My Blog List

Friday, August 5, 2011

NO HISTORICAL AMNESIA


   What is the relevance of the Trial of the Chicago Seven after all these years? The answer is clear. In these days of special renditions, hostile interrogations, curtailments of Constitutional provisions, torture, and abandonment of common decency, it behooves all of us to recall and consider just what kind of unmitigated bias can take place in an American courtroom then, as well as now. Besides, the attorneys for the defense were wild and intelligent men, the defendants themselves were revolutionaries in the most honorable sense of that word, and all of this took place in Chicago, a hotbed of radicalism as well as repression. 

   Trials used to be kind of fun. Really. They were fun because, on occasion, we the public learned about legal proceedings, we found out things about the nature of our democracy, and we came to understand various aspects of what the adversarial system is all about. At the same time, the personalities of the prosecutors and defendants often shed light on the mood or inclinations of divisions within our society. Nowhere were these divisions more fascinating than in the trial of the Chicago Seven (or Eight). 
     


The Defendants


William Kunstler for the defense


Judge Julius Hoffman

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MURRAY, PROSECUTION WITNESS 



MR. SCHULTZ: Will you please state your name?

THE WITNESS: Robert Murray.

MR. SCHULTZ: What is your occupation, please, Mr. Murray?

THE WITNESS: I am a Police Sergeant with the Chicago Police Department.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Murray, during the week of the Democratic National Convention in August of 1968, where were you assigned, please?

THE WITNESS: I was dressed in casual clothes, wash pants and jacket.

MR. SCHULTZ: On Sunday evening, August 25, 1968, in Lincoln Park, between nine and ten o'clock at night, did you have occasion to observe a person named Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: At the time you saw Rubin what, if anything, did he have on his head?

THE WITNESS: He was wearing a football helmet.

MR. SCHULTZ: When you observed Rubin, what, if anything, was he doing?

THE WITNESS: The first time I observed him he was standing there and he was talking with a newsman from ABC.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate, please, what you heard?

THE WITNESS: The conversation was on a first-name basis and the newsman said, "Well, Jerry, how di you feel your program will be accepted on the college campuses this fall?" and I heard Mr. Rubin say, "Well, I feel that it will be accepted very well by the kids because they are fed up with the power structure."
The newsman said, "Well, we are going to get some coffee. We haven't had our coffee yet." and Mr. Rubin said, "Well, wait, don't go right now. We're going out in the ball field," and he pointed in the direction of the ball field, and he says, "we want to see what these pigs are going to do about it," pointing to the police officers that were standing in front of this park house.


MR. SCHULTZ: How many police officers were standing there?

THE WITNESS: There were ten policemen and one sergeant.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were they dressed in police uniform?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they were.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you continue?

THE WITNESS: He said, "We're going out to the ball field. We want to see what these pigs are going to do when we go out there." And the newsman said, "Well, when are you going?" And he said, "Right now." He said, "O.K., we'll wait." And Mr. Rubin and the other man he was with walked out onto the ball field and I just stood there behind the newsman.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred then?

THE WITNESS: Then I heard this man that was with him say to Mr. Rubin, "Now's the time for the flares or the fires." I don't know which word it was.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what did you hear, please?

THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. Rubin say, "No, not now," and the other man said, "Nothing's happening. Now's the time for the flares or the fires."
Then I heard Mr. Rubin say, "OK, go get them." and at this this man turned and went out of the park going west.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Then Mr. Rubin turned and he began to shout in a loud voice, and he used some profanity.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, I want to ask that the witness be permitted to state what was said, even though some of those words are profane words, your Honor. They are four-letter words.

THE COURT: It occurs to me that it isn't necessary to obtain the permission of the Court. A witness may testify to what he heard. I don't mean to say that people will necessarily enjoy hearing profane words, but if profane words were spoken, part of a conversation, part of something an individual had said, I think it is appropriate in law that the witness so testify.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate what Rubin said when he was waving with his arm?

THE WITNESS: He looked over his shoulder, and he says, "look at these motherfucking pigs standing over here."
He says, "They have to be standing in the park protecting the park, and the park belongs to the people. Let's get these fuckers out of here."

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Well, the people began getting up, picking up their belongings and blankets and started walking over by him, and they also shouted the same things.

MR. SCHULTZ: As the people started to get up, did you observe Rubin at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes sit.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did he say anything else ?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. He says, "The pigs are in our park. They're ----" the same word I just used ---- "m-f-ers, they're shitheads," and he began to walk toward them.

MR. SCHULTZ: What, if anything, did the people who got up---what did they start to do, please Mr. Murray?

THE WITNESS: The people with Mr. Rubin were yelling, "They're m-f-ers and they're s.o.b.'s"

MR. SCHULTZ: Where was Rubin in relation to the other people as he was walking to where the policemen were?

THE WITNESS: He was right in front of them.

MR. SCHULTZ: What did the police do as the crowd approached them.

THE WITNESS: They backed up against the wall.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate, please, what, if anything, you observed Rubin do?

THE WITNESS: Well, as the crowd approached and stopped they were yelling things, and Mr. Rubin yelled, "You're children are pigs, you're pigs, why don't you get out of the park? Let's get them out of the park!" and the crowd was yelling "White honky m-f-ers, get out of our park! And then I heard Mr. Rubin say, "Look at them. They look so tough with their arms folded. Take off your guns, and we'll fight you hand to hand." And the crowd began to yell the same things.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Then I observed Mr. Rubin take a cigarette butt and flick it.

MR. SCHULTZ: And then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Well, then people in the crowd started throwing cans, bottles, stones, small rocks, paper---newspapers that had been crumpled---paper bags, food wrappings.

MR. SCHULTZ: What, if anything, were the ten policemen and the sergeant doing at this time, please?

THE WITNESS: Well, some of the police officers were ducking, and some of them were just standing there in a position like this. (demonstrating)

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you observe where Rubin went--- if he went anywhere---near the end of this ten minute period that you have just described?

THE WITNESS: Almost everyone in this crowd of approximately 200 was screaming something, and I observed Mr. Rubin, who was to my right, start walking backwards out of the crows.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling you attention to the twenty-sixth of August, did you have occasion to see the defendant Jerry Rubin in Lincoln Park on that night?

THE WITNESS: Yes sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate what you heard, please?

THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. Rubin saying that the pigs started the violence, and he says, "Tonight, we're not going yo give up the park.  We have to fight them. We have to meet violence with violence." He says, "The pigs are armed with guns and clubs and Mace, so we have to arm ourselves," with any kind of weapon they could get.

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall any further statements by him at this time?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall what else he said, but he ended it with saying, "And don't forget our gigantic love-in on the beaches tomorrow."

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have occasion to see Rubin again that night?

THE WITNESS: I saw him walking through the park, walking up to small groups, having a conversation with them and leaving, going from group to group.

MR. SCHULTZ: What did you hear said, please?

THE WITNESS: I heard him say that "We have to fight the pigs in the park tonight," that "we're not going to let them take the park."

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, just before eleven o'clock that evening---this is on Monday night, August 26, 1968---what, if anything, did you observe the crowd do?

THE WITNESS: Well, I observed the crowd---people in the park running through the park, gathering up---carrying park benches and tables. All the tables in the
park, they were carrying them to the northeast corner of the park. They were breaking branches off the trees, big limbs. There was lumber, carrying it like over their shoulders, and they were taking all the wastebaskets that were in the park, and some of them the regular type basket and others box-shape, and they were carrying it back to this northeast corner of the park. At this time many people were entering the park, and this crowd became larger and larger by the minute, and they kept piling different items on top, and jamming baskets in between tables and benches, and they were shouting, "Hell, no, we won't go! The park belongs to the people! Fuck Lynsky! Kill the cops!" Things like that.

MR. SCHULTZ: And while the crowd was shouting these things, what, if anything, did the police do?

THE WITNESS: Well, a car approached with microphones on the roof, and it ws making an announcement that the park was closed and anybody found in there would be placed under arrest, and of course, when this car would start the announcement, the shouts and screams were louder, and then rocks--- some of the people behind the barricade ran to the left of the barricade and came closer to this police car and threw rocks at it.

MR. WEINGLASS: If your honor please, I object to this line of questioning. There has been no foundation. There have been no preliminary questions as to what defendant, if any, was nearby relating to this incident.

THE COURT: You may justify the asking of the question.

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, your Honor. Two hours prior to this incident, this witness testified the defendant Rubin encouraged this action. This is the product or part of the product---

MR. WEINGLASS: That is precisely what I was talking about. I think this is most unfair to permit a summation in front of the jury.

THE COURT: I overrule the objection.

MR. SCHULTZ: And then after the police car was hit by the objects, what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Shortly after, eight to ten policemen approached.

MR. SCHULTZ: And what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Objects came from the crowd, from behind the barricade again, bricks and stones, mostly, bottles and cans, and one policeman turned, started running back, fell down, and they cheered, and the policemen retreated.
Then they came up again but behind them came a skirmish line, one line of policemen shoulder-to-shoulder behind them, and the police shot gas--- I should say threw gas---at the barricade.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred?

THE WITNESS: Well, everything, objects just pulled out from behind the barricade, people behind the barricade rolled these wastebaskets that were filled with paper, they lit them and they rolled them down the incline toward the policemen.
Finally, just as the police got close to the barricade, everybody started running out of the park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you run out of the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, I have no further questions on direct examination. * * * * * * *

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, you have testified on direct, as I understand it, that on Sunday, August 25, you had been in Lincoln Park, is that correct, at some time, about between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m.?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you told to watch any particular people?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I was not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you know Jerry Rubin before you entered the park?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Had you ever seen him before?

THE WITNESS: Personally, no, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Had you seen pictures of him?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, on TV and newspapers and magazines.

MR. KUNSTLER: When you saw him in the park that day, you recognized him because you had seen him on TV and in magazines, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Well, I thought it was him, and then there was a boy standing next to me, a teenager, and he said, "There's Jerry Rubin with the helmet. Now things will start happening."

MR. KUNSTLER: And there is no doubt in your mind, is there, Sergeant, that this was Sunday, August 25?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, there's no doubt.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it not true, Sergeant Murray, that you told the FBI that this incident occurred on Monday August 26, 1968, instead of Sunday, August 25, 1968?

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did you come to the conclusion that you had reported as to the incident some two weeks afterwards happened on a different day than you
told the FBI?

THE WITNESS: I found out my mistake the first time that I was interviewed by a U.S. Attorney, who was U.S. Attorney Cubbage.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, you also told the FBI, did you not, that the second incident which you have described as happening on August 26, on Monday evening, you told the FBI, did you not that that occurred on Tuesday night, August 27?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: And is it your testimony now that that, too, was a mistake

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it is.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, when you first saw Mr. Rubin between nine o'clock and ten o'clock on the 25th, as you now testify, what was he wearing in addition to the football helmet.

THE WITNESS: Well, the football helmet was white, it had a blue stripe down the middle, it had a number "88" on the back. He had a sweater or sweatshirt, as I recall, tied around his waist with the sleeves like tied in front, and I believe he was wearing blue jeans or work clothes, as I would describe them.

MR. KUNSTLER: You said Rubin made some remarks to the police such as "you're pigs," and "Get out of the park" and "take off the guns and we'll fight you," and so on.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, at that moment I think you said that Jerry Rubin flicked a cigarette butt, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. KUNSTLER: Had you seen Jerry Rubin smoking up to this time?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I didn't.

MR. KUNSTLER: Never saw him smoke, did you?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did you see him light his cigarette?

THE WITNESS: I didn't see him light the cigarette.

MR. KUNSTLER: How did the cigarette suddenly appear in his hand, if you know?

THE WITNESS: I don't know.

MR. KUNSTLER: It suddenly is there, is that what you are saying?

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was right to my right, and he took his arm like this, and that's when I saw him flip the cigarette like this.

MR. KUNSTLER: When he flicked the cigarette, what else happened?

THE WITNESS: Well, other people started throwing things.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was that the signal in your mind for other people to throw cigarettes? Is that what you regarded it as?

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.(the court is adjourned for the day)

October 3, 1969

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, in the hope of possibly nipping this in the bud, I would like to ask your honor to at least caution the prosecution to adhere to Canon 7 of the American Bar Association's annually adopted standards and I am referring to the one called "Ethical Consideration" which states:
"A lawyer should not make unfair or derogatory personal reference to opposing counsel. Harangue and offensive tactics by lawyers interfere with the ordinary administration of justice and have no proper place in our legal system."
The remarks that were made by Mr. Foran and Mr. Schultz over the course of this trial on the personal level, the references to television actors and Channel Seven and the like, as well as others which are in the record---

THE COURT: I made a reference to your appearance on television.

MR. KUNSTLER: But not in a derogatory way, you Honor.

THE COURT: I would say a lawyer should always be a gentleman in court. Ours is first of all, Mr. Kunstler, a profession of good manners. I insist on a lawyer having good manners before I even determine whether he is a good lawyer.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we were called unethical. I can't think of a grosser insult to an attorney in a courtroom than to be called unethical by opposing counsel. If that is not derogatory---

THE COURT: I wish you would read a document you filed here which I have ordered impounded, and I don't know how you describe that---

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, that is a legitimate attack in a disqualification motion and your Honor knows that as well as I do. That is a legitimate attack.

THE COURT: Don't tell me what I know. I know what that document is because I am a student, I hope, of English. And you should follow the same rules, Mr. Kunstler, and I will ask the Government lawyers to do as I suggest.
Mr. Schultz, if you think some very forceful criticism of counsel on the personal level is indicated, in such an event please ask me to exclude the jury.

MR. SCHULTZ: We will do that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, please bring in the jury(jury enters)

You may continue with the cross examination of this witness, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Sergeant, you testified on direct that on Monday evening you saw a barricade being built, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see any physical contact between the police and the people in the vicinity of the barricade.

THE WITNESS: No, sir. I saw bricks and bottles and I saw some of them hitting the policemen.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see any of the policemen hit by any of this material.

THE WITNESS: Well, there was one of them that went down as if he was hit, but I couldn't see him get hit. But I saw others being hit as they turned running, I saw things hitting them.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Sergeant, just a few more questions, and I am now going back to the preceding night.
Sergeant, I want you to detail for me exactly what Mr. Rubin was wearing on the night of Sunday, August 25, when you first saw him.

THE WITNESS: He was wearing a football helmet. It had a blue stripe down the middle, I would estimate a half-inch stripe, down the middle of this helmet, from the forehead to the neck.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, you mentioned something about the numbers "88," as I recall, Where were they?

THE WITNESS: On the back, on "8" on the left of the stripe and one "8" on the right of the stripe.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Rubin had this helmet on his head, I understand, during all of the time you saw him on Sunday night.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you describe for us the length of Mr. Rubin's beard that night?

THE WITNESS: Well, it---it was not long.

MR. KUNSTLER: But would you say in a matter of inches?

THE WITNESS: Half inch, quarter inch, half inch, something like that.

MR. KUNSTLER: What about Mr. Rubin's height? How tall would you say he was?

THE WITNESS: Five-seven.

MR. KUNSTLER: And how much did he weigh, if you can estimate?

THE WITNESS: About 145 pounds.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, are you absolutely certain that the man you saw that night with the football helmet with "88" on it was the same defendant, Jerry Rubin, who is sitting here in court today?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: There is no question in your mind whatsoever?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. May I have the witness, please

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: May you have what?

MR. KUNSTLER: I want him to look at a man, your Honor, and ask him if that was not the man he saw in the park that night.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, it is like a document. It is perfectly proper to ask if this was the man he saw.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, it might be out of order, but it will save time. I won't object to that.

THE COURT: You won't object to it?

MR. SCHULTZ: No.

THE COURT: I thought you did. Your objection is valid.
If the Government doesn't object, let him walk in.(Robert Levin enters the courtroom)

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you put on the helmet on, please?
Are you absolutely sure that this is not the man you saw that night in Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely.

MR. KUNSTLER: You are absolutely certain?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am. He's too big.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you turn around also and show him the back of the helmet.

THE WITNESS: That's a motorcycle helmet.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is not the helmet you saw that night?

THE WITNESS: No, it was a football helmet.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may we have for the record an identification of this individual who walked into the courtroom?

THE COURT: Yes. Tell us who your exhibit is.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, the exhibit is a man named Robert Levin, L-E-V-I-N. Your Honor, I would just like to mark this helmet for identification as
Defendants' D-15.

MR. WEINGLASS: This was your first assignment as an undercover agent, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That's not correct. I at no time was told that I was an undercover agent.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall your interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation characterizing yourself as an undercover person?

THE WITNESS: They may have said I was undercover, but I said I worked plainclothes and milled in the crowd and tried to get information.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when you were told to gather information, were you told to gather information about any particular person?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I was not.

MR. WEINGLASS: You were just to wander through the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

MR. WEINGLASS: You were just to wander through the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

MR. WEINGLASS: And report back to your superiors?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you tell the jury how it is that you are able to recall approximately thirteen months later the precise words used by Jerry Rubin on Sunday night, August 25, without the benefit of a single note, a single recorded word, or any other note to refresh your recollection?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you tell us how you could recall the precise words used, Sergeant?

THE WITNESS: Well, when I set down and really thought about it, and I thought about this incident, it came back very clearly because I was shocked at what was happening, and I remembered it.

MR. WEINGLASS: So, approximately two months later you sat down and you tried to remember and you remembered verbatim what Jerry Rubin said on Monday night, August 26, in the thirty-second speech, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes; I remembered what others said too there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you did not testify that you heard Jerry Rubin say anything about erecting a barricade?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't hear Mr. Rubin say at any time, "We're going to build a barricade," no.

MR. WEINGLASS: As a matter of fact, Jerry Rubin wasn't in the park at the time the barricade was up, isn't that true?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Sergeant Murray, as I understand your testimony, you never saw Jerry Rubin with a weapon in his hand?

THE WITNESS: That is correct. I never saw him with a weapon.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have concluded my cross-examination.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Marshal, the court will be in recess until two o'clock.


TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PIERSON 


October 8, 1969

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

MR. SCHULTZ: Please state your name.

THE WITNESS: My name is Robert Pierson.

MR. SCHULTZ: What is your occupation, please, Mr. Pierson?

THE WITNESS: I am a Chicago police officer assigned to the Sixth District Tactical Unit . . . .

MR SCHULTZ: Now in August of 1968, specifically where were you employed please?

THE WITNESS: I was employed as an investigator for the State's Attorney's office of Cook County.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have any assignment during the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: My assignment was as an undercover investigator.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you in any way alter your physical appearance to conduct your assignment as undercover investigator?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I allowed my hair to grow long. I allowed myself to go without a shave for approximately four to six weeks. I purchased the attire of a motorcycle gang member, which is motorcycle boots, a black T-shirt, black levis and a black leather vest and a motorcycle helmet.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you obtain a motorcycle?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I rented a motorcycle.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling, your attention to Friday, August 23, 1968, where did you

THE WITNESS: I went to Lincoln Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: What did you do at the park?

THE WITNESS: I talked with different members of the motorcycle gang and others, Yippies and people that I saw in the park that day. I stayed around the park area and talked with them, until the early evening hours of Friday.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling your attention to the following day, which is Saturday, August 24, did you have occasion to go to Lincoln Park on that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Who were you with on Saturday in Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: I was with a fellow known as Gorilla who headed a motorcycle gang, and another fellow by the name of Banana, and other members of the motorcycle gang.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you go home on Friday night and Saturday night?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not; I went to an apartment on the North Side.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling your attention to Monday, August 26, 1968, did you have occasion on that day to go to Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Who did you meet with, please?

THE WITNESS: Fred Jordan.

MR. SCHULTZ: After meeting with Fred Jordan, did you have occasion to have a conversation with him?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. Jordan brought me over and introduced me to Abbie Hoffman. He said, "Abbie, this is Bob. He will be one of your bodyguards. He
handles himself well."
Hoffman shook my hand, said that he was glad to have me with him, and at that time Jordan also pointed out two other men that were bodyguards for Hoffman.
I said to Hoffman that last night's confrontation was a pretty good one. And Hoffman said to me last night, "They pushed us out of the park, but tonight, we're going to hold the park." He then said that, "We're going to-" and he used a foul word, "F-up the pigs and the Convention."

MR. SCHULTZ: What was the word, please, will you relate it?

THE WITNESS: He said "fuck."

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what did he say, please?

THE WITNESS: He said that, "If they push us out of the park tonight, we're going to break windows," and again he used a foul word.

MR. SCHULTZ: The same word?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and he said, "We're going to f-up the North Side." And he also said that, "We're going to create little Chicagos everywhere."

MR.SCHULTZ: What did you say when Hoffman told you this, please?

THE WITNESS: I told him that he could count on me helping him in every way in doing my best to keep him from being arrested.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Pierson. after leaving the defendant Hoffman, where did you go please?

THE WITNESS: I went back to the Lincoln Park area near the fieldhouse.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have a conversation with Fred Jordan?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did. Jordan brought me over to the same area I previously showed you, east of the fieldhouse, and introduced me to Jerry Rubin.

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you see that person whom you identified as Jerry Rubin in the courtroom here?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you point to him, please?

THE WITNESS: He's the man behind the attorney there with the yellow and red shirt and the black arm band.

MR. SCHULTZ: When you met the defendant Rubin at that time, did he look the way he looks now?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. His hair was very long and disarrayed, and his beard was possibly slightly longer.

MR. SCHULTZ: What happened after the conversation with Jordan. please?

THE WITNESS: Jordan brought me over and introduced me to Jerry Rubin. He said. "Jerry, this is Bob Levin. He will be your personal bodyguard. He can be trusted, and he handles himself well." Rubin shook my hand and said that he was glad to have me with him.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your name wasn't Levin at that time, was it, sir?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred after this introduction, please?

THE WITNESS: There was a commotion to the south of where Rubin and I were sitting, and we saw two men being placed in a squadrol. We walked over.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred when you arrived, please?

THE WITNESS: Rubin asked one of the people standing there what had happened, Ind they told him that Tom Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal had been arrested.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have a conversation with Rubin at the time?

THE WITNESS: Well, as we were walking away, Rubin kicked at the ground and said, "F-n' pigs," and he said, "We cannot stand a bust, especially from one of the Federal pigs."

MR. SCHULTZ: Let me just interrupt you and ask you if you know what the word "bust" means?

THE WITNESS: It means "arrest," and he said that "tonight, we're going to hold the park, and if we're pushed into the streets, we're going to . . ." again, f-up the Old Town area.

MR. SCHULTZ: During this conversation, did anyone have occasion to join you and Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, a girl by the name of Nancy joined us.

MR. SCHULTZ: After Nancy joined you and Rubin, what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: We walked across the park over to where the large group of people had gathered which was west of the sidewalk. A person came out and met
us. He was one of the marshals.

MR. SCHULTZ: What, if anything, was said, please?

THE WITNESS: He told Rubin that a march was being formed to go down to Police Headquarters to free Rubin and Lowenthal.

MR. SCHULTZ: What did you do then?

THE WITNESS: I then went and got my motorcycle, drove over to 12th and State, parked the motorcycle, and I met the march at about 9th and State.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have occasion to meet Rubin in the march?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now when you arrived at police headquarters, did you see any policemen in the area?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there were uniformed officers in front of the building on State Street and on the side of the building on 11th Street. Rubin said, "There are too many pigs here. Let's go to the Hilton."
We went east on 11th to Michigan Avenue and then north on Michigan Avenue. When the march was midpoint past the Logan statue, the crowd broke and ran up the statue screaming, "Take the hill."
They climbed the statue and displayed the Viet Cong flag, the red flag and the black flag.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, did Rubin say anything at this time, at the time the people were rushing up with the flags?

THE WITNESS: While looking at the people rushing up the hill to the statue and seeing the flags, Rubin said that this was better than Iwo Jima.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred after the people went up to the top of the statue and Rubin made this statement?

THE WITNESS: I saw Rennie Davis with the microphone and the loudspeaker system.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you hear what Davis at this time was saying on the megaphone?

THE WITNESS: Davis said, "Hold the statue. Don't let the pigs move you out."

MR. SCHULTZ: All right, now, Mr. Pierson, calling your attention to the next day which is Tuesday, August 27, did you have occasion to go to Lincoln Park on that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have occasion to meet with Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Rubin and I sat and talked for a while.

MR. SCHULTZ: And while you were sitting and talking, what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: We saw some people tacking newspaper articles on some trees that were right along here. The first article that I remember looking at had the
headline, "The Battle of Chicago." When looking at this article, Rubin said to me that we have got to create little Chicagos everywhere, that we've got to have riots in every city. I told him that he could count on my being wherever he wanted me to go and to protect him from being arrested by the pigs.


MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall any additional articles that the two of you looked at?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, we again walked over to another tree where there was another picture and another article. One of the pictures showed a policeman with a club, and Rubin looked at me and said, "Look at that fat pig. We should isolate one or two of the pigs and kill them."

MR. SCHULTZ: What did you say?

THE WITNESS: I agreed with him, and then we walked over to a group of marshals that were sitting on the west side of the sidewalk in the park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate the conversation that occurred at this time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Rubin, after sitting down, said to the marshals, "We've got to do more to keep the crowd active so that we have them to help hold the park tonight," and "We want them in the park for the Bobby Seale speech that is going to be here tonight."

MR. SEALE: I object on the ground my lawyer Charles R. Garry is not here. You know my lawyer is not here, your Honor, and I want my lawyer here to speak when he mentions my name and testifies against me.

THE COURT: Ask him to sit down, Mr. Marshal, please.

THE MARSHAL: Sit down, Mr. Seale.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, this little episode for the benefit of the jury is intended simply to misconstrue the fact that this man originally had four lawyers to start with, and I think that should be on the record in front of the jury.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I object to calling it a little episode for the benefit of the jury. I think he should be admonished for it.

THE COURT: I will direct the jury to disregard the incident but I shall deal appropriately in due course with the incident.

MR. KUNSTLER: I make an objection to your Honor's last remark.

THE COURT: I overrule your objection, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you continue to relate the conversation, please?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. One of the marshals asked Rubin, "Jerry, did you see the newspaper articles on the tree and did you see the pictures of the newsmen that had been injured?" Rubin said, "Yes." And the marshal said, "Now the newsmen will be on our side." And Rubin agreed, and then Rubin also said that now we have the newsmen on our side, now we need the people on our side. One of the ways to get this would be to start fires in the Loop that would cause the armed forces and police to come out in force, and it would show the people all over the country that we are living in a police state.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred then?

THE WITNESS: Nancy, Rubin and I went over to a tavern to make a telephone call, but just prior to going there, Rubin said to me that he would like to have the---take the crowd in Lincoln Park down to Grant Park and Bobby Seale give his speech there, and I told him that it would be a good idea, that it would really foul up traffic at that time of day.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have a conversation with Rubin after he left the tavern?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did. Rubin said that he had contacted the Peace and Freedom people about having the Bobby Seale speech held at Grant Park and they had told him they did not want it there because there was too much of a chance of Seale's being arrested there. They would rather keep it in Lincoln Park where they could get him away if the pigs tried to arrest him.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, on the way back to Lincoln Park from the tavern, was there any conversation?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Rubin said to me that Abbie Hoffman had had a meeting with the Blackstone Rangers earlier that day. Tuesday, and that the Blackstone Rangers had agreed to come to Lincoln Park and help hold the park and fight the pigs. Rubin told me that he did not believe that they would do this and asked me what I thought, and I told him that I agreed with him, I also did not believe that the Rangers would come and join in the fight.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right. Now what, if anything, occurred after this conversation when you arrived in Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Two people walked up to us. One of them had an aerosol can and another a plastic bag. The man with the plastic bag said to Rubin, "We are going to fill this bag with human shit and we are going to throw it at the pigs tonight." And Rubin laughed and said, "Good. It will make good food for the pigs."

MR. SCHULTZ: Had you made any notes earlier that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: What had you done with the notes that you had made, Mr. Pierson?

THE WITNESS: When I was not with Rubin and I was standing a short distance away, I would get the attention of one of the Chicago Police Intelligence personnel; I would wad up the note, throw it on the ground, and they would come and pick it up.
On other occasions I would go down in the washroom in the field house and leave notes after again getting the attention of one of the Intelligence personnel and leave the note behind the plumbing facilities down there.

MR. SCHULTZ: At about seven o'clock in the area where the people were assembling, what, if anything, occurred?

THE WITNESS: We sat down and one man gave a speech and then Phil Ochs sang a song and as Phil Ochs was completing his song, Bobby Seale, Stew Albert, some of the Black Panthers and some of the Headhunters arrived and stood right next to where we were seated.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred at the time that Albert arrived with Bobby Seale?

THE WITNESS: Well, Phil Ochs completed his song and then Jerry Rubin gave a talk and after his talk Bobby Seale gave a talk.

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall any of what the defendant Rubin said?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Rubin said that America is not free and that the elections are phony.
He also said that we have got to disrupt or stop the election on Election Day.
He said that we have got to become fighters and take this country away from the people that run it and we have got to take to the streets in small groups, and I believe he ended his speech with "See you in the streets tonight."

MR. SCHULTZ: Now after Rubin spoke, who spoke next please, if anyone?

THE WITNESS: Bobby Seale.

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall any of the speech made by Bobby Seale?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Again it was long but I remember part of it.
In some of the speech, he made mention of Huey Newton and some of the other people in the Black Panther Party. He also said that the time for singing "We Shall Overcome" is past, that now is the time to act, to go buy a .357 Magnum, a .45, and a carbine and kill the pigs, that we've got to break up into small groups, and create guerrilla warfare everywhere, that we can no longer be arrested in large groups or killed in large groups, that we've got to break into small groups and surround the pigs.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Pierson, when the defendant Rubin was speaking, what was the crowd doing?

THE WITNESS: Well, at different points during the speech, they would applaud and cheer.

MR. SCHULTZ: And when the defendant Seale spoke, what, if anything, did the crowd do?

THE WITNESS: The exact same thing. They would applaud and cheer.

MR. SCHULTZ: At about 11:30 at night, that is, Tuesday night, August 27, 1968, were you still with Rubin, Mr. Pierson?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred in your presence and Rubin's presence at about 11:30 that night?

THE WITNESS: The police asked the crowd to leave the park. When no one left, the police began to advance in a line across the park. When they got maybe twenty-five or thirty feet away, the crowd began to pelt the police with these rocks, and bottles, and other objects that they had gathered. The police then came and they had a truck with lighting equipment on it, and they had some tear gas guns on it , and they shot the tear gas into where we were. We would run a short distance until we got away from the tear gas, and then we would stand and continue yelling, and screaming at the police.

MR. SCHULTZ: You say, "We would stand and yell and scream." Would you describe, would you tell us first who "we" is?

THE WITNESS: Well, "we" would be Rubin, Albert, Nancy, Judy, Vince, Al, myself, and a number of unidentified people.

MR. SCHULTZ: Was Rubin yelling at the police?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right, now, where did you go, please?

THE WITNESS: We went on to Clark Street right over here by this triangle.

MR. SCHULTZ: What occurred at that point?

THE WITNESS: There was a CTA bus heading in a southerly direction, and the people began kicking at the doors and trying to break the windows, and they began rocking the bus, trying to roll it over.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did Rubin do anything to the bus?

THE WITNESS: Not that I recall, no, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right, after the group attacked the bus, what occurred next please?

THE WITNESS: We then continued to run westerly away from the police because by now, they were out of the park, coming onto Clark Street. As we were running Judy handed Rubin and I each a small bottle of paint. At this time, a police car had come east on Wisconsin and had parked. As we ran by it, we both threw the bottles of paint at the police car, and I didn't hit and I don't know that Rubin's bottle hit the police car either.

MR. SCHULTZ: After throwing the paint at the police car, Mr. Pierson, where did you go?

THE WITNESS: We then continued to run west and north off of Lincoln Avenue over to Armitage.

MR.SCHULTZ: What occurred near Cleveland and Armitage, please?

THE WITNESS: We ran west on Armitage to Cleveland and Armitage. At this intersection, Judy took a match and lit a large barrel, trash barrel on the corner, and started it on fire. We then ran another half a block west of Cleveland on Armitage, and at this time, a CTA bus was going west on Armitage. Al and Stew Albert threw rocks at the bus, and I remember Al, the one he threw, went right through the bus window. We then ran further west.

MR. SCHULTZ: Actually, did you observe Rubin throw any rocks at that bus?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't recall him throwing any.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Then we got to a porch about a block-and-a-half west of Cleveland on Armitage. We walked up on the porch, sat down and laughed about what we had done, and sat and watched the Fire Department respond and put out the fire, and then we saw the different cars respond to approximately where the bus had been rocked.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right. Now, calling your attention to Wednesday, August 28, at approximately eleven o'clock in the morning, would you tell the Court and the jury, please, where you went, Mr. Pierson?

THE WITNESS: I went back to Lincoln Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Whom did you meet in Lincoln Park, please?

