Appendix — Milton v. Wainwright

Supreme Court brief1972

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

cht

;

| -

\ 7

pao tugmspnp,

- 10 19PAQ) 24B(F

pays) pratnon) vio sujuyodde tapsg ae [voddy Jo od1ON

8; ores 04 nqunexo 8U poly (sounjoa a) qd wit MND ons,

o $ s

; Hurpooporg

“

J OPWOYTPAI) 8, YAN

‘VOSN ‘Pre.

“osuodsod

or une,

4 vue Os

em. JOO

_ oye

we a¢

D: STATES hak i CouRT °

SovuTHERN: District oF FLorma’

In tHe Us

- ° .,. Persons in Sigte Custody

Georce Wituiam Mittox, No. 64891 ]

-Fill name and prison tiumber

(if any): -of Petitioner” em a" eae

: et yy oe ANo.669-705-Civ-CP

a vst ° i. 7 -

Lovie L.: WainwrRicHT ~- \ |

:) Name of Respondent .

7 . . « J.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABE As. conrty~

| ‘[Filed, June 11, 2:34 PM °69, Joserit I+ Bocanr, Clerk}

' [Filing Ree In Forma sone dali J. I. Booart, Glerk)

xstrverio NS,

“(Read Carefully—Must be filed in Tripticate)

In erder for this petition to receive consideratic

typewritten), signed by the petitioner and’ verifiec (seta.

rized), and it shall set forth in concise form the angwers to

each applicable question. If necessary, petitioner play finish

his artiswer to a particular question on_the reverse side of |

the page or add an additional blank page. Petitjoner shall. —

make it-clear to, which question any such continued ahswer

refers. 7

Since every. petition for habeas. corpus, must be sworn 1 to

under oath, any false statement of, material fact therein —

may servé as the basis of prosecution and conviction. for

perjury.. Petitioners should therefore exercise care ‘to

~ assure that all answers are true and correct.

If the petition i is taken'‘in forma pauperis, it shall include

an: affdavit (attached at the back of this form): setting

forth inforfnation which establishes that spetitioher will be

-: unable to pay ‘the fees and costs of the habeas corpus pro-

ceedings. When the petition is completed, the original and

both copies. shall'be mailed to: Clerk; U nited States District

a) a e . a?

a. , ° * a ey. ;

» : : Ce 6

. techs Southern Thine of: ‘Florida, PO. ies 669, Miami,

Florida.

1. Place of detention:” ‘Wlande ‘State Prison, Raiforg,

Florida.

- 2° Name and location of court w hich imposed. idles ,

——- Cireuit: Court of ‘Record; Dade County, Florida.

= & ‘The indictment mimber or numbers (if known) upon

: which anil the offense or offanses for which sentence |

“ “Was imposed : -

: (&) indictment No. 1904-11 felony niurder .. .

. (D> oaontenninntnen Sage ee enn See ponaet anes

| te) Se sen eee, aan

3 . The date upon which sentence was imposed, and the.

terms of the sentenee:

(a) December 12th, 1958. Term of life imprisonment

Bie eanecter Saas sap td won -------H--5--

— (¢) slater antes a, eben es bnene tein ee en

5. Check w hether a finding of guilty w as made

. (a) after a plea of. enilty. —

_(b) after a plea of not guilty v-.

q oe (ce) after a plea of iiolo. contendere |

- 6. If you were found guilty after a plea of not guilty, “F

- cheek w hether fhat. finding was made by “ s 7

. ? (a) ajury / .

~ (b).a judge without a jury |

7. Did you appeal from the judgment of ponviction« or the

: . Imposition of sentence? Yes ;

8. If you answered“‘ves”’ to (7), list ..

(a) the name -of each. court to which you appealed:

i. -District Court of Appeal,. Third District"

ii. Supreme Court of Flor ida

ee et ee ee .

(b) the result in each such court to which you ap-

pealed:

_ Appeal dismissed without opinion

Petition For Certiorari denied’ without opinion

~y Wile saweeen punpnwe ieee seta ole e et eee ley ;

i. .*June'28,1960 ~~ | . AG .

ih November 29,1960 — ae a

tte eregt--as--------22 ~~ 28 gan coer ee

_ 12. Prior to this petition for you filed Ww ith respect to, this .

(d) if kiown, citations of. any written opinion or orders

enteted pursuant: to such results:

‘. i. Milton vs. State, 121 Fla. App. So. 496 (1960)

il + Milton | vs. ‘State, 125 Fla. So. 880. (1960) |

i, - acai eae cian es sore cen een cep reac acacia oe

not so appealing:

(a) . . . we

_(b) , |

(¢)

10. State concisely the: grounds on which you base your al-

-legation that 3 you are Being held-in custody unlaw fully :

(a). Custody is unlawful because the same is based’

upon a judgment and sentence which was founded

in part npon a confession which was inadmissible

in evidence, because of being: ‘‘involuntary”’ -

\ y

. If you answered: “no’’ to @, state your reasons for .

e (b) Petitioner was denied his. Fourteenth Amendment |

_ Tight to Procedural Due Procéss of Law, and to ..

receive, a’ fair trial when the said confession was

admitted into evidence over the iP cialis objec-

tion of defense counsel. ' 9

(e) a .

“1, ‘State concisely and in the same price tie facts: which

support each of the grounds set out in (10):

fa) The allegations and Federal Constitutional Claims °

for relief are based conclusively upon the State.

Court Transcript. The arguments _ predented in’

connection. with each of these allegations are’ set

forth in a memorandum of law attached hereto.

(b) ee Te a.

{e). ; -

_conviction

Veron,

* (a) any petition i ina State of Florida court. under the |

provisions of Criminal procedure Rule 1 of the

Florida Supreme , Court? YES

(b) any petitions in State or Federal courts for habeas

corpus? : :-YES .

‘for certiorari other than petitions, ifwany, already

specified in (3¥2 NO ;

(d) any. other petitions, motions or applications i in this :

or any other court? NO 4

If you answered ‘*yes’ ’ to any part of (12), list w vith

respect to each petition, ‘motion or application . 1G.

(a) -the specific nature thereof; ~

i... Motion Under. Provisions of Criminal Pro-

cedure Rule One.

"Appeal, from thé order accuse the mule One’

.Motion. | ,

. Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus.

a Sora ep ireh heathens SS eect eget re oie eee pees

(b) the name » and locatioa of the court in which each ©

was filed: .

‘L. f pecan pcgh than anna dean nnee heres nse nemnestnnnns

Hi. Cireuit Court of Record, Dade County,

Florida. °

District Court of Appeal, Third Dist. Mian,

“Fla. 6

Supreme Court of. Florida, Tallahassee

- a. + Motion Under C riminal peocecure Rule One,

- denied

- Appeal was dicnisea without written opinion af

- Petition For Habeas Corpus, denied without .

opinion -

oe | ne ee eee ene ener (ee tcenene wee ccose oun

(d) the date of each such disposition :

“i July 12th, 1965, case No. 1904-H

ii. January 15th, 1966, case: No. 45:812

ill. March 3rd, 1966, ¢ case No, 35; 173 |

AV, | Ses<2-tece ae A ‘---+--+-- Pe ene

(e) if known,. ‘Gian of, any written opinions or

’ . orders entered pursuant to’each such disposition:

— i,.- Milton vs. State, 181 So. 2d 71 (Fla. App. 3rd

(1966),

‘ii. Milton-vs. Wainwright, 188 So. 2d 312 a

' - Sup. 1966)

9 .

14. oe any: sions set forth-in (10) been previously pre-

‘sented to this or any other court, state or federal, in

‘any- petition, motion or ne ala which you have

’ filed? YES

"15. If you answered: ‘‘yes’’ to (14), identify. °

(a) which: grounds have been previously re

i. alleged mvoluntary confession. .

li. denial of Fourteenth Amendment’s right

RE Ce ane poe eae eC MES ee VeCn Nee a enee net Cmeeee®

(b) the proceedings i in wach each oud: was raised:

i. Motion Under ‘Criminal Procedure Rule One

ii. “Appeal, from the order. denyi ing the Rule One

: Motion

ill. Petition For Writ of Habess Corpus .

- If any-ground set forth in (10) has not previously been 7

_ presented to any court, state or federal, set forth ‘the

“ground and state concisely the reasons why such ground

_ has not previously been. presented:

(e) ----2-----2------2----- 2 en ee

- W ere you represented by an attorney at any time dur- -

ing the course of . ae

- (a) your arraignment and plea? YES -

~‘(b) your trial if any? YES’

(d) your appeal, if any, from the judgment of convic-

- tion or the imposition of sentence? YES

(e) preparation, presentation or onsideration of any.

—_ petitions, motions or appliedtions with vespect to"

this conv iction, w hich ‘vou filad?-

18. ff you answered ‘‘yes’ ’ to one more parts af (17),

list _ .

(a) the name and address of each attoriiey who repre-

sented } you:

i. Mr. Ray- Sandstrom:

200 South East 6th Be Fort Lauderdale, Fla, .

PM Spee eee eee eee rand 7

(b) the proceedings at w hich each such attorney ' Tepre-

_sented you: 5

(a). ---------------------- aeee ak Sear =

a. .

i. . Petitioner was represented by counsel —

ii. in only the proceedings set forth in

lil, paragraph No. (8) of.this form. —

19. If you are seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

have ¥ou completed the sworn affidavit setting forth the

‘required information (see instructions, page 1 = this

om) ? YES .

| /s/ GeorgagW illiam Milton

a aa. - . Signature of Petitioner

State Of Florida 3

~-L_-----2----.-, being first: sworn under oath, preaals that —

‘he has subscribed to the foregoing petition and does state -

that the information therein is true and correct.to the’best ;

of his knowledge and belief., .

2 /s/ George William Milton.

SUBSCRIBED dnd Swory to before me this

2! day of June, 1969. .

Notary Public

—~

‘My commission. expires:

Notary Public, State of Florida at baie a ; :

- My Commission Expires, Feb. 26, 1971 |

Bonded: through Fred W. Diestelhorst.

_ APPENDIX TO PETITION:

_ Ix Ti ea

. . Ustrep.Srares Court or APPEALS: i

“> - For THe Fier Circurt -

No. 25612. -

‘GrokGE W. ee 7

“ji versus oo

| “ Lour L. Warnwricut, Director,

Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Appellee, ©

~ | >.

A ppeal -from ‘the United States District Court for the

Sask

Southern District of Florida.

- (June 5, 1968.)

Before- Brown, Chief Judge, Wwsom, Circuit Judge.

id and Brewster, District- Judge. - :

Brown, Curer JUDGE: Appellant, who, is presently serv-

ing a life. sentence imposed on December 12, 1958, for

murder, seeks ‘habeas relief froni that conviction and sen-

‘tence. The Federal District Judge, without holding an

evidentiary hearing. but on the basis of the State Court

transcript, denied the relief sought. Appellant. here con-

tends that his conviction was constitutionally void because

an.oral confession as a matter of law was not voluntary and,

'. in-any event,.it was introduced against him at trial without -

proper procedural safeguards being taken to determine .

12,

< 7 v :

° . & ”

the voluntariness ofthat confession.’ We ‘affirm but not for |

gthe reasons given by the Court below and certainly not

by ruling on the intrinsie merits of these claims.

The facts from the State Court trartscript are not at this

juncture very much disputed,. Appellant was arrested and

indicted for murder. At this time Appellant had retained -

Counsel. A scheme ,was set up in which.a police-officer dis- °°

guised as a prisoner was placed in_a two- man cell with Ap-

pellfant for about two days but Appellant was not informed.

of the officér’s true identity. The officer questioned Appel-

lant about, his crime and obtained from him the oral- con-

fession of the murder. of his wife. that was ; introduced

against Appellant af trial. -

For reasons Ww hich we shall shortly state we’ do ot pass

‘upon the merits of this atteck. Nor do we, for that matter, .

intimate even a possiblé whisper of a suggestion of how it

. will or should .come out. But not withstanding this dis-

clamer it Was only realisti to ‘suggest that a leng line of

Supreme. court’ cases * all’ raise very grave | doubts as to

the voluntariness or admissibility of a‘confession obtained

by trickery’in this, manner. But although Appellant has

challenged. volantariness of the confession in the Florida |.

Courts he has failed to. present these “particular factual

contentions regarding this confession to the State Sentenc-. |

ing Court either by appeal or by motion to vacate judgment ©

under Florida post-conviction procedure ef: Rule No. J, |

F.S.A. s924 Appendix, Rule 1; In re Criminal Procedure }

Rule No. 1, Fla., 1963, 151 So. 2d 634. Thus he has not ex- |

hausted an available. state post- -conviction: ashi le as re-.

. quired by 28 U.S.C.A. 2254. | so |

This raises question for us’ to the action now to be talken -

by us. Should we ay" to decide this o on materials which have . ;

1 Our diavonition of the case makes’ it unnecessary for us to reach the ques-

‘® tion about the constitutionmSty. of the méthod used to determine the voluntari-

ness of the confession at Appellant’ s State trial under the ruling in acer y.

' Denno, 1964, 378 U.S. 368, 84 8.'O. 1774, 12 L. ‘Ed. 2d 908.

2 See, e.g., Leyra v. Denno, 1954; 347 U.S. 556, 74 8. Ct. 716, 98 L. Ed. 948;

Spano v. New York, 1959, 360 U.S. 315; 79 S. Gt. 1201, 3 L. Ed. 2d "1265;

Massiah v. United States. 1964, 377 U.S. 201, 84'S. Ct. 1199; 12 L. Ed. 2d 246;

Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964, 378 U.S. 478, 84 8. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 977; Miranda

_.°y. Arizona, 1966, 348 U.S» 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed, 2d 694; and Johnson

v. New Jersey, 1966, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S. Ct. 1772, 16 L. Ed. 2d 882. -

ee 5 aes ie

a remarkable, if not qui ‘te adequate, conipetonckd’ Should

. we send-it back to the Federal District Court to evaluate

and make the. requisite findings? Or should we, iii the inter-

“est of genuine working comity put the: fact- finding resper-

sibility as to this new factual thesis squarely on-the Florida -

Courts where, initially at least, it belongs? On this we have -

no doubt. We are now committed to the fullest exploitation. -

of the many new and urgently needed state. _ conviction.

remedies. ue ,

In the long run, time is saved: and ‘constitutional ‘rights

are better. vindicated ‘y assuring that state mechanisms |

. to ascertaifi and find facts are fully used. We reject again,

' as we have so many times recently’ the beguling appeal of

- remanding it for ‘the Federal Judge to-do what is initially

the clear duty. % the State. Court. See Texas v. Payton, 5

"Cir., 1968, : F. 2d.. ... (No. 24326; February bh 1968) ;

" ‘aécord, Beto. v. Conley, 5 ‘Cir., 1968, ... F.2d’... (No.

~~ 24907, ‘April 3, 1968) ; of. Mobley v. United States, 5 Cir.,

. 1967, 379 F. Ed 768.. This is not abdication. To.the. contrary :

it effectuates the Supremacy Clause in a vivid way to (a)

_ place initial-responsibility where it belongs and (b) hope- .

*, fully" by fact ‘ascertainment and finding the constitutional

claim will be recognized by the state court or, if not, (c)_

the Federal Court will have an adequate record on which

to maké@ the inescapably independent judgment on the

facts. ‘See 28 U.S.C.A. 2254, as amendedyN ov. 2 ; 1966, Pub. °

L. 89-711, 2 Stat. 1105. .

The result is that the judgment of the District Court ; is

affirmed but this is without prejudice tq Appellant tosre-

applying for relief in the state Court under the proper post- .

conviction procedures. | =

Avrmurp.

: _ . “6 - 04 . 4 s .

° ,

- ° ° 2 ,

erect: ce TTI 3 cones alec i ae sf

, _? . - :

nn te , Pi Lad ‘ a> ?

“ 4 mol fo a ; : ’

a - s ° » . a “o ° a . .

dae . . ° F;

, . - . 3

- e . . . ° . a bd

oF : ee ee) . e

] = .

<7] « >

. . <3 Pe

s- .. if S

: Is Tue Uxirep States Distaret Court For THE:

SouTHERN DistRicT OF Fora

No. 69- 705-Civ- CF

The above-entitled cause came on for Evidentiary Hear-. }

ing before Chief Judge Charles: B. Fulton, *on Friday,

. September 26, 1969, pursuant to Notice. © -

~The earlier case is designated gs Case No. 67- 234-Civil-

‘CF, and, of course,.is entitled ‘‘George William Milton, —

Petitioner, versus. Louie L. Wainwright, seein Division ©

of Corrections, State of Florida.”

. The Opinion which the Court there etends is as. follows:

_‘*Petitioner was tried: before a jury ‘in the Circuit

Court of the Eleventh Judicial Cireuit in and for Dade

County, Florida, on a charge of first degtee- murder.

_ At.trial, testimony concerning an oral confession . and

. a written confession were offered’in evidence. Defense

- counsel objected on the ground that. the confessions }

Were involuntarily given, The trial] judge heard lengthy

testimony on the issue of voluntariness, ruled that both

confessions were made voluntarily, and permitted-both .

--to be introduced in ev idence. The jury returned a ver-

_ diet of guilty with a recommendation of mercy, and the

~ eourt sentenced petitioner to, lifé in prison. _ . ’

¢Petitioner alleges that the oral confession was in- |

admissible because obtained by coercive methods and

therefore involuntarily given. Thigallegation was heard

and determined adversely to petitioner by' the trial

judge at his original trial. Under 22 U.S.C. Sec. 2254

this determination is presumed correct.. Petitioner has

not shown and it does not- otherwise. appear that there

'. igs any sufficient ground to overcome that: présumption. | |

The opportunity afforded petitioner .at his trial to

a establish the alleged involuntary character of the con-

fession comported with the most tecent decisions out-

lining the reqiirements of due process. a.

“In Jackson v. Denno,-3785U.S. 368, 37677 (196 )s

‘the United States Supreme. Court, emphasized :_

> eee: defendant’ s ‘constitutional right at some

stage in the proceedings to object to the use of. the’

“e." cae Pea | ae ; Sty

| A ee

teed ag :

; confession and to hie a afr hearing anit a réliable

determination, on the. issue’ of vofuntariness, “-

determination. uninfluenced by the trath-or issctgie

of the confession.’ cos ;

}

F €

“*The transcript of the record's in ‘this case e establishes

that the trial judge heard testimony out of the pres-

’ ence of the jury,. including direct and eross examina-

tion of the state’s witness “aiid téstimorty by petitioner

himself; prior to making his: finding that. the onal

-eonfession was voluntary. This testimony and finding

comprises twenty-eight pages of the transcribed record.

The procedure “afforded to detitioner at his trial in

1959 whs declared: by the Supreme Court in Jackson v..

- Denno, supra, to be the desirable practice for the de-

- termination of admissibility of -confessions by state ~~

courts in cases-subsequent to: the 1964 Denno decision :

,.. *It js both practical and desirable that in cases .

_'to be tried hereafter ‘a proper determination of

voluntarifiess be made. prior to the-admission of.’

- - tl confession to the jury w hich is. adjudicating ~

‘gull t orinnocenét. * *

“Petitioner was giv en the beriefit of s ch a prior

deterinination in. 1959. Nor did the effort té ‘comply

with all requirements, of: due process.stop at that point. .

‘ When the jury was recalled,-and the’state’s witness

allowed to’ testify as to the oral confession, defense

counsel * was allowed to conduct an “exhaustive cross

examination of this witness’ comprising some thirty-

five pages of the reéord. Further, at’the conclusion of

dosing arguments, the court charged the jury that they

should’ determine whether the confession was. freély

and. voluntarily made by, the’ petitioner and that if

they did not determine, the confession to be voluntary

they should exchide such involuntary statement from

. their consideration of petitionér’s guilt.or innocence,

but-eyen if voluntary it should be received and con-

sidered ‘with great caution’, particularly if made after

_ ‘the petitioner was incaxgerated and under arrest. The

jury was. further charged that in making their deter-

mination -. the. crepence to Pepgiven | to, such confession ;

m ..

