIBE A EPL EF G

EIN wnt SOE RONAN EIEN WN A AT a Vt te ab

Q And you say that you had seven dollars of your own

money?

A We had seven dollars which—between us.

Q And he gave you seven dollars?

A He did not give me seven dollars?

Q Well, a member of his group, is that right?

A He gave a member of the group, he handed seven

dollars to Ronnie Sykes, which Ronnie Sykes handed seven

dollars to a member of the group.

Q When was this, again?

A Approximately in the middle of December.

Q About the middle of December, a few weeks before

this incident of the 4th and the 6th of January, is that

right?

A Few weeks before this incident.

Q Few weeks before January 4th and 6th?

A No, it had to be approximately in the middle of

December, because right after that I left and went down

south.

Q Isee. But went down with Al Payne and Ambrose

Rooney to buy drugs on that night, didn’t you?

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor, he hasn’t

testified that he went down anywhere.

[fol. 443] THE COURT: I think you ought to let the

witness clear it. Did you, Mr. Harris, are you saying that

in the middle of December, 1965, you went down with

some friends to buy drugs?

THE WITNESS: No. Yes, sir, we went.

THE COURT: You went down.

And you purchased drugs, didn’t you?

Well, for ourselves, we did.

Pardon?

For ourselves, we did.

Was it a panic on then?

It was.

There was a panic?

It was a panic in December and January.

But you were able to get drugs that night, weren't

PEOPOPOPOrPoO

‘S$

We was.

SSR SEAL Co SURG ag cle Sanaa nye aerate era A RS al

So~7—Vm7“~>¥>H—""— EE OEE SOMERS TY IEE A oe ee

You didn’t have to use robitussin A. C., did you 4

Mr. Harris? 4

A Not that night, no, we didn’t. That’s when drugs 5

nt u &

vil ask the questions, please. Mr. Harris, did you

ever sell drugs to Charlie Burkes?

A No, sir.

Q Percy Ellis?

(fol. 444] A No, sir.

Q Gus Fowler?

A Benny Lawson?

Q Mr. Harris, what cell block are you in in the jail?

A 2-A-5.

Q Have you ever discussed this case in the jai! with

Wayne Baker?

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor. That’s

completely immaterial.

MR. FACELLE: I submit, Your Honor, it’s most

material.

THE COURT: You may ask him, and he may answer

whether he has. The next question I’ll pass on, Mr. Pro-

jansky.

Q Have you ever discussed this case in the jail with

Wayne Baker?

A I have.

Q Did you ever discuss this case in the jail with Luther

Harris?

A No, sir, I’ve never been able to get next to him.

Q Have you or haven’t you?

A No, sir.

Q Did you ever discuss this case in the jail with Benny

Lawson?

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, I’m going to object

[fol. 445] to this entire line.

THE COURT: Yes. now I will sustain it, Mr. Facelle.

A I—

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection. I will

sustain it. You are not going to answer, Mr. Harris.

Q Mr. Harris, do you know what skag is?

A It’s used as drug, it’s drug language.

SPE NAN

PPR PY PTLD T IS Se

EY ERLE

LYRE LEN IPEDS CTS TI FTI pry ee

Se a er eT |

THE COURT: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the question

and I didn’t hear the answer. You asked what? Yoy

asked what skag—

Q Do you know what skag is, Mr. Harris?

A It’s used as drug language.

THE COURT: It’s what?

THE WITNESS: Iv’s used as drug language. They

use it instead of saying heroine, they say skag.

Q It’s the language or the vernacular or the term

that’s used for heroine, is that right?

A That’s right.

Mr. Harris, what time were you arrested on the

night of the 7th?

A This time, I really does not know.

Q Approximately.

[fol. 446] A _ 5, 6:00; 6:00, 5:00, I don’t know.

Q Where were you taken, Mr. Harris?

A I have it marked on 2 map.

Q Where were you taken after you were arrested in

the City of New Rochelle, where were you taken?

A To—after we was arrested and everything, to your

office, we was interrogated.

Q You taiked to me, didn’t you?

A That’s righi, you interrogated, you didn’t inform

us of our rights.

MR. PROJANSKY: Objection, Your Honor, I’m go-

ing to object to any introduction at this time of any evi-

dence for any purpose whatsoever of any interrogation

which took place in the District Attorney’s office, any

place else by the District Attorney.

THE COURT: All the question was, Mr. Projansky

was did you talk to me and the answer was yes, he did.

So this is proper. Now, I will pass on the next question

when it comes.

Q Were there other police officers present?

A i couldn’t say. You said there was. I couldn’t say

whether they police officers or what.

Q Do you recall approximately what time it was.

A No, because I was rather—

{fol.447] Q Do you recall what time?

A No, I do not.

f TT Rt My > a vA ate ore ee

PPR a ERIE UMS ene gt ENS: heey URBAN aE

se STE S STRAT? me eae oy Te

—__— ee

Could you estimate whether it was within une hour

or two hours after you were arrested?

A I said maybe hour, hour afver I was arrested?

Pardon?

A Approximately an hour after I was arrested, some-

thing like that.

Q And do you recall a man sitting next to you with a

machine similar to the one that the court reporter has

A Ido.

@ And do you recall me asking you certain questions?

A Yes.

Q And you giving me certain answers?

A Ido.

Q Do you recall me asking you this question, and you

giving me this answer?

MR. FACELLE: Now I'll pause, Your Honor. I’m

sure there will be an objection before I even read it. H

MR. PROJANSKY: At this time I’d like to render an Hf

objection to this entire line of questioning. Mr. Facelle is

referring to an interrogation of the defendant while in }

police custody in January of ’66. I think that before Mr.

(fol. 448] Facelle makes any reference to any record of :

such interrogation or anything that was said by the de-

fendant at that time, that he has to lay a foundation and E

show that it was voluntarily made, under the law, and in t

conformity with the requirements as set up in the case of .

Miranda v. Arizona. z

THE COURT: Are you going to quote the Kulis Case .

tome, Mr. Facelle? ;

MR. FACELLE: A copy of which I have. :

THE COURT: In our Court of Appeals. x

MR. FACELLE: That’s correct, Your Honor, Court

of Appeals.

THE COURT: You let Mr. Projansky look at it. I

will permit the interrogation Mr. Projansky. If you note

the Kulis case, permits it in the Court of Appeals, in this

November. I will overrule the objection.

MR. PROJANSKY: Exception, Your Honor.

Q Do you recall me asking you this question and you

giving me this answer?

sem Sythe

AM FATA RRR Ie ORR tra tame: :

ee FEW I PON AE EOP NICO LOA EET bt —_—_——

“Question: What did you do Tuesday night with

Joe?

Answer: He drove me to get a bag for him and]

got it for him.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall me asking you that

question and you giving me that answer?

A No, I do not.

{fol. 449] Q Do you recall this series of questions and

answers:

“Question: All right, in his car?

Answer: In his car.

Question: He wanted a bag of what?

Answer: Skag.

Question: All right, how much?

Answer: A nickel bag.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

those answers?

A Ido.

Q Were those questions or the answers that you gave

to those questions, withdrawn. Do you recall being asked

this question and giving these answers:

“Question: All right, and he drove you someplace?

Answer: He drove me someplace.

Question: Did you tell him where to go?

Answer: No, he knows where to go.

Question: He knows where to go?

Answer: He knows where to go.

Question: You didn’t tell him where te go.

Answer: I didn’t tell him where to go.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

giving me those answers?

A No, I do not.

[fol. 450] Q Now, those prior questions, when I asked

you if you remember the question:

“Question: He wanted a bag of what?

Answer: Skag.

Question: All right, how much?

Answer: A nickel bag.”

= ———— ——

ETT LO EEO LR IM EE ST a OE

Q (continuing) You recall those questions and an-

swer's?

A I think I do.

Were they true when you told them to me, within an

hour or so after you were arrested?

A I couldn’t say whether they were true or not.

Q You could not say whether they were true or not?

A Because I—, my joints was down and I needed drugs.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, may we have

the witness answer?

THE COURT: No, the witness answered. He said that

I can’t tell you whether they were true or not. He has

answered.

MR. FACELLE: That was the answer.

Q Do you recall being asked this question and giving

this answer:

“Question: Did he front the bread? Or did you

put it out yourself?

Answer: He had it, he gave me the money.”

[fol.451] A Will you phrase the question, I didn’t

understand you.

Q Do you recall being asked that question, “Did he

front the bread or did you put it out yourself? Answer:

He had it, he gave me the money.”

A What you mean by front the bread?

Q You don’t understand the expression?

A Not front the bread.

Q Do you recall being asked that question and giving

the answer, “He had it, he gave me the money.”?

A He had what?

THE COURT: All you were asked, Mr. Harris—

THE WITNESS: No, I don’t remember the question.

THE COURT: That is the answer, he doesn’t know.

THE WITNESS: I don’t recall if he asked that ques-

tion.

Q Do you recall being asked this question and giving

these answers:

“Question: All right, how much?

Answer: Five dollars.

Question: How long were you gone?

" 1S ATR as, A —

5s Ni oo ae oce S RAN oe ok Blas SS By aaa En eens

TRIG ET peeks eg

apes

OE OL OE PIO LION EG IE LIS ENERO

EERILY PI en Se RRR OY

TBR"

SORTS eR aR a TR eR aT BRON ORES ARIS CREME: SUS COE

Answer: About two minutes.

Question: And you gave back with a nickel bag?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Where did you give it to him?”

[fol. 452] “Answer: In his car.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

those answers?

A No, sir, I do not.

Q None of them?

A None of them.

Q Do you recall being asked the question:

“Question: That’s all that happened that night?”

