Appendix — Time, Inc. v. Pape
Supreme Court brief1971
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
——~¥~¥“¥—§57* PE NTE LENA AAS LUE RON N PARAM AS CRS HEEM HONE oh
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
Ocroser Term, 1969.
No. 1309
TIME, INCORPORATED,
Petitioner,
vs.
FRANK PAPE,
Respondent.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT.
ae ae
I
1 RP ee
Abaya his 8
—- Bi
Relevant Docket Entries ................ ce eee eeeeee 1
Opinion Dated December 28, 1965 (Filed May 16,1966) 6
Motion Filed September 15, 1967 of Plaintiff for Leave
i REGRE CONNNNING p's ann da eszewnaxasacess —. B
Summary of Proof of Special Damages.............. 12
Amended Complaint Filed November 2, 1967......... 15
Answer to Amended Complaint Filed November 16,
SEN NG beac ua eks6Rbs da SnkdNS SAS eN ee hun cwee 23
Reply to Amended Answer Filed January 4, 1968.... 28
a Peeeverr eee errr rere ee terre 29
I ND MIEN vo g 500 G5 A Caden aes ane chasna cas 37 5
Transcript of Proceedings at Trial.................. 41 4
Motion Filed January 14, 1969 to Direct Jury to Re-
turn Verdict for Defendant....................... 402 d
Order Dated January 15, 1969 Denying Motion for
PE WHE ec hates ce ches pebuadeceweieclnec, 402
Order Dated January 21, 1969 Granting Defendant’s
Motion for Directed Verdict...................... 403 i
Memorandum and Order on Motion for Directed Ver- :
Wik sic onorckinceaivoletaterat oes ct 403 é
Notice of Appeal Filed February 14, 1969........... 411 3
WITNEsSEs.
Edward Cagney—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............. 42 :
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.............. 45 ‘
Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny........... 46 ;
John Higgins— :
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.............. 47 é
Cross-Examination by Mr, Renben.............. 59 :
t
- dg ae Sad run Dakace® Ciera. oe
. YS eee e
rs
ii
Anton J. Prunckle—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............. 58
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.............. 62
Patrick D. Conway—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............. 63
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.............. 65
Jerry J. Sullivan—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............, 65
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben............., 72
Frank A. McMahon—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............, 75
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben............., 80
Gerald T. Sullivan—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny............, 83
Cross-Examination by Mr, Reuben.............. 90
Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny.......... 92, 93
Recross Examination by Mr. Reuben............ 92
Frank W. Pape—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny........... 94, 244
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben........... 103, 270
Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny........... 168
Edward F. Magnuson—
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.............. 171
Direct Examination by Mr. Reuben.............. 200
Cross-Examination by Mr. Kaveny.... ......... 206
Deposition of Karen Booth......................... 218
ExnHisits.
Defendant’s Exhibit A—Complaint Filed March 2,
SG EN Wh WI GA wkend cn gwsmedvennanes 292
Defendant’s Exhibit B—Verdict Filed December 4,
1962, Monroe v. Pape
*
ill
Defendant’s Exhibit C—Verdict Filed December 4,
1962, Monroe v. Pape.........scccsecsccccscscess 319
Defendant’s Exhibit D—Order Dated December 4,
ee TRRNOOG H, FAB. ves ck cei as tc iiieweccdes 321
Defendant’s Exhibit E—Excerpt from Report of U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights...................... 323
Defendant’s Exhibit F—Article in Time Newsmaga-
ih i Mi Mn tah icaudwa ws heaas Siw kieee 331
Defendant’s Exhibit G—Findings of U. S. Commission
on Civil Rights Press Release..................-. 335
Defendant’s Exhibit H—Article from New York
POM Ses BO, SRG bh bad vow Kddn wena eae 353
Defendant’s Exhibit I—Article from New York Post,
Monday, Febraary 37, IBGE... ccc ccecansaens 356
Defendant’s Exhibit J—Report from One Doust of
Time Chicago Bureau to Time New York Bureau... 359
Defendant’s Exhibit K—Report from Time Washing-
ton Bureau Entitled ‘‘Supreme Court’”’............ 363
Defendant’s Exhibit L—Proposed Article by Time Chi-
cago Bureau Entitled ‘‘Terror on Trumbull Street’? 369
Defendant’s Exhibit M—Proposed Article Time Wash-
ington Bureau Entitled ‘‘Supreme Court—Another
EEE” bi'vesehecdua i ebaekeaaGaee bees 371
Defendant’s Exhibit N—Report Entitled ‘Chicago
Cop’ from Chicago Time Bureau................. 372
Defendant’s Exhibit O—Article Dated December 21,
1947 Entitled ‘*This Dead-Eye Dick Poisoned Two
NE” es th0R SKE Riashews ce ieaeedeeteenennaas 375
Defendant’s Exhibit P—Newspaper Article from New
York Times Entitled ‘‘High Court Backs Suing of
we.
ha
&
ee a
iv
Defendant’s Exhibit Q—Newspaper Article Chicago
American Entitled ‘‘ Deliberations Resumed in Cop’s
ole rrr ce css Rae Re Oe Ae Ae Okara Rakiceee 317
Defendant’s Exhibit R—Newspaper Article Chicago
Tribune Entitled ‘‘Order Pape, Four Others to Pay
CE cc hdpke dear acucccuteasdenschasesecs) 378
Defendant’s Exhibit S—Newspaper Article Entitled
‘City Studies Appeal in Cop—Rights Case’’...... 379
Defendant’s Exhibit T—Newspaper Article Entitled
‘‘Upholds Verdict on Five Cops’’................, 380
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2— Amended Complaint Filed
March 6, 1969, Monroe v. Pape.................0.. 381
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3—Second Amended Complaint
Filed March 6, 1969, Monroe v. Pape.............. 391
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1—Police Record of James Monroe
Dated September 1, 1960......... bbs hee wekeceeeee 401
12/26/61
6/ 7/61
11/21/63
1/ 8/64
3/20/64
7/30/64
12/28, 64
12/30/64
APPENDIX.
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES.
Filed complaint and copy (JS 5)
Filed Notice and Motion to strike and dismiss
and exhibits (2,1) E
Filed Notice of Appeal of Plaintiff
Filed Mandate of U.S. C. A., 7th Circuit. Judg-
ment of D. C. entered 5/14/62 reversed with
costs & cause is hereby remanded to D.C. mm
Filed defendant’s notice & motion for summary
judgment and affidavit & exhibits. mm
Filed defendant’s notice and answer and Ex-
hibit ‘‘A”’ mm
Ordered by agreement time for filing of deft’s
brief in support of mo for summary judg ex-
tended to and including Aug. 18, 1964, and leave
granted to enter appearance of Lawrence Gun-
nels as additional attorney for deft Time, Ine.
Austin, J.
The Court rules orally from bench, denying
pltff’s motion to strike motion of deft for sum-
mary judgment and granting motion of deft
for summary judgment, with deft to present
order consistent with said ruling within 2 days
hereof—Robson, J.
Enter order granting deft’s motion for sum-
mary judgment and denying pltff’s motion to
strike said motion, and deft’s motion for sum-
mary judgment is hereby granted and entered
come |
1/27/65
4/ 2/65
5/16/66
11l/ 9/66
2/ 1/67
3/ 9/67
3/27/67
4/17/67
4/17 67
6/15/67
2
for the deft with pltff to take nothing and canse
hereby dismissed on the merits, with prejudice—
Robson, J.
Filed plaintiff’s notice of appeal
Yertified and transmitted record on appeal to
U. S. C. A., 7th Cireuit (Deposition under sep,
cert.)
Filed Mandate U. S. C. A. Judgment of the
U. S. D. C. is Reversed and cause is Remanded,
JS
Order leave defendant to file amended answer,
Plaintiff to reply within 30 days.—Will, J.
Filed deposition of Karen Booth and exhibits
thereto.
Filed deposition of Richard Wolfe. G
Filed Amendment to plaintiff’s answer to in-
terrogatories,
Enter Order sustaining objections to requests
21-25, 29, 30, 40-41, overruling objections to re-
quests 5-10, 13, 16-1, 17-20, 26, 27 and 28. Order
plaintiff to answer said requests within 10 days
hereof.
Enter Order closing discovery except as to char-
acter witnesses and order cause added to final
pre trial conference calendar.
Filed depositions of Robert E. Gibbons, William
McGurn, John Higgins, Royal Besserer, Nisida
Besserer, Eula McGurn, six (6) volumes.
6/15/67
6 21/67
6/21/67
7/27/67
10/28 67
lly 2/67
ll/ 2 67
11/16, 67
12/14 67
3
Filed depositions of Judith P. Clark, Mary
Kelly, Timothy J. Moore, John Dennis Mark,
Dr. Michael Cantalupo, Michael Kelly, Maurice
J. McCarthy, Jr., Gerald F. Pape, Catherine
M. Pape, Champ Clark, Edward F. Magnuson,
eleven (11) volumes.
Filed plaintiff’s reply.
Pre trial conference held. Order parties to sub-
mit final pretrial order and simultaneous memo-
randums on legal issues on July 31, 1967 at
10 a.m. Order leave to file instanter plaintiff’s
reply to the amended answer. Will, J.
Filed Depositions of Samuel W. Nolan, Richard
C. Clark and Frank J. Hanley.
Filed plaintiffs motion to file amended Com-
plaint and Summary of Proof of Special Dam-
ages.
Filed Amended Complaint.
Enter Order granting leave to plaintiff to file
Amended Complaint including allegations of
special damages and punitive damages and said
Amended Complaint filed instanter with leave to
defendant to answer or otherwise plead within
ten days hereof.
Filed Defendant’s Answer to Amended Com-
plaint. EOB
Court rules orally from bench. Order objec-
tions of defendant to Plaintiffs answers to in-
terrogatories hereby overruled. Order cause to
proceed to trial first on the issue of malice.
Order cause continued to January 23, 1968 for
report on status of discovery. Robson, J.
1/13/69
1/14 69
1/14/69
1/15/69
ae NRIEERP UE Ae AF ES
4
Filed plaintiff’s reply to Amended Answer,
Pre-triol conference held. Order cause set for
June 7, 1968 at 10 a.m. for ruling on legal issues
ana to set for trial—Robson, J.
Mailed Notices 5/13/68
Enter order overruling plaintiffs objections to
‘*morgue’’ exhibits. Order cause added to head
of trial list to be called on September 10, 1968
and parties to present stipulation facts and
suggested pretrial order by June 24, 1968,
Robson, J.
Cause called for trial—Jury selected and swom:
Donald M. Komers, Richard H. Hunt, James B.
Collins, Dorothy L. Doran, Fred Dede, Estele
Piehler, Joan B. Colky, Frank Zirzow, Judy
Chrisman, Edward D. Singleton, Michael §.
Pennington, and Michael J. Mousel, Jr., Open-
ing statements made. Evidence heard in part
for plaintiff. Order Jury to separate and cause
adjourned until January 14, 1969— Robson, J.
Filed Motion of defendant for directed verdict
at close of plaintiff’s case.
Farther evidence heard for plaintiff—plaintif
rests—At close of Plaintiff’s case defendant
moves that Court direct jury to return a verdict
for the defendant. Arguments heard and con-
cluded on said motion and order cause set for
ruling on said motion on January 15, 1969.
Order motion of defendant made at close of
plaintiff’s case for directed verdict in its favor
hereby denied. Evidence heard for defendant.
Defendant rests. Rebuttal evidence heard for
5
plaintiff. Plaintiff rests. Both sides rest. At
close of all evidence defendant renews motion
for directed verdict in its favor. Arguments
heard and concluded on said motion and order
said motion entered and continued to January
16, 1969 for ruling. Order jury to separate and
eause adjourned until January 16, 1969—
Robson, J.
Pursuant to memorandum filed herewith order
defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the
close of all evidence hereby granted with judg-
ment hereby rendered for the defendant on the
issue of liability and cause hereby dismissed
without costs—Draft—Robson, J.
214.69 Filed Plaintiff's notice of appeal.
21469 Filed Bond on appeal.
3/669 Cierk’s file copy of transeript of proceedings
had before the Hon. Edwin A. Robson, Judge
on January 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1969, filed by the
Official Court Reporter—5 volumes. B
Filed Plaintiff's Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and Defend-
ant’s Exhibits A thru T inelusive. B
; oo |
PPAF RE SS a ale de SOLD Sg NP OIL ed
Lp APE MAE ee
FZ APL AB ih ps
ead a
a ee . RA he Pi
TSIEN Rate Sina eae pre ee OS REET SES ON = RB
In THE Unitep States Court or Appgats
For the Seventh Circuit.
No. 15101 September Term and Session 1965,
FRANK Paps,
—
Appeal from the
Plaintiff-A ppellant, United States Dis.
- | trict Court for the
, Northern District
Time, INcoRPORATED, of Illinois, East-
Defendant-A ppellee.? — ern Division.
December 28, 1965.
(Filed May 16, 1966)
Before Durry and Swycert, Circuit Judges, and Gruss,
Senior District Judge.
Durry, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Pape brought this suit
seeking damages for libel. Jurisdiction was based upon
diversity of citizenship. The complaint alleged the defend-
ant, Time, Incorporated, publisher of the national weekly
news magazine ‘‘Time’’, had defamed plaintiff in its No-
vember 24, 1961 issue. The allegedly libelous story re-
ported the issuance and summarized the contents of the
United States Civil Rights Commission’s 1961 annual re-
port. This Report entitled ‘‘Justice’’ is in book form.
Chapter 2 is devoted largely to a description of alleged
police brutality to Negroes.
The Time article entitled ‘‘Civil Rights—Dawdling on
the Corner’’, was based largely on Chapter 2 of the Com-
mission’s Report entitled ‘‘Patterns of Police Brutality.”
Time reported an incident which it claimed had occurred
in Chicago involving brutality by Pape and other police
-_ SN SRR RT ENE TS - es —
7
oficers while arresting members of a Negro family named
Monroe.
In the District Court, defendant moved to dismiss—in
effect, urging the complaint failed to state a claim upon
yhich relief could be granted. The District Court granted
the mot‘on. On appeal, this Court reversed. Pape v. Time,
Incorporated, 318 I’. 2d 652. We stated that the subordi-
yate, vital question was whether Tiine’s story of the Com-
nission’s Report of the Pape incident was fair comment.
In our opinion, we pointed out that the question then
hefore us Was not what the Commission’s Report had said
about Pape, but rather, what Time’s article had said about
the Report. We then noted that Time’s article told the :
reader that the Report stated that Pape and others had
actually committed certain acts. In fact, the Report had
merely said that these acts were allegations in Monroe’s
complaint.
We stated ‘‘Under Illinois law, governing here, Time
can be liable if it goes beyond that limit [fair comment]
and states as a fact that which is not true... .’’
We then said ‘‘We conclude that Time took the risk, ’
when it reworded parts of the Commission Report, that :
it might go too far... . J A jury could find that Time went :
beyond the limit of fairness here and in doing so was not
protected by its privilege of fair comment, and that in
making its article more interesting and readable for its
audience, it departed from fidelity to the Commission re- '
port.’?
We decided that the complaint stated a claim upon which
relief could be granted, and we reversed and remanded for
further proceedings.
Subsequent to remand, the Supreme Court of the United
States decided New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S.
24. Thereafter, defendant took Pape’s pretrial deposition.
Pape testified he had been in the Chicago police department
i i
;
;
ate” Sh. SER ae — |
FIO FIFO OS
BSR GN ALSO ERE EERE MES RT gee
8
since 1933 and was presently a captain of police, Hp
admitted that he and police officers under his command had
gone to the Monroe house on the evening in question, At
that time, he was deputy chief of detectives for Chicago,
He had been appointed to that position by the Comnis.
sioner of Police. His permanent rank at that time was
lieutenant of police.
In New York Times, the Supreme Court stated (376
U. S. p. 283) ‘*We hold today that the Constitution de.
limits a State’s power to award damages for libel in actions
brought by public officials against crities of their official
conduct. Since this is such an action,” the rule requiring
proof of actual malice is applicable.”’
Footnote 23 referred to, stated in part—‘We have no
oceasion here to determine how far down into the lower
ranks of government employees the ‘public official’ desig.
nation would extend for purposes of this rule, or other-
wise to specify categories of persons who would or would
not be included. ...’’ It is enough for the present case
that respondent’s position as an elected city commissioner
clearly made him a public official. . . .”’
Plaintiff urges that the Supreme Court thus confined
its holding in New York Times to an ‘‘elected’’ public off-
cial. Also, that plaintiff was not a ‘public official’’ with-
in the meaning of that case because he had neither been
elected to his office, nor appointed nor confirmed in his
appointment by an elective body.
We do not read New York Times vy. Sullivan as being
limited to an elected public official. The Supreme Court
based its decision, at least in part, upon certain precedents
involving appointed officials. In one of the cited cases,
the libel plaintiff was a Deputy Superintendent of Police
for the city of Detroit. Lawrence v. Fox, 357 Mich. 134,
97 N. W. 2d 719. In another of the cited cases, the plain-
Pr AR tap we wig = — — _
3 SRE SRR RR acne re ORIN AT EEE OH eY oa es
EEE : 0b ETON SPECS Rone HS oe 7 - |
9 :
iff was the Chief of Police of Los Angeles—Snively v. :
record Publishing Company, 185 Cal. 565, 198 P. 1. :
Subsequent decisions to New York Times clearly indi- 3
cate the courts do not understand the rule announced in §
that case to be confined to elected public officials. In
Henry v. Collins, 380 U. S. 356 (1965), the Supreme Court :
applied the New York Times doctrine to the Chief of j
Police of Clarksdale, Mississippi. The Chief was an ap- :
pointed officer.