>. ; 5 x ic os . é ‘ cee: | ~ -

ee ee AON SINT ~

« Pe a ins Pee ak, lau) Nan

all ot the cireumst Ices surrounding its niteeanee

‘including the motives which may ‘have operated on the

| petitioner and including: the harmony or inconsistency

in itself or ith other “eyidence i in the case shouldtbe

‘fairly and fully’ considered.

“Tt is difficut ‘to imagine how this trial judize boul

_ have been more zealeus in his. effort to follow accepta:

‘ "+ ble procédure in’ maki y his determination that the’

, #3 - confession was admissifde Ss eyidenee of: petitioner's.

+. guilt ard in charging the jury .in a fashion most likely

to give petitioner every benefit of any reasonable doubt.

4 | ‘*Not-only did the trial Sudge¥Follow acceptable. pro-

" - . ° .- eedure in- making his determination of the voluntary

. . character of. the. confession. before admitting it into

——i—-—--~-.-____evidence before the Jury, but the record subckantiates

his finding. In Daris-v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737,

F412 (1966), the Supreme ‘Court spoke of the duty, »

of a federal court in a colfateral proceeding wherein

the question ‘ascii a confession. was involuntarily °

; given is raised, ~~ . 3

4 . .

ss £3 °°. to examine “the entire record and nek s an in-

- c - dependent determination, of the ultimate issue of

-, "es voluntariness.’ "oy :

‘. “The Supreme Court anplaaieed that aiweuce the

se eS requirement of Miranda’v. Arizona, 384U.S. 436 (1966).

er: that a defendant be advised of his right to-counsel and

given certain warnitigs at the outset of. interrogation .

was declared nonretroactive by Johnson v. New Jersey,-

* 384 GS. 719. (1966),

- = 66 6bhis | does not - affect the duty of . courts to - .

Meg, *--~-“consider claims-that a statement was taken under —

os <s ° circumstances which viplate the standards of*vol-

untariness which had begun to evolve long’ prior |

“to our decigions in Miranda and Escobedo. v. [llin--

ois, 378-U.S. 478 (1964).0 0 mA,

7 att thus becomes this Court’s ‘duty to determine what ©

_ those standards of voluntariness were and whether they

were met in this case. The test of admissibility of con-

- fessi8ns as voluntary. has been variously stated, but

. .

. ° . _°

re} . . . F ‘ .

17 _ : a

the “requirement. basically is that a confession must.

be the product: 6f rational intellect And free will rather

thay being induced by conduct of state officials which _

might tend to overbear the defendant’s will to resist,

thus constituting eaercion. Townsend v. Sain, 373 US.

293. (£963) ; Bynumn v. State of I@ois, 373 U.S. 528

' (1963); Rogers v: Richmond, 365 E.S. 534 (1961).

“In this case petitioner was indicted for first degree

murder for the death of his.wife and was: incarcerated

in the Dade County Jail’ pending trial. The State’s

" witness, ‘a. police ofticer, was placed in the celt with

petitioner, wha was told that the officer was being held .

on inv estigation of a murder charge.* The officer re-

mained in the cell with petitioner one night, the follow-

ing day, and part of-a-second day. During that time

the petitioner Was not told of his cellmate’s -connection -

with fhe police force. Under instructions from his,

. supériors, the officer questioned petitioner as oppor-

tunities presented themselves in an effort to elicit

from him evidence concerning the crime. ‘The testi-

i) ih a i a

mony of this police Officer as to statements made to him .

by petitioner during this period of joint inearceration

comprise the oral confgssion’ w hith peenonee alleges

- Was Inv oluntary.

“Petitioner was a tw enty -threé year old colored man

represented by counsel at the time this confession was

made. Although counsel wag not present during the

confession, .presumably he had been cautioned by his >

attorney to be cautious about making any statements

concerning his.crime. -He was neither a minor nor

retarded nor physieally abused: in any manner, as:

was the defendant in Reck v. Pate, 367 US. 433

(1961). It ig true that petitioner was deceived by police °

‘officers into falsely placing confidence in his cellmate.

But he was acquainted with this supposed fellow-

prisoner for no more than forty-six hours. This is far .

- from the situation in Spano v. People of. the State of

New York, 360 U.S. 317 (1959). In that case the de--

‘Yendant was confronted at 3:00 A.M., after eight hours -

of interrogation during which his repeated ve |

‘for an attorney v were denied, by a policeman Who had »

Bra aig ae

Ge.

cae » GE PRIA. SEE eR BE i I RD NY CR,

-18

been his life-long ‘friend. He had previously confe Ssed ‘L

to this supposed friend bys telephone and’ the officer

managed at that late hour to falsely convince’ .the ex. |.

-hausted defendant that. his call had endangered the

_ officer’s job and that the welfare of the officer’s wife,

three children, and* unborn fourth child depended on

the defendant’s repetition of his confession. . This case

- bears no resemblancé to those facts.

‘‘Here the petitioner freely chose to trust a man’

‘whom he had known for a matter of hours, Nor, in-

deed, are the facts of this case similar tothe deception |

employed by the police i in Leyra v. Denno, 374 US. 556

(1954). In that case’ the defendant had been subjected

to days of ivtensive police. questioning and was suffer.

ing from an acutely painful sinus attack. In response +}.

to his request for. medical attention for his sinus. con-

-ditiom, he was told that’a ‘Dr. Helfend’ would give

him medical relief. Dr. Helfend was in reality a psy-

‘chiatrist who managed after lengthy questioning and

encouraging the defendant to unburden his soul, to |"

elicit from him a confession. In this case the pretended

cellmate did not offer medical or spirual aid to peti- °

-tioner or subject.him to an ov er-powering barrage of .

‘questions. Indeed, he very carefully refrained from -

seeming overanxious to secure information from peti:

~-tioner in the effort not to.arouse BuapieIoN concerning

his motives. '

“In Massigh v. U nitéed States, 377 -U.S. 201 £1984),

Stas Pair

the. Supreme Court wrote a cogent opinion denouncing .

the use in evidence of incriminating statements delib-

erately elicited by government agents after an accused |

had been indicted but in the absence of his retained}

counsel, as an‘abuse of the prisoner’s right to counsel }

embodied in the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Con-

* stitution. But the facts in Massiah differ significantly }

from this case. In Massiah, government agents in-

- stalled a radio transmitter in the car of the defendant.

who was under indictment ona federal narcotics charge |

but was free on bail. The use of statements by: accused

‘obtained through this device was condemned as a Vit

@lation of his rm to counsel.' There is a compelling

me OY

‘AY,

difference: between a man tulicing to someone he frusts,

completely ‘unaware that third parties are able to hear

his conversation, and one who voluntarily, albeit fool-

ishly, chooses to confide in a man whom. he knows

seareely at all. a

“Despite the recent-trend of decisions indicating

-that:state officials will be held to an-ever stricter stand-

ard in their interrogation of persons accused of crime,

it is apparent that “the methods utilized in the effort

to.arrive at truth in the investigation of the crime of:

which petitioner stands convicted comported fully with

the requirements of due pe

‘‘Therefore it is

‘ORDERED and Apsvu DGED that: Petitioner’ S petition

for writ of habeas corpus be and the same is nereP ys ,

denied. |

“Dose And ORDERED at Miami, Fistida’ this 15th

‘day of September, 1967. Charles B. Fulton, Chief -

Judge.’’ - “ ey, i

- [26] Nox, we are assembled here for the purpose of con-

ducting the evidentiary -hearing previously ordered; but

before we do that, Ikwant counsel for both sides to stand.

and ‘Agree or disagree with each other or with the Court

that the Court has narrated at this hearing the history

of this proceeding, and the one that preceded it in this.

Court and has ‘made accurate reference to the various

_orders-and other matters that are involved.

Couns el for the petitioner, is that so? |

‘Mr. if®ar: Your Honor, I think that vour Honor’ s state-

ment is correct. , ?

THE Court: Mr. McCrary? |

Mr. McCrary: So stipulated, sir. * ¢

Tue Court: Is there anything that has been omitted that

is sequential ‘with respect to the prenens posture ° of this

matter in this Court?

[27] Mr. Lazar: Not fram the petitioner—

Mr. McCrary: I don’t know if it is important your

Honor, but I don’t recall you saying that the petitioner did

file a Motion of some kind with this court to get an Inter-

locutory Appeal.

ing, may IT be permitted to make a brief statement to the |

»-Court? . |

“dicted on July 1, 1958 ard that on July

in the cell with they petit: oRer, and secured from the peti-

al bal

° . ; : . . .

: - : . - °

. . r 7 . t

= ART ETA OAL ELIT. at PN ARS RODS AES LOS ELLEN 0 LEAP IEEE. Loh SE ELE Ra NCB CPE BG TEE BO Se BRO a

ee im : ° :

p . 7 . : 7

° -

. :

20) — “=

THe Covcrt: This Order recites that. I didn’ t say clini

because he Order that hi is been dictated recites that.

Now, gentlemen, you may proceed. ,

Mr. Lazar: Be aes we proceed with an evidentiary hear-

THe Cover: Of course, |

Mr. Lazir: Your Benge as the Fifth Cireuit* ‘has recog.

nized, the facts-in the mahr in this case, are not very mich

in dispute. It is unis puted that the Petitioner was in. }

Pret ourt: Tnthe State Court.

Mr. Lavan: In the State Court, and that on July. 18 of |

‘that same vear, the State entered. upon, as the Fifth Circuit

has rn nontioned, ascheme- whereby a police officer was placed

tion er cértam ner nadie statements which were then

admitted into P28}. evidence as an oral confession at the

petitioner ‘s trialiy the State Court. J

Now, With respect to-—— : ° 2 7 |

Trre CocRT: Mi ay Tint errupt you right there? |

Mr. Lazar: Yes, sir. | |

Tie Court: To read ene ‘aragraph from the opinion

of me Court of Appeal, to see if vou are in total agree,”

ment owith at, with that Court's cf adi ne of the facts or the !

tote of the record. chat parceraph reads as folloas : +)

“Tie foets from. fle State Court tra nseript dire not

.et this freture very mineh dis; puted. Appellant was

rested and indieted for minrder. At this time Appel- LV

lant whe refaaped commseh Ao scheme was set up in

e owhieha pol ce offieendiscuised as a prisoner was placed

Ina two-man cell x ith: Anrellant, for about two days

- but Appellant was not informed. of the officer’s true

identity. The officer questioned Appellant about his

-erime and obtained from him the eral confession of

the murder of his Wife that was introduced against

Appellant at trial.’ |

[29] Mr. Lazar: The pati oner would agree. with those

facts and that those facts are undisputed, sir.

THe Court: Does the State of Florida agree with. tat

Ly, ~* oY “

Mr. eee Yes, sir.

Mr. Lazar: It is on the basis of those undisputed facts

that—w ith respect to the merits of this claim, the petitioner

would agree at this juncture to rely upon the record. es-

tablished’ in the State trial court; and upon that record,

your Honor, I believe that I have compiled a series of cases

which conclusiyely: show that at the present time the peti-

tione ris being held nnlaw fully in the Raiford State Prison,.

contrary to his Constitutional Right and that -this Court

shoul grant the Writ, Petition for same.

Some of the eases that I will cite to your Honor, with

the Court's permission, occurred either so ‘close to: the -

Court's opinion in 1967, or after that’ opinion, that it is

quite possible, with due respect to the Court that those

opinions Were not considered by. the Court in its Order.

~ Tbe lie ‘ve that if I would be permitted to argue the peti-—

oner’s case, on the undisputed [30]-evidence and facts, as

weno stipulated, that these cases will conclusively show that

the petitioner is now wrongfully being held. in the prison.

Tiit Covrr: In connection with what you have just said,

I refer again ‘to that portion of the opinion of the Court

of Appeals, which was read just a moment ago and which,

among other things said, and I quote—

“The facts fromi the State Court transeript are not’

at this juncture very much disputed.’

*Now, do I understand from your statement that they are

not at all disputed? -

Mr. Lazar: Your Honor, I think. that at thé State trial

it was disputed that the confession elicited Was not a truth-—

ful confession, but the question of truth or falsity of the

confession plays no part in this hearing.

Tre Covurr: That is not what the Judge meant, the Chief.

Judge, when he wrote this Opinion.

‘He says that ‘‘The facts from the State Court transcript ;

are not at this juncture ‘very much disputed.”’

In other words, it is agreed that the transcript correctly

and completely relates all of the [31] facts that went, into

the dispute in the State Court. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Lazar: We agree here with respect to this claim.

Tue Court: Are you now stating that there are no dis-

puted facts that you u know of that are salient to the resolu-

22..*

tion: of this petition for a Writ of Hidbeas Corpus in this

‘Court? |

-Mr. Lazar: Your Honor, I have read the record four *

- times. I, have discussed. it with the petitioner. I-de. not

“know of any other -matevial facts that could Be brought out =~

at an evidentiary hearing. L.

_' THe Court: Sinéed differently, having: revit the reeord 7

“four times, and having devoted yourself to preparation f[

for this hearing, you know of no facts that can be developed —

here today that are not already in ‘that record; is that what

you are say ing? .

Mr. Lazar: Not tomy knowledge. i. believe that the facts

already in the record- conclusively indicate that the peti-' -

‘tioner’s rights have -been violated, contrary to the Consti-.

tution ;

THe Court: What you are saying is that if we stayed

here all day with live-witnesses, you know of no facts that

‘could be dev eloped, that are nor, already present in this*

record; isthat correct?) )

[32] Mr. Lazar: I have not talked with the State’ S only.

witness. The only witness, in my estimation that would be

material would be Mr. Lankford, w ho testified at the Biate

trial.

_ "I believe that w hat’ he said at the State trial sould be

stated differently, but I am not sure that anything could be

added to what he’ sid at the State trial. ’

~ THE, @purt: .Then, to go back-to. the statement which

you’made a moment ago, you know of no issue of any kind,.

fact or law, that exists at this time, except the voluntariness

of that confession and its. admissibility in‘ the trial at the

State Court; is that correct?

"Mr. Lazar:- It is in part, your Honor. I would not state | :

that the question goes only to voluntariness. I think that

there may be a semantic difference, but I think that: the

United States Supreme Court, in the Massiah ease, has

distinguished incriminating statements under the -circurn-

stances in this case and Massiah from those which are, in - }

fact, involuntary.

-I think that the Massiah case stands for the proposition |

‘ that statements obtained after indictment, without the aid

23::

~ of counsel are obtained [33]. contrary to the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments ° ‘and, the Fourteenth Amendment.

Tue Court: All right. |

To ‘state it another way, it is your position: today that

this case is in a posture to ‘be. resolved solely upon the law |

- question of the validity of that confession? hs

oe Me Lazar: With respect to the merits of the claim, that

js correct, Judge. . Deere ee tes

— Tue Courts: Do you agree with that, Counsel for the”

State? , :

Mr... McCrary: Your Honor, ‘the State is of the opinion

- that— With’ complete. candor,’ with ‘the. Court, the State

_ doesn’t believe that there ean be ‘‘anything gained’’ from

an evidentiary hearing or nothing new could be brought

out in this hearing that is not already in the record.

Twill represent to the Court that the State’s witness,

Mr, Lankford—his testimony today will be the same testi-

mony that he gave at the trial court on the State level and

it will not vary, and I have already discussed this with ©

opposing counsel, that his testimony-is going to be identi-

eal, maybe not w ord for word, but. that the general context —

would be the same and the questions that I w ould propose

“to [384] ask him would be the same questions that were askéd —

at the trial court to establish the voluntarinesS or the

involuntariness of the confession made by the Petitioner, |

the defendant at that level. ae |

. So, Iam of the opinion that—not I am of the opinion—

the State is of the opinion that the question to be decided

here is really a question on the: law, of applicable cases

_ applied to the facts that we already have in the record.

_ Mr. Lazar: If I may make ‘this one reflection, your

- Honor, that the only possible difference that I can foresee

is that my cross examination of ‘Mr. Lankford, although

perhaps not brmging out -any additional material facts,

“May, with respect to the voluntariness issue, if the Court

reaches that issue—and I don’t believe that is necessary—

but my cross examination of Mr. Lankford, perhaps, could

‘Testate some of the points that were made at the State trial.

‘Tue Court: I am going to, of course, give you a full

Opportunity to state all of these cases ana to argue them,

. ze : . ,

* ~ ; ,

. . : - c . : e 5 ‘

a : “ ‘ — 2 eens DOC LE Ps OAs RESALE ALE POET ae PAR,

ED wr 27 eal t ae

24 me

‘but what Iam trying to décide at this moment is what(if

* . anything, can.be accomplished by calling.this witness to

~ the witness stand for a direct and cross examination.

[35] Is he available? .

Mr. McCrary: Yes, your Toner.

Tue Court: Mr, Lazar; do-you want him called? |. -

Mr. Lazar: Your Honor, we will rely on the record of

the State Court. A

THE Court: Entirely ? —*. oh ae

Mr. Lazar: Yes, sir. mee | PA

THE Cotrt > Now, you know that this man is av ailable

and ready to testify, of course? . 7 |

-Mr. Lazar: PLCSSIP.:> -*.. js

Mr. McCrary: The State’s positioni is that we ean intro.

duce ‘nothing more than what is in’ the record, and _ his

‘testimony would be essentially the same as it was im the

: record i inthe State Cqurt. . _

~. However, the State is prepared to pat him on, if neces.

_ sary, your Honur.

Tie Court: In other words, counsel for both sides agree

that at this evidentiary hearifig, neither oLsthem know of |

anything that can. be adduced that would add anything to

. the already existing State Court record;.is that correct?

ae , Mr. McC rary: Your Honor, I say that with absolute

| candor. °

THe Court: And you do, too, Mr. Lazat?

Le Mr. JuaZar: That’s correct. o

. —‘Uxrrep. States District’ Court’,

Sovrnery: District oF FLORIDA ;

GEORGE: Lig ILLIAM Mi TON, . se

Petitioner, ee

1. %- t=) | No. 69-705-Civ-CF

Lours L. WaiNwricut, . OPINION te

Director, Division of Corrections, °

State: of Florida, . =

+ Respondent. ee 4

[File 4, Nov. 6, 1969, Josepu I. Bocart, Clerk.)

Beginning i in June of 195 57 George William Milton told

frie nds he was going with a girl named Minnie Lee Claybon

“who had a steady job and gave him money. He didn’t like

‘her, he said, because she was ugly, and he’d rather not be

seen on the streets@with her, but he liked her money.

George was a boxer. He was going to be.a champion, he

said, another Joe Lewis. He had the build for it, “at 6 feet .

2 inches, and 185 pounds. All he. needed’ was Minnie’s -

‘money so he could buy equipment and finish traiming. In

March of 1958 George and Minnie rented an apartment

together in- Miami. George asked the landlord if he knew

of a good insurance company. During Marchand April of

tHat_y ear George took out three life insurance policies on_

Minnie, with a combined value of $8,500, payable in the

event of accidental death. .George didn’t have much money.

In faet at one point he had to hock some clothes for $2.00,

-but he kept those insurance premiums paid. During those

same two months George repeatedly contacted: his girl-

friend, Lucille Williams, telling her ‘he would soon be com-

ing into a lot of. money “and would meet her in New York, -

where they would be married.

Late in A ar narine of May 31, 1958, George bought a

cheap, eight-year old ear. The back doors were equipped

with safety: devices which could be used to seal them from

the outside so that children couldn’t get out. George and

‘Minnie had no: children, although Minnie was several

months. pregnant. Sometime that night George secured o

29 | ; ee

- 2 <

‘

. - a a

ye = 7

° .