MR. FACELLE: And giving the answer:

“Answer: That’s all that happened that night.

Question: Now, when is the next time you saw

him?

Answer: Last night.

Question: Where?

Answer: Three-Fours.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those series of questions

and giving those answers?

A Mr. Facelle, I don’t remember giving too many

answers.

THE COURT: No, Mr. Harris—

MR. FACELLE: [I'll repeat the question.

THE COURT: You are being asked whether you recall

these questions being asked of you and you giving these

answers.

A No, sir, I don’t remember giving the answers.

Q All right. Do you recall this series of questions and

{fol. 453] giving these answers:

“Question: Did you talk about skag?

Answer: Uh-huh.

Question: Did he want you to cop for him?

Answer: Yes.

Question: Where did you go, same place?

Answer: Same place. No, out there.

eo7~7~7~X™H AIL OLN RE Ee ea . .

nt a

Question: Different place?

Answer: The boy was standing outside the Three-

Fours.”

(continuing) Do you recall those questions and

giving those answers?

A No, I do not.

Mr. Harris, do you recall being asked this series of

estions and giving these answers:

“Question: You went outside?

Answer: I went outside.

Question: And Joe stayed inside?

Answer: Joe stayed inside?

Question: Who was sitting with Joe?

Answer: Eddie.

Question: Anybody else?

Answer: No, Sal was around, Ronnie was

around.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

giving those answers?

(fol. 454] A No, sir. I would like to know, who is Sal.

I asked you if you recall you giving the answer,

“No, Sal was around, Ronnie was around”?

A No, sir.

Q Do you recall that answer?

A No, sir.

Q Do you recall this series of questions and giving

these answers:

“Question: What else—or withdrawn.

Question: What did Joe tell you he wanted?

Answer: He said he wanted some skag.

Question: Well, did he tell you, one, two, three

half loads, bundle?

Answer: He wanted two.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall being asked those

questions and giving those answers?

A Ido not.

Q Do you recall being asked the following questions

and giving the following answers:

NAEP SERS LEAS AEE

¥ .

aie bitin ob

aT pete e ee a 2 OE

“Question: All right, then what happened, you

went outside?

Answer: Uh-huh.

Question: And you saw this man?

Answer: Uh-huh.”

[fol. 455] “Question: Then you came back?

Answer: Uh-huh.

Question: Did you give him nickel bags?

Answer: Yes.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

giving those answers?

A_ I do not.

Q_ Do you recall the following series of questions and

giving the following answers?

“Question: How much did he give you?

Answer: He gave me a taste.

Question: How much did he give you?

Answer: I got about a half a bag. He kept a bag

and a half himself.

Question: He gave you twelve dollars, didn’t he?

Answer: Oh, how much money?

Question: Yes, he gave you twelve bucks plus a

taste?

Answer: Yes.

Question: When you say a taste, you mean he

gave you part of the bag?

Answer: Yes.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall those questions and

giving those answers?

{fol. 456] A _ I do not.

Q All right. Do you recall the following series of

questions and giving the following answers:

“Question: Were these three-cent bags or nickel

bags?

Answer: Nickel bags.

Question: When we say nickel, we mean five dol-

lar bags, is that right?

Answer: That’s right.

Question: Did that happen last night?

_ ;

Answer: It happened last night.

Question: Do you remember what time?

Answer: No, I don’t.”

Q (continuing) Do you recall being asked those and

giving those answers?

A No, I do not.

You do recall that this questioning took place on

january 7th, 1966, is that correct?

A If that’s the day I was arrested.

Q@ And Mr. Harris, you don’t recall being asked any of

those questions or giving any of those answers?

A No, I do not.

But you do recall being questioned—

THE COURT: The witness has already said he does.

THE WITNESS: May I make a statement?

(fol. 457] MR.PROJANSKY: Your Honor, at this time

I'd like renew my objection and strike to remove that en-

tire line of interrogations on the grounds previously stated,

and I'll ask at this time—Your Honor as I anticipate will

deny my request—if you will please instruct the jury that

prior statements inconsistent with the defendant’s testi-

mony on direct examination may be considered by them

only as to his credibility and not as to proof of the—herein.

THE COURT: No, I will not. I will not do that. I

will charge them as to what they may consider this as, any

other evidence in connection with this particular case,

bearing upon the weight of the testimony of this witness.

But I will deny your renewal of the motion that you made

at the outset of this examination, Mr. Projansky, and

grant an exception. —

MR. PROJANSKY: Yes, Your Honor.

"HE COURT: All right.

CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUING BY MR.

FACELLE:

Q Mr. Harris, do you recall being asked the following

series of questions and giving the following answers:

“Question: Viven—”

EA CRW Ae EE OS meter.

MR. PROJANSKY: Excuse me, Your Honor, may we

have the time and date set as to these questions?

[fol. 458} THE COURT: Yes.

Q_ Do you recall—

THE COURT: Mr. Projansky is asking you, are you

back to—

MR. FACELLE: The same reference, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. Projansky asked you for the date.

MR. FACELLE: All right.

Q_ Do you recall being questioned by me at my office,

at the District Attorney’s office on January 7th, 1966, at

approximately 7:10 P.M.?

A No, I do not. Mr.—

Q You don’t recall talking to me that night?

A I recall talking to you. Mr. Facelle—

Q_ Wait, just answer my questions please, Mr. Harris,

A Thave a slight concussion, I do not remember every-

thing that happened in the past.

MR. FACELLE: Voluntary statement.

THE COURT: The witness says that he does not re-

member everything that happened in the past.

THE WITNESS: I have a slight concussion; has been

in the hospital.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please.

Q Did you have a concussion on the night of Janv-

ary 7th, 1966, Mr. Harris?

[fol. 459] A I was in a car wreck four vears ago. I

been having four years, I’ve laid in Grasslands Hospital

one month behind it.

MR. FACELLE: If Your Honor please, may we have

an answer to a question?

THE COURT: No, I'll allow it. He said that he re

members your interrogation. Don’t you remember talking

to Mr. Facelle?

THE WITNESS: I remember talking to Mr. Facelle,

I said that.

THE COURT: The thing is, you are saying to the

ladies and gentlemen of the jury that you do not recall

what the questions were or what answers to them you gave?

THE WITNESS: That’s right.

THE COURT: All right.

ee ee

| the following questions

Do you recall being asked"

and giving the following answersdy make any promise to

“Question: Viven, anybo :

10 promises.

you?

Answer: Noboay made r @ny threats to you?

Question: Anybody maké"Y threats.”

Answer: Nobody made stain an objection on that

THE COURT: No, I will sus

Your Honor, I assume I

basis.

(fol. 460] MR. PROJANSKY:

have a continuing objection? continuing objection. I

THE COURT: You have a Mr. Projansky, that you

realize that, but I’d just prefer, question is asked rather

make the objection at the time ajection.

than to consider a continuing obj the following two ques-

Q Do you recall being aske¢o answers:

tions and giving the following tw

. es e ld us was the truth?

“Question: What you tc

vo. ae

& a a ae el

unten: yo ‘ide ware told us freely and vol-

untarily? 7 |

Answer: Yes.” ;

all being asked those two :

Q (continuing) Do you rec

questions and giving those two

A No, I do not.

MR. FACELLE: If Your HMor, please, may we have

this marked as People’s Exhibit for identification.

THE COURT: Only.

(Received and marked for identification as People’s

Exhibit 6.)

ay FACELLE: I have no further questions, Your

onor.

THE COURT: Ask Mr. Projansky if you and the

(fol. 461] defendant and Mr. Facelle and the stenographer

to come in for a second, please.

(Recess to the Court’s Chambers at 4:19 P.M.)

answers?

(Resuming in the Court’s Chambers in the absence

of the jury. The defendant and both counsel are pres.

ent.)

THE COURT: Mr. Facelle, Solely for the purposes of

the record, at this particular stage and on behalf of the

defendant, is the District Attorney prepared to state for

the record whether or not the required warning under the

Miranda Case were given to this defendant prior to the

taking of the statements?

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor—

MR. FACELLE: I submit, Judge, that this is a rather

difficult question for me to answer, only because perhaps

I am not knowledgable enough or sophisticated to know

exactly what the required warnings are. I submit that

warnings were given to this defendant which appear in

the People’s Exhibit for identification, that he was ad-

vised.

THE COURT: May I look at them, may I look at the

Exhibit?

(People’s Exhibit 6 for identification handed to the

Court. )

(fol. 462] THE COURT: Other than what appears in

the record here, did you give any other warnings other

than those which are incorporated in People’s Exhibit 6?

MR. FACELLE: No, Sir, I did not.

THE COURT: All right, then it is the Court’s opinion

at this time that the Exhibit marked for identification in-

dicates that such warnings as are required under the

Miranda Case were not given to the defendant.

MR. FACELLE: Well, may I, Judge, I think that the

Court—

THE COURT: It appears to the Court.

MR. FACELLE: Well, may I respectfully submit,

Judge, that the Court has not read the Exhibit and |

think perhaps that—

THE COURT: You sit outside. “The only question

I find here is somebody said to him, “You don’t have to

talk to us. Is there any question in your mind that you

don’t have to talk to us if you don’t want to.” And the

_—_

answer is, “No.” Now, if you will show me any other

thing then that statement made in there—

MR.FACELLE: May I then continue, with the Court’s

ission, and read certain questions bearing on the

Miranda requirements.

THE COURT: If they are.

(fol. 463] MR. PROJ ANSKY: Excuse me, Your Honor,

may I be heard herein? I'd like to ask Mr.—I think de-

fense counsel ought to have an opportunity to see this.

THE COURT: You can.

MR. FACELLE: I have no objection to that.

THE COURT: You can.