THE WITNESS: I met Wolfe Lowenthal, a fellow by the name of Steve, a girl by the name of Mary, and myself, and we went in Steve's car, which was a Volkswagen, from Lincoln Park to Grant Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you meet anybody in Grant Park across from the Hilton?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I met Jerry Rubin, Stew Albert, Nancy, Judy, Vince, Al and this other girl that had been with us on Tuesday night.

MR. SCHULTZ: Where did you go, please?

THE WITNESS: We walked over up Balbo to Columbus and cut through the park there and went over to the Bandshell.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Pierson, will you relate the conversation that you had with Rubin shortly after arriving in the park?

THE WITNESS: Rubin told me that Robin was going to bring a live pig to the Bandshell and that he wanted me to go with him and take the live pig up on the stage when he gave his speech because this would cause the police to come in to retrieve the pig and would cause a confrontation between the crowd and the police.
Rubin said that he and Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, Bobby Seale and other out-of-state leaders had gone to their out-of-state people and told them to bring back to their home cities the revolution that had started in Chicago, and that two of the issues that were good to keep pushing with the people were the Vietnam issue and the civil rights issue as these kept the crowds together.

MR. SCHULTZ: Calling your attention to the middle of the afternoon. about three o'clock in the afternoon, do you recall any specific incident that occurred while you were with Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, there was a flag-lowering incident.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate what occurred, please, while you and Rubin were standing there?

THE WITNESS: A few people had lowered the American flag and had raised a red flag or attempted to raise one. At this time the police moved in to retrieve the American flag.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Then as this happened, the crowd began to pelt the police with various objects. The crowd then surged toward the police and Rubin and I and Stew Albert and others that were with us were surging toward the police, and at this time a marked police car came from behind us.
When it got to the midst of where Rubin, Stew Albert and others that we were with were standing, the crowd began to jump on the car and try to roll the car over. Rubin began to yell, "Kill the pigs! Kill the cops!"
The police car finally got out of the crowd and got over to in front of the flagpole. Rubin continued to scream "Kill the pigs! Kill the cops!"
When the police got out of the car, they were hit with various objects that were thrown from the crowd.
At this time there was an announcement on the stage of the Bandshell by Steve telling the crowd sit down, don't attack the police and they won't attack you. The crowd began to sit down and Rubin ran over and screamed at Steve to stay off of the microphone and let the crowd do their thing. The crowd by this time, though, had begun to settle down and sit down.
Rubin walked over to where Stew Albert and I were, and he said, "Robin is here, he has the live pig. Let's go get the pig and start it all over again."
We than walked around the crowd over to where Robin was supposed to have his car and have the live pig in the car.
We walked around the back of the crowd and we saw two people that I recognized and one of them said, "There's Pierson."
With that I told Rubin that I would meet him a little later, that I had to go over and use the washroom. So I turned around and left.

MR. SCHULTZ: Where did you go, please?

THE WITNESS: I went over onto Columbus Drive by the sidewalk and listened to some of the other speeches and then later I went over and reported to Deputy Superintendent Rochford.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you discontinue your undercover surveillance at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: No more questions on direct examination. . . .

THE COURT: Who will cross-examine the witness, Robert Pierson?

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Pierson, your father is a retired police lieutenant, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, he is.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is your uncle in the Chicago Police Force today?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we can show an interest, I think, a family connection. I don't see where that is objectionable.

THE COURT: There is nothing to indicate here that this witness' relatives are involved. I will let my ruling stand, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Pierson, from 1963 to date, have you spent any time in a hospital for mental reasons, for treatment of any mental condition?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: You have not?

THE WITNESS: I have not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Pierson, was your discharge from the army for medical reasons?

THE WITNESS: My discharge from the United States Army was an honorable discharge after serving my full period of time.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was it for medical reasons? Was it a medical discharge?

THE WITNESS: No, it was after serving my period of time.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Pierson, I am going to show you Defendants' D-20 for identification and ask you if you know what that magazine is.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do. It is Official Detective magazine, the December 1968 issue.

MR. KUNSTLER: Does it contain an article by you about the events in Chicago in August 1968?

THE WITNESS: It contains an article for which I signed a release on a byline by me. A Mr. Brannon mailed to me a list of, I believe it was either twenty-two or twenty-four questions to which I sent answers to those questions.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you paid for this article?

THE WITNESS: Yes, one hundred dollars.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you read the article, did you find some things were inaccurate in it?

THE WITNESS: Many things that were inaccurate as far as what I had told Mr. Brannon.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it your testimony that the inaccurate statements in here are not statements which you made to Mr. Brannon? That is all I am asking.

THE WITNESS: That is true .

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, at some time during your period in Lincoln Park of the times you have testified, August 23 through August 28, were you, yourself, struck by a police club?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

MR. KUNSTLER: How many times did that occur?

THE WITNESS: Two or three times.

MR. KUNSTLER: At that time, were you throwing rocks?

THE WITNESS: I was standing with a group that had thrown objects at the time that I was with them.

MR. KUNSTLER: I would like the witness to be directed to answer yes or no.

THE COURT: You may answer that question yes or no if you can.

THE WITNESS: No, I was not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you ever throw rocks at the police during any of these days in the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: When was that?

THE WITNESS: On Monday night.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you hit any policemen?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you ever call policemen "pigs" during this period of time?

THE WITNESS: I referred to them as pigs.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you ever scream during any of this period of time any epithet whatsoever?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I would join in some of the chants that were yelled at the police during that time I was assigned to this undercover assignment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you given instructions to call cops "pigs" and throw things at them? Was that part of your assignment?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: You volunteered for this assignment, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did you first get the apartment on the North Side, after August 16, or before?

THE WITNESS: The apartment was not one which I rented, It was an apartment belonging to a member of our staff, and I merely used it during this period of time.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you there alone or with somebody?

THE WITNESS: There were times I was there alone, and there were other times I was there with someone.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was a person named Sunny with you at any time at that apartment?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is a girl, is it not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.

MR. KUNSTLER: And how much time did she spend there?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did she stay overnight?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know who Sunny is?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who is she?

THE WITNESS: One of the members, a female member of the cyclists' gang.

MR. KUNSTLER: When you testified before the grand jury, do you recall testifying about Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Rubin? I am talking about the incidents in which
they said something about "We are going to create little Chicagos everywhere," or words to that effect.

THE WITNESS: I believe I was asked questions about those events, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will show you your grand jury testimony, D-19, and ask you if anywhere in that testimony you related to the grand jury anything about these statements. I think you will find Mr. Hoffman's on 172.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. KUNSTLER: Does that contain any reference to creating little Chicagos anywhere?

THE WITNESS: I do not see it here.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Pierson, do you have your statement in front of you, the statement you made? It is our Exhibit No. 22.

THE WITNESS: My police report, sir? Yes, sir, I do.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you look through that and see where there is any reference to this language attributable either to Mr. Hoffman or Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I do not find any.

MR. KUNSTLER: You do not find any?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Thank you. I have no further questions, your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: You spent Friday, Saturday and Sunday establishing your cover as an agent with the Headhunters, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is, as well as talking to the various groups of people in the park.

MR. WEINGLASS: When your cover was established by Sunday, you were then introduced to Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin on Monday, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: I was introduced to them on Monday, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: By this same gentleman by the name of Fred Jordan?

THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Who did you meet at the Headhunters? Who was your first contact with the Headhunters?

THE WITNESS: A fellow by the name of Banana.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you met him, were you alone or were you with Sunny?

THE WITNESS: I believe I had been talking to Sunny when I met Banana.

MR. WEINGLASS: Wasn't it, in fact, Sunny, the female motorcyclist, who introduced you to Banana?

THE WITNESS: It is possible that she did. I don't recall just how we met.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is there any particular reason why you can't recall who introduced you to Banana but you do recall who introduced you to Rubin and Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: No particular reason.

MR. WEINGLASS: The reason you are having difficulty can't be attributed to any sensitivity over Sunny's role in all this, could it?

THE WITNESS: No sensitivity at all.

MR. WEINGLASS: That was the first time you ever met Sunny, was Friday?

THE WITNESS: I had seen her before but the first time I was with her was on Friday.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where had you seen Sunny before?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Sunny didn't know you were a police officer, did she?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: You took Sunny back with you to your apartment, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: It was not my apartment, as I believe I stated, sir. It was an apartment belonging to one of our Assistant State's Attorneys. and she was present in
that apartment on occasions where I would be making notes, yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: And did Sunny observe you making notes?
THE WITNESS: I don't believe that she was watching me when I made notes at any particular time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Weren't you somewhat concerned that Sunny would find out that you were a police officer?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was any attempt made by you to hide the fact that you were a police officer while you were in the apartment with Sunny?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever see the defendant Jerry Rubin in this period of time from Monday to Wednesday when you spent a good deal of time with him wearing a helmet?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you came into the park Monday morning and you were introduced to Abbie Hoffman, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: And it was during that period of time that you spent alone with him that he related to you that the park should be held that night, isn't that
correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, among other things.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were there any witnesses to your private conversation with Abbie?

THE WITNESS: Not that I am aware of.

MR. SCHULTZ: His name, if the Court please, is Abbott Hoffman, not Abbie. I would ask that Mr. Weinglass refer to him by his proper name.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes. I am sorry. Were you aware that there were two police officers who were following Abbie at a certain distance---Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I am not. I was not aware of that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then after approximately an hour with Abbott Hoffman, you were introduced by the same gentleman to Jerry Rubin, am I correct on that?

THE WITNESS: I was subsequently introduced to Jerry Rubin.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where did you and Jerry Rubin go?

THE WITNESS: We walked east from the field house down the knoll and sat down and talked for a while.

MR. WEINGLASS: This was another private conversation you had with one of the defendants, is that correct?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please, as to the form of the question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, from the time that you met Jerry Rubin at either 12:30 or 1:00 until the time you left this park after the protest march was formed, did you ever see Jerry Rubin participating in a self-defense class which was being taught by the defendant Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: And, I ask you if Officer Aznavoorian placed these two defendants there at that time, would he be mistaken?

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Weinglass is construing facts to suit himself, and then putting them in the witness' mouth and asking a question.

THE COURT: Do you object?

MR. SCHULTZ: I certainly do.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: I can't phrase a question, I understand now, based on what a prior witness testified to?

THE COURT: I am ruling on the propriety of that question or the impropriety of it, Mr. Weinglass.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, there was a "Free Hayden" protest march, as you describe it, being formed in the park after you were with Jerry Rubin for a period of time, correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, there was a march.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was anyone throwing anything from the line of march?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not see anyone throw anything from the march.

MR. WEINGLASS: It was an orderly march, wasn't it, Officer?

THE WITNESS: To the best that I can recall, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: The protest march proceeded to Logan statue, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Walking orderly toward the statue, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No, they ran up the hill of the statue screaming, "Take the hill!"

MR. WEINGLASS: Aside from the young man who was up on the statue, did you see any arrests being made?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall, sir, any arrests made.

MR. WEINGLASS: You said Davis said, "Hold the statue. Don't let the pigs move you out." Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: To the best I recall, that is what he said.

MR. WEINGLASS: And after he said that, what did you see? Did anyone move to hold the statue?

THE WITNESS: Some remained, some left.

MR. WEINGLASS: Officer Pierson, you know as a law enforcement officer, is there to the statues anything illegal about a group of people in the middle of the day going up

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: You testified that at a given point Tuesday morning, you once again found yourself alone with Jerry Rubin and had a private conversation with him?

THE WITNESS: After a period of time, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: One of those comments, I believe you testified to, was Jerry Rubin said words to the effect that, "We should isolate one or two of the pigs and kill them." Is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ask him where this was going to happen?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ask him who was going to do this?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ask him when this was going to happen?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: In other words, you didn't say anything after he said this to you?

THE WITNESS: I agreed with him that it should be done.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you think it might be helpful for your superiors in order to protect the policemen to know these details?

THE WITNESS: I felt that any information that would be furthered toward this statement, I would learn, and I would have adequate time to notify my superiors.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you also testified that you understood, I believe, in a conversation with Jerry Rubin that Abbie Hoffman had had a meeting with the
Blackstone Rangers sometime prior to that time, and the Blackstone Rangers were coming into the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: As a matter of fact, it was the Blackstone Rangers who discovered you on Wednesday, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is true, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see any Blackstone Rangers in Lincoln Park on Tuesday?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: How many did you see?

THE WITNESS: Very few. I saw none of what they refer to as the Main 21, or the principal members of the gang..

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall being asked the following question before the grand jury? "In other words, you were never able to observe anything that would lead you to believe that the Blackstone Rangers or any other sizable Negro group in fact joined forces with the hippies to help hold the park?"
Do you recall that question?

THE WITNESS: I would have to say that I do recall that question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, what was the answer you gave to that question?

THE WITNESS: The answer is "Absolutely not. There was no gang or group that I know of, of Negro residents of our city that did in fact join with those people."

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. That does not in any way whatever contradict his testimony. It is improper impeachment.

THE COURT: I strike the question and the answer, and direct the jury to disregard it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Officer Pierson, I think we are up to---going chronologically---Tuesday afternoon, August 27, late in the afternoon in Lincoln Park. There were a number of people assembled in the park for a rally, were there not?

THE WITNESS: There were different groups all over the park area, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did Jerry Rubin indicate to you that this was to be a rally of the Peace and Freedom Party?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, he did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did Jerry Rubin indicate to you that he was, in fact, a Vice-Presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom Party running on a national ticket with Eldridge Cleaver?

THE WITNESS: No, he did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, who spoke?

THE WITNESS: I believe Jerry Rubin was the first to speak.

MR. WEINGLASS: Have you ever made a note of the speech?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I made notes of the speech.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you have these notes, Officer Pierson?

THE WITNESS: No, I do not. They were destroyed after my report was submitted.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you remember Jerry Rubin talking about the oppression of black people in America?

THE WITNESS: I think he did make reference to that, yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you remember Jerry Rubin saying these words: "We're not interested in protecting the privileges of the white race because white people in this country have been oppressing blacks for the past hundreds of years, and we're a white generation that says finally, 'No, you're not going to continue.' If the cops are going to beat on blacks, they're going to beat on us, too."
Do you recall Jerry Rubin saying words to that effect?

THE WITNESS: In essence, sir, yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: And do you recall Jerry Rubin expressing his criticism of the City of Chicago and the massive propaganda campaign that the City had engaged in to keep people away from the city and to reduce the size of the demonstration?

THE WITNESS: Some reference to that effect, yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you say "some reference," Officer Pierson, what do you recall, if anything, he said about this?

THE WITNESS: Well, some of the things you are saying, sir, is bringing back to memory Rubin's speech of that night, and it was, as I say, a lengthy speech, and I merely reflected the main points.

THE COURT: We are at a point, Mr. Weinglass, where we usually recess. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Pierson, when we stopped yesterday we were discussing the rally in Grant Park on Tuesday night, August 27, where you testified you heard Jerry Rubin deliver a speech to an assemblage and you also heard Bobby Seale deliver a speech to an assemblage, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: I believe you gave us some description of that assemblage; however, I would like to ask you whether or not---and you are an experienced police officer---looking out at that crowd you would describe that group of people as being a dangerous group of people?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I would not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Would you describe that assemblage as an orderly gathering?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I would.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you heard Jerry Rubin speak for a period of time. Was there any change in the mood of that assemblage?

THE WITNESS: Not that I noticed.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did the group become violent in any way?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Officer Pierson, I am now going to direct certain questions to you concerning Mr. Seale's speech.
However, I would like to request the Court that I am not Mr. Seale's attorney, I am not questioning this witness with respect to the substantive counts against Mr .Seale. I am questioning him solely in my capacity as counsel for four of the alleged co-conspirator.

THE COURT: Mr. Weinglass, you may cross-examine this witness. You may ask any questions you think are proper. You are not permitted to designate on whose behalf you are asking the questions.

MR. WEINGLASS: I just wanted the record to show clearly that I am not acting as Mr. Seale's attorney.

THE COURT: Mr. Weinglass, we have, I think, the most competent official reporter in the United States Courts of this district. Everything you say and anybody says here is for the record. Please don't remind me constantly what you are saying is for the record.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Officer Pierson, did you see Bobby Seale come to the park that night?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did Jerry Rubin have any meeting at all while you were in his presence with Bobby Seale on the evening of August 27?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, he did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now Bobby Seale arrived with, I believe you said, several of---in the company of several persons, some of whom you described as Black Panthers?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: In the course of this employment have you had occasion to familiarize yourself with the Black Panther Party?

THE WITNESS: Limitedly, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you tell us what you know about the Black Panther Party?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please. That doesn't qualify.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. I am not trying any defendant, as far as I can see here, named the Black Panther Party. We are trying eight individuals.

MR. WEINGLASS: I believe the defendant Seale was introduced to this jury by the prosecutor as the Chairman of the Black Panther Party. I have a right to clarify

THE COURT: He is not being tried as the Chairman.

MR. WEINGLASS: How long did Bobby Seale speak that night?

THE WITNESS: I believe his speech lasted anywhere from twenty minutes to a half hour.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you hear Bobby Seale talk about the black and white community forming a black and white coalition around Huey Newton's defense?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe he did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is there any particular reason why you didn't tell the jury when you were telling the jury what you heard Bobby Seale say, why you didn't tell the jury about the black and white coalition that he spoke of?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: You indicated at one point in his speech Mr. Seale said words to the effect that, "People should buy .357 Magnums---"

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: "---and.45s."

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did he also say they should keep them in their homes?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall that being said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Officer Pierson, you are a police officer, and I ask you this question. Is there anything illegal about buying a .357 Magnum?

MR. SCHULTZ: I object to the last question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: I ask you the same question about buying a shotgun. Is there anything illegal about that?

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Weinglass knows that is equally objectionable, and yet he is asking that. I object and ask the Court to order Mr. Weinglass not to intentionally ask questions that he knows are not proper in law.

THE COURT: I sustain your objection to the last question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did Bobby Seale ever call for the assassination of Mayor Daley in his speech?

THE WITNESS: The best that I can recall of his speech is that during the speech, he made mention of killing the pigs. He made mention of various political leaders. Whether he in fact mentioned Mayor Daley as one of those political leaders, I do not recall.

MR. WEINGLASS: But the only reference to killing the pigs is when he talked about self-defense, and a pig unjustly attacking us in an unjust manner, that we have a right to barbecue some of that pork as a matter of self-defense, isn't that the context and the only context in which he referred to the pigs?

THE WITNESS: That is what you have said, Mr. Weinglass. That is not what I have said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now did you discuss Bobby Seale's speech with the FBI?

THE WITNESS: I believe I was asked about the Bobby Seale speech, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall telling the agents that Bobby Seale said that---Bobby Seale called on the group to kill Mayor Richard J. Daley?

THE WITNESS: Again, Mr. Weinglass, those are not my exact words. Whether I specifically mentioned Mayor Daley or not, I do not know, but I don't recall those being my exact words.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall having a second interview on September 27 wherein you were asked to comment about what Bobby Seale had said in Lincoln Park at approximately 6:30, August 27, 1968?

THE WITNESS: I was questioned by representatives of the FBI in the latter part of September.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall telling Agent Garrish on September 27 that Bobby Seale told the crowd, "When the opportunity arises, kill Mayor Richard J. Daley himself"?

THE WITNESS: No, I do not recall using those exact words.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is that all you said about what he said about assassinating leaders?

THE WITNESS: Well, his speech, as I said before, had the words "barbecuing pork, which in my interpretation is killing the pigs.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever attend a Black Panther Party rally?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now in the front of your report, Officer Pierson, you have a list of common definitions, do you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yippie slang, isn't it, so that your superiors will be able to interpret the Yippie slang that is in your report, the common everyday usage, right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you also have a definition for Black Panther talk?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you have any definition of what barbecuing the pork might mean?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, can vou explain to the jury why you did not contain any reference to Mayor Daley in your report of September 9, or any threat of an assassination to Mayor Daley and why you insisted on telling the FBI on two separate occasions very explicitly Bobby Seale called for the killing of Mayor Daley himself?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. He didn't say that, if the Court please.

MR. WEINGLASS: You and Jerry Rubin and a few people had dinner and then you came back to Lincoln Park, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: How did things appear in the park when you got back?

THE WITNESS: Well, I got back and there was a pray-in, as they called it, being conducted. There were people walking around putting vaseline on their face,
there were people gathering different objects to throw it the police.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see what occurred to that gathering of people later that evening when the police came into the park and gassed the people who were in the park?

THE WITNESS: Many things happened, Mr. Weinglass. Some people were throwing rocks and bottles and other objects at the police, and the police were advancing. They had a light truck, and there was gas shot into the crowd.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was there gas shot into the vicinity of the pray-in?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, where they were.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see these policemen beat these people and club the ministers?

THE WITNESS: I do not remember any police officer hitting any member of the ministry.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was this one of the nights you were throwing rocks at the police yourself?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall having thrown a rock on Tuesday night at the police.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is it possible you might have thrown a can or stick, or some other object to provoke the police?

THE WITNESS: I threw a bottle of paint later on that evening.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall being asked by the grand jury the following question: "Mr. Pierson, did you ever observe, yourself, Jerry Rubin throw an object at the police?

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, what he should do is ask him: "Did you see Jerry Rubin throw an object at the police?" If he says "yes," then he can read this question and answer.

THE COURT: It seems to me, Mr. Weinglass, those are two different situations.

MR. WEINGLASS: If your Honor please, I spent a good deal of time with this witness---

THE COURT: I have spent a good deal of time listening to you also.  Do you want a gold star for the time you spent?

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I object to that, those insulting remarks to co-counsel.

THE COURT: I don't insult lawyers.

MR. KUNSTLER: Sir, you just have, your Honor.

THE COURT: Don't make a suggestion like that again, sir. if you will sit down, Mr.---

MR. KUNSTLER: Kunstler is the name, K-U-N-S-T-L-E-R.

THE COURT: I will let my ruling stand.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever see Rubin throw an object at the police, Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: At the police themselves, no.

MR. WEINGLASS: So when you testify that you saw Jerry Rubin throw a paint container at a police car, you were carefully drawing a distinction between throwing something at the police and throwing something at a car with police in it?

THE WITNESS: I definitely believe there is a difference, yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: And when the grand jury asked you if Jerry Rubin ever threw anything at the police, you did not tell them about the police car incident, did you?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever see Jerry Rubin bring a sleeping bag to the park for the purpose of staying all night?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did he ever attempt to stay and hold the park when the police came to the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we remained there Tuesday night and then when the police came and finally forced us about, we left.

MR. WEINGLASS: You left. People were fighting the police in the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: People were throwing things?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: People were engaged in hand-to-hand combat with the police?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: But Jerry Rubin was leaving?

THE WITNESS: Yes, as I was, because of the tear gas. We were running away from it.

MR. WEINGLASS: There was no attempt on his part to fight the police?

THE WITNESS: Not to fight, no.

MR. WEINGLASS: Or to throw anything at the police?

THE WITNESS: I did not see him throw anything at the police at that time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now on Wednesday at approximately 3:00 p.m., in the course of the rally, you testified on direct about a flagpole incident, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Officers moved in to the flagpole area for the purpose of arresting the individual who took the flag down, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: The individual or individuals, and retrieved the American flag.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was the flag taken all the way down?

THE WITNESS: I believe it ultimately was, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was the flag first lowered to half-mast?

THE WITNESS: I believe it was, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you know the flying of the American Flag at half-mast-do you know what signal that is intended to convey?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: At what point did you begin to move toward the flagpole?

THE WITNESS: When the crowd began throwing the objects at the police, then we moved over to watch what was happening.

MR. WEINGLASS: So Jerry Rubin, yourself and Stew Albert moved over to watch?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we moved in toward the crowd at that time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then a police car appeared on the scene?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did the crowd part to let the car go through?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, they jumped on the car and started to rock the car and tried to tip it over.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you jump on the car and try to tip it over?

THE WITNESS: I was right next to the back of the car.

MR. WEINGLASS: You had your hands on the car, didn't you, Officer Pierson?

THE WITNESS: I had my hands on the car, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: You were rocking that car, weren't you?

THE WITNESS: No, I was not.

MR. WEINGLASS: What were you doing with your hands on the car?

THE WITNESS: I just stood right there in the crowd so that I was not conspicuous.

MR. WEINGLASS: Jerry Rubin didn't have his hands on that car?

THE WITNESS: No, he did not. He at that time was yelling to kill the pigs, kill the cops.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were you trying to stop the rocking with your hands on the car?

THE WITNESS: Well, it happened so quick---I was not trying to rock it; I did not push on it to rock it. I was just right there. I, if anything, tried to stabilize it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you tell the jury what the crowd was yelling, if anything, if you heard anything as the car was going through the crowd?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. When the car went through the crowd, Rubin began yelling "Kill the pigs! Kill the cops!" And the crowd picked up the chant and hollered the same thing.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you left the park, you went to see a high-ranking police officer of the Police Department of the City, did you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did. I reported to Deputy Superintendent James Rochford.

MR. WEINGLASS: And then you went subsequently to the precinct, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: And your mission was over?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, it was.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, isn't it a fact, Officer Pierson, that your mission failed?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: No matter what you did during the course of the three days that you were with Jerry Rubin, you were unsuccessful in your attempt to
encourage him to even throw a pebble, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, it is not correct. I never tried to encourage him to do anything like that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Wasn't it you who threw the rocks at the police and not Jerry Rubin?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have the basis of the prosecutor's objection?

THE COURT: I have sustained the objection. I will let my ruling stand.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will the Court inform me of the basis of it since the prosecutor has not?

THE COURT: Just continue with your examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: Isn't it a fact that it was you who suggested that the park be held at night against the police to Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Isn't it a fact that it was you who suggested that the Peace and Freedom rally be held in Grant Park to tie up the traffic?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, it was not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Wasn't it part of your mission to compromise the demonstrators by getting them into a position with the police whereby they would be committing criminal acts?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, it was not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Didn't you have a long discussion with the FBI about this very subject?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. Objection, if the Court please, as to whether or not he had a discussion with the FBI on this subject.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Isn't it a fact, Officer Pierson, that because you never saw Jerry Rubin do anything improper or commit any criminal act, that you had to invent these private conversations which were unwitnessed that you have testified to?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, in response to a question asked of you by Mr. Kunstler about the possibility of your confinement in Wesleyan Hospital, I believe you answered you had not been in Wesleyan Hospital, am I correct?

THE WITNESS: No, Mr. Kunstler asked me had I ever been confined to the hospital at Wesley Memorial Hospital. I repeated his question and then I answered no, I had not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, did you ever go to Wesley Hospital in the presence of and accompanied by a man by the name of Kloeckner for treatment during the year 1963 or 1964?

THE WITNESS: I recall your asking a question about a man by that name that I believe to be known as Mr. Gluckner. I did go over, I was taken over to the Wesley Memorial Hospital one evening for a short period of time and went home the same evening.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall the reason for your going to the hospital that evening?

THE WITNESS: Sometime before that I had had an aerosol can explode and split my head open and split my nose and break the nose here. From that time I had had a few dizzy spells. On one occasion I happened to be in my father's office and I went down to my knees from one of these spells. He took me over to the Wesley Memorial Hospital to see if there was any problem.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, from that time to the present have you received any additional treatment for the head injury?

THE WITNESS: I have had tests as a result of that, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were the nature of those test neurological or orthopedic?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. We don't have to go into this man's medical history to determine the results of a face injury. There is no basis for this.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have completed my cross-examination.
Your Honor, I would like to call the Court's attention to an oversight on my part. Mr. Seale is unrepresented and would like to conduct examination.

THE COURT: That is not true. Don't say that to me again. It is not true.

MR. SEALE: I would like to cross-examine the witness.

THE COURT: Your appearance is here on file.

MR. SEALE: What about my lawyer? He is not here, your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: His lawyer is Charles R. Garry of San Francisco.

THE COURT: I have heard that before.

MR. WEINGLASS: He is his attorney.

MR. SEALE: I still want to cross-examine the witness.

THE COURT: Call your next witness, please.


TESTIMONY OF FRANK RIGGIO 



October 13, 1969

MR. FORAN: Will you state your name, please?

THE WITNESS: Frank Riggio.

MR. FORAN: What is your occupation, Mr. Riggio?

THE WITNESS: I am a detective with the Police Department, City of Chicago.

MR. FORAN: Calling your attention to August of 1968 during the Convention, were you given any specific assignment?

THE WITNESS: I was to keep Rennie Davis under surveillance.

MR. WEINGLASS: At this point, this witness having identified himself now as a surveillance agent, -on behalf of the defendant Rennie Davis I make the objection that a twentyfour-hour surveillance constitutes a constitutional invasion of a citizen's privacy contrary to the Fourth Amendment and I object to this witness being permitted to give any testimony in a Court of law on the ground that his conduct constituted a violation of the United States Constitution.

THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.

MR. FORAN: Calling your attention to August 25, 1968, did you see either Davis or Hayden?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we were in Lincoln Park. My partner and I began to follow Mr. Davis and Mr. Hayden, who were walking together by themselves. They would come to a group of people and stop and talk and then proceed through the group, and then as my partner and I would try to follow, the group would close up and block our way and make it difficult for us to keep Mr. Davis and Mr. Hayden in sight.

MR. FORAN: How long did you follow them around the park that day?

THE WITNESS: Oh, approximately two hours.

MR. FORAN: As you were following them from group to group, at about that time, at ten o'clock, what occurred?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Davis and Mr. Hayden came to a group of people where they stopped and talked to Wolfe Lowenthal. As they stopped and talked to him, Mr. Davis began to proceed toward Stockton Drive. Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal began to walk off in a different direction. My partner and I began to return to our own vehicle.

MR. FORAN: As you approached the front of your vehicle, what happened?


THE WITNESS: As we approached the front of the vehicle, we could hear a hissing noise coming from the vehicle. We then proceeded around the side of the vehicle and we observed two figures crouched at the right rear tire. At this time, my partner and I shouted to the two figures, and identified ourselves as police officers. As we approached the two figures stood up, one ran off---as I approached I noted it was Tom Hayden stood at the rear tire of the vehicle, I could see that the tire of the vehicle was, for all intents and purposes, flat.
I pursued the figure who had run off toward the group of people who were in the park at the time. He ran a short distance, stopped and turned around and faced me, at which time I grabbed him and began to bring him back to the vehicle. All this time my partner had stayed with Mr. Hayden at the rear of our vehicle.

MR. FORAN: Who was it, by the way, that you had?

THE WITNESS: It was Mr. Wolfe Lowenthal.

MR. FORAN: What happened when you got back to the vehicle?

THE WITNESS: When we got back to the vehicle we informed Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal that they were under arrest for the damage they had done to the squad car and told them to get into the vehicle.

MR. FORAN: What happened at this time?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal at this time refused to get back into the vehicle, and they began to struggle with both my partner and myself. They began to pull away from us, shove us. They braced themselves against the opening of the rear door and would not get into the vehicle.
During this time they began to shout, "Help! Get these policemen! Don't let these policemen arrest us! Help us! Don't let them get us!"

MR. FORAN: What happened then?

THE WITNESS: At this time the crowd began to run over to the vehicle and began to force my partner and myself along with Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal into the corner formed by our open door and the vehicle itself. The crowd began to scream, "We're not going to let you arrest them!" Somebody yelled, "Get their guns!" Another one yelled, "Get the police! Get these policemen and turn them over to us! We're not going to let you take them!"

MR. FORAN: What occurred then?

THE WITNESS: At this time we informed Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal that we couldn't possibly effect their arrest at this time but that on the next occasion that we saw them, we would place them under arrest, and at this time they ran off with the crowd of people.

MR. FORAN: What was the crowd doing as they ran off?

THE WITNESS: Screaming and clapping, jumping up and down.

MR. FORAN: Now, did you have occasion to see Hayden and Lowenthal again?

THE WITNESS: The next day I saw them, I believe it was the twenty-sixth of August, in Lincoln Park.

MR. FORAN: Did you see Hayden?

THE WITNESS: Yes. When we first saw them we stopped and informed a uniformed sergeant and a squad of uniformed policemen that our intention was to arrest these two men and to have them pull up a wagon as we approached the group.

MR. FORAN: What happened as you approached the group?

THE WITNESS: As we approached the group, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal stood up and informed the group, "Here come the two coppers from last night. They are going to arrest us."

At this time, my partner and I walked into the group and informed Mr. Hayden and

Mr. Lowenthal that they were under arrest, and at this time the squadrol had pulled up into the crowd.

MR. FORAN: Now, what did you do then?

THE WITNESS: As we began to walk Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal into the squadrol, the crowd began to scream, "You can't arrest them!" and "Why are you taking them?" and "We won't let you arrest them!"

MR. FORAN: Do you remember any particular persons in the crowd?

THE WITNESS: I remember one young lady and one young man in particular.

MR. FORAN: Do you know that man's name, Mr. Riggio?

THE WITNESS: Not offhand, no.

MR. FORAN: Will you look over there and see if you can find him at that table?