. Mane, aS re o .

°° SOO, . oa :

oer) ; ;

= ah ‘ :

* .

the safety locks so that the rear doors, which had been open.

When he bought the car, were sealed. He took Minnie out

. that evening, and it was very late when'they returned home..

- Minnie -had been drinking and was asleep. George put her ~

into the back seat and drove to'the Miami River. There,'in

the predawn of June 1, he aimed his car at the only portion

of river bank in-the area not blocked by pilings or boats, a° |

seventeen foot gap, put the machine into high gear, stepped ©

on the accelerator, and jumped clear just as the car went

nto the.river. His,shoulder’ was hurt by impact with the

ground. causing him to roll into the river, from which he’

was rescued several moments later by a boat captain roused

by his shouts. Minnie, ‘if-she ever: woke up, fourid herself

trapped with windows. closed and dogrs sealed. But that

was all right, according to George, because. Minnie was only

a young Negro girl and the law doésn’t care how, many

. Negroes get murdered. Besides, he had committeeds the

perfect crime, with no witnesses, as he later bragged: |

_This was the tale the witnesses told. at the three-day.

first degree murder trial in November, 1958. The jury re-

turned a verdict of guilty, witha recommendation of mercy,

ere CE

and the Court sentenced George ‘to life in: prison.: That.

’ was eleven years age, and as the years have passed George

Milton has petitioned and re-petitioned both Florida and °

Federal Cousts in his efforts to overthrow this conv iction.

So numerous have been his court: proceedings that in its

response to an earlier habeas corpus:#etition filed in this

— "

Court, Case No. 67-234-Civ-CF, the State déspaired, of its. ©

normal ‘practice of delineating prior history of. a“habeas

‘corpus claim and merely noted that such recital in this case

‘ .. would unnecessarily burden this. Court to wade"

through the matters.’’

Milton charges that he would not have: been pee we

- if the State had pot been allowed, to introduce into evidence’

_ an oral confession, which ‘he claims was involuntary. In.

the earlier ’ habeas corpus proceeding before. this Court,

” the State acknowledged the factsto be as fetitioner alleged, - -

and furnished a.transeript of his trial, which. included ‘an

. extensive, hearing on his voluntariness claim. Bélieving .

- | that all pertinent facts had been brought out at petitioner’s —

trial, this Court considered the merits of the petition and

enered an Order. aiiclae the relief sought. Mdeigtini im-.

portant Constitutional ‘questions are’ involved, ‘this Court

certified that. probable cause existed for an appeal of its

Order. The Fifth Cireuit Couft of Appeals did not review

the merits of petitioner’s claim, holding’ instead that, Milton

had not exhausted -his State remedies, despite the State’s

assertion that-he had. The Court of Appeals affirmed the

decision of this Coyrt but suggested tliat Milton reapply

for State relief. Milton v. Wainwright, 396 F. 2d 214 (5 Cir.

1968). Milton has now done ‘this. On September 3, 1968,

the sentencing court denied: ‘relief. under a Fla.R. Crim. P.

1.850 motion, without hearing, having considered only the

- records and files in the case. Thereafter, tlie Florida Su-

‘require the docketing of successiv

| pfeme Court refused to docket’ Milton’s State habeas corpus —

petition on the ground that thé of that :Couft. a Tet.

petitions upon issues

previously determined i in that or-anX other Court.

This Court thus’ ‘found itself in exactly the same position:

as it was before ruling upon the previous petition, except ~

that this time the Court of Appeals had said that the avail-,

_-able materials had a ‘remarkable, ‘if not quite adequate —

completeness. ’? Milton v. Wainwright, - supra at 215.. The

. State was’ given an opportunity™to hold an evidentiary

hearing and refused. to.do.so: In view of. the Appellate

Court’s observation that the available facts are. not com- —

. plete, this Court felt mandated to order an evidentiary

hearing in this cause. It therefore ‘appointed counsel for

Milton and scheduled a hegring.

At the hearing both sides represented to the Court ‘ink

they had earefully’ inv estigated this matter and could un-

earth tio facts- not’ included‘in the State trial: court record.

The State admits the facts alleged by Milton, and relies .

- solely on the law to sustain its position. Despite repeated

- the record is factually comple

questioning by the Court, Bei for Milton. insisted. that

‘Therefore, the’ hearing

in this Court consisted entirely of legal argument. |

The factual basis -fér Milton’ s involuntariness claim is cae

am simple. He was indicted for the first degree murder of

_.. Minnie Lee Claybon;:‘also known as Minnie Milton, and

_ was incarcerated pending trial. Archie Langford, a police

officer, was placed i in the cell with Milton, , who was told that

Sohths SARETe Oakes

T - = — ie =

ons

> .

eemeeis a ee

PR ANE a mares nes Aca:

. rte TTF : S 2 : . ie PRC oO

- . :

: : .

. . ‘

od .

_.the officer was being held on investigation of a murder

charge. The officer remained in the cell with Milton one

‘night, the following day, and part of a second day. During

that.time Milton was not told of his cellmate’s connection

with the police force: Under iistructions from his superi- .

_ ors, the officer questioned Milton as opportunities presented _

themselvé és in.an effort to elicit from him evidence concern- }

ing the crime. The testimony of this police officer as to |

‘statements made to him by Milton during this period of’

- joint incarceration’ comprises thie oral confession which

Milton charges was involuntary. :

Milton argues that the oral confession was inadmissible

because it wag obtained by coercive methods and, thérefore,

involuntarily given. This allegation was exhaustiv ely heard .

and determined adversely to Milton by the trial’ judge at

this original trigl. Under.28 U. S.C. § 2254 this determination

is presumed cotrect. The opportunity afforded Milton at

his trial to estabXsh the alleged involuntary eharacter of

the confession comported* fully with ‘the most,recent de- © },

cisions outlining the\yequirements ‘of due. process. sy 3 :

In Jackson v. Denno 378 U.S. 368, 376-77. (1964), the

U nited States Supreme Court emiphasized :.

’ the defendant? s sage Sepa right at some stage in,

_ the proceedings to object to the use of dhe confession

_and to have a fair hearing : airda reliable detérmination*

on the issue_of : voluntariness, adetermination unin- +

. fluenced by the truth or a thte confession.

The transcript of the record in this case establishes that ©.

_the trial judge'heard testimony out of. the presen of the >

jury, ineluding direct and cross examination of the Statg’s |

witness and testimony by Milton, prior to: finding that the»... |

oral confession was voluntary. This testimony and finding © i

comprises twenty-eight pages-of the transcribed record.

' This procedure afforded ta Milton at his trial in 1958 was:

declared by the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Denno, supra,

to be the desirable ractice for the determination of ad-

tmissibility,of confessions by State Courts in cases subse- }

quent ‘to/the 1964 Denno decision. Milton was given the |

benefit of sucha prior determination in. 1958. Nor did the

effort-to-comply with all ee of due — stop

“|

— . pe ® os : 4 c

29°

at-that, point. When the jury was recalled, and Langford

allowed to testify. as to the oral confession, defense counsel

was allowed to conduct an exhaustive cross exaniination*

comprising some thirty-five pages of the record. At th

conclusion Qf -closing arguments, the Court charged t

‘jury that they should determine whether the confession was

freely and voluntarily made by Milton and that if they did

not determine the confession to be voluntary they should

exclude such.involuntary statement from their considera-

tion of Milton’s guilt or innocence, but even if voluntary

it should be received: and. considered ‘‘with great caution,”

particularly if made after Milton was incarcerated and

under arrest. The jury was further charged that in making

their determination of the credence to be given to such |

confession all of ‘the circumstances surrounding its uttér-

ance, including the motives-which may have operated’ on

“Milton and including the harmony or inconsistency in itself

_ or With other evidence in the case should be ‘fairly and

fully’* considered. eo ‘ e a

‘It is difficult to imagine how this trial judge could’have |

_been more zealous in his effort to follow acceptable proce-.

dure in making his determination that the confession was

admissible as evidence of Milton’s guilt and in charging

the jury in a fashion most likely to give Milton every bene-

‘fitofany reasonable doubt. © oe . +

Not only did the trial judge follow acceptable procedure

‘in making his determination. of the voluntary character of .

the confession before admitting it into evidence but the -

tecord substantiates his finding. In Davis. v. North Caro-

_ hina, 884 U.S. 737, 741-42 (1966), the Supreme Court spoke

of the duty of :a federal court--in.a collateral proceeding —

Wherein the question whether a confession was involuntarily

givtnis raised, |

, to examine the entire record and make an independent

a e * we . : % . .

determination of the ultimate issue’ of voluntariness. - -

. The Supreme Court: emphasized that although the require-

‘Ment of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) that a

defendant be “advised of his right to counsel. and. given |

certain’ warnings at the outset of intetrogation was de-

; “ \ a — ; te .

; 4 a “

" , us ’ . : :

“ . . . : (= .

. . re a

‘overbear the defendant’s will to resist, thus constituting

-eoercion. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1963) ; Ly nian

‘v. State of Illinois, 372 U.S. 528 (1963); Rogers v. Rieh. 7

his own folly. This case was tried six years before the

if induced by officers or their agents from an accused after

Court has declared Messiah retroactive, and this Court

stating new priticiples of law, it merely restated principles

: ee as

: .

3 P :

elared nonretroactive by Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 US. '

719 (1966),

this does not affect the duty of courts to consider elaims

‘that a statement was taken under cireumstances which °

violate the standards of voluntariness which had begun

to evolve long prior to our decisions in Miranda and |

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964). 2 3 4

It thus becomes the duty of this Court to determine what }

those standards of yoluntariness. were and whether thet

were met in this case. The.test of admissibility of con-

fessions as voluntary has been variously stated, but the

requirement basically is that a confession must be the

product of rational intellect and free will rather than being

induced by conduct of state officials which might tend to

mond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961). | :

Despite assiduous efforts by counsel’ appointed to repre.

sent Milton in this- proceeding, this Court is simply not |

persuaded that Milton’s confession was anything but. .

“freely and voluntarily given’’ as those words were inter. _

preted in 1958. Milton was a big, strapping heavyweight

who- bragged of his prowess as a boxer. He was twenty-

three, young and strong. Although possessing orily a sixth

grade education, he could read and- write. Langford didn’t

pressure him; in fact, the officer carefully refrained from |

seeming over'anxious to secure information from Milton

in the effort not to arouse suspi¢ion concerning his motives.

It is true. that Milten was deceived by police officers into [

foolishly placing confidence in his cellmate. But this was

Supreme Court indicated in Messiah v. United States, 31

U.S. 201 (1964), that confessions are involuntary per s }.

his indictment while he is without assistance of counsel. No

will not be the first to do’so. Counsel for Milton argues that }

Messiah was not declared ‘retroactive because ‘far from.

SS ees ee EEE

i 7 . .

‘31.

derived from Powell ve. Alabome. 287 U s. 45 (1939). How-.

ever, the Powell case dealt with the Sixth Amendment right

to appointment of counsel i in a capital case, a situation far

. different from this case. Milton knew. w hat he was doing.

He wasn’t intimidated by ‘the police, because he. didn’t

even know his cellmate was a policeman. He had a lawyer

-who had told him not to make any statements concerning |

‘his e ease, but he chose not to follow that advice. aan

' There has been mucli new case law since 1958 dealing with

the voluntariness of incriminating -statements given by de-

fendants. But the “Dade County Police Department was »

confronted with a case in 1958 which it had to deal with as

best it could under the law as.it stood in 1958. The police:

would have been derelict in their duty had they failed ‘to

utilize every available means to discover. the truth ‘of the

. case. The crime was committed late at night, with no eve .

witnesses. Milton planned it that. way and bragged to

Langford that his was the perfect crime, without eye wit-

nesses. The State songht its evidence as best it could.

Disguising a policeman asa prisoner may not appeal to

‘delicate senses, but neither does murder. And the deception

* practiced upon Milton was a time-tested tool of police

- investigation which, at least :prior to Messiah, supra was

_.acceptable to the Céurts. Young v.U mica ‘States, 107 F. 2d

489 (5 Cir. 1939).

Finally, it should be pointed out ‘that even.if the trial

judge had’ excluded this oral confessiori, the jury would

still have had the benefit of an earlier tape recorded con- °

fession by -Milton, which was played twice at the ‘trial,

once but of the hearing of the jury,. and subsequently in,

- evidence. This confession was given several: weeks prior

to the oral confession in the jail cell. Milton was warned

of his applicable Constitutional rights before he made ‘the

Tecorded confession. Although Milton argued -at his trial

that this earlier confession was also involuntary,-he has:

not pressed that claim in this habeas corpus proceeding.

After a careful consideration of the facts of this claim

" and the applieable casé law, this Court is led to the i inescapa-

ble conclusion that Milton’s confession was freely and

voluntarily given. Thereupon, it i 1S.

39 - : a

OrpeRED and Ange DGED > that this petition be and ‘ite same

is hereby. denied.’

Doxe and Orperep at Miami, Florida, this 6 day of

Nov ember, 1969. ,

| ° /s/ Chafles B. Fulton

Chief aa

- ce: Mr..Grorce-Wittrm Mitos ~*~.

Bruce E. Lazar, Esa. (Atty. for Pane

Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Ese., Assistant -

Attorney General (Atty. for Respondent)

aa bed ‘ . : by

Unitep States. District Court

SOUTHERN: ‘District OF FLORIDA

_ * be.

‘GeorcE WILLIAM MILTON, —

Petitioner,

— No. 69-705-Civ-CF

Loyre L. Watxwaisnt, Director © . ORDER

Division of Correction, :

State of Florida,

Respondent.

(Filed, Dec.-23, 11:55 AM,. *69, Josern I. Bocarr, Clerk]

- The. two-volume Circuit Court record transer ipt ap-

pended to this Order was delivered to this Court as an

exhibit to the State’s response to this habeas corpus peti-

tion. The case has now been resolved and‘a notice of ap-

‘peal has*been filed. In order that the record in the Court .

of Appeals may be complete,itis

ORDERED that the Clerk of: this Court shall file this tran-

script with the records of this cause: .

Doxe and OrpEeRED -at Miami, Florida, this 22 day of

December, (1969. | ae

- /s/ Charles -B. Fulton

Chief Judge 7

ee: Du BBIN, SCHIFF, BERKMAN & Dussry :

JESSE J. McCrary, JR. cial Attry. Gen.

IN THE

‘Usirep States Court or APPEALS Ss

FOR THE FiftH Circvir >

. No. 29064

Summary Calendar

GEORGE Wittas Mintox, ar

. Petitioner- Appellant,

versus

Lovie L. W AIN WRIGHT, Director,

| Responde nt- Appellee.

—_————$——__—___1+—__ .

prc from the U nited States District Court for the.

Sauthern District of Florida ’

(June 23, 1970)

Before BEL, Arxswortn and GopBoL D,

Circuit Judges.

’

. Per CURIAM: George William Milton appeals pro se from

the District Court’s denial of his petition fora writ of

habeas corpus.. Milton is presently in the custody of the

State of Florida under a sentence of life imprisonment.

This sentence was imposed upon Milton’s conviction in

1958 for the murder of his ‘wife. We- conclude that the

. | : ®

)

—

—=_-

~ : . : - . _ ; °

"35

habeas corpus petition was rightly de nied and, accordingly,

affirm the judgment of the Distriet Court.-

This is the second time that.Milton has appealed to this

Court frem a denial of habeas corpus relief. Previously,

we affirmed the denial on the ground that-Milton had failed

to exhaust-available state remedies. Mon v. Wainw right,.

5 Cir., 1968, 396 F. 2d 214. In accorilance with our decision,

Milton moved the state court that had sentenced him to

vacate the Judgme nt-of conviction under Flas R. Crim. P.

1.850. He was denied this relief without a hearing. ' Subse-

quently, the Florida Supreme Court.denied leave to. aia

his habeas corpus petition on the ground that it was a

successive ‘similar «petition. We reree’ with the District

Court that Milton has exlausted the state remedies availa-

ble to him and, therefore, consider ‘the merits of Milton’ s

claim.

Milton, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled on’ the

merits of the petitioner’s contention that his oral confession

to a police agent dixguised as a fellow prisoner had been

In the court below, a lawyer was. appointed to represent _

involuntarily given. At the hearing, however, both peti-.

. tioner and respondent agreed that further testimoriy Was

unnecessary and that. the issues presented should be de-

cided on the basis of the testimony adduced in the state |

‘trial court. After hearing argument from both sides, the

District Court found that Milton’s confession had not heels

- obtained in violation of the f fedéral constitutional standards

applicable at the time of-his trial and when his conviction |

became final. The District Court’s ovinion is’ reported.

Milton v. Wainwright, S. D. Fla., 1969, 306 F. Supp. 929.

Having carefully r reviewed the*record, we conclude that

the District Court's findings may not be set aside as clearly

erroneous. The District Court has comprehensively dealt

With the issues preserited i in this case, and we affirm on the

basis. of its opinion. We ‘add, however, the issue

Whether the rule of Massiah-v. United States, 7 U.S. 201,

84 S. Ct. 1199 (1964), 3 is applicable to Milton’ s “confession

1We have concluded on the merits that this case is of the character that

does not justify oral argument. Therefore, we have directed the Clerk to’

place the.case on the Summary Calendar and to notify = parties of this action

in 'n writing. 5 Cir: R..18.

: . .

36."

_is controlled by our decision in Lyles v. Beto, 5 Cir., 1966,

363 F.2d 503, which refused to apply Massiah retroactively.

Accord, United States ex rel. Long v. Pate, 7 Cir., 1969, 418

-F. 2d 1028; United States ex rel. Allison v. New Jersey,

3 Cir., 1969, 418 F.2d 332. + - =

AFFIRMED. “| |

. i

Unitep States Court or APPEALS

.For THE Firtu Ciecurr

‘Oetober Term, 1969 * ~ _ oe

No. 29064

- Summary Calendar

D. C. Docket No. civ, " 69-705-CF

GEORGE Wins Mrirox, 7 _ 7 = =

Petitioner. Appellant, ely

versus - “oe

‘Louvre L. Warnwaicut, Director, Division of ©

Corrections, State of, Florida,

Respondent- Appellée,

4 Appeal Hom the United States. District Count for. ‘the

Southern District of Florida.

Before-Bett, AINsworTH and Gopsotp, Circuit Judges..

J UDGMENT |

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the

record from the United ‘States District Court for ‘the

- Southern District of Florida, and was taken under sub-

‘mission by the Court upon the’ record and briefs on file,

pursuant to rule 18;

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, It is now here

_ ordered and,adjudged. by this Court that the judgment of

the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is

_hereby, affirmed. oF og :

Issued as Mandate: . * a - : a - ; June 23, 1970 ©

IN THE tt

. Uy NITED Srares Count or APPEALS «©, *

; For tHe Firru Crecuir’ =

‘No. 29064 °

re ae Summary Calendar ; *

\ , . : &

y . ‘ .

_ Ne ‘ 7 whys eine Appellant,

: aN a versus. aa :

\ Lovie L. Watxwricut, Director,” \

\. Division of- Corrections, State of Florida,

Nout | pres sia abi A ppelley.

Appeal fram the United States District Court for the

\Southern District of Florida .

«. Y -

\ (July, 16, 1970)

poe, 7+. fA In Petiriox FOR REHEARING’

| | Before Bett; Ars: SWORTH ‘and Gopsoui b, C ircuit Judges.

‘ Pge CormmM: Ne

‘ae Ir Is:Orveren that the petition f for rehearing filed in ihe

|. above entitléd and numbered cause: be and the same is

>, hereby denied. “\

; / . ¢

§ / . ~~ * ,

-— s 38 . £F

* ,

Ix THE Cirevit Court oF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRcUIT

Tue State oF FLonma —

' Georce Wiriu1aM MIETON, -

IN. AND FOR Rape County, Fioripa. Sprinc TERM, 1958.