In Tucker v. Kilgore, 388 S. W. 2d 112 (Ky. 1965), the k
(ourt applied the New York Times doctrine to an ordi-
nary police patrolman in the city of Louisville, Kentucky.
See also State v. Browne, 206 A. 2d 591 (N. J. 1965) and
Matassa v. Bel, 164 So. 2d 332 (La. 1964).
We hold that on the date Pape arrested James Monroe,
vhen Pape held the position of deputy chief of detectiv:«
and lieutenant of police, he was a public official as t*«
designation was used in New York Times v. Sullivan.
We turn, therefore, to consider whether the existence
of “actual malice’? by Time, Incorporated presented a
jury question. The Supreme Court in New York Times
y. Sullivan, stated at 376 U. S. 279-280: ‘‘The constitutional
guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits
a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory
falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves
that the statement was made with ‘actual malice’—that is,
vith knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard
if whether it was false or not... .’’
The record before us shows that Time, Incorporated
vas, at least, negligent in printing as established facts,
matters and events which the Commission’s Report stated &
vere mere allegations in a complaint. But, negligence is R
not enough. :
In New York Times, the newspaper admitted it had had e
evidence in its own files affirmatively showing the falseness
>. LEELA ETRE PTY CTE PY UR te |
10
of numerous statements in the publication . . . 376 U,s
at pages 287-288; also, that the Times had accepted ang
published the advertisement without in any way checking
its accuracy against outside sources or material in its files,
376 U. S. 287.
The Supreme Court further said—376 U. S. at pages
287-288—‘‘ We think the evidence against the Times sup-
ports at most a finding of negligence in failing to discover
the misstatements, and is constitutionally insufficient to
show the recklessness that is required for a finding of
actual malice.’’
In Garrison v. Louisiana, 376 U. 8. 64, the Supreme
Court applied the New York Times rule to criminal libel,
holding that actual malice must be proved to convict an
individual for libeling a public officer. The Court there
defined malice as ‘‘only those false statements made with
the high degree of awareness of their probable falsity,
..? 379 U.S. 74.
The burden of proving actual malice is upon Pape. He
admitted in his pretrial deposition that he did not know
anyone at Time, and, in fact, he does not claim the article
was published with any deliberate attempt to harm hin.
He argues, however, that this question is already settled
by reason of our decision in Pape v. Time, Incorporated
(1962), 318 F. 2d 652.
Our previous decision was made prior to New York
Times v. Sullivan. There, the District Court had dis-
missed the complaint on the defendant’s motion so that
all the well-pleaded facts stood admitted before us. We
applied Illinois law.
We must now determine whether there is sufficient show-
ing in the record before us that Time’s statements were
knowingly false or made with reckless disregard as to
whether or net such statements were false.
11
As stated in our previous decision—‘‘. . . Time took
the risk when it rewarded parts of the Commission’s Re- :
port that it might go too far... .’’ We noted that Time :
had departed from fidelity to the Commission’s Report
in order to make the article more interesting and read-
able for its audience. Time’s writers who prepared the
article must have known the statements as to Pape’s con-
duet were only allegations in a complaint in a civil suit.
4s we put it (318 F. 2d at page 655)—‘‘It is our opinion
that a jury could read the Time article as stating that the
Report said Pape and his follow [sic] officers did what the
(ommission Report merely said the Monroe complaint
alleged they did.”’
We hold that a sufficient showing has been made so that
a jury could find Time, Incorporated acted with reckless
disregard as to whether or not the reworded statements,
hereinbefore described, were true or false. Therefore,
it was error for the District Court to grant defendant’s
motion for a summary judgment.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed and F
remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
<
i
ARS DST
DEPRESS IRS =
a Se
12
In tHE Unirep States District Court,
ad ” (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) . 8
MOTION.
(Filed—Sept. 15, 1967)
Now comes Frank Pape by John M. Kaveny, his attorney,
and asks the Court for leave to amend his Complaint
filed herein by amending the prayer for damages to read as
follows:
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defend.
ant for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00) actual damages, and the further and addi-
tional sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($250,000.00) exemplary damages, and for his costs;
A copy of which Amended Complaint is attached hereto,
Frank Pape,
By: /s/ Joun M. Kaveny,
John M. Kaveny,
Tis Attorney,
In tHe Unitep States District Covrr.
* * (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) * *
SUMMARY OF PROOF OF SPECIAL DAMAGES.
1. During the period from 1940 to 1950 when the plain-
tiff was a Sergeant of Police assigned to the Robbery
Detail, he and his squad of two men were responsible for
the arrest and conviction of one hundred forty-three per-
sons, all of which were sentenced to the Illinois State
Penitentiary for various terms. The arrest of the fore-
going persons solved eight hundred fifteen crimes com-
PST ONE iceR ER atecsreN EK Mtr TareN rin Nee eT HARMS MALO TE, OSG
— Sree PALE ARES a MP CONT RT:
13
mitted in the Chicago Metropolitan area, including ten
murders, two assaults with intent to kill, seven hundred
ninety-three robberies, eight burglaries and two larcenies.
The foregoing record does not include arrests by plaintiff
and his squad for lesser crimes for which conviction the
parties were sentenced to the County Jail, House of Cor-
rection and juvenile correctional institutions or placed on
probation.
2, During the period from 1940 to 1950 the plaintiff
and his squad killed six men while attempting to effect
their arrest and wounded six other men while attempting
to effect their arrest.
3. During the period from 1940 to 1960 the plaintiff has
been cited for outstanding performances by the following:
Chicago Daily Tribune, Chicago Herald-American, Chicago
Sun-Times, Coronet Magazine, American Weekly Maga-
zine, Police Digest, Illinois Policeman, the Coroner of
(ook County on four occasions, the Chicago Crime Com-
mission on four occasions, the Civil Service Board on two
oceasions, the Police Merit Board and, in addition, plain-
tiff has received eighteen creditable mentions and nine
extra compensations for his work as a policeman during
said period of time.
4. During plaintiff’s tenure as head of the Robbery
Detail from March 1953 through 1957, the Detail arrested
and obtained the conviction of seven hundred twenty-four
persons who were sentenced to the Illinois State Peniten-
tiary. While Captain Pape was Commanding Officer of the
Engelwood Police District, he was credited with con-
siderably reducing both crime and racial tension in the
district. Because of his success in that district he was
transferred to the Central Police District which encom-
passes the downtown section of the city and is considered
one of the most important assignments in the Chicago
Pa Tere eS ee
a
a SS aeNees
Lr Se SS
oe
YG eT RS ae A ee ele ee
14
Police Department because of the many banks, stores and
hotels and dignitaries in the area.
5. After his transfer from the Englewood District, civic
and business leaders of the Englewood District selected
a committee to personally call upon the then Commissioner
of Police, Timothy O’Connor, to return Captain Pape to
the Engelwood District. Later, the present Superintendent
of Police, Orlando W. Wilson, was approached by civic
and business leaders of the Engelwood District to request
the return of Captain Pape to the Engelwood District,
Plaintiff as a police officer has more creditable mentions
and citations to his credit than any other active member of
the Chicago Police Department as of this date,
6. Plaintiff returned to the Chicago Police Department
in May, 1965 and was assigned Commander of Traffic
Area 5,
7. Prior to his leave of absence, plaintiff had never
been assigned, trained for or involved with traffic work,
There are approximately sixty-six salaried positions in the
Chicago Police Department which earn more than plain-
tiff’s present salary of $12,780.00 which is the salary estab.
lished by the Civil Service for police captains. Among the
sixty-six positions are two formerly held by plaintiff;
namely, District Commander, which position pays $16,572.00
annually, and Deputy Chief, which position pays $19,152.00
annually.
8. On April 24, 1965, there was published in the New
Crusade, a newspaper of general circulation in Chicago,
an article about plaintiff, which held him up to ridicule
and scorn, wherein the complained of article of defendant
was quoted verbatim.
9. On May 1, 1965 there was a demonstration by pickets
in front of Chicago Police Headquarters, 1121 South State
Street, protesting the reinstatement of plaintiff as a police-
man; at said demonstration handbills were passed out
which held plaintiff up to ridicule.
aa
In roe Unirep Srates Distrricr Court.
* * (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) * *
15
AMENDED COMPLAINT.
(Filed Nov. 2, 1967)
Plaintiff, Frank Pape, complaining of Time, Incorpo-
rated, defendant, alleges:
1. Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York and has its principal place of
business in the City of New York in that state.
9», At the time of the commission by defendant of the
grievances hereinafter complained of, and for a long time
prior thereto, plaintiff, Frank Pape, was a resident of the
State of Illinois, having his home and residence in Chicago,
Illinois, was employed as Director Security for Chicago
Thoroughbred Enterprises, Incorporated, which operates
Arlington Park, Washington Park and Balmoral Jockey
(Jubs in the metropolitan area of the City of Chicago, Tlli-
nois, and was on leave from the position of captain of
police of the Police Department of the City of Chicago.
At aforesaid time, plaintiff was a person of good name,
fame and repute, was deservedly held in high esteem by and
among his acquaintances and the general public, and de-
servedly enjoyed the esteem of persons engaged in the
profession of police work throughout the United States.
The amount in controversy in this case exceeds the sum
of $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
3. Defendant is the owner and publisher of a certain
weekly news magazine known as Time.
4. On or about November 24, 1961, defendant mali-
ciously and wrongfully caused to be published and circu-
lated as hereinafter alleged, the following article contain-
ing false and defamatory matter concerning plaintiff:
:
ARETE |
PO ae
ee
PES a ee eee
Tg SP PEE et
SUR RET AO MER TP NS BLES VIG SIO OE LG LS TOP 9 RS
heey
Rage Vey
16
Civic. Ricuts
‘*Dawdling on the Corner
The new paperback book has 307 pages and the
simple title Justice. It is the last of five volumes in
the second report of the U. S. Commission on Civil
Rights, first created by Congress in 1957. Justice
carries a chilling text about police brutality in both the
South and the North—and it stands as a grave indict.
ment, since its facts were carefully investigated by
field agents and it was signed by all six of the noted
educators who comprise the commission.*
*Members of the scholarly panel: Chairman Dr,
John A. Hannah, president of Michigan State Uni-
versity; Dr. Robert S. Rankin, chairman of Duke
University’s political science department; Robert @,
Storey, former dean of the Southern Methodist Uni-
versity Law School; Spottswood W. Robinson 3rd,
dean of Howard University Law School; Erwin NX,
iriswold, Dean of Harvard Law School; the Rev,
Theodore M. Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame
University ...
* * * * .
Shifting to the North, the report cites Chicago police
treatment of Negro James Monroe and his family, who
were awakened in their West Side apartment at 5:45
a.m. by 13 officers, ostensibly investigating a murder,
The police, says Justice ‘broke through two doors,
woke the Monroe couple with flashlights, and forced
them at gun point to leave their bed and stand naked
in the center of the living room. The officers roused
the six Monroe children and herded them into the liv-
ing room. Detective Frank Pape struck Mr. Monroe
several times with his flashlight, calling him ‘nigger’
and ‘black boy’. Another officer pushed Mrs. Monroe.
Other officers hit and kicked several of the children
and pushed them to the floor. The police ransacked
every room, throwing clothing from closets to the floor,
dumping drawers, ripping mattress covers.’ The
officers were not punished, although Monroe has ear-
ried a suit to the Supreme Court, is still seeking a
civil judgment.’’
17
5. For a long time prior to November 24, 1961, plain-
tiff occupied the position of Deputy Chief of Detectives
of the Chicago Police Department. Plaintiff’s said posi-
tion with the Chicago Police Department was known to the
general public in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, and
State of Illinois. The reference to Detective Frank Pape
in aforesaid article in Time was understood by persons
reading the article to mean plaintiff. Persons reading the
artide understood it to mean plaintiff was acting as Deputy
Chief of Detectives ; further that the other officers referred
to in said article were his subordinates, under his direction
and control, and that the acts alleged in the article to have
been committed by them were committed under the diree-
tion and with the approval of plaintiff.
6. Time is a magazine of general circulation distributed
and circulated throughout the United States generally, and
throughout the free world. Said magazine is circulated
and distributed through the State of Illinois and particu-
larly in the City of Chicago and County of Cook in that
state. All editions of Time in which the foregoing article
appeared were published, circulated and distributed over
said area. The actual number of copies of the November
24, 1961 edition of Time and the places of distribution are
facts peculiarly within the knowledge and possession of
the defendant and are net known exactly to the plaintiff.
7. On or about November 24, 1961, said magazine, pub-
lished by defendant at Chicago, Illinois, had a weekly
cireulation of approximately 53,000 in the City of Chicago;
aweekly circulation of approximately 92,000 in the County
of Cook; and a weekly circulation of approximately 155,000
in the State of Illinois. Its weekly circulation throughout
the United States on November 24, 1961 was approxi-
mately 2,700,000, and its circulation for the same week,
throughout the world, was approximately 2,750,000. Its
editorials and news items are extensively copied and com-
mented on by all the leading newspapers, presses, radio
a ee tee
Pee Prere
(ts hae
PERE LLL EO LLL OR BERN SB
CLONES OR Ee
ERENT NOTRE DS Ge TEIN EEE NTI ENS SIRS Th 9 EIAIS
and television stations, and other media of communication
in the State of Illinois and elsewhere throughout the
United States.
8. The foregoing article was wholly false and libel, per
se. In the writing and publication of the foregoing article,
defendant meant and was reasonably understood by the
reading public as meaning that plaintiff acted in complete
disregard of the rights and privileges of James Monroe
and his family, in complete violation of any legal process,
9. In the writing and publication of the foregoing
article, defendant meant and was reasonably understood
-y the reading public as meaning that plaintiff committed
a crime in that he violated the rights and privileges re.
served to James Monroe and his family by the laws of the
United States and the State of Illinois, and assaulted
James Monroe and members of his family, contrary to the
laws of the United States and the State of Illinois,
10. At the time of publication of the foregoing article,
the defendant knew, or with the exercise of reasonable
care, would have known that the statements concerning
plaintiff were false, but defendant failed to exercise rea-
sonable care to ascertain the truth or falsity of such state-
ments by making inquiry of plaintiff or otherwise. In the
publication of said article, defendant showed actual malice,
spite and ill will toward plaintiff.
11. Had defendant exercised reasonable care to ascer-
tain the truth or falsity of such statements by making
inquiry of plaintiff or otherwise, it would have ascertained
the following facts:
a) That in addition to plaintiff and the patrolman
assigned to him as a driver, on October 29, 1958, there
were six detectives not twelve as alleged in the article.
b) That on the night of October 29, 1958, plaintiff took
over command of the six detectives only because no ser-
geant was available. Prior to October 29, 1958 plaintiff
had never heard of James Monroe and learned of his pre-
SO Os Dee MEP ee
19
vious record that night. Plaintiff has not seen James Mon-
roe since he placed him in the custody of detectives im-
mediately after his arrest.
¢) That the reason for investigating James Monroe was
pecause he had been identified from a photograph on file
with the Chicago Police Department by Mrs. Peter Saisi,
as one of two men who had shot and killed her husband on
(Qectober 27, 1958 during the commission of a robbery.
d) That James Monroe had a police record dating back
to March 25, 1944. On March 25, 1944 he was sentenced
to one year at the National Training School for Boys at
Washington, D. C. after conviction of theft from the
United States mail at Chicago, Illinois. On March 2, 1945
he was sentenced to the Illinois Training School for Boys
until he was twenty-one years of age. On March 3, 1947 he
was sentenced to the Tlinois State Penitentiary at Jolict,
Illinois after conviction of armed robbery. On April 20,
1951 and March 11, 1955 he was arrested by police on
suspicion of robbery but released for lack of evidence.
e) That of the six children living with James Monroe
on October 29, 1958, four of them, namely Houston
Stevens, Robert Stevens, Lawrence Stevens and Jacqueline
Stevens were known to the police to have records of law
violations as juvenile offenders which included larceny,
strong arm robbery, assault, disorderly conduct and mali-
cious mischief.
f) That the investigation at James Monroe’s house,
1424 South Trumbull, Chicago, Illinois was conducted at
6:00 o’clock in the morning. Three of the officers were
stationed outside the house, five officers, including plaintiff,
entered the house.
g) That plaintiff was admitted to the house by a young
man of about 14 years of age, and did not, as alleged in the
foregoing article, break through two doors.
h) That at the time the police entered, James Monroe
was in bed but was clothed. He was ordered to get out of
Ne Re Ia ENS Oe SR og
20
bed and was immediately given dungarees, shoes and stock.
ings, which he put on.
i) That Mrs. Monroe remained in the bedroom covered
with bed clothing until the officers took James Monroe into
the living room and then in private put on a robe.
j) That the apartment closets were searched for a num.
ber of white shirts taken in the robbery and murder of
Peter Saisi. The house was not ransacked as alleged jp
said article, on the contrary, the officers remained at the
apartment for a period of only 15 to 20 minutes.
k) That three of the older children remained in the
back of the apartment while the police officers were there,
and at no time came into the room where the plaintiff and
the other officers were. A two-year-old child of James
Monroe, asleep in the living room where the incidents set
forth in the Time article allegedly took place, never woke
up during all the time plaintiff and the other officers were
in the apartment.