THE WITNESS: It is the fellow in the blue shirt sitting right over there [indicating].

MR. FORAN: May the record show, your Honor, that the witness has identified Mr. John Froines?

MR. FORAN: Mr. Riggio, at that time did you have a conversation with Mr. Froines?

THE WITNESS: I did. The defendant said, "I demand to know why you are arresting these two." I informed him they were being arrested for a violation that had occurred the previous night. He then stated that, "We are not going to let you take them. If you try to take them all hell is going to break loose in this city."

MR. FORAN: What happened then?

THE WITNESS: At this time, with the help of the uniformed patrolmen, I got into the squadrol along with the defendants Hayden and Lowenthal, and proceeded to 21 South State Street.

MR. FORAN: What did you do when you got there?

THE WITNESS: We began our normal booking procedures of the two defendants.

MR. FORAN: Calling your attention to later on that same evening, close to midnight, where were you?

THE WITNESS: We were at the intersection of Michigan and Balbo Avenue.

MR. FORAN: Who did you see there at the corner of Balbo and Michigan?

THE WITNESS: I saw the two defendants, Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, and also Wolfe Lowenthal, crossing the intersection of Balbo.

MR. FORAN: What did you and your partner do at that time?

THE WITNESS: I fell into step behind Mr. Davis. My partner fell into step behind Mr. Hayden.

MR. FORAN: What, if anything, happened as you crossed the street?

THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. Hayden, who was a step or two in back of me, say, "Here he comes again," or "Here he is again." And then he said, "You," and he
used a profanity.

MR. FORAN: What words did he call you?

THE WITNESS: He said, "Here he is again, you motherfucker." At that time I turned around and observed the defendant Hayden spit at my partner, at which time my partner grabbed Mr. Hayden and Mr. Hayden then fell to the street. The crowd was beginning to rush to the incident which was now occurring.
Mr. Davis turned and began to shout, "They've got Tom again. Let's go help Tom," and they began to rush back toward my partner and Tom Hayden. At this time, with the help of uniformed officers, we pushed the crowd back across Balbo Drive.

MR. FORAN: What did you do then?

THE WITNESS: At this time after the crowd had gotten back, I went back to my partner and Mr. Hayden, and we took Mr. Hayden to a squadrol and placed him in a squadrol.

THE COURT: I think we have reached the time when we normally recess. . .

Mr. Riggio, my name is William Kunstler. I am one of the attorneys for the defendants. On Sunday, August 25, in Lincoln Park, you were arresting Hayden and Lowenthal ---for what?

THE WITNESS: For obstructing us.

MR. KUNSTLER: As far as you know, how were they obstructing you?

THE WITNESS: If we had received an emergency call or any sort of communication from the squad operator we wouldn't be able to fulfill it with a flat tire.

MR. KUNSTLER: And then you indicated Mr. Hayden screamed for help.

THE WITNESS: Correct. Mr. Lowenthal also screamed.

MR. KUNSTLER: And then what happened?

THE WITNESS: A large group of people began to form around our vehicle.

MR. KUNSTLER: And you reached a decision that it would be the better part of discretion not to effectuate an arrest at that moment, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did anybody in that group strike you?

THE WITNESS: No, they did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did anybody in that group throw anything at you?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall them throwing. They may have.

MR. KUNSTLER: And when you last had contact with Lowenthal and Hayden, did you tell them you would arrest them the next day?

THE WITNESS: Before we released Lowenthal and Hayden to the crowd, we informed them that they would be arrested by us at the next convenient time.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now that brings us to Monday, August 26. There came a time when you saw Tom Hayden and Wolf Lowenthal?

THE WITNESS: Correct. They were in a group of people who were southeast of the field house.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you find yourself in the center of this group again as you had the night before?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now when you went to arrest Mr. Hayden or Mr. Lowenthal, the two of you, did Mr. Hayden or Mr. Lowenthal tell the crowd, "Help, get these coppers, keep them from arresting us," or anything similar to what you had heard the night before?

THE WITNESS: No, nothing like the night before. They just informed the crowd that they were being arrested.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you explain when you were in the middle of this group with Mr. Hayden and Mr. Lowenthal why you were arresting them?

THE WITNESS: I believe we told them obstructing a police officer, resisting arrest, and I don't know if it was disorderly conduct in there too.

MR. KUNSTLER: But it is true, is it not, Officer, that these arrests that you were making there were for activities that occurred on another day, is that correct?

THE WITNESS. Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did they offer any resistance at any time from the time you walked up to them and said, you are under arrest, and the time you took them and put them in the squadrol?

THE WITNESS: No, they did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Detective Riggio, you had testified, as I recall, that Mr. Froines had demanded to know why you were arresting Lowenthal and Hayden. Then at that moment, as I remember, you indicated that Mr. Froines said something, demanding that you release the two men, or. as you put it, I think, "all hell would break loose in the city," is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: You continued with the arrest, did you not?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. KUNSI'LER: Did all hell break loose in the city, to your knowledge?

THE WITNESS: My opinion, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your opinion was all hell broke loose because of these arrests?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you somewhere where all hell broke loose after these arrests?

THE WITNESS: I was in the police building when the march occurred at the police building and I could observe what was occurring in the street.

MR. KUNSTLER: And that is what you call "all hell breaking loose?"

THE WITNESS: That is what I call "all hell breaking loose."

MR. KUNSTLER: Describe "all hell breaking loose."

THE WITNESS: The tie-up in the traffic around the police building, the fact that the police building had to be secured by police personnel at the entrance to the building, and the amount of people who were chanting and screaming and shouting outside the police building.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is what you characterize as "all hell breaking loose," is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is what I do, yes.

MR.. KUNSTLER: You are smiling when you say that. Is there any reason for that smile?

THE WITNESS: No reason for my smile.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see the marchers throw anything at the policemen?

THE WITNESS: I did not observe that long.

MR. KUNSTLER: How long did you observe?

THE WITNESS: A matter of a minute.

MR. KUNSTLER: It was in that minute that you made the determination that all hell had broken loose?

THE WITNESS. Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: In your definition people marching on the sidewalk, crossing the street, shouting something which you could hear from the thirteenth floor, this was a definition of "all hell breaking loose" in Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: And all of this, do you attribute to Mr. Froines' remarks in the park?

THE WITNESS: In my opinion, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: You think he instigated all of that?

THE WITNESS: That is my opinion, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Detective Riggio, did you ever tell the FBI about the incident, forgetting Mr. Froines' name, did you tell them that an unknown male said these words to you in Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will show you D-34, which is a report labeled FBI report on September 25, 1968. I ask you whether it in any way refreshes your recollection as to whether you told them about this incident by looking through the documents themselves?

THE WITNESS: I did tell them about this incident, yes. I don't have to look at the documents.

MR. KUNSTLER: There is no question in your mind that you told them?

THE WITNESS: I believe I did, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now does any mention of that appear in any of those reports?

THE WITNESS: These are not my statements.

MR. FORAN: Object, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you had gone to the police station with Hayden and Lowenthal, did you go back to 407 South Dearborn to pick up Rennie Davis again?

THE WITNESS: I believe we went by there, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you finally find them again?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, shortly after midnight of the twenty-sixth.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you saw Davis, what did you do?

THE WITNESS: I fell into step behind Mr. Davis.

MR. KUNSTLER: Behind Mr. Davis. Where did Mr. Bell fall in step?

THE WITNESS: Behind Mr. Hayden.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now you have testified, I believe, there was a crowd of people in the vicinity, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it your testimony that the crowd in some way interfered with the arrest of Mr. Hayden?

THE WITNESS: The crowd was not permitted to get to Officer Bell or Tom Hayden.

MR. KUNSTLER: And when you say the crowd was not permitted, what did the police officers say to the crowd?

THE WITNESS: The police officers told the crowd to go back along with me, and we held them back from going toward the incident that was occurring.

MR. KUNSTLER: When you say "held back." did you seize people?  Did you grab them?

THE WITNESS: Grabbed people, pushed them, just kept people from running past.

MR. KUNSTLER: How many did you grab?

THE WITNESS: Oh, Mr. Davis and a few others.

MR. KUNSTLER: You grabbed Mr. Davis?

THE WITNESS: I didn't say I grabbed Mr. Davis. I held Mr. Davis from going back. I stopped Mr. Davis from going back.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where was Mr. Hayden?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden was laying in the street toward the southwest corner of Michigan and Balbo Drive.

MR. KUNSTLER: How did Mr. Hayden get to the ground?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden fell to the ground.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it what you would call going limp?

THE WITNESS: I would call it that, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Hayden wasn't offering any resistance, was he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he was, sir, by pulling away from Officer Bell.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you recall seeing Officer Bell punch Mr. Hayden to the ground?

THE WITNESS: Officer Bell did not punch Mr. Hayden to the ground.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, with Mr. Hayden on the ground, did the crowd throw anything at you?

THE WITNESS: Nothing struck me, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: You weren't hit with any fists, were you?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't recall being hit.

MR. KUNSTLER: You weren't hit with any stones or sticks?

THE WITNESS: No, I was not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Brass knuckles?

THE WITNESS: I was not.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: With that I think we can recess for the day.

October, 15, 1969

MR. DELLINGER: Mr. Hoffman. we are observing the moratorium.

THE COURT: I am Judge Hoffman, sir.

MR. DELLINGER: I believe in equality, sir, so I prefer to call people Mr. or by their first name.

THE COURT: Sit down. The clerk is about to call my cases.

MR. DELLINGER: I wanted to explain to you we are reading the names of the war dead.

THE MARSHAL: Sit down.

MR. DELLINGER: We were just reading the names of the dead from both sides.

THE MARSHAL: Sit down.

THE CLERK: No. 69 CR 180. United States of America vs. David T. Dellinger, et al. Case on trial.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, just one preliminary application this morning. The defendants who were not permitted by your Honor to be absent today or to have a court recess for the Vietnam moratorium brought in an American flag and an NLF Flag which they placed on the counsel table to commemorate the dead Americans and the dead Vietnamese in this long and brutal war that has been going on. The marshal removed those from the table. First he took the NLF Flag after directing me to order the client to have it removed which I refused to do, and then he removed it himself, and then subsequently he removed the American flag.

THE COURT: We have an American flag in the corner. Haven't you seen it during the three-and-a-half weeks you have been here?

MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, but we wanted the juxtaposition, your Honor, of the two flags together in one place.

THE COURT: Mr. Kunstler, let me interrupt you to say that whatever decoration there is in the Courtroom will be furnished by the Government and I think things look all right in this courtroom.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I am applying for permission to have both flags on this Vietnam Moratorium Day.

THE COURT: That permission will be denied. That is a table for the defendants and their lawyers and it is not to be decorated. There is no decoration on the Government's table.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is the Government's wish, your Honor. We don't tell them what to do or what not to do.

THE COURT: But I tell everybody what to do as far as the decorations of this courtroom are concerned and we are not going to have the North Vietnamese flag on the table, sir.
Your motion for flags to he placed on the table, flags of any nation, is denied, and at the same time I point out standing in the courtroom---and it has been here since this building was opened---is an American flag.

ABBIE HOFFMAN: We don't consider this table a part of the court and we want to furnish it in our own way.

THE MARSHAL: Sit down.

THE COURT: I will ask you to sit down.
Bring in the jury, Mr. Marshal.

(jury enters)

MR. DELLINGER: We would like to propose

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please---

MR. FORAN: Your Honor. If the Court please, may the marshal take that man into custody?

MR. DELLINGER: A moment of silence---

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, this man---

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal. take out the jury.

(jury excused)

MR. DELLINGER: We only wanted a moment of silence.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, this man has announced this on the elevator coming up here that he was intending to do this.

MR. DELLINGER: I did not. I would have been glad to, but I did not.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to this man speaking out in court.

THE COURT: You needn't object. I forbid him to disrupt the proceedings. I note for the record that his name is---

MR. DELLINGER: David Dellinger is my name.

THE COURT: You needn't interrupt my sentence for me.

MR. DELLINGER: You have been interrupting ours. I thought I might finish that sentence.

THE COURT: The name of this man who has attempted to disrupt the proceedings in this court is David Dellinger and the record will clearly indicate that, Miss Reporter, and I direct him and all of the others not to repeat such occurrences.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I just want to object to Mr. Foran yelling in the presence of the jury. Your Honor has admonished counsel many times on the defense side for yelling, but particularly when the jury was halfway out the door.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, that is outrageous. This man is a mouthpiece. Look at him, wearing an arm band like his clients, your Honor. Any lawyer comes into a courtroom and has no respect for the Court and acts in conjunction with that kind of conduct before the Court, your Honor, the Government protests his attitude and would like to move the Court to make note of his conduct before this court.

THE COURT: Note has been duly made on the record.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I think that the temper and the tone of voice and the expression on Mr. Foran's face speaks more than any picture could tell.

THE COURT: Mr. Kunstler---

MR. FORAN: Of my contempt for Mr. Kunstler, your Honor.

MR. KUNSTLER: To call me a mouthpiece, and for your Honor not to open his mouth and say that is not to be done in your court, I think that violates the sanctity of this court. That is a word that your Honor knows is contemptuous and contumacious.

THE COURT: Don't tell me what I know.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am wearing an armband in memoriam to the dead, your Honor, which is no disgrace in this country.
I want him admonished, your Honor. I request you to do that. The word "mouthpiece" is a contemptuous term.

THE COURT: Did you say you want to admonish me?

MR. KUNSTLER: No, I want you to admonish him.

THE COURT: Let the record show I do not admonish the United States Attorney because he was properly representing his client, the United States of America.

MR. KUNSTLER: To call another attorney a mouthpiece and a disgrace for wearing a black armband---

THE COURT: To place the flag of an enemy country---

MR. KUNSTLER: No, your Honor, there is no declared war.

MR. HAYDEN: Are you at war with Vietnam?

THE COURT: Any country---
Let that appear on the record also.
Bring in the jury. I don't want---

MR. KUNSTLER: Are you turning down my request after this disgraceful episode? You are not going to say anything?

THE COURT: I not only turn it down, I ignore it.

MR. KUNSTLER: That speaks louder than words, too, your Honor.

THE COURT: And let that appear of record, the last words of Mr. Kunstler, and, Miss Reporter, be very careful to have them on the record.

(jury enters)

THE COURT: I say good morning again, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Will the witness please resume the stand?

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, it was your assignment to watch Mr. Davis?

THE WITNESS: Correct.

MR. WEINGLASS: Wasn't it also your assignment to threaten Mr. Davis, to tell him to get out of town?

THE WITNESS: That is incorrect, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: You never threatened him?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall threatening Mr. Davis.

MR. WEINGLASS: You don't recall? But it is possible, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: I did not threaten Mr. Davis or tell Mr. Davis or Mr. Hayden to get out of town.

MR. WEINGLASS: You are positive of that?

THE WITNESS: I am fairly positive of that, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fairly positive? Could you explain to the jury why, when I asked you that just a minute ago, you said you couldn't recall.

THE WITNESS: I already explained that, sir. I can't recall because I didn't make the statement.

MR.WEINGLASS: Isn't it a fact that you were armed and you had a weapon?

THE WITNESS: Naturally, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: That you struck Mr. Davis on occasion?

THE WITNESS: No, I never struck Mr. Davis.

MR. WEINGLASS: You told him he had better get out of town or he would be killed?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I never said that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Wasn't the purpose of your mission to drive these two young men out of town so they wouldn't have their peaceful demonstration?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, that was not the purpose of my mission.

MR. WEINGLASS: Didn't you discontinue on Tuesday when you found out that they couldn't be driven out of town, or Mr. Davis was doing nothing wrong?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, that is not true.

MR. WEINGLASS: Nothing further.


TESTIMONY OF DWAYNE OKLEPEK 



MR. FORAN: Will you state your name, please?

THE WITNESS: Dwayne Oklepek.

MR. FORAN: What was your occupation in the Summer of 1968?

THE WITNESS: I was a reporter for the Chicago Today.

MR. FORAN: Was that a full-time occupation?

THE WITNESS: No, that was just a job for the summer. I was a senior at Cornell College in Mount Vernon, Iowa.

MR. FORAN: Now, during the summer of 1968 were you given any special assignment?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was. I was to go to Mobilization headquarters and work with them as a volunteer worker.

MR. FORAN: Were you given any instructions about revealing your identity or your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I was only told to tell the Mobilization people that I was a reporter if I was asked.

MR. FORAN: How long did you work at that office?

THE WITNESS: From July 24 until August 30, 1968, almost every working day.

MR. FORAN: What were your duties while you worked there?

THE WITNESS: I made phone calls to secure housing for demonstrators who were coming into the city for the Convention, I typed form letters, did some filing and answered the telephone when it rang.

MR. FORAN: What hours did ordinarily work?

THE WITNESS: Well, I ordinarily got there about nine or ten in the morning and stayed until three or four in the afternoon, at least. That Would be an average day.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to August 9, 1968, in the morning. where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in the Mobilization office.

MR. FORAN: Were any of the defendants present in the office on that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they were Mr. Davis, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Froines.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor please, I object. I feel that the Government his not laid a proper foundation. They have not demonstrated in any way through any evidence that there was an unlawful association among the defendants. They can, therefore, not proceed to introduce evidence of any particular acts or conversations.

THE COURT: We have considered this problem, and I overrule your objection.

MR. FORAN: Now, what occurred, if anything?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Davis walked in with Mr. Hayden and said that there was going to be a meeting, what he termed the corps of marshals, on the west side of the main room, and he said that anyone who is in the office at that time who wished to participate in this first meeting of the corps of marshals should go into that room.

MR. FORAN: Was there a conversation in that room at hit time?

THE WITNESS: There was.

MR. FORAN: Who said what, Mr. Oklepek?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Davis began speaking first. He pulled out a street map of the city of Chicago and set it tip so we could all look at it, and began to point out the various routes which he said the Mobilization was trying to get for a march on August 28, 1968. Then Mr. Davis began to speak about whit he termed the perimeter defense of Lincoln Park. Mr. Davis said that he expected that if demonstrators tried to sleep in the park past the announced curfew time of 11:00 p.m., that some time after midnight they could probably expect the park to be surrounded by police and, or National Guardsmen and that arrests would begin after that time.
Mr. Davis said in order to combat this situation. all of the separate groups of demonstrators who were sleeping in the park should have designated places to go in the event arrests occurred, and that these groups should attempt to break out of the park through the police lines, or past the police lines, to avoid the arrest situation.

MR. FORAN: Did he say where they should go?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Davis felt that the separate groups should form up and then attempt to move their way south to the Loop area, where Mr. Davis said they should, in his own words, "tie it up and bust it up." He went on to say he thought that these groups should try to disrupt traffic, should smash windows, run through the stores and through the streets.

MR. FORAN: Was there anything else said at that time, that you recall?

THE WITNESS: Someone objected at that time to marching down 35th Street and along Halsted. He said there were a great many viaducts along these two routes, and that people conceivably could get on them and attack the demonstrators by throwing missiles at them, and things like that. Mr. Davis said, and these again are his own words, "We will put marshals on those things and they will shoot the shit out of anyone who opens up on us." MR. FORAN: Do you recall anything else that was discussed at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Someone asked Mr. Davis what would occur if it were impossible for the demonstrators to get out of Lincoln Park at all at night if an arrest situation commenced, and Mr. Davis said, "That's easy, we just riot."

MR. FORAN: Now, do you recall anything that occurred at that meeting, right at the end of the meeting, Mr. Oklepek?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do recall some assignments being made.

MR. FORAN: What were those assignments, Mr. Oklepek?

THE WITNESS: Each of the people in that room was to make detailed maps of certain blocks of the downtown area and of certain places which were going to be demonstration targets during Convention week.

MR. FORAN: Were you to draw one of these maps?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Did the meeting break up then?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it did.


MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to August 15, 1968, in the afternoon, where were you, Mr. Oklepek?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park on the baseball field which is adjacent to LaSalle Drive at the southernmost end of the park.
Dave Baker took the twenty-five or thirty people who were there and lined them up side by side in rows of five or six so that they all faced in one direction and then he put one line in back of another so that there were five lines of five or six people all facing the front.
He had with him an eight-foot-long pole which was about an inch-and-a-half in diameter, round so that it fit very well into the palm of a hand, and he gave this pole to the front row of people and told them to link arms like this [indicating] and grasp the pole with both hands. Then each of these successive rows in back of this first row also linked arms and then every other person in between these two people on the end reached forward and grasped the belt of the person in front of them.
Then the formation moved as close together as possible so that it could run without any person stepping on the heels of the person in front of him and then Mr. Baker began to chant something to synchronize our foot movements and the entire group began to jog in place. Then after that Mr. Baker instructed us to begin moving forward and we began to move in straight lines across the park, and after we had done this for a few minutes and got a bit skilled at it, he began having us move in wavy lines and make turns and to go faster and slower at his command.
After about fifteen minutes of this, Mr. Baker and Mr. Froines and Mr. Hayden began to simulate attacks on this group such as might be expected from police. They began to hit people who were in strategic positions in the formation to try and knock them down or trip them to demonstrate to us how we should be alert for these things and what these sort of attacks could do to the entire formation.

MR. FORAN: At the completion of the training, did you overhear a conversation concerning it?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden told the group that this snake dance formation was the same type that Japanese students had used to precipitate riots in Japan in 1960 which prevented then President Eisenhower from visiting that country. He said that getting people together in this kind of formation, getting them moving and chanting and yelling, aroused their emotions, sustained their spirits, got them very excited.
He said that this formation was very good for breaking through police lines and that in the event of an arrest situation, this formation would be used during Convention week to break police lines and to try to escape from Lincoln Park, for instance. He also said that it was good for moving people over large distances in the event of a riot situation.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to August 15, 1968, in the evening, where were you, Mr. Oklepek?

THE WITNESS: At Mobilization headquarters at 407 South Dearborn.

MR. FORAN: How many people were there?

THE WITNESS: Approximately eight or ten.

MR. FORAN: And were any of the defendants present at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden, Mr. Davis and Mr. Froines were there.
Someone suggested that the marshals have what they termed political discussions. He specifically asked how Chicago police should be handled differently than army troops or National Guardsmen, if they should. At this point, Mr. Hayden said---this is becoming rather obscene.

MR. FORAN: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden said, "Fuck them all. They are all pigs."
Mr. Froines then said that he believed that army troops would be more likely to be lenient with demonstrators than the Chicago policemen because the majority of army troops are draftees that would have been conscripted against their will, and, therefore, would be very sympathetic to the antiwar cause of the demonstrators. Mr. Froines felt that National Guardsmen would be even easier to handle because they would have been citizens only a few hours before their getting into Uniform. They would be used to exercising their constitutional rights, and that, therefore, they would be susceptible to the logic of the demonstrators; that a genuine effort should be made among the demonstrators to get the National Guardsmen to literally join them in their demonstration.
Mr. Davis then said that there would be no way to deal logically or rationally with the Chicago police; that they were the most belligerent and uncompromising and unthinking law enforcement agency which the demonstrators would face, and that there was no hope of avoiding a confrontation with the Chicago police.

MR. FORAN: Calling your attention to August 24 in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park.

MR. FORAN: What was going on there?

THE WITNESS: There was snake dance training going on, and another group which was practicing karate techniques.

MR. FORAN: Did you see any of the defendants directing those snake dances and those karate techniques, participating in them?

MR. KUNSTLER: Objection, leading.

THE COURT: I don't believe it is leading in view of the witness' preceding answer. I overrule the objection. You may answer, sir.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hoffman was leading one of those groups.

MR. FORAN: While you were in Lincoln Park that afternoon, did you participate in a conversation with one of the defendants?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. Hayden.

MR. FORAN: Was anyone else present at that conversation?

THE WITNESS: Dave Baker.

MR. FORAN: Would you state what occurred, and what was said?

THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Baker and I were standing about three feet apart. We were looking east, and Mr. Hayden was standing about four feet in front of us, and the three of us were looking at a group of people who were practicing self-defense tactics which were to be used against the Chicago police.
Mr. Hayden turned his head from looking at the people who were practicing---

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I object to that portion, "which would be used against the Chicago police."
I don't think there is anything at this point that indicates this witness was told who these were to be used against.

THE COURT: Overruled. I overrule the objection.

MR. FORAN: Go ahead, Mr. Oklepek.

THE WITNESS: He turned his head from watching these people who were practicing these tactics and said to Mr. Baker, "Let's not mess around with this. Let's just go and get them."

MR. FORAN: Do you recall any further conversation at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Hoffman was addressing a group of people who had been practicing snake dancing. He said that groups of people in the snake dance formations in different formations could be used to distract police in the event that police tried to arrest a large group of people.
He spoke about guerrilla theatre tactics. That is, spontaneous demonstrations which could occur at a moment's notice, and said that in the event that demonstrators had inspiration to do one of these things, they should immediately get together in a group and position themselves logistically in order to confront whatever situation they were in.

MR. FORAN: Now do you recall any further conversation on that day by any of the defendants?

THE WITNESS: I remember a statement made by Mr. Hayden. I remember a conversation that to the best of my recollection took place on that day.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is no foundation for where or when to this question and I object to it on that basis.

MR. FORAN: To the best of his recollection it was on this day in Lincoln Park. He is not certain it was that day and there is nothing I can do about changing that, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may answer, sir.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hayden made the statement. He said we should have an army and get guns.

MR. FORAN: Will you indicate where you were on August 28 at 7:30 p.m.

THE WITNESS: I was on the west side of Michigan Avenue, in the doorway of the building directly adjacent to the Sheraton-Blackstone Hotel.

MR. FORAN: What was going on?

THE WITNESS: Well, the crowd was very agitated. There was chanting, a great deal of movement, people in the crowd pressing to get into the intersection, pressing up toward the Hilton Hotel. They were chanting. They were very agitated. One youth was atop a traffic light here in the middle of the intersection. They were waving flags, chanting, very agitated, very excited.

MR. FORAN: Do you remember any of the chants?

THE WITNESS: They were chanting, "Daley must go." They were chanting, "Dump the Hump." They chanted, "Hell, no, we won't go," and the other one, I believe it was, "NFL is going to win, Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh," among others, which I have forgotten.

MR. FORAN: How long did you stand there?

THE WITNESS: Well, I was moving south and north as the tear gas came and went, until about two o'clock in the morning.

MR. FORAN: Now, Mr. Oklepek, calling your attention to the next morning, August 29, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Mobilization headquarters, again.

MR. FORAN: Were any of the defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. Dellinger was present.

MR. FORAN: Did you have a conversation with him?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I asked Mr. Dellinger what sort of demonstration was to take place that afternoon in Grant Park, and he said, "A short one. We have won a moral victory and now we have to get everyone home in one piece to use it."

MR. FORAN: That is all, your Honor.
You may cross-examine.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Oklepek. would you describe your role with reference to the Mobilization as that of a paid informer?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you paid for what you did?

THE WITNESS: Not to inform, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you inform?

THE WITNESS: That was reporting---, it was not informing.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Oklepek, do you recall making a rather lengthy statement to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on October 1, 1968?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. KUNSTLER: I want to show you Defendants' 35 for identification and ask you if this is the statement which you made.

THE WITNESS: Yes, this is the statement.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were the statements that appear in Defendants' Exhibit 35 for identification true and correct at the time you signed it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they were.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am going to ask you, Mr. Oklepek, whether on the first day of October, 1968, you did not make this statement:
"On May 19, 1968, 1 was hired by Jack Mabley, Associate Editor of the Chicago American, a newspaper published in Chicago, Illinois, for the purpose of obtaining data on individuals connected with, and activities of organizations known as the Students for a Democratic Society [SDS] and the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam [NMC]. I was to obtain this data through becoming associated with these organizations, but without disclosing my connection with the Chicago American. For this work I was paid the regular starting salary of a newspaper reporter, amounting to $140 per week."
Did you make this statement?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to counsel reading from a document not in evidence.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is classic impeachment procedure.

THE COURT: I think it is neither. It is not classic and not impeachment. I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did Mr. Mabley say to you?

THE WITNESS: He said, "Would you object to infiltrating SDS and National Mobilization in order to get stories which will be pertinent to the Democratic National Convention?" or something to that effect. I said yes, I would do it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, after Mr. Mabley offered you the assignment, and you said you had no objection, what did you do to embark on it?

THE WITNESS: The first thing I believe I started doing was just walking through Old Town to a few places there where I thought from previous experience that I might meet some people who were connected with SDS.

MR. KUNSTLER: You just walked around Old Town?

THE WITNESS: I went down to SDS headquarters a few times.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was one of your assignments to infiltrate SDS with reference to the Democratic National Convention.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Mabley said I should try SDS.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, at the meeting o f August 9, 1968, 1 believe you stated on your direct examination that Mr. Davis had made some sort of remark about the viaducts in the white community on Halsted north of Garfield Boulevard.
As I recall your testimony, the remark was, "We'll put marshals on those things and they'll shoot the shit out of anyone who opens up on us."
Now at the time Mr. Davis made the remark, isn't it a fact, Mr. Oklepek, that everybody attending that meeting laughed?

THE WITNESS: Most of them did, that is true.

MR. KUNSTLER: Up to that time, August 9, 1968, had you heard any discussion from anybody in the Mobilization office about guns?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall any conversation about guns before that point, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see any guns before that time, before August 9?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you ever see any person in Mobilization wearing a gun?

THE WITNESS: Not that I could see, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: You say not that you could see. Are you saying that you saw the outlines under their coats?

THE WITNESS: I saw bulges under their coats.

MR. KUNSTLER: Oh, you saw bulges. Did you say to yourself at that time, "Those are guns?"

THE WITNESS: I said to myself at that time, "Those are bulges."

MR. KUNSTLER: "Those are bulges." Extremely accurate.
Would you just indicate for me whether at any time of your connection with Mobilization from the twenty-fourth of July until the thirtieth of August, 1968, that you ever saw a firearm on any person in the office or in any connection with Mobilization people?

THE WITNESS: Not that I could observe on their person, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it not a fact that you heard the marshals instructed on, I believe, August 13, that they were under no circumstances to carry weapons at all, because that would provoke the police?

THE WITNESS: Dave Baker did say that, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you conscious or aware during your work for Mobilization that attempts were being made to get a permit from the City of Chicago or permits to conduct demonstrations?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: He didn't make the attempts.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you hear any negotiations being carried out over the telephone or in person for permits by National Mobilization leaders?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not hear any negotiations.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was there a lot of discussion about these permits or the attempt to get them, in the office?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was.

MR. KUNSTLER: That was a pretty general subject, was it not, the attempt to obtain permits?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: In fact, didn't you state to the FBI that you were very impressed with these efforts to obtain permits?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: The form of the question is bad. I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: If you will turn to page 9 of D-35 for identification, I want to ask whether you told the FBI the following:
"At the same time I was impressed with the negotiations mentioned as being carried on by NMC leaders with officials or representatives of the city government of Chicago and the apparent efforts to be thorough and leave no avenue uncovered as regards obtaining legal authority for any specific activity being planned."
Did you say that?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor, as reading from a document not in evidence and I ask the jury be directed to disregard the question.

THE COURT: Yes. The jury is directed to disregard that question.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Oklepek, did there come any time while you were in the office working that you would look through the Mobilization files?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there were such occasions.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it not true that in doing so you found nothing whatsoever that would indicate anybody was planning any trouble at the Democratic National
Convention?

THE WITNESS: I didn't find anything that seemed to indicate anything was going to happen at the Democratic National Convention . . .

MR. KUNSTLER: Didn't the National Mobilization Committee leaders constantly stress that the purpose of the marshals, their very function, was to avoid violence, if possible?

THE WITNESS: They were to prevent demonstrators from being arrested.

MR. KUNSTLER: You are telling me that is all you ever heard was said to you or the other marshals by any leader of the National Mobilization Committee, that the sole purpose of the marshals was to prevent demonstrators from being arrested?

THE WITNESS: Yes, or to get arrested themselves to prevent such arrest of demonstrators.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, will you look at Exhibit D-50 for identification at the portion I have underlined about the purposes of the marshals.
Is that what you told the readers of Chicago Today in your bylined article?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you ever said anything contrary to what you have just told us here?

THE WITNESS: I don't believe so, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you ever tell or say anywhere that one of the purposes of the marshals was to protect the marchers from unwarranted assault from police and indigenous population? Didn't you say that?

THE WITNESS: Not that I remember.

MR. KUNSTLER: Then I take it your testimony is that you have never written or said that one of the purposes of the marshals was to protect the marchers from assaults by police and indigenous population?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now you were present, were you not, in the vicinity of Grant Park on August 28, 1968?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.

MR. KUNSTLER: During that time, did you see or smell the use of tear gas?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: During that time, did you see policemen clubbing demonstrators?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: During that time, did you see them clubbing women and children?

THE WITNESS: I did not see them clubbing children.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. Did you see them clubbing women?

THE WITNESS: That is difficult to answer yes or no. When two people are striking each other at close quarters, who was clubbing who?

