# Appendix — Drope v. Missouri > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0374%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 420 U.S. 162 ## Text ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS, ST. LOUIS DISTRICT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTICSARI FILED JANUARY 5, 1974; CERTIORARI AND — PAUPERIS GRANTED MAY 13, 1974. Mira oe = IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1974 No. 73-6038 JAMES EDWARD DROPE, Petitioner, —V.— STATE OF MISSOURI, ~ Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS, ST. LOUIS. DISTRICT INDEX Page Relevant Docket Entries in The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Case No. 405R 2000.02. .... cece cece ccc cecceeeeeete eee eeeeeeeees 1 Relevant Docket Entries in The Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Case No. PCR294 2000..0o020o.c cece cece ceeeeec eee ee 4 Relevant Docket Entries in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Case No. 34,797 .....c.ccccccccccccc cece ceeccccecnecceceeececceeeceeeeeeeeseeneeees 5 bt Efi 0s ct || a re Defendant’s motion for continuance and psychiatric exami- WUE: CIEE sien cco crores ascendant es es avsteeeececiunarseenancetionne 7 Memorandum filed by State not opposing the motion ............ 14 Commencement of trial (excerpts) -......0........2..20.20ecceeeceeeeeeeeeeee 15 Testimony of Marianne Joyce Drope iret ooo coeee ceceeeeeeceeeeeeeeeees B saueboadviducusussavsseieeseaesodseruen 22 % BocmtOPAR 5 cso - co ccsdavncdevcssnnn-eeuesseecusescouacecseascacateuasesssensue>eaess-+-ss 42 —POGUTV CCE oon ooo oeeceeeceec cc eccccees cenecccececeetecscsececcecectecersrenseeeees 56 —further redirect ..2..0.0..0.000.0cceceeeecc cece ee eceeeceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 61 parka Bias SA BOY P wR oy Tig Defendant with special leave of Court, files notice of appeal to Supreme Court of Mis- souri. Opinion of Supreme Court of Missouri affirm-- ing judgment filed. 1971 April 22 April 28 May 11 May 14 July 21 1972 June 26 July 7 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS STATE OF MISSOURI /~ t Case No. PCR 294 JAMES EDWARD DROPE, MOVANT vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Defendant’s affidavit in forma pauperis is filed and granted. Motion to set aside judg- ment and sentence under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 is filed and assigned to Division No. 19 as Case P.C.R. Number 294 to be heard by Judge David McMullan. Richard D. Hatton appointed attorney for movant. Appointment of Richard D. Hatton set aside. Elmer H. Grimm appointed attorney for movant. Appointment of Elmer H. Grimm set aside and John J. Goebel appointed attorney for movant. Charles A. Weiss enters his appearance as Co- counsel with John J. Goebel as appointed at- torney for movant. PCR hearing convened and progresses. Con- tinued for purpose of taking and filing depo- sition. Defendant granted 30 days for filing brief. State granted 30 days to answer. Motion to be taken as submitted on filing of last brief. Movant’s motion filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 overruled. Find- ings of fact, conclusions of law and ruling filed. Movant files notice of appeal to Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. 5 IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS ST. LOUIS DISTRICT No. 34,797 JAMES EDWARD DROPE, APPELLANT Vv. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT 1973 March 5 June 5 June 15 August 16 September 13 October 9 1974 January 7 RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES Cause argued and submitted. Opinion filed upholding finding of Circuit Court in overruling appellant’s motion filed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26. Appellant’s motion for rehearing or to trans- fer to Missouri Supreme Court filed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing or transfer to Missouri Supreme Court denied. Copy of appellant’s application fcr transfer to Supreme Court of Missouri filed. Supreme Court of Missouri’s order denying appellant’s application to transfer filed. Letter filed notifying court that appellant filed with the United States Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari to Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. 6 “CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, FEBRUARY TERM, i969 INDICTMENT—Filed February 26, 1969 “THE GRAND JURORS OF THE STATE OF MIS- SOURI, within and for the body of the City of St. Louis, now here in Court, duly impaneled, sworn and charged, upon their oath present, That J AMES EDWARD DROPE alias EDWARD DROPE on the 2nd day of June, one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight, at the City of St. Louis aforesaid, in the Cireuit Court was duly convicted of the offense of Burglary Second Degree and Stealing, and in accordance with said conviction was duly sen- tenced by said Court to an imprisonment in the Peni- tentiary of the State of Missouri for the term of two years for Burglary Second Degree and two years for — to run consecutively for a total of four years was duly imprisoned in the said Penitentiary of the State of Missouri aforesaid, on July 2, 1958, in accord- ance wita said sentence, and that the said JAMES ED- WARD DROPE alias EDWARD DROPE was duly dis- charged from said Penitentiary of the State of Missouri aforesaid, on February 25, 1961, after and upon lawful compliance with said sentence. “THE GRAND JURORS OF THE STATE OF MIS- SOURI, within and for the body of the City of St. Louis, now here in Court, duly impaneled, sworn and charged, — upon their oath present further as follows: “That JAMES EDWARD DROPE alias EDWARD DROPE, RABORN EUGENE TUTTLE and ROGER DERYL BUTLER at the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, on the 17th day of January, 1969, did unlaw- fully and feloniously make an assault upon MARY JOYCE DROPE, a female over the age of sixteen years and did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and forci- bly rape, ravish and carnally know the said MARY JOYCE DROPE against her will; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and - against the peace and dignity of the State. 7 [Caption Omitted in Printing] MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE Comes now the Defendant, JAMES E. DROPE, and states to the court that he has had a psychiatric exam- ination made by Dr. Joseph F. Shuman, M. D., a copy of which report is attached hereto. Defendant moves the court to continue his case until September, 1969 in order that he might receive an Exam- ination, Evaluation and psychiatric treatment, as sug- gested by Dr. Shuman, at the Malcomb Bliss Hospital in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. /s/ Lester Watson Attorney for Defendant 1212 Big Bend Blvd. Richmond Heights, Mo. 63117 647-6330 8 JOSEPH S. SHUMAN, M. D. ANTON F. HEUSLER, M. D. NEUROPSYCHIATRY 326 Northland Medical Bldg. ' §t. Louis, Mo. 63136 Telephone CO 1-9310 -February 22, 1969 Lester Watson, Esq. Attorney at Law 1212 Big Bend Boulevard Richmond Heights, Missouri 63117 Re: James E. Drope Dear Mr. Watson: Pursuant to your request I performed a psychiatric evaluation on Mr. James E. Drope in my office on Febru- ary 20th, 1969. Mr. Drope had been driven to my office by his wife. This was 2 healthy looking, well built, well developed white male, who appeared to be markedly agi- tated. The patient at times would wring his hands. He had difficulty in talking because of his marked anxiety. Mr. Drope explained that one day he came home from the union hall, after not having gotten any work and he started drinking; apparently, he spent the day drink- ing. He said that he got home at 3:30 p.m. and went to sleep. His wife woke him at 6:00 p.m. and sent him to the store, but after buying his groceries he also went to the tavern for a few drinks and also got himself a six-pack. He said that he started drinking and then was joined by a few men aged twenty to twenty-two. They, apparently, drank with him until about 2:30 a.m. He said they had been talking about going over to East St. Louis and finding some girls. Mr. Drope then claimed that the next part of the history is really a blank to him. He repeats what he has been told, but claims that he has absolutely no memory for it. He says that all he remembers is that he was bringing the groceries up- stairs when he saw some police come into the street and 9 up around his house and they arrested him after his wife screamed to them to watch out for him because he was carrying a gun. Mr. Drope said that he doesn’t remember anything, but he was told that he and the four men with him went to his home and raped and threat- ened his wife with a gun and a knife and that this oc- cured between 2:30 and 4:00 a.m. Mr. Drope said that he was taken to the hospital and was examined and then he was taken to the jail and eventually to the City Workhouse. He said that there were several warrants against him. After being in the workhouse for one or two weeks he was let out on bond. He said that he has been trying to work since then. He also said that his wife wants to drop the charges, but that he is due back in court on February 26th. He said that he and his wife are now getting along okay. PAST HISTORY: Mr. Drope was born in Gideon, Mis- souri, on April 29th, 1937, the second of five children. The youngest three were the product of a different father. Mr. Drope said that~he has seen his father only four times in his life. Apparently, his father was divorced by his mother when Mr. Drope was still only a baby. A stepfather raised him, but he died in 1952. The mother has since remarried several times and is now with her fourth husband. Mr. Drope said that he was shunted back and forth to many cities and schucls and he finally quit school in the fourth grade when he was fifteen or sixteen years old. This occured after his stepfather died and lie had to go to work. He was living in St. Louis at the time. He had numerous jobs such as being a newspaper boy, a delivery boy, a packer, ete. Mr. Drope first married at the age of seventeen and was divorced at the age of twenty-three. He and his wife had four children; they are now with his ex-mother-in- law in Arkansas. His ex-wife has also remarried. These children run in age from fifteen to eleven. The patient said he has seen them only once,in the past two years. 10 In 1958, when the patient was twenty-one, he was living in St. Louis and, because of the need for money and because he was not working, he took part in a burglary, but he was caught. He served thirty-six months in the penitentiary in Jefferson City. While he was there his wife divorced him. At this point the patient nointed out that he has very much trouble remembering these things. He said that it seems like it was on'y 4 week ago. He remarried after his release from the penitentiary, but he is unable to remember the date. He has since had five children and he says they range in age from five or six to six months. Patient has had numerous jobs. In the last few months he has been working out of the union hiring hall for truckers. He said that he made a living and that he also did odd jobs to supplement his other pay. He admits that he is greatly in debt and just cannot catch up. PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: The past medical history reveals the usual childhood diseases, but there have been no operations, although the patient has apparently been injured many times. Once, as a child, he fractured a leg and due to this he was discharged from the service. He said that he enlisted at the age of seventeen, but was discharged only a month later because of that bad leg. Mr. Drope has also one other arrest and that was for car theft. He did not serve any ‘time because he was placed on parole immediately. That was over ten years ago. Mr. Drope said that he smokes three or four packs of cigarewes a day.. He said that he drinks only when he is upset and that he does drink to the point of getting drunk. In talking further with Mr. Drope, in response to a ques- tion about hearing voices, he thinks thet he heard voices after his stepfather died and he also described hearing voices only last January and that he saw a vision of his stepfather and grandmother and, apparently, had a con- versation with them. The patient admits that he had been drinking at that time also. 11 Mr. Drope was markedly agitated and upset. He is not a very good historian and he claims much difficulty with memory. He appeared to be cooperative in this examina- tion, but he had difficulty in participating well. As a ‘matter of fact, before he left my office I gave him a seda- tive to get him calmed down. I also gave him some sam- ples of medication together with a prescription for these medications in the hope that he can get himself relaxed so he can carry on more efficiently. The patient had a difficult time relating. He was markedly circumstantial and irrelevant in his speech. He showed marked anxiety and there was no sign of any depression or apathy at this time. His affect seemed to be harmonious with his thought content. There was no sign as to the presence of any delusions, illusions, hallucinations, obsessions. ideas of reference, compulsions or phobias at this time. In a simple IQ exam Mr. Drope was able to achieve a score in the low normal range, but on further tests for knowledge of current news events and famous names and places, he did very poorly. Mr. Drope was wel! ori- ented in all spheres. With much difficulty he was able to explain a few abstractions. He also showed some diffi- culty in explaining some differences. He was able, with- out trouble, to answer questions testing judgement. He had much difficulty even doing the simple counting and calculations problems. After finishing with Mr. Drope I then talked alone with his wife. She is twenty-four years old and says that she has been married for seven years and has five children. She admits that she has left him several] times in the marriage, but came back because of having no money. Often she would leave him because of his sexuc: perver- sions. She admits that in the past he has inserted a bottle in her vagina and he has also had rectal inter- course. She said that he had once mentioned that he might do something like bringing up some men to take care of her so that he had actually had it in the back of his mind before. She also said that he is very suspicious and is always accusing her of running around. Appar- EE 12 ently, his first wife ran around. Mrs. Drope admits that her husband drinks much, but she doesn’t remember him being real drunk more than three times since they were * married. She also describes what she feels is strange | behavior on his part in order to get sympathy. This ~ would include even falling down flights of stairs io gain sympathy from her. Mr. Drope would stay away two or three days-at a time if he got mad at her, otherwise, they got along very well. She thinks that he has been always as nervous as he is now and that he would not hold a job very long because of his nervousness. IMPRESSION: If it can be said that some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth then it must be admitted that Mr. Drope was born with a fish hook in his. He has always led a marginal existence. He re- ceived practically no education and no training for any worthwhile occupation. Having had several fathers is certainly not condusive to proper father identification. Apparently, abnormal sexual acts are part of Mr. Drope’s own culture. He has a history of occasional drinking, although he seems to drink more often than his wife suggests. He also has a history of anti-social conduct. At the present time Mr. Drope is certainly markedly -agitated and upset. He finds himself in very much trou- ble and is confused about the whole thing. I do not find any strong signs of psychosis at this time. This indi- vidual certainly needs the aid of a psychiatrist, but I would really not be very optimistic about success about a man like him because I doubt that he would keep up with any kind of psychiatric care, since this requires some modicum of sophistication. This*is a very neurotic individual who is also depressed and perhaps he is depressed for most of the time. Ap- parently, he certainly has much reason for this. As for the diagnosi I want to offer: (1) Sociopathic personality disorder, sexual perversion. (2) Borderline mental defi- ciency. (3) Chronic Anxiety reaction with depression. re ne eke ie VA NOL i ISLE A GALI TLD CRETE. 