1) That at no time were James Monroe or his wife
compelled to stand against a wall nude, and at no time was
any member of the James Monroe family threatened or
abused by plaintiff or his subordinates. That James Mon-
roe, prior to his arrest, had been drinking heavily; there
were two empty quart beer bottles and two glasses along
side James Monroe’s bed; one of the glasses had been
overturned and the contents spilled on the floor. There
were three empty beer bottles on the side in the kitchen
and there was a heavy odor of alcohol on James Monroe's
breath. During all the time plaintiff was in the apartment,
James Monroe and his children called plaintiff and the
other officers vile and insulting names.
m) That James Monroe made no complaint about mis-
treatment by plaintiff and the men under his command for
several months, and that Flossie Monroe, his wife, did not
file a personal injury accident report for the alleged assault
by plaintiff until August, 1959, some fourteen months later.
21
12. In the Time article aforesaid, defendant states:
“Justice carries a chilling text about police brutality
in both the South and North—and it stands as a grave
indictment, since its facts were carefully investigated
by field agents and it was signed by all six of the
noted educators who comprise the commission.’’
Defendant thereby vouched for the truthfulness of the
facts set forth in the article. By reason thereof, defendant
showed actual malice, spite and ill will toward plaintiff.
13. The facts stated in said article concerning plaintiff
and his subordinates are wholly false and are libelous per
se, Defendant thereby transcended the scope and province
of fair comment and criticism. The foregoing article
charges plaintiff with commissions of a criminal offense
and is otherwise asperse of his character which injured his
reputation as a police officer and as a member of society.
14. Prior to the publication of the foregoing article in
defendant’s magazine, plaintiff held positions of command
responsibility within the Chicago Police Department. In
addition to the position of Deputy Chief of Detectives,
plaintiff also held at various times positions of Commander
of the Engelwood District and Commander of the Central
District of the Chicago Police Department, all of which
positions imposed upon plaintiff responsibilities in addi-
tion to those normally imposed upon captains of police,
and in consideration of such responsibilities, provided
plaintiff with salary compensation greatly in excess of that
provided by the Civil Service Commission of the City of
Chicago for the rank of Captain in the Chicago Police
Department.
15. Immediately prior to the publication of defendant’s
article, plaintiff took a leave of absence from the Chicago
Police Department as set forth above.
16. Subsequent to the publication of defendant’s article,
plaintiff returned to the Chicago Police Department. At the
bit dla
EIT Re ITO TT IE ne
|
|
a es
Ss J
Pea ay
22
time of his return and as a direct and proximate result of
defendant’s complained of article, there was a demonstra.
tion by persons at the headquarters of the Chicago Police
Department, which had for its purpose heaping scorn and
ridicule upon the plaintiff.
17. Moreover, as a direct and proximate result of
defendant’s complained of article, plaintiff has been
assigned to a post in the Chicago Police Department far
below the status and rank which he enjoyed at the time of
his leave of absence. Plaintiff is now assigned as Com.
mander of a traffic area from which he derives a salary of
approximately $12,500.00, which is the salary provided for
captains by the Civil Service Commission of the City of
Chicago. There are approximately sixty positions in the
Chicago Police Department which pay a higher rate of
return than that now earned by the plaintiff. Among those
positions are Deputy Chief of Detectives and District Com-
mander, both of which positions plaintiff formerly held.
Solely by reason of defendant’s article, plaintiff has been
barred from those positions which he formerly held or
positions of commensurate reward and responsibility which
would have normally been given to him.
18. Subsequent to the publication of the foregoing
article in defendant’s magazine, plaintiff had been asked
by numerous persons whether the facts therein set forth
are true. As a direct result of the article, plaintiff has been
shunned by his former friends, his reputation and charac-
ter have been questioned, injured and exposed to public
hatred, contempt and ridicule, and his honesty, integrity
and reputation have been injured.
19. The statements in said article concerning plaintiff
were and are wholly false, and by reason of the publication
thereof, plaintiff has been defamed and has suffered and
will suffer loss of income by reason of being barred from
a a Sl ee a ee p
23
positions of employment within his chosen profession.
\oreover, plaintiff has suffered great anguish, public
hatred, contempt, ridicule and disrepute among his fellow
employees, acquaintances and the general public, and his
integrity, virtue and reputation have been impeached and
questioned, all to his damage in the sum of One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00).
20. By reason of the foregoing, defendant ought to be
compelled to pay Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($250,000.00) as punitive damages.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defend-
ant for the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00) actual damages, and the further and addition
sum of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00)
exemplary damages, and for his costs.
In tHE Unitep States District Court.
* * (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) * *
ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT.
(Filed Nov. 16, 1967)
Now comes the defendant, Time, Incorporated, by its
attorneys and in answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint
in the above-captioned cause:
1, (Alleges defendant’s New York citizenship.) Defend-
ant admits the allegations of Paragraph 1.
2. (Alleges plaintiff’s Illinois citizenship, employment
at Chicago Metropolitan Racetracks and Chicago Police
Department and plaintiff’s reputation; alleges that the
amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00.) Defendant
admits the allegations of plaintiff’s Illinois citizenship
and racetrack employment but is without knowledge or
AES AEP LE EERSTE ES Ses
24
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the complaint,
3. (Alleges defendant’s ownership of Time Magazine.)
Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the
complaint.
4. (Alleges malicious and wrongful publication of a
news article on November 24, 1961.) Defendant admits
the allegation of Paragraph 4 that defendant publisheq
a news article containing the language set forth in the
quotation in said Paragraph 4; defendant denies that
the language set forth in Paragraph 4 is the complete
text of the said news article; defendant denies that the
said news article was published maliciously or wrongfully
and further denies that the said news article contains any
false or defamatory matter.
-
5. (Alleges the position of plaintiff as Deputy Chief
of Detectives of the Chicago Police Department, the general
publie’s knowledge of plaintiff’s position and that other
officers referred to in defendant’s article were plaintiff's
subordinates.) Defendant admits the allegations of Para-
graph 5 of the complaint that on November 24, 1961, the
plaintiff Pape held the position of Deputy Chief of Detee-
tives of the Chicago Police Department, and is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.
6. and 7. (Alleges Time Magazine’s nationwide distri-
bution and prominence and alleges circulation totals for
the areas of Chicago, Cook County, and Illinois.) Defend-
ant admits the allegations of Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
complaint.
8. (Alleges that the article was false and libelous, and
that readers so interpreted it.) Defendant denies the al-
legations of Paragraph 8 of the complaint and alleges that
the article speaks for itself.
: EE OAR IR EET ETE NO REE bc ae Nah a ed 5 a
CREE TPAD GEE NACE IOMARIGMR IESE A. oe
_—~_— tiie ee a
9, (Alleges that defendant meant and readers under-
stood the article as meaning that plaintiff committed a
crime in assaulting the civil rights of James Monroe and
his family.) Defendant denies the allegation of Para-
graph 9 of the complaint and alleges that the article
speaks for itself.
10. (Alleges that defendant knew or should have known
that the statements concerning plaintiff were false and
that defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to ascer-
tain the truth or falsity of such statements; alleges actual
malice, spite and ill will.) Defendant denies the allega-
tions of Paragraph 10 of the complaint.
11. (Alleges that defendant could or should have as-
eertained certain facts prior to publication.) Defendant
denies the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the complaint.
12. (Alleges that defendant vouched for the truth of
the facts set forth in the article; realleges defendant’s
actual malice, spite and ill will towards plaintiff.) Defend-
ant admits that the aforesaid Time news article contains
the language set forth in Paragraph 12 of the complaint,
and denies all of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12.
13. (Realleges that the news article is false and libelous
and alleges that the article transcends the scope of fair
comment and criticism.) Defendant denies the allegations
of Paragraph 13 of the complaint.
14. (Alleges plaintiff’s prior positions and duties with
the Chicago Police Department.) Defendant does not dis-
pute the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the complaint but
defendant denies that said allegations have any materiality
or relevancy to this case.
15. (Alleges plaintiff’s leave of absence from the Chi-
cago Police Department immediately prior to defendant’s
publication.) Defendant admits the allegation of Para-
graph 15 of the complaint.
OLD eye LER ONE LRT AEE RENTER en
26
16. (Alleges that plaintiff returned to the Police De.
partment and that there was a demonstration against him
at that time as a direct and proximate result of the news
article.) Defendant admits that plaintiff returned to the
Police Department but denies the remaining allegations of
Paragraph 16 of the complaint.
17. (Alleges that plaintiff was assigned to an inferior
position in the Chicago Police Department as the direct,
proximate and sole result of defendant’s news article.)
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the
complaint.
18. (Alleges plaintiff’s general loss of reputation and
friends as a result of the Time article.) Defendant denies
the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the complaint.
19. (Alleges plaintiff’s loss of reputation and potential
opportunities due to defendant’s news article and alleges
damages in the sum of $100,000.00.) Defendant denies the
allegations of Paragraph 19 of the complaint.
20. (Alleges that defendant should suffer punitive dam-
ages of $250,000.00.) Defendant denies the allegation of
Paragraph 20 of the complaint.
First DEFENSE.
The plaintiff is entitled to no recovery because the de-
fendant’s news article is a protected exercise of the uncon-
ditional right to publish the truth as guaranteed by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution
of the State of Illinois.
Seconp DEFEnsE.
The plaintiff is entitled to no recovery because the plain-
tiff, as Deputy Chief of Detectives of the Chicago Police
Department, was a public official and the defendant’s news
: POOL P RRS ONE aay NS ENGI HDR Re yer SEPT OF
Be DARE BOI Se Cee PT EAE SAR POR VITAE ELT TOINR RAINS WICH IE Re ONAL EY cc AM VG OEE Lp, wt
27
article was not published with actual malice; the said news
article is accordingly non-actionable under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu-
tin and Article J, Section 4 of the Constitution of the
State of Llinois.
Turrp DEFrENsE.
The plaintiff is entitled to no recovery because the de-
fendant’s news articles did not cause the plaintiff any
special damages; the plaintiff’s income and wealth in fact
greatly increased after publication of the said news article.
Fourtn DEFENSE.
The plaintiff is entitled to no recovery because the de-
fendant’s news article is a protected exercise of the right
to report the activities and utterances of governmental
officials and bodies.
FirtnH DEFrense.
The plaintiff is entitled to no recovery because the de-
fendant’s news article is a protected exercise of the right
to comment upon matters of public interest and concern.
Srxtu DeErense.
To penalize the defendant with punitive damages in
this action would violate constitutional criminal rights
and safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Con-
stitution.
Wherefore, having fully answered the complaint, defend-
ant prays that the plaintiff take nothing by his suit and
that the defendant be discharged, with its costs.
eee NA RT Bd woh EE a a Oh Se |
7
Pipe 2k © o2 et
i ie ne a Saad #
28
In tHe Unirep States District Court.
* * (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) * *
REPLY TO AMENDED ANSWER.
(Filed Jan. 4, 1968)
Now comes plaintiff, Frank Pape, by his attorneys, John
M. Kaveny and Luis Kutner, and replying to the Amended
Answer filed in the above entitled cause, says:
1. Replying to the first defense of the defendant, denies
that the complained of news article is protected under
the first or fourteenth amendments or any other provision
of the United States Constitution, or any provision of the
Constitution of the State of Illinois.
2. Replying to the second defense of the defendant,
denies that the complained of article was published without
malice, and on the contrary, alleges that said article was
published either with actual malice or with a reckless dis.
regard by defendant or its agents as to whether the mate-
rial in said article was true or false.
3. Replying to the third defense of the defendant, denies
defendant’s allegations that plaintiff has sustained no spe-
cial damages, and on the contrary, alleges that plaintiff has
sustained substantial and material damages, both by loss of
income and otherwise as a direct and proximate result of
the publication of the complained of article by defendant.
Further, denies that plaintiff’s income and wealth was
greatly increased after the publication of said article, and
on the contrary, alleges that his income and wealth has
greatly diminished by reason thereof.
4. Replying to the fourth defense of the defendant,
denies that the complained of article is a protected exer-
29
cise of the right to report the activities or utterances of
governmental officials or bodies, and on the contrary,
alleges that said article was not the report of the activi-
ties or utterances of governmental officials or bodies, but
an inaccurate and false report of a governmental publi-
cation.
5. Replying to the fifth defense of the defendant, de-
nies that the complained of article is a protected exercise
of the defendant’s right to comment upon matters of
public interest or concern,
6. Replying to the sixth defense of the defendant, denies
that the imposition of punitive damages in this cause would
violate any constitutional protections accorded to defend-
ant, either by the United States Constitution or the Con-
stitution of the State of Illinois, and on the contrary,
alleges that punitive damages have long been a settled form
of compensation in matters of this type.
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in
his Amended Complaint.
In tue Unitep States District Court.
°~% (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) - .
STIPULATION OF FACTS,
Part I—Liapsiuiry.
1. The plaintiff, Frank Pape, also known as Francis
W. Pape, is employed by the Chicago Police Department,
holds the permanent Chicago Civil Service rank of Cap-
tain of Police, and resides at 1911 Prospect Avenue in
Park Ridge, Illinois.
2. Plaintiff is married to Catherine Pape.
3. Defendant, Time, Incorporated, is a corporation or-
ETRPEOR eas |
PILE SOLE LG LLBEAN LOI EE ESE
narnee
PTL,
EDS NONE LEE ELE IS IE
a
ganized under the laws of the State of New York anq
has its principal place of business in the City of New York
in that state.
4. On November 24, 1961, plaintiff Pape was employed
as Director of Security for Chicago Thoroughbred Enter.
prises, Incorporated, which operates the race tracks knowp
as Arlington Park, Washington Park and Balmoral Jockey
Club in the metropolitan area of Chicago. On November
24, 1961, plaintiff was on leave of absence from the position
of Captain of Police of the Chicago Police Department,
5. Plaintiff became a policeman in March 1933 and cop.
tinued in that employment until April 15, 1991 when he
was employed full time by the above-named race tracks,
6. Plaintiff was a patrolman from 1933 to 1942. He
worked as a detective with the State’s Attorney’s Office
of Cook County from 1933 through 1937. In 1939 plaintiff
was transferred to the detective bureau and _ thereafter
was assigned to the robbery detail, where he worked until
1959. In 1942 he was promoted to sergeant. In 1952 he
was promoted to lieutenant.
7. For a short time after his promotion to lieutenant,
plaintiff was assigned to the First Police District of
Chicago and thereafter returned to the Detective Division
as head of the Robbery Detail. Most of his career was
with the Robbery Detail.
8. Plaintiff was promoted to Deputy Chief of Detee-
tives in 1957. He remained Deputy Chief of Detectives
for two years. He was promoted to Captain in 1959 and
assigned as commander to the Engelwood or 15th Police
District for a period of five months. In February 1960
plaintiff was assigned to be the First District Commander
and remained there until he was granted a leave of ab-
sence in April 1961. On April 15, 1961 he entered into an
employment contract with Chicago Thoroughbred Enter-
prises, Inc. for a period of four years at an annual salary
30
of $25,000.00 plus bonus. This contract by its terms expired
on April 15, 1960.
9, In October, 1958, Pape was Deputy Chief of Detee-
tives of the Chicago Police Department. On October 29,
1958, Pape reported for duty at the Chicago Police Head-
quarters at lith and State Streets at approximately 12:01
am.
10. Prior to daylight on the morning of October 29,
1958 Pape was in charge of a squad of seven detectives
who went to the apartment of James Monroe and his
family at 1424 South Trumbull, Chicago, Illinois. None
of the men in the squad, including Pape, were in police
uniform. All of the men in the squad were white, i.e.,
Caucasian. The policeman in the squad were subject to
the supervision and control of Pape; Pape was the high-
est ranking police officer in the squad.
11. On the morning of October 29, 1958 the following
occurrences or events transpired at the apartment of James
Monroe :
31
a. Pape and four police officers entered the Monroe
apartment at approximately 6:00 a.m.; three other
police officers stood guard outside.
b. Mr. and Mrs. James Monroe and six children were
in the apartment.
c. Pape was armed with a revolver.
d. Pape entered the bedroom of James Monroe and
his wife.
e. When Pape entered the bedroom of Mr. and Mrs.
Monroe the bedroom light was off, Mr. and Mrs.
Monroe were in bed, and Pape shined his flashlight
on Mr. and Mrs. Monroe,
f. James Monroe was required to leave his bed and
go into the living room,
g. Pape searched the closet in the Monroe’s bedroom.
FILLE IA OTS OID TLE Sera ey
POPC SBS FS
A epg
32
h. During the time the police officers were in the
Monroes’ apartment, police officers searched all the
rooms in the apartment, and James Monroe was
arrested.
12. James Monroe was thereafter required to leave his
apartment. After leaving the Monroe apartment:
a. James Monroe was handeuffed,
b. James Monroe was placed in an unmarked police
car with several policemen, including Pape.
c. James Monroe was taken by police officers, pot
including Pape, to Chicago Police Headquarters at
llth and State Streets.
13. After being held at police headquarters at 11th and
State Streets for approximately ten hours, James Monroe
was released from police custody.
14. No criminal charges were ever lodged against James
Monroe after his arrest and detention as above described
on October 29, 1958.
15. In November, 1961 the oficial 1961 Annual Report
of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights was issued and
published. The U. S. Commission on Civil Rights was
created by Act of Congress in 1957 for the purpose of
investigating civil rights problems and to report the results
of the investigations to the President of the United States
and to Congress.
16. Volume 5 of the Civil Rights Commission’s official
1961 Annual Report was entitled Justice. Defendant's
Exhibit E is a true copy of excerpts from the said Volume
5 entitled Justice.
17. Prior to the preparation and publication of the U.S,
Commission’s Volume 5 entitled Justice, staff members of
the Commission made field trips for the purpose of in-
vestigating police brutality in a number of cities in the
United States. An attorney employed on the staff of the
33
Commission, Mr. Richard Wolf, traveled to Chicago, Illinois
in late January or early February of 1961; Mr. Wolf spent
five or six Working days in Chicago.