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see women with clubs?

THE WITNESS: I saw women using implements as clubs, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: And you never saw a policeman throw or club a woman to the street, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see them club men to the street?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see people lying on the ground, demonstrators?

THE WITNESS: I saw people lying on the ground, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see people bleeding in the streets?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I saw people bleeding on that street.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see any policemen chasing after demonstrators, running after them?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did you see them catch up with any of the demonstrators?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see them then club the demonstrators after they caught up with them?

THE WITNESS: In some cases.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did those clubs land on heads---

THE WITNESS: In some cases.

MR. KUNSTLER: ---as you watched? And did you see blood spurt under those clubs?

THE WITNESS: When they hit their heads, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: It has a squashy sound, doesn't it, if you heard it?

MR. FORAN: Now, come on. I object.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will withdraw the question.
Did you hear the sound of a club hitting a bare head?

THE WITNESS: Four times, three or four times.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is not a very pleasant sound to hear, is it?

THE WITNESS: I suppose not, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: You suppose not. Did it ever pass or cross your mind that the marshal training program had been eminently justified by what happened?

MR. FORAN: Object.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. KUNSTLER: Before we get to the next, I want to ask you one question. Were you aware that the people in the National Mobilization office at a certain period of time, particularly somewhere between August 9 and August 20, considered you an informer? Did you come to that conclusion?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did anyone, Mr. Froines or Mr. Davis or anyone else, ever tell you that they were suspicious of your motives in being in the office?

THE WITNESS: On August 28, in the afternoon, I saw Mr. Weiner who was walking across Columbia Drive and asked him a question about the demonstration,
and he said, "What do you care, you're on their side anyway," and kept on walking.

MR. KUNSTLER: That was August 28. What about Mr. Davis, prior to that?

THE WITNESS: I do not remember.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.


Testimony of William Frapolly


MR. FORAN: Will you state your name, please?

THE WITNESS: William Frapolly.

MR. FORAN: What has been your occupation for the last two years?


THE WITNESS: I have been a student at Northeastern Illinois State College.

MR. FORAN: Have you been a member of any organizations during that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Northeastern Illinois State College Peace Council, SDS, the Chicago Peace Council, Student Mobilization, and National Mobilization.

MR. FORAN: When did you join the Students for a Democratic Society?

THE WITNESS: Late in June of 1968.

MR. FORAN: Now, during this period of time has your appearance altered any?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have grown sideburns approximately to here. My hair is exceedingly long, I have grown a goatee, and I have grown a mustache.

MR. FORAN: Now, during this period of time have you been otherwise employed?

THE WITNESS: Yes, as a member of the Chicago Police Department.

MR. FORAN: When did you first join the Chicago Police Department?'

THE WITNESS: I first joined the Chicago Police Department in June of 1966.

MR. FORAN: What is your rank now, sir?

THE WITNESS: I am a patrolman.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to July 16, 1968, in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: On July 16 1 attended a meeting at Northeastern Illinois State College.

MR. FORAN: What, if anything, occurred?

THE WITNESS: I filled out a form from the National Mobilization Committee stating I would like to be a marshal for the Democratic National Convention.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to Friday, August 9, 1968, in the morning, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I went to National Mobilization Committee headquarters. I walked in, I asked someone where the marshals' meeting was. They directed me to the room on the west end of the building.

MR. FORAN: Do you remember any of the people who were in that room?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Rennie Davis was there, David Dellinger, Lee Weiner, Richard Bosciano, Ben Radford, Robert Karlock, Ken Friedman, Dwayne Oklepek, Irv Bock, and there were many other people there.

MR. FORAN: Now you named Rennie Davis. Do you see Mr. Davis here in the courtroom?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: Please step down, Mr. Witness, and point to the man you think is.

MR. FORAN: Walk over toward him, Mr. Witness.

A DEFENDANT: Oink oink.(Witness identifies defendants and returns to stand.)

MR. FORAN: Now as you entered the meeting, what was being said, if anything, and by whom?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Davis was talking about the march routes on the twenty-eighth. He was saying that they had two plans to march on that night to the Amphitheatre. The first plan was to assemble in Washington Park and then to move west from Washington Park to Halsted and then north on Halsted to the Amphitheatre.
He said he had an alternative, to mass somewhere else in that general area and use the same approximate route to the Amphitheatre. After that he asked for other suggestions.
I suggested the IIT parking lot at 35th and State and I said there would be enough room to mass the large number of people they said would come.
Someone pointed out there was an overpass we would have to walk through and it might be dangerous. Mr. Davis made a comment at that and then I modified that plan and said, "Well, we could mass at Comiskey Park that night."

MR. FORAN: Did anyone make any response to that suggestion?

THE WITNESS: Yes. There was somebody in the room---I think it was Irv Bock, he said the Sox were playing a night game so we couldn't use that area.
After that Mr. Davis began to talk about other things that would happen during the convention.

MR. FORAN: Go ahead. What did he say?

THE WITNESS: He said on the twenty-seventh there would be many small demonstrations throughout the city. He said the purpose of these was to stretch the police force out. He suggested that in one area we could have a nonviolent demonstration and in another area we could have a very militant demonstration, and this would keep the police busy all day. And he also mentioned having a mill-in on Tuesday and Wednesday.

MR. FORAN: Did he describe what a mill-in was?

THE WITNESS: He said a mill-in would be to get anywhere from fifty to a hundred thousand people into the Loop, and then these people would go through the Loop and they would try and disrupt it.  He said, "We would block cars driving down the street, we would block people coming and going out of buildings, we would stop people from walking down the street. We would run through stores.  We would smash windows and generally try and shut the Loop down."

MR. FORAN: All right. Go ahead. What else was said?

THE WITNESS: He talked about a rock festival that was planned on the twenty-fifth. He said, "We are going to invite the McCarthy kids, the young delegates and children of prominent people that would be here for the Convention." He said "We would lure them here with music and sex." Then he said, "We will keep the people there after eleven o'clock because we will keep the bands going."

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to August 15 in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park.

MR. FORAN: Were any of the defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis was present and Tom Hayden was present.

MR. FORAN: Do you remember any other persons that were present other than Mr. Davis and Mr. Hayden?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Ben Radford was there, Dwayne Oklepek, I was, of course, there, Dave Baker was there. I think there were five of us there. Irv Bock was there.

MR. FORAN: What occurred?

THE WITNESS: Ben Radford said to Davis, "I saw one of those jeeps and it looked like they are going to string out barbed wire in front of us." Davis said, "Is there any way we can stop it?" And I said, "Yes, we could set up a grappling hook and a rope and throw it into the wire and that would snap it." Mr. Davis said, "That's a good idea. We'll use it if they use the jeeps." Then we formed up in a snake dance practice and began to snake dance.

MR. FORAN: What occurred after that?

THE WITNESS: Well, a man from CBS asked if he could photograph the snake dance. Davis said, "Well, there aren't too many of us here today and we just started practicing and we aren't in that good shape, so if you come back next week when we have more people, it will be more impressive when we have practiced it and you can have the exclusive rights to film it."

MR. FORAN: What did you do then?

THE WITNESS: I drove a few people down to Mobilization.

MR. FORAN: What occurred when you arrived?

THE WITNESS: We sat around for a minute or two and then Davis said, "Well, we are going to start the meeting now."

MR. FORAN: Were any of the defendants present at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Davis and Hayden. Dave Baker was there, and Richard Bosciano.

MR. FORAN: Was there a conversation at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. Mr. Davis made a comment that we should have a different attitude toward police than troops. Mr. Davis said the Federal troops from Fort Bragg will be brought in and that we should be very nice to these people, we shouldn't harass them or provoke them, we should just try and organize them, show them that they are doing the wrong thing.
Then he said the second group would be the National Guard. He said the National Guard is only---well, he said, "They are only a bunch of fucking draft-dodgers anyway," and that we shouldn't provoke them that much, we should talk to them and try to get them to join our side.
He said the last groups would be the Chicago police. He said, "We all know what bastards they are anyway, and that we can't avoid a confrontation with them, so we are going to harass them. provoke them, and we are going to keep this up through the whole Convention, and that should be our attitude toward the police, we should do it whenever we get a chance."

MR. FORAN: Calling your attention to Saturday, August 17, in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Grant Park that afternoon.

MR. FORAN: Would you name some of the persons who were present?

THE WITNESS: John Froines was there, Tom Hayden, Ben Radford, a person by the name of Shaughnessy from the Chicago area draft resisters.

MR. FORAN: Was there a conversation at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. Radford said it was going to be rough going on the march on the twenty-eighth. He said, "We'll be going through many hostile areas, and even if we had a permit, we'd have a problem marching through there.
Hayden said, "That's true, and we might not even have a march that day, but no matter what happens, we're going to have a vigil at the Aniphitheatre that night."
He said that the vigil people should bring enough food and water to last for five or six hours, and that we'd wait there until the candidate was nominated and then we'd use a snake dance to leave that area.

MR. FORAN: Do you recall anything else being said?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Someone suggested to Mr. Hayden that if we don't have the march, we could have a mill-in.
Hayden said, "We're going to think about that. It's a good suggestion. We'll get all the people we could, upwards to a hundred thousand people, and go through the Loop, run into stores, keep people from coming out of their office buildings to go home, stop cars on the street, stop people from walking down the street, and even break windows."

MR. FORAN: Do you recall anything further being said at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection, I don't.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to the twentieth of August, 1968, in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: 'Well, I walked into Lincoln Park, and there were people standing around, and a small marshals' meeting happened that day. John Froines and Lee Weiner
were there.

MR. FORAN: Now, what was said, Mr. Witness?

THE WITNESS: Well, at this meeting Lee Weiner said that we were going to have the march on the twenty-eighth, and we are going to work on the march route. He said that we'd have communications set up between marshals and that we'd have scouts out ahead of the marshals that would relay information back. He said that the marshals would probably wear helmets. Everyone in the group agreed that they should. Then Terry Gross said, "Also, we're going to have flares, and we're going to have those lighted." He said these could be used as a weapon to keep anyone away from the marchers.  Someone said---I think it was John Froines---he said they'd burn at about 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit and would be very effective in keeping anyone away from the marchers. Everyone liked the idea.

MR. FORAN: Now, what occurred then?

THE WITNESS: Well, this meeting broke up, and about ten minutes later we went into another meeting.

MR. FORAN: Were any of the defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Weiner and Froines were at this meeting. So was Abbie Hoffman.

MR. FORAN: Do you see Mr. Hoff man here in the courtroom.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. FORAN: Would you step down and point him out, please.

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hoffman is sitting with the leather vest on, the shirt-he just shot me with his finger. His hair is very unkempt.
Lee Weiner talked about the march on the twenty-eighth. He said that people should get in shape for it and they should practice the snake dance.
After that, Abbie Hoffman was telling everyone that he had gotten a book from one of the news companies that was here that listed all the delegates' hotel numbers, the hotels they were staying in and their room numbers, and he said he was going to pass this out, he was going to mimeograph it so that everybody could have a copy of it and that if people wanted to harass a delegate, they could go there at night or three or four in the morning and harass that person. He said that it was a good thing that everybody should have it so they could go around and find the delegates.

THE COURT: Mr. Foran, I think we have reached a point where we will recess for the morning session.(jury excused)(court in recess)(jury enters)

THE COURT: You may continue, sir, with the witness.

ABBIE HOFFMAN: There are around fourteen marshals.

MR. RUBIN: Military state.

MR. KUNSTLER: We have an army of marshals here in the back of the room, and I think that is not necessary and gives an aura to this trial which it shouldn't have.
Look at them, your Honor. You can see one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight men there.

THE COURT: I think, if you don't mind, the marshals will look after security in this courtroom.

MR. KUNSTLER: I know, but the jury sees this, your Honor. It gives a false impression to the jury.

THE COURT: Yes. Yes, they do. The jury heard what went on this morning also. I can't help that.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to all the statements made by Mr. Kunstler as improper.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection, and I wish you would proceed with the direct examination of this witness which I directed earlier.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to Monday, the twenty-sixth of August, in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park, just south of the fieldhouse.

MR. FORAN: Were you alone, or were you with someone?

THE WITNESS: No, I was with John Froines and Lee Weiner, and there were other people I don't recall.

MR. FORAN: Now, was there a conversation at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. John Froines said, "The marshals acted as better street fighters than they did controlling the crowd. Last night showed that we can fight in the street." Froines said people should break into small groups and that these groups should be violent and that people should tonight leave the park and run into Old Town, disable cars and smash windows. Everyone in the group agreed with this, and they called these groups affinity groups.

MR. FORAN: Now, what happened then?

THE WITNESS: Well, during the conversation Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal approached the group. Hayden said, "I'm going to be arrested," and then two officers
in plainclothes came up and arrested him. They also arrested Wolfe Lowenthal.

MR. FORAN: Then what happened?

THE WITNESS: I saw John Froines yelling at a police officer. Someone in the group said that the Legal Defense Committee should be called, and myself and Rowan Berman placed a call to the Legal Defense Committee.
MR. FORAN: All right. Now, calling your attention to late that night, near midnight, where were you?

THE WITNESS: Myself and two other people were walking out of the Conrad Hilton, and as we were walking out, the doorman was talking to Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, and two other people.

MR. FORAN: What was the conversation?

THE WITNESS: The doorman said they couldn't enter the hotel, and either Davis or Hayden said, "Well, we are going to go visit some friends in a room."
The doorman said, "I'm sorry, I can't let you in."
At this point a Chicago police officer in uniform came over and asked what the problem was.
The doorman said he couldn't let these people in. The police officer asked Davis and Hayden to move away from the door.

MR. FORAN: Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: We walked out to Balbo and then walked east on Balbo to the corner which is Michigan Avenue. Then we crossed Balbo walking north.

MR. FORAN: What occurred when you were crossing the street, if anything?

THE WITNESS: When we were crossing the street, Davis and Hayden were behind me. I heard a shout and I turned around and Hayden was facing a police officer in plainclothes.

MR. FORAN: And what occurred?

THE WITNESS: After that Hayden was walking away, the police officer grabbed him and Hayden went limp and fell to the ground.

MR. FORAN: And what happened then?

THE WITNESS: He tried to roll away and the officer restrained him.  Davis said, "Look what they're doing to Tom. Let's do something about it."

MR. FORAN: And what, if anything, occurred?

THE WITNESS: I remember the person next to me taking about two steps forward and there were some Chicago police officers there and they pushed him back along with the rest of the group and moved us north on Michigan.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to the evening of the next day, Tuesday, August 27, where were you on that day?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park also that day. There was a Free Huey rally going on.

MR. FORAN: How many people were attending that particular rally?

THE WITNESS: I would say a thousand or two thousand people.

MR. FORAN: Did you recognize any of the speakers?

THE WITNESS: I heard Jerry Rubin give a speech, Phil Ochs sang and then a person who identified himself as Bobby Seale spoke.

MR. SEALE: I object to that because my lawyer is not here. I have been denied my right to defend myself in this courtroom. I object to this man's testimony against me because I have not been allowed my constitutional rights.

THE COURT: I repeat to you, sir, you have a lawyer. Your lawyer is Mr. Kunstler, who represented to the Court that he represents you.

MR. SEALE: He does not represent me.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I will excuse you. (jury excused)

THE COURT: Now you just keep on this way and---

MR. SEALE: Keep on what? Keep on what?

THE COURT: Just sit down.

MR. SEALE: Keep on what? Keep on getting denied my constitutional rights?

THE COURT: Will you be quiet?

MR. SEALE: Now I still object. I object because you know it is wrong. You denied me my right to defend myself. You think black people don't have a mind. Well, we got big minds, good minds, and we know how to come forth with constitutional rights, the socalled constitutional rights. I am not going to be quiet. I am talking in behalf of my constitutional rights, man, in behalf of myself, that's my constitutional right to talk in behalf of my constitutional rights.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury, Mr. Marshal.

MR. SEALE: I still object to that man testifying against me without my lawyer being here, without me having a right to defend myself.
Black people ain't supposed to have a mind? That's what you think. We got a body and a mind. I wonder, did you lose yours in the Superman syndrome comic book stories? You must have to deny us our constitutional rights.

THE COURT: Are you getting all of this, Miss Reporter?

MR. SEALE: I hope she gets it all.(jury enters)

THE COURT: I note that your counsel has remained quiet during your dissertation.

MR. SEALE: You know what? I have no counsel here. I fired that lawyer before that jury heard anything and you know it. That jury hasn't heard all of the motions you denied behind the scenes. How you tricked that juror out of that stand there by threatening her with that jive letter that you know darned well I didn't send, which is a lie. And they blame me every time they are being kept from their loved ones and their homes. They blame me every time they come in the room. And I never sent those letters, you know it.

THE COURT: Please continue with the direct examination.

MR. FORAN: Now, later on that evening, about ten o'clock, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park.

MR. FORAN: Now what were you doing there?

THE WITNESS: When I first arrived in Lincoln Park, I was walking through the crowd. I came upon John Froines, Marilyn Katz, Terry Gross and another person. Marilyn Katz showed us a group of guerrilla nails she had.

MR. FORAN: Would you describe them?

MR. WEINGLASS: If Your Honor please, I am going to have to object at this point. The prosecution is attempting to bring into this case what the prosecution attempted to bring into the case in United States vs. Benjamin Spock.*
What I am referring to is they are trying to bring into this case conduct and statements of third persons who are not here in court and cannot defend themselves and arc not here for purposes of cross-examination.
What the government is attempting to do now is to show Mr. Froines' intent to be part of an illicit conspiracy by introducing evidence of what a third person has done or said and that the Government cannot do. I object to it.

THE COURT: Mr. Foran.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, of course Mr. Weinglass misstates the Spock case. The Spock case didn't have anything at all to do with statements made by persons in the presence of the defendant. In one instance the defendant is present-that is in this instance; in the Spock case the defendant was not present. It is a clear distinction in the law. The case is clearly not applicable to this evidence.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I repeat what I read from the Spock case?

THE COURT: Don't repeat. Don't repeat. I listened to you very carefully.
Mr. Weinglass, your objection is not well taken, sir. The objection will be overruled.

MR. FORAN: Would you describe what guerrilla nails are?

THE WITNESS: She had two types, One was a cluster of nails that were sharpened at both ends, and they were fastened in the center. It looked like they were welded or soldered. She said these were good for throwing or putting underneath tires.
She showed another set that was the same type of nails sharpened at both ends, but they were put through styrofoam cylinder. There was a weight put through the middle of it which was another nail, and they were all put together through the styrofoam with something that looked like liquid solder.

MR. FORAN: To whom was she showing these objects?

THE WITNESS: Showing them to everyone in the group, including John Froines.
MR. FORAN: Was anything further said at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines said he liked both of them and that he wondered if we could get some more.

MR. FORAN: Now, I will call vour attention to the next morning, Wednesday morning, the twenty-eighth of August. Where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was at 407 South Dearborn, National MOBE headquarters.

MR. FORAN: Would you name some of the people that were there?

THE WITNESS: Well, there was John Froines and Lee Weiner, Marilyn Katz, myself. Let's see, David Dellinger was there. Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis. There were other people I don't remember their names.

MR. FORAN: All right. What was said and by whom?

THE WITNESS: Well, the meeting started off with Davis saying, "We're going to have a rally today, and we need some speakers for it." He said, "I've been thinking about having some of the people that were injured speak, and we could get them up and have them talk about how their injuries happened."
Hayden didn't like this idea. He said, "in a revolution you expect injuries, and those injuries aren't supposed to be displayed. The injured people shouldn't be displayed. They should be accepted, and the struggle should go on."
Davis after that said, "Well OK, Tom. We won't do it. But how about you speaking?"
Hayden said, "Yeah, I'll speak."
People were throwing out names. I remember somebody saving to let Jerry Rubin speak because he gave a good speech on Tuesday night. They also said Tom Neumann from New York was a very violent speaker.
Then Dellinger made a comment. He said, "It looks like we're not going to have the march to the Amphitheatre today," and he said, "We should have a march anyway, and we know it's not going to make it, but we should try it anyway." He said they could use the march as a diversion to get people out of Lincoln Park.

MR. FORAN: Out of which park?

THE WITNESS: Out of Grant Park, I'm sorry.

MR. FORAN: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Davis said, "That's a good idea. We can have your march start, and we'll use that as a diversion. We'll only get about a hundred people to go to that. Then we can pull people out of Grant Park and we can either have a rally across from the Hilton or we can just go into the Loop and have the mill-in."

MR. FORAN: Then did you talk to anyone further at the meeting?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I had a conversation with John Froines.

MR. DELLINGER: Mr. Foran, do you believe one word of that?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, may the record show the comment from the defendant Dellinger, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Dellinger has made several comments from time to time. The record may indeed show--

MR. DELLINGER: I asked Mr. Foran if he could possibly believe one word of that. I don't believe the witness believes it. I don't believe Mr. Foran believes it.

THE COURT: And continue to take his words. I admonish you, sir, not to interrupt this trial by your conversation or your remarks. You have a very competent lawyer representing you. You are not permitted to speak while he represents you.

MR. FORAN: Would you state the conversation that you had with Mr. Froines.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I said, "John, I saw you out in the street last night near Wells and Eugene."
He said, "Yeah, I was out there."
And I said, "You were doing pretty good."
And he said, "Yeah, we hit a couple of cops' cars."
Then he said, "You know, the marshals are better street fighters than they are at controlling the crowd. It really worked out nice."

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to the next day, Thursday, August 29, in the afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was at Grant Park, sitting on the grass, across the street from the Conrad Hilton.

MR. FORAN: Did you see anyone that you knew?

THE WITNESS: Well, in that area I saw Hayden and Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, Craig Shimabukuro, and many other people there.

MR. FORAN: Did you have a conversation with any of them?

THE WITNESS: I had a conversation with Lee Weiner and John Froines.

MR. FORAN: What was said, Mr. Frapolly?

THE WITNESS: Well, John Froines was talking about how he had purchased butyric acid and that he used the butyric acid in hotels and restaurants the night before. He said it really cleared out some of the restaurants. He said butyric acid smells like vomit.
Then Shimabukuro asked Weiner if I was all right, and Weiner said yes. Then Shimabukuro proceeded to tell me about some plans that were being set up for that night. He said I was to meet in the middle level of the Grant Park garage and that I wasn't supposed to bring anybody with me or tell anybody about what we were going to do. We were supposed to meet there about 7:30 and that we were going to fire bomb it. He said that the materials needed would be bought by someone and that I should be there at 7:30.

MR. FORAN: Now, do you recall anything else being said at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines said he had four cans of gasoline and that he didn't know exactly how he was going to use them. He said he would either use the gasoline tonight or use the butyric acid.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to the next day, Friday, August 30, where were you?

THE WITNESS: Friday, August 30, I was in Downers Grove,. Illinois. There was a farm that National Mobilization was having a picnic at that day.

MR. FORAN: Who were some of the people that were there? Would you name them?

THE WITNESS: Well, Davis and Hayden, Froines, Weiner, Vernon Grizzard, I think Richard Bosciano was there, Irv Bock.

MR. FORAN: Was there a conversation at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was. John Froines said, "Did anybody see the article in the Tribune this morning?" And he said, "There's got to be a spy in here." He said, "They know too much about what's going on," and he said he had given some butyric acid to some girls the night before and that they got caught, and he said, "That spy's got to be real high tip in National Mobilization, and if I get my hands on him, I'll fix him." Lee Weiner said when he had gotten to the underground garage that night, he was walking down there, and he said he saw some men---he said they were police---questioning Craig Shimabukuro, and when he saw this, he left. He said he didn't know if Shimabukuro was arrested or on his way back to California or where, because no one had seen him that day.
Then Froines started talking about how he purchased the butyric acid. He said he went to Walgreen's, and as he was in Walgreen's he was smelling hair remover. He said here was a brand his mother used when he was a kid, and it was very foul smelling, and after about 15 minutes in Walgreen's smelling all different brands of hair remover, the saleslady became rather suspicious, and Froines left. Then he said he got the idea to use butyric acid.
He said he went to Central Scientific, and when he bought the acid he had to show three different types of identification, and he had to sign a receipt for it. Then he went and got containers for it, and then he said he gave the acid to the girls to use on the night before, and he said they got a kick out of using it.
After that, Froines talked about setting up an underground chemist network. He says there has to be a need for a biochemist in the movement, and then he started talking about how tear gas was made. He said they could get together and they could have the formulas for making tear gas, Molotov cocktails, Mace, and other devices. He thought it was a very good idea.

MR. FORAN: Do you recall anything else being said at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: No, I think my recollection is exhausted.

MR. FORAN: That's all, your Honor.


TESTIMONY OF IRWIN BOCK



MR. SCHULTZ: Please state your name.

THE WITNESS: Irwin Bock.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your occupation, please.

THE WITNESS: Chicago police officer.

MR. SCHULTZ: Where are you presently assigned?

THE WITNESS: I am assigned to the subversive unit.

MR. SCHULTZ: Have you ever worn a Chicago police uniform?

THE WITNESS: No sir, I have not.

MR. SCHULTZ: Since becoming a Chicago policeman, have you joined any organizations?


THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. I joined the Veterans for Peace here in Chicago. I am at present a member of the executive committee of that organization. I am on the executive board of the Chicago Peace Council.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Bock, are you or have you been since you became a member of the Chicago Police Department a member of any other organization?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I am at present on the steering committee of the New Mobilization.

MR. SCHULTZ: While a member of these organizations that you have just related to the Court and to the jury, were you in your undercover capacity as a Chicago police officer?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was..

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall, Mr. Bock, the next time you saw the defendant Rennie Davis?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, three days later, on August 4, at a meeting at the Moraine Hotel in Highland Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were any other defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Dave Dellinger and Tom Hayden. Dave Dellinger spoke first at the meeting. He welcomed the people. He said that "a lot of you have come from the far ends of the country. We haven't come here to disrupt the Democratic Convention, nor have we come here to support any candidate to that convention." He then introduced Rennie Davis as the coordinator of the actions for Chicago.
Davis said to the people that on August 24 movement centers would open up throughout the Chicago area. He said on the following day, August 25, that there would be a huge picket held in the Loop area. He said that we would test the police on this day to see what reaction they would have toward the demonstrators, to see whether or not they took a hard stand or a soft stand. Davis said that on August 29 a rally would be held in the Grant Park area at the Bandshell and from this rally a mill-in would take place in the Loop.  The mill-in would be set up so that it would close down such places as banks, draft boards, Federal buildings, police headquarters. Davis said the Loop would be closed on that day.

MR. SCHULTZ: After Davis finished speaking, what, if anything occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Dave Dellinger adjourned the meeting or the morning session and said we should have lunch. The majority of the people left the meeting hall in the hotel and went toward the beach area.

MR. SCHULTZ: Specifically where on the beach area did you go with your lunch?

THE WITNESS: I joined a group of people close to where Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden were standing.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you have occasion to overbear anything that the defendants Davis and Hayden were saying?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Rennie Davis said that the demonstrators could use the snake dance as they do in Japan to break police lines. Tom Hayden replied to Davis and said, "Yes, we can do that," or "That's great, but the demonstrators need something else to use against the police." He said, "We have the formula for Mace and if we place this in the squirt-tvpe bottle such as a Windex bottle or an atomizer-type bottle, the demonstrators then could use that against the police."

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you hear any more of the conversation?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Bock, when is the next time you saw either Davis, Dellinger, or Hayden?

THE WITNESS: That was August 9. Rennie Davis was at the National Mobilization office, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, and Lee Weiner, a David Baker-I believe Steve Buff and Richard Bosciano were also present, and there were about ten other people.

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall anybody else being present at that meeting, any other defendants?

THE WITNESS: A John Froines was present also.

MR. FROINES: Why didn't he say Dellinger?

MR. SCHULTZ: Do you recall if any other defendant was present?

THE WITNESS: Dave Dellinger was also at that meeting.

THE WITNESS: Hayden said that he, Rennie Davis, and Abbie Hoffman had been making plans for diversionary tactics to take place while the main march was going to the Amphitheatre. These diversionary tactics were the breaking of windows, pulling of fire alarm boxes, the setting of small fires, and that they had two purposes, Davis said the first purpose was to divide the police in such a way that it would take the entire police force to either watch the demonstrators or put down the disturbances.
He said that this would necessitate the calling of the police away from the Amphitheatre and would allow the demonstrators to go to the Amphitheatre and confront the war makers.
Tom Hayden said that if the South and West Sides would rise Lip as they did in the April riots in Chicago here, the city would have a lot of trouble on their hands. Abbie Hoffman turned to Hayden and said, "it would be like another Chicago Fire." Davis then introduced a David Baker, who he said had been active during the Detroit riots in a militant capacity. He said that Baker's group Would be coming to Chicago to aid in the training of the National Mobilization marshals.
Abbie Hoffman said that the Yippies would aid in the diversionary tactics on August 28 and that he wanted the National Mobilization marshals to aid the Yippies on August 25 in defense of Lincoln Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Bock, calling your attention to August 13, 1968, in the early afternoon, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I do. I was at the south end of Lincoln Park near the field house.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you see any of the defendants there at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did. Rennie Davis, Tom Hayden, and Lee Weiner.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you observe anything occur in the presence of the defendants Hayden, Davis and Weiner and in the presence of yourself?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. David Baker instructed the people present in the snake dance.

MR. SCHULTZ: What, if anything, occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: The people practiced the snake dance as Baker had instructed it and Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis and Lee Weiner took part in that practice both as a demonstrator and in a leadership role in the snake dance.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you take part in the snake dance?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling your attention to Wednesday, August 21, in the early afternoon, with what defendant or defendants did you have a conversation?

THE WITNESS: I talked with Lee Weiner. Weiner told me of a marshals' meeting that was to take place at the offices of the National Mobilization at four o'clock that afternoon.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you go to that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Who was present at the meeting?

THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, and about fifteen marshals that were to participate during the Democratic Convention.

MR. SCHULTZ: Was there a conversation at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis said, "We have several alternatives that we can do on August 28 in relation to the march that had been announced."
He said, "First of all we could have the march as we had announced."
He said, "Secondly, we could have a rally take place in the Grant Park area, with a confrontation.
"The last alternative is to hold a rally and then take over some buildings in the Loop area."
He said, "This could be accomplished by giving speeches during the time of that rally to incite the crowd for such a takeover." He illustrated a takeover such as the one that took place at Columbia, physically blocking the entrances and exits so no one could enter or leave. He said, "The people would be arrested in such a situation rather than just merely dispersed."
He then suggested three buildings for possible discussion. One was the Federal Building, one was the Pick-Congress and the other was the Conrad Hilton.
Lee Weiner said at this point that this was too important to discuss here and that we ought to discuss this at his apartment later that evening.

MR. SCHULTZ: You say Weiner said this?

THE WITNESS: I beg your pardon, it was John Froines.

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, I would ask the Court again if he would direct the marshals to direct the defendants and their lawyers to stop laughing out loud as they just did. Mr. Kunstler was probably more guilty of it than any of the defendants.

THE COURT: I direct the marshal to go over there to the defendants' table and request them as we have done repeatedly in the past not to laugh loudly during this trial. This is a trial in the United States District Court. It is not a vaudeville theatre.

MR. KUNSTLER: But, your Honor, we are human beings, too. You can't make automatons out of us, or robots; we are human beings and we laugh occasionally, and if it comes irrepressibly, I don't really see how that really becomes a court matter.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Kunstler is laughing so he can influence the jury with the impression that this is absurd. That is why he is laughing aloud because he--
If Mr. Dellinger would stop talking when we are addressing the Court

MR. DELLINGER: I am trying to tell something to my lawyer. It is absurd. It is--he is a vaudeville actor.

THE COURT: You have made your observation, Sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: May I proceed, your Honor?
After that meeting at the offices of the National Mobilization Committee, where did you go, please?

THE WITNESS: We adjourned the meeting and I went to eat dinner.

MR. SCHULTZ: After you ate dinner, where did you go?

THE WITNESS: I met John Froines, Richard Bosciano, and Steve Buff and drove them out to the meeting.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Bock, please relate the conversation that occurred that evening.

THE WITNESS: Lee Weiner said that we should have a march anyway without a permit since this would provoke an arrest situation. He said he could see the headlines the next day saying "100,000 Demonstrators Arrested Confronting the Democratic Convention."
He said, however, he favored Rennie Davis' last point personally. He said there could be a rally held in Grant Park at the Bandshell, speeches could be given to incite the crowd on the takeover of a building in the Loop area.
He said that the Conrad Hilton would be the best building--for various reasons.
He said that because of the size of the Conrad Hilton, it would be better only if we took over one floor of the Hilton, and he said the fifteenth floor would be best.
Lee Weiner said we probably would get help from within.
John Froines said that such a takeover would be like Columbia, the physical stopping of anybody coming or going in that building. He said it would receive the necessary publicity since the cameras and the press and TV were already situated there.
He said that he and Lee Weiner would report to Rennie Davis the following day the decision of the marshals that evening. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Bock, when we finished yesterday we were at Monday night, August 26, 1968, at Lincoln Park. You were at the fieldhouse area and you saw Davis, Weiner, Froines and Rubin standing together with some other people. Would you relate what conversation occurred when you approached this group, please, at about seven o'clock on the evening of Monday, August 26?

THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis said that the people reacted well to Tom Hayden's arrest and that they stood up well to the police at the statue.
He said, "We should have a wall-to-wall sit-in in front of the Conrad Hilton. When the police come to break these people up, that they would break into small bands and go directly into the Loop causing disturbances. They could break windows, pull fire alarm boxes, stone police cars, break street lights."
Mr. Rubin then said that they ought to do these things and they ought to do one more. He said they could start fires in the Loop.
Mr. Froines then said that the demonstrators would need things to use against the police. He said that they could purchase ammonia from many stores in the city and if they placed this ammonia into small bottles or something that would break. they could throw this at the police. He said by adding soap or soap chips to the ammonia, it would prolong the effects of the ammonia on the police officers or National Guard.
Lee Weiner said that they could let the air out of tires at the stop lights or stop signs in the Loop, jam up the traffic.
A Walter Gross said that it would be faster if we just slashed the tires and then Lee Weiner agreed and said it would.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you see any of the defendants later on that night, that Monday night?

THE WITNESS: No sir, I did not.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right, now, calling your attention to the next day, which is Thursday, the twenty-ninth of August, in the morning, do you recall where you went, please?

THE WITNESS: I went across the street from the Conrad Hilton into Grant Park.

MR. SCHULTZ: And did you see any of the defendants in Grant Park when you arrived there, please?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. John Froines and Lee Weiner.

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you relate what occurred, please, on arriving with the group?

THE WITNESS: On arriving, I noticed that Wolfe Lowenthal's arm was bandaged and in a sling, and a companion of his had bandages on also. He told me that he had injured his arm last night in the street.
Weiner said we should have had some cocktails last night. Craig Shimabukuro asked Weiner whether he meant Molotov cocktails or not. He said he did. "They're easy to make. All it takes is gasoline, sand, rags, and bottles."
Weiner said a good mobile tactic would be to pick a target in the Loop area and bomb that target. He said a better diversionary tactic would be the bombing of the underground garage. "Because of the size of the underground garage, it would take an enormous amount of police to protect that area and to search it."
He said or when it was bombed, that it would also take an enormous amount of fire equipment to put any fires out down there. Weiner then asked me if I could obtain the bottles necessary to make the Molotov cocktails. I told him I would. Weiner said that he and Craig Shimabukuro would then obtain the other materials necessary to make the Molotov cocktails, and that we were to meet back in Grant Park one hour from the time we left after the meeting.
At this point. a gentleman came by with a camera, and Lee Weiner said, "That guy just took our pictures. Let's split."

MR. SCHULTZ: After this conversation was over, where did you go, please?

THE WITNESS: I went to phone mv control officer. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: And after you finished playing baseball, what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: By now a large group of people had come to the picnic and I saw Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Lee Weiner and John Froines with other people seated close to the house.

MR. SCHULTZ: Relate, please, the convention that occurred when you arrived at this group.

THE WITNESS: Just as I arrived. a man in a business suit and holding a pad asked Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden a question, "What has the National Mobilization gained from the demonstrations during the Democratic Convention?"
Rennie Davis answered first and he said that we had won America and that the American people now are on the side of the peace movement.
Tom Hayden said that this was the first step toward the revolution and that the second step would be coming soon.

MR. SCHULTZ: Then what occurred, please?

THE WITNESS: Lee Weiner said that the police had arrested Craig Shimabukuro in the underground garage last night. He said that had the police awaited five more minutes, they would have caught him with the necessary materials in his car to make the Molotov cocktails. Weiner said that there must be a police agent high in the staff of the National Mobilization.
John Froines agreed with Weiner, saying there is someone high in the staff of the National Mobilization who is a police agent. Tom Hayden said that he would like to get his hands on that s.o.b. Froines said that "I would like to get my licks in on him, too."
John Froines said the next time the National Mobilization plans anything they will have enough things to use against the police and National Guard so that he wouldn't have to use his own identification to buy the butyric acid which was used earlier that week.

MR. SCHULTZ: At that point, what, if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: I made an excuse that I had to work and left the area.

MR. SCHULTZ: No further questions on direct, your Honor.


Jesse Jackson

Having presented the People's case against Dellinger, et. al, yesterday, aka the Chicago Seven Trial, today we bring you the Defense. To wrap this up, we will present tomorrow the outcome of this fascinating trial.

Phil Ochs



TESTIMONY OF SARAH DIAMANT



MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please state your name?

THE WITNESS: Sarah Diamant.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mrs. Diamant, what is Your present occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a Teaching Fellow at Cornell University in American History, writing my doctoral dissertation.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to August of 1968, did you during that month come to the city of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: During that period of time, what if anything. did you do while you were here?

THE WITNESS: We spent almost all of our time taping and filming on the streets of Chicago any place in which we heard or saw people who were involved in some way with the convention week in Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: What was your purpose in filming these events?

THE WITNESS: To use them as research material for my doctoral dissertation.

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to Wednesday afternoon, August 28, 1968, the early afternoon, where were you?

THE WITNESS: In the early afternoon we were in the Conrad Hilton Hotel at the Hubert Humphrey hospitality headquarters.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you say "we," who was with you?

THE WITNESS: My husband Ralph Diamant and James Sheldon.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now did there come a time when you left the Conrad Hilton Hotel and the McCarthy headquarters?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we did, later in the afternoon, probably just before five o'clock. We walked north on Michigan Avenue, walked up to Congress Street to where the fountains are right near the bridge and saw quite a few people coming toward us over the bridge.

MR. WEINGLASS: And did you proceed to cross over the bridge?

THE WITNESS: No, we never crossed over it. We were onto it about the center of the bridge.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now as you got to the center of the bridge, what, if anything, occurred?

THE WITNESS: A man with his head all bandaged and bloody came toward us, and he was being helped by several other people, and there was a policeman and he was shaking his finger at the policeman. I turned on my microphone and the tape recorder and signaled my husband to start shooting.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, after you filmed this particular incident, could you see what was developing with the crowd there?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I could see over the heads of the civilians who were coming across the bridge towards me that there were Guardsmen. A line of Guardsmen with their backs toward us facing a lot of people on the bridge.

MR. WEINGLASS: What, if anything, were the Guardsmen doing with their rifles at that point?

THE WITNESS: They had them pointed towards the people on the other side.

MR. WEINGLASS: What occurred?

THE WITNESS: There was a tall noncommissioned officer in the center of the Guardsmen with a spray can in his hand and he was motioning the other men in the line to direct their rifles one way or another. They gassed the demonstrators who were facing them, and then we filmed it. He turned around and saw us standing behind him and motioned to the man next to him, who had a rifle with some kind of a wide nozzle on it that shot gas out, and turned and gassed us.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then what did you do after you were gassed?

THE WITNESS: We turned around and went west, off the bridge. As we came off the end of the bridge, a man in a white jacket and a red cross on his arm and a big bottle of water met us. We were all coughing and sneezing and I had thrown up. He gave us water and wiped off our faces. We went back onto the bridge to see if we could.

MR. WEINGLASS: What, if anything, happened at this time?

THE WITNESS: There was a young man with dark hair who couldn't have been more than about twenty, twenty-one-he was talking to the line of Guardsmen with masks on their faces, and he finally got down on his knees in front of them and covered his face up with his hands, and he was gassed.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you film that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then what else did you see occur while you were standing there?

THE WITNESS: There were two other men. One of them walked up to one of the bare bayonets and pulled up his shirt, put his stomach against the bayonet, pointed at it. The third man stood confronting the bayonets with his hands on his hips. These three people were gassed. Then the tall man with the can in his hand motioned to the man at his side again, and we were gassed again, and moved back down again west on the bridge to the water fountain and splashed our faces.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, after you left the bridge where did you go?

THE WITNESS: Down toward the park opposite the Conrad Hilton Hotel. It was very early evening, dusk.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you got down to the park across from the hotel what did you and your group do?

THE WITNESS: We saw a large number of people congregating in the street and two covered wagons coming down Michigan Avenue.  We followed them to the southern end of the Conrad Hilton Hotel on Michigan Avenue. When we got to the intersection there was a line of police in the street, and we just couldn't go any further, so we went back again to the park, to the griss opposite the Conrad Hilton Hotel.

MR. WEINGLASS: What, if anything, happened with respect to the police and the demonstrators?

THE WITNESS: There was a kind of disorganized movement on the part of the police to push the demonstrators even farther back, and they did retreat, and the next thing I saw was a small group of people kneeling in the center of the street about twenty feet from the first line of police. There was a priest, and a short woman with light brown hair, and a young man in a corduroy jacket.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now did you film that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. At that point I went toward them with the microphone, and the camera, and the tape recorder, and we recorded and filmed the people
kneeling in the street and asked them what they were doing there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you see if there was anything being thrown from the demonstrators toward the policemen?

THE WITNESS: No, there was nothing being thrown that I could see at that point.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did the demonstrators sing anything to the police?

THE WITNESS: They were singing "America the Beautiful" at one point.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, did you film the priest getting up and walking toward the policeman?

THE WITNESS: Yes. The young boy that was kneeling next to him got up and walked toward the police and just as they were arresting the woman who had been kneeling in the street, I heard a boy behind me shout, "Mace, Mace, Mace," and I got Maced, and Ralph grabbed me and the microphone and sort of half-carried, half-dragged me onto the sidewalk, and two young men in white jackets came over and poured a bucket of water over my head and then dried me off.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can You describe to the jury how your face and eyes felt after the Macing?

THE WITNESS: My eyes and the skin all, around the top of my face were burning. I put mv hand up because it hurt, and sort of clawed at it, and a boy took my hand away and said, "Don't touch it." I realized what he meant because the moment I put my hand on the skin and pulled it down, the burning followed my hand right down my face, and I wanted to throw up, and I couldn't. I just kept gagging.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you go back into the street?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where was the group and the crowd in the street?

THE WITNESS: They had moved back; they were moving into the intersection on Michigan and Balbo and moved back almost that far, and there was a line, a straight line of people. I got into the line facing the police.

MR. WEINGLASS: When the line moved backwards from the police, what if anything did the police do?

THE WITNESS: Then there was a sound of a siren, and some sort of truck came up from behind us, and some marshals, some mobilization marshals with bands around their arms, motioned people to move to either side of the street and to let the truck through.
As soon as everybody broke the line and parted, police motorcycles began to come to the sides of the street and force people off the sidewalk and onto the ground, knocked people into doorways. Policemen with clubs just began coming at the people in the center of the street, and we moved, and turned around and ran up Michigan, and then we turned left.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you were running, what if anything were the police doing?

THE WITNESS: They were beating people, pushing people up against the doorways of buildings. And, I mean, we couldn't get any further onto the sidewalk we were on. And there were masses of people on the sidewalk, and some people were trying to get into building and others were being beaten into doorways. And I saw a policeman coming towards me, and I motioned to him with the microphone, that I had turned it off, and the camera was behind me.  I thought he would understand I wasn't a demonstrator, and he hit me.

MR. WEINGLASS: What happened?

THE WITNESS: He hit me across the neck and shoulders.

MR. WEINGLASS: What happened to you as you were hit?

THE WITNESS: I went down, and a man, there was a man standing in the doorway where I fell, he reached down to help me up, and the policeman hit him across the bridge of his nose and knocked his glasses off.

MR. WEINGLASS: And this man who attempted to assist you and was struck himself, was he filmed?

THE WITNESS: Yes, my husband filmed him sitting there with his head in his hands and a bloody wound on his head.

MR.WEINGLASS: Now, after that occurred, after you were beaten, what happened to you?

THE WITNESS: Well, we went further west and there was a restaurant or cafeteria of some sort on the corner. We headed toward that.
By this time I was with a girl who had been helping us with the taping-she grabbed my hand as we got to the restaurant and pulled me into a newspaper kiosk. I turned around and what had happened was that a police car had stopped at the intersection and the two policemen had jumped out. One of them had grabbed a boy who was standing in front of the restaurant, and was beating him. Finally, the other policeman came and grabbed his mate and pulled him off the boy. At this point, we just ran, we just left the newspaper kiosk and ran.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Mrs. Diamant, during the entire course of these incidents which you have described, what, if anything, did you have in your hands?

THE WITNESS: I had a microphone, and I had a 16-millimeter Air Flex camera on my shoulder.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever have a stick in your hands?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever have a rock in vour hand?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever assault a police officer?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever shout an insult to a police officer?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now I show you a film marked D-145 for identification, and I ask if you can identify that film.

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, it is a film we shot in Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is that film a true and accurate depiction of those events which occurred to you that day and evening and which you have testified here that you observed?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they are.

MR. WEINGLASS: And that happened to you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: At this point, your Honor, the direct examination is completed. I offer into evidence the film marked D-145 for identification. [the film is shown to the jury with no objection. The sound track follows:]

Keep moving. Justice you call it. You have no feeling. I mean, you can call me a longhaired freak, but that isn't what it's all about.
Look at the police. call me soldier boy, I want to win. I want to win.  I want to will if can.
There's nothing worse on earth than to be hit on the top of your head real hard.
Hey, you guys. Those guns. I ask you, my friends, for your future, don't leave. Don't leave; go into the street. Everybody, this is your country, and you stay in it and work with it to make sure the ideals you believe in are tlte ideals of the majority. We need you. America's fight is coming because you're working carefully. steadily, and forever for the best interests of our country. We can't--
Walk on the sidewalk. That's all we're asking you to do. Quiet. Walk on the sidewalk.
America, America, God shed his grace on thee. This is a free country. Call Mayor Daley. I think it is a police night. America, America. Mace, Mace, Mace. Walk, walk, walk. Leave the area, get out of here. Let's stay and see what happens here.
Hey, you, fucking, blow up the whole--
Come on, man. Peace, peace, peace. America, America. Get out of here. No, no. No, no we won't go. Hell, no, we won't go. Hell, no, we won't go. Go to hell Hubert. Go to hell Hubert. Go to hell Hubert. Walk, walk, walk, walk, walk, walk, walk. Hey. we want to stay. Hey, hey, we want to stay.
The next time anyone talks to you about law and order, I think you might suggest that the Democratic Party was the first party that ever managed to lose an election by law and order. That is what they show, tonight (applause). What they show tonight is such contempt inside and outside for the rights of American citizens that they have shone they are not fit to govern this country.
This is the Army down here. Isn't it wonderful to be in a free country where we can speak in front of bayonets (cheers). But these people don't care, no.
We walk down here to let you know, to let other delegates know, and to let the world know that the streets belong to the people (applause).

December 11, 1969

THE COURT: Do you have cross-examination?

MR. FORAN: Yes, your Honor, I do. Mrs. Diamant, did you see any rocks, or bottles, or sticks being thrown from the crowd over there in Grant Park at the police line?

THE WITNESS: No, no.

MR. FORAN: Did you see anything being thrown from the crowd back here at the police line?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Did you see anything come out of the windows of the Hilton Hotel?

THE WITNESS: Toilet paper.

MR. FORAN: Did you see any ash trays or light bulbs?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Did you hear any glass breaking in the streets?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I heard glass breaking in the streets, yes. I saw the policemen put their plastic things down, you know, over their faces.

MR. FORAN: Did you see any policemen fall to the ground?

THE WITNESS: No, but I saw them sort of shifting away, the line was shifting, and they were pulling their visors down as though they were expecting trouble.

MR. FORAN: Now you remember in that film, Mrs. Diamant, and in your testimony, there were policemen who were squirting Mace?

THE WITNESS: I remember.

MR. FORAN: Did you know that that man was under indictment and was awaiting trial from the United States having--

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I object to that.

THE COURT: You mean the man he was squirting at?

MR. FORAN: No, your Honor, the man who was doing the squirting, the police officer.

THE WITNESS: That is encouraging.

MR. WEINGLASS: If this is Mr. Foran's way of confessing policemen's misconduct, he can do that in summation.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: No further questions.

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP DAVID OCHS 



MR. KUNSTLER: Will you state your full name, please?

THE WITNESS: Philip David Ochs.

MR. KUNSTLER: What is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a singer, a folksinger.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, can you indicate what kind of songs you sing?

THE WITNESS: I write all my own songs and they are just simple melodies with a lot of lyrics. They usually have to do with current events and what is going on in the news. You can call them topical songs, songs about the news, and then developing into more philosophical songs later.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, did there ever come a time when you met any of the defendants at this table?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I met Jerry Rubin in 1964 when he was organizing one of the first teach-ins against the war in Vietnam in Berkeley. He called me up. He asked me to come and sing.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now did you have any occasion after that to receive another such call from Mr. Rubin?

THE WITNESS: I met him a few times later in regard to other political actions. I met him in Washington at the march they had at the Pentagon incident, at the big rally before the Pentagon
.
MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, have you ever been associated with what is called the Youth International Party, or, as we will say, the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I helped design the party, formulate the idea of what Yippie was going to be, in the early part of 1968.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you indicate to the Court and jury what Yippie was going to be, what its purpose was for its formation?

THE WITNESS: The idea of Yippie was to be a form of theater politics, theatrically dealing with what seemed to be an increasingly absurd world and trying to deal with it in other than just on a straight moral level. They wanted to be able to act out fantasies in the street to communicate their feelings to the public.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, were any of the defendants at the table involved in the formation of the Yippies?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you just point to and identify which one is Jerry Rubin and which one is Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin with the headband and Abbie Hoffman with the smile.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you indicate in general to the Court and jury what the plans were for the Yippies in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: The plans were essentially--

MR. FORAN: I object.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, one of the central roles in this case is the Yippie participation around the Democratic National Convention.

THE COURT: I don't see that allegation in the indictment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, the indictment charges these two men with certain acts in connection with the Democratic National Convention.

THE COURT: These two men and others, but not as Yippies, so-called, but-- as individuals.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right, your Honor, I will rephrase the question. Did there come a time when Jerry and Abbie discussed their plans?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they did, around the middle of January at Jerry's. Present there, besides Abbie and Jerry, I believe, was Paul Krassner and Ed Sanders. Tim Leary was there at one point.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you tell the conversation from Jerry and Abbie, as to their plans in coming to Chicago around the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: OK. Jerry Rubin planned to have a Festival of Life during the National Convention, basically representing an alternate culture. They would theoretically sort of spoof the Convention and show the public, the media, that the Convention was not to be taken seriously because it wasn't fair, and wasn't going to be honest, and wasn't going to be a democratic convention. They discussed getting permits. They discussed flying to Chicago to talk with Mayor Daley.  They several times mentioned they wanted to avoid violence. They went out of their way on many different occasions to talk with the Mayor or anybody who could help them avoid violence--

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, do you know what guerrilla theater is?

THE WITNESS: Guerrilla theater creates theatrical metaphors for what is going on in the world outside.
For example, a guerrilla theater might do, let us say, a skit on the Viet Cong, it might act out a scene on a public street or in a public park where some actually play the Viet Cong, some actually play American soldiers, and they will dramatize an event, basically create a metaphor, an image, usually involving humor, usually involving a dramatic scene, and usually very short. This isn't a play with the theme built up. It's just short skits, essentially.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin or Abbie Hoffman ask you to do anything at any time?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: I object to it as leading and suggestive.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any discussion with Abbie and Jerry about your role?

THE WITNESS: Yes. In early February at Abbie's apartment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin said to you and what you said to them?

THE WITNESS: They discussed my singing at the Festival of Life. They asked me to contact other performers to come and sing at the Festival. I talked to Paul Simon of Simon and Garfunkel. I believe I talked with Judy Collins.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did there come a time, Mr. Ochs, when you came to Chicago in 1968?

THE WITNESS: I came campaigning for Eugene McCarthy on M-Day, which I believe was August 15, at the Lindy Opera House, I believe.

MR. KUNSTLER: After you arrived in Chicago did you have any discussion with Jerry?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We discussed the nomination of a pig for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what you said and what Jerry said.

THE WITNESS: We discussed the details. We discussed going out to the countryside around Chicago and buying a pig from a farmer and bringing him into the city for the purposes of his nominating speech.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have any role yourself in that?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I helped select the pig, and I paid for him.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you find a pig at once when you went out?

THE WITNESS: No, it was very difficult. We stopped at several farms and asked where the pigs were.

MR. KUNSTLER: None of the farmers referred you to the police station, did they?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, can you describe the pig which was finally bought?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT., I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what, if anything, happened to the pig?

THE WITNESS: The pig was arrested with seven people.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did that take place?

THE WITNESS: This took place on the morning of August 23, at the Civic Center underneath the Picasso sculpture.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who were those seven people?

THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin. Stew Albert, Wolfe Lowenthal, myself is four; I am not sure of the names of the other three.

MR. KUNSTLER: What were you doing when you were arrested?

THE WITNESS: We were arrested announcing the pig's candidacy for President.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Jerry Rubin was reading a prepared speech for the pig---the opening sentence was something like, "I, Pigasus, hereby announce my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States." He was interrupted in his talk by the police who arrested us.

MR. KUNSTLER: What was the pig doing during this announcement?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember what you were charged with?

THE WITNESS: I believe the original charge mentioned was something about an old Chicago law about bringing livestock into the city, or disturbing the peace, or disorderly conduct, and when it came time for the trial, I believe the charge was disorderly conduct.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were you informed by an officer that the pig had squealed on you?

MR. FORAN: Objection. I ask it be stricken.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. When an objection is made do not answer until the Court has ruled. . .* * * * * *

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention to Sunday, August 25, 1968. Did you have any occasion to see Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Well, ultimately I saw him at his apartment in Old Town that night.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you remember approximately what time that was?

THE WITNESS: I guess it was around, maybe, 9:30 approximately 9:30, 10:00. He was laying in bed. He said he was very ill. He was very pale. We had agreed to go to Lincoln Park that night, and so I said, "I hope You are still going to Lincoln Park." He said, "I don't know if I can make it, I seem to he very ill." I cajoled him, and I said, I said, "Come on. you're one of the Yippies. You can't not go to Lincoln Park." He said, "OK," and he got up, and he went to Lincoln Park with me, and I believe Nancy, his girlfriend, and my girlfriend Karen, the four of us walked from his apartment to Lincoln Park.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did you enter the park?

THE WITNESS: Just the outskirts, I mean we basically stood in front of the Lincoln Hotel, and walked across the street from the Lincoln Hotel and stood in the outskirts of the park.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did there come a time when people began to leave Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I guess it was around eleven o'clock at night.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you do at that time?

THE WITNESS: Continued standing there. We stood there and watched them run right at us, as a matter of fact.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who was with you at this time?

THE WITNESS: The same people I mentioned before.

MR. KUNSTLER: Had you been together continuously since You first left the apartment?

THE WITNESS: Continuously.

MR. KUNSTLER: And from the time you left the apartment to this time, did you see Jerry Rubin wearing a helmet at any time?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: By the way, how long have you known Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: I have known Jerry Rubin approximately four years.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you ever seen him smoke a cigarette?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Ochs, you said there came a time when you left the area. Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: We walked through the streets following the crowd.

MR. KUNSTLER: And can you describe what you saw as you followed the crowd?

THE WITNESS: They were just chaotic and sort of unformed, and people just continued away from the park and just seemed to move, I think toward the commercial area of Old Town where the nightclubs are and then police Clubs were there too, and it was just a flurry of movement of people all kinds of ways.

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, the witness was asked what he observed and that was not responsive to the question. If you would simply tell the witness to listen carefully to the question so he can answer the questions.

THE COURT: I did that this morning. You are a singer but you are a smart fellow, I am sure.

THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. You are a judge and you are a smart fellow.

THE COURT: I must ask you to listen carefully to the questions of the lawyer and answer the question. Answer the questions; do not go beyond them.

MR. KUNSTLER: At any time, did you see Jerry Rubin enter Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Ochs, I call your attention to sometime in the vicinity of 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, August 27. Did you see Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in Lincoln Park. He asked me to come and sing at a meeting.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know what time approximately you sang after arriving there, how long after arriving there?

THE WITNESS: Approximately a half-hour.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was anything happening in that half-hour while you were there?

THE WITNESS: Bobby Seale was speaking.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Jerry Rubin speak at all?

THE WITNESS: Yes, after I sang.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you sing a song that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, "I Ain't Marching Anymore."

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you sing at anybody's request?

THE WITNESS: At Jerry Rubin's request. .

MR. KUNSTLER: I am showing you what has been marked at D-147 for identification and I ask you if you can identify that exhibit.

THE WITNESS: This is the guitar I played "I Ain't Marching Anymore" on.

THE COURT: How can you tell? You haven't even looked at it.

THE WITNESS: It is my case.

THE COURT: Are you sure the guitar is in there?

THE WITNESS: I am checking.

MR. KUNSTLER: Open it up, Mr. Ochs, and see whether that is your guitar,

THE WITNESS: That is it, that is it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, would you stand and sing that song so the jury can hear the song that the audience heard that day?

MR. SCHULTZ: If the Court please, this is a trial in the Federal District Court. It is not a theater. We don't have to sit and listen to the witness sing a song. Let's get on with the trial. I object.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is definitely an issue in the case.  Jerry Rubin has asked for a particular song to be sung. What the witness sang to the audience reflects both on Jerry Rubin's intent and on the mood of the crowd.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, he is prepared to sing it exactly as he sang it on that day,

THE COURT: I am not prepared to listen, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you recall how long after you sang in Lincoln Park that you were somewhere else?

THE WITNESS: I arrived at the next place around seven-thirty, quarter to eight at the Coliseum.

MR. KUNSTLER: Were any of the defendants present at that time?

THE WITNESS: Abbie Hoffman was there, and I do not remember if Jerry Rubin was there.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where did you see Abbie Hoffman first that night at the Coliseum?

THE WITNESS: When he raced in front of me on the stage when I was introduced to Ed Sanders. He said, "Here's Phil Ochs," and as I walked forward, Abbie Hoffman raced in front of me and took the microphone and proceeded to give a speech. I was upstaged by Abbie Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: At the time when you first saw Abbie Hoffman there that night, can you approximate as best you can the time it was when you first saw him take the microphone?

THE WITNESS: Approximately 8:30.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.* * * * *  *MR. SCHULTZ: You were at the Bandshell, were you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: What time did you arrive at the Bandshell?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember. I'd guess it was around three or after in the afternoon.

MR. FORAN: You seem to have a little trouble with time. Do you carry a watch with you?

THE WITNESS: Just lately.

MR. FORAN: As a matter of fact, when it comes to time during that week, it is pretty much of a guess, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: I guess so.

MR. FORAN: And the time you arrived at the Coliseum it was 9:00 or 9:30, isn't that right? Or at 6:00 or 6:30?

THE WITNESS: No, because the normal opening time of the shows was around 8:00 and I think the show was starting when I got there.  That is a safer guess than the other time.

MR. FORAN: It is still a guess though, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is a guess.

MR. SCHULTZ: And now you say at the Coliseum, Abbie Hoffman upstaged you, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was walking toward the microphone and he raced in front of me.

MR. SCHULTZ: And he led the crowd in a chant of "Fuck LBJ" didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, I think he did.

MR. SCHULTZ: You didn't remember that on direct examination very well, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: I guess not.

MR. SCHULTZ: Abbie Hoffman is a friend of yours, isn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes and no.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now in your plans for Chicago, did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: I didn't.

MR. SCHULTZ: In your discussions with either Rubin or Hoffman did you plan for public fornication in the park?

THE WITNESS: No, we did not seriously sit down and plan public fornication in the park.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did Rubin say at any of these meetings that you must cause disruptions during the Convention and on through Election Day, mass disruptions?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: Was there any discussion when you were planning your Yippie programs by either Rubin or Hoffman of going into the downtown area and taking over hotels for sleeping space?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did the defendant Rubin during your planning discussion tell you if he ever had the opportunity and at one of his earliest opportunities he would, when he found some policemen who were isolated in the park, draw a crowd around him and bring the crowd to the policemen and attack the policemen with rocks and stones and bottles, and shout profanities at the policemen, tell them to take off their guns and fight? Did he ever say he was going to do that?

THE WITNESS: No, he didn't, Mr. Schultz.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Ochs, you say that on Sunday night you were with Mr. Rubin all night, is that right?

THE WITNESS: From 9:30 maybe, until after 12:00.

MR. SCHULTZ: And of course you have been told by somebody that there is evidence that Mr. Rubin was in Lincoln Park that night, isn't that right? Well, were you told, or not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were you told that somebody saw him with a cigarette in his hand?

THE WITNESS: No, I was not told that.

MR. SCHULTZ: Well, what were you told, please?

THE WITNESS: I was told very little. I was told that Jerry was accused of something

MR. SCHULTZ: Who told you all these things?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Kunstler told me the one thing, not all these things, something that Jerry was accused of something in the park on Sunday night, and that's all I was told, nothing else.

MR. SCHULTZ: You don't want to get Mr. Kunstler into trouble, do you?

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, first of all--

MR. SCHULTZ: Suddenly he backs off--suddenly he backs off. It is all too patent, your Honor.

THE COURT: Will the record show that Mr. Kunstler--

MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, I did, your Honor, I think it is a disgraceful statement in front of a jury.

THE COURT: --threw a block of papers noisily to the floor.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. I dropped papers noisily to the floor.

THE COURT: I shall not hear from you in that tone, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am sorry for putting the paper on the table, and it fell off onto the floor, but to say in front of a jury, "That is too patent" and "What are you backing off for?" I think, your Honor, any Court in the land would hold that is unconscionable conduct, and if I am angry, I think I am righteously so in this instance.

THE COURT: That will be all.
Continue with your cross-examination.

MR. SCHULTZ: In any event, Mr. Ochs, you are absolutely sure you never really went beyond the fringes of the park with Jerry Rubin that night, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: You just stood right along the fringes all that night, you never went in to see what was happening at the command post, did you?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: You never walked in to see what was happening at the fieldhouse, did you?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is all, your Honor.

THE COURT: You may step down.

(witness excused)

THE COURT: Don't forget your guitar.

THE WITNESS: I won't.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN GINSBERG 



MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please state your full name?

THE WITNESS: Allen Ginsberg.

MR. WEINGLASS: What is your Occupation?

THE WITNESS: Poet.

MR. WEINGLASS: Have you authored any books in the field of poetry?

THE WITNESS: In 1956, Howl and other Poems; in 1960, Kaddish and other poems; in 1963, Empty Mirror; in 1963, Reality Sandwiches, and in 1969, Planet News.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, in addition to your writing, Mr. Ginsberg, are you presently engaged in any other activity?

THE WITNESS: I teach, lecture, and recite poetry at universities.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, did you ever study abroad?

THE WITNESS: Yes. In India and Japan.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you indicate for the court and jury what the area of your studies consisted of?

THE WITNESS: Mantra Yoga, meditation exercises and sitting quietly, breathing exercises to calm the body and calm the mind, but mainly a branch called Mantra Yoga, which is yoga which involved prayer and chanting.

MR. WEINGLASS: How long did you study?

THE WITNESS: I was in India for a year and a third, and then in Japan studying with Gary Snyder, a zen poet, at Dai Tokuji Monastery, D-A-I T-O-K-U-J-I. I sat there for the zazen exercises for centering the body and quieting the mind.

MR. WEINGLASS: Are you still studying under any of your former teachers?

THE WITNESS: Yes, Swami Bahkti Vedanti, faith, philosophy; Bahkti Vedanta, B-A-H-K-T-I V-E-D-A-N-T-A. I have seen him and chanted within the last few years in different cities, and he has asked me to continue chanting, especially on public occasions. This involves chanting and praying, praying out loud and in community.

MR. WEINGLASS: In the course of a Mantra chant, is there any particular position that the person doing that assumes?

THE WITNESS: Any position which will let the stomach relax and be easy, fall out, so that aspiration can be deep into the body, to relax the body completely and calm the mind, based as cross-legged,

MR. WEINGLASS: And is it ---chanting--- to be done privately, or is it in public?

MR. FORAN: Oh, your Honor, I object. I think we have gone far enough now----

THE COURT: I think I have a vague idea now of the witness' profession. It is vague.

MR. FORAN: I think I might also indicate that he is an excellent speller.

THE WITNESS: Sir---

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: In India, the profession of' poetry and the profession of chanting are linked together as one practice.

THE COURT: That's right, I give you credit for that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Ginsberg, do you know the defendant Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall where it was that you first met him?

THE WITNESS: In Berkeley and San Francisco in 1965 during the time of the anti-Vietnam war marches in Berkeley. I saw him again at the human be-in in San Francisco. We shared the stage with many other people.

MR. WEINGLASS: Would you describe for the Court and jury what the be-in in San Francisco was?

THE WITNESS: A large assembly of younger people who came together to---

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Just a minutes I am not sure how you spell the be-in.