18 The prognosis for Mr. Drope must remain guarded. Per- haps his anxiety can be controlled with medication, but one cannot expect much change in his personality defect. Trusting that this is the desired information, I am, us Te aT | Very truly yours, /s/ J. S. Shuman, M.D. JOSEPH S. SHUMAN, M.D. JSS/meg OEE E EEE LOBE ILENE LOPES IGN STD ' 14 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT CITY OF ST. LOUIS Cause . 405-R May 27, 1969 STATE OF| MISSOURI Vv JAMES—Ex” DROPE Charge: Rape Comes now the State of Missouri and does not oppose the motion for 2 psychiatric examination of the Defend- ant James E. Drope in the above entitled cause. Respectfully submitted, /s/ John J. Morten 3 Assistant Circuit Attorney [Filed May 27, 1969, James H. McAteer, Clerk, Circuit Court for Criminal Causes | na pire Stee 3 * * 15 [7] TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL Thereupon, on said 23rd day of June, 1969, the trial of the above-entitled cause began in Division No. 19 of said court, before the Honorable David A. McMullan, Judge, presiding ‘n said Division. Mr. Michael Frank, Assistant Circuit Attorney, appeared as attorney for the State of Missouri. The defendant, James Edward Drope, appeared in person in open court. A panel of prospective jurors was then summoned into open court. Thereafter, upon the arrival of Mr. Lester Watson, at- torney and counsel for the defendant, in open court, the jury panel was sworn in on voir dire, after which the following proceedings were had’in said cause: - MR. WATSON: Your Honor, please, I would like to make a record in this case. Do you want the jury in here while we make it? THE COURT: You can make your record out of the hearing of the jury. (The following proceedings were had out of the hear- ing of the prospective jurors:) MR. WATSON: Where is the court file? Let the record show that on May 27th, 1969, this case was set for trial, at which time the attorney for the defendant Drope filed a motion for a psychiatric examination, and requesting that the case be continued until the Sep- tember Term of court. It was determined at that time— the motion filed requested the continuance [8] for the reason that the defendant had been previously examined by a psychiatrist who had recommended further ex- amination, evaluation and psychiatric treatment of the defendant, at which time the Court informed the de- fendant’s attorney that the case would be continued to September, and the defendant— THE COURT: Well, pardon me. Just a minute. Just a minute, Mr. Watson. This case was assigned here this morning. It was on this morning’s docket. You came in, and I have been waiting all day, and it is now four o’clock. And we have been in touch with your office; age Ra ee — ee ~ x 16 we have been in touch with your home and every place else, and then you came in here about twenty minutes ago, a little after 3:30,- and you wanted a continuance , and the State objected. And I said that continuances were passed upon in Division No. 16, and had already been passed on. I think you were over there to Judge Walsh to make your request and record for continuance. Now you are tating things that Judge Walsh advised you to the contrary. I talked to Judge Walsh over the telephone, and he did not say, and he told me he did not say, that this case would go ove. to September. And in addition, Judge Walsh told me the motion wasn’t in proper form, and he pointed out that it was not in proper form. And I may be mistaken, and I thought that the situation was that you were to file a motion. MR. WASTON: That is correct. THE COURT: And you did not do so. [9] MR. WATSON: Ac I understood it,— THE COURT: Pardon me. You iin this record started out that a motion was filed. MR. WATSON: Well, here the file shows a psy- chiatric— THE COURT: That is the Clerk’s minute. Look at the motion. | MR. WATSON: I am looking at the motion. THE COURT: Is it in proper form? MR. WATSON: No, it is not. THE COURT: Then no motion has been filed. MR. WATSON: Never overruled or sustained or any- thing else, but it was filed. THE COURT: Did you and Judge Walsh agree— MR. WATSON: I was to file an additional motion? THE COURT: No, no. Not in proper form? MR. WATSON: Mr. Morton an“ 1 agreed. I don’t know that the Judge did. And I was to file an addi- tional form. / THE COURT: Pardon me. I don’t mind you making a record but I want the record to be honest. MR. WATSON: I do too. I don’t want it any other way. That is absolutely the way I want it, Judge. 17 Now, 1 don’t know how far I got before the Court made a statement into the record, but, in any event, counsel for the defendant having filed this motion asking that the case be set~in September, and having agreed to file an additional motion [10] that would comply with “he statutes, did not prepare this case for trial and did not know it was on the docket until informed by Judge Douglas Jones in Clayton that Judge McMullan has called and asking if I were in his courtroom, and that I was wanted in the Circuit Court in St.. Louis. I have not had the opportunity as yet to file this motion under the statute, asking that the man be sent to Malcolm Bliss Hospital for a further psychiatric— THE COURT: Just a minute. Pardon me. It ap- pears to me now that your motion is such that a record ought to be made before Judge Walsh. MR. WATSON: If Your Honor wants us to go over there. THE COURT: Now, going back and forth over there, I am in this sort of position: Judge Walsh told me that that motion was filed and it was an improper motion, not in proper form, and you suggested, and it was suggested that if you seriously contend that he needed physicatric help, that you would file a2 proper psychiatric motion. It was not filed. It was docketed. Now, Judge Casey Walsh did not tell me that he sus- tained the motion that it would be set in September. That is contrary to what Casey Walsh téld me. Did Judge Walsh state in September? MR. WATSON: At the time I and Mr. Morton dis- cussed it. THE COURT: Not until September? [11] MR. WATSON: Until September. THE COURT: And assured you of that? MR. WATSON: Yes, Judge. May I explain one thing more because he said it took such a long period of time to get a person through Malcolm Bliss, there was a waiting period and it could be done during the summer months and be ready for trial or else the examination would eliminate trial by September. accel | 18 : THE COURT: Did he say he would set it in Sep- 3 tember? : MR. WATSON: Did he say he would set it in : September? THE COURT: Yes. MR. WATSON: Judge, I don’t know. There was such confusion because the thing was just sort ef left off and set later on in the day when I wasn’t there, as Mr. Morton said it was set by him and the Clerk of the court when they were resetting all the cases that had gone over from that particular week. THE COURT: Well, may the record show this: Ther is nothing in this record,—and the word of Casey Wal himself, there is nothing in the record to show it was be set in September, and Judge Walsh did not tell me it was to be set in September and did not assure you it was set in September. The file shov’s that a minute was entered on May 29th that it was continued to June 28rd. Now, what may have happened is, if you were going to file a motion for a psychiatric examination, it would have the result of it having to go over to September to [12] give time for the examination to be made. Judge Walsh may have said that but there is nothing in the record. And I don’t believe that Judge Walsh stated it would be set in September. Yeu just came back from Judge Walsh’s division. 1 am sure if Judge Walsh made that statement to you, he would honor it. And I can only go by the file and Judge Walsh. And let the record show they went back to Judge Walsh’s division, and after being in there fifteen or twenty minutes, Judge Walsh has refused to grant a continuance. . MR. WATSON: That’s right. He said the case was assigned over here and the jury waiting all day, and the witnesses were here, and for that reason he didn’t feel he wanted to grant a continuance. THE COURT: It seems strange to me that you would come into the court and before this Judge and start quoting what Judge Walsh said. Sa 19 MR. WATSON: Because I didn’t get an ‘opportunity to question him. THE COURT: Pardon me. We'll go ahead with the case now. And this jury has been waiting, practically all day. We will at least get started. And before the jury is sworn in, I am going to ask Judge Walsh to review this statement. All right. MR. WATSON: Let me state further into the record, I am objecting to going to trial with this defendant also for the [13] reason that the defendant is not a person of sound mind and should have a further psychiatric examination before the case should be forced to trial. THE COURT: All right. The record— MR. WATSON: Furthermore, for the record, I am _ going to object at this time for the reason that the State on June 19th, 1969, added five additional witnesses whom we have had no opportunity to examine, and claim surprise for that reasun. Secondly, I am going to object to going to trial at this time for the reason that a memorandum, dated May 27th, 1969, headed “State of Missouri v. James E. Drope. Charge: Rare: Cause No. 405-R. Comes now the State of Missouri and does not oppose the motion for a psy- chiatric examination of the defendant James E. Drope in the above-entitled cause. Respectfully submitted, John Morton, Assistant Circuit Attorney”,—which certainly bears out what I said, that we had agreed to have a psychiatric examination, Your Honor, before he went to trial. That is the second memorandum. THE COURT: Well, it will be overruled. These matters have already been passed on before Judge Walsh. And let me say with reference to this endorsement of the witnesses, the Court has been assured by the Assistant Circuit Attorney that those were mailed to your office on the morning of June 19th, this memorandum was. And your objection in claiming surprise now should have been another reason urged on Judge Walsh in the [14] Assignment Division. The case has been sent out to trial, and your objection has no merit. MR. WATSON: Let the record show that 1 had no opportunity to make such objection before Judge Walsh r Alba Saabs ae 4 z H 20 as the case was assigned out of the Assignment Division before I ever arrived there. I didn’t know it was on the docket. THE COURT: Well, the dockets are published. And let the record further show— MR. WATSON: The dockets are published but I had no reason to believe that this case would be on the docket or to look for it specially. My secretary didn’t find it. She runs the docket in the cases and tries to be ready for everything. THE COURT: Your client was interrogated and he stated that you would meet him down here this morn- ing. MR. WATSON: Judge,— THE COURT: Let’s proceed. MR. WATSON: —I don’t know what he said. Of course, I wasn’t here, but I had matters in the Circuit Court in St. Louis County this morning. And that is where I went, and I could not possibly be in the Circuit Court in St. Louis. I was involved in matters in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County this morning, but what my client said I don’t know. THE COURT: I called Judge Douglas Jones. . MR. WATSON: He said you called him; he told me. I was still in his division. I had another matter on at 1:00 {15] o'clock. THE COURT: Pardon me. Judge Jones stated to me this morning that he just got through calling the docket, that you were not assigned out, that you did not have anything in his court preventing you from coming down. MR. WATSON: Judge, he didn’t know that I did have something on his docket at 1:00 o’clock, and it was 11:30, this was. I didn’t leave that room until 11:30,— THE COURT: This is— -_MR. WATSON: —and I went to Judge Bardgett’s room on a divorce matter. THE COURT: Regardless. All right. Let’s proceed. MR. WATSON: May I also put into the record that all this colloquy that we have been going through has 21 taken place in the presence of the jury. And I feel in looking at it it is going to work to the detriment of the defendant. I don’t think it is fair. I have asked— THE COURT: The trouble, Mr. Watson, with a lot of these things, they are all an afterthought. You said you wanted to make a record. You did not say that you wanted to make it out of the presence of the jury. The record may show the jury is in the courtroom, and this was done at the Bench. And I am sure they haven’t heard one word that was said prior. MR. WATSON: I asked the Court prior to the ob- jection if you wanted to— ied 22 [23] STATE’S CASE IN CHIEF: MARIANNE JOYCE DROPE, sworn, testified: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: Q Please state your name. A My name is Marianne Joyce Drope. Q Marianne, what was your marital status on Jan- uary 17th, 1969? A I was living with my husband. What is his name? A James Edward Drope._ . Q Is that the man sitting over there (pointing)? A Yes, sir. Q Did you have any children as a result of that marriage? A Yes, sir; I have five children. Q What are their names and ages? A August Lee Drope, James Edward Prope, Anita Marie Drope, Pete Allen Drope, and Patricia Ann Drope. Q How old is Pete? A Six. Q The oldest is six. And the youngest? A She is nine months. Q When were you married to James Drope. A I have been married to him seven years. It was December the 24th,— . Q When was that, the 24th? A The 24th. Q You were—How old are you now? A Twenty-four. | Q You were seventeen at that time? A Yes. Q Had you graduated from high school at that time? [24] A No, sir, just grade school. Q Did you finish the 10th grade? A No, sir. 2A TS tt PIED a 23 Q After leaving school, how old were yoy at that time? A Sixteen, I believe, or a little over. Q At that time when you left school, what did you do, mam? A I worked for my mother and my parents. Q How long after leaving school did you marry J im? A Almost a year. Q Again, you were seventeen. Turning to January 17th, 1969, which was a Friday, did your husband James Drope have a job? Sir? Did your husband have a job on January 17th? No, sir, he was unemployed. What did he do when he was employed? He worked for the—as a union truck driver. Do you remember how much he had worked that January? A No. I would say not more than a week within that month. MR. WATSON: If your Honor please, I want to make an objection to any further testimony on behalf of this witness for the reason she and the defendant are husband and wife. THE COURT: Be overruled. Q (Mr. Frank) When was the last time before January 17th he worked consistently? A Before then? It had been over two months. I couldn’t say. [25] Q Will you tell us where you were living on January 16th or 17th? A 3438 St. Vincent. Q Is that in the City of St. Louis? A Yes, sir. Q Marianne, will you describe for us first the type of building you were living in? A It was a 2-family, brick flat, and I lived on the 2nd _ floor. Q And, Marianne, will you tell us about this apart- ment on the 2nd floor we are interested in? OPOrPoOpr 24 A Two bedrooms, living room and kitchen. MR. FRANK: Does the Court wish to see the pic- tures? ; THE COURT: Well, when you have them marked. (Thereupon, the reporter marked two photographs depicting living quarters, for identification as State’s Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.) Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, I show you that which has been marked State’s Exhibit No. 1. Will you look at that, please? Can you identify that picture? A Yes, sir. Q What is that a picture of, Marianne? A The front entrance of the house where I lived at 3438 St. Vincent. Q Marianne, does that picture fairly and accurately depict the front of your house as it was on the 16th and 17th? . A Yes, sir. Q Marianne, I will show you State’s Exhibit 2. Can you identify that picture? A Yes, sir. What is|that a picture of, Marianne? A It is the stairway to the front door going up- stairs where I did live. [26] Q Does. that picture fairly and accurately depict the steps going up to your apartment as it existed on the 16th and 17th of January of this year? A Yes, sir. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, at this time I would like to offer into evidence— MR. WATSON: We have no objection. MR. FRANK: —State’s Exhibits 1 and 2, aiid ask permission to pass these to the jury. THE COURT: Very well. (Thereupon, said exhibits were handed to the jury.) (Mr. Frank) Marianne, on January 16th, which was a Thursday, on that night did your husband leave home at any time? Neer £m ESPON ED ween 25 A Yes, sir, he left at 8:30 that evening. Q And where was he going when he left home at 8:30 that evening? A He said he was going to the store for groceries and for milk for my baby. Q And what did you do, mam, when he left? A I watched television until about 11:00 and I fell asleep. When you fell asleep, was he home then? No, sir. What was the next time you woke up, Marianne? At 1:00 o’clock to feed my baby. That would be 1:00 A.M. on the 17th? Yes, sir. And did you feed your baby? Yes, sir. Q And what happened then? -. Well, I just laid down and hadn’t quite fell asleep, and ! looked at the clock, and it was about 1:30. And I hess: somebody at the door, and the key was turning. () What did you say? A I said the key was turning in the door, and I heara somebody open the door to come in. (; After you heard the key turn in the door, did the door open? A Yes, sir. Q And then did you hear anything? A I heard my husband come in the steps because he said, “Don’t be afraid, it is just me coming in.” Q It was his voice? A Yes, sir. Q Marianne, when you heard that key in the door and heard him say, “It’s is me”, were any lights on in your apartment at that time? A When he came up the steps, the landing, the bathroom is off to the left, and he went in the bathroom and turned the light on and went through the hallway from there to the kitchen. And he went to the bathroom. So when he turned the bathroom light on, the bathroom light was on then. It wasn’t on before. bw APO POPOPO | re Seen Lomsabsianee 26 Q Marianne, what did he do in the kitchen, did you see or hear? A He opened the back door. I heard him open the back door. Q What happened at that time? A There was quite a bit of noise at once, and a bunch of guys coming running in [28] all at once with my husband. Q Marianne, I wani to stop you. You said a bunch came running in. Will you tell us, did any men come from the front door? Two from the front, two from the back. The kitchen door you are talking about? Yes, sir. Is that five, counting your husband? Yes, sir. What happened when they came running in? They were there before I had enough time even to get up out of bed. Q What happened then when they came running in? A They forced me down on the bed and my husband said, “(Done move, don’t scream or I’ll blow your brains out.” Q When you say they forced you down on the bed, what do you mean, one or two or—? A They all did. Q Did each of the men grab an arm or a leg? A Yes. And they proceeded to tie me up. Q Marianne, you just said your hsuband said what to you? A He said to me not to scream or make any noise or he would blow my brains out. What was he going to blow your brains out with? He had his gun with him. Did you see this gun? Yes. Marianne, could you see these men? Yes, sir. ’ I asked you a few minutes ago, Marianne, if there were [29] any lights on in your apartment before your 3, Pe PO POY OPO pO pO 27 husband came in, and your answer was “No”. How can you tell the Court and jury that you could see these men, you could see the gun? A The bathroom light was on. And where my bed is there is a window light there, and my baby had torn the shade enough, we could see the light from the out- side on the bed. With the bathroom and that light shining in the same direction, I could not miss seeing them. Q Marianne, your husband had the gun. What hap- pened then? - A Well, they tied me up first to the bed. Q Who tied you up? A Mike Barylski, and the others were holding me down. Q Did your husband help? A My husband helped, yes, sir. Q He tied your hands or legs, or what part of your | body did he tie? MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I will object to that as being leading and suggestive. THE COURT: It will be sustained. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, what part of your body did your husband tie? A My hands and my legs to the bed posts. Q While he was doing that, Marianne, who had the gun? A My husband, which he gave the gun to Raymond Tuttle at that time. Q After tying you to the bed, what happened, Mari- anne? [30] Did your husband stay in the room? A Yes, sir. Q Was there any other weapon other than the gun, Marianne, that Tuttle now was holding? A My husband then went into the kitchen and got a butcher knife. In your kitchen? Yes, sir. What did he do with the butcher knife? He held it to my throat. PO PO OS: —ae 28 (At this point the reporter marked a nightgown for identification as State’s Exhibit 3.) Q Marianne, I will show you what has been marked as State’s Exhibit 3. Can you identify that? A Yes, sir. That is my nightgown. Q That is the nightgown you had on that night? A Yes, sir. (At this point the reporter marked a third photograph for identification as State’s Exhibit 4.) MR. WATSON: I am going to object to that exhibit for the reason that that picture is apparently—the date on the back of it shows it was not taken until June of 1969. , (The following proceedings were had out of the hearing of the jury:) MR. WATSON: And it is quite evident that the picture shows that, that this whole matter was set up by someone else and was not the original condition of the room on the 17th day of January, 1969. [31] MR. FRANK: Now, Your Honor, we will have witnesses to testify as to when that picture was taken. 4 That picture was printed on the date on the back. 4 THE COURT: Overruled at this time, the Court re- oer AA RRS LANES eats Maat serving any further objections along that line, but it may be identified. (The following proceedings were had within the hearing of the jury:) Q (Mr. Frank) Now, Marianne, I show you State’s exhibit No. 4. Will you tell the Court and jury what that is a picture of? A It is a picture of the bed where I was tied up, and the rope, and shows exactly where it was and where my son helped me get loose from it. Q Marianne, looking at that picture, does that pic- ture show the window you were talking about a mo- ment ago? 29 A Yes, sir. | Does it show the tear in the shade that you were talking about a moment ago? A Yes, sir. Q@ Where is that tear? A It is right alongside of the bed (pointing on ex- hibit) where the window is. Q Level with the head on the bed? A Yes, sir. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, at this time I would like to enter into evidence State’s Exhibit No. 4. MR. WATSON: Objection, Your Honor, we have made in [82] the record before, until such time as the proper foundation is laid. And also no date has been set as to the time the picture was taken if what Counsel say is right. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, I might be able to as- sist Counsel. Q Marianne, were you present when the photographer was taking pictures around your place with the officers? A No. Q You weren’t there at that time. MR. FRANK: Your Honor,— THE COURT: Well, if you state in the record you will prove it. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, the State will put on a police officer who will testify that he was present when this picture was taken. THE COURT: When? MR. FRANK: That will be the next witness, unless you want ie to put him on right now. THE COURT: When was that picture: taken? MR. FRANK: That morning, January 17th, the day it happened. THE COURT: Ali right. It will be overruled. MR. FRANK: All right. At this time may it be ac- cepted into evidence? THE COURT: It will be admitted into evidence. [33] MR. FRANK: At this time I will pass it to the jury, Your Honor. + & REESE BP I | ye RES PM ee ae aa = z q j 4 z " (eee eae ee Re Pisseneiom ee ee eae ; . : 30 Q Marianne, did you see the other men that were in the room-with your husband? A Yes, sir. Q ; Who were they? A Roger Butler, Rayborn Tuttle, Mike Barylski and another kid I don’t know. Q You say “kid”. Are you talking—how old a per- son? A Sixteen. Q Do you know this Butler, Tuttle and Barylski? A They used to work on cars with my husband and see him with them. Q Marianne, how were your hands tied to this bed? A Well, tied to the bed posts (indicating). Q You mean straight back, Marianne? A Yes. Q They weren’t tied together? A No, back (indicating). Q Marianne, how about your legs, how were they tied to the bed post? A Spread. Q Were they tied the same way, spread out? A Spread out. Q All right. Marianne, after you were tied to bea in this manner, will you tell us what happened at that time? A They took turns raping me, first Roger Butler. Q Marianne, while Roger Butler was having inter- course with you, was anybody else on you at the same time? ° [34] A No, but there was somebody over me. Q Somebody over you. Over your head? A Yes, sir. . Q Who was over your head? (At this point the witness placed her hand on her face and began crying.) - MR. FRANK: May we have a moment, our Honor? THE COURT: All right. Counsel, you may. Pardon me, it would be better, I think. . a ead 2 31 MR. FRANK: All right. Q Marianne,-— A Mike Barylski was over me. Q Mike Barylski. What was Mike doing over you? (At this point the witness shook her head and sobbed and wiped her nose.) THE COURT: Madam, pardon me, you are going to have to do the best you can. If you need a recess, if you have to have a recess,— THE WITNESS: No, I will— THE COURT: —+tell the Court. All right. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, what was Mike Barylski doing? — A He put his privates in my mouth. . Q Put his male organ ix yvcur mouth, Marianne? A Yes, sir. MR. WATSON: Just a minute. I am going to ob- ject to Counsel commenting and leading the witness. I think the witness— [35] THE WITNESS: (Intervening) He put his pri- vates in my mouth. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, do you know about how long Mike was on top of you? A No, sir. They took turns. I couldn’t see the clock and see the time exactly, no. Q Did Mike have a discharge while he was on top of you? MR. WATSON: I believe—I am going to object to thai for the reason we are not responsible for that. The defendant is only charged with rape. THE WITNESS: (Interjecting) And sodomy. MR. WATSON: He is merely charged with rape. THE COURT: Well, the objection will be sustained as to that particular thing. Q (Mr. Frank) You say Roger was having inter- course with you at that time? A Yes, sir. Q Did Roger have a discharge at the time he was on you? IN BODEN Ds Cain eT LAI OEE SHES SY a ° 82 MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I make the same ob- jection. This defendant here stands charged with rape, not what Roger Butler did. THE COURT: Overruled. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, I will ask you again. Do you know if. Roger Butler had a discharge while he was on top of you? MR. WATSON: Just a minute. Your Honor, I am go- ing to object to that as leading and suggestive. THE COURT: Well, she can tell what happened. The ‘ [36] objection will be sustained as to it being leading. ; Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, will you tell us what 4 happened while Roger Butler was on top of yor? ‘| A He had intercourse with me. Whether he hed a : discharge, I could not tell you, I could not swear to tiat. Q Marianne, when Roger got off, what happened then? A Mike Barylski, and Roger Butler at the top. Q Which position? . A Ah, switched position. Q Did Mike then have intercourse with you? MR. WATSON: I object to that, Your Honor. It would be leading and suggestive. THE COURT: Counsel, the objection is sustained. Q (Mr. Frank) What happened when Mike got on top of you? A Mike Barylski had intercourse with me while But- ler was on top. Q Will you tell what happened while Mike was on you? A All the time this was happening, Raborn Tuttle had his gun at my head, at the same time my husband had the knife at my throat. And they told me if J said any- thing or screamed, he would blow my brains oxt. or kill my kids. Q Who told you that? A Raborn Tuttle. Q When Mike got off you, what happened then? A Then there was this kid next. And then my hus- ; band was at the top. They switched places; ‘, fi ithe ie NRRL LEI ANE A 33 Q Did you know this kid? A I know him from seeing [37] him, yes. Q Do you know his name? A I can’t tell you his name, no. Q. All right. After this teen-ager and your husband were on you, what happened then? A Then my husband had relations with me in the rectum. MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I am going to object . to that; husband wife, Your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I think in this particular case, the objection is overruled, although we can take care of that on argument. All right. Q (Mr. Frank) What happened then after your hus- band? A Then there was Tuttle—Raborn Tuttle just alone. He had intercourse with me. Q Who held the gun at the time? MR. WATSON: Your Honor, please, I am going to object. THE COURT: Pardon me. It will be sustained. Q (Mr. Frank) Tell us what happened when Tuttle was on you? A Roger Butler held the gun. Q Marianne, could you tell us whether or not you could tell if any of these men were drinking? A They smelt of it. I couldn’t say they were. Q Marianne, what were you thinking, what was your state of mind when these acts were committed upon you? MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I object to that for the [38] reason that it invades the province of the court and jury and it calls for speculation and conjecture. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. FRANK: Your Honor,— THE COURT: It is overruled. You may proceed. ~ Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, what was your state of mind? What were you thinking when these acts were being committed upon your person? x ) ‘ 3 LOS IL OE OLN IOS oA: 34 MR. WATSON: I object further, Your Honor, for the reason the question is too general, not specific as to time and act. THE COURT: You better come up here just a minute. (The following proceedings were had out of the hear- ing of the jury:) THE COURT: What else do you have from the State? MR. FRANK: I have a case citation it is proper on a rape case; I have the citation, Supreme Court, 1964, case. THE COURT: What do you expect the answer to be? MR. FRANK:» The answer that would be elicited, that she kept her eyes open at all times so that she would not forget anything that happened. MR. WATSON: That wasn’t the question. “What were you thinking?” Whether her eyes were open— F THE COURT: Just a minute. You need not argue ‘ it any further. I want to know what your answer is? What is your [39] citation? | MR. FRANK: 380 S.W. 362. | THE COURT: All right. The objection is weereuied. (The following proceedings were had within the hear- ing of the jury:) THE COURT: You may answer the question. Do ‘1 you remember the question? 3 A Yes, sir. He asked what I was thinking about at { the time. Well, the only thing I could do was keep my a asic Ms echt a eyes open and keep track of everything that was going : on, which I could see everything that was going on at the time because I had been through this with my hus- ‘ band before, and I know how he acts, similar. : (At this point the reporter marked strands of a } clothes line for identification as State’s Exhibit 5.) Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, I show you that which has been marked State’s Exhibit No. 5. Will you look p at that, Marianne. Can you identify that, Marianne, for the Court and jury? oO 35 A This is the clothesline they tied me up with. Q Did you have that type of line in your house at the time, Marianne? A No, sir. Q This was not in your house at the time? A No, sir. MR. FRANK: At this time, Your Honor, I as} -nat State’s Exhibit 5 be entered into evidence. [40] THE COURT: Well,— MR. WATSON: Before it is entered, may I ask a few questions on voir dire? THE COURT: Very well. VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION BY MR. WATSON: Q May I have that. Mrs. Drope, you identify this as being a clothesline or something that you were supposed to have been tied up with. Do you have any marking on there by which you can identify it? A Do I have any marking? Q That’s right. A No, sir. Q In other words, you are not sure whether this is the same clothesline, as we will call it, as was used or not, are you? A I think so. MR. FRANK: May the record show that the next police officer will testify— THE COURT: Pardon me. The exhibit will be kept out until the next police officer testifies. P MR. FRANK: All right. (At this point the reporter marked a revolver for identification as State’s Exhibit 6.) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Cont’d) BY MR. FRANK: Q Marianne, I show you State’s Exhibit 6. Will you look at that and will you tell the jury what that is? AT RN TN SR GR STEROID TLE LEE IGE ELIE LE RAPE BSL LS HOARE IO TING De SS TR ° pe tl ba ios A ih ith Rint RR apis Maca Ha as IRE SR A ie pA. =] 36 A This is the gun that was used on me at the time I was raped. [41] Q Do you know whose gun that is? A Yes, sir. My husband’s—James Drope. Q Have you seen that gun before that particular night? A Yes, sir; many times. . Q Marianne, can you tell the Court and jury how long these acts took place upon your person? A It was about 1:30 because I just looked at the clock when he, my husband, opened the door, and I believe it was about 3:30, maybe quarter to four when the police got there. And they had just got there within thirty minutes—I wouldn’t say; ten minutes at the very most. Q The police got there within ten minutes? A Yes, sir. Q And the police got there about 3:45 or the latest was about 3:55? ‘A Yes, sir. . Q Marianne, when they left, did your husband leave — with them? A Yes, sir. Q When they left, what position were you left in? A_ I was tied to the bed posts, and, as I said before, with my arms and legs stretched. They had put a towel and a scarf around my mouth to gag me, with the cotton in my mouth first. They left me tied, and they covered me up with a sheet. MR. FRANK: I'll get my evidence in. (The reporter then marked an envelope allegedly containing cotton, for identification as State’s Ex- hibit 7.) [42] (The reporter then marked a towel, for identifica- tion as §tate’s Exhibit 8.) (The reporter then marked a scarf, for identification as State’s Exhibit 9.) Q Marianne, I show you that which is marked State’s Exhibit 7. Will you tell the Court and jury what that is? A What it is? It is tissue paper. THE COURT: What was the answer? 87 A It was tissue paper they had stuck in my mouth -before tue rape. Q (Mr. Frank) I will show you now that which has been marked State’s Exhibit No. 8. Can you tell us what that is, please? A A towel. Q What was the towel—how did they use it? A They put the scarf around the neck and tied the towel around the mouth after they put tissue paper in my mouth. Q What went over your mouth directly, the towel or the scarf? A The towel and then the scarf. Q I will show you that which has been marked as State’s Exhibit 9. Can you identify that? A Yes. Q What is that, Marianne? A It is the scarf that was over my mouth, and the towel. Q All right. Did they just lay it over your mouth? A No, it was tied in the back with a knot. Q The towel and then the scarf? The scarf went on top [43] of the towel over your mouth? A I am trying—just a minute. MR. WATSON: Well, Your Honor, I object. That is repetition. Counsel went over that before. The witness has already answered. THE COURT: Overruled. Q (Mr. Frank) Will you answer directly which “went on top, which was tied? A The scar:, and then the towel. Q Did your husband or any of the other men say anything to you, Marianne, when they left? A Yes, sir. They say if I ever said anything about this what had happened, they would be back and kill my kids. . MR. WATSON: Your Honor please, I am going to move that this be stricken. It doesn’t differentiate be- tween certain people that were supposed to have been there. Counsel had two questions in one. % > 2 14 woke TSS ee eee meee bare me pints sts 38 THE COURT: Well, pardon me. He can separate them. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, did your husband per- sonally say anything? MR. WATSON: I object to that as leading and sug- gestive, Your Honor. Counsel can certainly ask who it was. THE COURT: Who said anything, and what. Q (Mr. Frank) Who said anything, and what? A. I believe Bob Butler and Raborn Tuttle, both. And with this my husband said, “This isn’t the first time this is going to hap- [44] pen”, right after. MR. WATSON: They said, “This is the first time?” A They said they would be back; this wasn’t the first time it was going to happen. : MR. WATSON: Who said that? Tuttle? A My husband. MR. WATSON: He said it? A Yes, sir. MR. WATSON: All right. , (Mr. Frank) Marianne, how did you get free from the bed? A My little girl, 3, and my boy, 6, apparently couldn’t sleep, awake, but as soon as they left, they got up and came to the room where I was. And my little girl was scared. So she went back and told my oldest boy named August to come in there. I heard her. They came in there and seen me and went right*to the kitchen and got a knife and untied me, cut the rope. Q What did you do then? A I proceeded to go downstairs as soon as I could make it down the steps and asked the lady downstairs to call the police for me please, and she did. Q How soon after the phone call did the police ar- rive? A TI’ll say not more than ten minutes at the very most. I couldn’t say exactly but within minutes though. Q Did your husband return that morning? A He was just coming in as they came. As soon as they got there he started in the door, came back. Oo 39 [45] Q What happened at that time, /Marianne? A One was at the bottom of the steps and the other one was at the top, talking. And when he started to talk, I said, “Please not let him in. He had a gun and he just threatened me a while ago, and not let him in.” Q Was your husband present during the time all these acts were committed upon you? A Yes, he was standing right over me. He was telling them what to do. MR. WATSON: I move that be stricken as sot re- sponsive. A voluntary statement on the part of the wit- ness. THE COURT: The statement, “He stood right over: me”, may stand. The balance— MR. WATSON: The jury instructed to disregard it. THE COURT: -—the jury is instructed to disregard. Members of the jury, during the trial, when the Court sustains an objection, the jury automatically disregards that. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, at this time the State introduces Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 into evidence. THE COURT: Very well. MR. WATSON: May I see the cotton? This is the envelope. Is this cotton that was taken? MR. FRANK: Do you have any objection? MR. WATSON: No, we have no objection. MR. FRANK: May it be entered? THE COURT: Very well. [46] Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, after your husband was arrested, what happened then? . A They took me to the—the police officers took me to City Hospital for an examination. Q Marianne, did you have any physical injuries to your person? I had a very bad infection. Did you have any marks on your body? I had marks, yes, on my face and my neck. What hospital? City Hospital “1”? Yes, sir, “1”. After the hospital, what happened, Marianne? OpO pO p We oS spokane! SAAS yale Br 40 A_ I went to the police station and gave a report on what had happened. I went to the Warrant Office from there. Q The Warrant Office in the Circuit Attorney’s Office? A Yes. Q Marianne, on the day uf the 17th, some time in the afternoon, were you present when your husband was questioned by the police? A Yes, sir. Q Were you present when he was advised of his con- stitutional rights by the police? A Yes, sir. Q Did he make any statement to the police in your presence? A Yes, sir. Q Marianne, what did he tell the police in your pres- ence? A Just what he said? Q That’s right. A Just what he said or what the whole—? [47] Whatever he said, that is the question. A He said—he admitted that he did it, and he said did it as a joke. He said it was all just a joke. Q Did he go into detail and tell the police what had happened? A He said he was with Raborn Tuttle, Roger Butler and Mike Barylske, and came up to my house with the intention to rape me. Q Marianne, since this incident have you and your husband lived together as man and wife? A We have a very short time, yes, sir. Q How long after this incident did you live together as man and wife? _A_ Three to four months. Q Where were you living at that time? A Well, we lived downstairs from my mother’s house, 7918 South Broadway. Q Will you tell us why you went back to live with him? A Because— a — 41 ¥ o 4 anor _ | MR. WATSON: If your Honor please,—I’ll withdraw f the objection. ; THE COURT: All right. A Because he was trying to make me—make out he wasn’t well. The boy was telling that he was going to a psychiatrist, it was best to go with him, and went with him with my other friend to see if there was any hope left because of my children. And when he went to the psychiatrist and I talked to him, he says it would be best if we would try to get along together, [48] that he _. thought he would be all right. But he said he would go én | and go to work, try to take care of the children. That is | what I wanted,—my children taken care of. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, do you have your children now at this time? No, sir. Where are they? I don’t know. When was the last time you saw your children? Tuesday morning. Do you know who has your children? No, sir. Does your husband or anyone on his side of the family have them? MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I object to that as be- ing leading and suggestive. THE COURT: Well, she said she didn’t know. Be sustained. Q (Mr. Frank) What have you done, Mar‘anne, try- \ ing to find your children? A I went to the police. They suggested that I talk to the Cirecuit— MR. WATSON: I can’t hear you. A I went to the police station to search, and they sug- gested that I speak to the Circuit Attorney to see what they thought I could do about it. And I went to the relief lady again. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, on Tuesday when you last saw your children, where were they? A 17918 South Broadway, [49] at my house. OPO PO POY Peera Se ee es a ee ’ to 2 we" OF 4 EOP ‘at Rae ar nt re eee emer see Sara ect Ne ee ere ee 42 Q Were they with anyone at that time? A They were with my stepfather. MR. FRANK: I have no further questions at this time, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. I think now would be a good time to take-a short recess. And, members of the jury, keep in mind the admonition the Court has given you. The court will be in recess. (Court in temporary recess) CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WATSON: Q Mrs. Drope, when were you and your husband married? We were married in December. The year, please? What year? Wait just a minute. Beg pardon? Just one minute. I am sorry. I thought you said in ’33? No. December 25th, 1960, I believe,—’61. You were married on Christmas day, on Christmas Day in ’60 or ’61? A The 16th. I am sorry. Q I am sorry. I understood you to say the 25th. Now, Mrs. Drope, in 19—how leng—You and your husband went to live together after you were married in ’60 cr 61? Was it ’60 or 61? A ’61, I believe. Q ’61. Now, tell me, after you were married. were you and your husband divorced? A After we were married, no, [50] sir. Q Have you ever been divorced from James Drope? A No, sir, | Q You never have. And then you continued, I assume, to live with him as his wife from ’61 until 1968; is that right, or 69? A Off and on. Q Off and on. You had separations during that period of time? OPOPL POY 43 A Yes, I did. Q And then you would go back together again, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, when you had these separations, what was the cause of the separation? A He would not work part of the time and take off, not work, would not support the children. I had no other choice. ; But ‘to leave him, is that right? I had to have somebody to help me, yes. - And where did you go? He left. Pardon me, when you left, where did you live then? Where did I live then? Yes. Well, I stayed at my Mother’s part of the time. I did the best I could. - Q Now, I understood you then during this period of time off and on was the period he would not work; is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And, Mrs. Drope, you did live, with the exception of [51] these separations, for these nine years together as husband and wife? A As husband and wife, yes. Q That, is correct? Is that right? A Yes. Q And he did work quite a bit of the time, did he not? A To nail it down right now, I couldn't say; maybe half and half, maybe a little more. Q Now, Mrs. Drope, didn’t he lose jobs because of his nervous condition, do you know? A Not to my knowledge. Q Not to your knowledge? A No, sir. Q But when he worked, he always contributed to the support of you and the children, is that right? A No, sir. Q Pardon? A No, sir. [PO PO PO PO SA AEM DR i A AEA AGP 2 bk tpg Femioaaia Le He did not? No, sir. What would he. do with his money, if you know? I don’t know. Mrs. Drope, since this thing happened you have lived together I think you said for three months, approxi- mately,— A Approximately. Q —as husband and wife? A Yes, sir. Q And during that period of time he has contributed to the support of you and the children, has he not? A Part of the time. Q Part of the time? A Yes, sir. [52] Q Which part now? I mean by that, is that the y time when you were separated that sad didn’t support you? A Never when we were separated. : Q What? : A Never when we were separated. Q Never when you were separated. Mrs. Drope, you talked with the Circuit Attorney about this case, have you not? Talked to him about it? Yes, sir. I read the statement. You read the statement? Yes. Whose statement? My husband’s statement, the boys’. You read all those statements? Yes, sir. Where did you read those? At his office. ' In the Circuit Attorney’s Office? Yes, . And when did that happen? Hmm, that was, I believe, about a month ago or somewhere. Q About a month ago? ‘O>e > PO POPOPO PO PO PO > OEE GABON LILES CBP SOLE FG LE ALY IIO’ SALE Da anal pe ee ee saci Pt OE Lat: ee 45 A I think so. Q All right. Now, then, did you talk to anybody from the Circuit Attorney’s Office since that time? None other than coming here. Beg pardon? None other than the other day when I was here. That was Monday? Yes, sir. Pardon? Yes, sir. And how did you get here that day? I came in a [53] car. You came in a car? Yes, sir. — Your car? No, sir. Whose car was it? A man that I know, her husband. Some people brought you here? Yes, sir. Now, Mrs. Drope, right after this happened, back am +" OPOPOPO>OPOPOP>O>O>D on the 12th day of February, 1969, you came to my of- ~~ fice, did you not, with your husband? A Yes, sir. Q And we discussed this matter? A Yes, sir. Q And at that time didn’t you tell me that you felt your husband was sick and needed psychiatric care? A Yes, sir. Q And, Mrs. Drope, after this discussion you did not want to prosecute your husband, did you? A No, sir, I did not, and after talking to you I said I would not. _ Q And you signed, Mrs. Drope,—1’ll hand you here— MR. WATSON: Will you mark this please as the de- fendant’s exhibit. (The reporter then marked a statement for identifi- cation as Defendant’s Exhibit “A”.) MR. FRANK: May I see that, please? MR. WATSON: Sure (handing exhibit to Mr. Frank). Peat: ink Mauer a BY ue TREN ARE 46 THE WITNESS: You want me to answer that ques- tion completely? THE COURT: There is no question pending now, madam. [54] Q (Mr. Watson) Mrs. Drope, I am going to hand you the Defendant’s Exhibit “A” and ask you if that is your signature? A Yes, it is. Q And you signed that, did you not? A I certainly did. Q On the 12th day of February, 1969? A Yes, sir. Q And at that time, Mrs. Drope, you didn’t want to prosecute your husband, did you? You felt he was a mental case, is that right? A You told me you would make an appointment for him to see a psychiatrist, you thought it would be best for me to go with him, and this is what I done. Q Yes. A At that time I agreed with you, yes. Q That’s right. And you and your husband went to see Doctor Shuman, a psychiatrist; isn’t that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And he examined your husband, and he also spoke to you quite a bit, did he not? A Yes, sir. Q And you felt, did you not, Mrs. Drope, after that that your husband was a mental case? A He told me that he had some problems, the doctor did. Q The doctor told you that? A That he needed to see somebody to talk to. Insefar as what was wrong with him he could not tell me, that he thought it would be better if I were with him. Q If you were with him? A Right. [55] Q That is, live with him; is that what he meant? A What he meant I don’t know exactly. He said I would be better with him, what he told me. 47 Mrs. Drope, when you talked to the doctor, did you tell him that the cause of the separations that you had were caused because you would often leave him because of his sexual perversion? A Did I tell the doctor that? Q Yes. A TI cannot say for sure. I probably did because he asked me about it, and I told him exactly. He asked me and I told him. Q And you also described to him, Mrs. Drope, some very unusual acts, sexual acts on behalf of your husband, is that right? A That’s right. .Q All right. That is the situation. And, Mrs. Drope, do you recall that at one time while you and your hus- — band were together that he blacked out and rolled down a pair of stairs—stairway, rather; do you recall telling the doctor about that? A I never told anybody he blacked out. I seen him roll down steps, yes. Q Beg pardon? A Yes, sir, I seen him roll down steps, yes, sir. Q Do you know what was the cause of that, why he rolled down the steps? A The only thing I can tell you is what hey told him many times at City Hospital, that is something he does upon hisself. [56] Q Something he does upon himself? A Yes, sir. Q Let me ask you—Did I interrupt you? A Go ahead. Q May I ask a question? A Yes. Q All right. When these scenes occurred, the usual thing you described to Doctor Shuman, would that be the result of some dispute or argument between you and your husband or would he just go into one of these things and fall down the steps? A Usually when he doesn’t get his way or is worried about something. He doesn’t say anything about it. I HSI we oo on eos ena NOH RTE TAO OMT TONE DIET SEL SSE TNT TIE 48 can’t say exactly. It is more what he would say. I don’t know the reason. Q Well, Mrs. Drope, during the period of your mar- ried life and up till now your husband has always been very nervous, has he fot? A At times. Q You mean varying at different times? A Not as nervous since he has been, since this inci- dent, no. Q Tell me, when did you go back to live with him, Mrs. Drope, after the 17th day of January of this year? A I believe it was the last part of April, somewheres around in that, I don’t know exactly. Q When you came to my office with him, you were not living together as husband and wife at that time? A No, sir. Q You were separated? A Yes, sir. [57] Q But then you went back and lived together about three months, sometime in April? And then you wouldn’t be up until now. April and May. Would it be before May, would it, excluding March? A Be around the 1st of April, I couldn’t say. It is so mixed up. Q All right. Well, Mrs. Drope, if I recall your testi- mony, you said the doctor said that Mr. Drope needed treatment, is that right? A He said he had some troubles, but he should go up there and talk to them at Malcolm Bliss, but Jim would not go. Q Do you know whether or not he has visited Malcolm Bliss, of your own knowledge? A Of my own knowledge? Q Yes, mam. A Ah, he told me he had been. Q He told you he had been. He had been going to Malcolm Bliss? i ; ji : i A I think he went there once. I don’t know about any other time. Q Ai least one time you know of it? ae ch 49 A Yes, he told me. Q Yes. Now, Mrs. Drope, I don’t like to go into these things. Some things are necessary. This exhibit, State’s Exhibit 4, the picture of the bedroom with the ’ bed and the rope lying around on the floor, would you look that that, please? A Yes, sir. Q Now, was the bed in that position the night that this was supposed to have happened— . A Yes. [58] Q —or did happen, supposedly? It was sitting right in the room in that manner; it wasn’t over in the ~ corner anymore? A No, sir. Q It was just like that, is that right? A Right. Q And now I believe you named—May I have it (re- ferring to the exhibit). You named four men. Was your head at the top of the bed? A Yes, sir. Q And the back of the top of the bed was against the wall and right near that shade with the hole in it; is that right? A Yes, sir. Q Now, you have described here to the jury on direct examination that one man was having sexual intercourse with you, and one man was, I think you said, over your head. Now, if he was over your head, I presume his feet would have to be up against the top of that bed, is that right? (Witness shaking head). That is not right? No. Well, in what position? Standing. f Oh, he was standing? Yes, leaning over. Over the side of the bed? Uh-huh. t LOBES AMEE SSCS GENE SIIVEDL IEE PELL SGA POSLEEER LIE SLES ORLA TADS BINGE ESOC NI = (eee Cn ee en. eS ELE Shs lei aaa: i ; Sayde to tejoanteee a ne IES ape sang a ais RRP RP oa Re Bis GEAR one ce SF aN . eT ee Bibor Sebe Mad tab Rae, SAS CRT RE 50 - Q Oh, I see. And the other man was supposed to be having intercourse with you at the same time? A Yes. Q Did you, Mrs. Drope, scream or holler or try to seck help? A Would you scream and holler with a gun at [59] your head and a knife at your throat? Q~ Probably I wouldn’t but I am asking you if you did? No, sir. You didn’t make any outery? No, sir. Didn’t attempt to rouse your children? My children were plenty aroused. But they didn’t come to your help? I guess not. PO PO POP (Witness starts to cry again) Q Still after all this happened, Mrs. Drope, on the 12th of February you didn’t want to prosecute your hus- band, and you thought he was a mentally sick man and thought he needed help, is that right? A I thought if there was a last possibility. I had five children which I loved very much. If he was sick, I would try everything I could, yes. Q Weren’t you convinced that he was sick after talk- ing to Doctor Shuman? A No, sir. Q You were not convinced. What is more convinc- ing— MR. FRANK: Your Honor, I am going to object to this line of questioning. A He did not tell him— MR. FRANK: Just a minute. Will you approach the Bench, please. (The following proceedings were had out of the hearing of the jury:) MR. FRANK: Judge, he has not raised any defense of [60] insanity under the mental health statute. We igen aio 51 talked about this. He is going into it directly from the back door. He is trying to get in from the back door what he can’t get in from the front door. MR. WATSON: That may be a good way of describ- ing it, but I think this witness, and his wife, living with him for nine years, certainly can express her opinion, © being the prosecuting witness, as to his condition. THE COURT: As to his health, but regardless of that now, the record may show this has been brought, and Mr. Watson has stated that he hasn’t pled iusanity. MR. WATSON: That is right. THE COURT: But he is setting it up—wait a min- ute. He is setting it up as a condition as a whole. He also brought in falling down these steps. MR. WATSON: That is right. THE COURT: That he would be incapable of doing these things; if he was doing it physically, it would be an unusual situation, due to his physical, general ner- vous condition and not insanity in the sense. MR. WATSON: Not as set forth in the statute. THE COURT: Well, now, that is the very thing that you would eliminate. : MR. WATSON: I say not as set forth in the statute. THE COURT: Well, I'll let him go into it. The door [61] has been opened. All right. “(The following proceedings were had within the hearing of the jury:) Q (Mr. Watson) Mrs. Drope, I believe you told Coun- sel ~ the State that you don’t ‘know where your children are? A No, sir. Q Mrs. Drope, didn’t you leave your children with your stepfather? A They were with my stepfather, yes. Q And you left them there with him, did you not? » A Yes, sir. Q And did you ever find out from him what he did with the children? A As far as I know, my husband came in. a i a z 1 : hg Batted ah ee od NF, pg SELLE SE OLE! OIE RSID 52 Q As far as you know, your husband came to your stepfather. Do you know that your stepfather turned the children over to your husband? A Yes. Q I am asking if you know that. Do you know that? A Yes. Q Now, Mrs. Drope, can you tell me please what caused you to change your mind after the 12th of Feb- ruary, when you signed this affidavit, and made your de- termination that you wanted to go ahead and prosecute your husband? A Because my husband tried to choke me, tried to kill me. . Q When was this?: A Sunday night. Q This past Sunday night? A Yes, sir. I see. That is when you made up your mind that you [62] wanted to prosecute him,— Yes, sir. —is that right? And where did that occur? In my home. On South Broadway? Yes, sir. 79—what is it? 7918. 