18. Before coming to Chicago, Mr. Wolf had never
heard of Frank Pape or the case of Monroe v. Pape.
19 The article of which the plaintiff, Frank Pape, com-
plains in this suit appeared in the November 24, 1961 issue
of Time magazine, Defendant’s Exhibit F is a true copy
of the complete text of the article.
%, The article of which plaintiff complains was writ-
ten by Kdward F. Magnuson, Contributing Editor assigned
to the National Affairs section of Time magazine. At the
time the article was written, Mr. Magnuson’s supervising
editor was Mr, Champ Clark, Editor of the National Affairs
section of Time magazine,
21, Justice, Volume 5 of the Official 1961 Report of
the U. S. Commission of Civil Rights, was officially pub-
lished and released on or about November 17, 1961. Si-
multaneously with the public issuance of Justice, the U. S.
Commission on Civil Rights also issued a Press Release
concerning the Justice Report; defendant’s Exhibit G is
a true and correct copy of the said Press Release.
22, On November 17, 1961 the New York Times News-
paper published a lengthy news article concerning the
issuance and release of Justice; defendant’s Exhibit H
isa true and correct copy of the said news article in the
New York Times concerning Justice.
23. At the time Mr. Magnuson wrote the Time news
article concerning Justice, he had read the Justice Report
in full, the Press Release issued by the U. S. Commission
concerning Justice (defendant’s Exhibit G@), and the news
article in the New York Times of November 17, 1961
(defendant's Exhibit TT).
4. After Mr, Magnuson had written the article, the
article was sent to Mr, Champ Clark as Editor of the
National Affairs Section of Time. The article was then
'
Pak ete |
TE ONES ALLY ORT IE SNL IE RIAL IONE BL HANDY FI Oe nae
34
transmitted to the Research Department of Time. The
supervisor of research assigned the article to a Time staf
researcher, Miss Karen Burger (now Mrs. Karen Booth),
Miss Burger was first employed by Time, Ine. in 1954 anq
was continuously so employed until April 1, 1966 when she
took a maternity leave of absence. She has not yet rejoined
the staff of Time.
25. As researcher, Miss Burger’s job was to check the
factual aceuracy of the article. Time maintains an infor.
mational reference library, commonly called the ‘‘morgue,”
which is arranged alphabetically according to names of
individuals and subject matter.
26. In the performance of her duties as researcher,
Miss Burger obtained from the Time ‘‘morgue”’ all the
materials therein concerning Frank Pape and the Case of
Monroe v. Pape. The said materials that Miss Burger
obtained and examined were as follows:
a. A news article in the New York Post by Fletcher
Martin published February 27, 1961 bearing the
headlines ‘‘The Suit Against the Chicago Cops”
and ‘‘A Father Recalls His Night of Terror.’’ De-
fendant’s Exhibit I is a true copy of said news
article.
b. A report from Time’s Chicago Bureau written by
Dudley Doust, Chicago correspondent for Time,
entitled ‘‘A Kicked in Door’’ and received by Time
in New York on February 22, 1961. Defendant's
Exhibit J is a true copy of said report.
ce. A report from Time’s Washington Bureau written
by Burt Meyers, Washington correspondent for
Time, entitled ‘‘Supreme Court’’ and received by
Time in New York on February 22, 1961. Defend-
ant’s Exhibit K is a true copy of said report.
d. A proposed article written by Time correspondent
Dudley Doust in Chicago entitled ‘‘Terror on
AS RE ne ——- —— - 7 — ayaa van se PEPE ee ae
PCIE a eta egy Nara TPR RSET NS
9s See Ne BESS REE Re a
- — cae VRE: 7 ee + UN catenin RSS LBD ek
Trumbull Street’? and received by Time in New
York on February 21, 1960. Defendant’s Exhibit
L is a true copy of said article.
e. A proposed article from the Washington Bureau
of Time entitled ‘‘The Supreme Court—Another
Monroe Doctrine’’ and received by Time in New
York on February 20, 1961. Defendant’s Exhibit
M is a true copy of said article.
f. A report entitled ‘‘Chicago Cop’’ from the Chicago
Bureau of Time from a Time co.respondent
named Heinke received by Time in New York on
May 24, 1951. Defendant’s Exhibit N is a true copy
of said report.
g. A newspaper clipping dated December 21, 1947
bearing the headline ‘‘This Dead-Eye Dick Poi-
soned Two Hoodlums.’’? Defendant’s Exhibit O is
a true copy of said clipping.
h. An article from the New York Times dated Feb-
ruary 21, 1961 by Anthony Lewis, with the headline
‘High Court Backs Suing of Police.’’ Defendant’s
Exhibit P is a true copy of said article.
GE OR ie
27. In addition to the above-listed materials, Miss
Burger in researching the contents of the article also
examined and read the materials that Mr. Magnuson had
referred to when writing the story, i.c., the Justice Report,
the U. S. Commission Press Release concerning Justice
(Defendant’s Exhibit G), and the article in the New York
Times newspaper dated November 17, 1961 (Defendant’s
Exhibit H).
28. After reading and examining all of the above
materials, Miss Burger then returned the article to Mr.
Magnuson. ;
29. At the time of the publication of the article com-
plained of, the plaintiff, Frank Pape, did not know any of
the officers, reporters or other employees of defendant,
Time, Inc.
— SEOd SREP AN
PETE
ELE OLIMAR ES PE ot Oo,
36
30. The duty of the Robbery detail of the Police De.
partment was to investigate robberies that might be con.
sidered serious or where the cases were numerous or where
amounts taken were large or where there was injury to
the person.
31. James Monroe was ordered arrested by Sergeant
Edward Cagney because his photographs had been identi-
fied by Mrs. Mary Saisi as resembling one of the two men
who had allegedly entered her home on October 27, 1958,
allegedly shot and killed her husband, Peter Saisi, and
allegedly stole a quantity of shirts from the house,
32. Plaintiff had spoken with Mrs. Saisi on October 27,
1958 during his investigation of the alleged robbery and
murder, and had obtained a description of the robbers from
her. That description included a description of a tall
Negro man.
33. Subsequently, after the arrest of James Monroe,
Mrs. Saisi confessed that she and another man had killed
her husband; Mrs. Saisi and the other man were convicted
and sentenced to the penitentiary.
34. Mrs. Saisi falsely told Pape that a Negro robber
shot her husband, and the description she gave resembled
that of James Monroe.
35. As Deputy Chief of Detectives, plaintiff would not
have been on the detail that arrested James Monroe on
October 29, 1958. There was no sergeant available to
supervise the detail making the arrest, and the plaintiff
went to provide supervision,
Stipulated and Agreed:
/s/ Joun M. Kaveny,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
/s/ LAWRENCE GUNNELS,
Attorney for Defendant.
37
In THE Untrep States Districr Court.
* * (Caption—No. 61 C 2202) * *
FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER.
This matter having come before the Court at a pretrial
conference held pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rule of
(ivil Procedure, 28 U.S. C., and John M. Kaveny and Luis
Kutner having appeared as counsel for the plaintiff; and
Don H. Reuben, Lawrence Gunnels and Michael W. Coffield
of Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaffetz & Masters having
appeared as counsel for the defendant, the following action
was taken:
NATURE OF ACTION AND JURISDICTION.
This is an action for damages for bel. The jurisdiction
of the Court is not disputed.
The following stipulations and statements were sub-
mitted, attached to, and made a part of this order:
(a) A comprehensive written stipulation or statement
of all uncontested facts;
(b) A written list or lists of the potential witnesses
to be called by each party;
(c) An agreed statement of the contested issues of
fact and of law;
(a) A list of all depositions to be read into evidence
and statements of any objections thereto;
The foregoing were modified at the pretrial conference
as follows:
¢
PTH eer |
MRA aE ae ¥
BT a Lk a a
EELS RGIS De
ap An) ith i nile
38
PLAINTIFF.
The following exhibits were offered by the plaintiff ang
marked for identification. There was reserved to the de.
fendant the right to object to their receipt in evidence op
the grounds stated:
Exhibit 1—Article appearing in New Crusade, a
newspaper, dated April 24, 1965
Exhibit 2—Handbill of demonstrators passed out at
demonstration of May 1, 1965
Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10—Photographs of
demonstration of May 1, 1965.
DEFENDANT.
(A)
The following exhibits were offered by the defendant,
received in evidence, and marked as herein indicated:
Exhibit E—Excerpt from Volume 5, 1961 Civil
Rights Commission
Exhibit F—Article appearing in defendant’s maga-
zine dated November 24, 1961
Exhibit G—Press release dated November 17, 1961
Exhibit H—Article in New York Times, a news-
paper dated November 17, 1961.
(B)
The following exhibits were offered by the defendant,
marked for identification, and admitted into evidence over
the objection of plaintiff:
Exhibit I—Article in New York Post, a newspaper
dated December 27, 1961
Exhibit J—Report of Time correspondent dated
February 22, 1961
ae
Exhibit K—Report by Time correspondent dated
February 22, 1961
Exhibit L—Report by Time correspondent dated
February 21, 1960
Exhibit M—Report by Time correspondent dated
February 20, 1961
Exhibit N—Report by Time correspondent dated
May 24, 1961
Exhibit O—Report by Time correspondent dated
December 21, 1947
Exhibit P—Article in New York Times dated Feb-
ruary 21, 1961.
(C)
The following exhibits were offered by the defendant and
marked for identification. There was reserved to plaintiff
the right to object to their receipt in evidence on the
grounds stated:
Exhibit Q—Article in Chicago’s American, a news-
paper dated December 4, 1962
Exhibit R—Article in Chicago Tribune, dated De-
cember 5, 1962
Exhibit S—Article in Chicago’s American dated De-
cember 5, 1962
Exhibit T—Article in Chicago Daily News dated
December 12, 1962.
LimITaTIONS AND REsERVATIONS.
(A)
There is reserved to each of the parties the right to call
such rebuttal witnesses as may be necessary, without prior
notice thereof to the other party.
eee eee ee Be a Menara er ee
PSE EN RE EE So eee RS BE EN
POI LP ee ¥
2 LOO DE RT DAE LD
40
(B)
The probable length of trial is 4-5 days. The case wil]
be listed on the trial calendar, to be tried when reached,
It Is Ordered that this pretrial order may be modified
at the trial of the action, or prior thereto, to prevent
manifest injustice. Such modification may be made either
on application of counsel for the parties or on motion of
the Court;
It Is Further Ordered that requests for instructions shall
be submitted to the trial court at the commencement of the
trial, but there is reserved to counsel for the respective
parties the right to submit supplemental requests for in-
structions during the course of the trial or at the conclu.
sion of the evidence on matters that cannot reasonably be
anticipated.
/s/ Epwiy A. Rossoy, |
Judge.
Date: Sept. 10, 1968.
Approved as to Form and Substance.
/s/ JouHN M. Kaveny,
Attorney for Plaintiff.
/8/ LAWRENCE GuNNELS,
Attorney for Defendant.
ATTACHMENT A TO Fina PRETRIAL ORDER.
The plaintiff will read into evidence the deposition of
Karen Booth, the deposition of Edward F. Magnuson and
the deposition of Champ Clark.
41
(4] In THE Unitep States District Court.
* * (Caption—Docket No. 61 C 2202) * *
Before Hon. Edwin A. Robson, Judge, and a jury.
Monday, January 13, 1969,
2:00 o’clock p.m.
Met pursuant to adjournment.
Present :
Mr. Kaveny, appeared for Plaintiff;
Mr. Reuben, appeared for Defendant.
(Whereupon, the following further proceedings were had
herein, in open court, in the presence and hearing of the
jury, to-wit :)
[5] (Counsel for plaintiff thereupon made an opening
statement to the jury.)
(Counsel for the defendant thereupon made an opening
statement to the jury.)
[6] The Court: You may eall your first witness.
Mr. Kaveny: Take the stand, sir.
The Clerk: Raise your right hand, please.
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
The Court: Conduct the examination from the podium,
please, Mr. Kaveny.
Mr. Kaveny: Yes, sir.
The Court: For the benefit of both sides, please try to
avoid as much repetition as possible of any of the facts
that have been stipulated to.
Mr. Kaveny: I will try, sir.
The Court: All right.
vis eT —
Oe add
PF gfALIO AFA G PE TOL NS
ZS uae LN
42
EDWARD CAGNEY, called as a witness on behalf of the
plaintiff herein, having been first duly sworn, was ex.
amined and testified as follows:
rect Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. State your name and address, sir.
[7] A. Edward Cagney, 1214 South 61st Avenve, Cicero,
Illinois.
Mr. Youker (Offical Court Reporter): Will you spell
your last name, please.
The Witness: C-a-g-n-e-y.
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. What is your occupation, Mr.
Cagney?
A. I work for security, for private industry.
Q. In October of 1958, by whom were you employed?
A. The City of Chicago.
Q. In what capacity, sir?
A. I was a Sergeant of the Department of Police,
assigned to the Homicide Section.
Q. Directing your attention, sir, to October 27, 1958,
did you have occasion to participate in an investigation
of a complaint by a Mrs. Saisi?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did Mrs. Saisi relate to you as to what had
transpired?
A. On that particular night her husband was shot and
killed by two men, she said, that were colored men.
[8] One was a big, tall man, and the other was just a little
shorter, about two inches shorter than the original man,
and she figured that the tall man was about six foot two.
[9] Q. Was Captain Pape involved in that investigation?
A. I don’t think so. I don’t recall. I don’t think so.
Q. Was Mrs. Saisi, in the course of the investigation,
brought to the police station?
Se
re
Bs te
43
A. Not that particular night, she wasn’t.
Q. On October 28, 1958, was she brought to the police
station ?
A. She was brought into the Detective Bureau.
Q. What was the purpose that she was brought in?
A. She was brought in by Detective Neil Carr, to view
pictures in the B. of I.
Q. Did she do so?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Reuben: I object, unless this officer was there.
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Reuben: I object, unless this officer was present.
The Court: All right. Lay the foundation.
Mr. Kaveny: All right. I will withdraw the question.
your Honor.
The Court: All right.
(10] By Mr. Kaveny: Q. Was a picture given to you—
Yes, sir.
—on October 28, 1958?
Yes.
By whom?
Detective Neil Carr, assigned to the Homicide Sec-
Pere F
tion.
Q. Whose likeness was the picture?
Mr. Reuben: I object. The picture speaks for itself,
your Honor. It is the best evidence.
The Court: Do you have it, for the purpose of iden-
tification ?
Mr. Kaveny: I do not have the picture, no, your Honor.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Kaveny: Just a moment. I do not believe I have
it with me.
(There was a short interruption, after which
the following further proceedings were had
herein, in open court, in the presence and hear-
ing of the jury, to-wit :)
[11] By Mr, Kaveny: Q. Was a record given to you at
the same time by the sergeant?
44
A. Yes.
Q. Or rather, by the detective?
A. Yes.
Q. Was this as a result of his conference with Mrs,
Saisi?
A. That the detective had with Mrs, Saisi, yes,
Q. Asa result of that, did you issue any orders?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What orders did you issue?
A. Detective Neil Carr told me that Mrs, Saisi—
Mr. Reuben: Just a moment. I object and move that
the answer be stricken. The question was what orders did
he give, and he is now, I believe, giving hearsay testimony
as to what somebody else told him,
The Court: The objection is sustained. When you make
an objection, stand up, Mr. Reuben,
Mr. Reuben: I am sorry,
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. As a result of the photograph
[12] and of the report given to you by Officer Neil Carr,
what orders did you give?
A. I gave the picture and the record to Detective
Howard Felker, who is now deceased, to arrange to pick
up the gentleman whose picture T had.
[13] Q. What was that name, sir?
A. James Monroe.
Q. What was his address?
A. It was in the 1400 block south on St. Louis.
Q. Did you issue any further orders with regard to
that arrest?
A. I teld Detective Felker, I said, ‘‘If you pick up
James Monroe, put him in the Detective Bureau lockup
and notify our lieutenant, James MeMahon, on days, to
have Mrs. Saisi come in and view him at a show-up.”’
45
Q. Was there a sergeant in charge of that arrest?
A, At the time that James Monroe was arrested?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. There was no sergeant on the midnight. I was the
sergeant on the four-to-twelve and the sergeant on the
midnight on that particular night was off.
Q. Who was that sergeant?
A. That was Sergeant William Clark.
Q. Was there anyone besides the Deputy Chief [14] of
Detectives in charge that evening?
A. Not in the Homicide Section, no.
Q. Who was the Deputy Chief of Detectives at that
time?
A. Frank Pape.
Q. What were his hours of duty on October 29?
A. From midnight till eight in the morning.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions,
The Court: You may cross-examine,
Cross-Evamination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. Officer Cagney, did you participate in any way in
the raid?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: Your Honor, may I be heard for just a
moment on the use of the word ‘‘raid’’? It was an arrest.
A raid connotes a gambling raid or something like that.
It was an arrest.
The Court: All right. Use the word ‘‘arrest’’, Mr.
Reuben.
[15] By Mr. Reuben: Q. Was a search warrant ever
procured for the searching of the house of James Monroe?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: Objection.
The Court: He may answer, if he knows.
ae
Sr Ss oe
we
SOR LO I LPT PE IIE LT OP AG
FPO EE el tO LOE TOL” Li PE OME
46
By the Witness: <A. No, sir.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. Could you tell the jury how you
would get a search warrant?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection.