MR. WEINGLASS: B-E I-N, I believe, be-in.

THE WITNESS: Human be-in.

THE COURT: I really can't pass on the validity of the objection because I don't understand the question.

MR. WEINGLASS: I asked him to explain what a be-in was.

MR. FORAN: I would love to know also but I don't think it has anything to do with this lawsuit.

THE COURT I will over the objection of the Government, tell what a be-in is.

THE WITNESS: A gathering-together of younger people aware of the planetary fate that we are all sitting in the middle of, imbued with a new consciousness, a new kind of society involving prayer, music, and spiritual life together rather than competition, acquisition and war.

MR. WEINGLASS: And was that the activity that was engaged in in San Francisco at this be-in?

WITNESS: There was what was called a "gathering of the tribes" of all the different affinity groups, spiritual groups, political group, yoga groups, music groups and poetry groups that all felt the same crisis of identity crisis of the planet and political crisis in America, who all came together in the largest assemblage of such younger people that had taken place since the war in the presence of the Zen master Sazuki and in the presence of the rock bands and the presence of Timothy Leary and Mr. Rubin.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, later on in the year of 1967 did you have occasion to meet again with the defendant Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we met in a cafe in Berkeley and discussed his mayoral race for the city of Berkeley. He had run for mayor.

M R. WEINGLASS: Did you have any participation in that campaign?

THE WITNESS: I encouraged it, blessed it.

M R. WEINGLASS: Now, do you know the defendant Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, calling your attention to the month of February 1968, did you have any occasion in that month to meet with Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what Mr. Hoffman said in the course of the conversation.

THE WITNESS: Yippee--- among other things. He said that politics had become theater and magic; that it was the manipulation of imagery through mass media that was confusing and hypnotizing the people in the United States and making them accept a war which they did not really believe in; that people were involved in a life style that was intolerable to young folks, which involved brutality and police violence as well as a larger violence in Vietnam; and that ourselves might be able to get together in Chicago and invite teachers to present different ideas of what is wrong with the planet, what we can do to solve the pollution crisis, what we can do to solve the Vietnam war, to present different ideas for making the society more sacred and less commercial, less materialistic; what we could do to uplevel or improve the whole tone of the trap that we all felt ourselves in as the population grew and as politics became more and more violent and chaotic.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, did he ascribe any particular name to that project?

THE WITNESS: Festival of life.

MR. WEINGLASS: After he spoke to you, what, if anything, was your response to suggestion?

THE WITNESS: I was worried whether or not the whole scene would get violent. I was worried whether we would be allowed to put on such a situation allowed to put. I was worried, you know, whether the government would let us do something that was funnier or prettier or more charming than what was going to be going on in the Convention hall.

MR. FORAN: I object and ask that it be stricken. It was not responsive.

THE COURT: Yes. I sustain the objection.

THE WITNESS: Sir, that was our conversation,

MR, WEINGLASS: Now, during that same month, February of 1968, did you have occasion to meet with Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: I spoke with Jerry Rubin on the phone, I believe.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you relate to the Court and jury what Jerry Rubin said to you?

THE WITNESS: Jerry told me that he and others were going to Chicago to apply for permission from the city government for a permit to hold a Festival of Life and that he was talking with John Sinclair about getting rock and roll bands together and other musicians and that he would report back to me.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Ginsberg, do you recall anything else that Mr. Rubin said to you in the course of that telephone conversation?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he said that he thought it would be interesting if we could get up little schools like ecology schools, music schools, political schools, schools about the Vietnam war, schools with yogis.
He asked if I could contact Burroughs and ask Burroughs to come to teach nonverbal, nonconceptual feeling states.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you indicated a school of ecology. Could you explain to the Court and jury what that is?

THE WITNESS: Ecology is the interrelation of all the living forms on the surface of the planet involving the food chain---that is to say, whales eat plankton: larger fishes eat smaller fish, octopus or squid eat shellfish which eat plankton; human beings eat the shellfish or squid or smaller fish which eat the smaller tiny microorganisms

MR. FORAN: That is enough, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. We all have a clear idea of what ecology is.

THE WITNESS: Well, the destruction of ecology is what would have been taught. That is, how it is being destroyed by human intervention and messing it up with pollution.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now you also indicated that Mr. Rubin mentioned nonverbal education. Will you explain what that is to the Court and jury?

THE WITNESS: Most of our consciousness, since we are continually looking at images on television and listening to words, reading newspapers, talking in courts such as this, most of our consciousness is filled with language, with a kind of matter babble behind the ear, a continuous yakety-yak that actually prevents us from breathing deeply in our bodies and sensing more subtly and sweetly the feelings that we actually do have as persons to each other rather than as talking machines.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Mr. Ginsberg, on March 17, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I took part in a press conference fit the Hotel Americana in New York City.

MR. WEINGLASS: Who else was present fit this press conference?

THE WITNESS: Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were there as well as Phil Ochs, the folk singer, Arlo Guthrie, some members of the USA band, some members of the Diggers groups.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you indicate to the Court and jury what Jerry Rubin said?

THE WITNESS: He said that a lot of younger people in America would come to Chicago during the Convention and hold a Festival of Life in the parks, and he announced that they were negotiating with the City Hall to get a permit to have a life festival in the parks.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what Abbie Hoffman said?

THE WITNESS: He said that they were going to go to Chicago in groups to negotiate with representatives of Mayor Daley to get a permit for a large-scale Gathering of the Tribes and he mentioned the human be-in in San Francisco.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you yourself participate in that press conference?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I stepped to the microphone also. My statement was that the planet Earth at the present moment was endangered by violence,
overpopulation, pollution, ecological destruction brought about by our own greed; that our younger children in America and other countries of the world might not survive the next thirty years; that it was a planetary crisis that had not been recognized by any government of the world and had not been recognized by our own government, nor the politicians who were preparing for the elections; that the younger people of America were aware of that and that precisely was what was called psychedelic consciousness; that we were going to gather together as we had before in the San Francisco human be-in to manifest our presence over and above the presence of the more selfish elder politicians who were not thinking in terms of what their children would need in future generations, or even ill the generation immediately coming, or even for themselves in their own lifetime and were continuing to threaten the planet with violence, with war, with mass murder, with germ warfare. And since the younger people knew that in the United States, we are going to invite them there, find that the central motive would be a presentation of a desire for the preservation of the planet. The desire for preservation of the planet and the planet's form was manifested to my mind by the great Mantra from India to the preserver god Vishnu whose Mantra is the Hare Krishna. And then I chanted the Hare Krishna for ten minutes to the television cameras, and it goes:
Hare krishna/hare krishna/krishna krishna/hare hare/hare rama/hare rama/rama rama/hare hare.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now in chanting that did you have all accompaniment of any particular instrument? Your Honor, I object to the laughter of the Court on this. I think this is a serious presentation of a religious concept.

THE COURT: I don't understand. I don't understand it because it was---the language of the United States District Court is English.

M R. KUNSTLER: I know, but you don't laugh at all languages.

THE COURT: I didn't laugh. I didn't laugh.

THE WITNESS: I would be happy to explain it.

THE COURT: I didn't laugh at all. I wish I could tell you how I feel.
Laugh---I didn't even smile.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, I thought---

THE COURT: All I could tell you is that I didn't understand it because whatever language the witness is using---

THE WITNESS: Sanskrit, sir.

THE COURT: Well, that is one I don't know. That is the reason I didn't understand it.

THE WITNESS: Might we go on to in explanation?

THE COURT: Will you keep quiet, Mr. Witness, while I am talking to the lawyers?

THE WITNESS: I will be glad to give an explanation.

THE COURT: I never laugh at a witness, sir. I protect witnesses who come to this court. But I do tell you that the language of the American court is English unless you have all interpreter. You may use an interpreter for the remainder of the witness' testimony.

MR. KUNSTLER: No. I have heard, Your Honor, priests explain the mass in Latin in American courts and I think Mr. Ginsberg is doing exactly the same thing in Sanskrit for another type of religious experience.

THE COURT: I don't understand Sanskrit. I venture to say the jury members don't. Perhaps we have some people on the jury who do understand Sanskrit, I don't
know, but I wouldn't even have known it was Sanskrit until he told me. I can't see that that is material to the issues here, that is all.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let me ask this: Mr. Ginsberg, I show you an object marked 150 for identification, and I ask you to examine that object.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: All right. Your Honor, that is enough. I object to it, your Honor. I think it is outrageous for counsel to---

THE COURT: You asked him to examine it find instead of that he played a tune on it. I sustain the objection.

THE WITNESS: It adds spirituality to the case, sir.

THE COURT: Will you remain quiet, sir.

'THE WITNESS: I am sorry.

MR. WEINGLASS: Having examined that, could you identify it for the court and jury?

THE WITNESS: It is an instrument known is the harmonium, which I used at the press conference at the Americana Hotel. It is commonly used in India.

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you explain to the Court and to the jury what chant you were chanting at the press conference?

THE WITNESS: I was chanting a mantra called the "Mala Mantra," the great mantra of preservation of that aspect of the Indian religion called Vishnu the Preserver. Every time human evil rises so high that the planet itself is threatened, and all of its inhabitants and their children are threatened, Vishnu will preserve a return.

December 12, 1969

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the month of April 1965, did you have occasion during that month to meet with the defendant Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: What, if anything, did Jerry Rubin say?

THE WITNESS: He said that to insure a peaceful gathering in Chicago, so that a lot of people would come, encouraged by the peaceful nature of it, that they were applying as a group to the Chicago mayor's office to get a permit, but that apparently they were having trouble getting the permit. They would continue negotiating with the City, with City Hall for that permit. He said he felt that the only way a lot of people would come is if there were really good vibrations coming out of us and that he wanted it to be a peaceful gathering.
I told him I was scared of getting into a scene where I would get beaten up or a mob scene because I was not used to that and I didn't want to, I wis just simply frightened of too large a gathering which would involve conflict and fighting and getting my head busted in, and so I asked him how he felt about it, whether he was going to work for an actually peaceful gathering or not, because I didn't want to participate unless it was going to be organized peacefully, and he said he wanted it to be peaceful because he wanted a lot of people there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to August 13 at approximately 5:30 in the afternoon, where were you in the city of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: I went up to City Hall to the mayor's office. I told Mr. Stahl that I was afraid of getting into a violent scene. I chanted the Hare Krishna mantra to Mr. Stahl and Mr. Bush as an example of what was intended by the Festival of Life and I asked
them to please give a permit to avoid violence.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you chant for the Court and the jury the mantra Hare Krishna as you did that day?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you speak without chanting for the Court and jury the Mantra Hare Krishna?

THE WITNESS: Hare krishna/hare krishna

MR. FORAN: I object.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the morning of August 24, 1968, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was on a plane coming from New York to Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, en route to Chicago while you were on the plane, what if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: I wrote poetry, wrote out a statement of what I thought was going on in Chicago at the time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you read to the jury that poem?

THE WITNESS: Gladly. I believe you have the text.
August 24, 1968/Going to Chicago 22,000 feet over hazed square vegetable plant floor/Approaching Chicago to die or flying over earth another 40 years to
die/Indifferent and afraid, that the bone shattering bullet be the same/As the vast evaporation of phenomena cancer come true in an old man's bed/Or the historic fire heaven descending 22,000 years end the Aeon./The lake's blue again, sky's the same baby, though papers and noses rumor star/Spread the natural universe'll make angels' feet sticky./I heard the Angel King's voice a bodiless timeful teenager/Eternal in my own heart, saying Trust the purest joy,/Democratic anger is an illusion, democratic Joy is God,/Our father is baby blue, the original face you see, sees you./How through conventional notice and revolutionary fury remember/The helpless order the police armed to protect the helpless freedom to protect, the helpless freedom the revolutionary/Conspired to honor? I am the Angel King saying the Angel King/As the mobs in the Ampitheatre, streets, Coliseums, parks and offices/Scream in despair over meat and metal Microphone.

MR. WEINGLASS: At approximately 10:30, August 24, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was in Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: And what occurred in Lincoln Park approximately 10:30, if you can recall?

THE WITNESS: There were several thousand young people gathered, waiting, late at night. It was dark. There were some bonfires burning in trashcans. Everybody was standing around not knowing what to do. Suddenly there was a great deal of consternation and movement and shouting among the crowd in the park, and I turned, surprised, because it was early. The police were or had given 11:00 as the date or as the time---

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do at the time you saw the police do this?

THE WITNESS: I started the chant, O-o-m-m-m-m-m-, O-o-m-m-m-m-m-m.

M R. FORAN: All right, we have had a demonstration.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINGLASS : Did you finish your answer?

THE WITNESS: We walked out of the park. We continued chanting for at least twenty minutes, slowly gathering other people, chanting, Ed Sanders and I in the center, until there were a group of maybe fifteen or twenty making a very solid heavy vibrational change of aim that penetrated the immediate area around us, and attracted other people, and so we walked out slowly toward the street, toward Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: I now show you what is marked D-153 for identification. Could you read that to the jury?

THE WITNESS: Magic Password Bulletin. Physic Jujitsu. In case of hysteria, the magic password is o-m, same as o-h-m-, which cuts through all emergency illusions. Pronounce o-m from the middle of the body, diaphragm or solar plexus. Ten people humming o-m can calm down one himself. One hundred people humming o-m can regulate the metabolism of a thousand. A thousand bodies vibrating o-m can immobilize an entire downtown Chicago street full of scared humans, uniformed or naked. Signed, Allen Ginsberg, Ed Sanders. O-m will be practiced on the beach at sunrise ceremonies with Allen and Ed.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you explain to the Court and jury what you meant in that last statement of your message?

THE WITNESS: By "immobilize" I meant shut down the mental machinery which repeats over and over again the images of fear which are scaring people in uniform, that is to say, the police officers or the demonstrators, who I refer to as naked meaning naked emotionally, and perhaps hopefully naked physically.

MR. WEINGLASS: And what did you intend to create by having that mechanism shut down?

THE WITNESS: A completely peaceful realization of the fact that we were all stuck in the same street, place, terrified of each other, and reacting in panic and hysteria rather than reacting with awareness of each other as human beings, as people with bodies that actually feel, can chant and pray and have a certain sense of' vibration to each other or tenderness to each other which is basically what everybody wants, rather than fear.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now directing your attention to the next day which is Sunday, August 25, what, if anything, did you do in the park?

THE WITNESS: First I walked around to the center of the park, where suddenly a group of policemen appeared in the middle of the younger people. There was an appearance of a great mass of policemen going through the center of the park. I was afraid then, thinking they were going to make trouble---

MR. FORAN: Objection to his state of mind.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do when you saw the policemen in the center of the crowd?

THE WITNESS: Adrenalin ran through my body. I sat down on a green hillside with a group of younger people that were walking with me about 3:30 in the afternoon, 4:00 o'clock. Sat, crossed my legs, and began chanting O-o-m---O-o--m-m-m-m, O-o-m-m-m-m, O-o-m-m-m-m-m.

MR. FORAN: I gave him four that time.

THE WITNESS: I continued chanting for several hours.

THE COURT: Did you say you continued chanting seven hours?

THE WITNESS: Seven hours, yes. About six hours I chanted "Om" and for the seventh hour concluded with the chant Hare krishna/hare krishna/krishna krishna/hare hare/ hare rima/hare rama/rama rama/hare hare.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to Monday night, that is August 26, in the evening, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was by a barricade that was set up, a pile of trash cans and police barricades, wooden horses, I believe. There were a lot of young kids, some
black, some white, shouting and beating on the tin barrels, making a fearsome noise.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do after you got there?

THE WITNESS: Started chanting "Om." For a while I was joined in the chant by a lot of young people who were there until the chant encompassed most of the people by the barricade, and we raised a huge loud sustained series of "Oms" into the air loud enough to include everybody. Just as it reached, like, a great unison crescendo, all of a sudden a police car came rolling down into the group, right into the center of the group where I was standing, and with a lot of crashing and tinkling sound of glass, and broke up the chanting, broke up the unison and the physical---everybody was holding onto each other physically--broke up that physical community that had been built and broke up the sound chant that had been built. I moved back. There was a crash of glass.

MR. WEINGLASS: What occurred at that time?

THE WITNESS: I started moving away from the scene. I started moving away from the scene because there was violence there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Ginsberg, very early in the morning, about 6:00 A.M. on Tuesday, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I was on the bench at the lakefront at Lincoln Park, conducting a mantra chant ceremony, that had been arranged to be performed by Abbie
Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, and the other people who were planning the weekly schedule of Yippie activities. MR. WEINGLASS: What occurred at this ritual?

THE WITNESS: We got together to greet the morning with Tibetan Buddhist magic prayer formulas, mantras, beginning with Om raksa/raksa hum/hum/phat/svaha, the mantra to purify a site for the ceremony.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at approximately 8:00 p.m. where were you?

THE WITNESS: I came with a party of writers to the unbirthday party of President Johnson at the Coliseum.

MR. WEINGLASS: Who was with you?

THE WITNESS: The French writer, Jean Genet, poet novelist. The American novelist, William Seward. W. S. Burroughs, the novelist. The novelist, Terry Southern, who had written Doctor Strangelove. Myself. We all write together.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when you arrived at the Coliseum, did you see any of the defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Abbie Hoffman. I went down and sat next to him and kissed him, and then pointed back up at Jean Genet and told Abbie that Genet was there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where, if anywhere, did you go?

THE WITNESS: The group I was with, Mr. Genet, Mr. Burroughs, and Mr. Seaver, and Terry Southern, all went back to Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: What was occurring at the park as you got there?

THE WITNESS: There was a great crowd lining the outskirts of the park and a little way into the park on the inner roads, and there was a larger crowd moving in toward the center. We all moved in toward the center, and at the center of the park, there was a group of ministers and rabbis who had elevated a great cross about ten-foot high in the middle of a circle of people who were sitting around, quietly, listening to the ministers conduct a ceremony.

MR. WEINGLASS: And would you relate to the Court and jury what was being said and done at the time?

THE WITNESS: Everybody was seated around the cross, which was at the center of hundreds of people, people right around the very center adjoining the cross. Everybody was singing, "We Shall Overcome," and "Onward Christian Soldiers," I believe. They were old hymn times.
I was seated with my friends on a little hillock looking down on the crowd, which had the cross in the center. And on the other side, there were a lot of glary lights hundreds of feet away down the field. The ministers lifted up the cross and took it to the edge of the crowd and set it down facing the lights where the police were. In other words, they confronted the police lines with the cross of Christ.

MR. WEINGLASS: And after the ministers moved the cross, what happened?

THE WITNESS: After, I don't know, a short period of time, there was a burst of smoke and tear gas around the cross, and the cross was enveloped with tear gas, and the people who were carrying the cross were enveloped with tear gas which began slowly drifting over the crowd.

MR. WEINGLASS: And when you saw the persons with the cross and the cross being gassed. what, if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: I turned to Burroughs find said, "They have gassed the cross of Christ."

MR. FORAN: Objection, if the Court please.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do at that time?

THE WITNESS: I took Bill Burroughs' hand, and took Terry Southern's hand, and we turned from the cross which was covered with gas in the glary lights, the police lights that were shining through the tear gas on the cross, and walked slowly out of the park.

MR. WEINGLASS: On Wednesday, the next day, at approximately 3:45 in the afternoon, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Entering the Grant Park Bandshell area, where there was a mobilization meeting or rally going on. I was still with the same group of literary
fellows, poets and writers. I walked tip to the apron or front of the stage, and saw David Dellinger and told him that I was there, and that Burroughs was there and Jean Genet was there and that they were all willing to be present and testify to the righteousness of the occasion, and that we would like to be on the stage.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were you then introduced?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Jean Genet was also introduced.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you speak?

THE WITNESS: I croaked, yes.

THE COURT: What was that last? You say you what?

THE WITNESS: I croaked. My voice was gone. I chanted or tried to chant.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you remain for the rest of the rally?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I didn't pay much attention to most of the speakers that followed. There was one that I heard. Louis Abolafia, whom I knew from New York.

MR. WEINGLASS: And who is he?

THE WITNESS: Kind of a Bohemian trickster, street theater candidate for President. He had announced his candidacy for President a number of times, and his campaign slogan was, "I have nothing to hide," and he showed himself in a photograph with his hand over his lap, but otherwise naked.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was he introduced?

THE WITNESS: No, he just appeared from nowhere and got up to the microphone and started yelling into it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall hearing what he was yelling?

THE WITNESS: "The police out there are armed and violent. You are walking into a death trap."

MR. WEINGLASS: When you heard him yelling that over the microphone, what, if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: I went over and sat next to him, and grabbed his leg, and started tickling him, and said, "Hare krishna, Louis."

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when the rally was over, did you have occasion to talk with Mr. Dellinger?

THE WITNESS: Yes. He looked me in the eyes, took my arm and said, "Allen, will you please march in the front line with me?

MR. WEINGLASS: And what did you say to him?

THE WITNESS: I said, "Well, I am here with Burroughs and Genet and Terry Southern." And he said, "Well, all of you together, can you form a front line and be sure to stay behind me in the front line, be the first of the group of marchers?"

MR. WEINGLASS: And did you form such a line?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: How were you walking?

THE WITNESS: Our arms were all linked together and we were carrying flowers. Someone had brought flowers up to the back of the stage, and so we distributed them around to the front rows of marchers so all the marchers had flowers.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Ginsberg, I show you a photograph marked D-158 for identification, and I ask you if you can identify that photograph.

THE WITNESS: Yes. It is a picture of the front line of marchers as I described it before, consisting of William Burroughs on the extreme right, Jean Genet, Richard Seaver, his editor at Grove, myself.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Mr. Ginsberg, you have indicated you have known Jerry Rubin since 1965?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Would you indicate to the Court and jury whether or not you have ever seen him smoke a cigarette?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember.

MR. WEINGLASS: I mean a tobacco cigarette.

THE WITNESS: Offhand, no.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Mr. Ginsberg, you have had extensive training in Zen and in other religions of the East. Have you acquired an expertise in the area of peaceful assembly and peaceful intent?

MR. FORAN: I object to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see during Convention week either the defendant Jerry Rubin or the defendant Abbie Hoffman or any of the other defendants who are seated at this table commit an act or make a speech or do anything, do any other thing to violate the precepts of your own philosophy?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I have to get some materials to properly carry on my cross-examination of this witness. It will take some time to go downstairs to get them.

THE COURT: Are you suggesting we recess?

MR. FORAN: I would think yes, your, Honor.

THE COURT: All right. We will go until two o'clock.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we asked for five minutes two days ago in front of this jury and you refused to give it to us.

THE COURT: You will have to cease that disrespectful tone.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is not disrespect, that is an angry tone, your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, it is. Yes, it is. I will grant the motion of the Government.

MR. KUNSTLER: You refused us five minutes the other day.

THE COURT: You are shouting at the Court.

MR. KUNSTLER: Oh, your Honor---

THE COURT: I never shouted at you during this trial.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, your voice has been raised.

THE COURT: You have been disrespectful.

MR. KUNSTLER: It is not disrespectful, your Honor.

THE COURT: And sometimes worse than that.

THE WITNESS: O-o-m-m-m-m-m-m-m.

THE COURT: Will you step off the witness stand?

MR. KUNSTLER: He was trying to calm us both down, your Honor.

THE COURT: Oh, no. I needed no calming down. That will be all....

THE COURT You have finished your direct? You may cross-examine.

MR. FORAN: Mr. Ginsberg, you were named as kind of the Yippie religious leader. Do you think that is a fair designation of your connection with the Yippie organization?

THE WITNESS: No, because the word "leader" was one we really tried to get away from, to get away from that authoritarian thing. It was more like---

MR. FORAN: Religious teacher?

THE WITNESS: ---religious experimenter, or someone who was interested in experimenting with that, and with moving things in that direction.

MR. FORAN: In the context of the Yippie organization?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and also in the context of our whole political life too.

MR. FORAN: And among the others named are Timothy Leary.

THE WITNESS: Yes

MR. FORAN: And Timothy Leary has a kind of religious concept that he attempts to articulate, doesn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is a religious concept that has a very ancient tradition in Shivite worship and in American Indian worship services or ceremonies.

MR. FORAN: And one of the parts of that religious concept is the religious experience in the use of hallucinogenic drugs, isn't it, Mr. Ginsberg?

THE WITNESS: In India, in the Shivite sect, they refer to it as gunga or bhang, which in Latin is cannabis and which in the American language is marijuana, or pot, or grass.

MR. FORAN: In the course of his teaching, he makes use of those drugs himself?

THE WITNESS: I think he says that they are part of the legitimate religious meditation and worship exercises.

MR. FORAN: Now when you went out to the Coliseum and you met Abbie Hoffman, you said when you met him you kissed him?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR FORAN: Is he an intimate friend of yours?

THE WITNESS: I felt very intimate with him. I saw he was struggling to manifest a beautiful thing, and I felt very good towards him.

MR. FORAN: And do you consider him an intimate friend of yours?

THE WITNESS: I don't see him that often, but I do see him often enough and have worked with him often enough to feel intimate with him, yes.

MR. FORAN: You feel pretty much an intimate friend of Jerry Rubin's too?

THE WITNESS: Over the years, I have learned from them both.

MR. FORAN: By the way, you were asked on direct examination whether you had seen Jerry Rubin smoke any tobacco.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I said I didn't remember seeing him smoke.

MR. FORAN: Have you seen him smoke anything?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't remember seeing him smoke anything. I don't remember ever seeing him smoke.

MR. FORAN: Anything?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Now, you testified concerning a number of books of poetry that you have written?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: In The Empty Mirror, there is a poem called "The Night Apple"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Would you recite that for the jury?

THE WITNESS:
The Night Apple.
Last night I dreamed/of one I loved/for seven long years,/but I saw no face,/only the familiar/presence of the body;/sweat skin eyes/feces urine sperm/saliva all one/odor and mortal taste,

MR. FORAN: Could you explain to the jury what the religious significance of that poem is?

THE WITNESS: If you would take a wet dream as a religious experience, I could. It is a description of a wet dream, sir.

MR. FORAN: Now, I call your attention in that same Government's Exhibit No. 59, to page 14. That has on it the poem, "In Society." Can you recite that poem to the jury?

WITNESS: Yes, I will read it.
n Society.
I walked into the cocktail party/room and found three or four queers/talking together in queer-talk,/I tried to be friendly but heard/myself talking to one in hiptalk./"I'm glad to see you," he said, and/looked away, "Hmn," I mused. The room/was small and had a double-decker/bed in it, and cooking apparatus:/icebox, cabinet, toasters, stove;/the hosts seemed to live with room/enough only for cooking and sleeping./My remark on this score was under-/stood but not appreciated, I was/offered refreshments, which I accepted./ I ate a sandwich of pure meat; an/enormous sandwich of human flesh,/l noticed, while I was chewing on it,/it also included a dirty asshole.
More company came, including a/fluffy female who looked like/a princess. She glared at me and/said immediately: "I don't like you,"Turned her head away, and refused/to be introduced. I said "What!"/in outrage. "Why you shit-faced fool!"/This got everybody's attention./"Why you narcissistic bitch! How/can you decide when you don't even/know me," I continued in a violent/and messianic voice, inspired at/last, dominating the whole room.
Dream 1947.
It is a record, a literal record of a dream, as the other was a literal record of a dream.

MR. FORAN: Can you explain the religious significance of that poetry?

THE WITNESS: Actually, yes.

MR. FORAN: Would you explain it to the jury?

THE WITNESS: Yes. One of the major yogas, or "yoking"---yoga means yoke---is bringing together the conscious mind with the unconscious mind, and is an examination of dream-states in an attempt to recollect dream-states, no matter how difficult they are, no matter how repulsive they are, even if they include hysteria, sandwiches of human flesh, which include dirty assholes, because those are universal images that come in everybody's dreams,
The attempt in yoga is to enlarge consciousness, to be conscious that one's own consciousness will include everything which occurs within the body and the mind.
As part of the practice of poetry, I have always kept records of dreams whenever I have remembered them, and have tried not to censor them so that I would have all the evidence to examine in light of day, so that I would find out who I was unconsciously.
Part of the Zen meditation and part of yoga meditation consists in the objective impersonal examination of the rise and fall and disappearance of thoughts in the mind, all thoughts, whether they be thoughts of sleeping with one's mother, which is universal, or sleeping with one's father, which is also universal thought, or becoming an angel, or flying, or attending a cocktail party and being afraid of being put down, and then getting hysterical.
In other words, the attempt is to reclaim the unconscious, to write down in the light of day what is going on in the deepest meditation of night and dream-state. So it is part of yoga which involves bridging the difference between public, as in this Courtroom, and private subjective public, which is conscious, which we can say to each other in family situations, and private, which is what we know and tell only our deepest friends.

MR. FORAN: Thank you.
You also wrote a book of poems called Reality Sandwiches, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: In there, there is a poem called, "Love Poem on Theme by Whitman." Would you recite that to the jury?

THE WITNESS: "Love Poem on Theme by Whitman," Walt Whitman being one celebrated bard, national prophet. The poem begins with a quotation of a line by Walt Whitman. It begins with Walt Whitman's line:
I'll go into the bedroom silently and lie down between the bridegroom and the bride,/those bodies fallen from heaven stretched out waiting naked and restless,/arms resting over their eyes in the darkness,/bury my face in their shoulders and breasts, breathing their skin,/and stroke and kiss neck and mouth and make back be open and known,/legs raised up, crook'd to receive, cock in the darkness driven tormented and attacking/roused up from hole to itching head,/bodies locked shuddering naked, hot lips and buttocks screwed into each other/and eyes, eyes glinting and charming, widening into looks and abandon,/and moans of movement, voices, hands in air, hands between thighs,/hands in moisture on softened lips, throbbing contraction of bellies/till the white come flow in the swirling sheets/and the bride cry for forgiveness, and the groom be covered with tears of passion and compassion,/and I rise up from the bed replenished with last intimate gestures and kisses of farewell--/all before the mind wakes, behind shades and closed doors in a darkened house/where the inhabitants roam unsatisfied in the night,/nude ghosts seeking each other out in the silence.

MR. FORAN: Would you explain the religious significance of that poem?

THE WITNESS: As part of our nature, as part of our human nature, we have many loves, many of which are denied, many of which we deny to ourselves. He said that the reclaiming of those loves and the becoming aware of those loves was the only way that this nation could save itself and become a democratic and spiritual republic.
He said that unless there were an infusion of feeling, of tenderness, of fearlessness, of spirituality, of natural sexuality, of natural delight in each other's bodies into the hardened, materialistic, cynical, life denying, clearly competitive, afraid, scared, armored bodies, there would be no chance for a spiritual democracy to take place in America. And he defined that tenderness between the citizens as, in his words, an adhesiveness, a natural tenderness flowing between all citizens as, in his words, an adhesiveness, a natural tenderness flowing between all citizens, not only men and women but also a tenderness between men and men as part of our democratic heritage, part of the adhesiveness which would make the democracy function; that men could work together not as competitive beasts but as tender lovers and fellows.
So he projected from his own desire and from his own unconsciousness a sexual urge he felt was normal to the unconscious of most people, though forbidden, for the most part, to take part.
Walt Whitman is one of my spiritual teachers and I am following him in this poem taking off from a line of his own and projecting my own actual unconsciousness feeling of which I don't have shame, sir, which I feel are basically charming, actually.

THE COURT: I didn't hear that last word.

THE WITNESS: Charming

MR. FORAN: I have no further questions

THE COURT: Redirect examination.
Nothing? You may go sir.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

TESTIMONY OF BOBBY G. SEALE 



MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name?

THE WITNESS: Bobby G. Seale.

MR. KUNSTLER: And, Mr. Seale, what is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: Presently, I am the Chairman of the Black Panther Party.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what is the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense?

THE WITNESS: The Black Panther Party--

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, every single witness on the stand called by the defense has been entitled to tell what is the organization in which his occupation pertained.

MR. SCHULTZ: We are not litigating the Black Panther Party, your Honor, in this case.

THE COURT: I will let my ruling stand, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, would you state for the Court and jury what your duties are as Chairman of the Black Panther Party?

THE WITNESS: As the Chairman of the Black Panther Party, I am a member of the central committee who have to make speaking engagements, representing the Party's program, the Party's ideology, the social programs that we are setting forth in communities to deal with political, economic, and social evils and injustices that exist in this American society.
I go on a number of speaking engagements. I do quite a bit of coordinating work and direct community organizing in the black community and relate to other organizations whom we have coalitions with. We form alliances and direct these alliances in the same manner that brother Fred Hampton used to do before he was murdered, and we form these alliances with the Young Lords, Puerto Ricans, and also Latino people who are oppressed in America.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, you mentioned the name of Fred Hampton. Who was Fred Hampton?

THE WITNESS: Deputy Chairman--

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, if you will instruct Mr. Seale that when an objection is pending, he should wait before he answers the question--

THE COURT: Mr. Seale, when an objection is made by the opposing lawyers sitting at that table, wait until the Court decides the objection before you answer, please.