7918 South Broadway? Yes, sir. Mrs. Drope, had -you called up your husband and asked him to come to see you at your home on Sunday night? No, sir. You did not? No, sir. I would never do that. Beg pardon? I would never do that. And you never did that, of course? That’s right. Did you have a discussion with him on the telephone about some money that he had mailed to you for the sup- port of the children and you said you didn’t get it? ODPOPOPoO POY > OPO PO PO — r _ _— Seg SOE PONT AE ASE A BIOTIN TION, ATE I IIL. WEE LE LEG ILE TER 8 Se ELE TE RRS TSCA AS SR 53 A Yes, sir. Q And you asked him to bring that money and give it to you? A He said he left the message with my mother. That is why he called. He sgid he would be there in the morn- ing and bring the money down, which was twenty dollars. Q And did he come there with the money? A Yes, sir. Q Now, was that the time he was supposed to have choked you? - A Sometime that next morning, 1:00 o’clock, sometime in the morning. He kept me up all night. [63] Q Was this Monday morning you are talking about? A Sunday night. Q When was it when you talked to him on the phone? Was that Sunday morning? A It was Sunday after—evening. Q Pardon? OPO>O>O> =: eee | O> REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: Q Marianne, that Defendant’s Exhibit “A”, will you read that out loud, Marianne? A (Reading) “Marianne Drope states that I do not desire to prosecute my husband James Drope on the charge of sodomy of which I complained to the police of the City of St. Louis on the date of January'17th, 1969. My reason for not proceeding with this prosecution is that I believe my husband is suffering from a mental condition. We have five small children. I further believe if my husband receives treatment for his mental condition from a psychiatrist, that he will be much better off than having been prosecuted for this offense.” 57 Q Marianne, did he ever get any treatment for this condition after the initial visit to the psychiatrist? A I could not tell you. As far as I know, no. Q Marianne, the charge on this paper is sodomy. That is not what we are proceeding on. This is a charge of rape that we are proceeding on,’ isn’t that right? A Yes, sir. Q Marianne, you stated that you talked with the Cir- cuit Attorney about a month ago. What circuit attorney did you talk to a month ago? That was me, wasn’t it? Yes, sir. Where did you talke to me? In your office. Is that upstairs or downstairs? Upstairs; I [68] believe. Is that the Warrant Office we talked in? . Yes, Why were you at the Warrant Office? MR. WATSON: Well, Your Honor please, I must ob- ject to that for the reason it is quite apparent that what the Circuit Attorney is asking, whatever she was at the Warrant Office for would be immaterial to any issue in this case. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, it happens to be a part of this case, another defendant in this case, another one of the men. -MR.WATSON: Well, Your Honor, we are only try- ing this case. We are not trying any other case. MR. FRANK: He asked about— THE COURT: Pardon me. Just a minute. You bet- ter both step up here. OPO PO PO > (The following proceedings were had out of the hear- ing of the jury:) THE COURT: What is the probative ->lue? MR. FRANK: He raised the qtestion seeing the woman thirty days ago. I saw the woman thirty days ago to swear out a warrant against the other man in the inquiry. That is all I want the jury to know; not even working on her husband’s case at the time. MR. WATSON: I can’t see the— ‘ ; : 5 3 , PRET ET ARYL OIL NE RES Oe eee ee 58 THE COURT: Pardon me. I don’t see the materiality [69] of this. ; MR. FRANK: He raised tHe question. THE COURT: What question? MR. FRANK: He raised the question that I saw her thirty days ago. THE COURT: Is there anything wrong with that? MR. WATSON: I don’t think there is. THE COURT: You can argue it. It is your duty to interview witnesses before you put them on. MR. FRANK: I wasn’t interviewing her as a witness. THE COURT: It makes no difference. You had a right to interview her. Let’s proceed. MR. FRANK: All right. Thank you. (The following proceedings were had within the. hearing of the jury:) Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, when you signed this docu- ment, whose office were you at? A Mr. Lester Watson’s. Q You were at Mr. Watson’s office? A Yes. Q Who was there at the office when you signed this copy? . A My husband and his secretary. Q Nobody else with you? A No. . Q Marianne, in the seven years you were married to James Drope, did he ever at any time have a blackout? A Not to my knowledge. Q. During the seven years of marriage did he ever complain {70] of head problems that would cause a black- out? A No more than bad headaches, Q Did he ever say that he had blackouts? A No, he never told me that. Q During the seven years of marriage did you ever see him have a blackout? © A No. MR. FRANK: No further questions. 59 RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WATSON: Q Marianne, when he fell down the steps, did he have a blackout? A Not when he got right up, no. Q . You mean when he got down to the bottom of the steps? iiow many steps were there? A Which one? I don’t know which one he is referring to. It happened more than once. Q Apparently from your answer it happened more than once, is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q Now, at different locations? A Yes, sir. Q Where did the first one happen that*vou can fe- Before I was married to him. That would be some nifie, ten years ago, is that Yes, sir. And where was that, if you remember? A It was at an apartr:ent place where I used to live; I van’t remember. Q At an apartment where you used to live? A Yes. Q Can you recall how many steps were on that sair- way? A _ I can’t remember exactly, no. {[71] Q Could you give us an estimate? Would you say aS many as ten, or was it a long, high stairway or - short? A No, it was short. Q Short. Approximately ten, would you say? . A Eight cr ten, maybe. Q Eight to ten. And he rolled down those steps, is that correct? A Yes. - Q That is before you were married,— A Yes, sir. A Q right? A Q Q —nine or ten years ago? Now, how often has it occurred since that time? A Maybe two or three times at the most. Q Maybe two or three times at the most. When these things happened, was he drunk or just fall over and fall down the steps? A Just when he didn’t get his way,— Q Pardon? A Just when he didn’t get his way, he would be a little nervous, and this would go on. QA little nervous and roll down the steps? A Yes. Q_ I believe you said— MR. FRANK: “Just a miaute. I am going to object to that statement. Unless he wants to make a closing statement, I think it is improper. THE COURT: All right. Overruled. Proceed. Q (Mr. Watson) Mrs. Drope, when you came in the office to talk to me, and your husband introduced you, I was there, [72] and I think you said my secretary was there in the office; is that correct? A Yes, sir. Q And at that time we discussed this matter that oc- curred supposedly on the 17th day of January; is that right? A Did we discuss it? Q We discussed it, the three of us; you say you and your husband and I discussed it? You asked what happened. Q And you told me? A Yes. P Q So we discussed it? A O.K. Q Now, you were referring when you were in my office—you came there to talk to me, and you were re- ferring to what occurred on the 17th of January, 1969, is that right? A Yes, sir. Q Whether it was sodomy, rape or anything? A Both. LRRD RE IE MLS te 0 pes ESM SEMEN LTS LANL LNAI PERO O IES SEN, PL soba CARA AIT ae inline. - a 61 Q You. were still talking about what happened on the 17th of January, is that right? A Yes, sir. Q Nobody threatened you, did they, in my office? A No, sir. MR. WATSON: I think that is all. ore ith LMR RNS ONE FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: Q Marianne, before your husband took one of these falls—you said in about seven years of marriage you ~ saw them. three times. Before he took these falls, did ~ he black out before he fell? f A No, sir. : Q After he fell, was he blacked out or in a state of [73] blackout? A Iam no doctor, but if he can get right up, I don’t think he was out. Q Marianne, when he got right up, did he remember ° falling down the steps? A I never—as far as I know, I don’t remember. Q Did you talk to him about it? . MR.» WATSON: I believe, Your Honor, the witness answered the question. Anything further along that line is argumentative. THE COURT: What did she say? _ MR. WATSON: She said she didn’t know. “THE COURT: That was on the previous question. Overruled. (Mr. Frank) Marianne, did you u talk with him about the fall down the steps? t MR. WATSON: May we define when it was that this . conversation is supposedly to have taken place? THE COURT: He said any time. . A Before we were married, the first time it happened, I asked him. He was all right as soon as he got up. Of course, I was afraid. So I asked him., I said, “Do you want me to get some help?” He got right up and said he was all right. So, because he couldn’t be that much 62 wrong when he got right up and started walking around and said he was all right. Q (Mr. Frank) Marianne, does your husband do a lot of [74] drinking? ~ A Well, I believe he does. I can’t say for sure. Maybe quite a bit since we have been separated. Like I said, we were separated quite a bit. Q That particular night, January 17th, was he one of the ones that smelled of liquor? A Yes, sir. MR. FRANK: I have no further questions. MR. WATSON: No further questions, Your Honor. ve THE COURT: All right. You may step aside. Call your next one. MR. FRANK: Call Ruth McKnight. MR. WATSON: Your Honor, please, we are going to ~ object to any testimony from this witness because she was not endorsed by the State until the 19th of June. We didn’t receive notice of it until Saturday. We have had no opportunity to take her deposition or know what her connection is in any manner with this. _ MR. FRANK: Is he trying to make a speech or try- ing— THE COURT: Pardon me. Just a minute. He has Fa a right to make his objection, Mr. Frank. 4 - MR. WATSON: I therefore, if your Honor please, ob- : ject to any testimony on behalf of this witness. _ THE COURT: All right. Be overruled. $ * * * * [93] (Thefeupon, on Tuesday, June 24, the further hearing of the above-entitled cause was laid over to tne following day, Wednesday, June 25th, 1969, at 9:30 A.M.) 4 4 4 (Thereafter, on Wednesday morning, June 25th, 3 1969, the jury and counsel for the respective parties ROI Ete Li SUA Re PENS ek da CeEOOe oeet Te ee again appeared in open court. The defendant, James E. Drope, did not appear in persén in open court at this time or any other time during the progress of 4 the trial of the above-entitled cause. The follow- 194] ing proceedings were then had in said cause, in the absence of the defendant: ) CORED MOSSAD Fas 63 THE COURT: Gcod morning, members of the jury. © We were delayed through no fault of either the Court © or the attorneys in this case. I just want to let you know ~ that. * * *. You may proceed. f MR. WATSON: Your Honor, at this time I am going to move for a mistrial in view of the fact that the de- fendant, I am informed, shot himself this morning. MR. FRANK: Wait— MR. WATSON: I am addressing the Court. THE COUKT: Wait. MR. WATSON: The defendant, I understand, shot himself this morning. He is in the City Hospital being operated on. THE COURT: Just a minute. The Court already de- cided that the matter would proceed for trial. MR. WATSON: Your Honor, it makes it awful diffi- cult for me to go to trial without the client. .THE COURT: That is the difficulty, Mr. Watson, that your client brought about, not you, not the Court. He was on bond and his responsibility to be here. So the Court will proceed with the case. MR. WATSON: My motion then is overruled, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. * * * * [128] (The following proceedings were had out of the hearing of the jury:) THE COURT: The State rests? MR. FRANK: At this time, Your Honor, the State concludes its case and the State rests its case at this time. We ask that the exhibits presented, “13”, “14”, “15” and “16” be admitted into evidence. THE COURT: All right. They will be admitted into evidence except those portions of the hospital records to which the Court sustained an objection. MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I want to present this to [129] you. MAO OO BETS ae | 64 “MOTION FOR VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL” “The Court instructs the jury at the close of the State’s case that the State of Missouri has failed to produce sufficient testimony to sustain the allegations in the In- dictment that the defendant unlawfully, feloniously and forcibly did rape, ravish and carnally know the prose- cuting witness against her will in that the Prosecuting witness and the Defendant are husband and wife. “The Defendant not being charged with aiding and abetting in the rape of Mary Joyce Drope. “The Court should have declared a mistrial when De- fendant moved for same, when it became apparent that the Defendant shot himself and could not further attend the trial as he is confined as a Patient in the City Hos- pital of St. Louis No. 1, therefore depriving him of being confronted by his accusers as he is being tried in ab- sentia. “Therefore, Defendant requests the Court for a Ver- dict of Acquittal.” Filed June 25, 1969. THE COURT: All right. Let the record show that the defendant filed a motion for a verdict of acquittal, and also again renews in effect his motion,— MR. WATSON: That’s right, Your Honor. THE COURT: —and both of which will be overruled. [130] MR. WATSON: And then there will be nothing further, Your Honor. (The following proceedings were had within the hearing of the jury:) THE COURT: All right. That is the State’s case, Mr. Watson. . MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I have no evidence to produce at this time under the circumstances. So I must rest. [138] “The Court instructs the jury that any verdict that you render, before it can be received as a verdict, must be unanimous; that is, it must be agreed to by every juror, it is not the verdict of the jury unless it Drie AON as eke SG aa ART iO DEEL LOE SE TPR SLE EPS RIES RHE i a8 — LD ES EST RS | SNE el: ER Ne eS: is the verdict of each juror as an individual, as well as of the jury as a whole.” VERDICT OF THE JURY (After the summation of the case to the jury by counsel for the respective parties, the Court sub- mitted said cause to the jury for their deliberation and verdict. The jury then retired to the jury room. Thereafter, on the same day, the said 25th day of ¢ June, 1969, the jury teturned into open court the i following verdict:) F THE COURT: Members of the jury, have you ar- rived at a verdict? JURORS (in union): Yes. THE COURT: And the foreman—who is the fore- man? s MR. ZAVADIL: Mr. Zavadil. THE COURT: You have the verdict and forms of | verdict? MR. ZAVADIL: Yes. HE COURT: All right. Hand them to the Sheriff. (Thereunon, the verdict was relayed to the Court for its examination and inspection) THE COURT: All right. THE CLERK: Will the jury please rise and hear their verdict. (Reading the verdict) [139] “VERDICT” - “Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, No. 19. June 25, 1969 STATE OF MISSOURI ) On Indictment v. ) for Rape JAMES EDWARD DROPE ) (Forcible) “We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of Rape. : “/s/ John Zavadil Foreman.” Z 66 THE COURT: Members of the jury, is that your unanimous verdict? THE JURORS (in unison): Yes. THE COURT: Is there any dissent at all from the verdict? JURORS: No. THE COURT: Do you wish the jury. polled? MR. WATSON: Yes, if your Honor please. (Thereupon, the jury was polled, and upon the Clerk asking each juror, “Is the verdict I have just read your verdict?”, each and every juror responded in the affirmative.) THE COURT: Very well. The verdict will be re- ceived, and the judgment of the court will be reserved on the motion for a new trial. The: Court will set the punishment, and will not do so at this time. However, the bond is canceled, and the Sheriff is ordered to take custody of the defendant as a [140] prisoner of the Sher- iff. And the jury will be discharged, with the thanks of the Court for your patience. * * *. TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ENLARGED. MINUTE ENTRY—June 25, 1969: “Defendant’s bond set at $25,000. Defendant granted thirty days additional time to August 4, 1969, to file motion for a new trial. Leave granted. Court sets date as July 14, 1969, for fixing of penalty.” PENALTY FIXED. Thereafter, on July 21, 1969, the following proceedings were had in said cause. Mr. Michael Frank, Assistant Circuit Attorney, appeared for the State of Missouri. Mr. James Edward Drope, the defendant, appeared in person in open court and in the presence of his attorney, Mr. Lester Watson. THE COURT: You are James Edward Drope? a) 7 ha iia ers acter cima PRLIORE LIL LER GOOGLE LEE ELLER ELE SLEPT IE MEPL LS DEORE TRIE LEE ESE GEES NR eerie ee Poe 67 MR. DROPE: (Nodding assent). THE COURT: Cause No. 405-R. And on June 25th the jury returned a verdict of guilty of rape. And it is incumbent upon the Court to fix the penalty in view of the fact that you have been previously convicted of a felony. And this is not a final sentence. This is merely the fixing of the penalty in the case, and the Court now fixes the penalty at life imprisonment. MR. WATSON: Your Honor, before—very well. [141] THE COURT: And you have, according to the file, to refresh your memory,— MR. WATSON: Until the 4th of August? THE COURT: —until August 4th to file a motion. MR. WATSON: That’s right, Your Honor. MR. DROPE (The Defendant): Life? MR. WATSON: Life. MR. DROPE: For something I didn’t do? THE COURT: Your attorney will talk to you. You better go and talk to him. | (Thereupon, the defendant was remanded to the éus- : tody of the Sheriff. ) “MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL” (Caption, signature and formal parts omitted) “Comes now Defendant herein and moves the Court to set aside the verdict of the jury finding the Defendant Guilty for the following reasons, to-wit: “1. That the Court erred in failing to sustain De- fendant’s Motion for a verdict of Acquittal at the close of the State’s case, as the State failed to produce suffi- cient evidence to sustain the Indictment, in that Defend- ant was not charged with aiding and abetting others in the commssion of the crime of rape and he, himself, could not be charged with raping his own wife. [142] “2. That the Court erred in permitting the State to proceed with the prosecution of the Defendant, in ab- sentia, as there was no evidence produced on behalf of the State to show that Defendant was absent from his Te he See RTL LE NARA HOE ARTE NTN NL RETIN PIE Ie 5 PUTRI POE EL GI ENR ae se Spe ate tn ™~ 68 trial by reason of his own actions or that he deliberately absented himself from said trial. ; “3. That the Court erred in compelling the completion. of the trial in the absence of the Defendant for the rea- son that it deprived Defendant from being confronted by his accusers or witnesses against him and also deprived Defendant’s counsel of consulting with said Defendant during the trial. > “4. The Court erred in compelling the completion of the trial in the absence of the Defendant in that it de- prived the Defendant from taking the stand and offering his defense to the charge of rape and prevented the De- fendant from producing witnesses to substantiate De- fendant’s testimony. iy “5. That the Court erred in failing to declare a mis- trial when the Court was advised of the Defendant’s in- ability to be present in the courtroom durimg the trial, as Defendant was being operated upon in the City Hos- pital in the City of St. Louis. “6. The Court erred in giving the Instruction on credi- bility of witnesses, as no witness’s credibility was chal- lenged and, in giving said Instruction, the Court indi- rectly commented upon Defendant’s failure to take the witness stand. i: . [143] “7. That the verdie the Jury is against the law and the evidence, in that the Court should have sus- tained Defendant’s Motion for a mistrial when it was apparent to the Court that the Defendant could not physi- cally be present for the completion of the testimony of- fered by the State and Defendant was deprived of being able to be confronted by his accusers or witnesses against him. “8. That the Court erred in permitting the Jury to return a verdict of Guilty in the absence of the Defend- ant in the Courtroom because of his inability, not brought upon himself, to be there. “9. That to proceed with the case in absentia is in violation of Rule 29.02 of the Rules of the Supreme ~ Court of the State of Missouri which provides ‘No person shall be tried upon an indictment or information for a | ae ENG: fe ae Or REASON 69 felony unless he be personally present during the trial’ "#10, That the Court erred in permitting the Jury to return a verdict and entered same upon the records of the Court in the absence of the Defendant when there was no testimony on behalf of the State or Defendant . that such absence was willful or voluntary-upen-his part. “11. That the Court erred in permitting the trial to continue in the absence of the Defendant when there was no evidence that the Defendant voluntarily absented him- self from the courtroom and, as a matter of fact, he did not voluntarily absent [144] himself from the courtroom. “12. That the verdict of the Jury is against the law under the evidence that the Defendant was absent from the courtroom during a portion of the trial and said absence was not brought on by his own acts or willing- ness. “13. That the Court’s sentence of life imprisonment in the Department of Corrections in the State of. Missouri is inhuman, cruel, excessive and unusual punishment under the circumstances and in violation of Article VIII of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of the Constitution of the State of Missouri. “14. For the above reasons, the Defendant moves the Court to set aside the verdict of the Jury and to grant the Defendant a new trial.” Filed July 30, 1969. HEARING ON MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. (Thereafter, on September 19, 1969, defendant’s mo- tion for a new trial came on for a hearing during which the following proceedings were had: The de- fendant, James Edward Drope appeared in person in open court and with this attorney, Mr. Lester Watson. At the beginning of the hearing there was no representative of the State present in open court.) THE COURT: Mr. Watson, Mr. Frank wants to know if you are going to have any evidence in the case? MR. WATSON: Yes, I am, Your Honor. risa lo ahs. ELH NREL TTF FETT LS OTE I eI COE eg Shas VS, 70 [145] THE COURT: He is taking a deposition, and ~°“he didn’t know that there was going to be any testimony, and he is in the middle of the deposition, and a reporter there. He is asking the Court that yours be continued. He wants to know what the evidence will be so that he will be able to get witnesses in. Now, what it means— MR. WATSON: I don’t believe at this time the de- fendant should be compelled to disclose his evidence. THE COURT: All right. We will hear part of it and continue it and give them an opportunity to bring in any evidence they have. MR. WATSON: If you want to do that this morning. THE COURT: All right. (Addressing the reporter) Mr. Utrup, this.is the case of State of Missouri v. James Drope; Cause No. 405-R. Mr. Watson is here. Mr. Mi- chael Frank, representing the State, is here, and the de- fendant is here. On the record, Mr. Watson announces that he wants to produce evidence and make a record with reference to certain allegations on a motion for a new trial. The State, through Mr. Frank, has requested the Court for a continuance so that he would be able to produce evi- dence contrary to what he understands to be the issue with reference to any evidence. And that goes to para- graphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, with reference to the defendant’s absence from court. And Mr. Frank [146] has requested the Court for a continuance so he can obtain witnesses on behalf of the State that the ab- sence is not any fault on the part of the State but due to the defendant’s own fault. And the Court requested Mr. Watson what his evidence would be, and he said he wouldn’t like to state in advance. So the Court suggested that we hear Mr. Watson, and if the State asks for a continuance, they will be given an opportunity to produce additional evidence. MR. WATSON: Will you take the stand. I might’ state to the Court at this time that the testimony being offered by the defendant is solely and only for the pur- pose of clarifying the record as to his inability to be present in the courtroom at the time that the case was being tried in his absence. . ME AAD MAS POT ME HS, LSE AED NLD TOTMLE VSO NIG Wait ave DE a ln ck ON AG LALLA AMES LALLA IE SLE 71 JAMES EDWARD DROPE, sworn, testified: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WATSON: Now, will you state your name, please? James Edward Drope. Where do you live, Mr. Drope? i Well, I was staying with my parents at the time. What is their address? Well, it’ was 630 East Red Bud. That is in the City of St. Louis? Yes, sir. Now, then, at the present time you are confined in the City Jail, is that right? A Yes, sir. And you have been since you returned from the hospital [147] some time in—was that July or early August? — : A I believe it was July. Q July? A July. : Q Now, Mr. Drope, you were present in this court- room on the 23rd day of June, at the commencement of your trial; is that correct? A Yes, sir. MR. WATSON: ‘I assume, Your Honor, that that date is right. I am not looking at the information, but I believe you have the file ther. THE COURT: Well, the file— MR. WATSON: The case—I mean, did the case start on the 23rd? THE COURT: Pardon me. , MR. WATSON: Did the case start on the 23rd? THE COURT: Will you let me make a statement. The file shows that the case was assigned to Division No. 19, and the defendant present in court, and his attorney, Lester Watson. And it goes on and later on it says, “Examination of jurors on voir dire begun on June 28rd. MR. WATSON: Thank you. | OPO PO POH PO ' ‘ é ba PAULO ML a ANE ARM a ons nme: tte i OTs ENOHTBD S i eee a Ne Se ae ee en) ee + Pee ie 12 Q So you were here and present in this courtroom when I examixed the jury on the 23rd day of June, 1969; is that right? A Yes, ar. Q Now, then, and you were hee also on the next day during the trial, were you not? A Yes. . [148] Q Now, then, Mr. Drope, you were not present here on the 25th, is that correct? A That’s correct, sir. Q Now, on the evening of the 24th you went home from the courtroom? A Yes, sir. Q And then the next morning, will you tell the Court, please, what happened on the next morning? What did you do the next morning, if anything? ‘A The next morning I was at my— MR. FRANK: | I can’t hear you. MR. WATSON: Speak loud so Mr. Frank can Lier. THE WITNESS: Yes. I have a cold. A I was at my varents’ house. I went.over to my brother’s house. I think it is 6238 Bulwer, started to get a change of clcethes,— All right, ? —saw my children before I came to court. Were your children at your brother’s house? Yes, sir. All right. Proceed. My mother told me to get a change of clothes. All my clothes were down in the basement. So I went down in the basement to get my clothes. I got my clothes down and I turned the light out, and that is when I started not remembering. Q What is the next thing you remember after that? A Being in Homer Phillips Hospital. [149] Q And you remember being at Homer G. 'Phil- lips Hospital, is that right? : A I asked the nurse ‘where I was, and she told me I was at Homer G. Phillips Hospital. He >rO>rOPro DL ALLO LO 73 Q And did you remain in the Homer G. Phillips Hos- pital after that or were you sent to the City Hospital on Lafayette, if you know where you were? A The only hospital I can remember being at was the Homer G. Phillips Hospital. Q Homer G. Phillips Hospital? A Yes. Were you operated on there on the morning of the 25th of June, 1969? A Well, all I know is what I was told. I was told I was operated on at the City Hospital. Q At the City Hospital? A Yes. , Q And you don’t know whether they were referring to the Homer G. Phillips or the one on Lafayette? A That is all I know. Q That is all you know about it. Now, Mr. Drope, did you on that day take a gun and deliberately shoot yourself that you know of? A I don’t remember a thing. It happened after I turned the light out. ; Q Did you do anything to prevent you from coming into this courtroom to attend your trial? A No, sir. MR. WATSON: I believe that is all, Your Honor. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, the State asks the Court to let the State reserve its cross-examination and con- tinue it for the State to bring in witnesses. [150] MR. WATSON: Your Honor, I am going to ob- ject at this time. I believe Counsel could complete the cross-examination. now. And I would naturally object to any testimony that the State would bring in at this time that they should have brought in on the 25th of June so there would be a record and the Court would be informed as to what occurred or what their contention was. At this time in support of our motion for a new trial there is no evidence in the record whatever as to what hap- pened to the defendant. And I believe it was the burden of the State, and that is my argument in my motion that it was their duty at that time to bring in and put into the record some evidence, so that if this matter goes ee mere tee * semithin 74 to an appellate court, the court could be informed as to why the case went on in absentia, the defendant being absent. : THE COURT: Very well. 4 MR. WATSON: I have no objection to him cross- | examining the defendant now, and I would recommend ; that it be done now. I think it is only fair to the de- fendant that it is done now. = THE COURT: Of course, also in fairness to the State, not knowing there was going to be any testimony offered. MR. WATSON: Well, they had a copy of the motion for a new trial. THE COURT: That doesn’t necessarily follow there is going to be any testimony. It is your position it was their [151] duty to present evidence? MR. WATSON: Oh, absolutely. THE COURT: If that is true, if your position is true, if a defendant disappears it is up to the State to investigate why he is not here, and it is up to the Court and the jury to wait until the State completes its inves- tigation, and it is a locked-up jury, that means that everybody is sitting down. I don’t know; it seems to me it is up to the defendant to account for his absence. He is on bond. The State couldn’t follow him around. They would be severely criticized if they did. It would seem to me that the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show his absence, not the State. MR. WATSON: Weli,— THE COURT: It seems.to me, Mr. Watson, that would unnecessarily delay cases. It would have the Court and jury— MR. WATSON: I don’t think so. od THE COURT: —-sit around while the State com- pleted its investigation. All kind of complications. ; Let me say this; let me say this: It seems to me, if ‘your position is correct, and I took it from the statements made, then the person—it could have been presented on a motion for a new trial, that there was no accounting 7 3g te Rat SPS DR A AE 75 for his absence on the part of the State, therefore it could be presumed that he was not here because through no fault of his own, he was absent through [152] no fault of his own and therefore the motion should be sus- tained. At least, Mr. Frank, did you know that there te was going to be any evidence offered? ee MR. FRANK: Today? No, I had no knowledge of this at all. THE COURT: Well, I am going to grant it. The State wouldn’t even be in a position to cross-examine until they, checked. MR. WATSON: They could cross-examine on what was brought out on direct, Your Honor. : THE COURT: Didn’t you have your investigator check down at City Hospital? MR. FRANK: Yes, sir, my investigator personally went to City Hospital. THE COURT: And got a police report? MR. FRANK: That is correct. : MR WATSON: And saw the man in the hospital on the operating table, but that was never produced here in evidence. That should be in the record. ' ; THE COURT: Well, the Court got a telephone call from his brother—his father-in-law. MR. WATSON: You and I were here together. That is true, but nevertheless that is all hearsay. THE COURT: Well, it is. | MR. WATSON: What the Supreme Court is going to be [153] interested in. / THE COURT: I think the State is entitled under this to a continuance, and also entitled to continue their cross-examination, but you will be limited to what he stated on direct. MR. FRANK: On direct, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. MR. WATSON: All right. Then I presume we won’t go ahead with the motion for a new trial this morning. THE COURT: I don’t see where anything can be gained. i 3 2 4 j 3 4 bg berprer baubel te seit SN apne Ri ions dina RB 6 MR. WATSON: my contention. THE COURT: Do you have any other evidence? MR. WATSON: No, Your Honor, that is all. THE COURT: When do you want to continue it to? MR. WATSON: I would say two weeks from today if that is convenient to the Court. I am going to be away from the 9th of October to the 29th. So it could be two weeks from today, Your Honor, or if you want to make it a week from today, whatever is convenient. THE COURT: Pardon me. Let’s declare a short re- cess. Let me look at my docket. I have a number of cases to support ¢ (Court in temporary recess) * * * * THE COURT: The matter of the motion for a new trial will be continued to October 3rd. [154] (Thereupon, the further hearing on defendant’s motion for a new trial was laid over to October 3rd, 1969. Thereafter, on October 3rd, 1969, the parties again appeared in open court, the defendant appearing in person. The further hearing then was resumed, as follows:) THE COURT: I believe that you completed the direct examination. MR. WATSON: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. (Addressing the defendant) Will you take the stand. MR. FRANK: My the record show at our request that all witnesses be excluded from the courtroom? THE COURT: Yes. All right. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: For the record, please state your name? James Edward Drope. Speak louder, Mr. Drope, so I can hear you. James Edward Drope. POPO Q I believe you testified on direct examination that you went to visit your brother on June 25th, 1969, the morning? A My mother and I and my stepfather went over to see the kids before coming to court, and they changed clothes before coming to court. Q Do you remember going to the garage that morn- ing? : A No, sir. [155] Q You don’t remember going to the garage? A No, sir. Q All right. You testified the last time you were on the stand that the last thing you remembered entering garage and going toward the light. You are telling us now that you don’t remember going to the garage? MR. WATSON: Your Honor please, I think he is mistaken. He testified that he went to the basement as I recall it. THE COURT: Well, he can state that he didn’t say that. I can’t recall. A I didn’t say anything about going to no garage. Q (Mr. Frank) Do you remember getting yourself injured on that day? A I remember going to the basement like I said before. Q I said, do you remember being injured on that day, your stomach was injured in some way? A I remember feeling something hot hitting my stomach, that is all I remember. What is the next thing you remember? When I come to in the hospital. Was that after they had operated on you? Yes, sir. How late in the day was that? I really couldn’t say for certain. Isn’t it a fact you told your mother—her name is Frankie Dewey—you were going to shoot yourself if you had to [156] come to court that day and testify? MR. WATSON: Your Honor,— A No, sir, I didn’t. MR. WATSON: Wait a minute. It is beyond direct éxamination, and as I recall, the Court informed the > OPO PO wi cas Soe che hatiaas | ices = Ni rae 4 ean A ace aa 78 State at the last hearing that he must maintain his questions within the scope of direct examination. THE COURT: Well, pardon me. This goes to what he testified to on direct. It is contradictory. MR. WATSON: He didn’t testify that he talked to his mother— THE COURT: Overruled. MR. WATSON: —or anyone else, Your Honor. MR. FRANK: Do you remember the question? THE WITNESS: Would you mind repeating it? MR. FRANK: Would you read the question, please. THE REPORTER: (Reading) “Question: Isn’t it a fact that you told your mother—her name is Frankie Dewey—you were going to shoot yourself if you had to come to court that day and testify?” A No, sir, I don’t recall saying anything of any sort to my mother. Q (Mr. Frank) Isn’t it a fact you told your brother Homer if you had to come to court and testify that day, you were going to shoot yourself? [157] MR. WATSON: Same objection, yeur Honor. THE COURT: Overruled. You don’t know Patroiman Dampier? I don’t recall that name. Isn’t it a fact you talked to Patrolman Dampier at the hospital? A No, sir, not that I remember. Q Do you tell the Court you did not talk to Patrolman Dampier? A Not to my knowing, I didn’t talk to anybody. Q Isn’t it a fact that you told Patrolman Dampier while you were on the operating table in the emergency A I said no such thing. Q (Mr. Frank) Do you own a rifle? A No, sir. Q You don’t own a rifle? A No, sir. Q You own no weapon? A No, sir. Q Do you know 2 patrolman Jerome Dampier? A No, sir. Q A Q room—on the table in the receiving room that you would rather be dead than testify in the case, and that is the reason— MR. WATSON: Now, just a minute. MR. FRANK: Let me finish the question. This is the question. MR. WATSON: Pardon me. Q(Mr. Frank) —and that the reason that you shot yourself in the stomach so you would not have to testify? [158] MR. WATSON: Now, if Your Honor please, I am going to object to that again because it is beyond the scope of direct examination. THE COURT: It will be overruled. MR. FRANK: Will you answer the question. A I don’t even remember being in the hospital until I woke up in Homer G. Phillips. Q It is my understanding you deny talking with the Officer? A Yes, sir. Q And you deny telling him that you shot yourself with that rifle? A I don’t remember talking to anyone, any officer. I don’t remember talking to anyone. MR. WATSON: Your Honor please, may I make an objection to this line of questioning at this time for the reason if the State’ intends to offer this testimony, - it should have been offered to the Court before the case went on to be heard with the defendant in absentia. I am objecting in addition for the reason. THE COURT: Be overruled. Q_.(Mr. Frank) Didn’t you keep your rifle in the basement at your brother’s house with the rest of your clothes? Isn’t that where you were keeping your clothes? A May I ask what rifle? Q I am asking you a question. Isn’t that where you were keeping your clothes, in his basement? A Yes, sir, that [159] is where I had all my clothes and my children’s clothes. Q And all your possessions, is that right? A That is all I had down there. ¥ Q Isn’t it a fact you went to that basement first to get that rifle and then you walked in the garage where you shot yourself with it? a A Like I said before, I went to the basement to change clothes. Q What is the last thing you remember - then? A When I got my clothes out and turned the light out and turned around, that is the last I remember. Q You say you turned the light out? A Yes, sir. Q The Court has the record. You testified the last time you don’t even remember turning the light out? MR. WATSON: I submit that is argumentative. MR. FRANK: It is in the record. THE COURT: Well, he can state whether he remem- bers so testifying. A Like I stated before,— : Q (Mr. Frank) Do you remember testifying— MR. WATSON: Just a minute. If your Honor please, I submit the witness has a right t6“answer. THE COURT: No, he has the right to have the ques- tion answered. Do you remember testifying the last thing you remember was turning the light out? A The last I remember, turning that light out and turning [160] around, and that was the last I remember and a hot burning sensation in my stomach. Q (Mr. Frank) You don’t remember telling your mother or your brother or the policeman that you shot yourself so you wouldn’t have to come to court? A No, sir. Q Do you remember at the hospital talking with the doctors about how you were shot? A I remember talking to some of the doctors asking what had happened. Q Do you remember telling them that you shot your- self in the stomach with a rifle so you would not have to come to court and testify? A No, sir, I don’t remember saying no such thing to them. Q You never told the doctors in any event? A I only repeated what I had heard. a Rt ee ET I RAE ELE ER ESL AIO ET et 81 Q I am asking you, did you tell the doctors you had shot yourself? A No, sir. : Q Because you didn’t want to go to court? Is your mother’s name Frankie Dewey? A Yes, sir. Q Your brother’s name is Homer H. A Yes, sir. Q Do you remember seeing them prior to the shoot- ing that morning? A I remember talking to them upstairs, yes, sir. Q Do you_remember talking to them after the shoot- ing while you were still there? ~~ A No, sir. Q You don’t remember talking to anybody after the shooting? [161] A No, sir. Q What time did they operate on you that day? A I don’t know. Was it nighttime? A-I.don’t know. | You don’t even remember? A I don’t even remember that I went to the hos- pital. MR. FRANK: I have no further questions. MR. WATSON: I have no questions, Your Honor. \ THE COURT: All right. You may step down. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, at this time the State wishes to call— THE COURT: Oh, pardon me. Have you finished? MR. WATSON: Yes, Your Honor, I have finished. THE COURT: All right. MR. FRANK: The State is ready. | THE COURT: Ail right. You may proceed. MR. FRANK: At this time the State wishes to call Frankie Dewey. oo eh Peed mace: | « ARAN EGR bir bs 82 STATE’S CASE ON MOTION FRANKIE: DEWEY, sworn, testified: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FRANK: Please state your name. Frankie Dewey. Where do you live? 630 East Red Bud. Is James Drope your son? Yes, sir. Did you see your son on June 25th, 1969? I sup- [162] pose I did. The morning oy was shot? Yes, sir. Did you see your son after he had ind ‘shot? I saw him laying on the ground. Did your son talk to you at that time? No, sir. He couldn’t. Are you telling the Court that your son said noth- - ing to you at that time? MR. WATSON: Just a minute. Your Honor please I am going to object to that as argumentative. This is Mr. Frank’s direct examination of his own witness. I object to him arguing with her. MR. FRANK: Your Honor, at this time I ask that this witness be declared a hostile witness on the basis of the official police report of the St. Louis Police De- partment would show a statement to the contrary that this witness made. MF.. WATSON: I don’t know about any police report. THE COURT: Well,— MR. WATSON: I move whatever reference he made to the police report be stricken. MR. FRANK: That is the reason for asking for the hostile witness proceeding. THE COURT: Be overruled. Q (Mr. Frank) Isn’t-it a fact, mam, that your son told you after he had been shot, after he shot him- OPO PO PO PO PO PO PO ~ “ - a. bi PLLA SIE AAS alle A self that~he had [163] shot himself so that he would not have to come to court that morning? A No, sir, that is not true. Q Isn’t it a fact, mam, that you told Police Officer Dampier that your son told you that he had shot him- self so he would not have to come to court that morning? A I did not. MR. WATSON: I have to object to that,— A Iam taking an oath today; I did not. MR. WATSON: Just a minute, Mrs. Dewey. I would have to object te that, Your Honor please, for the rea- son it would be hearsay. THE COURT: Be overruled. It is the statement of this witness? MR. FRANK: \That’s right. THE WITNESS: _I did not say it. MR. WATSON: Third party. THE COURT: It>is an effort to show a contradic-— tory statement. All right. Proceed. Q (Mr. Frank) Isn’t it a fact that prior_to this occasion your son had also told you on numerous occa- sions that he would rather kill himself than testify before the jury? MR. WATSON: I object— ' A No, sir. I don’t know who told you all that but it is not true. ne Q. (Mr. Frank) Isn’t it 2 fact that your son James Drope [164] kept his clothes and all his belongings in the basement of your other son’s house? A Part of his clothes was over there because we was washing over there. Q Isn’t it a fact that is where he kept his rifle also? A That rifle, I hadn’t seea that thing in years and I thought it was in the country. I did not see that rifle. That was Jimmie’s rifle, wasn’t. it? No, it was not. It wasn’t? \ And I didn’t tell the police officer that either. And you didn’t tell the police officer either? Because I bought those rifles a long time ago. Whose rifles were they? OPO PO PO 4 3 “ og % pee. oes Le AI EL FBG te LER so eI 84 A They belonged to my youngest son. Q Who is he? A Donald. Q Donald? . A Either belonged to Donald or Homer; two rifles just alike. Q That was Homer’s house where that rifle was? A That’s right. That is where it was when it was in the garage. MR. FRANK: I have no further questions. M [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0374%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.