The Court: Objection sustained,
By Mr. Reuben: Q. Were you a defendant in the case
of Monroe versus Pape?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: Objection, your Honor,
The Court: He may answer. Objection overruled.
By Mr. Renben: Q. Were you found guilty of violat.
any of the Monroe family’s civil rights?
[16] Mr. Kaveny: Objection.
The Court: Objection overruled.
By the Witness: A. I didn’t violate their rights. |
was fined $2,000, but I didn’t violate their rights.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. You were fined $2,000 by this
Court, correct?
A. Yes, by Judge Parsons’ court.
Mr. Reuben: Thank you.
[17] The Court: Is there any redirect?
Mr. Kaveny: Yes, your Honor,
Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. Sergeant Cagney, when you say ‘‘fine’’, that was
damages assessed against you by a jury, is that right!
That’s right.
That was not a fine in the sense of a criminal fine!
Tt wasn’t a fine. It was a suit.
A civil suit?
They were awarded $2,000,
In damages.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: Is there any recross?
OQ>O>rO>
47
Mr. Reuben: No, your Honor.
The Court: Allright. Thank you, sir. You are excused.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness.
(There was a short interruption, after which
the following further proceedings were had,
to-wit :)
[18] JOHN HIGGINS, called as a witness by the plaintiff
herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Will you state your name, sir,
John Higgins.
What is your occupation, sir?
Police officer.
How long have you been a police officer?
Since August, 1942.
What is your rank in the Police Department at the
present time?
A. Sergeant.
Q. Directing your attention to October of 1958, were
you assigned to the Homicide Division?
A. Yes, sir, T was,
Q. What was your rank at that time, sir?
A. Detective.
Q. Directing your attention to the morning of October
29, 1958, did you have occasion to participate in the arrest
of one James Monroe?
A. Yes, sir.
[19] Q. Task you to go back and tell me what oce ved
that morning—strike that-
Ore rere
ie i lt
BL POLE GS BOE OO OCDE MMT TS
SELES ONE EM
SOT PEI Es tf VEO
ees a3
48
I ask you to go back, sir, and tell me what time you went
on duty that morning.
A. I was working the twelve to eight watch, and |
arrived at work, it would be the evening of the 28th,
possibly between 11:15 and 11:30 p.m.
Q. Would you tell us what you did, sir, prior to this
arrest but regarding this arrest?
A. When I arrived for work the evening of the 28th
I met my partner, Howard Felker, and Detective Felker
told me at that time that we were working on a homicide
ease that had happened the day before.
Mr. Reuben: Your Honor, I would move that what
Detective Felker stated be stricken. He is dead and I ean-
not cross-examine him.
Mr. Kaveny: There is only one thing, as the transcript
will show, he has not related any conversation as far as
Detective Felker is concerned.
The Court: Objection overruled at this time.
Mr. Reuben: I think he said that Detective Felker
[20] said something.
Mr. Kaveny: He started to and then stopped.
The Court: There will be no conversation. Address
your remarks to the Court.
Mr. Kaveny: Would the reporter please read the last
few remarks of the witness.
A. (Read by reporter.)
Mr. Reuben: I would move that that be stricken, your
Honor.
The Court: It may stand for whatever it is worth.
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. What was the homicide case that
you were working on, sir?
A. It was a case of Mr. Saisi, who had been murdered
in his home the evening of the 27th, October 27th.
Q. Now, you arrived at the station house on the evening
of the 28th, and you were going to tell us what you did
49
with regard to this arrest prior to that in the early morn-
ing hours of October 29th.
A. Right.
Q. Would you tell us, please.
(21) A. Detective Felker showed me a picture of one
James Monroe and also his police record, and stated, he
told me that Mr. Monroe—
Mr. Reuben: Your Honor—
The Court: Do not state what he said.
By the Witness: A. I learned that Mr. Monroe had
been identified as having been one of the two persons who
had murdered Mr. Saisi the night before.
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. Were you given any directions or
orders at that time?
A. Yes. We spoke to Chief Pape. This particular
evening we didn’t have anybody in charge of the Homicide.
Our sergeant was off that night, and our immediate superior
would have been Chief Pape, so we spoke to Chief Pape
and he suggested that we go out to the home or the place
of residence, survey the building, and determine what type
of premises it was, and convey this news to him.
Q. Did you do that?
A. He also told us that if he weren’t busy throughout
the night he would meet us throughout the night [22] when
we were about to make the arrest. .
Did you go out and survey the apartment?
Yes, sir, I did.
And report back?
Yes, sir, I did.
About what time was the arrest made?
Around daybreak, that would be.
Prior to that time did you meet with Captain Pape
and other police officers?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Where did you meet with them?
Pre rPLe re
li a atl
LLEVA LABELED
= A 7 ROE ELON MEP LEE
50
A. On Roosevelt Road near Trumbull. I think it was
St. Louis.
Q. What time was that, sir?
A. Around 5:30, I think it was, that morning.
Q. Can you tell me what pelice officers besides your.
self, your partner Howard Felker, and Captain Pape, you
met at that hour and place?
A. The two other homicide cars working that evening,
One car had Detective Frank McMahon and, I think, [23]
his partner—I’m not certain now—I think his partner that
evening was Detective Gerald Sullivan. The other ear, |
believe, was Detective Conway and Detective Prunckle.
Q. What did you do after you met with these people?
A. We went to 1424 South Trumbull Street.
Q. Would you describe in detail what occurred there,
sirt
A. Yes. There Chief Pape assigned us to our posts,
My post was at the back door with Detective Felker and
Detective Gerald Sullivan, Chief Pape and his chauffeur,
who is Detective Jerry Sullivan, not related to the other
Gerald Sullivan.
Q. Where were the remaining officers placed?
A. There was one detective, I’m not certain which one,
was in the back, around the back yard. There was one
around the front door. This is outside, now.
Q. Yes.
A. I don’t know where the others were.
[24] Q. Did you enter the premises with Captain Pape!
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. What did you observe Captain Pape doing prior to
the time that you went to the premises?
A. Pardon?
Q. What did you observe Captain Pape do prior to the
time you went to the Monroe premises, immediately prior,
I should say.
51
Strike that.
How did Captain Pape and the rest of you gain entrance?
A. We went to the back door where Chief Pape knocked
on the back door.
Q. What happened?
A. After a short while, a light went on inside the apart-
ment. There is a small window in his back door, and we
could see a colored boy, maybe about 15 or 16 years old.
He came to the door and opened it. Chief Pape asked him
if James Monroe lived there. The boy said yes.
[25] Q. What happened then?
A. Chief Pape and his chauffeur, Detective Jerry Sulli-
van, went into the apartment. He told us to wait there.
Q. To wait, meaning where, sir.
A. At the back door.
Q. All right. Then what happened?
A. About two minutes later a light went on toward the
front part of the apartment. At the back door we could see
through this window, and there was a hallway leading
toward the front, and a light went on in the front part of
the apartment and Chief Pape beckoned to us to come in.
Q. All right. What did you find when you went into
the apartment?
A. T walked through this hallway to the front room.
Mr. Monroe was standing in the center of the front room.
Chief Pape asked me to stand guard with him.
Q. Was any other police officer with Mr. Monroe at
that time?
A. No, Along with me, Detective Jerry Sullivan [26]
came in, and the two of us were asked to stand guard.
Q. How was Mr. Monroe dressed at that time?
A. He had a white T-shirt and a pair of shorts on.
Q. Was he given any other clothes?
A. Yes. Just about that time Detective Jerry Sullivan
came out of the bedroom and he was holding a pair of—
5
i
ees ee |
VIIA OT
SOL AL READ ALE TIO LE IM LEN MDE BILLIE POH
SEAR PAI aE GN Se LPNS PAT OF De
SR RA eB
3
-
‘4
=
‘
“
if
§
2
a»
xy
=
t
%:
2
§
52
they looked like overall pants, maybe with paint or some
kind of white stuff all over the pants.
Q. The second Jerry Sullivan you are referring to js
the Deputy Chief of Detectives’ chauffeur, is that right?
A. Yes, sir. That’s right.
[27] Q. What happened after that, if you recall?
A. Well, there was a lot of yelling and screaming,
There were four or five children running around the house,
calling us all sorts of profane names. There was a lot
of noise.
Q. Did Mr. Monroe say anything to you at that time?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. Did Captain Pape in your presence say anything to
Mr. Monroe at that time?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe then removed from the premises?
A. Yes. We were there possibly five to ten minutes, and
at that time—he said he wanted to change his clothes, but
he had a pair of pants on and Detective Jerry Sullivan
gave him a jacket to put on. It was a chilly evening,
We then went outside of the apartment, and outside of
the apartment he was handcuffed and broughi to the squad
car.
Q. Did you take him to the station?
A. No. One of the other squads did.
[28] Q. One of the other squads took him to the station?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have occasion to see Mr. Monroe thereafter
in the custody of the police?
A. No, no.
Q. I ask you, sir: Were there thirteen police officers
with you at that time?
A. I have enumerated the policemen that were there.
I do not know what that counts up to.
Q. Well, there were eight police officers with you!
53
A. Well, let’s try it again.
Q. All right.
A. There was Chief Pape, his chauffeur, Detective
Jerry Sullivan.
Q. Two.
A. Detective Prunckle. Detective Conway. Detective
MeMahon. Detective Gerald Sullivan. My partner, Howard
Felker, who is now deceased, and myself.
Q. That would be eight.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see any police officers on that occasion
break through two doors?
(29] A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer break through one
door?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer wake the Monroe
couple with flashlights?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer force the Monroes, or
either of them, at gunpoint to leave their bed?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any police officer at gunpoint force
either or both the Monroes to stand naked in the center of
the living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer arouse any of the six
Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any of the police officers herd these
children into the living room?
A. No, sir.
Or any other room in the house?
No, sir.
Did you see Detective or Captain or Deputy [30]
8
x
3
aSIRLa RUM MR EA
aon EE SEN Site ee eee
LETRA PE ATE TiS Ie Wie
Sa FLOR EOD 2S CN LV IAR MH thn
On he ee ee Se ee mk ae,
EEE NS ns
54
Chief of Detectives, Frank Pape, strike Mr. Monroe several
times with his flashlight?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape at any time call Mr.
Monroe ‘‘nigger’’?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear him at any time call Mr. Monroe
‘*black boy’’?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any officer push Mrs. Monroe?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any officer lay a hand on Mrs, Monroe
in any fashion whatsoever?
A. No, sir.
Q. Incidentally, did you see Mrs. Monroe at any time!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you see Mrs. Monroe?
A. About a minute or two minutes after we had entered
the apartment, Mrs. Monroe walked out of the bedroom
with a blanket wrapped about her.
Q. Did she thereafter change her clothes?
A. I don’t remember.
[31] Q. Did you see any officer hit any of the children!
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any officer kick any of the children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any officer push any child to the floor!
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer ransack any room in
the house?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer throwing clothes from
closets to the floor?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer dumping drawers?
55
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Ripping mattress covers?
A. No, sir.
Q. Officer Higgins, you have been on the force for ten
years—fourteen—no, twenty years?
A. 26 years.
Q. 26 years?
A. Yes, sir.
[32] Q. You were in Homicide how long, sir?
A. Almost eleven years.
Q. Was there anything different in the arrest of James
Monroe, as charged with murder, than there would be of
any other?
A. No, sir.
Mr, Reuben: I object to that question.
The Court: He has already answered.
Mr. Reuben: I was too late.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine, Mr. Reuben.
(33] Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. Officer Higgins, you mentioned two or three times
about a chauffeur-driver. Did Captain Pape have a chauf-
feur, is that it?
A. There was a man driving his ear, a detective who
was driving his car that night.
Q. That was his chauffeur?
A. The reason I refer to him as the chauffeur, I’m try-
ing to distinguish between the two Jerry Sullivans,
Q. Isee. His job was primarily to drive Captain Pape,
is that it?
A. I don’t know what his job primarily was.
Q. Well, did he have a chauffeur’s hat?
A. No, sir.
Poet Pee
PGT OE TOE IE PT SEN SAND OS TY BV LRA eT eS
OTE GIP ES ELD
56
Q. Now, when you came into the Monroe apartment
Mr. Monroe was in his underwear, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Standing in the living room, right?
A. Yes.
Q. In front of all of his children, right?
[34] A. No. His children were not all there at that time,
Q. How many children were there?
A. Five or six.
Q. How old were they?
A
Q
A.
The oldest would be about sixteen, maybe seventeen,
What was the next one down the line?
Well, I don’t know, but the youngest, I’d say, may
have been around three years old.
So there were some small children as well?
Yes.
They were frightened, weren’t they?
I don’t know if they were frightened.
Was there any yelling going on?
Yes. I said they were calling us profane names,
Who tripped?
I don’t know if anyone tripped.
Were any of the children pushed down?
I saw no one pushed down.
You saw no one pushed down?
No.
Q. Were you in uniform?
No, sir, I was not.
Was anyone in uniform?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, when Mr. Monroe was taken into custody, was
he allowed to see a lawyer?
A. The last I saw of Mr. Monroe was when he left for
the building at 11th and State.
fehl Pred ease
57
Q. So as far as you know, he was not allowed to see a
lawyer, is that correct?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection, your Honor.
By the Witness: A. I don’t know.
The Court: He may answer, if he knows.
By the Witness: A. I don’t know.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. Did you have a search warrant?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you testify in the case of Monroe versus Pape
for Captain Pape?
A. I was at the trial, yes, sir.
Q. And you testified as a witness for Captain Pape?
(36] A. I testified, yes, sir.
Q. You told your story then to the jury that heard the
case of Monroe versus Pape, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Reuben: That is all.
The Court: Is there any redirect examination?
Mr, Kaveny: No further examination, your Honor.
The Court: All right, thank you, sir. You are excused.
The Witness: Thank you, your Honor.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness, Mr. Kaveny.
(There was a short interruption, after which the follow-
ing further proceedings were had herein, in open court, in
the presence and hearing of the jury:)
The Clerk: Take the stand, please. Raise your right
hand, sir.
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
58
[37] ANTON J. PRUNCKLE, called as a witness on be.
half of the plaintiff herein, having been first duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows;
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
State your name, sir.
Anton J. Prunckle, P-r-u-n-c-k-l-e.
Your address, sir?
10421 South Maryland.
Your occupation, sir?
Police officer, City of Chicago.
How long have you been so employed?
Since the year of 1945, approximately 23 years.
Directing your attention to the morning of October
29, 1958, what division were you assigned to?
A. I was assigned to the Homicide Unit of the Chicago
Police Department.
Q. On that morning did you participate in the arrest
of James Monroe?
A. I did, sir.
Q. Will you tell us, sir, what transpired that morning
[38] prior to that arrest, regarding the arrest?
A. Well, upon reporting for duty, we were working the
first watch starting at midnight, we were sitting in the
office typing up a report, when Officer Felker and Higgins
approached me and my partner, Frank McMahon, and
showed us a photo of a Negro gentleman and his record,
stating that this gentleman had been—
Mr. Reuben: Your Honor—
The Court: Just state what you saw or observed, sir.
By the Witness: A. I observed a photo of a colored
gentleman and a police record.
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. Was there a name on that photo!
A. No, sir.
eOrererers
~7OX™7 ye S ee a
99
Q. All right. What did you do then?
A. We were then instructed to assemble at a point at
¢, Louis and Roosevelt at five o’clock in the morning.
Q. Who was present at that assembly point, sirt
39] A. At that assembly point, my partner and myself,
aptain Deputy Chief of Detectives Frank Pape, his
river, Jerry Sullivan, Detective Gerald Sullivan, Conway,
ficer Detective Higgins, and Felker.
Q. Where did you proceed from there, sir?
A. We then went to a residence, an apartment building
| 1424 South Trumbull.
Q. What transpired there?
A. We were stationed at various positions. I was sta-
oned in the rear of this first floor apartment building at
24 Trumbull, in the rear.
My partner then went into the front and the other detec-
ves entered the place. Detective Conway and myself were
e only ones that were outside.
Q. All right. Where were you stationed?
A. I was stationed—prior te entrance being made into
ye apartment, at that time I was stationed on the south
de of this apartment building and then stationed myself
t the back door of the kitchen of this apartment.
{0} Q. What did you observe with regard to how police
ficers gained entrance to the building?
A. Somebody let them in through the back door, that’s
re only thing I know of, while I was stationed on the
uth side, and then I stationed myself to the rear.
Q. Were you able to observe anything that transpired
) the apartment?
A. I was able to—the kitchen was lit. I was able to see
eople and police officers in the apartment.
Q. What did you observe the police officers doing?
A. I noticed them going into one room and then come
ut and then they were talking to a colored gentleman.
ee m ~—e
BR moe EN ea
EEE
60
Q. How was he dressed?
A. At that time he had a T-shirt on, I don’t remember
—it was a T-shirt or boxer shorts or both that he had op,
Q. Did he thereafter put on any other clothes?
A. He then disappeared from our view. They went
[41] to the front section of the apartment.
Q. What happened after that?
A. Then later this gentleman came out through the rear
kitchen entrance and handcuffs was placed on him by my
partner, Frank McMahon, and attached to his wrist, and
we transported him back to 1121 State Street.
Q. Do you know the identity of the gentleman you
arrested?
A. I did learn by name he was James Monroe.
Q. How was he dressed when he was brought out of
the apartment?
A. He was fully dressed, sir, but I don’t recall what he
was wearing.
Q. Pants?
A. Yes. He had pants on, and it was a short jacket,
I remember.
Q. And shoes?
A. And shoes. I think the pants still had paint on
them, because he remarked that he was doing some paint-
ing.