)

‘i - vs. .

-Indigtment for first: de.

ree murder

also known as GEORGE ey eee

Mirtox, .”

, Defendant.

Is THE NaME vaxp By ‘THE AvrHoriry ‘OF THE State OF

/; Buompa: e- | ae

The-Grand Jurors of The State of Florida, duly called,

. -impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make

in and for the body of the County of Dade, upon their

oaths, present that on the Ist day of June, 1958, within the

County of Dade, State of Florida, George William Milton,

‘also. known as George Milton, unlawfully and feloniously

and from a premeditated design to’ effect the death of

- vne Minnie Claybon,.also known as Minnie Milton, did kill

and murder’ the said Minnie Claybon, also known as’ Minnie

* Milton, by drowning her; that is to say, the said George

“William Milton, also known. as George Milton, from a.

_ premeditated design to effect the death of the said Minnie.

_ Claybon, also known‘as Minnie Milton, drove or caused to:

be driven.an automobile in which the seid Minnie Clay bon,

also knowri as Minnie Milton, was then and there an oc-

cupant into a large body of water, to-wit: the Miami River,

thereby causing the said Minnie Claybon, also known as

Minnie Milton, to drown, -a further. and. more particular -

description thereof being to the Grarid Jurors unknow

contrary to the form of the statute in such cases mad de

provided, to the evil example ofall others. eafod

offending and. Against the ‘peace and ‘dignity of State

of Florida. a

/3/ Richard E. Ger'stein

' Ricwarp. E. Gersrern>

State Attorney

11th Judicial Circuit of Florida.

_ 39 St

pln

. ‘ = . = y » / . ‘ . .

Loy oS f a or cor

. oe ay es ’ . ‘

yee - Ay : « . :

eyes Ugh. | :

a eS Bef Ly ve SPRING: Tens, 1958 No. 1904 Ho

- a . ~~ ; ” \" ‘ j

ee ENN Boxgn. In Th Great Court of the Eleventh J adicial

oe eae we oe 4 Circuit in and: for Dade County, Florida. ..

—p. \ hha 7 es |

é Bot ay Cantis” Tite Stare or. FLomips ros,

. "as ‘Assvep Aa ics an rei VS =: _

as . : oS ae 7 7275 a8. ( ~ yi . , ; ts 8 : ; .

Ne a GEoKtE W TLLIAM | Miro, also. known’ as

So ee A ae =o GORGE: Ala. TON, ? ee ahs en )

K “ARRAIGNED. ~~ i> . Def endant, *

w’* “Bes Ola? 38 salty 2 . ie ." 7 _—— 7

4 - ‘ ‘ . EN,

ca dar Not ‘Gent “hs

. :

: : +

: 4 ** i

: Ps R P . ‘

> a e 2 °

a :

e 3 . . C

: ». ” we

. . LS - .

oo ¢ . ,

. e - e < ® '

= . , ° : e

Wer =e “ a a

a Re ’ eS _

es ~—~ > a ”

‘ , - ¢ *e

e 2 e \ : ‘ ;

i «

Pn « ® . &

| « 1-8 ° . d

a a ee .,! »f

8 |. ’ Pas

et: \ . pen

ax ss ‘\ se

ts ine . > a ° :

. “se ‘* ot,

j ‘ e

we, : re” o

’ S a s ; »

ae .7 : «

® @we .

. . al ” . «

7 : e

es . . ‘ ‘

4 7 . .

‘’ fs : as

tt ‘ ‘

te - ree

RB es *

of ° . 5 s

; .

. es »

mee Fs oe vee “~~

Seas = } . ay ‘

> o . *

we. : ‘ a* : fs

Se 28 F e 7

- . — bad . /

wes /

. oo .

ei * ‘ al asa

. . Ee 7 aie .

* ioe X s > mae

a ‘

ea “2

* - .

Oo ages . oe

™ = Mos :

j % . ” ?

. . et

ae 5, Hy ‘

— = “0

: 0. eae

ar ~ : ‘ ~

x »

res : 7

“ . : :

4 ‘ : ‘<

A x e.

- aly, 1958. o

“Noe +

_—

Joux 5. Pagtiy

plckweEST For Fiast Decree, Meroe

A True B Bil

E. B. Sc eaneie

- Foreman tof the Grand Jury

Clerk, Cire nai Court ~ aoe :

By W M. W. STocRING |

= “Deputy Clerk. > \

‘ .

cna . me: oa .

- i.

; i m on

ss Jes. ;

2 oe

. ayy . 22%) ARCHIE Laxororp’

was lanea as a witness: on behalf: of the State; and ee ing.

‘been first duly~ aagrn, . Was examined and testified as |

« — follows:

_ A ’ , . . os .

Drktpct. EXAMINATION - - '

By Mr. Brock: | ° os

.Q. Would you please state your full name? |

A. Archie Langford, Jr

_. Q. With whom are you connected? |

A.’ The City of Miami Police Department.

- Q. With what division-are you now working?

A. Lam now working with the nareotics bureau...

A Were you connected ‘with. the police departnient i in-

ot ‘tay of this year? ¢ 2. aN

: (245). A, Twas. aha? gt 7 >

Tue Covert: W hat bureau dit Fou say?

_ Tue Wiryess; I.am now assigned to the City of Miami

Narcoties Squad® 2s ; :

Q. (By Mr. Block) W ere you with. the. Miami Police De-

“partment as of July of this year?

A. :-Twas.: :

-Q. Did you have ‘océasion to see one. George Milton in

“July of this year? .

ACT did.

Q. Where did you see ehim? ?

y The county jail.

Q. In. what connéction did you See him in the county

jail? d ‘yi ‘

leas also plaged in the’same cell with him. <

Q.. What name did you use? ? Pe ae,

. A. Arehie Lang. ie

~) Q. Who was in the cell when \ you were . placed in the cell:

’ A. George’Milton.

‘ * Q. Was'there anyone else in athe cell? <he .

- - A.*No, there wasn’t. ee |

~ * Q Do you remember. what day this. Was that you were

- plaéed in the cell? oe : a on.

~ [246] -A. The18thofJuly. — . a es

’ : s .

aE ce. 3 07 / 4. e : puts ° nd

. ; a mgs =4 = . . . :

: — . F ; eo. :

‘ hae ome aha ; : : ale aM

m * : Se ‘ . , . sf iP wR

« € . P ¥, . . r . : ‘.

- A. I was placed i in jail for biradiigation of murder, and |

: .* = . as , v 2 4 7 ° . :

GE een g337 5 TT hehe ee ty HN Oe HE ESP RANT Dn eT GATE SET GI RO Oss . e an wae Sass a a

. . *. . . .

° . e y

, “ F

, Q. “Approximately what time of fie or night was it—-

Was it.in the morning, afternoon, or evening?

A. It was in the ev ening, approximately 7 or 8 o'clock,

Q. Did you have any conversation with George Milton

that Friday night w hile you were in his cell? .

A. No, I didn’t. I just explained’ to him that. I was in

jail for investigation of murder.

“se Q. Did you olor him anything to tall to vou?

“A. No, I didn’t. .

: Q. Did you tell him you were a police officer? ? | er on

A. No, I didn’t. *” ete |

Q. What did‘you_ tell him you were in jail for? 2

A. For investigation of, murder, for the killing of a.

Chinaman on 19th Street and 5th Court.

-Q. What did he talk to you about? Did he talk to- you

gn what he was in jail for that ev ening? -

A. No, he didn't... -* 7

Q. Did you threaten him in any way?

A. I did not. °

Q. Did you talk with him sain the following day ?

AS [ did.

Q. Did you at that time feat him in any way?

[247] A. I did not.

Q. Did you offer him any rew wards or promises for talking

to you? . m3 ;

A, 1a not. 2. *°_-.... ; ae

Q. Now, starting with the following’ day, which’ would \

have been July. 19th,’ Archie, tell us as well as you can

remember what your conversation with George Milton was. -):

Mr. Sanpstrom: I object to it on the ¢founds that a

proper predicate has not been laid.

-Tue Court: In what respect? .

Mr. SaNpstrom: In the first place, it- comes after the

_time that ‘the purported incident occurred. In relation to

_‘-the purported conversation orsadmission on any date, the

corpus delicti’ has not been. proved. Theré has not been a

predicate laid to show the. voluntariness of it or that he .

gate a voluntary statement, and that there was no influence. ;

rought to bear upon him. -

I would like that predicate laid i in the Hees of the jury.

Tue Court: Take the jury out.-

aye

fate a

- (Thereupon the jury retired from the edugtroom, and.

the following proceedings were had:)

| THE Covurt:’ Further qualify him, ‘

_ Q. (By Mr. Block) Archie, during the time that [248]

you were in the eell with George Milton, was he at'any time

threatened? — = -

_ A. He was not. 7 : , 2 _

_Q. Was he abused in-any way? | —

. Mr. Sanpstrom: I object. This isn’t telling us what

occurred. .

Toe Court: Just ask him what he knows. Just tell us

.. what you did. a

Tue Witness: I Was placed in ‘the cell on’ July, 18th,

approximately 7 or 8 o’clock. I was fingerprinted and

- thugged and carried directly to the cell. Approximately . |

30 minutes after I was in the cell, one of the jJailers came

to me and carried me outside of, the cell and asked me

_ what Was my reason for being in jail. ; .

I explained to him, also, ‘that I’ was involved in, the.

killing of a Chinaman on 19th Street and 5th Court.

Q. (By Mr: Block)’ Did the jailer know why you were in

jail, actually, if you know? a | |

_ A. He did not know.

Q. Okay., | | Le .

A. He then carried me around to the side of the wall and

questioned me in refererice to why I was placed in a special]

isolation:cell. I-did not know, but I was being investigated

for.murder. He asked me if I felt bad, and I said no. |

[249] Q. Did they question you why you were put in the

cell with Milton? = Po

_A. They just put me there, I guess. I looked, but -he

didn’t have a badge, he didn’t wear his badge. He then

" placed me in the cell and I began to talk to Milton. *‘I wish

_ F was out in the street.’’: He didn’t say anything the first °

_ night. He just talked about ‘‘What’s your name, where do

Youliveat.’? ~~ ° . -, a

The next morning, breakfast, we had oatmeal. I offered

him may oatmeal. I can’t ‘recall whether he. ate it or not. |

We began to talk about the crime-that I was ‘supposed to.

have committed. I explained thoroughly the plan that I

had in reference to the crime. I was trying to convince him

I had committed it and we began discussing it. He then

told me, he asked—he asked me did I have a lawyer. I

told ee “Yes, I got.a lawyer—Arrington.’

‘He asked me how did they find the gun. I e laine’ that

to him. He said, ‘©Remember, if you go down for investi-

gation, don’t take the truth serum test.’’ I said, ‘‘Truth

serum, what’s that?’ He said, ‘You .don't know? ‘Just

remember, don*t take it.’ : =

~ Well, I told him that I had volunteered to take the troth

serum. He said, ‘‘Wait a minute. I ‘took the truth serum |

test and I made statements; but my lawyer told me to

‘change’ the statements and to tell the. Court, the Judge, —

[250] that they made me make: thosé statements: by force.”

So I said, Ww ell, i promised I was going to make the

statement.’ .

“You. don’t have to finke: ‘the st iementr Don’t tell

anyone [ told you. .Y ou don’t have to make the statements.”

I said, ‘‘Okay.’” OS

So we talked a few minutes and he said, “You kill a

white man. ‘They are going to burn you."’ So it. was a joke

about me killing a white man. :

Later on during the evening, I tried to get hime to discuss

what he had done. He just said, mumbled a few words,

_ .and cut it short. At approximately 4 o’clock that ev ening, ‘

‘just’ before dark, he began to tell me. I asked him in |

reference to the incident, what happened with him. . Z

, ‘He : said that they had him in jail for investigation of’

‘Killing his wife. So I'tried to get him to explain to me what

happened. He said he didn’t want. to talk about it. Soa

few minutes later I began to sit up.,I told him, I said,

‘They, told me last night you Was ends Sie ia said, Gt m

not crazy.’

——

I said, ‘‘The reason they put me in —_ was they told F

ne you were erazy- and that during the night you would |

Seat me up to death, something like that.’’ a

‘‘T am not crazy.’ So he began. to explain and tried to:

orove to me that he Wasn’t crazy. I said, ‘What [251] do |

hey have you in here for?’’ He said, “They ‘have mé in

“tere for killing my’ wife. ’* So I said, “Did you kill her?”

Te said, “No.”

“Well, [heard you raped her. ”’ He may “T didn’t rape

ier.’” So I tried to convince him that I was under the-

e - 3

_ impression that. he had raped her. He said, ‘‘I didn’t rape

her.”’ | ; an

So, at that point he began to explain to me that she was

pregnant at the time. Then hé said to me, ‘‘I don’t want to

‘discuss it any more.’’ I said, ‘‘Okay,’’ so I laid down on his -

' bunk, —% * oe —- .

As night fell, I think it was on Saturday night, the

second night, and from the cell you can see the Harlem:

- Square Bar. There is a sign that runs around the bar. I

told him, I say, ‘‘They are having a dance ‘down: there

tonight. I wish I could go to the Palms.”’ a

We began to discuss it. We ther went to the subject

of murder, which he was supposed to have committed: Hé

_ then told me, he say, ‘“Sit down, I want to tell you some-

_ thing.’’ So he began talking. He said, ‘‘You killed a white

man. I killed a colored person.’’ .He said, ‘‘They are going ©

- to burn you, but they don’t care how many Negroes you ~

kill.’’ | | -

‘I said, ‘‘ My lawyer said we can beat it.”’? He said, ‘‘You

can’t-beat it because those Chinamen have a Chinese [252]

' Committee. They. will pay to have something done-to—

you,’’ .I laughed. I said, ‘‘You haven’t heard of Arrington,

have you? Let me tell you about a case that Arrington had.’?

I begin to give him a long story about Arrington and to

‘convince him I was under investigation. . "

‘I will get out.’’ He said, ‘‘I hope ‘you get out, but Pll.

* tell you one thing: If you get out on bond, you leave town.”’

So I said, ‘Why you say that—if-I get ‘out on bond that I

should leave town?’’ yee at Se hi

- He said, ‘‘If I get out on bond, I'am going to leave town.”’

- So I said, ‘‘Well, you say you didn’t do anything. Why

should you leave town?’’ He said, ‘“‘The way things are

‘now, it looks bad.’’ So we begin discussing how long he had

_, been in jail.’ nea Be - or i

I then tried to bring him back to the point of events, what

happened. He: said to me, ‘‘If you leave town, they will

probably be looking for you. What you should: do is go out

West or somewhere. If I leave town I am going up North.’’-

“Man, they’ll find you up there.” ey

“They won’t find me. I know a couple of places. I'am .

_ S0ing out in some town where there is mining work or

_ working in the wood pulp, somewhere in the fields.” _I went

I started coe ad about water, heiteren He. told me talking

; Ca ts ang a a RSS EE SR TI A ETI EF we a eT aA A IAS RE ;

. . . 7 .

. : . . . ‘

a : >. :

i ’

along with, him that that was probably right: So I said

“Tf I get out of jail, if there is someone you want me [: 253] |

contact, you tell me.”’

“You? re not going.’’

‘“‘T bet Arrington can get me out. He is samedcoe to get a

person out on bond.’’

He said, ‘‘No. My lawyer told me not to sontadl anyone.

_» Iam not to give anyone information. ’? He said, “The only

_ thing I have to give is my name, address and age. He said

don’t give any more information.”

‘I asked about the statements he said. ‘He said, sey

lawyer told me to tell them that when I went down to the

investigation, that I was forced to sign those statements,

the dotted line, and then they added statements to it.’’

I said,*‘‘ Well, that might hold: up. That’s a good’ case.”

So we begin to talk. He told me, he said, ‘‘Do you like

movies?’’ I said, ‘‘ Yes.’’

“Nid you | see the picture ‘Sw ect Fragrance of Success’!

T Said, ‘‘ No.

“‘That’s the -picture you should have seen.’ I said,

| ‘“Why?’’ He said, “That picture was about a perfect

crime.’’ I. said, “Perfect erime? There is no. such thing

- that I didn’t have’ enough education, and that I signed on .

as a perfect:‘crime. There is somebody going to knov |

about it.’’

_ I said, ‘‘I almost committed a perfect crime, but mI

i cua ‘left a gun in the. trunk of .a car. ‘They found the

- gun.’? So he said, ‘‘That’s the thing I got against yo: -

[254] all. When you do something, you supposed to do it by:

yourself. You don’t have anybody on it. I committed a_

perfect crime because I was the only one that kriow-exactly -

’ what happened. I am the only witness.” . . :

He said, ‘‘My lawyer told me everything: was going tobe |

okay when I get out of jail. I left a lot of. money.’

«Where you going-to get money from?”’ He said, ‘My!

wife has‘insurance.’’ I said, ‘‘You are not going to get any |

money. . That was accidental. *? He said, ‘‘When you take

a policy out on a person—

He says, ‘‘T don’t want to, talk about it any more.’

_ So he'laid up on his bunk. j

So I begin to try to get him to tell me what ea

aa says, ‘Take out a policy!"

about water and dtowiting hurts. his head. . So ‘we e finally: :

beat around the bush. It was one or two o’clock at night

and we was talking and he begin to tell me that he had took

out a policy on this female, and that-he made a check by

someone and that they told him the policy he took out

wasn’t any good because it was a. straight life. He had

to take out an accidental policy to collect this amount of

money. So he said that iateMon he took out a policy.

Then we started discussing about cowboy: pictures. He .

knows quite abit of movies. He said that he [255] enjoy ed. -

cowboy movies, that’s what he does on his time off is go to

_ the theater. We started discussing cowboys and different

“movies where perfect crimes wére almost committed. And |

he kept stressing to me that he had —— the perfect

crime. ,

So I was discussing a movie ‘Whose a cowboy. almost

, committed a perfect crime. Someone blundered the deal up

and that is the reason—he said, ‘‘That’s.the reason I told

you that whenever you do something, do it by yourself. I

will be out of here i in a couple of months. My: lawyer told

me that.’’

He said, ‘‘ My iia told me don’t sign anything, don’t

’ talk te anyone, just give your name and address and that’s .

all I have to do.’ ‘And he said, ‘“When the deal go ms I

will have a large sum of money.”’

I said, ‘‘Large sum of money?’’. He sia, “Ta.” “to J

- said, ‘“You mean from the’insurance?’”’? He said, “Yes, I

am going to buy a‘lot of nice clothes.”’

He started telling me that he was a boxer and was going

back and start a boxing career: After. that we talked and

discussed boxing. I never did any boxing but I played foot-

_ ball: He didn’t know too much about football. So we went

-from:that subject and we just started different things that

happened i in the: outside world. —

Then we started talking a little while Siti 1256] I went

into the full details, telling how the crime I was supposed |

to have committed was done. Then he broke down. He

started ‘telling me how he knew he committed the perfect _

crime. I tried to explain to him that theré was no such

: thing asaperfectcrime. ~. :

* After I finally convinced him there was no such thing as

ae. Perfect — he began to tell the his story. ‘He said that

this night he hada car. I thing he had the car for about

"a week or two weeks, but anyway he expressed that the car

had been bought. :

He had his ‘wife go somewhere with him, up to Hallandale,

if Tam not ital Anyway, on the way back, they cameé

around an area, Highway No. 27.

“W hy did you come’ that way?’’ So he didn’ t say any

more about that, because it looked like T°‘ was pushing him.

‘too fast. So I éarried him. back.

‘‘What was up at the Palins that night?’’? He said he told

me that a Negro band was up at the Palms. He begin to

tell me that he came around Highway 27 again.° He also.

said he met someone, brt he never tell me “who he met. So

‘he said he brought the irl direct ly—no, he say he was trying

to make up his mind what he was going to do. There was a-

' Jot of traffic in the street, and- he went home, 5th Avenue,

“and ‘parked. the ear. She had drank some’ beer and was

sleeping. So he told me that he went liome and parked the

[257] ear. in front of liis door, and he w ent in and done

something.