MR. PROJANSKY: It seems to me, Your Honor, un-

less Mr. Facelle or some other person in the District At-

torney’s office at that time and in that place advised the

defendant that he was entitled to counsel then and there,

and that in the event he couldn’t afford counsel, that he

would be provided with counsel upon his request and ex-

pression of indigency—

THE COURT: You have a lot of support in two dis-

sents in the Kulis Case, Mr. Justice Keating and Mr.

Justice Fuld.

MR. FACELLE: May I at least put this, since the

Court has referred to it, my question, “That you do not

have to talk to us if you don’t want to.” Next question

was, “If you do talk to us, you’re going to tell us the truth,

is that right?” And the answer was, “Yes.” The next

question, “And if you talk to us and you tell us the truth, 4

you know it can be used against you? Answer: Uh-huh.” :

“No question about that in your mind is there? Witness ;

shakes his head no.” 3

(fol. 464] THE COURT: All I want the record to re-

fleet— ‘

MR. FACELLE: May I continue, please, Judge? It’s 4

a question of counsel, he was asked abount counsel. 6

THE COURT: No, please. Now all I want to say is .

that man was in custody at the time that this examina-

tion was taken, and the interrogation is an in-custody in-

terrogation.

MR. FACELLE: Judge, may I please, on the question |

of counsel, the defendant in this case requested counsel.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, I think that—

MR. FACELLE: May I please continue, Judge?

“Question: I want to know exactly what happened? Ap.

swer: Yes, but I’d rather see a lawyer before I keep on.”

This is all before the colloquy which was put on the record

before the jury, the defendant said, “I would like to see a

lawyer before I keep on.” “Question: That is your privi-

lege, that is your right. You want to call one up now?

Answer: No. Question: What? Answer: I'll call tomor-

row. Question: You'll call him tomorrow? Answer: Yes,

Statement by Mr. Facelle: Okay, take him out. Question:

I will put on the record you can call a lawyer right now if

you want, any question about that in your mind. Answer:

(fol. 465] Wait a minute.” And I think this section, again,

Your Honor, I'll put for the record, that this all preceeds

the colloquy which was put on the record.

THE COURT: All I feel—

MR. FACELLE: There’s more, Judge, because | estab-

lished there was a waiver here and if I may continue.

THE COURT: No, don’t do that, don’t do that. Ajj

I feel is that this could be incorporated as colloquy in here,

by virtue of the fact that the Kulis Case is decided under

Escobedo Principles, not under Miranda Principles, and

this is seems to me will have to be resolved at an Appellate

level, as I remember the Kulis Case.

MR. FACELLE: Now—

THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Projansky?

MR. PROJANSKY: I will assume so, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, you have it out there. The Kulis

Case was decided and Mr. Justice Keating in his dissent

said that I feel that the Miranda supercedes this decision,

so—

MR. FACELLE: May I please continue, Judge?

There’s two more sections here which I believe must be

placed on the record, since the issue has been raised of

Miranda and Kulis. After the defendant had stated that

[fol. 466] he wished to see a lawyer and I told him that

he could call one and to take him out, he asked, “Okay,

what’s the question? Go ahead.” Will you note down what

my question was and then there was question and answer-

ing. The last question put to the defendant in this state-

SEN ayes is Shae RE a aude See Sr ie A) Ra eaten acres. jo;

Se GORGE AI IE LT MEMORIES DOTNET MRA aN CATON GR AEN OIE ORLA -

ment, Your Honor, and I would like it on the record,

after I said “You were told this freely and voluntarily?

Answer: Yes. Statement or question by Mr. Schneider,

was it your own decision to talk after you wanted a lawyer?

Answer: I don’t understand the question. Question: By

Mr. Schneider: I said, you decided you wanted and then

you said you wanted to shoot, go ahead and ask the ques-

tion, right? Answer: Yes. That is your own decision?

Yes.”

THE COURT: Mr. Projansky and I would like to have

a copy of that statement delivered to Mr. Projansky, if

you will, please.

MR. PROJANSKY: May I review that for just a mo-

ment, Your Honor?

MR. FACELLE: That’s my only copy, the only copy.

THE COURT: Will you see that he gets a copy?

MR. FACELLE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PROJANSKY: It’s marked for identification.

(fol. 467] MR. FACELLE: That’s my copy. The one

that is marked for identification is still in Court.

THE COURT: We have the record made and we will

see that you get a Xerox copy of the original to Mr. Pro-

jansky.

MR. FACELLE: That’s correct, Judge.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. PROJANSKY: Will the record show that at this

time that this is a cursory examination of this copy of

the interrogation that Mr. Facelle has handed to me. Your

Honor, I would like to point out to the Court that there

was interrogation as to material facts herein prior to any

mention of an attorney, that the mention of an attorney

first appeared on page 6.

THE COURT: You may be, Mr. Projansky, may be

one hundred percent correct.

MR. PROJANSKY: In addition, Your Honor, with-

out referring to the contents of this document, I would

like to say, Your Honor, that I take strong objection to the

procedure herein and this was presented to the jury before

any examination was had, so that legal voluntariness of

this statement and—

- CERO ET! Ry OE —_

EOE LING LOY CORI POS

Dee ee eRe EAC eT OR ee

THE COURT: Let the record reflect, Mr. Projansky,

for you, that you are taking an exception to the fact that

under the Huntley case, it was not offered on a basis of

[fol. 468] notice reouired under 831 of the Code of Crimi.

nal Procedure, that you also have an exception under the

fact that it violates the Miranda against Arizona decision,

in the United States Supreme Court.

MR. PROJANSKY: And Your Honor, at this time ]

would like to mave for the withdrawal of a juror.

THE COURT: You have to do that in front of a jury,

MR. PROJANSKY: [I'll do that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: In front of the jury and I will instruct

the jury that this is the only awkward method by which

you have to protect the record with this. I will deny your

motion, I think when we get out there.

MR. PROJANSKY: Yes, Your Honor.

(Recessing to the Courtroom at 4:30 p.m. The de

fendant and both are present.)

THE COURT: Are you through with this witness?

MR. FACELLE: Yes, Your Honcr.

MR. PROJANSKY: Your Honor, at this time I'd

like to move for a withdrawal of a juror, citing as author-

ity, grounds for my motion herein, the case of Miranda

v. Arizona. The People versus Huntley and Section 813¢

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

[fol. 469] THE COURT: Yes. I will deny your mo

tion, Mr. Projansky, and grant you an exception. It is

an awkward method by which one must follow a pro-

cedure, but again, and I caution the jury that there will

come a time, that matters of law are those for the Court

and counsel, and you must not make any interpretation

of my ruling of law, if you will, please. All right. Is

there any redirect of this witness.

MR. PROJANSKY: Yes, Your Honor.

The defendant Viven Harris, having been previously

duly sworn, resumed the witness stand and testified fur-

ther as follows:

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. PROJANSKY

Q Viven, you testified earlier on di:ect examination

that there was a panic on in December and Januarv,

December of 1965 and January 1966?

A That’s right.

Q Now, what does the word panic mean among drug

users?

A When drugs are very scarce.

Q Does it mean that there are no drugs whatsoever?

A No, six. It means that drugs are very scarce.

Q But that one can sometimes purchase drugs even

during a panic?

A One can sometimes purchase drugs during a panic.

Q And Henry Stanley, is he a real person known to

Tfol. 470] MR. FACELLE: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, I will allow it.

A Yes.

Q Do you know his whereabouts today?

A Yes, sir.

Q Do you know where he is right now?

A I couldn’t say exactly where he is, but I know he—

moved to the Bronx, that’s all.

MR. PROJANSKY: No further questions, Your

Honor.

RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FACELLE:

Q Do you know where in the Bronx he moved to?

A Ido not.

Q Do you know how to locate him?

A No.

MR. FACELLE: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: You may step down, Mr. Harris.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(The witness was excused.)

* * * *

‘

;

STATEMENT OF PETITIONER

STATEMENT OF: VIVEN HARRIS, 149 Guion

Avenue, New Rochelle, New York, taken Friday, Jany.

ary 7, 1966, at 7:10 p.m., at the office of the District At.

torney, Westchester County Courthouse, White Plains,

New York, in connection with an investigation into the

sale of narcotics, in the presence of Assistant District

Attorney Thomas Facelle, Assistant District Attorney

Warren Schneider, Assistant District Attorney Thomas

Morosco, Criminal Investigator Dan Gallagher, Office of

the District Attorney, White Plains, New York, Detective

John Brackin, New Rochelle Police Department, New

Rochelle, New York, and Stanley C. Post, stenographer,

as follows:

[fol.2] BY MR. FACELLE:

What is your name, (spelling) V-i-v-a-n or en?

E-n.

What is your last name?

Harris.

Have you ever been known by Viven Hairston?

No.

Where do you live?

149 Guion.

New Rochelle, right?

New Rochelle.

All right. You know my name is Facelle, and you

know I am an Assistant District Attorney, right?

A Yes.

Q And you know these other people in the roozn are

either police officers or Assistant District Attorneys, any

questions in your mind about that?

A No.

Q All right. Any question in your mind that you

don’t have to talk to us if you don’t want to?

A No.

Q If you do talk to us, you are going to tell us the

(fol. 3] truth, is that right?

A Yes.

ODPL PO PL PLO Po

Q And if you talk to us and you tell us the truth,

you know it can be used against you?

Lincoln Avenue.

Did they tell you that they were police officers?

No.

They didn’t tell you?

(fol.4] A (Witness shakes head no.)

Q But you were arrested by police officers, weren’t

you, from New Rochelle?

A Uh huh.

Q Do you know now that this Eddie and Joe are

police officers?

A Uh huh.