[42] Q. Were there thirteen police officers, yourself in-
cluded, who were out on this arrest?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officers break through two
doors and gain entrance to the apartment?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer break through even
one door?
A. No, sir.
61
Q. Did you see any police officer forcing either of the |
Monroes, husband and wife, to leave their bed at gunpoint? g
A. No, sir, I did not. ;
Q. Did you see either of the Monroes standing naked in
the center of their living room at gunpoint? :
A. No, sir. ;
Q. Did you see either of them standing in the living
room naked?
A. No, sir.
Q Did you see any of the police officers sing any
of the Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any of the police officers herding chil-
dren into the living room?
[43] A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see Captain Pape strike Mr. Monroe several
times with his flashlight?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape call Mr, Monroe ‘‘nig-
ger’ or ‘‘black boy’’?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer push Mrs. Monroe?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer hit or kick any or
several of the Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer push several or any
of the Monroe children to the floor?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer ransacking every room
or any room?
A. No, sir,
Q. Did you see any police officer throwing clothes from
closets ?
A. No, sir.
—_ ESLER TE ES I TNE 2 EMR
4 vans. i os st c< ~~
- COMET HE RIL LOE OSIM RALLIES EMER RN ELEY MOE ID NET LOT TOS
62
Q. Did you see any police officers dumping drawers}
[44] A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer ripping mattress
covers?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. You were outside during the arrest, were you not,
Officer? You were outside of the apartment?
A. At the time when they entered, yes, sir, I was out-
side. I never did—
Q. You never went inside?
A. No, sir.
Q. So the fact is that you were not in a position to see
much of what went on in the apartment, correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Q. Or hear much of what went on in the apartment, is
that correct?
A. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Reuben: That is all.
The Court: Is there any redirect examination?
Mr. Kaveny: No redirect, your Honor.
[45] The Court: All right. Thank you, sir. You are
excused.
The Witness: Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness, Mr. Kaveny.
(There was a short interruption, after which the
following further proceedings were had herein,
in open court, in the presence and hearing of the
jury, to-wit:)
— aeRO RO aR 8.
63
The Clerk: Take the stand, sir. Raise your right hand
and be sworn.
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
PATRICK D. CONWAY, called as a witness by the plain-
tiff herein, having been first duly sworn, was examined
and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. Would you state your name and address, please, sir.
A. Patrick D. Conway, 6842 North Dowagiac.
Q. Mr. Conway, you are employed how?
A. Presently?
[46] Q. Yes.
A. Iam a policeman for the City of Chicago.
Q. You have been in that capacity for how long?
A. Twelve and a half years, sir.
Q. Directing your attention to October 29, 1958, did
you have occasion to participate in the arrest of James
Monroe?
A. Yes, I did.
47} Q. Can you describe for us, sir, what transpired
prior to the arrest and regarding that arrest that you know
about ?
A. When I reported to work that evening we were told
that a picture of James Monroe was identified. Also, we
were shown his record and was told he was identified by
the vietim’s wife, Mrs. Saisi, and that we were to place him
under arrest in the early morning hours.
Q. Did you do so?
A. Yes, sir. We met on Roosevelt and St. Louis Ave-
nues at five or 5:30 in the morning.
Q. Who was present at that assembly point?
A. Deputy Chief Pape, Jerry Sullivan, myself, Detee-
SESTRD SAR SP SPO eon BOTAN AG : tame ae TSS
* Cady N SRI AE SOTA ES SPEER RR a
»
Lat
—— LORELEI
64
tive Gerald Sullivan, Detective Anton Prunckle, and Johy
Higgins, Detective John Higgins.
Q. Approximately eight officers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. After you met at the assembly point, did you proceed
to Monroe’s house?
A. We proceeded to the alley, yes, sir.
[48] Q. Were you given an assignment?
A. Yes. I was instructed by Deputy Chief Pape to
remain in the alley and guard against any type of escape
through the alley.
Q. What was the next thing that you observed, sir!
A. In about ten or fifteen minutes later, they came out
with James Monroe and placed him in the squad car, a
squad car.
Q. How was Mr. Monroe dressed at that time?
A. I believe he had some type of a jacket on, and nor-
mal street clothes.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe handeuffed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. About what time of day was this?
A. At, I believe, the closest would be daybreak at that
time.
Q. Were there thirteen police officers assigned, includ-
ing yourself, to make this arrest?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see Captain Pape strike Mr. Monroe sev-
eral times with his flashlight?
[49] <A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape call Mr. Monroe
‘‘nigger’’ or ‘‘black boy’’?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine.
Q.
A.
Q.
65
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
You were in the alley the whole time, correct?
That is correct, sir.
Therefore, you really do not know what occurred
up in the Monroe apartment?
A.
No, sir.
Mr. Reuben: That is all.
The Court: Is there any redirect?
Mr. Kaveny: No redirect, your Honor.
The Court: All right. Thank you, sir. You are excused.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness.
[50]
(There was a short interruption, after which the
following further proceedings were had herein,
in open court, in the presence and hearing of
the jury:)
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
JERRY J. SULLIVAN, called as a witness on behalf of
the plaintiff herein, having been first duiy sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
re re Fe
Q.
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Would you state your name and your address, sir.
Jerry J. Sullivan, 1244 North Laramie Avenue.
Your occupation, sir?
Tam a Chicago police officer.
How long have you been so employed?
Twenty years.
Directing your attention to the morning of October
29, 1958, what was your assignment?
PRESEN YELLE A MILNE AME AIRE
F
&
:
5
5
LEA Le LF RSP
LIPS
DORSAL RO Wee nr are! ye
Ne PEI RS MET IK GT Ie nD
66
A. I was assigned as a driver for the Deputy [51] Chief
of Detectives, Frank Pape at the time.
Mr. Reuben: I am sorry, I did not hear the last part
of the answer.
The Court: Will you read the answer, please?
A. (Read by the reporter.)
Mr. Reuben: Thank you.
By Mr. Kaveny: Q. Did you participate in the arrest
of James Monroe on that date?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
[52] Q. Would you tell us, sir, what transpired that
morning regarding this arrest and prior to the arrest
itself.
A. We had knowledge that a man by the name of
James Monroe, whose picture had been identified, had
killed a man by the name of Saisi. As I said, the indi-
vidual’s picture had been identified in the Identification
Section.
At the time Deputy Chief Pape was working the mid-
night watch. I was working the midnight watch along with
him. There had been no supervisor in the Homicide unit.
Captain Pape at the time was the only supervisor of super-
visory rank that was present in the Detective Division.
A plan was then formulated in which we were to go over
to Monroe’s home and place him under arrest for this
murder.
Q. Who were the other police officers that were with
you at that time, that is, in the morning at the time of the
arrest?
A. There was a Detective Gerald Sullivan of the Homi-
cide unit, Detective Frank McMahon of the Homicide unit,
Detective Anton Prunckle from the Homicide unit. Did
I say Frank McMahon?
[538] Q. I believe so, sir.
EO deh Ree A ee ee ae a ee Cie ne st a ee
67
A. Patrick Conway. I believe that’s all I can recall
at the present time.
Q. Were you given any duty assignment with regard
to this arrest?
A. I was assigned with the Deputy Chief of Detectives,
and I was told my duties were to obey his orders whatever
they may be.
Q. Did you accompany him into the house?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Did you observe how entrance was gained to the
house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How was that done, sir?
A. Captain Pape knocked on the front—on the back
door, rather. The door had a window in it which was,
you might say, in the upper third portion of the door.
After several knocks a light went on in the kitchen and
a young boy appeared at the door. The Captain produced
his star through the window pane and asked if James
Monroe lived at that particular home, and he was told—I
was standing right there—we were told that he did live
there. The boy then opened the door to let us in. We
asked where Monroe was at, where [54] his bedroom was,
and we were told that he was in the front portion of the
home, of the flat.
Q. How many police officers entered the apartment with
you at that time?
A. I believe it was just Pape and myself.
Q. What did you do?
A. We proceeded forward to the front end of the
house, down the hallway, which led from the kitchen to the
front room, and the bedroom was right at the end of the
hallway on the lefthand side of the hallway as you approach
the front room.
Q. Would you tell us what transpired at that time?
APY, OER EM
68
A. I turned on the light in the front room and the bed.
room, and Monroe—or the gentleman and a lady who were
in bed who later identified themselves as James Monroe
and Mrs. Monroe—were laying in bed. There were
couple of beer bottles laying on the floor, knocked over, and
we asked if he was James Monroe. He said yes. We asked
him to get out of bed, which he did.
Where was Mr. Monroe taken at that point?
A. Into the front room.
Who took him into the front room?
I did.
How was Mr. Monroe dressed at that time?
He had on a pair of shorts and a T shirt.
Was he given any clothing?
I gave him a pair of slacks and a pair of shoes,
What happened after that, sir, if you recall?
I proceeded to search the bedroom.
[56] Q. How did you go about doing that, sir?
A. Well, I went through the closet. I believe there was
a chest of drawers along the wall. There were pipes in
the upper portion of the room with a radiator on the ceil-
ing for heating purposes. I ran my hand along the radia-
tor, along the pipes.
Q. What were you looking for, sir?
A. Looking for a gun that was used in the murder, and
several shirts that were taken in this particular crime.
Q. Where was Mrs. Monroe while this was going on!
A. She was laying in bed.
Q. What happened after that?
A. I asked her if she would get out of bed. She did.
Q. How was she dressed?
A. She had some type of a jersey sweater-shirt of some
type on the top, and she wrapped the blankets around her
middle.
Q. Where did Mrs. Monroe go?
qv
=
or S
— |
POoPOoPo Po
. —— Ok sh aNOeLY TRIRI OS B EI NGI NNEC OR RNS PS NL AE eM RIN Otc sR
a
69
A. I don’t recall; I didn’t pay any attention.
[57] Q. Did she ever change her clothes thereafter?
A. I believe she did. I believe she put a robe on some-
time later. I didn’t see when or how or where.
}
,
"]
'
Q. What was Captain Pape doing at this time?
A. Pardon me?
Q. What was Captain Pape doing at this time?
A. He helped me search the room, and he also inter-
viewed James Monroe.
Q. How many children in the family? :
A, Idon’t recall. I know there were three or four boys, t
teen-agers. One girl was a teen-ager, I believe, and a little )
child.
Q. Of these children, how many of them were in the
front room?
A. Well, during the time that we were there, I believe
that they were all in the front room at one time or another.
Q. Did any police officer bring any of these children
[58] into the room.
A. No. They walked in and out.
Q. Was there any conversation by any of these children
with you or with the police officers who were with you?
A. Well, there was verbal abuse. That is, we were
called several vile names by these children.
Q. Did Mr. Monroe engage in any conversation with
you people?
PSL REIL Ie TIRE DT IC IEE RE Sy OE
A. Not to me, he didn’t.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe then taken out of the house?
A, You, sir.
Q. How long were you in the apartment?
A. Somewhere in the vicinity of ten to fifteen minutes.
Q. Did you accompany Mr. Monroe to the squad ear? :
A. Yes, sir, ,
Q. Did you take Mr. Monroe to the police station? a
A. No, sir. t
‘paces hoa ad
70
Q. Tell me, sir, did you observe thirteen police [59]
officers, including yourself, making this arrest?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer breaking through
one or two doors and then gain entrance to the house?
A. No, sir. There were no doors broken.
Q. Did you observe anyone waking the Monroe couple
with flashlights?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer forcing the Mon.
roes at gunpoint to leave their bed?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer at gunpoint
forcing the Monroes to stand naked in the center of the
living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe the Monroes at any time standing
naked in the center of the living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer rousing the six
Monroe children?
[60] A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer herding any of
these six children into the living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you at any time overhear Captain Pape call
Mr. Monroe either ‘‘nigger’’ or ‘‘black boy”’ or both?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe Captain Pape at any time striking
Mr. Monroe with his flashlight?
“A, No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer push Mrs. Monroe?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer place any hand on
Mrs. Monroe?
71
=
:
7
oka eg
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any officers hitting the several
Monroe children?
A. No, sir. ;
(61] Q. Did you observe any police officer kicking any
on the Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer pushing the chil-
dren to the floor?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe police officers or any of them ran-
sacking every room in the house?
A. I searched one bedroom, but I-—
Q. Did you ransack that bedroom?
A. Just for the purpose of searching for the shirts, as
I said, and the gun.
Q. When you searched the bureau, what did you do?
A. ITopened the drawers and stuck my hand underneath
the clothes and into the clothes, as they were folded, and
searched for this particular weapon.
Q. Did you take any of the clothes out of the drawer?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you close the draw r after you had done that?
A. Yes, sir, surely.
[62] Q. Did you follow the same procedure through all
the drawers?
A. Through all the drawers.
Q. What did you do about the closet?
A. I went through the closet. There were several bags
of clothing that were on the floor of the closet and several
pieces of clothing that were hung up on hangers.
Q. What did you do in regard to that?
A. TI patted them down, I searched them with my hands;
I patted them and I left them. 4
Q. Did you throw anything out of the closet? :
Se i a
REP:
ew
LIE GPELL IS
PEEP AE LOTS INGO WMS,
Tye OMe
EPs
SO Le ee Peres eT,
™ %
a
72
A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. Did you observe any other police officer throwing
clothes from closets onto the floor?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer dumping drawers}
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer ripping maitress
covers?
A. No, sir.
Q. You have been a police officer for how long?
A. 20 years.
[63] Q. How long were you with the Homicide Division?
A. I was in the Detective Division,
Q. I beg your pardon. How long have you been in the
Detective Division?
A. Well, I was in from 1951 to 1961.
Q. What is your present duty assignment?
A. I am now a sergeant in the Robbery Section in
Area 6.
Q. How long have you been in that rank and position!
A. Iwas promoted to sergeant in January of 1961, and
I have been in the Robbery Section since May of 1963 as
a sergeant.
Q. Until the present time?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. Officer Sullivan, in 1958 you were Captain Pape’s
chauffeur, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you said that you went out to arrest James
Monroe for the murder of somebody. You know [64] now
that James Monroe did not murder that person, do you not?
73
A. Yes, sir.
Q. He was never charged with the murder, was he?
A. No, sir, he wasn’t.
Q. Now, did you testify in the case which James Mon-
roe brought against Captain Pape?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In the Federal Court here?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You testified for Captain Pape?
A. I testified because I was named in the suit by James
Monroe and his attorneys.
Q. When you walked into the Monroe bedroom, were
they awake or were they asleep?
A. I believe they were asleep.
Q. Did you put a flashlight on them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Nobody put a flashlight on them. Is that your tes-
timony?
A. Not to my knowledge. We turned on the lights, a
light switch.
Q. Neither you nor Captain Pape put a flashlight on
them. Is that your testimony?
[65] A. Not to my knowledge, no.
Is it your testimony that you searched the bedroom?
Yes, sir.
Where was Mrs. Monroe?
She was in bed.
. So you had your back turned to her while you were
searching?
A. At times,
Q. She remained in bed, is that correct?
A. Not the entire time, no.
Q. At what point did she get up?
A. When I asked her to get out of bed because I wanted
to search underneath the mattress.
erore
74
Q. I see. You had completed every other part of your
search?
A. Just about, yes, sir.
Mr. Reuben: Thank you.
The Court: Is that all, Mr. Reuben.
Mr. Reuben: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Is there any redirect, Mr. Kaveny?
Mr. Kaveny: No redirect, yeur Honor.
The Court: All right. Thank you, sir. You are excused,
[66] (Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness,
Mr. Kaveny: May we have a moment, your Honor?
The Court: Would you like a short recess?
Mr. Kaveny: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: All right. We will take a five minute recess,
Take the jury to the jury room.
[67] The Clerk: The case on trial.
The Court: Are you ready to proceed?
Mr. Kaveny: Yes.
Mr. Reuben: Yes, your Henor.
The Court: You may call your next witness.
Mr. Kaveny: Thank you, sir.
(There was a short interruption, after which
the following further proceedings were had
herein, in open court, in the presence and hear-
ing of the jury, to-wit :)
The Clerk: Take the stand, please.
Raise your right hand, please.
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
eatin RD owes EVR ES A REAP OONT
75
PRANK A. MeMAHION, called as a witness on behalf of
the plaintiff herein, hiaaving been first duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. State your name, your address, and your present
occupation, sir.
\. Frank A. MeMahon, 7906 South Whipple Street,
Chieago. I am an Assistant General Agent for the [68]
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company.
Q. Mr. McMahon, in October, 1958, you were employed
by whom?
A. By the City of Chicago, Department of Police.
Q. What was your duty assignment at that time?
A. I was a detective in the Homicide Section of the
Detective Bureau.
Q. Directing your attention, sir, to the morning of
Qctober 29, 1958, did you have occasion to participate in
the arrest of James Monroe?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. Will you describe for us, sir, what oceurred prior
to the arrest, regarding that arrest?
A. Yes, sir. When I reported for duty at midnight on
October 29th, I was informed by the sergeant, Edward
Cagney, that a James Monroe, whose picture was shown
to me, and his criminal record, had been identified as one
of two men who had killed Peter Saisi.
[69] Q. Were you given any directions at that time, sir?
A. Yes, sir, I was old to effect his arrest, to assist in
effecting his arrest.
We had no immediate sergeant that particular night on
the midnight watch, so we were informed that the Deputy
Chief of Detectives, if at all possible, Frank Pape, would
meet us and assist us in the arrest.
ote ae
76
Q. Did you meet with Captain Pape?
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. When did you do that?
A. It was approximately 5:15 or 5:30 that morning.
Q. Where did you meet him?
A. On Roosevelt Road at St. Louis, sir.
Q. After you met him—incidentally, how many officers
were there, including yourself and Captain Pape, at
Roosevelt and St. Louis?