He went inside to carry his wallet and her w allet, one of

. ‘them he carried inside the house and came back out and

told her to get in the back seat. .He then said he drove down

. to 5th Street around. in the area of 3rd Avenue. Anyway,

he wound up saying he.was down by the river. His first

_intention was to go into the water and get out: He changed

his’ mind as the car was rolling; he jumped out then and he

- said some white. people came back and tried to assist him

after it was over, after the car had ‘gone into the river.

“Why didn’t vou go.into the ear?’’ He said, because he

didn’t want to go in the-car. I asked what-did he have to-

do when he went home. He said he carried her belongings ~

- home and. kept:the driver’s license.’ He said, ‘Just in case |

the police got me, I could identify myself. Mid fe

“**You had a plan of killing her?’ He laughed and said,

‘*T told you I had committed a perfect crime.’’ So I played

along with him. I gave him some candy. When I went in the

jail, I carried six ten-cent candy bars, and I gave him’ one ™

, of the candy bars. °° , -

Every time I went out of the cell; he would steal one and

) eat it. Knowing he was —< them, I wouldn’t say- any-

thing, because I.wanted to Work right along with him. |

So later the next morning, which*was Sunday, [258] we

(8 49

began discussime—TF told him 7 chad been in jail for 72

. hours and it was time for Arrington to do something. He

told me that if I get out, to make sure that, I left town.

I said, ‘* I’m not going to. leave town because I think I-

can beat-it.’’ **Remember, you killed a ‘white man, I only

kifled a Negro, and yeu know that wher h you kill.a white man

you going to get some time or burn.’ : °

“T-don’t think: so. qT didn’ t pull the trigger, T wasn’t in

possession of the gun.”’ He said, “Tf. I get out I’m going

to leave town. I am going to clear the city.’’. I said, ¢*Is.

there anyone outside you want me to. compact when I get

out?’? He said, ‘‘No, my Jawyer told .me not to contact

anyone. He would contaet me.’ ..

I said, ‘‘Well, okay: > So we. began to discuss a fo a

movies and I tried to make him tell me w ‘hat. the movie,

‘Sweet Fragranée of Success,’ ‘if there was a perfect ‘crime

inthe movie. . :

Then afterwards, later on in the day, T was contaeted by.

my superior officers and remeved from theeell, +

Mr. Brock: May JI inauiré as to certain things up nnitil,

this point, ask him certain: questions? IT believe the witness’.

hasforgotten something. . * — -.

TueCover: Allright. 0 ~~. io

Q. (By Mr. Block) Did he. ate ny time tell you why he had,

killed her?

[259] A. He: said before’

Mr.- - SannsTROM : I obiéet to this, — This. is leading and

suggestive and hasn¢t: got: anything: to do

Q.°(By Mr. Block) The answer is Yes or no. Answer: ‘it.

Tue Court: It is out of the presence of the jury. Lam

not able to determine whether it should: be in the présence ”

of the jury or not.

2 (By Mr. Block) Did he tell y ou that he had killed her?

A. Yes. . Po

' Q. Whatdid he say? % fa Ls

A. He said he had been ee mm. ins quite a «hile and

- things were kind of ‘tough for him, and he had been work-

ing. He told me he had been working on-Miami Beach as a

‘bell boy or some - ani He was in need of money, said lie had

contacted someone’s smother ' or. father, or someone. They

told dane ‘You are.old enor igh'to make money of y our own.”’

: ° ; . r . ° ° ef : .

: ¢ . : :

. ; . .

4 aj . 7 ‘ . ; ~ . :

7 . : e e .

« . .

. 50

He aid th it’s how ‘him and someone else schemed: to § ge

this young lady’s insurance.

After he found out he had the wrong insurance he hai

‘to change the policy and get one that was accidental. ;

Q. Did he at any time. tell you. if he did anything to his

car? :

A. We started talking together, whether bi had [26(

raped a young lady or not. He dign't want me to be unde

_ the impression that he Was a rape artist, so he began-t.

explain to me that she was, pregnant and that was th,

reason She was.in the r back of. the car w ithout any pants on

‘So I said, ‘Gee, v heard about they told” you atte ther”

girl. 9 oY

me dian’t rape that girl. She Was my wife: she -was abox

_ three or four nonths pregnant, s something like.that.’’ Ther:

was something - on the back, of. the car. I don’t know wha!

kind of a latch. He knew the name of it. It was on the door

as and you couldn’t opén it from the inside, some. kind of :

safety latch that you use’ when you drive with children iz

the ear. That’s w hen I asked: him mene he had the car.

He said he had it approximately one wo¢k. He gave me the.

a . _-correct day. It, wasn’t much more han a bikoa ‘or tw

" _ 4 weiks,

ie Set Q. Did he say. anything about any loeks on. the car, on the’

> uiatile of the car?

A. He said that on the. ear r door’ was some Kind of system

where’ when you drive with kids in the: baek of the car,

they usually place it around in there, There i is a loek ther:

that, you can only. unlock from the outside. And he sail,

about her being i in \ the sai seat was the reqeen | she couldn’

, get out: -

= \ > i ee he, tell you if. “- had done any thing to ‘the (261).

oe oo / ; 4.

A. Well, he explained: to me > first that a knew that th

. door was locked, and they had it fixed. There was.a specia}

reason for putting her i in the hack—so she couldn’t get out.

Q...When were you released from the cell? oe

A. That Sunday following. 3 eer e

—Q. About twodays later?» : i eee

*. A. Abonuttwodayslater. . °° «=. | {

* Q. Did you at any time lay a hand on the defendant.

threaten him in any way? ...-

r’ A. I was put in

A. "NoSI didn’t, peer 4 be ee

Mr. Bock: Would you like to examine? ar

Cc ROSS wg INATION,

By, Mr. Sa AN DSTROM :

@ What time

rere you: first -put into this él

e cell July 18th, around 7 7,or 8 o’clock,

Q. You didn’t talk about the case that night?

\. I tried to’ hint ‘around to” him;-but he was kind of

aie He wanted to talk about other things first, SO I

didn’t put the pressure on ‘him at all.

Q. “nsw er my question, — ‘The answer to my. anes

tion is no? .

A. No, I didn’t talk about the e ease at all.

- [262]° Q: When did you first get, around to talking « about.

SNA: That motte: a .

.-theecase? ° :

Q. And how many times hady you endear or ed to talk with

him about his case? tt Sega

A, Two or three times. |

Q. Two or three times pefore he ‘sted: talking ahout :

hisease atall? . - : .

-A. Right. — |

Q. Did ‘he tell you he was represented by a lawyer?

A. Right. :

Q. He also: said that the lawyer told him not to talk to.

anybody else? - : es -

A. Not to talk about any investigation. lea Pe tate

- Q. He said not to talk tb any body i in the. eel]? ga

A. Right.

. JQ. In spite of that, he told you all of this tarsi

A. After I convinced him Twas i in jail for. murdet. :

—Q. After he told you that his attorney. had told him not-

* to tafk with any body i in his cell about his case, then he told

_ you this anyway?

A. No; he just didn’t come right out and tell me.

, [263] Q. All right. ing | did he tell you what kind of a’

carhehad? ~~ -

1 A. No, he didn’t tell me.

‘4

Tue Covurt:’ You are going inte what he was told. ss

- think you are challenging. his’ testimony. It is all on the

. 5 : id - ' *

me, officer? .

‘A. Twas told not to advi ‘ise him 0

Q: You particularly got arranged to ge

in charge of the ss qahgerra array for you. to: e

hiscell? : es ae : p<

mee Right.: Roe Ow :

Q. Yéu remainded with him over 24 hours before he’

‘started telling you about liisease? |’

‘A. Approximately 12 to 18 hours...

Q, And then he. didt’t tell you any ‘thing about the case

until that evening or thé next day?. oe

A. Nextmorning. oer

- Q.- The ee after that ? , 4 mths

‘A. OR! CS mS 3

Q, Now, how many time did you 1 endeav or to talk with him

Ps: that time? - te ae

A.: Maybe two or three times.

[264] Q: He didn’t have any choice about getting you out

ofthecell?... pa eee

Mr. Brock: That j is improper. :

. Mr. SANDSTROM : ‘I think it is a matter to be ‘comniiiedéd on.

: : ‘the predicate.

-Mr. Brock: It is proper:

THe Court: I think it i is: obvious, bat I Ww “ill let him answer ‘

the question. one.

Tue Witness: Would you mind reading. that back? |

‘: Tue Court: He couldn’t pet ‘you out of the cell if he.

wanted tet.

THE Wrnness : To my knowledge, no.

Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) Every time: he isons talking

about his case, you kind of. enn — — at again, ;

didn’t you? . ree . ie =

A: No. . :

,- About this case ? -

~ A. One or two.

— Q. One or two?

A. _ Yes. ts

Q. How late in the night dia you keep talking to fim

. . cae

‘Q. Bach ian’ he “wuld step talking, you would start

| "talking’bout it again? “co en

A. No, we would go over tnt different subjects and

' eome right back to it.

[265] -Q. Didn’t you say you had. vital talking about

his case. again? :

- A. After we talked on other. subjects, to ~— the ‘con- *

ae versation going. by

~ | Q. You kept bringing him back to. the same. thing?

~~ __ A. Right. It, lasted until, 3 0 ‘clock i in the morning, some-

thing like that.” es on

Q. Now, how long did you actually talk with him, or so

to say, question him, about this case before he started’ tell-

- ing you anything about it? Not-in time lapse, now, be ut: in

the time element’ of talking?"

Mr. Brock: I don’t understand the question. eA

Tue Court: I* don’t think we understand it. I —_—

you would rephrase it. .

Q. _(By Mr. Sandstrom). Now, how ‘heal eiter’s you bad .

been’ put into the. cell,, how long- had: ‘you talked. to him

and. questioned him abbut this before he’ started telling.

- you anything about thif case?

. Mr. Brockx:: I don’t feel the witness pie AON |

Tue Covrt:. Do you understand the’ question? :

.-:, ig

_ Tae Witness: I still don’t actually know what he means. ao

‘Tee Court: If you can answer him, answer him. if you

~ don’t know, just tell me..

. Tue Wrrness: ‘I was placed in the cell Fri at, [266] !

‘approximately 7 or 8 0’clock. He and I pti he:: ‘reason ; F

why EF .was in jail, and ‘other things until the-1éxt en,

-until after breakfast, which was. about 11 or 12 6 "clock.

Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom): “When was - last. time you

questioned, him about this case? * |

A... I was not questioning him. |

Q. You were asking him questions about se weren t yout ©

“Mr. Brock: He testified he was talking. to the witness. mie

He didn’t say he was questioning. him. :

‘Mr. Sanpstrom: It is still a matter of qieaiiohines:

Mr. Brock: . There’ is a difference between talking and -

ee questioning. sae a ,

. ‘

2 ets

Tae Courr: I willlet him answer it. ee

oo ( By Mr. Sandstrom) When was the det time gs

questioned him aboutit? 4: . J

=. Tue Court: He: said that several ‘times he Ibrosiee: the |

- subject back to this situation. I assume th&t was asking |

,. him, asking him’ a eeetiien. that would be as to what —

aa. ey

& Tue Wrrates: I. anderen — : a

' Tue Covurt:, I think he has ‘alieady testified that he

talked to—questioned him two or three tifnes; I believe he,,

said.

‘Mr. Sanpstrow : For a period of jon or thins days,

[267] -Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) Now, prior to the time

that you commenced questioning him, had you read any

ind of a statement he purportedly gave?

A eas

Q..Had - somebody: ‘told: “you ‘about the ease that - was

. purportedly against him? =e" . : a oa!

- A.No. <a saat

-*Q." Nobody had. told you anything? 4

- A, They didn’t. . ep pes

+ QS Now, had- they. told you the name of the person you.

-, were to talk to before you were Putin the cell? Ree 5.

: a Yes. * See oe eS *

2. Did they tell you "what you were to talk to him about?

A. They told ‘me that I was supposed to try and seek

information without using any kind of force or promises. °

Q. You were put in purposely to lie about who you were? |

Mr. Buocx: I object to that. That i is —

Tue Court: I will sustain it. _

-Q. (By. Mr. Sandstrom) ‘You were put in there with

natreidions to conceal your identity? : ee

‘. oe ese eS. oe

_Q. And you were also put .in there with instructions to” =

_ keep talking to him until: you got him talking about this :

. [268] case; is that right? That is apparently what you did,

- isn’t me

A. We. talked with each other. Sometimes he woke me |

“up during the night to talk.

Q. How many times did you wake him up during the . 7

ftimet ee! Gee .

o ,

- I was electing on top. of. him, He wotlds start art talking

and I would léad him inta the subject.

» Q. ‘How many times did you awaken him’ « oe af as & 7

- A; I will say about once or twice, « ° oa

_** -Q. Once or twice you woke him up, even in tha night to

-*.° talk to him. How long. had he: been at by the time you

wokehimup? . — ge

: A. He was easy: ‘to wake up. ‘He was sbnsitive.

"Mr. SANDSTROM : I believe that is all I ‘want Sins quire -

’ of hi ipl

I would like to sei the defendant on. with reggrd 0 this.

'. "Tre Court: You may do sq. 2

ee:

: Oxees Mizros,

, the ‘Defendant herein, was. called on ‘his pawl behalf, ‘and

~ having been first duly — —— eae est and testified i.

. as follows: . . | .

- Dmecr Bkxawrsati0x eae at f °."

en, ‘By Mn. Saxpsrn6n :

Q. State your name..

[269] -A: George Milton.

__Q. Arid how old are you, George?

A. Twenty-three years old.

-Q. And. how many times nave you, biaiai incarcerated ;

that is, putin jail?* .

_ A. You mean the times I were put: in jail?

Q. Yes.

p& ‘. A. You-mean the time iwae Arrested? | we

Q. Exelude this case for/a moment; except for ‘thié

_ ease, how many tinies haye je been in jail before?

. A. I was never in jail before.

es to’ Shis fa that was. the only time. you.

* . had been in jail? — i

A. That was the ais ties I was in jail, the only time

I ever been incarcerated by- the police whatsoever. 0 |

- » Q Now, George, calling: your attention to that Archie

-* - Langford that, {was gust on the stand, did ‘ye: ———

.- him?

A. I recognized him. +255

)

:. to another detective downstairs. He is the kind of fellow—_,

. I think Detective Sia was his name. Do you know

. isin charge of: my case.’’? He said, ‘‘Detective Shepherd: |

- said that: you drowned your wife and how about that?’’

ae remember correctly, which I am.sure I do, he. wi taken eee - |

- . of the cell.one night about roughly," well, mayb three oF a

- ‘something that was, automatically just brought up from ‘no

Se ted * ac

., And as I cfiering my sworn. ‘testimony to this. Court

was just terrible. After - that, I told that it was a sin the

aS NE preter’ . pity aan ste 23 Frees ;

at Dian you ever have oceasion 1 to be. in the same cell with :

? :

ALT were. in the same cell with Archie Langford. cis) |

Q. Tell us what occurred from. the time he was put in,

_ that cell until the tim@he left thatcell» o

"AL Well, when he first‘eame into the cell, oak [270] just

Tike any; other prisoner—I was in jail for five months and .

twenty-six days, so sometime ‘different fellows come in * ~

and leave. He came into the cell. He just came in the cell

as far as any——We had conversations about mostly— -_ !

about different things: ‘The time ‘he was there, well ifI. = ’

ee ee it

four times—I don’t remember. _- [

When ‘he came back to thé cell, then he said, 8 | just

- came back from talking to. my ‘attorney’ and-I was tatking. °

- him, Milton?”? . me ; :

I said, “What was the name again!’** He ‘said, ‘“Detec- *

‘tive Shepherd.” ag : |

‘“‘T remember Detective Shepherd. He.is the man that |

A said, “That ’s not true whatsoever. ae igs

about it?’’ I said, iS

t’s not true whatsoever, and I-havé-already been em-.

barrassed enough by the newspapers and the scandal of my

“name.I don’t. want-to talk abofft it whatsoever. I am

already sick about it, the way it.is. The whole thing. is just’

a See

ey _

reanon whatever [271} and I Jae wouldn ’t even talk about

tha was the“only words that was exchange ed between Archie ~

Langford and I. We never said anything else about any-

_- thing; and we never had any other conversations as far as

I were concerned. | : .

As soon as I told the way I-was feeling, that-my name

‘was a scandal in the newspapers about: I murdered my

wife and my baby and all, and collect some. insurance, it

“

A “Vw

way hae can : make i when wot 2 was , actually

- ghere.. After that we never talked about anything any more. = °.

I think the next day or so, Archie Lang left. But asfar

— as any other conversations whatsoever, that was not true, a

-. and that i sworn testimon

Q. Did ever talk to him’ about the facts of your ease? a

A. I never mentioned. anything except he only men- ©

~ tioned foe, to be honest and concise He only mentioned af

_ it once ;just onetime. ae

_Q. Did he ever mention, “What are you in jal for?”

’ said, ‘Well, it is bad enough as it is. I don’t want

ae to talk about it. That was the only time he even mentioned

_ it. After that—

[272] Q. Prior. to ‘the 18th day of July,’ had you ayer

_ spoken tome before ; : that is, before July 18th?

A. You mean before ort July 18th?

Q. Yes, before the 18thday of July. — |

- A. Before the 18th of July, well, if I sdueandiee gees

after being in jail for 19 days, I was finally admitted “iy...

_And call someone to take over my case—after 19 days. .. .

” Otherwise, before then I was not everf allowed to call my *.

“family or my wife’ etamiy.

Mr. Kocew: I have a motion to strike that testimony

THE Court: : There i irhere.

eee (By ‘Mr. Sandstrom) What day did you first. talk to

_me, do you recall?

.. he Well, 22 I remember. arent, S| batieve it was—I

believe it was on the 19th, I believe. .

: Q. Of what month? -

* | A. [believe it was the 19thof June. ree

Q...Now, were’ you advised with regard any -

statements to ‘an} @ cell about your case? -

_ A. -F-was never advised or anything. I just always--t .

: never was advised or told to do or not to de.

- Tie Court: Were you adviged about talking: to people, eS

something of that sort? — 3

Q.. ‘(By Mr: Sandstrom) Did I ever mention to you abont -

talking to people i in the cell with you about your case? :

[273] A. That is not—you never did. &

Q. I never told you to talk to him. ‘Did Le ever val you. :

not to talk’ to him? :

oe ode

- - . Other, but I never talked with anybody. I can’t remember

- “Mx. Biaox:: “He's got an answer that he obviously is try- : :

ing tostraightenont.. + . @ : |

ee Tue Court »Let him answer it. - 5 3

. Tue Wrrness:. What was the question coat eo

Tue Court: "Did he talk fo you, tell you to talk to him aos

or not to talk to any in the cell. He said he didn’t. '

: th yom aah ¢ fale iybody,. was’ his last question. ° oe

- Mr. Sanpsrros : About the facts of your case. Recor.