THE WITNESS: Well, should I just give a few seconds to see if there is going to be an objection?

THE COURT: Yes. Wait. It is a good idea.

THE WITNESS: Just to see if there is going to be an objection.

MR. SCHULTZ: I will try to be prompt, your Honor.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, I call your attention to August 27, 1968. Did there come a time when you went to the San Francisco International Airport?

THE WITNESS: Tuesday. That Tuesday in August. It was a Tuesday, I think.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you then board an airplane?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know the destination of that airplane?

THE WITNESS: Chicago, Illinois.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will ask you now to look at the defense table and I want to ask you this question whether, prior to boarding that airplane, you had ever known Jerry Rubin.

THE WITNESS: No, I had not.

MR. KUNSTLER: David Dellinger?

THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life before that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Lee Weiner?

THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Rennie Davis?

THE WITNESS: I never seen him before in my life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Tom Hayden?

THE WITNESS: I had heard of his name but I had never met him or seen him before in my life.

MR. KUNSTLER: John Froines?

THE WITNESS: I never seen him or heard of him before in my life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state to the Court the purpose of your trip to Chicago?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now after you arrived in Chicago on the twenty-seventh of August, did you have occasion at any time later that day to go to Lincoln Park?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was late in the afternoon.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now when you arrived at Lincoln Park, can you recollect what was going on in the area you went to?

THE WITNESS: The area in the park that I observed was completely occupied by policemen.
The park was generally surrounded by policemen, cops everywhere, and many of those who I looked at and observed to be what I would call or define as pigs. This is what I observed, this is the impression, the facts that existed and what I saw. It was just the cops, and I myself defined it as pigs, were piggyback. This is the general way we talk in the ghetto in expressing a lot of these things.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now did there come a time, Mr. Seale, when you spoke in Lincoln Park that afternoon?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there did come a time when I did speak.

MR. KUNSTLER: I show you D-350 for identification, do you think that you could identify for us what it is?

THE WITNESS: This is a transcript from a tape recording of the speech I made there.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will show you 350-B. Is that the tape from which 350 was made?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can recognize it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is that tape a fair and accurate reproduction of your speech as you gave it on
the afternoon of August 27 in Lincoln Park.

THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, except for the fact that the very first line, about half of the sentence on that tape, the very first line of the first sentence that I pronounced in that speech is not on that tape.

MR. KUNSTLER: With the exception of those first three or four words, it is a fair and accurate representation of the speech?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Then I would offer it into evidence.

MR. SCHULTZ: No objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, before this is played we will furnish to the court reporter, to save her hands, a copy of the speech.

MR. SCHULTZ: No objection. (tape played)

We've come out to speak to some people who're involved, maybe emotionally and maybe in many respects, in a drastic situation of a developing revolution. The revolution in this country at the time is in fact the people coming forth to demand freedom. The revolution at this time is directly connected with organized guns and force.
We must understand that as we go forth to try and move the scurvy, reprobative pigs: the lynching Lyndon Baines Johnsons, the fat pig Humphreys, the jive double-lip-talkin' Nixons, the slick talkin' McCarthys--these murdering and brutalizing and oppressing people all over the world--when we go forth to deal with them--that they're gonna always send out their racist, scurvy rotten pigs to occupy the people, to occupy the community, just the way they have this park here occupied.
You know the Minister of Information, Eldridge Cleaver, who's been nominated as the Presidential candidate, Black Panther candidate, running on the Peace and Freedom ticket. As you know, the brother always says, "All power to the People."
Now just a second here. You must understand what power is. The Minister of Defense, Huey P. Newton, explains and teaches that power is the ability to defend phenomena and make it act in a desired manner.
What phenomena are we talking about? We're talking about the racist, brutal murders that pigs have committed upon black people. We're talking about lynchings that's been going down for four hundred years on black people's heads. We're talking about the occupation troops, right here in Chicago, occupying the black community and even occupying this park where the people have come forth. The phenomenal situation is this: it's that we have too many hogs in every facet of government that exists in this country. We can define that.
But we said the ability to define this social phenomena and also the ability to make it act in a desired manner. How do you make the social phenomena act in a desired manner? I am saying this here, I'm pretty sure you're quite well aware of how you make it act in a desired manner. If a pig comes up to you and you sit down and start talking about slidin' in, rollin' in, jumpin' in, bugalooin' in, dancin' in, swimmin' in, prayin' in and singing "We Shall Overcome," like a lot of these Toms want us to do--we're jivin'. But if a pig comes up to us and starts swinging a billy club. and you check around and you got your piece--you gotta down that pig in defense of yourself. You gonna take that club, whip him over his head, lay him out on the ground and then this pig is acting in a desired manner. All right.
At the same time, many individuals. many groups will run into situations where the pigs are going to attack. Always. Because the pigs have been sent here by the top hog who gave him orders from the power structure to attack the people.
Now listen here. If you gonna get down to nitty-gritty, brothers and people, and you don't intend to miss no nits and no grits, you got to have some functional organization to not only make one individual pig or a number of pigs act in the desired manner but to make this whole racist, decadent power structure act in a desired manner.
The Black Panther Party went forth when brother Huey P. Newton was busted October the 28. He was charged with making a couple of pigs act in a desired manner. And from there, a coalition between the Peace and Freedom Party, a predominately white group, and the Black Panther Party, a black organization, a revolutionary organization, formed this coalition based on the fact that the white people said they were concerned by the fact that their racist power structure in Oakland in California was going to try to railroad Huey P. Newton to the gas chamber and kill him.
Now this coalition developed into a more functional thing: the Peace and Freedom Party in the white community trying to end the decadent racism, the Black Panthers in the black community trying to convince us we've got to defend ourselves, liberate ourselves from the oppressed conditions that are caused by racism. This coalition has gone forth. We think it's a very functional coalition.
So it's very important that we understand the need for organization, cause that's what we deal with. We're not here to be sitting around a jive table vacillating and jiving ourselves. Too many times in the past, the people sit down around tables. When they sit down around these tables they get to arguing about whether or not this white racist wall that black people are chained against is real or not. They want to come talking about some molecular structure of the wall. And the molecular structure of the wall shows that wall is really ninety percent space. So is the white racist wall that we're talking about real or not? We're saying that it's here. You're damned right it's real. Because we're chained against this wall.
And we say this here: don't be out there jiving, wondering whether the wall is real or not. Make sure if you want to coalesce, work, functionally organize, that you pick up a crowbar. Pick up a piece. Pick up a gun. And pull that spike out from the wall. Because if you pull it on out and if you shoot well, all I'm gonna do is pat you on the back and say "Keep shooting." You dig? We won't be jiving.
Now, there are many kinds of guns. Many, many kinds of guns. But the strongest weapon that we have, the strongest weapon that we all each individually have, is all of us. United in opposition. United with revolutionary principles.
So it's very necessary for us to understand the need for functional organization. It's very necessary for us, especially black brothers--listen close--that we have revolutionary principles to guide ourselves by. Because if we just go out in a jive gang, running around in big groups, with rocks and bottles, we're not going to do nothing against 500 pigs with shotguns and .357 Magnums.
What we got to do is functionally put ourselves in organizations. Get every black man in the black community with a shotgun in his home, and a .357 Magnum, and a .45 if he can get it, and an M-1 if he can get it and anything else if he can get it, brothers. Get it and start doing this.
Then, I want to say this here. On the streets, stop running in large groups. That ain't no right tactic. We should run in groups of fours and fives--all around. We cannot continue using these tactics where we lose 3000 arrested or we lose 1 or 200 dead. We gotta stop. So we want to start running in threes, fours, and fives.
Small groups using proper revolutionary tactics. So we can dissemble those pigs who occupy our community, who occupy our community like foreign troops.
Black people, we're saying we're lost. We seem to be lost in a world of white racist, decadent America. I'm saying that we have a right to defend ourselves as human beings. And if some pig comes up to us unjustly treating us injustly, then we have to bring our pieces out and start barbecuing some of that pork.
Brother Huey P. Newton was on the stand yesterday. And they said the brother was so beautiful in cross-examination for a whole day-and-a-half that the jury got mad at the D.A. We hope that brother Huey P. Newton be set free. We go further in our hopes, in our work in in our organization to demand that he be set free.
And we say that if anything happens to Huey P. Newton, the sky is the limit.
Now here are some buckets around and we are here, Huey needs funds, and we hope that you will donate to the Party and other local organizations.
We hope, we sure that you can begin to set up a few things organizationally to deal with the situation in a very revolutionary manner.
So, Power to the People. Power to All the People. Black Power to Black People. Panther Power. Even some Peace and Freedom Power. Power and Free Huey. Thank you.(end of tape)

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Seale, when you used the term "Pig" in that speech, can you define what is meant by the word "pig"?

THE WITNESS: A pig is a person or a policeman who is generally found violating the constitutional rights and the human rights of people, a vile traducer, and he is usually found masquerading as a victim of unprovoked attack.

MR. KUNSTLER: And you also used the term in discussing Huey P. Newton "the sky is the limit." Would you explain what you meant by that?

THE WITNESS: I meant by that that we would exhaust all political and legal means through the courts all the way to the top of the Supreme Court. We would have demonstrations. We will organize the people in together and we will go to the limit to try and get our Minister of Defense free if he is not set free.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further question.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, sir, your Honor, I have some.
Now you said in your speech that was just played before the jury that Huey P. Newton was busted and charged with making a couple of pigs act in a desired manner, did you not, Sir?

THE WITNESS: He was charged with shooting a policeman. He was charged with shooting in defense of himself.

MR. SCHULTZ: So when you said that "individuals should mike pigs act in a desired manner," you were referring to shooting policemen in defense if necessary, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Organizationally and functionally, if you look at the whole context of the sentence, what I mean is not what you are inferring.
What I mean is this here--

MR. SCHULTZ: I am asking you what you said, sir. I am asking you, did you not state that?

THE WITNESS: But you also asked me what I mean, Mr. Schultz.

MR. KUNSTLER: I thought he asked him what he meant, too, Your Honor.

MR. SCHULTZ: Let me rephrase the question if I did.
When you stated to the people in Lincoln Park that " they've got to make one individual pig or a number of individual pigs act in the desired manner," you weren't referring to that same desired manner for which Huey Newton was charged, were you?

THE WITNESS: What was that? Rephrase your question again. I am trying to make sure you don't trip me.

MR. SCHULTZ: It was a little complicated, Mr. Seale. It wasn't very well stated.

THE WITNESS: All right.

MR. SCHULTZ: I will ask it to you again.
You said to the people, "They should make one pig or a number of pigs act in the desired manner." You were not then referring to the same desired manner with which Mr. Newton was charged, that is, shooting a policeman? Were you or were you not?

THE WITNESS: No. I can state it in another way in answering the question.

MR. SCHULTZ: No.

THE WITNESS: If you will let me answer the question.

MR. SCHULTZ: You said you were not.

THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question?

THE COURT: You have answered the question. Ask him another question.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were you referring to shooting policemen in the desired manner when you said this: "But if a pig comes up to us and starts swinging a billy club, you're gonna take that club and whip him over the head, and lay him on the ground, and then the pig is acting in a desired manner."

THE WITNESS: I was referring to defending myself.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now you said to the people, did you not, that they should pull the spike from the wall, because "if you pull it out and if you shoot well, all I am going to do is pat you on the back and say 'Keep on shooting'?" Was that for the purpose of making the pig act in the desired manner?

THE WITNESS: That's for the purpose of telling people they have to defend themselves. In that broad sense of that statement, without taking it out of context, that generally means that, and if any individual is unjustly attacked by any policeman, unjustly, at that point he has a human right--

MR. SCHULTZ: To kill the policeman.

THE WITNESS: To defend himself.

MR. SCHULTZ: And that means if necessary to kill that policeman, does it not?

THE WITNESS: If that policeman is attacking me, if he is violating the law, if he is violating the law unjustly, attacking me, --I am not talking about a policeman down the street stopping somebody--

MR. SCHULTZ: That means killing, if necessary, doesn't it?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: You will not kill a policeman, is that right?

THE WITNESS: It is not the desire to kill, and that's what you are trying to put in the tone of it, and it's not that--

MR. SCHULTZ: Will you answer my question?

THE WITNESS: I won't answer that question with a yes or no, your Honor. I have to answer the question my own way.

MR. SCHULTZ: I can rephrase it.
Were you referring to shooting pigs?

THE WITNESS: I was referring to shooting any racist, bigoted pig who unjustly attacks us or brutalizes us in the process of us doing any kind of organizational and functional work to try to change the power structure and remove the oppression.

MR. SCHULTZ: And you said in that context "unjustly attacking you?"

THE WITNESS: In the context of the whole speech, that's what I am talking about.

MR. SCHULTZ: So when you told the people that what we have to do is get every black man in the black community with a shotgun in his home and a .357 Magnum and a .45, if he can get it, and an M-1, if he can get it--you were referring to getting guns for defense, isn't that right'

THE WITNESS: Getting a gun, put a gun in your home, a shotgun.

MR. SCHULTZ: In defense?

THE WITNESS: --or M-1 --you have a right by the Second Amendment of the Constitution to have it.

MR. SCHULTZ: Were you referring to it in self-defense, that is my question, sir?

THE WITNESS: I was referring to it in self-defense against unjust brutal attack by any policeman or pigs or bigots in this society who will attack people.

MR. SCHULTZ: And you said to the people in Lincoln Park "I am referring to unjust brutal attack," didn't you?

THE WITNESS: No. You know what I mean, Mr. Schultz. I am telling you what I am referring to.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, when you told the people to stop running around in big groups and with rocks and bottles because you can't do anything against 500 pigs
with shotguns, and .357 Magnums, was that part of your revolutionary tactics?

THE WITNESS: Definitely. It is a change.
Revolution means change, change away from this old erroneous method of running out in the streets in big numbers and rioting, and throwing rocks and bottles. How are you going to stop a .357 Magnum or shotgun full of some shotgun shells that are being shot at you with rocks and bottles. Stop that. Stop it. Stop the rioting. That is in essence what I am talking about.
Stop those kind of tactics. Use revolutionary tactics. Defend yourself from unjust attacks, et cetera.

MR. SCHULTZ: When you told the people in Lincoln Park, "Pick up a gun, pull the spike from the wall, because if you pull it out and you shoot well, all I'm gonna do is pat you on the back and say, 'Keep on shooting,' " That was part of your revolutionary tactics too, was it not, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, and if you look generally--

MR. SCHULTZ: Please, that is all.

THE COURT: You have answered the question.

THE WITNESS: I strike that answer on the grounds that that particular question is wrong because it ain't clear.

THE COURT: I have some news for you, sir. (there is applause in the courtroom)THE COURT: I do the striking here, and will the marshals exclude from the courtroom anyone who applauded. This isn't a theater, Anyone who applauded the witness may go out and is directed to leave.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Seale, are you the Bobby G. Seale who was convicted on April 11, 1968, of being in possession of a shotgun in the vicinity of a jail?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I am the same person who was convicted later of being in possession of a shotgun as they charged me of being adjacent to a jail, but as I know by the law, you could have a shotgun as long as it wasn't concealed and as long as you are in a public place, and I was actually in fact on a public sidewalk.
Yes, I was convicted, and the thing was appealed.

MR. SCHULTZ: You had five shotgun shells in that gun, did you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in a magazine.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, Mr. Seale, on Wednesday morning, you gave the second speech, right?

THE WITNESS: I guess that was Wednesday morning, in the middle of the week somewhere.

MR. SCHULTZ: And you said to the people, Mr. Seale, "If the pigs get in the way of our march, then tangle with the blue-helmeted motherfuckers. Kill them and send them to the morgue slab," and you were pointing to policemen at that time, isn't that a fact?

MR. KUNSTLER: This is completely out of the scope of the direct examination, your Honor. It is improper and it is wrong,

THE COURT: No, the witness was brought here to testify about his activities during that period.
I think the Government has the right to inquire. Treating your remarks as objection which you have not made, I overrule the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is your Honor ruling that every witness that takes the stand can be cross-examined on anything?

THE COURT: I said it is my ruling, sir, that that question is a proper one on this record.

MR. SCHULTZ: How many people were you speaking to?

THE WITNESS: Let's see now--

MR. GARRY: Just a minute, Mr. Seale.
I am rising to the part that your Honor has heretofore allowed me to.
Unless we can be given a full transcription of the speech that he gave on that day, I am going to instruct the witness not to answer the question upon the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.

THE COURT: If you so advise him and the witness wants to do it in a proper manner, I will respect his refusal to answer.

MR. GARRY: Mr. Seale, you are entitled and I advise you not to answer this question upon the ground it would tend to incriminate you under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
I so advise you to take that advice.

THE COURT: Mr. Seale, you have heard Mr. Garry. If you wish to take advantage of the Fifth Amendment and say to the Court that to answer that question might tend to incriminate you, you may do it, but it must come from you, not from your lawyer.

THE WITNESS: I would like to take the Fifth Amendment on the question, yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right. You needn't answer the question.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is all, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is there any redirect examination?

MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Seale, with reference to Mr. Schultz' question regarding the conviction for carrying a shotgun, did you ever go to jail for that?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor. That is not proper.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. The test is the conviction, not the punishment.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Seale, do you recall Mr. Schultz asked you about certain guns?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now I ask you this question. When you were referring to those guns, did you not use the phrase "in his home"?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection to the form of question. Mr. Kunstler is doing the testifying and using the witness as a sounding board.

THE COURT: Yes, the form is bad. I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. What did you say in that speech, Mr. Seale, with reference to where those guns were to be?

THE WITNESS: I said "Put the guns in your home, .357 Magnum, M-1, .45s." I referred to these kind of guns or anything else. You have a right to do it, and that ,
s part of our program in the Party, a constitutional right to arm yourself.

THE COURT: All right. You've answered the question.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Seale, as to the speech that you gave in Lincoln Park on August 27, 1968, what type of person was this speech addressed to?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. I asked him nothing about the audience.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection to the question.

MR. KUNSTLER: In the light of that ruling, Your Honor, I have no further questions.

THE COURT: I have sustained the objection.

MR. SCHULTZ: I have no questions.

THE COURT: You may go. Call your next witness, please. (witness excused)

VOICES: Power to the people! Power to the people!

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD CLARKSTON GREGORY 



December 15, 1969


MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name for the record?

THE WITNESS: Richard Clarkston Gregory.

MR. KUNSTLER: What is your occupation, Mr. Gregory?

THE WITNESS: Comedian, entertainer, author, and lecturer.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Gregory, prior to 1968 had you been involved in any civil rights demonstrations throughout the United States?

MR. FORAN: I object to that. your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, were you in Birmingham, Alabama, in June of 1963?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, did you participate in the Selma to Montgomery march with Dr. King in 1965?

MR. FORAN: Objection to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, I am going to show vou a letter which has been labelled D-159 for identification and ask you if you can identify this letter.

THE WITNESS: It is a letter I sent to Mavor Dalev, It was pertaining to the Democratic Convention being held in Chicago and my feelings that they appointed Chicago for the Democratic Convention---

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, on January 1, 1968, Mr. Gregory, after learning that Chicago had been selected as a site for the Democratic National Convention, categorized this as a cruel insult to the millions of deprived citizens."

THE COURT: I have read the letter.

MR. KUNSTLER: And he wrote to the mayor of the city and he made five demands: they have to do with the fair housing laws being enacted, Negroes being appointed to top echelons of the Police Department, lifting the injunction against Dr. King on marching demonstrations in Cicero and other parts of Chicago suburbs, to guarantee the health and safety of Reverend Jesse Jackson, the originator of the Operation Breadbasket, and to ask for higher pay for policemen and firemen in Chicago.
These demands which he made are verv crucial to his role later on in the Democratic National Convention. In fact, as he is prepared to testify, he indicated that his participation would be nil if the demands were not met by the mayor of the city of Chicago.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor. Mr. Gregory is not charged by the Government with anv violations of the statute set fortli in the indictment in this case. His motivation and what he did or did not do is totally irrelevant to the charges against these men.

THE COURT: I will let mv ruling sustaining the objection stand.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Gregory, did vou have occasion to meet Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin in late January or early February of 1968?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did vou sav to Jerrv Rubin and Abbie Hoffman, and what did they say to you?

THE WITNESS: They was asking me about participating in an entertainment phase of the Democratic Convention and to contact other entertainers and coordinate a schedule with them, and to participate myself.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you agree to do this?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you state to them with reference to agreeing or not agreeing to participate?

THE WITNESS: I can't tell you what I stated to them if I can't tell you about the letter---

MR. KUNSTLER: State what you stated to them referring to the letter, other than that you had made some demands.

THE WITNESS: I explained to them that some demands had been made. If those demands were not met, I would not participate in nothing here in Chicago at all because it would be like going back on my word pertaining to the issue that we can't talk about.

MR. KUNSTLER: And now, I call your attention to the week of the Democratic National Convention, and specifically to August 27, 1968, in the late evening at approximately 10:00 p.m. of that dav. Do you recall where you were then?

THE WITNESS: I had been home all that day until I received a phone call from Abbie Hoffman. He asked me, you know, how come I hadn't been around at none of the demonstrations and none of the rallies, and was I planning on coming to the demonstrations or rallies. and I told him that I was not. Again we are getting into what we can't talk about.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you consent to appear at that rally?

THE WITNESS: I told him I would be there.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you entertain at the rally?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, I now call your attention to August 28, 1968. Can you state where you were on that date at what place?

THE WITNESS: I was at home. I think at that time I received a phone call from Mr. Dellinger. He was asking me would I participate in some of the nonviolent demonstrations. He said that some members from SCLC was in town, that Reverend Abernathy was in town, and would I object to any of the protest demonstrations. Again I reiterated to Mr. Dellinger that I didn't want to get involved where I could be hit or killed and stir up black folks arotind the country. Then at that point he asked me, you know, would I come and participate in the rally in Grant Park.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you agree or refuse?

THE WITNESS: I agreed I would do that, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now did you appear at Grant Park that afternoon?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did you speak?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I praised the young kids that was participating in the demonstrations and I told them that I had watched all the demonstrations on television and that I would hope that they would not blame the police because the police were only following orders as handed down from Mayor Daley. And that when the Shriners come to town, they can get drunk, do anything they want to do, nobody arrests them. This is the gist of what my speech went on the brief minutes that I talked.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is your recollection exhausted as to what else you might have said at that speech?

THE WITNESS: Right, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: I wanted to ask you whether you asked or said anything about higher pay for policemen at that speech?

THE WITNESS: Yes, but that's the same thing that's in the letter that we're not supposed to talk about.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, calling your attention to approximately nine a.m. August 29, 1968, do you know where you were at that time?

THE WITNESS: I was at the Hilton Hotel. Julian Bond and Pierre Salinger came across the street to ask me would I come over, because there was a rally going on.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, I show you D-164 for identification and ask you if you can indicate what that picture represents.

THE WITNESS: Yes. This is the same rallv across the street from the Hilton Hotel in the park. This is-after I had introduced Ralph---Dr. Abernathy.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Gregory, did there come a time on August 29, when the rally in Grant Park cime to an end?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Approximately what time was that?

THE WITNESS: About four o'clock.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you describe to the Court and jury what happened at approximately 4:00 p.m.?

THE WITNESS: Well, right going into 4:00 P.m., I was asking Abbie Hoffman had they had any plans for the people in the park, and if not, I would just end the rally, and if so, then let someone from one of their organizations come up and direct the various people in what they wanted them to do.
At that point, the delegation from Wisconsin was marching to the International Amphitheatre, and they sent me a message over and asked me would I announce that they were going to march to the Amphitheatre as a protest to what had happened in the streets the night before.

MR. KUNSTLER: And did you see what Abbie Hoff man did?

THE WITNESS: Well, about that time, the delegation from Wisconsin was very much in evidence. They were marching, and the crowd just left the park and headed to fall in behind the Wisconsin delegation.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now after this moment in time that you have just described, what did you and Abbie Hoffman do, if anything?

THE WITNESS: Well, everybody was following out of the park. I decided that I would go home, and I marched out of the park and was up on the sidewalk going down south on Michigan.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where is your home, by the way?

THE WITNESS: It is 1451 East 55th street.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes. At that point, a tank came around the corner, what I believe to have been a tank, with a machine gun on top, and then Abbie Hoff man just went in and laid in front of the tank, and there were several other young folks that laid down, and at that point I told my wife Lil, "I guess I have to get involved."

MR. KUNSTLER: And what did you do then?

THE WITNESS: I told Abbie, "Look at that machine gun on top of that tank. We have a very dangerous situation, and no one is leading that march at that point. And with a machine gun looking down on people, we could not afford to turn around and walk away, neither he nor 1, nor could we afford to lay down in front of the tank." He was laying down in front of the tank with his finger sticking up in the air.

MR. KUNSTLER: I take it the tank stopped?

THE WITNESS: The tank stopped, yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: And what did Abbie say to you?

THE WITNESS: He said, "OK, but understand, I have nothing to do with this once we get to the park. I don't want a leadership position.  I don't want them asking me, you know, 'Where are we going from here?' "

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you describe what happened after you got back in Grant Park?

THE WITNESS: Well, I explained to Abbie that "I don't want to come and get involved with your demonstration." As far as I was concerned, that was white folks' business, it was white kids getting chopped by white cops, and it was the first time America was able to see that. But somebody had to stay there because the crowd was upset, the crowd wanted to march. And so I said "Well, I will lead a demonstration to my house."

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to all of this as totally irrelevant.

THE COURT: Yes. I will sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Abbie Hoffman say to you, "Let's not do that; let's let them run through the Loop. It's a good idea, if they are stood up, that they go and destroy property and run amuck?"

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Gregory, at any time later that evening did you have occasion to see Mr. Foran, the gentleman who is seated at the counsel table that I am pointing to?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state to the Court and jury where you saw him?

THE WITNESS: At 18th and Michigan.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have a conversation with Mr. Foran?

MR. FORAN: I object to that.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.

(jury excused)

MR. KUNSTLER: The reason we feel this conversation is important, your Honor, is that Mr. Gregory in his conversation with Mr. Foran, after Mr. Foran asked him "Why don't you have the demonstrators march north instead of south?" Mr. Gregory then said to Mr. Foran, "Do you really want them to go to Lake Shore Drive where you got a great many rich white folks living?" And then Mr. Foran stated, "OK," in words or substance, "maybe you shouldn't go there." And then Mr. Gregory said that he was juist joking, he really wanted to go to his house. And we think that is relevant to one of the basic issues in this case, which is the issue of racism.

THE COURT: I know you have spoken of racism throughout this trial. I heard no evidence here that anybody is guilty of racism except one of the defendants who charged me with being a racist with absolutely no basis of fact.

MR. KUNSTLER: He said if your Honor didn't permit him to act as his own attorney you were---

THE COURT: I want this very nice witness to know that I am not, that he has made me laugh often and heartily.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, white people have always laughed at black people for a long time as entertainers.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objections of the United States Attorney.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examination, if any.

MR. FORAN: Mr. Gregory, you mentioned that Abbie Hoffman was lying down in the street out near I 8th and Michigan on that afternoon?

THE WITNESS: Right.

MR. FORAN: You said that he had his finger up in the air. What was he doing?

THE WITNESS: Like this (indicating).

MR. FORAN: His middle finger stuck up in the air?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Call your next witness, please.

TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY LEARY 



THE COURT: Will you call the witness, please?

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name for the record?

THE WITNESS: Timothy F. Leary.

MR. KUNSTLER: Dr. Leary, what is your present occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am the Democratic candidate for Governor in California.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is that in the primary?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, Democratic primary

THE COURT: Just so that the jury will be clear, do you call being a candidate an occupation, sir?

THE WITNESS: Well, it is taking most of' my time at present, your Honor.

THE COURT: What is your regular occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a religious ordained minister, and I am a college lecturer.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what your educational background is?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1950. 1 was two years at Holy Cross College, and a year and a half at West Point, the United States Military Academy.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Dr. Leary, can you state briefly your professional experience since receiving your Ph.D. in 1950?

THE WITNESS: Yes, from 1950 to 1956, I was on the faculty of the University of California and the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. I was also the director of the Kaiser Foundation Psychological Research from 1952 to 1957.

MR. KUNSTLER: And after that?

THE WITNESS: I taught at the University of Copenhagen in the Philosophy and Psychology Department in Denmark in 1958, and then in 1959 I joined the faculty at Harvard University and taught at Harvard from 1959 to 1963 in clinical psychology and personality psychology.

MR. KUNSTLER: Dr. Leary, have you been the author of any publications?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have written two books on experimental clinical psychology and about twenty scientific articles in this field. I have written six books and over fifty scientific articles on the effects of psychedelic drugs on human psychology and human consciousness.

MR. KUNSTLER: Doctor, can you explain what a psychedelic drug is?

THE WITNESS: I will try. Psychedelic drugs are drugs which speed up thinking, which broaden the consciousness, which produce religious experiences or creative experiences, or philosophic experiences in the person who takes them.
These psychedelic drugs, of course, are the opposite of the nonpsychedelic drugs like heroin, or alcohol, and barbiturates which slow down thinking, as opposed to psychedelic drugs which expand and accelerate the consciousness.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, there came a time, did there not, Dr. Leary, when you left Harvard University?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was dismissed from Harvard University in 1963. There were two reasons for my dismissal. One was a dispute over schedule of classes, and the other was because I was continuing to do research on the effects of psychedelic drugs which was politically risky for Harvard University to sponsor.

MR. KUNSTLER: What was the nature of that research?

MR. FORAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we want to show the background of Dr. Leary and the type of work he was doing. There has been a great misconception about the type of work he was doing. We want to explain it to the jury.

THE COURT: Dr. Leary's work isn't in issue here. He is not a defendant here.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Dr. Leary, do you recall when your first met Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do. I met Jerry Rubin at the love-in at San Francisco, which was January 1967.

MR. KUNSTLER: And do you know where that love-in was held?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was held in Golden Gate Park, and I think either seventy or eighty thousand people came to the park to participate in this love-in.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. Seven or eight thousand?

MR. KUNSTLER: Seventy or eighty thousand.

THE COURT: Oh, even worse.

MR. KUNSTLER: Even better.
All right, Dr. Leary, when did you first meet Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: The first time I met Mr. Hoffman was at the LSD Shrine and Rescue Center in New York City. That would be November or December of 1966.
MR. KUNSTLER: Now, lest there be any confusion, what does LSD stand for?

THE WITNESS: It was the League of Spiritual Discovery. That was a religion incorporated in the State of New York and we had a rescue center in New York
where hundreds of people taking drugs could be rehabilitated.

MR. KUNSTLER: Dr. Leary, I call your attention to late January of 1968 and ask you whether you met with Jerry and Abbie during that month at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I met with Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Rubin and with other people and we formed and founded the Youth International Party.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, with reference to the founding of the Youth International Party, which we will refer to as Yippie, can you state what was said by the people attending there with reference to the founding of this party?

THE WITNESS: Well, Julius Lester said that the current parties are not responsive to the needs of black people, particularly young black people. Allen Ginsberg said that the Democrat and Republican Parties are not responsive to the creative youth and to college students and high school students who expect more from society.
Abbie Hoffman, as I remember, was particularly eloquent in describing the need for new political tactics and techniques.

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: You are not privileged to characterize the participants in that way.

MR. KUNSTLER: Even if you were impressed by what people said, don't indicate whether they were eloquent or what-have-you.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to Mr. Kunstler's comments which he knows are improper.

MR. KUNSTLER: I was trying to assist Mr. Foran.

THE COURT: I will do the directing. You ask the questions.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you go ahead, Dr. Leary?

THE WITNESS: Abbie Hoffman said that new political methods were needed because the conventions of the Democrat and Republican Parties were controlled by machine politics which had nothing to do with the needs of the people.
Mr. Hoffman continued to say that we should set up a series of political meetings throughout the country, not just for the coming summer but for the coming years. Mr. Hoffman suggested that we have love-ins or be-ins in which thousands of young people and freedom-loving people throughout the country Could get together on Sunday afternoons, listen to music which represented the new point of view, the music of love and peace and harmony, and try to bring about a political change in this country that would be nonviolent in people's minds and in their hearts, and this is the concept of the love-in which Mr. Hoffman was urging upon us.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, at any time during this discussion did anyone make an reference to the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hoffman said it was important to have a large group of young people and black people and freedom-loving people come to Chicago during the Democratic Convention the following August. That it was important that people that were concerned about peace and brotherhood, come to Chicago and in a very dignified, beautiful way meet in the parks and represent what Mr. Hoffman called the politics of life and politics of love and peace and brotherhood.
Mr. Rubin, I remember, pointed out that since the Democratic Party was meeting here, there was great concern about having police and having National Guard and they were bringing in tear gas. Mr. Rubin pointed out that it could possibly be violent here, and both Mr. Rubin and Allen Ginsberg said that they didn't think that we should come to Chicago if there was a possibility of violence from the soldiers or the police.