Q No question about that in your mind, is there?

A (Witness shakes head no.)

Q Are you going to tell us the truth?

A I’m going to tell you what I know.

@ And what you know, is it going to be the truth?

| A Yes.

Q All right.

A From my point of view.

Q All right. Now who picked you up tonight?

A Eddie and Joe.

- Q About an hour ago?

| <A Yes.

- Q Where?

No, not the night I met them.

All right. On January 4th, which is only Tuesday

of this week, did you meet Eddie and Joe? }

A Uh huh.

Q Did you ever know their last names? j

A No.

Q When did you first meet them? |

A About a week ago. ‘

Q Where? {

A Three Fours. j

Q What did you talk about? ;

A “Skag’”. i

Q When vou say “skag”, you mean heroin, right?

A Yes. F

@ Did you do anything with the men? %

A Yes, I saw them.

{fol.5] Q Who were they with?

They was in the Three Fours.

With who?

Just a lot of people.

No, whe was Eddie and Joe with?

I don’t know. I guess they was there by theyself,

No, did you have any conversation with them about

‘.

Yes.

All right, and then what happened?

Nothing.

Nothing happened?

(Witness shakes head no.)

Did you go any place with Joe?

(No answer.)

You already told us now.

It ain’t on that thing there (referring to report-

er’s stenographic machine).

Q I want to know, so there’s no misunderstanding,

about what you told us, but I don’t want you or me say-

ing anything that you didn’t say. I want it down ex.

actly the way you told us so there is no misunderstand-

(fol. 6] ing.

A Yes, but I’d rather see a lawyer before I keep on.

Q That’s your privilege. That is your right. You

want to call one up now?

A No.

Q What?

A No, Ill call tomorrow.

Q You will call him tomorrow?

A Yes.

MR. FACELLE: Okay, take him out.

Q I will put on the record you can call a lawyer

right now, if you want. Any question about that in your

mind?

A Wait a minute. We will be booked tonight on, |

don’t know, on what charges, could you tell us.that?

Q Sure.

A What?

POPOPOPOPSOPOrop

Sale of narcotics.

A Sale of narcotics?

Q Uh huh.

(fol. 7] A Everybody out there selling narcotics?

I am talking about you. I am talking about Viven

Harris, 1 am not talking about anybody else. You better

let them worry about themselves, and everybody is taking

care of themselves, so you worry about Viven Harris.

Okay. What’s the question? Go ahead.

You know what my question was.

No, what is the question?

What did you do Tuesday night with Joe?

He drove me to get a bag for him, and I got it for

—

bOPOPrOPOP,OS POPYO>

All right, in his car?

In his car.

He wanted a bag of what?

“Skag”’.

All right, how much?

A nickel bag.

All right. And he drove you some place?

He drove me some place.

Did you tell him where to go?

No. He knows where to go.

1.8] Q He knows where to go?

A He knows where to go.

Q You didn’t tell him where to go?

A I didn’t tell him where to go.

Q The two of you got in the car and he just drove

there?

A Yes.

Q He parked the car?

A Uh huh.

Q Did you drive or did he drive?

A He drove.

Q All right, he drove and he parked the car, and then

you got out?

A Uh huh.

Q And you went inside?

A Uh huh.

LO RRB SES DEALT TX

qe et

Q_ Right?

A (Witness shakes head yes.)

> Did he front the bread, or did you put it out your.

A He had it. He gave me the money.

Q_ All right, how much?

{fol.9] A Five dollars.

How long were you gone?

About two minutes.

And you came back with a nickel bag?

Yes.

Where did you give it to him?

In his car.

And then what did you do?

He drove me home. I got out.

He drove you home to Guion Avenue?

Uh huh.

That’s ail that happened that night?

That’s all that happened that night.

Now when is the next time you saw him?

Last night.

Where?

Three Fours.

Did you talk about “skag’’?

Uh huh.

Did he want you to “cop” for him?

Yes.

Where did you go, same place?

10] A Same place. No, out there.

Different place?

No, the boy was standing outside the Three Fours

You went outside?

I went outside.

And Joe stayed inside?

Joe stayed inside.

Who was sitting with Joe?

Eddie.

Anybody else?

No. Sal was around, Ronnie was around.

What did Joe tell vou he wanted?

He said he wanted some “skag”’.

————<—

DPOPO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO PO

—

POPOPOPOPrPO POs

Well, did he tell you one, two, three, half a load,

He wanted two.

All right, then what happened? You went outside?

Uh huh.

And you saw this man?

Uh huh.

Then you came back?

Uh huh.

(fol. 11] Q Did you give him two nickel bags?

OP porke

How much did he give you?

A He gave me a taste.

Q How much did he give you?

A I got about a half a bag. He kept a bag and a half

himself.

Q He gave you twelve dollars, didn’t he?

A Oh, how much money?

A Yes. He gave you twelve bucks plus a taste?

A Yes.

Q When you say “a taste’, you mean he gave you

part of a bag?

A Yes.

Q Were these three cent bags er nickel bags?

A Nickel bags.

Q@ And when we say “nickel”,

bags, is that right?

A That’s right.

Q Did that happen last night?

A It happened last night.

Do you remember what time?

(fol. 12] A No, I don’t.

Did you do anything else with him?

No.

Has he ever been up in your “nad”?

No.

Viven, anybody made any promises to you?

Nobody made no promises.

Anybody make any threats to vou? 5

Nobody made no threats here.

Anybody use any force on you? '

we mean five-dollar

+ ee ae aes ry

ie 4)

No.

Anybody lay a hand on you?

What you told us was the truth?

Yes.

And you have told us freely and voluntarily?

Yes.

MR. SCHNEIDER: Was it your own decision to talk

after you wanted a lawyer?

A_ I don’t understand your question.

MR. SCHNEIDER: I said you decided you wanted

a lawyer, and then you said you wanted to shoot, go

ahead and ask the questions, right?

[fol.13] A Yes.

MR. SCHNEIDER: That is your own decision?

Q_ All right’

A Yes.

MR. FACELLE: All right, Stan.

(Whereupon the statement was concluded at 7:19

p.m.)

POPOPrPOP

P’s Ex. No. 6 for iden.

12/12/66 BF

People’s Ex. 6

(fol. 542] THE COURT: M 79

Gentlemen of the Jury:

We have reached the point Foreman and Ladies and

which I am sure you well rec

the evidence, heard the sumr in the trial of this case

People and for the Defendant, ognize, having heard all of

enter upon your deliberationsmation of counsel for the

It may well be for me to at ‘ that you are now about to

with you, to read to you a seg on the questions of fact.

na! Procedure, that you will Uthe outset, in discussing it

we talk to you about the Lastion of the Code of Crimi-

case, I am talking about decla)nderstand first, that when

acted in the statutes by the Le. that applies to a given

have been handed down by our, ations that have been en-

as they apply in your considel|; ature, by decisions that

ituti visions that are“).

apr on — r highest Courts, and as far

The statute provides that in ration of the evidence, con-

must state to them all matte accorded to defendants in

necessary for their informati . '

and must, if requested, in ade Charging a jury, the Court

(fol. 543] its duty to say, infers of law which it thinks

the exclusive judges of all qion in giving their verdict,

phasize for you now, in the dition to what it may deem

function of a jury to pass worm the jury that they are

that are presented to you foruestions of fact. So I em-

ing to talk to you about that trial of a lawsuit it is the

must state to them that in Gpon the quuestions of fact

guilt, they must not consider » your resolution. I am go-

what we are about to embarg Jittle later on. The Court

the Law, as a matter for yo'etermining the question of

nation of the evidence that }yunishment. So this is about

er a. rk upon, is a discussion of

mt Guest seems sot fudic to utilize in vour determi-

for me to say this, but yu "Chou have heard in this par-

to, to say to you that we alt

is a sacrifice on your part ory, Ladies and Gentlemen,

busy people, you have other cc

fulfillment of this obligation 2!lY I think T am compeled

perior public service and, I gveady all recognize that this

that, so that you wil! be flaf® be here, that vou are all

: ommitments, and that in the

n you are rendering a su-

uppose even in implementing

oe ttered by what I have said,

(fol. 544] I may say to you that George Washington is

the Father of the expression that you see cut on the

courthouse in New York County, that says that the Ad-

ministration of Justice is the Firmest Pillar of Good

Government, and you as a jury, about to undertake the

responsibilities that are imposed upon you by your oath,

are performing that great public function.

It may well be, Ladies and Gentlemen, when I talk

about the Law that you may differ with it. You may not

agree with the statements; these may strike you as con-

trary to what you might feel the Law should be. But

remember that it is your responsibility to accept it as it

is submitted to you and it should not be your concept of

what the Law ought to be under a given circumstance

that should control. This is part of your oath. Let me at

this particular point point this out to you. You won't

determine this, Ladies and Gentlemen, on what you think

the evidence ought to be. You won’t pass upon this if

you fulfill your obligation as to what you think the proof

ought to be in a given case. All you have, as the com-

[fol. 545] modity that you will utilize in determining the

case, is determining what the evidence is before you at

this particular time, and this likewise goes to the propo

sitions of Law that become necessary for vou to have in

resolving them, not what one will consider Law to be, but

what it is insofar as the instant case is concerned.

Ultimately, you realize that you are going to deter-

mine the guilt or innocence of this defendant who is on

trial here today by virtue of an indictment which has

been handed down by the Grand Jury of the County of

Westchester. As has been stated to you more informally,

it becomes my obligation to say to you that an indictment

is not proof of guilt. It is an accusation which has been

handed down by the Grand Jury, and that under our

system of jurisprudence, the way we live in this particv-

lar country, as far as the Law is concerned, this is the

instrumentality by which this case gets into Court. It is

a written charge against the defendant. It is not proof of

his guilt. Therefore, I utilize the accepted expression

ST SFR e Rs: PE NYAS AS SIN ERG ELE MAD LPR SUF Se

that an indictment has no provative value of his guilt of

(fol. 546] the defendant.