‘Tite Court: Did hé answer that yes or no? | er ©

“Tue: Wirxess: Did he tell’ me not to talk to anyhodyt q

I can’t ‘remember him making a statement: one way:or the. == ~~

him telling me, Advising me. As a matter of fact, I ean :

‘say: he neyer advised not ta talk to a oe Offense ows

thing like that. rn}

—.-Q. (By Mr. ‘Séndstrom)-Nevw, do. you : remaibies how. ee G

| “long: this. Archie Langford was in the same cell as yout ~~ |

AS Well, a day: or So; mnaybe a day, maybe two days, =)

- something like that. © ° . ae

_. -Q During that course. of time, did he ever wake you up i

ae in the night time totalktoyou? . i

; @ never ied at night wldtdaived: Matter St dee

. of fact; I always be just ing down thinking;~I mean, ¢ :

we never even talked too mich, to be honest. and: trathful 7 §

_ about it. We ‘never talked too’ pom abont anything and

. ‘he only mentioned it once, about case. I just told him :

just like it were. I was’ feeling bad nah ae

Tue Court: You already told us vat ‘Let’s don't go ae

into repetitious ‘matters. . Do. sf have atiything further

to ask of him? )

Mr. Saxvernom ; No. a A ee a

Tne Court: Let me ask hiin. ee hoe pie. |

Did this man. ever tell you he was a police officer? — His

. "Pare Wrrvzss: No, he 1 never said yang that he wash:-. ~~ j

police officer. i ee

Tue Court: Did he ¢ ever threaten you in. vad manner’ oe

whilehe wasinthere? — 3

Tue-Wimiizss: No. fs one i

Tue Court: Did he ever promise you snythingt 7 4

. “Pe Wrrness: We never talked. fen

THE ee: “Did he cara you n Snything if you would -— ,

Oe ‘ 3 : —s ety

“ZO

ee a ; hes As

7 3 ° . é Se

do .any 5 delhi: regardless of whether you said anything

‘ornot?

‘THe Witness? - He didn’t make any promise to: m

'.. whatsoever. ~.. 5

+> [273] Tue Courr: Anything further? os

4a Mr, Sanpstrom: No. —- =

BOY fries ts ce

Pas

ae ee

; nate Iyworom, a. pee

was pocatiod a: asa witness on behalf. of the State, aud saree

2 been previously duly risen cs (was S aseramce: and Aestafied oS

sabe as follows :° =e oe oe

"Dmect Exisoxanion aes of : eo oe a —

Q. Archie, Yr eiieve re the jury retired, you ‘were

ii? us that you were placed in the celi-with George

_ Milton on Friday evening,-July 18th; i is, that correct? eg

_. A. That’s correct. — ue >

-Q. Approsithately what time is it thai you, were placed

~ in the cell? :

ere Appretiinetely 7 or r8 o’dlotk on J uly 18th. |

. Q. Who was in the cell? .: as

“A. George Milton,- = * ee ee

- -Q. Anyone else % ae AR aie oa

~ <A. Nooneelsé See

Q. Did you tell George you were a » police oficer

‘. A. I did not. ; :

_ Q. What did-you tell him? Fag é

_ A. I told him I was placed ‘i in’ the jail f for suiventioeebia

ef a murder of a. Chinaman on 19th Street and. oth Court.

Q. Did you talk to him that evening? ;

[277] A. I explained to him the reason Away in jail, but

I didn’t talk to him about thiséase at all. .

Q. Did he diseuss this case with you that evening?

‘A. Hedidnot. . |.

Q. When did you next speak to himt eee ie

A,°T woke up the next morning as they were serving fe

breakfast. I heard him sliding the trays around: in the

hall, which was: approximately—right now, I — tel 2

_ youatall.

-Q. “Archie, start from there and tell us as well a as you can .

ait We oe. a "s 60° AE ye “ps | ! cs A te! ae oe ; i

a « . - ; 2 : A * int J 4 a vg de a oe ,

‘conialibtiias: your conversations with thf efintant, ‘George Tas aa “

Milton, from. that time until 7. were Faleneet from the eee 2

Saget! cell. es “$s eS : } :

‘Mn. SanpsTRoM : ae now the defendani and shjeits ee &

es any testimony about: any .conversations had in the cell ort* i i

the grounds, ast, ‘that. there has. been no proof of. the . —

- + Corpus delicti: and, therefore, this. statement, at this time = 4 .

*: wouldsbe in the nature of’ an. admission or confession, With: - — ae

~ out the corpus, 3 delicti having” been proved ead facie’

| exclusive. - AS Tos ¢.-

| Setondly, upon . thes ‘grounds . that there is no proper : |

predicate laid for the admission of the, sante in’that the é _

same Was obtained by subterfuge. As for ‘those other a |

grounds and matters which the jury didn’t hear, further

‘. tipon the grounds that the’same isn’t shown to be a volun-

tary. [278] ‘statement, that, it was pried from him through -.-

prolonged questioning of him by this © "ee ‘while being,

_ it the cell. =

¢ Tue Court: Al ‘motions will be denied and: the Court .

will say now that your objections go to any. questions that. _

_are asked and any answers that are made as to the state-

‘ments that he is going. to testify about, without renewing —

_ your objections. And if. at the end of the testimony, on es ow

"desire todo do so, youmovetostrikeit. «| oe

Mr. SaNisrzom : Surely the same ruling. will apply. s ee

. Tue Covrt:. I am just’ trying. to: preserve every oa ieee

of yourrights. .. | fee,

Mr. Block, you may proceed.

Tue Wrrness: On the Saturday, July ‘19th, ai: andI

began to discuss, whilé we was eating breakfast—we had

oatmeal for breakfast. I gave him my share of the oatmeal. ©

I bevan to eat one of the andy bars. I then began to tell:

him that I wag glad when my attorney, Arrington, would « ;

bond me out. He then'say, ‘How will you get an attorney?’ : =

" 7 have got numerous dealings. I have some motiey~’ |

saved and'I’ve got a girl in the street that will take care .

- -of all of that business for me.”’ i;

* We talked about my ‘attorney, Arrington, how ‘ibs an-

. ‘attorney he was and such, and the number of deals he had

pulled in the area for five fellows. T said, ‘‘When I gét out,

everything ‘will be all right. tT. don’t kill the is man;

en ey

Nye: —

3 Se :

ee:

He told ime, he said: egg. you get o of sil on bond, oe

you've got to leave. town.”” I said, ‘“Why, I haven’t done » J :

_@nything.. The only thing T done/ was it was my gun.”” Ee

_ Ipxplained to him that I wasenot actually involved in ‘the

.° | shooting, that I had just ‘taken part in the robbery and

+ 6 ‘that my friend had done the ‘actual killing, and that I had ©

ot gun concealed in niy vehicle. So he said, ‘‘If yon getout

- of jai and on a bond or anything, At will be ‘best for you to oe

‘ leavétown.””"

*T. said, “Why?” He said, «Better if yougget out of jut yi

“you leave tewn. Go somewhere, out West or = in omar oe

: somewhere.”? Isaid,““Why?? =. “ 45 -

Bae ; _ ‘Listen, you kill a white man.”’ ; ee

4 “> - «But I didn’t. do-it, my friends did it.” He Say, “Listen,

you killed a white man, I killed a colored person.”’. He

said, “ They don’t investigate too many killings.of Negroes.

. If you kill a ‘white man, a Chinese, the Chinese. committee, .

they: have got a.lot‘of money. Plast are going tg o do some- ae

’ thing to you.”’ Be eg oe

i He: said, Siape’ you kiled a’ Chinaman, ihe Chidiese” now

committee will have something to do.’ I said, ‘I hayen’t <@-

done. anything. to the Chinaman, the other’ fellow did the. «=

shooting. I just had the pisto ie —

“*You know they are going to do: ovaivtieg Ee [280]: you

for killing .th¢ white man." Ksaid,;‘‘No, we got a good.

attorney,” : <3 :

. **7f T get out, L am going . leave: town.’” ‘He also talked ——.

- ghout’ a little town where they had wood pulp. You can” Ais

_ go out te.the-woods and stay there ‘without anybody follow-

ing you or F Ry ebdiy know. who. ate are. I jos oy: L aap capa

do that. :

=r Q. (By. Mr. Block) Did = tell you what happened to gt

penne who kill colored people? - ; {+

.» A. Hetoldme. .._- eee ae are CN ge

Q. Whatdidhesay? = i gigik :¥

A. He said, ‘‘If you kill a white man, you gel the chair,

oe pews kill you. .But-you can kill all the: negrors, they:

- wouldn’t even investigate it.”’ fee

‘ . +. So T laughed ‘and we begin to talk further on. ‘So I said, -

ee “Well, what are you in for?’’ He said, “‘I told you I'was.™ »

sin for’ — of murder.’’ I es ae

4 chk a

: we ey Bs a : | “s 28%p. oe

“She

‘ofmurdert Who did you killt”” lp said, “1. killed my ,

wife.’’ .

I said, ‘Yes,?*” We benia: to talk. “They told me: you :

“> were’ crazy, too.’’ ‘ He: said, ‘‘I am not crazy.’’ So I says, *

Re appened ? : I heard about it: I heard you raped —

> He saigy ‘*T didn’t:rape the girl.’* I say, “Why |

‘didn’t she-have clothes on?” She. didn’t have clothes on.”” _

da skirt and blouse?’ 1-said, ‘‘They told me she -

n’t“have any pants on.’ He said, “She. was .

that girl.

- [281]

prégnant, | she r.any pants.’’

I said, Yes. ”? So I began to talk abeut water. He™ ace

that talking about: water makes hig héad hurt,-so I said |

okay. He changed the conversation and went over to

: ot about some movies. After a ‘while we began oe

eo =

- A, He —— a perfect ¢ crime. So he started talking

bd o 2 : - . ° 4

ai ° - . Ye . . .

= en eee 2

= = ee _ eT ee wee . - :

° y . : : : ‘ . = ‘ Saree at . :

? . > , a 2 aon

Mr: ih saan When. he filers’ to “after a while,”

I think the predicate as to,the time should. be’ Iaid. -

‘Tue Covrt: Try to give us the time. .

~“e Wrrnzss: They vary. five to ten minutes bininee,

J knew I didn’t have too much time in: the cell with him.

I would go directly back into the same thing again: The

conversations varied for about five or ten minutes, and I

, knew that I didn’t -haye too much time in the cell with him.

“I was tryjng to keep him as close to the subject as seteiile.-

_So approximately 10 Iinutes/ after we discussed this

~ business about the water, we began to talk about a movie

which he seen, by thé name of “Sweet Fragrance of Suc-

cess,’’ He told me this movie had.a perfect crime, it was

about a tine blero that had been gommitted. L:teld him +

that I didn "t eve there was ‘such a thing asa perfect:

‘orima. | 3

He told me there was such a thing. aa perfect crime. ,

~So we began ‘to discuss my:caSe. He tried to show me a

points: where we could have. committed that crime without ne

_ even [282] finding the gun‘in my car. I told him it wasn’t

- mine. I told him how it was concealed and. who put it in— ~

that it) was concealed in the s e spare tine. ‘He said that. wasn’t

‘I said, “What abiout. you! You ‘are in n jail, vidi He told me .

he committed a perfect crime.

Q. What did he say?

°o

is " Sweet Erekrame ‘of Suecess,”” about. how in

| ie there had been a. perfect crime committed.

‘*¥ don’t believe in ‘perfect crimes.’’ He said, ‘‘Yes. You :

‘ y, didn *t commit orie because you are going to burn, tod.’’

' Then we started discussing about the guys ‘in. the next

cell*this fellow wag to be shipped back to Alabama. So we:

started discussing. and this fellow said that Milton and:

I was, going to burn. ‘So Milton said, ‘‘I am not” going to |

burn.’’ That carried en for maybe 10 or 15 minutes. Ap-

| proximately ‘five-or'ten minutes later;'I considered theguy-

- in the next-éell ‘about telling him soniething that he was —

- erazy. Milton told me to do it, to do thats

+ Q.In discussing“this business abdut a* eautfenk: crime, did, |

he tell you he had committed a “perfect crime? °

Mr. SANDSTROM : t _— to that. That is Teading saat

suggestive. eo

Tue Cotrt: That’ s leading. He testified about [283]

: something i in that regard. | Wag

Q.: (By Mr. Block) Did he tell you hate ia he had

| committed a perfect crime?. :

‘Mr. Sanpsrgom: I object’ a it <a same "grounds, =

' leading and suggestive.

Te Court: Don’t leadhim. —s—*”,

Q. (By Mr. Block) Did he say anything farther i in con-

nection with a perfect crime?

A. He did. ,

Q. What did he say? a

A. He told me that he pale va a perfent-c crime because —

he was the only witness, that the other person. involved

. was dead. So said, “Well; did some people ever see it?’’

-He said; ‘‘No one saw it, but I’m the only one that knows.”’

I said, ‘‘Well, what do yow plan on doing?”’ ‘‘If: I get:

~ out, om bond, I am going to ‘leave town. My lawyer told

me not to try it, to get out on bond right now, because it _

take up some of the money.’’ He said, ‘‘My lawyer also

told me: the statements, conversations I gave .to the City

, Rolicemen, to say that I didn’t make them.’ He also told .

ie that they made a recording of some nd of a conver-_ .

" sation, that his lawyer said they Couldn’t use it..

‘He said, ‘‘My lawyer told me that—every- statement a |

7 signed, to say ~, added some words’ or Statements. to

ee. tos = Fae eae @e .

ets mes ’ : .

. . ' : . ™ . > Z

“ ‘ tee sc ‘ - * 3 ; ‘ .

. . * é ? . ° o “

. ; oy - . . :° ?

ae a ° . . ; 64 ‘ *; : : : :

i . e

‘ eS + ‘ ae z ; —

. [284]. it, that I hadn’t had much education and schooling, . a

that I was foreed to do so.’” He said, ‘‘My lawyer told ;

me don’t contact him, that: he: would contact me.’’ So I.

said, ‘‘When I get outside, maybe I can ‘do something for’ |

you. ” I tried to get him to explain exactly ’‘what happened. - * .

.. | tile send, “Don’t talk about it.’”? He didn’t want to talk = *

about it. He laid up on his ‘bunk for about 15 minutes. a

was looking out of the cell: | :

+ That night LI was looking out of the cell, I was watching

the Harlem Square lights. I said, “Rhere i is,a dance down .

there at the Harlem Square.’’ |

ee Q. Whére is the Harlem Square? -

ee “A. At 10th Street and Northwest 2nd Suan:

.Q. Could you see itfromthejail? - *-

> yak ¥en can see approximately 15 to 20 feet of the build- .

ing downward. From the. cell you can also see the neon

lights,. as the neon arrow runs around the building. I also

was pointing out' the different clubs. )

‘Man, I remember the night, a few nights ago, I was up’

to the Palms.’” He started talking. |

_ «That show was great.’ We talked about. that, and then

- ... T went back to the subject with him. He then told me if I

re - the Palms. .

‘S\ fF night were you | there?” = 7 st ates

? [285] ‘*I was there ‘a couple of times with different

-people.’’ So. T- said, ‘‘Are you a rape artist or not?’’ He

said, ‘Iam not.”’ I said, “The reason — put 'me in here

_ is they told me you was crazy.”’ - -

-“T am not crazy.’’ He told.me, lie say, (OT will show

* you something when. I get outside. I ant going to have a

' . lot of money.’’. He said, ‘‘I'am going to take up boxing. 7

-. Twas training to-be a boxer. ’?. And he ke get out, he was —

going to get back and start boxing. With this money he —

- was going to buy all the boxing equipment. He was going

~ to be another champion, ano:her Joe Louis. «|

' J don’t know too much about boxing, sieyeol? ” He

_ said, ‘‘You can be a boxer.’? He sized my. —e up

and everything.

. No, ‘sir, I like to play football. Where are - you going

to get the money ?”’

_ “From the insurance money. They i is going to cond off i"

the money.

“

<)>

i a le ee

p How i is ; the i insurance > compas going to give you money,

* you’re in jail, man?’’ He said, ‘‘My wife was insured.”’

I said, ‘‘Well,; you are going to burn.’’ He say, ai com- eh

mitted—I told you once that T committed a perfect crime.’

_ I said, “‘You committed a perfect crime? There i is no. such .

- - thing as a perfect crime.’’ I said, ‘‘The: best you. éan dois

”

buy off, somébody and win the case in| court by paying

[286] somebody.”’

'“*My lawyer got everything: worked out. ‘My lawyer tive |

what to say and what not to say, and what. to do when I go.

into the court.”? - ;

‘‘When you go down to take the truth serum, you want

‘ to just refuse to take it. They can’t give it to you.’

- “How. are you going to.refuse?’’ He said, ‘‘My lawyer.

told me I didn’t have to take it. I don’t have to say any-

’ thing, that he probably waquid win the case for me.”’ -

I said, ‘‘I told the detective with the City that I wasn’t we

going: io give the statement. because I wasn’t involved-in ~

.the murder: I, was just. with the fellow- when the deal -

‘ happened.’’ He said, “Just remember, don’t you. take the

* < truth serum.’

‘What's the trith serum?’’ He said, “Ts all they gave

you a shot into your arm, or something: You lay down on

the couch and you talk out of your head.”’

‘“Were you out of your head?’’

‘“*No, I was not out’ of my. head. I a wned was going

-on.’?. | a.

‘‘What did youtellhim?”. 4. :

‘‘T told him what happened. I’m ead I got it off my

chest but my lawyer told me to say I didn’t say that, that

“TI didn’t sign any statements.” So I said, ‘‘Yes.”’ _

It began to get later at night and: E say, ‘‘How (2°—.

did the woman actually get killed if yeu didn’t rape her?’’

- He said, ‘‘I had a car.’’ He never.told me what kind of a

car it was. He said he had a car, and he had been up in the

area of The Palms. Whether ne went to the Palms or.not,

lie didn’t explain.

He was up-in the area. of Fallaridale. ie came back to

- Miami by way of Highway 27. I said, ‘‘How come you -

didn’t come down U.S. 9? ‘That’ s the way we used to .go

'. when Iwasa teenager.”’ |

‘‘T came around that way.”’ J said; “For what?”

_ Welly just. driving.” a | ‘said, “Man, ity you don’t know .

Se a RR ES a ET ee ee nen

at fae ha

feted Pies

- Miami good enough, to go all the way to U.S. 27, that’s the 3

-. roundabout way.’’ So he said that was okay. He-sit down ~ ~ |

_ on his bunk. So I said, ‘<Well, one. thing, | when you get out

of here, you are going to burn. PEs

‘‘Let me tell you something. You get- your lawyer -to

get.you.out of here and you leave town.”’ .

_ *What are you going to do?” He said, ‘‘If I get. out,

_ I am going to leave town.’’ So I said ‘‘Okay.’’ So I sat.

- down on the bunk for about 20 minutes, and then I began’

talking about—I love fishing and different things. a

So then we went to the subject of him driving the car

down: U.S. 27.. So he told me I was a fool for being in"the

~ deal with another fellow. that was a rat. I told him that I

_ thought the fellow was-a thoroughbred. I told him I [289] . -

. wasn’t in the deal, and that I thought he was a man...

'. **Whatever you.do, when you do something, do it: by

yourself. ”” He said, ‘‘I can take you—when we go up to |

_ New’ York somewhere I can teach-you something.. When

. eaught.”’ as

“*T committed a partes erime.’’

‘‘Who told you that?”’ He said,- “Listen, don’t niicay. :

know what I done but me.’’ I said, ‘‘Yes.’? He said, ‘‘I am. ..§

. the only witness. ’?” :

‘‘What happened, if you committed a perfect crime; 3

what happened?”’ He. begin me tell me about him and the 7

Palms and U.S.27. | Fee — =

- Q. Did he tell you who was inthecar? — an 2

A: He told me he had a girl in.the car who was his wife.

Mr. SanpstRoM : tT believe that i is leading and suggestive. | j

- Lobject toit.. .. | | a

7 Tue Court: Don’t lead him, Mr. Block. ; | |

Tue Witness: He said he was en route ‘to Miami and

he planned what to do. |

“What was you going to dot”? He said,. 5 aise to - a

>. kill her, but I changed my mind and went to 5th Avenue™ |

where I was ‘staying. I went into the house. | fi

‘You went inte the house? Where was she?’’ ry:

‘‘She: was in the car. ?? -T said, ‘‘What was she [290]

doing?”