A. Myself, my partner Anthony Prunckle, there was
Officers Conway and Sullivan, there was Officer Felker,
who is now deceased, sir, and his partner, John Higgins,
and Captain Pape and his driver, Sullivan.
[70] Q. A total of eight?
A. Yes, sir, eight.
Q. After you met with these people at that time and
place, what did you do?
A. We met with Captain Pape at Roosevelt and St,
Louis and proceeded to the home of Mr. Monroe, the apart-
ment of Mr. Monroe.
Q. When you arrived there, did Captain Pape make
any duty assignment for you?
A. Yes, sir. He instructed me to go to the front of the
building and remain there until he notified me to do other-
wise.
Q. Did you do that?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. How long did you remain out there, sir?
A. Iwas only out there for a very short period of time.
It was a minute, two minutes at the very, very most.
I no sooner got out there when Captain Pape was motion-
ing me to come in.
Q. And did you?
A. Yes, sir, I did. I went in through the front of the
building.
aes Shy
B= fe Winer i pt emer 2 - = = > ae a a ae et
ESE FIA TPE ERLE TORR SER | tee a, PRT
17
[71] Q. Who let you in?
A. A woman who later was identified as Mrs. Monore.
(72] Q. How was Mrs. Monroe dressed at that time?
A. I ean recall that she had a robe. It was like a
flowered robe.
Q. Did you enter the living room, sir?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Tell us that you observed transpiring in the living
room at that time.
A. A man who was identified as Mr. Monroe was
standing in the living room and Captain Pape was in the
living room, and I was instructed to stand at the hallway
of the living room.
Q. Did you observe anyone carrying on any conversa-
tions at that time?
A. There was a lot of conversation. There was a lot of
talking and yelling.
Q. Who was doing the yelling?
A. There were children, five or six children were scream-
ing and yelling.
Q. How old were these children?
A. They ranged in age, sir, from very young, three or
four years old, up to fifteen or sixteen, if memory serves
me right.
Q. Which of these children were doing the yelling?
[73] A. All of them seemed to be yelling, sir.
Q. What was the nature of their yelling, sir?
A. Well, they were swearing at us for being police in
their home.
Q. Did Mr. Monroe participate in this?
A. Mr. Monroe seemed all right. He was standing there
talking to Captain Pape.
Q. How was Mr. Monroe dressed at that time?
A. In underclothing, sir. He had shorts and some type
ofa T shirt on.
a ek B EE stele ie a Pree tae oS 65 Sp aed Fee
LOL TRING OM
eee ee eee ee
bee ¢
78
Q. Was he thereafter dressed?
A. Yes, a pair of dungarees and some type of a shirt
was given to him to put on.
Q. Was he taken from the house?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the elapsed time that you were there?
A. In the house, sir?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. Ten minutes, it seems like. Ten minutes would bea
long time. Ten or fifteen minutes.
Q. Now, sir, were thirteen police officers with you when
you went to that apartment to make that [74] arrest?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were investigating a murder at that time?
A. Yes, sir. A crime in fact had been committed and I
was told that James Monroe was identified as the man re-
sponsible for the murder.
Q. Did you see any police officer break through any door
to gain entrance to that house?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer break through two
doors to gain entrance?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer wake the Monroe
couple with flashlights?
A. No, sir. AsI said, when I got in, they were up.
Q. Did you see any police officer force either of the
Monroes to leave their bed and stand naked in the center
of the living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any of the police officers rouse any of
the six Monroe children?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer herd any of [75] the
Monroe children into the frent room?
79
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Incidentally, regarding the children, was there any
police officer having those children in custody?
A, Not to my knowledge.
Q. Were the children free to move about?
A, They were moving about, yes, sir.
Q. Did you see Captain Pape strike Mr. Monroe with
his flashlight?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see him strike Mr. Monroe with his flashlight
several times?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape call Mr. Monroe ‘‘nig-
ger’’?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Or ‘black boy’’?
A. No, I did not, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer push Mrs. Monore?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Was Mrs. Monroe in the custody of any police officer?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was she free to move about?
(76) A. Yes. She let me in.
Q. Did you see any police officer hit any of the Monroe
children?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer kick any of the Monroe
children?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any of the police officers push any of the
Monroe children to the floor?
A, No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer ransack—strike that.
Did you see the police officers, or any of them, ransacking
every room in the house?
ENG PLE REDE Ss LEE POLES POO ES RET
Pe ET BV E PPT OPERA PITRE NETTIE
CAME TALE AO LE Set
ues See gos
80
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see the police officers ransack any room jp
the house?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officers throwing clothes
from closets onto the floor of any room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer dumping drawers!
A. No, sir, I did not.
[77] Q. Did you observe any police officer ripping a
mattress?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. How long were you a police officer in 1958?
A. Thirteen years in 1958.
Q. How long had you been assigned to the Homicide
Division in October of 1958?
A. Three and a half years, sir.
Q. How long after that did you remain in the Homicide
Division?
A. Until October 1st, 1960.
Q. Did you terminate your employment with the Police
Department at that time?
A. Yes, sir. I resigned.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross examine.
Mr. Reuben: Thank you.
[78] Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. Did you observe, Officer, any of the searching of
the house?
A. No, sir, I did not see any searching.
Q. So that in your presence there was no searching
at all?
A. No, sir.
SiN CT 6 Ry CRE EY PORT ROR TUNE TS SE Uk BES SNS elie NOTE ita” \
81
By Officer Sullivan or anybody?
No.
Did you observe Mr. Monroe with either Captain
Pape or with Officer Gerry Sullivan, say, in the living
room ?
Q.
‘
Q.
~
Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Monroe was a colored gentleman, wasn’t he?
Yes.
And he was a gentleman, wasn’t he?
He was to me, yes.
And Mrs. Monroe was a lady, was she not?
She sure was.
A colored lady?
Yes.
Is it your testimony that you heard the three-year-
old how: for example, swearing and cussing?
[79] A. Iheard all of the children yelling, screaming and
swearing. Which one said what or did what, I don’t know.
Q. So it is not your testimony that all of the children
were swearing, is it, Officer?
A. Yes.
Q. Isee. Including the three-year-old?
A. Well, I know he was there. What he was—
Q. Isee. What cuss words did the three-year-old utter,
Officer ?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection.
The Court: If he knows, he may answer.
By the Witness: A. I don’t know.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. Now, when you and your brother
officers went to the home of Mr. Monroe, did you believe
he was a murderer?
A. I was informed that he had been identified as a
man who had killed Peter Saisi.
Q. Well, then, you did believe he was a murderer?
A. I knew a crime in fact was committed and I had
Ororererer
ERE EE LOIRE “ASR SPT as OTS
we
ict UREN
DA BAA Nie ATE ATY NLL PH oe veiw ee
82
reasonable grounds to believe that James Monroe [89]
was one of the people wanted for it, sir.
Q. So that you thought you were arrcsting a murderer!
A. I was doing my job of arresting James Monroe,
Q. And you thought James Monroe was a murderer,
is that correct?
A. I did not know he was a murderer.
Q. You did not know whether he was a murderer or
not?
A. No. I could not judge the man.
. You thought he might be innocent, is that it!
. Possibly, yes.
. You had no feelings either way?
A. Other than, as I stated, that I had reason to belieye
—I knew a crime had been committed and he had been
identified as being responsible for the crime.
Q. So that you knew he was identified as a murderer—
A. Yes.
Q. —by somebody?
A
Q
Q
A
Q
Yes.
. Is that correct?
[81] <A. That is correct.
Q. And I take it that Captain Pape knew that, is that
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you were dealing with a man accused of
murder, a murder suspect, is that correct?
A. Right.
Q. And it is your testimony that through all this every-
thing was calm and peace and quiet in terms of the officers’
demeanor and the way they approached the Monroes, is
that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they were very gentle with accused murderer
Monroe?
LONE TICE NIM EI 8
83
A. Yes, sir. I had a nice conversation with Mr. Mon-
roe.
Q. You Did.
A. Yes.
Mr. Reuben: Thank you.
The Court: Is there any redirect?
Mr. Kaveny: No, your Honor.
The Court: All right. Thank you, sir. You are excused.
The Witness: Thank you.
(82] (Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness.
(There was a short interruption, after which
the following further proceedings were had
herein, in open, in the presence and hearing
of the jury, to-wit:)
The Clerk; Take the stand, sir. Raise your right hand,
please.
(The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
GERALD T. SULLIVAN, called as a witness on behalf
of the plaintiff herein, having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
State your name and your address, please, sir.
Gerald T. Sullivan, 7808 South Wood.
Your occupation, sir?
I am a policeman, a police officer.
Your rank?
Lieutenant.
What division, sir?
The Central Services Division, the Bureau of Staff
Services,
POPrPOPo>S
So ERLE NYPL MEN EEE LENT LED IIE ICDA BOE I
ORS I
4
t
\ sag ye
PFOPOoPES
years.
©
OPore>
84
How long have you been a police officer?
26 years.
How long have you been a lieutenant?
Seven.
Prior to that where were you assigned, sir?
I wa: assigned to the Homicide Division for thirteen
Were you a sergeant in the Homicide Division?
I was, for about four months or five months.
You were, prior to that, a detective?
Yes,
In the Homicide Division?
Yes.
Directing your attention, sir, to the morning of
October 29, 1958, did you have occasion to participate in
the arrest of James Monroe?
A.
Q.
I did.
Will you tell us, sir, regarding that arrest, what
transpired prior to the arrest?
A.
Well, I was working the midnight shift and I came
to work shortly before midnight, and I was informed that
we had to meet Chief Pape, Deputy Chief Pape at that
time, and go and pick up a man by the [84] name of
Monroe, whose picture was identified in the B. of I.
>OPO>O
Was there a partner with you?
Yes, Patrick Conway.
All right. Did you proceed to make that arrest!
Yes. We met Chief—
Go ahead, sir.
Yes, sir. We met Chief Pape and we proceeded to
the wlibtens.
Q. Where did you meet Captain Pape?
A.
It was on 12th Street. I don’t know whether it was
12th and Trumbull or—to my best recollection, 12th and.
Trumbull or St. Louis, I’m not positive.
Bae str
85
Q. Who was present besides you and Captain Pape and
your partner, Conway?
A, There were Howard Felker, John Higgins, Prunckle
and MeMahon.
Q. Were these all members of the Homicide Division?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you proceed from there—
A. To the home of James Monroe.
Q. All right. Will you tell us how entrance was [85]
gained into the home?
A, Well, Chief Pape and Detective Gerry Sullivan and
nyself and John Higgins went to the back door.
The other men—my partner, Pat Conway, I think was
stationed in the alley or in the back yard, and others were
deployed around the house, stationed around the building.
When we got to the back door, Chief Pape rapped on
the door and shortly thereafter a young boy came, put the
light on in the kitchen and Chief Pape told him that we
were the police and showed him the star, and he was ad-
mitted, he and Gerry Sullivan.
They went in and shortly thereafter Chief Pape—the
light went on in the front part of the apartment and Chief
Pape called myself and John Higgins in and when we got
in, Monroe was standing in the parlor.
[86] Q. Who was with Mr. Monroe in the parlor at that
time?
A. Chief Pape.
Q. How was Mr. Monroe dressed?
A. To the best of my recollection, I think he had a pair
of shorts on, and a T-shirt.
Q. Was he thereafter given any clothing?
A. Yes, he was, shortly thereafter.
Q. What transpired after that, sir, if you recall?
A. Well, there were a number of children there. How
many, I don’t know, but they were running back and forth
oe
oer Se eee ws ele ee ee Basa ae .
86
in the house, and there was a little disturbance on their
part, but other than that, Monroe was given his Clothes ang
he was informed that his picture had been identified, The
total time we were there, I imagine, was about ter minutes,
and we left.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe informed that his picture had been
identified in connection with a murder?
A. That I don’t recall. I don’t think so, I think it Was
in connection with a robbery, I think that he was told.
[87] Q. Is there something about good police work that
you would not tell him that he had been charged with a
murder at that time?
A. Certainly.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Monroe?
A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. How was she dressed?
A. When I came in she had a blanket or something
wrapped around her. Later on, I believe she had a robe on.
I don’t know where she changed or how she changed, but
when I saw her first, she had a blanket Wrapped around
her.
Q. Incidentally, Officer, did Mrs. Monroe change into
her robe in front of any police officer?
A. Not that I know. I didn’t see her change.
Q. Did you see any police officers conducting any search
of the apartment?
A. I was stationed in the parlor with John Higgins. |
didn’t see anything in any of the rooms. When we came in
we stayed in the parlor, Higgins and I, with Monroe.
Q. Did you hear any of the conversation of the [88]
children directed toward the police officers?
A. To the best of my recollection, it wasn’t good lan-
guage. They were calling us names and nastv words.
Q. Did Mr. Monroe use any language like that?
A. He was talking, but I can’t recall exactly what he
87
said, but he was talking fairly loud, but what he said I
can’t recall, exactly what he said.
Q. Did you hear any language of Mrs. Monroe?
A, Well, she was abusive, yes.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe placed under arrest?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. How was he dressed when he was placed under
arrest?
A. He had a pair of dark blue pants on. They looked
like work pants. They had either paint or plaster or some-
thing on them, and he had a dark jacket. He was given
his shoes, and that’s when we left.
Q. Was he placed in a squad ear?
A. Yes, he was.
[89] Q. Did you accompany him in that squad cart
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, Lieutenant Sullivan, were there thirteen police
officers involved in this arrest at Mr. Monroe’s house?
A. No. There were only the men IT meptioned.
Q. About eight?
A, Myseif and Conway, Higgins and Felker, Prunckle
and MeMahon, Chief Pape and Jerry Sullivan,
Q. About eight?
A. Eight.
Q. You were investigating a murder?
A. We were assigned to this. T didn’t take part in the
original investigation, but the men that had been assigned
to it asked us to make this arrest and we came to work.
Q. This arrest was being made in connectian with a
robbery ?
A. That’s right, yes.
Q. This gentleman was one of the accused?
A. That’s right.
Q. Did you see any police officer break through [90)
two doors to gain entrance to the apartment?
OI SEO PMGL LA NOL
Toye
SRI PEABO GOT
POPP et PLUGS
a
88
A. No, sir. The door was opened for us.
4. Did you see any police officer break through one
door to gain entrance to the apartment?
A. No, sir.
[91] Q. Did you see any police officer wake the Monroe
couple with flashlights?
A. No; absolutely not.
Q. Did you see any police officer force either of the
Monroes at gunpoint to leave their bed?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any police officer force either of the
Monroes at gunpoint to stand naked in the center of the
living room?
A. No, sir, absolutely not.
Q. Incidentally, Lieutenant Sullivan, did you see either
of the Monroes at any time without clothes on?
A. No.
Q. Did you at any time see any police officer point a
gun at either of the Monroes?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any police officer rouse any of the Mon-
roe children?
A. No, I didn’t. I was in the parlor. I didn’t see any
of it.
Q. Did you see any police officer herd the six Monroe
children into the living room?
A. No, no.
[92] Q. Were the children free to move about?
A. They were moving about very freely,
Q. Was there any police officer in charge of the chil-
dren?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Was there any police officer in charge of Mrs.
Monroe?
A. No, sir.
Pees eA
sok ae
89
Q. Did you see Captain Pape strike Mr. Monroe several
times with his flashlight?
A. No.
Q. Did you see Captain Pape strike Mrs. Monroe on
one occasion with his flashlight?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape call Mr. Monroe
“nigger’’?
A. No.
Q. Did you hear Captain Pape call Mr. Monroe ‘black
boy’’?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any police officer push Mrs. Monroe?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. Did you see any police officer lay a hand [93] on
Mrs. Monroe?
A. None whatsoever.
Q. Did you see any police officer hit any of the Monroe
children ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer kick any of the Monroe
children ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer push any Monroe child
to the floor?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any police officer ransack any room in
the house ?
A. No, sir, I didn’t,
Q. Did you see the police officers ransack every room
in the house?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see the police officers throwing clothes from
the closets to the floor?
A. No, sir.
‘%
Di Soll Ea lh dy On La Ea
= PPE ALLER YL BE ATILE ALOE LE LS TEL ONENESS ISITE LE GNI,
ae Me
90
Q. Did you see the police officers dumping drawers}
A. No.
Q. Did you see the police officers ripping [94] mat.
tresses?
A. No, sir.
Q. Incidentally, how long were you in the Homicide
Division?
A. Approximately 13 years.
Q. You left that Division?
A. After I was promoted to Lieutenant.
Q. The date or the year of that?
A. That was January of ’61.
Q. Since then you have been where?
A. Well, I was assigned to the 8th District for a short
time till January—I was promoted October 1 of ’61. I beg
your pardon. I left the 8th District January 13th and I
was assigned to the Chief of Patrol as an aide and as aq
liaison between the Patrol and the Detective Division, |
remained there until November of last year, a year ago last
November, about 14 months ago, and I was then assigned
as the commanding officer of the Auto Pound Division, the
Bureau of Staff Services. That’s where I’m stationed nov,
Q. You are commander of the Auto Pound District,
Bureau of Staff Services at the present time,
A. That’s right.
[95] Mr. Kaveny: Thank you, sir. I have no further
questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine, Mr. Reuben.
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. You had no search warrant when you went to the
Monroes’ house or apartment, did you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were informed that you were going to arrest a
man who had been accused of murder, correct?
91
That’s right?
You were armed?
I was armed?
Were you?
Yes, sir, yes.