May I at this moment, suggest to you or say to you,

that all indictments are brought in the name of the

People of the State of New York. This should not cause

any constirnation and confusion on your part as to why

it is brought. It is the way the Legislature, that the body

politic in our Society is known, as the People of the State

of New York, and therefore the vehicle, to wit, the in-

dictment that brings this charge into this Court is brought

in the name of the People of the State of New York. So

may I for a moment point out to you what may seem ap-

parent, but this makes a line of demarcation in the trial.

The District Attorney’s Office is here representing the

People of the State of New York. It is their responsibil-

ity under the law, in the fulfillment of their public duty,

to submit to you, through evidence, such evidence as is

available, if in fact it is available in support of the in-

dictment.

The defendant appears here through able counsel, Mr.

Projansky. It becomes the responsibility of the attorney

for the defendant to utilize, on the defendant, all of his

(fol. 547] skills and talents to the utmost in the defense

of his client. This is his respensibility just as it is Mr.

Facelle’s responsibility.

Then there is to the Court accorded the responsibility :

of the Law and the conduct of trial. Then the component ’

part is the jury which passes upon the facts.

I did say to you before, and I again repeat it to you,

statement of counsel at any stage in the course of the

trial is not evidence. You do realize that. The same way :

the summation of counsel is not evidence. I do not mean

to convey to you that one should utterly ignore it, be- F

cause it may, in the presentation of the arguments, it ‘

may be certain arguments that would commend them- 4

selves to you in your review of the facts, and you arrive ib

at a sense of reason in your minds. But, the most im-

portant thing for me is to be certain that you understand

that the statements of counsel never become evidence nor

are they to be considered evidence in your deliberations.

This then brings me to what I had previously said, and

PR NCS Ry AIT ERA RIOT FEY RES ATE ey ‘i

ee SEA aa te |

METERS

{fol. 548] I must re-emphasize it so that I eliminate this

from your deliberations. Rulings of Law by the Court

are not for the jury to consider. The sustaining or re

jecting of motions, the sus:aining or rejection of rulings

of evidence are not matters for a jury to be concerned

with. These are the respasibility of the Court in the

progress of a trial, to chame! to you, Ladies and Gentle

men such essential factua) ingredients as would enable

vou to adequautely and reasonably pass upon the eyvi-

dence. But you must not, and this would be detrimental

to the defendant, most <essuredly, detrimental to the

People, seek to draw any irterpretation from rulings that

have been made by the Caurt from time to time in the

course of this trial. If I had an opinion, Ladies and

Gentlemen, the Law imposes upon me the duty that |

must not permit this opinion to be in any way conveyed

to you, and I reject the theught that in any possible way

that you could interpret that any of these rulings or any-

thing that may have been :aid in the course of the trial

by me, as having any bearing in your deliberations and

your function.

{fol. 549] In the trial of a lawsuit, and the charge that

is necessary to try and break it into some general areas

so you can follow me, there are general principles of law

that apply to every criminal case. Then there are spe

cific principles of law that relate to the charge which is

brought here in this particular Court as against this de

fendant; and then there are specific provisions of law

which relate to the general areas, fact, evidence, testi-

mony. So permit me to start off with general principles

of law and talk to you for a moment about the pre

sumption of innocence.

Under our system of law, the Anglo-saxon, we have

what is commonly called an accusatorial system, as con-

trasted with that section of the world that has what is

called an inguisitory section. Inquisitory, the defendant

is guilty when he is brought in and he has to fight his

way out of that. Under our Anglo-saxon system of law,

there is an accusation. I refer to the indictment, brought

as against the defendant, that he is cloaked at the time

that he comes into this Court, with a presumption of

ORL ET PONT eT MEE EEN: SEE TE AT

——

innocence. By the way, this is not proof of innocence.

(fol. 550] He is presumed to be innocent from the time

the charge is brought, time of his arraignmeat, if in fact

that occurred, he is presumed to be innocent as one goes

to the trial, and he is presumed to be innocent when you

go into your jury room, until under our system of accu-

satorial law, the People have met a responsibility im-

posed upon them and that is to satisfy you of the guilt

of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Then at

that point you can visualize it, the presumption of inno-

cence dissolves. If you are satisfied in your review of the

evidence that the People have met the burden of proof

of the guilt of this defendant beyond a reasonable doubt,

the presumption of innocence diseppears. So it is that

continuing condition that protects a defendant until the

People, if in fact they do, meet the responsibility that

the statute places upon them. So when we talk about the

subject of burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt,

you will keep this in your mind. I am going to come to

‘t a little later because it really isn’t very complicated,

though it sounds in this respect.

(fol. 551] What is it that the Grand Jury charged this

defendant with? The Grand Jury of the County of West-

chester charged this defendant Viven Harris, of the crime

of feloniously selling a narcotic drug, violation of Section

3305 of the Public Health Law, and Section 1751 Sub-

division 1 of the Penal Law, which was committed as

follows: The defendant in the City of New Rochelle,

County of Westchester, State of New York, on or about

the 4th day of January, 1966, unlawfully bartered and

exchanged with and sold, gave and offered to give to an-

other a quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, a quantity

of heroin. Solely again in the line of delineating the 5

areas, that is known as the first count in this indict-

ment.

Then there is a second count which is really the second 3

charge against the defendant. The second count is stated

that the Grand Jury aforesaid, by this indictment, fur-

ther accuses the defendant of the crime of feloniously

selling a narcotic drug in violation of Section 3305 of

EE RRR LN IONS AIT PN ET I EM ST Oe RIOT

the Public Health Law, and Section 1751 Subdivision 1

[fol. 552] of the Penal Law, committed as follows:

The said defendant in the City of New Rochelle, County

of Westchester, and State of New York, on or about the

6th day of January, 1966, unlawfully bartered and ex.

changed with and sold, gave and offered to give to op.

other a quantity of a narcotic drug, to wit, a quantity of

heroin. All of the acts and transactions alleged in each

of the several counts of this indictment are connected

together and constitute parts of a common scheme and

plan, and all are contrary to the form of the statute in

such case made and provided, as against the peace and

dignity of the People of the State of New York.

Lest in reading this indictment you may wonder what

it means to talk about Section 3305 PHL. If you will

recall when I started off, I mentioned to you that acts of

Legislation delineate and define what are crimes against

the peace and dignity of the State of New York. Section

3305 PHL provides, it shall be unlawful for any person

who manufactures, possess, have under his control, sell,

prescribe, administer, dispense or compounds any nar-

[fol. 553] cotic drig, except as authorized in this article.

And you can eliminate from your mind any claim of au-

thorization in this particular case.

It goes a little further, too, Ladies and Gentlemen, the

Section 3305 of PHL when it has described a general area

prohibiting the sale of or barter or giving of a narcotic

drug, because it defines vhat a sale is. So the Legisla-

ture says that when we have utilized in the context of

the section that I just read to you under the PHL, the

term sale means this. Barter, exchange, or give or offer

to sell, barter, exchange or give therefor, and each such

transaction made by any person, whether as a principal,

proprietor, agent, servant and employee. So may I re

spectfully cali your attention to this fact, that the giving

unlawfully and with an intent to give, of a narcotic drug,

could be construed under the statute as a sale, if you

had listened to what the statute says a sale would con-

stitute. I want to point out to you that this doesn’t fol-

low our common everyday concept of a sale where we

think of a sale as a transaction of buying and selling;

[fol. 554] you can barter it, you can exchange it, give it,

“i Ete eer, % an. pede

z Bo OLY LEED SBIR BATS be TRI SIRT Tk ROTEL NEG DUT) It. AS TO

or offer to give it, or offer to exchange or offer to barter.

And each such transaction made by any person, whether

that person be a principal, agent, servant or a proprietor.

That is what Section 3305 of PHL says. Then that’s keyed

back and I want to explain this so that it would not in

any way create any confusion in your mind, when the

two references come up, the declaration under the PHL

that makes it unlawful to sell the narcotic, then is tied

into the Penal Law. The Penal Law, Section 1751, which

| just read to you, Subdivision 1 of the Penal Law, says

that any person who shall barter or exchange with or

sell, give or offer to give to another any narcotic drug,

in violation of Article 33 of such law of 3301 of the

Public Health Law, and I just read that to you, that

definition of sale, came from 3301 of the Public Health

Law, shall be punishable, so bear in mind the dual ref-

erence to the declaration of the Public Health Law whieh

says it is unlawful, becomes criminal by virtue of the pro-

visions of the Penal Law, under section 1751, and this is

why it is here for you.

(fol. 555] The defendant, to the indictment, pleads not

guilty. What does this mean? This means that the de-

fendant puts in issue all of the material facts alleged in

the indictment, including the fact that there was a quan-

tity of heroin sold on these given days. So when I said

to you a little while ago, and again I shall repeat it, that

the burden of proof is on the People and it never leaves

the People. It is the duty of the People to satisfy you

beyond a reasonable doubt that, he, the defendant, Viven

Harris, on the 4th day of January, 1966, sold a quantity

of a narcotic drug, to wit, heroin. And in the second

count, it becomes the duty and re:ponsibility of the People

under the Law, Public Health Law, the Penal Law, to

satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that he, the de-

fendant Viven Harris, on the 6th day of January, 1966,

sold, bartered, exchanged within the definition that I

gave you, a quantity of heroin, in violation of the statute.