‘‘She was: sitting.” “So he said he came out of the house

and got into, theear and told her to get i in the back. seat.

Fs)

; ae

ent eSB SSN NST a si Seb aS on

GRP eget ine “RS TR A SOI Tn

-..’» that would pay off. '-

~. Jumped out.’’

. ‘*Why did you tell her that?”? — yee \

“I just told-her to get in-the back seat becanse she Was’

sleeping. I went.to the area where'I went befére, where I

had planned to go before.’’: He said,.‘‘I rode around there. .

'I went in the area where I had planned to go before, but

_ there was too much trafficin the area.” Cake |

_ I said; ‘‘What do you mean, where you had planned to.

go before?’’ He said, ‘‘Once before “I planned to: do. the

same thing.” F dba:

_ “You mean to tell me you

You can’t plan a perfect crime.

, eae? oy ot Saas. talpina Pas gi

“*T planned it once’ before, but [ was told that the insur. -

ance policy that I had would not pal off.”?> ~ ae

* “What insurance policy did youhave?”’ .

“Thad straight life.”’ te!

anned a perfect crime?

u would have to do it at

‘He then told me he went and got an accidental pokcy~

- I said, ‘‘Look here; why did you go into the house,..what

did you get?’’ He said, ‘I took my wallet.’’.He didn’t

say his wallet or her wallet. He had on his pants and [291]

- he had the driver’s license in his pocket. I said, “‘For what? -

You can’t commit Suicide with your driver’s’ license in it.

“‘T had the driver’s license in my pocket-just in case they -

- Stopped me -on the way. I could identify myself.’? I said, i.

‘‘Oh, you planned that? That was pretty smart.’’-So we ‘*

talked about what happened. He said he drove the car and.

. “Did you jump out?’? He said, ‘Yes.’ He said,. ‘‘T

— Q. (By Mr. Block).I can’t hear you. oo sa

A. He told me that he jumped out ofthe car while the

car was either going downgrade or something—I don’t

know which way—but he jumped out of the car.. He went:

» into-the canal. He said ‘something about his shoulder. I'

cut him off then and I started to try to carry him back, but

_ he wasn’t—he didn’t want to go back. ee dohb ac

Q. Did he tell you what happened when he jumped out.

ofthecar? = . . e oP genoa

_. A. He told me tHat she was in the back of the car while

- the car was being driven by him, and: he didn’t tell me

\ ‘

° \

GPS wergey Son a ae ee ee Re ae

% 2

4 . m : . ‘ ; sé sn 68 7 | gp

anything about transferring her back to.the front. She was

‘still in the back. He jumped out of the ear and the car went

into the canal. .

Q.. Did he'tell you what happenéd to him then?

- [292] A. He said something about his shoulder. I tried

to carry him-bdck to the car as he was driving it.: Then-he

told me; he say, ‘‘ Nobody didn’t see it. Thére wasn’t a lot

of people. They don’t know what went on. In a deal like

that where nobody knows what mene but you, it is a.

7 &

perfeet crime.”’

I said, ‘‘That’s not a perfect crime. You, are in jail.

‘What about your spending almost a year in a jail?”

‘*My lawyer told me to st@y in jail, and when I get out,

I will have a large sum of money. He said just stay i in jail

and wait and everything going to be. okay.” - ;

_ ‘Who is your lawyer?”’ ae

‘<That’s ‘okay. Somebody .on the outside nit’ “me a

lawyer.”’ Se 4

_ *Anybody on the oateide you want me to. bonbaal for. ~

you?’”’ He said, “‘First thing, you ain’t going to get out.”

“‘ Arrington i is going to work me outside.’’ He- said,-“1’ll

—sée if you get out.’ He said, ‘If you get out remember 7

weed I told you.’’ He said, “For a perfect crime everybody: :

got to be together. The best way to be is be by yourself. ”

So we laid down. That was about 1; 2 0’clock that night.

Sa I asked him, I said, ‘‘ How do you eet information out of

a.cell?’? He said, a] got a pencil and a piece of. paper |

here.’? He lifted’ up the’mattress and thét’e was a piece of

paper: I said, ‘‘How do you get information. out?’’

_[293a] ‘I got connections.. If you ‘want.some information

. out, I will get it for you.’? He said he could call different

jailers. He write a letter to ask someone to make a phone

‘eall:. They would go. give him authority to go out and maké

a phone call. He didn}t make one when I was there.

~“T can’t make no connections.’’ He refused to-do any-

f -thing, while I-was there. So he said, ‘‘Just like I told you

about ‘Sweet Fragrance of Suécess,’ in that movie is a

‘perfect crime. You don’t, believe in a perfect crime. You

bees: learn there is such a thing as a perfect crime.” —

‘*What do you plan on doing with the. money you. get

from the insurance?’’? He said, ‘‘I used to be a boxer. J

want to go back into boxing because I can make a good

. boxer. .You’re a pretty nice size only you have got totrain. .

_ We buy a lot of nice clothes, move up North and become a

. .boxer.’’. ° ce oe af eee oe oats x

”. “T guess you could make .it, you’re’ a: pretty nice-sized

fellow.’’ I said, “If I get out, I will give you my moyiress, = +.

Now, if I get out, you contact me when you go out.”’ eee:

_ somewhere.” ~~” epi. Feta zi ; ~ y

. “Do you have any cousins or an aunt, anybody in town .

You want me to contact?’’ He said, ‘Don’t contact any-° _

- body for me because everything is going to be okay. There eae gs

gis soméone outside taking care of that for me.”? ~~ Sater -

. [293] I said, ‘‘I actually believe you are “just like

_ ‘they told me. You are a rape artist: e said, ‘I’m not.

You just don’t peli ve me. You' just watch, I’m going’ to

have a lot of money ;\I’m going to move up North. Remem-

ber what I told. you. + You ‘re going to burn for killing that

Chinaman.’’ ae ee pes ie | : sor 7

I said, ‘‘You ‘check ali the records back and you will -

find plenty of records of things that happen to a colored —

person that killed another person. . You thi you com- .

Initted a peffect crime?’’ He said,“‘I did.” _— :

“You think -you committed a perfect ‘crime? They got —

you in here.. You already confessed it.’? = Sa eas

_- “My lawyer told me that ‘those statements couldn’t be

« . used in court, that recording I made to Detective Shepherd.

- Detective Shepherd was a nice fellow. Shepherd had my

clothes. washed and he treated me nice. He’s a pretty nice

fellow. Best white fellow there is.”? ee Med gee eh

- “They are just trying to bait*you up. What are you —

going to tell the J udge about the statements you signed?

“I’m goirig to tell the J udge that they forced me to sign

_.* those statements. I’m going to tell the Judge that they ~

forced me to take the truth serum, I haven’t -had much

education:¥ sign’some stateménts, but they added state-

ments to it.’ That’s what the lawyer told. me to tell.’’ I said,

“Yes, maybe you have got.a good lawyer.’’ I started

[294] to telling him about different lawyers he should get.

“He said, ‘‘How many good lawyers dé you mow?"

“I know some good lawyers.”? f named Arrington and

Graves. He said, ‘‘Okay, but I got ever}thing taken'care ~

‘OF forthy nde ee ee é,

a talking to him during the nighf?. ag |

A. I woke him up. one night, I thi fake’ thé second night —

I woke him up. I was laying. dow goers was the night -

‘ So he then sit that when he gets the money from this

_ insurance that when he paid the lawyer, that he. would have

enough to.go up to New York State.

Q. Until approximately what time. did you talk to the ,

- defendant Saturday night ?.

A. We talked late Saturday night Becanae: we was going \

back and forth in the conversation of night life. : ;

Q. Did: you wake him UP, do you remember the e night!

A. I did.

Q. Did he ever wabe you up? re

' A. He woke me up once or twice.. P slept directly up Over

| him, and as I would get down to use > she 4ommode—he was

‘the kind: of a fellow that if -yougthoved, he would wake

~ up—he would say, ‘‘How are you doing, Chief? Is every-

thing okay?’’. Then'we would go ,into-a conversation.

Q. ‘Did you evér wake him;up: for the sole purpose of

-we were talking about etait ane at-hurt his head.

[295] Q:-Did you talk to h "the ‘following day, Suudiay?

_ A. I talked to him Sanday’ ofninig

- Q. Did he tell you withing that you have not already,

testified tet 1 a | a

Mr. ay That calls for a coneléision.

THE Court: Overruled.

Q (By Mr.. Block) ‘You may answer the glen

A. We talked about—we started talking about breakfast. |

, 1 think they served on Sunday morning—I_ am not sure

" what they served that Sunday morning—I think it was a

cereal which was cornflakes with milk. I gave-him-my eorn-., -

flakes and. I drunk the milk. I think they also’ gave us a.

_ cup of coffee. I gave him'the coffee, and we:begin to talk. .

about different things and different crimes that had been

‘committed out in the area.

He told me that hgsknew a lot about different crimes

ae “that had been committed out there. F

—Q. Did he tell you anything else about the oleuiar

-erime in aaa death of Minnie ‘Claybon, Minnie

Milton? .

A. Well; he told me that—~he kept stressing to me that

° »

®. :

he had copieatiod a po crime, that. he was : ihe only

witness, and when you go to Court, if there are no other

; witnesses, that your testimony would be the best testimony

there is. I told him he didn’t onmatntt so a crime ai

[296] because he was injail. -

Mr. Sanpstrom: That’s about the fourth time he has

brougut that up. That is repetitious._.

Tue Court: Let’s don’t ask for repetitious answers.

Q. (By Mr. Block) ‘When were you: Teleased from that

cell, when were you taken out? .

we I was released Sunday after dinner

‘Q.. At any time while you were in the cell with ‘George ae

Milton, did you threaten him i in any way?

A> I did not,

~Q. Did you offer. him any rewards or So cangor induce- 2

ments? = 7

‘this witness and imvades the province of the Court. and ~

_ jury.

THE Court: ‘Grarnind. pene yeas or no.

THE Witness: No, I did not.

~ Q. (By Mr. Block) Didhe at any time tell: you he had been say

mistreated in any way?

A. He was going to tell the J udge he had on mistreated.

Mr. SAnpsTROM : I object to it as not being ai aaa to

the question.

Tue Court: Motion to sitike will be ‘granted. You are ~

not to consider that as it is not Fompensivp ‘to the (297 rT:

question asked. . ex 0

. ,Q. (By Mr: Block) Did vir at: nid time aoe him you ‘9°

were a police officer? Lae +.

A. I did not. : | ve

Mr. Biock: You may inquire. Po

Tue Court: Gentlemen, you can take a break, The

: Court Reporter has got to put more paper in his machine.

| (Thereupon. the jury retired from the courtroom, and -

upon their return the following proceedings were had: )

Mr. Biocx: The State waives polling. | ;

eT ens as

og a, (ee

- Mr. SaNDsTROM : The defendant ° waives polling.

, THE Court: You may proceed. |

Cross Exauticarion Sse , Ry

By Mr. Sanpsrrom :

~~? How long have you been with the Miami Police De- @

partment? — piers

Bs Aapwoviindtily two years. edt :

Q. Approximately two years. How many: danas ‘hire 2

_» -you had occasion to.be locked up like that with poeeery | in:

_ order to obtain a statement from him? :

‘A. Thisisthefirsttime. . __ fos? ae, -

Q. That was the first time? - - ea cans

Be :

Q. And you were in are for sone many days?. <

[298] A. I was there from Friday night, eruersiete and

| ahalf.a day Sunday..

Q. Arid during all of that length of ti a did you sit tes ;

and take any notes of what was said? i

~Q. In other words, all of this is ‘ele: ey.

A. Yes. - cx 5

Q. Now, after you: sot: fied of there Sunday, ‘did you sit

down and make notés then?.

A. I went over to Detective Shepherd: I was taken out

_’ and carried directly to Detective Shepherd where we wert .

_. to the station and iar oe I made statements as to. what was

saidatthattime. es

Q. You didn’t make anynotes? = =—s_s

_ A. I didn’t make any notes: _ : ,

Q. You were actively. soanenling who you were when you’

-. were in there?

/ Mr. Brock: I object to the e phraseology of that question:

THe Court: Overruled.

Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) You were ‘aadivels ‘gunn

who ypu were? That was ah of bee! orders ‘when you

- went there :

A. Itwas. . | |

Q. Now, what time of thé ¢ evening did a yop first [299] go

‘ inthere? |

_- A, Approximately 7 or 8 o ‘clock on July 18th.

@ Now, had you. osad any icinainite sais what’ F-the

wares crime was that this’: defendant ° was tere of -

"before you went inthere?,” —

A. Ididnot. . .- - oh

' Q. Had anybody discussed ‘the case with. you before e. you, 2

went in there with the defendant, 2a

A. Thad not. |

_Q. You hadn’t talked or ‘read sighing abont the caset

be Tue Court: Yon are speaking about this case? _

. Mr. SaNpsTROM : About this case... os cis

Tue Witness: I had not read ‘any official reported 52

-Q: (By Mr. Sandstrom) Then unofiiciaDly, what had you

yead before youwentin? ~~ ee . -

oe Thadn’t read, heard about it. —f We ae aL

Q. From whom did you hear aboutit? eat

A. Just rumors around in the Negro area. Z ‘

~Q. Just rumors. around in the N Sarg What. Was -

ney el

the information you were Bossessed 0 beford ‘you went in

there? “

A. By being -a. policeman, you receive Suite: a bit of

“information such as a colored man Killed his wife last

[300] nfght and sach things. ee

Dos That was some of the information, I received—a: woman’: °

‘ “was drowned. e

‘ - Q. A woman was ‘drowned. tt wad the information

_thatyouhad? |

A. That’s right.

Q. Did you have a greater detail than. thatt - -

A. No greater detail than that. _ | Q.

aes _Q. From nobody? MOE RS

-@ | A. From nobody... _ ce Rides

Q. And did you varie to go. down there ‘and lock at this" :

ear being taken out of. the river ot anything * that nature?

A. Ididnot. =

~ Q. You hadn’t seen carting about. the case and hadn't

talked to anyone eaeen thectne!

A. No. aks tv ae,

Q. When you were talking with this SS at. pont

ing to your statement, do you recall correctly that -you

_ *told:- him that he must be a rape omit or that, you@hought

- hewasarapist?: =~

A. Idd °°

+ .

~ Q “Because the woman in the bar had no pants oe’ is”

' . thatright? . . te

. A. That’sright = = oy bs

[301] Q. You didn’t talk to anybody and you didn *t have .

any reports, and. you didn’t see anything. , Where did you

learn she had no pants? —

A. \As I said before, I received tnfermatica out’ of‘ the

Street prior to' the time that I . wassplaced j in Jail: that the

‘woman was about naked.

_-Q. About naked. _ Did you, Teceive a sepert that she had

no pants? .

‘A. No, Ldidn’t. Tasked him.

~Q. I see. Then your statement before that 1 wet a

____Teport you. got was a colored .woman. was drowned over «.

' .. there, that wasn’t quite accurate? You had received some.

information-as to her condition, too, didn t you?

A. Astohercondition? - .-—s =

Q. That’s right..

a THE Cone: -You mean thé condition i in which’ aa. was: .

[eee And her dress or attire:

THE WItnzss : The color of her ‘dress, no.

oo Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) A dress or blouse , or skirt 0 or -

-- “housecoat, something likethat? _—_-

_A.. To me it was known that she had some top a.

but what it was, I don’t know. _ .

Q. Where did this become known-to you? _

J After I talked with Milton ig the cell. ;

[302] Q. Well, when did yon -accuse him of thie. rape -

'-. | thing—befere or after she had beenfound?

...A. I aceused him of—I told him they put me in the cell

with him because he-was crazy. So he tried to explain to

_ mie he wasn’t crazy. He ‘went to tell me, he said, she, didn t

, have any pants beoanse she was pregnant.

. Q. You hgd-aeoused him. prior to that that he was

2 aa

- .Tapist?

pane Eines him. My knowledge was that - was‘a

rapist. —.

ae: Because she didn’t hive any pants on? .

A. Right. ' 2

a That was before he' told re about the pants?

: —— SATA RT a OE

« e ee ern Oe ee ee eee ah REN

ees

a cna iat aici Daca ° ie . .

. ee .

° . a . .

A. ‘That? s right. .@

Q. Where did you learn about the pants?

A. I received information from the street.

-Q. I see. Now, you staried talking with him at 7 o’elock

you remain in that cell?

A. I didn’t start talking at the time ‘IT went ike the cell.

Q. You went into the cell at 7 o’clock to be with George |

_' Milton. What time did’ you come out - that cell?

A.. That night? . oat

Q.. That night. | . *

[303] A. I was let out by: a jailer: ‘that questioned me

* about what was my reason for being in the isolation =

AL Sunday.. _ &

Q. How long that evening?

A. For approximately three minutes.

Q. Then you went back into that cell?

A. That’s right.

Q. When did you next get out of. that cell

Q. Sunday. What time Sunday? 7 :

A. It was after dinner.

Q. Can you, tell with any degree of carted i whet time

it was?

A. Between 4 and 5 on Sunday evening.

Q. Between 4 and 5 o’clock?

A. Approximately.

Q.-In the afternoon? -.

A. That’s right. 3

-Q. Now, when was the last conversation you had with

him before you got out of the cell at 4 or. 5 o’clock on | ~

Suriday?

_ A. After dinner, Sunday. About then.

‘Q. About what time after dinner?

A. Between two, three. | ,

-Q.° What was the last thing he told you?

A. The last thing ‘he told me was, ‘‘I’ll see- you (304)

_later, my man.”’ I walked out.

Q. What ‘was the last thing abéut. this’ darported case

_that we are here today upon that he purportedly told you?

A. I don’t understand your question.

Q. Well, let me try again. What was the last thing that

George Milton said to you about this case that we are here ,

a 7 on — recall?

a ae ORL nee A ne RY

name was, I said to him, ‘‘You con®. want me to tell any-

body on the outside?”? .

| $*Everything will be-all right, ay lawyer will contact

me from the outside.’’ -{ | "

Q. That was the last time you hed anything to say to him,

- that is the last. thing you s id about the case? °

A. That is the last thing: ..

Q. That had nothing to do with the case.

A. I was trying to find out who his lawyer was.

Q. Isee. Did he ever tell you that? :

A. Hedidn’t. —

. Q. He just told. you about everything else,’ but he

wouldn’t tell you that?

A. He told. me abant everything. He told me not to ~

try to contact anyone for him: | a

Q. Do you know - his lawyer was? _ =

A. Istill don"t.

[305] Q.-You never saw a card or anything like that in .

there? —

- A. No, I did not. °

Q. Now, when you got in there at 7 o’clock, did you ee

talking with him maar: ~

A. -I did not.

_ Q. How long did you remain in :there before you started

talking withhim?.

A. Approximately 15 or 20 minutes.

_ Q. What did you open up your talk with?

A. He started talking to me about what my ‘name was. .

I went in there. with the intention to lead him to believe

‘that’ I wag‘mad. I jumped right on ‘top of*the bunk, so

he told me I was in the wrong bunk—I was in his bunk. SoI

got down and got up on.to the top bunk. So I just sat. -

- up there a little while, up in the corner.

Q. Who spoke to who first?

7A. He spoke to me, ‘Don’t take it so hard.”? ’ He wanted .

~ to know what I was in there for. We then wert into the

- conversation. — .

Q. When was the first time you got around to talking -

about this ease after you had been there?

_ A. I tried to open him up the first night but he refused

to discuss’the case.

\ , /

ASAT RR sae tie inlet ee to Pan a ox ae ae ee ae

AREF OER RE ED SACLE IY SOP NINTH ATER MONE RE INT A LOL PGE ION EOLA TE

a: . . }

Q. How many ‘times did you try to open him: up?!

[306] A. Two or three times.