All the officers were armed, I take it?
Certainly.
Was Mr. Monroe a colored gentleman?
Yes, he was.
Q. Mrs. Monroe was a colored lady?
Yes, sir.
This was just a very mild treatment of the Monroes
when you went into the house of an accused murderer, is
that correct?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection, your Honor. That is a charac-
terization.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Reuben: I will withdraw the question and rephrase
it, your Honor.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. When you went to the Monroes’
apartment, you thought you were arresting a man who had
committed a violent crime, correct?
A. Yes. He was accused of murder.
The Court: Will you please speak up, sir, so that all
members of the jury can hear you.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. It would be customary to make an
extensive search of the house of such a person, would it not?
A. Ordinarily we would search, yes.
[97] Q. It would be customary to be pretty firm in your
treatment of such a person, would it not?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection, your Honor, as to what was
customary,
The Court: He may answer, if he knows what was usual
and customary.
OPrpSrorererer
i GLP EOL ELNGE LIEGE AT ESTOS NE SEGA OLE LEYS IEEE MEFE
Sak Se 2 PES A hoa OT er Bee a a ERATE RASS aS Sy sent
BAER INP He LO OA
92
By the Witness: A. Normal procedures. If we take a
man into custody, we make sure he’s in custody. There is
no difference in any arrest. The arrest is the same.
By Mr. Reuben: Q. You mean that you would treat
a person that you were arresting for disorderly condue
about the same way that you would treat a person that you
were arresting who was charged with murder?
Mr. Kaveny: Objection, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Reuben: No further questions.
[98] Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. Lieutenant Sullivan, in October of 1958 you had beer
in the Homicide Division for some time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You had been in the Homicide Division for some
time after October, 1958?
A. That’s right.
Q. Was the arrest of Mr. Monroe and the procedures
followed any different than the procedures followed in
arresting anyone accused of murder?
A. No, sir. They were normal operating procedures,
We were following departmental rules and regulations,
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
Recross Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. When you arrest a murderer, do you look for a
weapon?
A. Ordinarily we would, yes, sir.
Q. Do you take more precaution than you would [99]
with a person who was charged with a lesser crime?
A. Well, when you arrest a man you have to take
normal, ordinary precautions, not only for your own life
but to maintain and keep the man in custody. The same
Po REECE S esters on, —
93
precautions are standard operating procedures, whether it
be for robbery, murder, burglary, and so forth.
Q. All of the felonies?
A. That’s right.
Q. All of the violent crimes. Your procedures are
geared to deal with the person who may be violent, is that
not correct, Officer?
A. Yes, and—
Mr. Reuben: You have answered my question. Thank
you.
Redirect Examination by Mr. Kaveny.
Q. Were you going to finish your answer to Mr.
Reuben’s last question, Officer?
The Court: Did you finish your answer, sir.
(100] By the Witness: A. I was going to say that a
man arrested for disorderly conduct could be just as dan-
gerous to us, to our own lives, and the police officers’ lives,
as aman arrested for murder.
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions. Thank you.
The Court: All right. Thank you, sir. You are excused.
(Witness excused.)
The Court: You may call your next witness, Mr. Kaveny.
Mr. Kaveny: May I have a sidebar discussion, your
Honor?
The Court: Do you want the reporter?
Mr. Kaveny: No.
(There was discussion between court and coun-
sel at sidebar, out of the hearing of the jury,
which was not reported.)
(101) (The witness was thereupon duly sworn.)
*
'
[
E
:
t
&
a
:
'
i
;
;
F
ah TRAE TRACI RH Ni PPA TL SERN
94
FRANK W. PAPE, the plaintiff herein, called as a Witness
in his own behalf, having been first duly Sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Kaveny,.
Would you state your name, please.
Frank W. Pape.
What is your rank in the Police Department?
Captain of Police, Traftic Division.
How long have you been in the Police Department!
A. Thirty-three years.
[162] Q. In October of 1958 you were Deputy Chief
Detective?
A. Iwas.
Q. On October 27, 1958, did you have occasion to par-
ticipate in the investigation of Mr. Saisi’s murder?
A. I did.
Q. Did you interrogate Mrs. Saisi?
A. I did.
Q. Did she describe to you the assailants of her
husband?
A. She did.
Q. Would you tell us how she described her assailants?
A. She said that there were two colored men who had
shot and killed her husband in the basement of her home,
and that while both men were tall, one was exceptionally
tall, that he was so tall that his head almost struck the
ceiling of their basement. We measured the height of
that basement. It was approximately six foot two. In
other words, the gentleman she described would have been
over six foot two in height.
[103] Q. Did she give you any weight that the men
might be?
A. He was a well-built man, and along with the murder
erere
95
of her husband, she stated that these two men had taken
some White shirts from the closet, and she had one white
shirt that had been left behind and it had a trade name on
it, which we took.
Q. Did you participate in the arrest of James Monroe
on October 29, 1958?
A. I did.
Q. Who were the police officers who were with you at
that time?
A. The seven police officers who testified here previ-
ously.
Q. Would you describe to us, sir, how entrance to the
building was obtained?
A. I proceeded to an area close to this home at 1424
Trumbull Avenue. I met the officers who were so assigned
to this investigation. They were not assigned by me; they
were assigned by Sergeant Cagney who testified here, and
when we got to the area, the place of appointment, we went
to the home at 1424 South [104] Trumbull Avenue.
Earlier that morning, prior to meeting the officers, I
assigned two of them to go to 1424 Trumbull Avenue for
the purposes of seeing what type of a structure this was.
They reported back to me that it was a large building
containing many apartments, and I believe we had previ-
ous information that Monroe resided in the basement
apartment on the south side of this building.
Q. Prior to that arrest, sir, were you given any infor-
mation regarding this gentleman?
A. Officer MeMahon and his partner came in to me and
said they had been assigned by Sergeant Cagney to make
an arrest of one person, James Monroe, whose picture had
been identified by Mrs. Saisi as having been one of the two
men who had murdered her husband. They presented me
at that time—I asked if they had any picture, and they
showed me a picture of this gentleman. I asked if he had
;
> DEOL ERP L ERNE GEESE ALGER TLRNMEE RIEL LEGS LEIBA ELE LENE LESSEN BEGAN SOE ELLY MALES OSI DELI IL IO
pa
-
©
POE ees
96
any criminal background, and they gave me his criminal
record. I scanned both of these things and then passed
them back to the officers.
[105] Q. What time of the day was it when this arrest
was effected?
A. Approximately six a.m. on the morning of the 29th,
Q. How did you post your police officers?
A. I posted several of them outside of the building,
I went to the back door.
Q. Who accompanied you into the house?
A. When we got to the back door, I knocked on the door
and there was a large glass on the door, and suddenly the
light went on in the kitchen, and a small boy—when the
light flickered or went on, I saw the small boy standing in
the middle of the kitchen. I said that we were police officers,
and asked if James Monroe lived in that apartment, and he
said he did.
In the meantime, I said ‘Will you open the door?”’ The
young boy opened the door, and I said, ‘‘Where is James
Monroe?” and he said, ‘‘Up in the front bedroom.”’
I proceeded to the front bedroom with my partner and
driver, Jerry Sullivan. As we got into the bedroom [106]
I had a flashlight in my hand. I don’t recall—a light was
turned on. I don’t recall whether I turned on a flashlight
or whether someone turned on a light in the bedroom.
As I proceeded toward the bed in which these two people
were sleeping, I kicked something accidentally and I looked
down, and it was two quart beer bottles. I believe when
I kicked these beer bottles this aroused the occupants of
the bed, and they looked up at me, and I said, ‘Are you
James Monroe?’’? And the man answer, ‘‘ Yes,’’
I said, ‘‘We want to talk to you; get out of bed,’’ so he
got up and I put him in custody of Officer J erry Sullivan,
who testified here, and we walked out to the living room of
this apartment. In the meantime—
97
(107; @. Hlow was Mr. Monroe dressed when he was
brought into the living room?
A. He was wearing a pair of shorts, and a T-shirt.
Q. Did you accompany Mr. Monroe into the living
room ?
A. I don’t recall whether I did or not.
Q. Was Mr. Monroe given any other clothing?
A. He was given a pair of dungaree pants to put on,
and I noticed a white substance on the pants, and I said,
“Are you a plasterer?’’ And he said, ‘‘ Well, I do plaster-
ing part-time. ’’
Q. Where was Mrs. Monroe at this time?
A. Mrs. Monroe was in the bed.
Q. What did you do after Mr. Monroe was taken out
of the room?
A. I went back into the bedroom and I began looking
inte a closet for the shirts that were described as having
been taken in this robbery and murder.
Q. Who was in the bedroom besides you and Mrs.
Meroe?
A. To the best of my knowledge, I was looking into this
closet, and the only one that may have been [108] in the
room with me was Mrs. Monroe.
Q. Was your driver in the room at that time?
A. He may have been there; I don’t know. I know he
was in the room at some time.
Q. After you completed that part of your search, what
did you do?
A. While I was looking into this closet, Mrs. Monroe
said to me, ‘‘Will you step out of the bedroom so I ean
get up?”’ And IT said, ‘‘It isn’t necessary for you to get
out of hed, but if you wish to do so, just wrap the covers
around you and get out.’’
Well, I paid no more attention to her, and I continued
looking into this closet. There was some soiled clothing on
of
—_—
tee
BI Sey
98
the floor, such as may have been underwear and shirts of
one sort and another, and I looked at these things. In the
interim some children had awakened and they were ru.
ning abvut the apartment, and then Mr. Monroe was speak.
ing in a very loud voice and complaining that it would
upset his neighbors that [109] we were in his home, and I
said to Mr, Monroe, ‘‘ Your neighbors won't know we were
in your apartment if you will just lower your voice. You're
the one who is making all of the noise here.”
He said, ‘‘ Well, what am I being arrested for?” And I
said, ‘Your picture has been identified in a robbery,” and
he said, ‘‘T haven’t been involved in any robbery.”
It was shortly thereafter when we were taking him from
the apartment, and he said, ‘‘Can I change my clothes?”
And I said, ‘‘No,’’ I said, ‘‘I don’t think that would be
necessary. You may only be gone a short while and you'll
be back.’’
We then went out of the apartment, and after we took
him out of the apartment, handeuffs were placed on him
and he was put into a squad car and transported to the
Detective Division.
Q. Captain Pape, after he was placed in the squad car,
did you ever see Mr. Monroe again?
A. Never saw him until several years later. I never
saw him before that.
[110] Q. Did Mrs. Monroe get out of bed?
A. After speaking to Mrs. Monroe, the next time I saw
her she was standing in the long hallway just adjacent to
this bedroom, and it seems to me that she may have had a
hathrobe on, so sometime during the time T was in the
closet she apparently must have gotten from bed.
[111] Q. In whose custody was James Monroe—strike
that.
In whose custody was James Monroe conveyed from the
bedroom to the living room?
99
A. I believe it may have been my driver, Jerry Sulli-
van’s.
Q. In whose custody was he in the living room?
A. The second Jerry Sullivan.
Q. Did you hear any of the conversation of the chil-
dren?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you describe it for us, please.
A. Well, the children were running about the apart-
ment shouting obscenities at us, and I said to Mrs. Monroe,
I said ** Would you ask your children to step into the—go
into the back of the apartment there? We don’t want any
problems. ”’
I don’t recall whether she complied with my request
or not.
Q. Iam sorry. Did the children go to the back?
A. I don’t know.
[112] Q. How many children were there, if you recall?
A. Well, it seems to me that there were five or six
children.
Q. Do you know their ages, generally?
A. I would say there was one young child, there may
have been another one about eight or nine, and then the
others were teen-agers.
Q. How long, Captain, were you in the apartment?
A. Roughly, about ten minutes.
Q. Now, Captain, were there thirteen police officers
with you when you made this arrest?
A. No, sir, there was not.
Q. You were, though, investigating a murder?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you were making an arrest in connection with
a murder?
A. That is correct.
Q. Of supposedly the assailant?
100
A. The assailant of Mr, Saisi.
[113] Q. Now, did you, in gaining entrance, or your
police officers, in @ ning entrance to this apartment, break
through two doors?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you break through one door?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you wake the Monroe couple with flashlights?
A. Not to my recollection. I don’t know about that,
Q. Did you or any of your police officers force either
Mr, or Mrs. Monroe to leave their bed at gunpoint?
A. No, sir,
Q. Incidentally, were any of the police officers’ guns
drawn?
A. Well, mine wasn't. I can’t speak for the others, |
don’t know.
Q. Did you keep your gun drawn at all times?
A. No, I did not have my gun drawn.
Q. Did you replace the gun in the holster?
A. I don’t wear a holster.
Q. Did you replace your gun?
{114} A. I carry my gun in my pocket.
Q. Did you replace it in your pocket?
A. I didn’t have my gun out.
4). I am terribly sorry, sir. I misunderstood you. You
did not have your gun out?
A. No. I did not draw my gun.
. At any time?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any other?
A. I did have my hand on it.
Q. In your pocket, though?
Q. Did you point that gun in the pocket at the Monroes?
A. No.
* Perey ae TR ey, eR ENR 7
Apdo MIME ERE ee ERE RMR UI HE wo << ‘ oem Ro
101
Q. Did you see any police officer with his gun drawn?
A. No, not to my recollection.
(115] Q. Did you see any police officer at gunpoint force
either Mr. or Mrs. Monroe to leave their bed?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see any police officer force either Mr, or
Mrs. Monroe or both to stand naked in the center of the
living room?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did the police officers rouse the Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Was any police officer detailed to take care of the
Monroe children?
No.
Were the children free to move about?
Yes, they were.
Was Mrs. Monroe free to move about?
Yes, she was,
Was any police officer detailed to keep her in eus-
tody?
A. The only person that wasn't free to move about was
Mr. Monroe.
Q. Did you observe any police officer herding the Mon- 7
roe children into the living room?
A. No.
(116} Q. Did you, sir, strike Mr. Monroe with your
flashlight ?
No, sir.
Did you, sir, strike Mr. Monroe with any instrument?
No, sir.
Did you strike Mr. Monroe with your fists?
No, sir.
Did you put any hand on Mr. Monroe?
No, sir.
102
Q. Did you, sir, call Mr. Monroe, during the course of
this transaction, ‘‘nigger’’ or ‘black boy’’?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any officer pushing Mrs, Monroe!
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer hitting any of the
Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer kicking any of the
Monroe children?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer pushing any of the
Monroe children to the floor?
[117] <A. No, sir.
Q. Did you observe any police officer ransacking any
room in the apartment?
A. The only search made of the room was a normal
search, looking for the possibility of a Weapon or these
shirts that I had related here.
Q. Did you observe any police officers making a search!
A. The only one whose search I can account for js my
own. I wasn’t observing what the men were doing.
Q. In making your search, what did you do, sir?
A. I went to this closet where there was some clothing,
not too many articles of clothing. Some were hanging and
some were on the floor.
Q. What did you do with them, sir?
A. I looked at the labels of the clothing, of whatever
shirts were in this room, or were in this closet, and there
may have been only one or two of them. As a matter of
fact, the apartment didn’t have too much in it.
Then I looked at the soiled clothing which was lying on
the floor of this closet, which only was several [118]
articles.
103
Q. Did you withdraw any of this clothing from the
closet? é
A. No. 1
Q. Did you move any of it about?
A. No.
Q. Did you observe any police officer throwing clothing
from the closet?
A. No.
Q. Did you observe any police officer dumping drawers?
A. No sir. '
Q. Did you observe any police officer ripping mattress
covers? :
A. No, sir. }
Q. You are presently a Captain of Police? :
A. That is correct.
Q. In 1958 you were Deputy Chief of Detectives?
A. That is correct.
Q. How long were you Deputy of Detectives? :
A. A little over two years, until I was promoted to ;
(Captain. :
Mr. Kaveny: No further questions.
The Court: You may cross-examine.
[119] Mr. Reuben: May I begin in the morning, your
Honor?
The Court: What is that?
Mr. Reuben: May I begin in the morning?
The Court: Let’s proceed until four-thirty, and then
you ean continue in the morning.
Mr. Reuben: All right.
baie Sorter tai | PL Te
MA Ee er
Cross-Examination by Mr. Reuben.
Q. You have not been continuously 33 years on the
police force, have you, on active duty, have you, Captain?
A. Well, actually, I eliminated the time that I have
been away from the Department. ;
a4
4
= ie Mt cate,
ES PELL N TNT SS ENR eT aE A NEN
104
Q. I see.
A. I have been on the Department 36 years,
away for four years.
Q. Where did you go?
A. To Arlington-Washington Park, Speciatized Map.
agement Services, as the Director of Security.
[120] Q. You worke? for the race track for many years,
sir?
A. Four years under contract.
Q. Then you returned to the Police Department?
A. That is correct.
Q. What were those years?
A. I went to the Specialized Management Services in
May of—April, I believe, or May of 1961, and I returned
to the Police Department in May of 1965.
Q. So that you were working for Arlington Park at
the time that Time Magazine’s article that you are suing
over here appeared on the stands, is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, you said that you did not see Monroe unt]
several years after 1958.
A. Correct.
Q. When was the next time you saw him?
A. Ina court room in the old building across the street.
Q. You mean in the Federal Court Building?
A. Correct.
[121] Q. In the Federal Court House that has now been
torn down?
A. That is correct.
Q. Is that your testimony?
A. That is correct.
Q. And that is when Mr. Monroe was suing you under
the Civil Rights Act in the Federal Court, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. He recovered a judgment against you, did he not?
A. A small percentage of what he sued us for.
I was
105
Q. Was he the only one who obtained a judgment
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.