What is it the People offered in proof? In reviewing

this, Ladies and Gentlemen with you, I am sure I just

dropped into a realm of repetition when I say to you this

CP FA RET AN RON ate PARE OBR AS 2S -

FOOT MERE EEN seer

MT G8 ates wre ow an

eid ia ag

[fol. 556] is your function to find these facts, if they in

fact have been established, and it is your function to

give such weight and credibility, if in fact there is weight

and credibility to give to this testimony. So in relating

or briefly reviewing the notes that I have here, that are

offered in support of this indictment and which are con.

troverted by the defendant, you understand that I do not

say that these are established as conclusive evidence jn

any sense of the word. This is your function and I may

not intrude into that area, and if your recollection as to

the facts should be different, it is your recollection coia-

pletely, and I simply do this to try and place the area of

proof into an orderliness and refresh your recollection, if

in fact it needs any refreshing, because though we have

spent lots of time, the facts are not really extensive.

The People called Detective Bermudez. You will recall

that he indicated that he had been with the New York

City Police Department for a period of 111% years; that

he worked in the Narcotic Bureau of the New York City

Police Department for 10 years; that he was a First-

[fol 557] grade detective and 3% years of age; that

among his duties as a member of the New York City

Police Department were in an undercover capacity, or to

infiltrate narcotics activity, procure information and to

make purchases of narcotics when and if possible. You

will recall that he described to you the trairing, he de-

scribed to you the area of his activities in this capacity,

both on behalf of the Police Department in the City of

New York, that he spoke Spanish fluently, that he was

able to write it, that he had participated in various police

schools. And why all of this? I am going to come to this

statement later on and I will repeat it now, because these

are items that you may want to consider in determining

credibility of the witnesses, as to how much one would

accept and how much weight to give to testimony that

people gave.

He said that he had made numerous purchases of nar-

cotics over his period of time, 900 to 1000, and that he

knew Inspector Carey or Commissioner Carey of the New

York City Police Department, and in fact, when Com-

missioner Carey had been with the New York City Police

_— et

EOE LG REPORT ID EN AY NET BAREIS I. SO ne

—

(fol. 558] Department, before going to the City of New

Rochelle, he had worked under him; that he was asked

by Inspector or Commissioner Carey to come to New Re-

chelle to assist in an investigation, an undercover investi-

gation into the realm and activities of narcotics, and that

he went to New Rochelle with his associate or buddy, as

he used the term, on December 6, 1965; that an alias

utilized by him when he went to New Rochelle was Joe

Vargus or Joseph Vargus, and that Eddie Que, who

later testified before you as Detective Parks, was his

companion in this investigation; that he met the defend-

ant and identified the defendant in this Courtroom as

having met him on January 4, 1966, and that he had a

conversation in the Three-Fours Bar and Grill at about

6:30 on the evening of January 4, 1966. There was con-

versation about the guitar, an electronic guitar, and

there was a discussion about a price of $35.00 for the

guitar, and that ultimately he saw the guitar and that

the guitar was purchased; that there was some conversa-

tion with Mr. Harris, the defendant, who said that he

(fol. 559] had to go to a laundromat, and that then he

also said he had to go downtown to score a half a load,

and I am sure that by now, after your being here, it be- d

comes unnecessary for me to review what this means in

the narcotics trade as vernicular, but represented a pur-

chase of a quantity of narcotics; and that this took place

about 5:30 or 5:35 on the evening of January 4, 1966. :

And that around 7:10 that night, he went around to the

laundromat, that Mr. Harris wasn’t there, and that about :

8:10 that night he again saw Mr. Harris, and there was

talk again about the guitar and he drove to Guion Place,

talked to Harris; Harris said or told him he would take }

half a load. Then that the defendant said to him I have :

just started action again, I’ll speak to Al Payne; then q

they went to 149 Guion Place, that he, the officer said he

was driving a Buick Skylark with New Jersey plates,

parked the car and went upstairs and met the wife of the

defendant and the transaction took place regarding the

purchase of the guitar and a price of $25.00 was agreed

upon and he gave the defendant $30.00. Then put the

ERY OSA Ne DY eI RR LITER SEN NE OUR RO Ops apre

a .

’ PERE TROD RR DEC me Spe cae ni aaa cE eng MAGES PETIA AY

a . A Bon “™ ee 8 ee ee “ ES Te

(fol. 560) guitar in the trunk and went outside of the

poolroom, and then there was a discussion about $35,009

for a half a load and the conversation with the defend.

ant involved $30.00, and then something was said about,

“let’s forget about it,” and there was a purchase made

of 1 bag that evenirg; and that the defendant wanted

$7.00 for that bag, there was an argument about $5.00,

and that that was the $5.00 that was left over from the

transaction from the guitar. And he gave, according to

Detective Bermudez, he gave Detective Bermudez this one

packet. In reply, by the way, to a question that the de

tective answered, that you always haggle over price, that

there was always bargaining, that if you gave in too fast,

this was one of the mechanisms by which someone spotted

one experienced in the narcotics area.

He said that he took that packet over to the car, signed

and sealed it, put a gum tape, wrote on it, wrote his

shield number on it, place, time and amount and this was

all standard procedure, and you do recall, Ladies and

Gentlemen, that there was introduced in evidence here

[fol. 561] before you what he, Officer Bermudez, as testi-

fied, to first as the envelope with the markings there on

it, that you have seen, and then the contents which had

the small rectangular piece of tape, and you will recall

that there was an additional long piece of tape that ap-

peared and that was identified by the chemist from the

police department, and a tape having been placed upon

there but Detective Bermudez says that that exhibit con-

tained the heroin that he purchased from this defendant

on January 4, 1966.

He says, again, on January 6, 1966, about 8:20 or 8:25

there was a meeting inside the Three-Fours Bar in New

Rochelle, that the defendant came in, he asked, “what's

happening. Nothing, everything is quiet.” That the de

fendant told him that the price was $7.00; that he, Ber-

mudez, said I’ll go $6.00, and he came back to the bar

about 8:40, and he got into a car across the street and

while in the automobile that was parked across the street

in New Rochelle, he handed me two decks of heroin and

I paid him $12.00. Then there was the conversation you

(fol. 562] will recall, that has been discussed in front of

you or that Detective Bermudez says took place in the

ear, about the selling of junk in New Rochelle and Yonk-

ers and Connecticut, and there was a discussion with

him about asking Detective Bermudez to go to business

with them in the State of New Jersey. There was a dis-

cussion that he was paying, he, the defendant was paying

$30.00 for a half a deck in Yonkers, and then he got into

the car, Detective Bermudez says, with the Detective

Parks and then you have exhibit #3 and #4 which con-

stitutes the brown envelope, and the contents containing

the two glassine packets, that are alleged to have been in

that brown envelope from the time that they left New

Rochelle to the police laboratory and in New York City

for testing.

There was, on cross-examination, he was asked, as to

the methods in which he, while doing undercover work,

was he indulgent in, and he said he posed as a snorter,

- which is a person who takes heroin through the nose, a

knock-around guy, stick-up guy, guy that’s on the lam, a

(fol. 563] stick-up guy, and he said I gave different stor-

ies to different people, that he was reimbursed for his :

out-of-pocket expenses from the City of New Rochelle ;

Police Department; that in the vear 1966 that he had

made only two purchases of narcotics as far as his own

office was concerned in New York City. He said that it t

was dangerous work, that he was engaged in a general

investigation, that they did not emplov an informer and

he said that I again, on cross-examination, told them, and

because, Ladies and Gentlemen, you realize that replies

of witnesses fall into the two brackets: thev fall into the

bracket of direct testimony and the answers which may

be elicited from a witness, on cross-examination becomes

germane. Let me just pause here for a moment and say

that when you review the evidence, you review it in its

entirety. So when I just cover a few of the points, you

may have different recollections in reference to this, or I

may not be as extensive as vour recollection is. I am just

simply placing before you that evidence, the testimony of

(fol. 564] witnesses and exhibits, and the testimony or

answers given on direct and cross-examination.

_— SRR UPIRE NTP NED CIR ame norman 2

eS fn eae

po WATT PL Pree

He said that I told him that I was stick-up man, that

I did serve time in jail, and that his job was to obtain

the source of supply and to go after the pusher, that he

had made purchases from drug adcicts who were pushers

and he said I'll buy drugs from anyone who will sell it,

and he said you have to be very cautious in your dealings

with these people because narcotic persons are extremely

suspicious. He said that he had never used narcotic

drugs, but that he had posed as a narcotic user and he

said that he was not called upon to prove himself as qa

narcotic user, but that if, of necessity, he was called

upon, he told you that he would snort what I think he

used the term to be, a dummy bag. He said that he told

them different stories, that he had in his time purchased

different quantities of narcotics and all kinds of nar.

cotics, and that in heroin, the smallest is a taste and they

come in kilos, bags, keys, and that they had the three-

[fol. 565] cent or tray bag and the five bag and the ten-

vent bag; that panic meant there was no junk on the

street, there was a shortage of drugs on the market, and

that bargaining for the purchase of narcotics, in the man-

ner that he described to you, depended upon with whom

you were doing business. He said that the job of the

investigation that he was engaged in was to weed out the

pushers, and that all of the data which involved his in-

vestigation was written down by him in notes or that be-

lieved that he had written them down; that on January

6, 1966, there were some discussions about half-loads. He

did not offer to sell it to me, referring to the defendant,

the half-load, Viven Harris, I made an offer to sell to

him and he then made the offer to go into business; that

the defendant told him that he, the defendant, had been

in action, and this I again impose upon you to simply

say this means that he was in the business cf selling

narcotics, that he had stopped for a while, and that he

was back in action again. He was asked whether or not

he was able to identify heroin, and he said he was un-

|fol. 566] able to identify heroin; that he never saw the

defendant Harris use drugs and that his present assign-

ment in New York City Police Department was that to

work on major violators in New York City.