Q. Two or three times. Was it one, two, or three?

A. It could be more.

_ Q. And how often did you try that night to discuss the

@ .. case with him? .

ae ~s A. I know it was late°the first night because IT sked

oa him what time they cut the lights off. . |

. Q. Whattimewasthat? — ‘

. _ A. Tean’t recall if they cut the lights off. 7

B --—--Q. ~-How late did you talk to him, attempt to talk to him

q about the case? |.

e . \. A. I couldn’t say yan time because I didn’t have a

: - . watch. |

. Q. Was it before or “after midnight that. you’ stopped

_ talking with him on the first right itself?

A. It is imposible to estiniate. ‘I couldn’t estimate it;

~ Teouldn’t keep up with it. -

Q. You couldn’t even estimatet? ° "|

A. Well, George could tell the time becaust he nigibed

the time the different people changed shifts.- He knew |

- different things. He knew what time they changed shifts

and checked the cells. It was my first time ever been in jail. .

- Q. When did you start talking with him, when did you

next talk to him? _

[307 ]. A. The next morning -we .began talking. He was |

up early that morning, and I was laying in the bed because

I usually sleep late.

~ Q. When did this talk about this perfect crime start?

Did that start the first night or second day or what?

A. Second day, Satugday, in the daytime.

Q. Before or after lunch?

A. I should say it was maybe ‘approximately’ before or

after lunch, between 11 and 1 o ‘clock, Tight around lunch.

- Q. Right around mid-day? .

A. Right around mid‘day. _ | fo

- something, this case that we are. here on a today; is that |

Tight? - a =

A. Yes, yes. .

a. Ye was the only. one with knowledge « of it?

es.

‘ * : — “ " eta OND ?

IRE MME RE EGO SOE GAERTNER LTE DLN ONES ETI, PIG CITB NIGER IOS SE GLEE TOE, CRN TR IE RE HO SS

7 a aren ae = a:

| Q: But he just started telling you all. abou: it? >

A. No, he didn’t.

Q. When did all this conversation happen? “When. did

- it happen, this talk of the perfect crime business? ,

A. I began to. explain to him how keen we -had been

operating ——

Q. Answer my “question. Did that talk about this case

occur before or after the perfect crime bit?

[308] A. After. ie”

Q. How tong afterwards?

A. T couldn’t say right now any definite time on that.

Q: The opening part of the’ perfect crime ‘story was that

he had'seen a picture about a perfect crime or something?

. A. To my knowledge he had told ‘me of a picture where

- ‘a perfect crime had been committed. 38 .

@ He had told.you about a spuature he had seen?

A. That’s right.

Q. This is what he told you “ lunchtime, — 11

and 1 o’clock?

POOR meena

A. No, the first time, ‘befoge lunch we was ‘Giscussing

. | what I had done.

Q. But I asked you about this perfect crime stuff. When

- did he start to talk about it? You said between 11 and 1

o’clock?

A. That’s right. |

_ ,Q. When did he tell you he had committed this perfect |

crime—before or-after that lunchtime?. |

A. I would say right about the same time., The eonver-

sation went that he had committed the perfect crime.

Q“And ‘after he liad told you that, then he proceeded to |

_tell you about it; is that it? .

[309] <A. No.

- . Q. Not How long was it then that he started to tell you —

this information that you related? _

A. It was soon after I explained to him — the crime

I had committed.. He told me the mistakes I had made.

Q. When did you do this explaining! Did you do it after

that 11to1 period? -

A. Thad told him previously that morning. He said, ‘*Sit

down,’’ and he thought about it and stood up and told me

about working two men as a team, but he never say any-

_ thing else about himself until around lunchtime.

Q. That was lunchtime of et -

A. — ~ right. |

s . 4

a rT . ° . a ae

Ear MAN rae be SRD LA eR BF

: . P .

Q And ‘did he continue telling you all about this until

you got out—through with luzich on Sunday?

- .A..No. He didn’t explain what he had done until late

: after'I explained what had happened to me. He showed: me °

- what was’ my erated, what was my. reason for being i in

jail.

Q. How many times. did you wake him up Pviday might?

A. I woke him up once.

' Q. To talk to him about the.case?

A. I woke him up Friday night. I asked | him ‘something |

about the lights, I think it was, and he started talking

- about what.time they cut the lights out.

[310] Q. How many times did you wake him up Saturday

night?

A. Saturday night vw was unintentionally. ‘I was getting - :

up to go to the commode.

_ Q. To the where?

A. To the commode. That’ ’s the stool that sits in 1 the cell.

. Q.. Did you wake him up? ,

_ A. As I was moving around. the foot of the bed, he woke

-up automatically. — |

Q. Did you talk to him about this case? ‘*

A. I told him how bad I wished I was out i in the streets.

We went into the case from there.

Q. But he had already told you, then, on Saturday noon

that he had committed the perfect crime and told you about

it?. _ ,

A. That’s right.

Q. Then did he keep repeating that all day Saturday

and Saturday night and Sunday?

——

¥>

A. He did not. It was a conversation that kept. reminding

him of what had happened. He kept: mentioning it to -

prove that he wasn’t in jail to stay.

Q. When did this talk about your case and the Chinaman

take place?: .

A. I talked about that Friday night and Cen (311)

morning.

But that wasn’t true, was itt. eee 2, '

It was not. |

But-you told. that to George, didn t you?

I did. -

Did you tell him with an intent for him to believe it?

I told—I intended . BOE him to actually - ‘believe it.

herere,

. aE

ie . ~ . a sn es . ~~ bs ~

: ; . :

— Q. And you. ‘tried ‘all you could to impress him that ‘it

was the truth, that aa were charged with that erime?

A, I did.

Q. You didn’t use your correct name, did you?

- A. My name is Archie. Langford. I used Archie ae =

Q. You shartened your last name vane used 4 different

name? _— .

YU 7: Genero ee J,

----~~_Q. Now, when’ did you have es fore to. eat?

a A. If Tam not. mistaken, the oatmeal was eaten. Saturday

morning or either the cereal Saturday morning and oatmeal

was Sunday morning. .

-_Q. You are not sure about that? ; :

A. I am sure both mornings he had both imeels. -

Q. You: are not sure about it. That is the only [312] time

you have ever been in jail?

A. Right. | _=

Q. Now, what did you eaves for supper meal Friday,

. Saturday and: Sunday? :

AL For. Frfday I can’t recall. For Saturd y. we. had |

weiners, sauerkraut and mashed potatoes.

Q. How about Sunday?

A. Sunday we had one of those something like a soup, -

’. some beans and a lot of water.

Q: That was the only time | you had: been in jail, but

you can’t recall? | ) |

A. I didn’t eat it.. I-rave it to iin:

————$$ aw

ne Q. Now, did anybody come.to see e him at all d ring. ae

time you W rere in there?

A.-Only at night... One jailer he ‘knew—*‘ How |are you

doing, Chief? Everything okay”? He said, ‘’Okay

thing okay. +9| Eo iW ‘ould just come-on back and get in bed.

Q.-Now, you. said something about he told you he had)

_ this truth serum treatment; is that right? .

‘A. He told me, that’s right. a,

—Q. That they : gave him truth serum, laid him. on the

couch? -

A. He was periniaiae to me how they give truth

Q. Did he say: that. he was explaining the ‘truth

_ serum because they gave it to him? .

. A, He told me not to take it because they had mate him.

take —- similar.

Every-

7 :

[313]

Q. He 2 told 3 you not to tals it because they. fovéid hie a

to take it?

A. He said they either forced hin to take it or he had to

- take it.

of it.

Q. Did‘he tell you about when he had taken it?” |

_ A. He told me he didn ’t want to talk about it, but for me

not totakeit.. —

Q. All during the time he was. _peding trial—waan’t he

waiting for. a tnal?”—~—-- —

Mr. Brock :. That i is duis of record. > UL

‘Mr. Sanpsrrom : Sure. He might have knowledge of all

THE Court: He can testify: what Mitten told him. ba

records will be the best evidence. —

Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) Was he pending trial then, from

the information you obtained from him?

A. Was he pending trial for information I obtained

. from him? I don’t know. ~

Q. In your conversation with him, did he tell you’ any-

thing about he was waiting for trial to come up or any:

thing?

A. His lawyer—he told me—he gave me some [314] in-

formation he was waiting, how long he would Have to wert

injail, oon

Q. He told you how long he was going to ‘ai to stay in?

“A. Yes.»

“Q.. How long did he tél you he was? |

A. The lawyer said not to get out on as

Q. How long did he stay?

A: He didn’t say. .He. gave me a long story to: explain to

_ me exactly what was supposed to happen, .

Q. Did he also tell you that an indictment had already

7 been filed charging him w ith this?

A. No, he-didn’t,

Q. He didn’t mention anything about that?

A. He did not.

Q. Did he tell you that he had already told the officers

exactly what he told you? ae

A. He did. .

Q. But he told you also that he had committed a perfect :

erime and nobody knew anything about it?

A. He didn ’t tell me, he told the officers that. o

3 ge

Q. Did he tell you that he told the officers exactly what

A..He told me that he had committed a perfect crime

and that he had confessed to it.

[315] He told me he had confessed it to Detective Bush |

in reference to the crime he committed. He was glad he

had done it. -

QQ. He said he had told Detective Bush?

‘A. Shepherd, Shepherd, I think it was—the. officer that’ ,

cleaned his clothes and had his underwear washed. ~~

Q. He was still calling this a perfect crime? ‘“

A. Well, he.didn’t say he had confesed to the crime of

killing the pirl. ‘He said he had made statements in refer- -

ence to the crime that he had confessed 1% ‘something he

had done earlier. | |

_ Q. That has no connection at all with this kind of case?

A. I don’t know.

_ Mr. Brock: I object to the statement of counsel as : to

that. a

Tare Court: I think it is one for a 1 conclusion, I will

sustain the objection. |:

.Q.. (By ‘Mr. Sandstrom) Now, “did he tell 36a that he

had told the officers about this case hére—Deteetive Shep-

_ herd or Detective Bush? .

- A. He said-he had told the officers about it. He had also —

made a confession in reference ‘to something that happened

that night, but he didn’t go into details. What he told the :

detective, he fold me. That is his. version of [316] what |

happened.

- Q. I say that what he told you, he told the detectives?

A, No.

& Q. As “4 matter of fact, he didn’t: tell 5 you he had told

pte, a

‘he had been advised to say it was forced out; is that

A. He said the lawyer told him to say that becan ise lie.

_ gave voluntary statements the first time. — \ Ely

anybody anything?

‘A. Hedid.

Q. I see. But then you said that he said something: abo

- ght? 5

‘Q. He gave a voluntary statement? SNE:

A. He was willing to get it off his chest. He was glad

to.

Q. Tell me the words. You changed it both. times -now.

_ signed a statement but that additional words had been

What was the way in which. he told you he made the state-

ment? -

A. He say, ‘‘T: was over to the City jail, over there, and

I talked with the detective. That was a pretty nice white

' fellow.’’ : ee

Q. What detective? Eo Cais: are Oe,

. A. Detective Shepherd. He said he was\a pretty nice

| white fellow, and he said, ‘‘He talked with me and I am

glad I told him that confession I made,’’. .. a ;

[317] He said, ‘I’m glad F told him the confession I made,

but my lawyer told me to tell the judge that tlie statements

and the confession that I signed, that I was forced to sign |

probably bring it in anyway. He said; ‘‘My lawyer going

to-+take care of that.’’ ? : |

- .them.’’ He said that his lawyer told him that that informa- .

_- tion could not be brought into cour So I said they would

_ Q. He didn’t say who his lawyer wad) whefe he got this

information from?

A. He did not. . . |

_Q. And did he say how the lawyer told: him to say this

was forced out gf him? Paes oa

A. He said the lawyer told him to.tell the judge that he

added. He said more words had been added.

Q. More words had been added? ' oa

A. He didn’t have much education. He didn’t understand.

.alotofwords. = ; - sey 2 ese 7

y anything about -he -had been well- .

> Q. Now, did-he sa

treated or mistreated, anything like fhat? ee :

' A. He explained to me that the detective that handled |

; the first time was a pretty nice guy and he had his. under- . ’

Wear and clothes cleaned and fixed up for him.

Q. Did he tell you if anybody had mishandled him‘ or . «

~~ handled him roughly?

[318] A. He told me he would tell ‘the judge he wes

, mishandled.

. nishandted,

Q. I am asking you whether“he told you he had ‘been

_A. He didn’t tell me they mistreated him at all

Q. Of course, you didn’t record in any fashion any of

this conversation that ‘purportedly occurred between you _

andhim? = —

A. Idid not. °

’

» , SK wes

pees ae Sa Se

oe | : eg

-Q. Did you, attempt to bave him make any pra naer to

) you after. that date in the _—— of asiybody « so it bea

be record ss

.Mr. Brock; I don’t understand the question. tg ee, Ye

' Tue Court: Do you understand the ara as

. THe Wirness: I ‘don’t. “ a .

Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) After this time that you were. |

in the cell there with George milion, @ aa you ever tell him

after that time—— “ 3 hy

Tue Court: Tell who?

ree, (By Mr. Sandstrom) Did you ever tell Georg’ Milton °

~ to come and make a statement with you and the statement.

could be taken down by a saree pe Réporter? ~

AG ie

Q. You never did anything like that?

A. I did not: : es

[319] Q. There wernt any body else there dy Ww ieee what

George Milton purportedly’ told yout

A. 'N ot in the cell.

-‘Q Pardon? Pee

_A. There was no one in the oll. aes ae

Q. Outside of the ‘cell, was there somebody standing

there who co d.zeport exactly what occurred in there?

A: No, there wasn’t, not to my knowledge. ie

Q. You are the only one scone you know of anything :

that he told you? ;

A. Right; +’ ge ay

Y And y ou didn’t take any notes of it?” 4 ee

; nee ipjail. AS en

_Q. Xnd you never did that before? a

x ever did that before. | , : ae

‘Q. Have you done it since? ? Sige iF Le ON

A. Done what? “ t%

Q. The same thing—going te the edll with esinabiiay op

who was qccused of something and’ talk with. him like that,

trying to get a statement out of him?

. A. Ihave tried to get statements out af people bat I

never went in the cell. | a .

. Q. This is the only time that: that ever aimee:

AL As to my seeking _— in reference. to a case,

“no. . :

(320) * I mean by getting i in 5 tas re with him.- CAR Gao ee

i Frankly speaking, I have ideas in the nell with a pris- .

oner, but I have pone there in as'a prisoner before.’

Q. You: have gone

statement? © ©

A. Right.

_Q. I mean, this same thing: you had-never Suns it hind 3

and have done it. since—going into the cell, disguising your -

we and trying to talk with him?

_A.*That’s right. ,

~'Q. Now, during the time you were there, was s George sick —

_. oranything?

' A. Tomy knowledge, no, nase: a mie

Q. Speak up. é ii Pa Ga ode

A. Tomy bnowiddee;‘a no. | Cee ete

- Qe How long had he been oe do eid

‘. A. Iwas told by him that he asked to Bom

* Q.-He asked to - put some place. -all by himself?

A. Right, -—

Q. I didn’t ask ae: Dia he tell how Tog he had been |

| confined at t thattime?

A. He told me how many days lie had in 1 jail.

Q. How many days he had i in aiid many fa did

he have in jail? . ,

[321] ‘A; Ican * recall. fas Hg ee ge

Q. You don’t remember that either? :

A. No.

Q. Bo you remember asking him. anything about the OBE.

’ that he had on the evening-of May 31st? . : :

A. Did I ask’hinf about the cart |

Q. Yes. .

A. After he told me about the car, I asked bite es ee

“couldn ’t she get out. 5 }

‘+ Q. Did you ask him about the cart

A. About which car?

-Q. The description ofsthe. car that he had on the 31st.

A. No, I did not. » 7

* Q. You didn t know. what make or model! . bie

A. I still don“. : : ee ets on

Q. You have never seen it? - Pee gee

A. Never have.

‘Q. And did you notice ‘hat he was. wearing dating ¢ the:

“Pane 0a, N were in -the .cell with George Milton?

ere ‘before as ah officer to take a

hat: Jsolation’

A. Idid. ae rm . 7 ,

Q. What did he have ont

A. He had.on a pair of blue pants, or'gray. pants, a esat;

which was hanging up on the window. The.pants seemed

to me more like a suit. He had a regular Navy or Army tee .

[322] shirt with shorts on. That’ s what he wore most of. the .

' timehewasinjail. ;

Q. That was the only clothes he had on theret

A. It was the only clothes. It’s similar to that blue coat.

_A real dirty pair of blue pants hanging up to the screen.

Q. How long did you talk to him Saturday night when

, Youwerewithhim? |

A. I think.we talked way up after midnight What time

it was, I ecouldn’t exactly recall. ;

-Q. Way after midnight... That would be the same as you

didon Friday? \ \.

A. No, he cut me of-short Friday night iwees I asked

him what time they.c off. the lights, to try to “ the :

. conversation. up.

Q. Now, after he told y ecco this perfect erime} and “x.

| told yqu that he had done this on Saeeeey afternoon; did .

particular orders t& remain there, to remain there until .

Sunday? | a 2k /

_ A. I was told not rm iniinnd sapien hak the person that

put me in there. That was the only pice was to talk to.

' Q) Whowasthat? ~~. * an CN

- A. Detective Shepherd. | i ~~

[323] Q. When did you contact him? Dot ie :

_ |. A. Well, I did not contact him. He had me released Frog

the jail where he met me at the desk. - a

Q. ‘That was Sunday evening? a

‘A. Sunday evening. . - .

Q. Were you going to be i in. there any particular length

of time when youwentin? _.-

A. No particular length of. time.

“ Q.: It was just as, s long as: “it a for you ‘to get the state-

~ o ment fromhim?’ tes |

' A. It was nét. said that way.

Q? What? -. | — -

. he TE wasn’t said nuiee how long or how much nee!

tion to receive. I was just to stay in. there until they devided

to come, and release me, whether T had found out anything.

i % ~ x ° : i ateiie * “

es aol ae aye any!

me, Ae

Q. I see. Then they were going to take you out—if you

- found ‘something, they would keep you. ont; if not, they

would return you?

Mr. Biocx: That is calling for a conclusion ®

‘Mr. Sanpstrom : If he so understood it. oe Ne4

Tue Court: I think ‘so. I will sustain the objection on

that ground. ~ Ts |

~ Q. (By Mr. Sandstrom) Was there any kind of a plan

as to how long you were to be in there?

[324] " A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did you volunteer for this or did they come and seek

- you to send you in for this detail?

_ A. I would like toexplain how it came to be."

Q. Did you ask for the detail? . 7 |

A. I was officially assigned to the City of Miami Narcotics.

_ Squad during, before and. prior to this time. A eolored

officer was suspended from the Homicide Bureau, and I was

assigned to the Narcotics Bureau, so they were ‘seeking

‘Someone to take this officer’s place. The Narcotics Bureau

is the office next to the Homicide. I was talking with a

. few of the fellows around the building, so I was transferred

from the Narcotics Bureau to the Homicide Bureau because.

of the work I had‘done previously; Mee ee

.. A. I didn’t want to be transferred, but ~— transferred

me anyway. ‘. 7 est

Q: About this detail, did you ask te be locked up or did .

they order youto? ” -

A. They didn’t order me; they didn’t ask me. They just

to work special detail for.us?’’ oe . ee

Q. Did they explain the special detail to you?.

_. A. They explained they wanted me to seek information

from George Milton.

[325] Q. What did you say?

A. I said I would try it:

Q. You would try it? —

A. Yes, sir. . _

Q. Now, are you married? —

oe 7 "Geee .

Q. Do you have a family?. | a os .

a A. Thave..

_ Q.,Do you live _— eo.

;

88 -* .

Ai t

i :

+ I do.

Q. You were going to be away Wriday. Saturday, how- -

ever long it too

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.