I say in reviewing Detective Bermudez’ testimony, I

have not vouchsafed for his answers either on direct or

cross-examination, and I am simply, as I said to you,

going over notes which I read during the course of the

trial, but these do not intrude into your province at all.

The second witness the People called was Frank

Schurr. You will recall his testimony of having gone, I

think it was to the City Coilege of New York, and that

he had a Bachelor of Science and he had been with the

Police Department in the City of New York, and that

for approximately i€ years his work had been essentially

narcotic analysis and that he had, over the last five years,

tested thousands of them.

He identified exhibits +1 and #2 and #8 and +4, if

you will recall, and if you accept what he says, of course,

{fol. 567] from numbers and letters on the brown enve-

lope and from the tape inside, he identified these exhibits

as having been exhibits which came to him and he de-

scribed to you the manner in which these exhibits were

opened, the condition that they were in at the time that

ha received them, and what he did with them and what

tests that he made in connection with them, because, of

course, I said to you before, it hecomes ineumbent upon

the People to prove every essential element in this case,

and one of the elements is to establish that portion of the :

indictment that there was heroin sold. So it becomes im- :

portant for you to determine whether his testimony is

entitled to credibility and as to what weight, and you

take into consideration his background, his appearance,

as you will, and I will go over it later as to all of the

tests and whether what he was telling you is accurate,

reliable, truthful, and as to whether you accept his state-

ment that what was in these envelopes here were, in his

opinion, as a chemist for the New York City Police De-

partment, heroin. He said he did not know Detective

(fol. 568] Bermudez. He said he made the test of one

group, that was number 122, that was on January 7,

_ 1966; and on the one that was numbered 138 he made on

- January 10, 1966. He said he did not receive these items :

from Detective Bermudez but that they were delivered

to the police laboratory in New York City, so it is for you ;

EO SRP heen ERT HTL IRE ME

to say, in reviewing these exhibits, whether you are sat-

isfied that these exhibits were in the condition that De

tective Bermudez so testified; and the chain that delivered

them to the police laboratory, it’s a chain of possession,

that’s what is, and this is being offered to you as proof

of these circumstances, and as to whether the packages

that he, Mr. Schurr had in New York City were the pack-

ages that were delivered in New Rochelle, and were they

the packages that Detective Bermudez says were turned

over to him or purchased by Detective Bermudez from

the defendant in this particular case. He said that you

don’t test heroin for quantity, you test it for the quality

of the heroin, and that the test doesn’t show the amount

of the quantity and that you remember that he said

{fol. 569] necessarily that one-tenth of one percent of a

grain would be needed for a test; and that they utilized

four tests. You will recall that. But these were se

quence tests and one ended up in a microscopic examina-

tion, and that he says based upon his experience and

based upon the examination he made and the test that he

applies and as a chemist, that the contents of the three

glassine envelopes that are here and present in Court as

exhibits, contain heroin, and that heroin is a narcotic

drug. But it is for you to determine whether this is

credible and acceptable and believable testimony under

the circumstances.

Detective Parks was called by the People. He said he

had been a police officer for about 4 years, and it was he

who stated that there are approximately 12 or 14 men in

the City of New York out of a squad of 25,000 men who

are in the undercover area of the Narcotics Bureau; and

that he was 26 years of age, married and with 3 children;

that he was assigned to New Rochelle to perform a nar-

[fol. 570] cotics investigation at the time that he was a

patrolman, and their job was to go into the neighborhood

of narcotic users and to search out pushers, is possible:

that he had made approximately 200 or 250 buys, and

that he operated the City of New Rochelle under the

name of Eddie Que; and you will recall, Ladies and Gen-

tlemen, there was some testimony that both of these gen-

tlemen testifying for the People said they lived in New

93 ]

Rochelle in some apartment up over a bar at the time.

He said that he met Viven Harris in New Rochelle and

the first time he met him was in the Three-Fours Club on :

January 4 at about 6:30. There was some talk about a

guitar and that he, Parks, was to go to the house and 3

ook at the guitar and that he went to the house; and :

that Joe Vargas was the name that was used by Detec-

ive Bermudez. He He said that on January 4th he saw

Viven Harris in the company with his partner Bermudez.

He said he heard no discussions about narcotics, and he :

overheard the defendant ask Bermudez about the guitar

and that he had to go downtown and cop a half a load. {

(fol. 571] He said that he saw the defendant later in the ;

evening, at the Three-Fours Bar, that the defendant and

his partner left, they were gone about 25 minutes and

they then returned.

He said that on January 6, 1966, he was with Ber-

mudez and I saw Bermudez go into the bar. Then he saw

Bermudez enter the car and he saw the defendant Viven

Harris get into the automobile of the detective; saw them

move toward each other, and then he, Bermudez came

back to the bar after he, Parks, had gone into this bar;

said he never saw the alleged sale take place but he said

that he saw the gum taping that was part of the exhibit

that he had marked on the exhibit his shield number. He

admitted on cross-examination or stated on cross-exami-

nation that his recollection had been helped to be re-

freshed by notes that had been taken by his partner or

also questions that had been asked of him by Mr. Fa-

celle; and he said that he, again on cross-examination,

that the car of Bermudez was parked across the street

from the Three-Fours Club on the opposite side of the

(fol. 572] street. He said that he was not in New Ro-

chelle every day, that he lived there part of the time and

he lived above the 400 Bar and Grill. That was the testi-

mony. The window in the car was open, that night, and

he said that the notes which were made by Detective Ber-

mudez were made within an hour after the purchases.

He said he posed in New Rochelle as a hoodlum and as a

stick-up man from New York City, narcotics user, and

he said that he had snorted a dummy bag one time in the

VIR VOR MPR OF

LE RONNIE IED 1G 20

LES OODLE LEA SPT

EAS ETS IRAE SS 5, eS CR |

men’s room in the Three-Fours Club; said that he had

never solicited anyone to purchase narcotics in New Ro-

chelle and said that he never utilized narcotics.

On that, the People have said that we have met the

burden of proof. The People say that this testimony that

we have offered, and if you bear in mind it has been

said to you that the defendant does not have to take the

witness stand, the People say that when you review all

of this testimony, you put in its proper context, we

have established to you beyond a reasonable doubt at this

[fol. 573] stage the burden of proof the guilt of the de

fendant.

The defendant comes forward and takes the stand and

denies ever making any statements. The defendant says

that he did meet Detective Bermudez on the night of

January 4, 1966, that there was no discussion about a

guitar, and that there was no sale of any narcotics by

him to Detective Bermudez on that particular evening.

He says that on January 6, 1966, he saw Bermudez, that

he knew him as Joe Vargus, and that he was there with

a friend of his, and they were in the club and they de

cided to, because of Bermudez’ insistence in purchasing

the narcotics from him, that they would go around to this

fellow Stanley’s house and they concocted something that

consisted of baking powder, put it in glassine envelopes

and they came on back to the place and before they would

give him the glassine envelopes and take his money, they

insisted that he buy a beer, and that he ‘the defendant

did not turn over to Detective Bermudez, that if any-

thing in fact were turned over to Detective Bermudez,

was turned over by Henry Stanley, his friend, and that,

(fol. 574] he, Stanley, made the sale; that he, the de

fendant, had no part of this transaction under any cir-

cumstances and he never saw a sale take place.

It is useless, Ladies and Gentlemen, to go over certain

things that I am quite sure that you will well recall,

except to now say this, that the police record for convie-

tion of this defendant of prior convictions is not proof,

and I think I told you this, is not proof of guilt of this

crime and that must be perfectly apparent to you, that

the fact that the man had previously been convicted of

a crime is not proof of the guilt of the defendant for

which he is charged; but it is an item that you may take

into consideration in determining the believability and

credibility of a witness. It is an item that you may take

into consideration as to how much weight one would give

to a witness under these circumstances, and when you

take them, again, into the context of all of the circum-

tances.

. I must at this particular time caution you, too, that

sympathy would have no place in a trial of a lawsuit.

(fol. 575] All of us are sympathetic and this is not going

to be a determinative factor in the judgement that you

are about to fulfill in the trial of this lawsuit. I may also

say to you, in the course of the interrogation as to the

statements purportedly given by the defendant to Mr.

Facelle. which Mr. Facelle examined him about, these

again, these were alleged to have been taken in January

8, 1966, and it was elicited in cross-examination that the

defendant’s recollection of having given these answers

and having been asked these questions, he did not recall

them as they were asked of him by Mr. Facelle. These

questions and answers go to the weight and the credibil-

ity that you give to a witness’ testimony. You may take

this into consideration as to whether or not he, the de-

fendant, or any person, had made a prior inconsistent

statement, you may take that into consideration into

determining how much weight you attach to a witness’

testimony. How believable it becomes to you under all

of the circumstances; but I caution you again that this is

not proof of the defendant’s guilt. This goes to the

weight, believability of a witness’ testimony.

(fol. 576] You will recall that the defendant denied un-

der any circumstances having been in the business of

pusher. He denied having ever stated that he was in the

business in Connecticut and Yonkers and New Rochelle,

and he denied that he had ever sold any drugs to the

detective; and that he admitted that he was a drug ad-

dict; that he himself had used drugs, but he said I have

not and I do not sell them. He accordingly denies these.

He said that he had been importuned by the detective to

seek drugs for him, but that he had told the detective that

ieee

there was a panic on, and that it was impossible for him

to do anything about it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, if you were to find, and this is

within the realm, and I am going to come to that in a

moment, if you were to find that this defendant was the

agent for Detective Bermudez in the purchasing of drugs,

you realize that he would not be liable for this crime.

You realize that one who acts as an agent for a prncipial

and not be liable, but you would first have to find that he

[fol. 577] was an agent and you may take into considera-

tion, if you will on this particular point, the fact that the

defendant says I never made any purchases, I was asked

to make a purchase for him, I was never able to, under

these circumstances. But I point this out to you that if

a person is a agent, charged with the commission of a

crime, he could not be convicted under those circum-

stances.

I have bounced over these facts and I am sure they

will receive your very careful consideration.

What is it that we mean by the duty of the People to

sustain the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Of course, you do know, this has been stated to you be

fore. It can’t be a fancy on your part, it can’t be just a

whimsical speculation, it can’t be some idea that a person

has, it doesn’t mean beyond all certainty, because in life

is beyond all certainty. And I am sure you well know

that. It can’t be a mechanism, by the way, Ladies and

Gentlemen, that you can escape doing what may seem to

be an unpleasant duty, and it doesn’t mean a doubt in

this sense of the word. It means that it must be a rea-

[fol. 578] sonable doubt on the evidence as to a material

fact. Let me take this back into context for you for a

moment. It relates solely to the evidence, because you

are going to pass upon evidence in this case, and it must

be of doubt on a material fact that you could find in this

evidence. There is a difference between my having a rea-

sonable doubt on a thing and a reasonable doubt upon the

evidence; so it must be a reasonable doubt founded upon

the evidence in this case. Have the People failed in some

area to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that they

have produced adequate, satisfactory evidence to sustain

PSR Lon NOR cea eer:

F 2th epee,

their position? That is a rhetorical question, not a de-

mand, Ladies and Gentlemen, at all, on my part, and it

must be as to a material fact, and that material fact

must play some part in the commission of the crime. For

example, it would become immaterial as to whether it

happened at 5:3614 or 5:35, if in fact it happened ; or if

in fact in the sequence of time certain things occurred.

This is what I mean. And the material facts in this

case that the People are duty-bound from the Law to

(fol. 579] establish, are that: was there a narcotics sold?

Was it sold at this time and place? Was it sold to De-

tective Bermudez? Do you believe him? These are the

material facts. Was that substance that was sold, given

or bartered, heroin? So a reasonable doubt, Ladies and

Gentlemen, doesn’t mean any doubt. It means a doubt,

a reasonable doubt founded upon a evidence in a case as

to a material fact.

What is the mental operation by which you visualize

this? If after you look over and you review it in your

jury room, as each individual, all the evidence, you find

that you entertain a reasonable doubt, that the People

have failed to establish their case, then Ladies and Gen-

tlemen, your duty is to acquit this defendant. Send him

home. It is a doubt that a person of reasonable intelli-

gence can give some good reason for entertaining the

doubt, if he is called upon to give a reason. Can you

say to yourselves, I have a reasonable doubt, there is a

flaw in here in this proof, size of it is immaterial. I

have a reasonable doubt. Then the People have failed

(fol. 580] to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt of

the guilt of this defe>*ant. You may take into consid-

eration, too, the fact thai { have isolated this as far as

the People. You of course will consider, as I have said

to you before, all of the evidence in this particular case.

Please note, too, if you will, the use of the word rea-

sonable. We all know there are sceptics; they believe

nothing. We all know there are credulous people who

believe everything. The world is made up of this. What

the Law operates in is a standard of a reasonable person

and this is why in a jury of 12 people you seek to get a

consensus. This doesn’t mean that you must adopt your

AOS AE MNT ER OT ELE RO EOE HOE EINE RELI ERIE LLLP GAEL IMAL IE

Le EE oleh ate Tass AY

ee EEE ELSI FTE EET TREN BER 8 ea

—

neighbor’s standard. But it means that in your delibera-

tions in the jury room, you must not go into that jury

room with a pre-conceived idea of the guilt of this de

fendant, or his innocence. You must be prepared to listen

to arguments and discussions of your neighbors. This

doesn’t mean that you must change, but that as reason. _

able people, we entertain the views of other people. That —

{fol. 581] doesn’t mean that we change, does it? That

simply means that we are willing, in the performance of

arriving at a fair and just conclusion, to give credence

and respect to the citizens, the other people, on your talk-

ing of a reasonable area of doubt.

I said to you before, what is evidence? We have all

talked about it here for several days. Everybody has

talked about evidence. Facts, testimony, exhibits, they

are all interchangeable, really. There are two types of

evidence, Ladies and Gentlemen. One is direct evidence.

That is what you see. You look across at the window,

you are looking at it but if you were downstairs, and you

didn’t see a window, but you saw a light coming through,

you could presume, couldn’t you not, there would be a

window on a certain given site, so there is circum-

stantial evidence, too. Circumstances that surround

proof, and sometimes it is considered in the legal end of

it, that circumstantial evidence is better than direct evi-

dence, because the little small pieces of evidence, when

you, if they exist, when you put them together in a

(fol. 582] mosaic, make a much better and clearer picture

than does direct evidence. So you have circumstances in

this case of evidence surrounding this transaction, pass

upon it. There is a rule of circumstantial evidence and

that is this, that if the evidence is capable of two con-

structions, one is a construction of innocence or guilt,

and ambivalent position, then you must resolve that in

favor of the defendant. But if the circumstances point in

but one direction and that is the guilt of the defendant,

then under those circumstances, Ladies and Gentlemen,

you must accept it. You must view it from this view-

point and you must, so if upon arranging the facts in a

case two constructions appear, the one that is most favor-

able to the defendant you have to take, under our system

Sint OPEL EY a oe SANE LIE EE SI

of jurisprudence. But if it points in one direction only

and that is the guilt of the defendant, if it is inconsistent

with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence of the

defendant, you are bound as jurors to accept this. This

is what you are to take. So do not regard circumstantial

(fol. 583] evidence circumspect, weigh it and test it in

the light of all of the facts and circumstances in this case.

So I must point out to you that circumstantial evidence

must not be disregarded unless it fails to meet the test

that I have given to you; and if it does, then you disre-

g.d it completely.

Let me say this to you, if you will, please. We have

talked about evidence, rules of law. Now we will talk

about witnesses. How does one weigh testimony? How

does one view witnesses? You do not, Ladies and Gentle-

men, substitute your judgment for theirs. You most as-

suredly do not substitute a version that you may set up

in your own mind of events as you think they ought to

be. You weigh the testimony.

Number of witnesses has nothing to do with it, Ladies

and Gentlemen. Quality of the testimony is what you are

looking for. How does a person appear when they are

testifying before you? Are you impressed with their

candor? Are you impressed with their ability to speak

the truth? Was there hesitancy? Is there a lack of

[fol. 584] candor? Are they evasive? These would be

things that you would immediately pass upon in talking

to people every day in the week, wouldn’t you? The wit-

nesses that sit before you, and I must say this to you

that as we all sit here, People and the Defendant, we

are all on an even par, there is no advantage, Ladies and

Gentlemen, to this defendant or this People, to the Dis-

trict Attorney or to the Attorney for the Defendant.

Fundamental fairness requires that everyone start off at

an equal in a Courtroom. Now, you have a right, of

course, to consider motive. You have a right to consider

interest, you have a right to consider what interest does

a person have in the outcome of the litigation. I say to

you that in any criminal case, a defendant is an inter-

ested witness, as a matter of law. This doesn’t brand

him as a perjuror, Ladies and Gentlemen; this doesn’t

100

brand him as a liar. It is merely an element that you

may take into consideration in your deliberations in the

jury room in weighing evidence that you have before you,

Have J made this clear now in the long period of time

[fol. 585] that we have been talking, that what you do

is weigh the evidence. You don’t weigh it with sympathy,

You might love to do it; you don’t love to do it with fear,

you don’t weigh it with prejudice. You weigh it as rea.

sonable men and women in the performances of an im-

portant duty to the People of the State of New York and

to this defendant who is on trial here. That is the way

you weigh it. But, Ladies and Gentlemen, you don’t

leave your common sense, either, and go into limbo when

you go into a jury room. You take in with you your

every-day knowledge, you take in with you your dealings

with other persons as standards that you utilize in test-

ing this evidence.

If you were to find that a witness lied or that a wit-

ness had misrepresented a material fact, of course, Ladies

and Gentlemen, under those circumstances you may dis-

regard that portion that you consider to have been mis-

represented. You most assuredly disregard all of the

testimony of a witness if you find that they had lied.

This is what you will do in every-day life. There is no

great mystery about what I have just told to you. I

[fol. 586] again must repeat, that you must not have any

concern with an element of punishment. This is a fune-

tion for the Court. If the defendant committed any of the

acts that were complained of in this information, Ladies

and Gentlemen, the consequences are his, not yours or

mine.

Each juror, Ladies and Gentlemen, is entitled to his

own opinion and I think I indicated to you before that

you must not yield to the opinion of other jurors unless

you are convinced that the reasoning that is utilized in

your discussion persuades you that the People met the

burden of proof. You will have to decide, each one of

you for yourselves, and as I indicated to you, you must

not permit any previous impression gathered in this case

or from some other suit, of course, to in any way in-

fluence you in a fair or reasonable determination.

os po pty EER FOLD

x te Lad aa a Ronee te Nee a mln a a Be

Se CEG eT Re, Gee ee my)

101

No other body, Ladies and Gentlemen, in our system

has the task that you have. You have a responsibility

under your oaths to fulfill. Most assuredly you do know

this, if this defendant is innocent of crime for which he

(fol. 587] is on trial here, he should not be corivicted. He

should be acquited. But most assuredly if he is guilty of

the crime, he should be con

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.