MR. KUNSTLER: I call Your attention to March of 1968, somewhere in the middle of March, and I ask you if you can recall being present at a press conference?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Prior to this press conference had you had any other meetings with Jerry and Abbie?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we had met two or three times during the spring.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the constant use of the diminutives in the reference to the defendants,

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, sometimes it is hard because we work together in this case, we use first names constantly.

THE COURT: I know, but if I knew you that well, and I don't, how would it seem for me to say, "Now, Billy--"

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, it is perfectly acceptable to me-if I could have the reverse privilege.

THE COURT: I don't like it. I have disapproved of it before and I ask you now to refer to the defendants by their surnames.

MR. KUNSTLER: I was just thinking I hadn't been called "Billy" since my mother used that word the first time.

THE COURT: I haven't called you that.

MR. KUNSTLER: It evokes some memories.

THE COURT: I was trying to point out to you how absurd it sounds in a courtroom.

MR. KUNSTLER: Dr. Leary, did you speak at that press conference?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I described in great detail the harassment that we had suffered in our religious center at Millbrook, New York, by the police. I describe how for the preceding two or three months there had been a police blockade around this young people's center in upstate New York and that our houses had been ransacked at night by sheriffs and policemen and how our young children were being arrested on their bicycles on the roads outside of our houses because they didn't have identification.
And I described how helicopters had been coming over to observe our behavior and I raised the possibility that we did not want this to happen in Chicago and we hoped that Chicago would be free from this sort of unpleasant encounter, because at Millbrook we were living very peaceably, bothering nobody until we were harassed and surrounded by the police.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now. during the month of March did you have occasion to speak with Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I called Jerry to tell him about the results of the Yippie meeting in Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: All right. Will you tell the jury and the Court what you told Jerry and what he told you, if anything, in that phone conversation?

THE WITNESS: I told Mr. Rubin that I had never experienced such fear on the part of the young people as I did in the young people of Chicago, that they were, literally trembling about the possibility of violence in August. And I raised the issue to Jerry as to whether we should reconsider coming to Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now. up to this time in this telephone conversation had you had any conversation with Jerry Rubin or Abbie Hoffman about LSD in the Chicago water supply?

MR. FORAN: I object to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Dr. Leary, I call your attention to April of 1968. and ask you if you recall a meeting with Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I met with Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you say?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Hoffman pointed out that since our last meeting, President Johnson had retired from office. Therefore, President Johnson would not be coming to Chicago. Therefore, the meaning of a celebration of life on our part as opposed to Mr. Johnson was lost since the man we were attempting to oppose was not going to come to Chicago.
Both Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Rubin at that time said to me before I left that they were not sure whether we should come to Chicago, and that we would watch what happened politically. At that time, Jerry Rubin pointed out that Robert Kennedy was still alive, and many of us felt that he represented the aspirations of young people, so we thought we would wait. I remember Mr. Rubin saving, "Let's wait and see what Robert Kennedy comes out with as far as peace is concerned. Let's wait to see if Robert Kennedy does speak to voting people, and if Robert Kennedy does seek to represent the peaceful, joyous, erotic feelings of young people--"

THE COURT: "Erotic," did you say?

THE WITNESS: Erotic.

THE COURT: E-R-O-T-I-C?

THE WITNESS: Eros. That means love, your Honor.

THE COURT: I know, I know. I wanted to be sure I didn't mishear you

THE WITNESS: So Mr. Rubin suggested that we hold off the decision as to whether we come to Chicago until we saw how Mr. Kennedy's campaign developed, and at that point, I think most of us would have gladly, joyously called off the Chicago meeting.

MR. KUNSTLER: You did not yourself come to Chicago, did you, during the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: No. I did not come to Chicago myself.

MR. KUNSTLER: Right. Now prior to the Convention week, did you have any conversation with Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, at the end of July. I told Mr. Rubin that I had decided not to come to Chicago. Mr. Rubin asked me why.

MR. FORAN: Objection as to his reasons for not coming.

THE COURT: I should say that is irrelevant. I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your witness.

THE COURT: Cross-examination.

MR. FORAN: Dr. Leary, will you name the drugs that you said speeded up thinking?

THE WITNESS: Yes, psychedelic or mind-expanding drugs include LSD, mescaline, peyote, marijuana, and I could go on. There is a list of perhaps thirty or forty chemical compounds and natural vines and herbs. Do you want more?

MR. FORAN: No, that is enough.
Now, when you talked to Jerry Rubin in late March over the telephone from Chicago, you had a long discussion with him at that time about your fears of violence that would occur in Chicago at the Democratic Convention, did you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I had been told this bv the young people in Chicago.

MR. FORAN: And you expressed your concern?

THE WITNESS: Well, I am always concerned about the possibility of violence anywhere at any time. I am against violence.

MR. FORAN: You asked him at that time whether or not you should reconsider coming to Chicago, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. FORAN: I have no further questions.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have just one further question.
Dr. Leary, in answer to Mr. Foran's question about the young people, did you tell Jerry Rubin from where the young people in Chicago expected violence to come, from what source?

THE WITNESS: Well, from the militia, the National Guard. The sheriff was fighting with the police chief of Chicago at the time, and the sheriff, I believe, was enlisting vigilantes and just people off the street to be deputy sheriffs.

MR. KUNSTLER: But it was violence from the police?

THE WITNESS: And the National Guard, police, and sheriff.

MR. KUNSTLER: And not from the young people themselves?

THE WITNESS: There was no possibility of that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Thank you.

THE COURT: No further questions? You may go.

TESTIMONY OF ABBIE HOFFMAN



MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please identify yourself for the record?

THE WITNESS: My name is Abbie. I am an orphan of America.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may the record show it is the defendant Hoffman who has taken the stand?

THE COURT: Oh, yes. It may so indicate. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Where do you reside?

THE WITNESS: I live in Woodstock Nation.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you tell the Court and jury where it is?

THE WITNESS: Yes. It is a nation of alienated young people. We carry it around with us as a state of mind in the same way as the Sioux Indians carried the Sioux nation around with them. It is a nation dedicated to cooperation versus competition, to the idea that people should have better means of exchange than property or money, that there should be some other basis for human interaction.  It is a nation dedicated to--

THE COURT: Just where it is, that is all.

THE WITNESS: It is in my mind and in the minds of my brothers and sisters. It does not consist of property or material but, rather, of ideas and certain values. We believe in a society--

THE COURT: No, we want the place of residence, if he has one, place of doing business, if you have a business. Nothing about philosophy or India, sir. Just where you live, if you have a place to live. Now you said Woodstock. In what state is Woodstock?

THE WITNESS: It is in the state of mind, in the mind of myself and my brothers and sisters. It is a conspiracy. Presently, the nation is held captive, in the penitentiaries of the institutions of a decaying system.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can you tell the Court and jury your present age?

THE WITNESS: My age is 33. 1 am a child of the 60s.

MR. WEINGLASS: When were you born?

THE WITNESS: Psychologically, 1960.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please. I move to strike the answer.

MR. WEINGLASS: What is the actual date of your birth?

THE WITNESS: November 30,1936.

MR. WEINGLASS: Between the date of your birth, November 30, 1936, and May 1, 1960, what if anything occurred in your life?

THE WITNESS: Nothing. I believe it is called an American education.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

THE WITNESS: Huh.

MR. WEINGLASS: Abbie, could you tell the Court and jury--

MR. SCHULTZ: His name isn't Abbie. I object to this informality.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can you tell the Court and jury what is your present occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a cultural revolutionary. Well, I am really a defendant---full-time.

MR. WEINGLASS: What do you mean by the phrase "cultural revolutionary?"

THE WITNESS: Well, I suppose it is a person who tries to shape and participate in the values, and the mores, the customs and the style of living of new people who eventually become inhabitants of a new nation and a new society through art and poetry, theater, and music.

MR. WEINGLASS: What have you done yourself to participate in that revolution?

THE WITNESS: Well, I have been a rock and roll singer. I am a reporter with the Liberation News Service. I am a poet. I am a film maker. I made a movie called "Yippies Tour Chicago or How I Spent My Summer Vacation." Currently, I am negotiating with United Artists and MGM to do a movie in Hollywood.
I have written an extensive pamphlet on how to live free in the city of New York.
I have written two books, one called Revolution for The Hell of It under the pseudonym Free, and one called, Woodstock Nation.

MR. WEINGLASS: Taking you back to the spring of 1960, approximately May 1, 1960, will you tell the Court and jury where you were?

MR. SCHULTZ: 1960?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, that date has great relevance to the trial. May 1, 1960, was this witness' first public demonstration. I am going to bring him down through Chicago.

THE COURT: Not in my presence, you are not going to bring him down. I sustain the objection to the question.

THE WITNESS: My background has nothing to do with my state of mind?

THE COURT: Will you remain quiet while I am making a ruling? I know you have no respect for me.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, that is totally unwarranted. I think your remarks call for a motion for a mistrial.

THE COURT: And your motion calls for a denial of the motion. Mr. Weinglass, continue with your examination.

MR. KUNSTLER: You denied my motion? I hadn't even started to argue it.

THE COURT: I don't need any argument on that one. The witness turned his back on me while he was on the witness stand.

THE WITNESS: I was just looking at the pictures of the long hairs up on the wall . . . .

THE COURT: . . . . I will let the witness tell about this asserted conversation with Mr. Rubin on the occasion described.

MR. WEINGLASS: What was the conversation at that time?

THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin told me that he had come to New York to be project director of a peace march in Washington that was going to march to the Pentagon in October, October 21. He said that the peace movement suffered from a certain kind of attitude, mainly that it was based solely on the issue of the Vietnam war. He said that the war in Vietnam was not just an accident but a direct by-product of the kind of system, a capitalist system in the country, and that we had to begin to put forth new kinds of values, especially to young people in the country, to make a kind of society in which a Vietnam war would not be possible.
And he felt that these attitudes and values were present in the hippie movement and many of the techniques, the guerrilla theater techniques that had been used and many of these methods of communication would allow for people to participate and become involved in a new kind of democracy.
I said that the Pentagon was a five-sided evil symbol in most religions and that it might be possible to approach this from a religious point of view. If we got large numbers of people to surround the Pentagon, we could exorcize it of its evil spirits.
So I had agreed at that point to begin working on the exorcism of the Pentagon demonstration.

MR. WEINGLASS: Prior to the date of the demonstration which is October, did you go to the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I went about a week or two before with one of my close brothers, Martin Carey, a poster maker, and we measured the Pentagon, the two of us, to see how many people would fit around it. We only had to do one side because it is just multiplied by five.
We got arrested. It's illegal to measure the Pentagon. I didn't know it up to that point.
When we were arrested they asked us what we were doing. We said it was to measure the Pentagon and we wanted a permit to raise it 300 feet in the air, and they said "How about 10?" So we said "OK".
And they threw us out of the Pentagon and we went back to New York and had a press conference, told them what it was about.
We also introduced a drug called lace, which, when you squirted it at the policemen made them take their clothes off and make love, a very potent drug.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you mean literally that the building was to rise up 300 feet off the ground?

MR. SCHULTZ: I can't cross-examine about his meaning literally.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. SCHULTZ: I would ask Mr. Weinglass please get on with the trial of this case and stop playing around with raising the Pentagon 10 feet or 300 feet off the ground.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I am glad to see Mr. Schultz finally concedes that things like levitating the Pentagon building, putting LSD in the water, 10,000 people walking nude on Lake Michigan, and a $200,000 bribe attempt are all playing around. I am willing to concede that fact, that it was all playing around, it was a play idea of this witness, and if he is willing to concede it, we can all go home.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you intend that the people who surrounded the Pentagon should do anything of a violent nature whatever to cause the building to rise 300 feet in the air and be exercised of evil spirits?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you indicate to the Court and jury whether or not the Pentagon was, in fact, exercised of its evil spirits?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe it was. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, drawing your attention to the first week of December 1967, did you have occasion to meet with Jerry Rubin and the others?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you relate to the Court and jury what the conversation was?

THE WITNESS: Yes.
We talked about the possibility of having demonstrations at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Illinois, that was going to be occurring that August. I am not sure that we knew at that point that it was in Chicago. Wherever it was, we were planning on going.
Jerry Rubin, I believe, said that it would be a good idea to call it the Festival of Life in contrast to the Convention of Death, and to have it in some kind of public area, like a park or something, in Chicago.
One thing that I was very particular about was that we didn't have any concept of leadership involved. There was a feeling of young people that they didn't want to listen to leaders. We had to create a kind of situation in which people would be allowed to participate and become in a real sense their own leaders.
I think it was then after this that Paul Krassner said the word "YIPPIE," and we felt that that expressed in a kind of slogan and advertising sense the spirit that we wanted to put forth in Chicago, and we adopted that as our password, really. . . .
Anita [Hoffman] said that "Yippie" would be understood by our generation, that straight newspapers like the New York Times and the U.S. Government and the courts and everything wouldn't take it seriously unless it had a formal name, so she came up with the name: "Youth International Party." She said we could play a lot of jokes on the concept of "party" because everybody would think that we were this huge international conspiracy, but that in actuality we were a party that you had fun at.
Nancy [Kursham] said that fun was an integral ingredient, that people in America, because they were being programmed like IBM cards, weren't having enough fun in life and that if you watched television, the only people that you saw having any fun were people who were buying lousy junk on television commercials, and that this would be a whole new attitude because you would see people, young people, having fun while they were protesting the system, and that young people all around this country and around the world would be turned on for that kind of an attitude.
I said that fun was very important, too, that it was a direct rebuttal of the kind of ethics and morals that were being put forth in the country to keep people working in a rat race which didn't make any sense because in a few years that machines would do all the work anyway, that there was a whole system of values that people were taught to postpone their pleasure, to put all their money in the bank, to buy life insurance, a whole bunch of things that didn't make any sense to our generation at all, and that fun actually was becoming quite subversive.
Jerry said that because of our action at the Stock Exchange in throwing out the money, that within a few weeks the Wall Street brokers there had totally enclosed the whole stock exchange in bulletproof, shatterproof glass, that cost something like $20,000 because they were afraid we'd come back and throw money out again.
He said that for hundreds of years political cartoonists had always pictured corrupt politicians in the guise of a pig, and he said that it would be great theater if we ran a pig for President, and we all took that on as like a great idea and that's more or less---that was the founding.

MR. WEINGLASS: The document that is before you, D-222 for identification, what is that document?

THE WITNESS: It was our initial call to people to describe what Yippie was about and why we were coming to Chicago.

Mk. WEINGLASS: Now, Abbie, could you read the entire document to the jury.

THE WITNESS: It says:
"A STATEMENT FROM YIP!
"Join us in Chicago in August for an international festival of youth, music, and theater. Rise up and abandon the creeping meatball! Come all you rebels, youth spirits, rock minstrels, truth-seekers, peacock-freaks, poets, barricade-jumpers, dancers, lovers and artists!
"It is summer. It is the last week in August, and the NATIONAL DEATH PARTY meets to bless Lyndon Johnson. We are there! There are 50,000 of us dancing in the streets, throbbing with amplifiers and harmony. We are making love in the parks. We are reading, singing, laughing, printing newspapers, groping, and making a mock convention, and celebrating the birth of FREE AMERICA in our own time.
"Everything will be free. Bring blankets, tents, draft-cards, body-paint, Mr. Leary's Cow, food to share, music, eager skin, and happiness. The threats of LBJ, Mayor Daley, and J. Edgar Freako will not stop us. We are coming! We are coming from all over the world!
"The life of the American spirit is being torn asunder by the forces of violence, decay, and the napalm-cancer fiend. We demand the Politics of Ecstasy! We are the delicate spores of the new fierceness that will change America. We will create our own reality, we are Free America! And we will not accept the false theater of the Death Convention.
"We will be in Chicago. Begin preparations now! Chicago is yours! Do it!"
"Do it!" was a slogan like "Yippie." We use that a lot and it meant that each person that came should take on the responsibility for being his own leader-that we should, in fact, have a leaderless society.
We shortly thereafter opened an office and people worked in the office on what we call movement salaries, subsistence, thirty dollars a week. We had what the straight world would call a staff and an office although we called it an energy center and regarded ourselves as a tribe or a family.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you explain to the Court and jury, if you know, how this staff functioned in your office?

THE WITNESS: Well, I would describe it as anarchistic. People would pick up the phone and give information and people from all over the country were now becoming interested and they would ask for more information, whether we were going to get a permit, how the people in Chicago were relating, and we would bring flyers and banners and posters. We would have large general meetings that were open to anybody who wanted to come.

MR. WEINGLASS: How many people would attend these weekly meetings?

THE WITNESS: There were about two to three hundred people there that were attending the meetings. Eventually we had to move into Union Square and hold meetings out in the public. There would be maybe three to five hundred people attending meetings. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Where did you go [March 23], if you can recall

THE WITNESS: I flew to Chicago to observe a meeting being sponsored, I believe, by the National Mobilization Committee. It was held at a place called Lake Villa, I believe, about twenty miles outside of Chicago here.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall how you were dressed for that meeting?

THE WITNESS: I was dressed as an Indian. I had gone to Grand Central Station as an Indian and so I just got on a plane and flew as an Indian.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when you flew to Chicago, were you alone?

THE WITNESS: No. Present were Jerry, myself, Paul Krassner, and Marshall Bloom, the head of this Liberation News Service.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you arrived at Lake Villa, did you have occasion to meet any of the defendants who are seated here at this table?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I met for the first time Rennie, Tom Hayden---who I had met before, and that's it, you know. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Was any decision reached at that meeting about coming to Chicago?

THE WITNESS: I believe that they debated for two days about whether they should come or not to Chicago. They decided to have more meetings. We said we had already made up our minds to come to Chicago and we passed out buttons and posters and said that if they were there, good, it would be a good time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Following the Lake Villa conference, do you recall where you went?

THE WITNESS: Yes. The next day, March 25, 1 went to the Aragon Ballroom. It was a benefit to raise money again for the Yippies but we had a meeting backstage in one of the dressing rooms with the Chicago Yippies.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what was discussed?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We drafted a permit application for the Festival to take place in Chicago. We agreed that Grant Park would be best.

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the following morning, which was Monday morning, March 26, do you recall where you were at that morning?

THE WITNESS: We went to the Parks Department. Jerry was there, Paul, Helen Runningwater, Abe Peck, Reverend John Tuttle---there were a group of about twenty to thirty people, Yippies.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you meet with anyone at the Park District at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. There were officials from the Parks Department to greet us, they took us into this office, and we presented a permit application.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you ever receive a reply to this application?

THE WITNESS: Not to my knowledge.

MR. WEINGLASS: After your meeting with the Park District, where, if anywhere, did you go?

THE WITNESS: We held a brief press conference on the lawn in front of the Parks Department, and then we went to see Mayor Daley at City Hall. When we arrived, we were told that the mayor was indisposed and that Deputy Mayor David Stahl would see us.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you met with Deputy Mayor Stahl, what, if anything, occurred?

THE WITNESS: Helen Runningwater presented him with a copy of the permit application that we had submitted to the Parks Department. It was rolled up in the Playmate of the Month that said "To Dick with Love, the Yippies," on it. And we presented it to him and gave him a kiss and put a Yippie button on him, and when he opened it up, the Playmate was just there.
And he was very embarrassed by the whole thing, and he said that we had followed the right procedure, the city would give it proper attention and things like that . . . .

December 29, 1969

MR. WEINGLASS: I direct your attention now to August 5, 1968, and I ask you where you were on that day.

THE WITNESS: I was in my apartment, St. Marks Place, on the Lower East Side in New York City.

MR. WEINGLASS: Who was with you?

THE WITNESS: Jerry Rubin was there, Paul Krassner was there, and Nancy. Anita was there; five of us, I believe.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can you describe the conversation which occurred between you and Abe Peck on the telephone?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Peck and other people from Chicago, Yippies---had just returned from a meeting on Monday afternoon with David Stahl and other people from the City administration. He said that he was quite shocked because---they said that they didn't know that we wanted to sleep in the park.
Abe Peck said that it had been known all along that one of the key elements of this Festival was to let us sleep in the park, that it was impossible for people to sleep in hotels since the delegates were staying there and it would only be natural to sleep in the park.
He furthermore told me in his opinion the City was laying down certain threats to them in order to try and get them to withdraw their permit application, and that we should come immediately back to Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: After that phone conversation what occurred?

THE WITNESS: We subsequently went to Chicago on August 7 at night.

MR.WEINGLASS: Did a meeting occur on that evening?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in Mayor Daley's press conference room, where he holds his press conferences.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can y ou relate what occurred at this meeting?

THE WITNESS: It was more or less an informal kind of meeting. Mr. Stahl made clear that these were just exploratory talks, that the mayor didn't have it in his power to grant the permits. We said that that was absurd, that we had been negotiating now for a period of four or five months, that the City was acting like an ostrich, sticking its head in the sand, hoping that we would all go away like it was some bad dream.
I pointed out that it was in the best interests of the City to have us in Lincoln Park ten miles away from the Convention hall. I said we had no intention of marching on the Convention hall, that I didn't particularly think that politics in America could be changed by marches and rallies, that what we were presenting was an alternative life style, and we hoped that people of Chicago would come up, and mingle in Lincoln Park and see what we were about.
I said that the City ought to give us a hundred grand, a hundred thousand dollars to run the Festival. It would be so much in their best interests.
And then I said, "Why don't you just give two hundred grand, and I'll split town?"
It was a very informal meeting. We were just sitting around on metal chairs that they had.
All the time David Stahl had been insisting that they did not make decisions in the city, that he and the mayor did not make the decisions. We greeted this with a lot of laughter and said that it was generally understood all around the country that Daley was the boss of Chicago and made all the decisions.
I also said that I considered that our right to assemble in Lincoln Park and to present our society was a right that I was willing to die for, that this was a fundamental human right . . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: On August 14, approximately three days later, in the morning of that day, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I went to speak to Jay Miller, head of the American Civil Liberties Union. I asked if it was possible for them to work with us on an injunction in the Federal court to sue Mayor Daley and other city officials about the fact that they would not grant us a permit and were denying us our right to freedom of speech and assembly.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, can you relate to the Court and jury what happened in court when you appeared at 10:00 A.M.?

THE WITNESS: It was heard before Judge Lynch.
There was a fantastic amount of guards all over the place.
We were searched, made to take off our shirts, empty our pockets---

MR. SCHULTZ. That is totally irrelevant. There happened to be threats at that time, your Honor---

THE WITNESS: He is right. There were threats. I had twenty that week.

THE COURT: The language, "There were a fantastic amount of guards," may go out and the jury is directed to disregard them.

MR. WEINGLASS: After the---

THE WITNESS: We came before the judge. It was a room similar to this, similar, kind of wall-to wall bourgeois, rugs and neon lights. Federal courts are all the same, I think.
The judge made a couple of references to us in the room, said that our dress was an affront to the Court.
It was pointed out by a lawyer that came by that Judge Lynch was Mayor Daley's ex-law partner. As as result of this conversation we went back into court about twenty, thirty minutes later.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you speak to the Court?

THE WITNESS: I spoke to Judge Lynch. I said that we were withdrawing our suit, that we had as little faith in the judicial system in this country as we had in the political system.
He said, "Be careful, young man. I will find a place for you to sleep."
And I thanked him for that, said I had one, and left.
We withdrew our suit. Then we had a press conference downstairs to explain the reasons for that. We explained to the press that we were leaving in our permit application but withdrawing our Federal injunction to sue the city. We said it was a bit futile to end up before a judge, Judge Lynch, who was the ex-law partner of Mayor Daley, that the Federal judges were closely tied in with the Daley and Democratic political machine in Chicago and that we could have little recourse of grievance.
Furthermore, that we suspected that the judge would order us not to go into Lincoln Park at all and that if we did, that we would be in violation of contempt of court, and that it was a setup, and Judge Lynch planned to lynch us in the same way that Stahl was stalling us.
I pointed out that the names in this thing were getting really absurd, similarities. I also read a list of Yippie demands that I had written that morning--sort of Yippie philosophy.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, will you read for the Court and jury the eighteen demands first, then the postscript.

THE WITNESS: I will read it in the order that I wrote it. "Revolution toward a free society, Yippie, by A. Yippie.
"This is a personal statement. There are no spokesmen for the Yippies. We are all our own leaders. We realize this list of demands is inconsistent. They are not really demands. For people to make demands of the Democratic Party is an exercise in wasted wish fulfillment. If we have a demand, it is simply and emphatically that they, along with their fellow inmates in the Republican Party, cease to exist. We demand a society built along the alternative community in Lincoln Park, a society based on humanitarian cooperation and equality, a society which allows and promotes the creativity present in all people and especially our youth.
"Number one. An immediate end to the war in Vietnam and a restructuring of our foreign policy which totally eliminates aspects of military, economic and cultural imperialism; the withdrawal of all foreign based troops and the abolition of military draft.
"Two. An immediate freedom for Huey Newton of the Black Panthers and all other black people; adoption of the community control concept in our ghetto areas; an end to the cultural and economic domination of minority groups.
"Three. The legalization of marijuana and all other psychedelic drugs; the freeing of all prisoners currently imprisoned on narcotics charges.
"Number four. A prison system based on the concept of rehabilitation rather than punishment.
"Five. A judicial system which works towards the abolition of all laws related to crimes without victims; that is, retention only of laws relating to crimes in which there is an unwilling injured party: i.e. murder, rape, or assault.
"Six. The total disarmament of all the people beginning with the police. This includes not only guns but such brutal vices as tear gas, Mace, electric prods, blackjacks, billy clubs, and the like.
"Seven. The abolition of money, the abolition of pay housing, pay media, pay transportation, pay food, pay education. pay clothing, pay medical health, and pay toilets.
"Eight. A society which works towards and actively promotes the concept of full unemployment, a society in which people are free from the drudgery of work, adoption of the concept 'Let the machines do it.'
"Number ten. A program of ecological development that would provide incentives for the decentralization of crowded cities and encourage rural living.
"Eleven. A program which provides not only free birth control information and devices, but also abortions when desired.
"Twelve. A restructured educational system which provides a student power to determine his course of study, student participation in over-all policy planning; an educational system which breaks down its barriers between school and community; a system which uses the surrounding community as a classroom so that students may learn directly the problems of the people.
"Number thirteen. The open and free use of the media; a program which actively supports and promotes cable television as a method of increasing the selection of channels available to the viewer.
"Fourteen. An end to all censorship. We are sick of a society that has no hesitation about showing people committing violence and refuses to show a couple fucking.
"Fifteen. We believe that people should fuck all the time, any time, wherever they wish. This is not a programmed demand but a simple recognition of the reality around its.
"Sixteen. A political system which is more streamlined and responsive to the needs of all the people regardless of age. sex, or race; perhaps a national referendum system conducted via television or a telephone voting system; perhaps a decentralization of -power and authority with many varied tribal groups, groups in which people exist in a state of basic trust and are free to choose their tribe.
"Seventeen. A program that encourages and promotes the arts. However, we feel that if the free society we envision were to be sought for and achieved, all of us would actualize the creativity within us; in a very real sense we would have a society in which every man would be an artist.'
And eighteen was left blank for anybody to fill in what they wanted.  "It was for these reasons that we had come to Chicago, it was for these reasons that many of us may fight and die here. We recognize this as the vision of the founders of this nation. We recognize that we are America; we recognize that we are free men. The present-day politicians and their armies of automatons have selfishly robbed us of our birthright. The evilness they stand for will go unchallenged no longer. Political pigs, your days are numbered. We are the second American Revolution. We shall win.
"YIPPIE."

MR. WEINGLASS: When you used the words "fight and die here," in what context were you using those words?

THE WITNESS: It is a metaphor. That means that we felt strongly about our right to assemble in the park and that people should be willing to take risks for it. It doesn't spell it out because people were capable of fighting in their own way and making their own decisions and We never would tell anyone specifically that they should fight, fistfight.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you during the week of the Convention and the period of time immediately before the Convention tell any person singly or in groups that they should fight in the park?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the morning of August 19, 1968, did you attend a meeting on that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I went to the office of the Mobilization Committee.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was there a discussion?

THE WITNESS: I never stayed long at these meetings. I just went and made an announcement and maybe stayed ten or fifteen minutes. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Was there a course given in snake dancing on that day also?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes. People would have a pole and there would be about six people, and then about six people behind them, holding them around the waist, four or five lines of these people with men, women, and kids maybe eight years old in on this whole thing, and people would bounce from one foot to the other and yell "Wash oi, Wash oi," which is kind of Japanese for "Yippie," I guess.
And they would just march up and down the park like this, mostly laughing and giggling, because the newsmen were taking this quite seriously, and then at a certain point everybody would turn in and sort of just collapse and fall on the ground and laugh. I believe we lost about four or five Yippies during that great training.
The exciting part was when the police arrested two army intelligence officers in the trees.

MR. WEINGLASS: During the course of that day when you were in the park, did you notice that the police were hanging any signs in the park?

THE WITNESS: Late in the day, maybe four or five, I became aware that there were police nailing signs on the trees that said "11:00 p.m. curfew," maybe a few other words, but that was the gist of the signs.

MR. WEINGLASS: From Friday, August 23, on to the end of Convention week, did you ever discuss with any people the question of staying in the park after the curfew hours?

THE WITNESS: At a meeting on August 24, that subject came up, and there was lengthy discussion. ..

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, did you hear Jerry Rubin speak at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Jerry said that the park wasn't worth fighting for; that we should leave at the eleven p.m. curfew. He said that we should put out a statement to that effect.

MR. WEINGLASS: And did you speak at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: I reported on a meeting that morning with Chief Lynskey. I had asked the Chicago cops who were tailing me to take me to Chief Lynskey who was in charge of the area of Lincoln Park.  I went up to the chief and said, "Well, are you going to let us have the Festival?"
He said "No festival under any circumstances. If anybody breaks one city ordinance in that park, we clear the whole park."
He said, "You do any one thing wrong and I will arrest you on sight."
He said, "Why don't you try to kick me in the shins right now?"
And I said NBC wasn't there.
And he said, "Well, at least the kid's honest," and stuff like that.
Then I gave a speech to the police that were all assembled and I said, "Have a good time." I said, "The National Guard's coming in, they're probably going to whip you guys up, and I hope your walkie-talkies work better than ours," and stuff like that. And I just walked out.
Then we discussed what we were going to do. I said it was my feeling that Chicago was in a total state of anarchy as far as the police mentality worked. I said that we were going to have to fight for every single thing, we were going to have to fight for the electricity, we were going to have to fight to have the stage come in, we were going to have to fight for every rock musician to play, that the whole week was going to be like that.
I said that we should proceed with the festival as planned, we should try to do everything that we had come to Chicago to do, even though the police and the city officials were standing in our way.

MR. WEINGLASS: During the course of this Saturday and prior to this meeting, did you have occasion to meet Irv Bock in the park?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I met Irv Bock Saturday afternoon during some of the marshal training. Marshal training is a difficult phrase to use for Yippies. We always have a reluctance to marshals because they are telling people what to do and we were more anarchistic than that, more leaderless.
I sort of bumped into Irv Bock. I showed him a---it wasn't a gas mask but it was a thing with two plastic eyes and a little piece of leather that I got, I purchased in an army-navy store for about nineteen cents, and I said that these would be good protection against Mace.
He started running down to me all this complicated military jargon and I looked at him and said, "Irv, you're a cop, ain't you?"
He sort of smiled and said, "No, I'm not."
"Come on," I said, "We don't grow peaceniks that big. We are all quarterbacks. You've got to be a cop.''
I said, "Show me your wallet."
So he said, "No, no. Don't you trust me?"
So I said, "Irv," I said, "last night there was a guy running around my house with a pistol trying to kill me," that I had twenty threats that week, and at that point I didn't trust Jerry Rubin. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to approximately two o'clock in the morning, which would now be Monday morning, do you recall what you were doing?

THE WITNESS: I made a telephone call to David Stahl, Deputy Mayor of Chicago at his home. I had his home number.
I said, "Hi, Dave. How's it going? Your police got to be the dumbest and the most brutal in the country," I said.
"The decision to drive people out of the park in order to protect the City was about the dumbest military tactic since the Trojans let the Trojan horse inside the gate and there was nothing to be compared with that stupidity."
I again pleaded with him to let people stay in the park the following night. "There will be more people coming Monday, Tuesday, and subsequently Wednesday night," I said, "and they should be allowed to sleep." I said that he ought to intercede with the Police Department. I said to him that the City officials, in particular his boss, Daley, were totally out of their minds.
I said, "I read in the paper the day before that they had 2,000 troops surrounding the reservoirs in order to protect against the Yippie plot to dump LSD in the drinking water. There isn't a kid in the country," I said, "never mind a Yippie, who thinks that such a thing could be done."
I told him to check with all the scientists at the University of Chicago---he owned them all.
He said that he knew it couldn't be done, but they weren't taking any chances anyway . . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Can you tell the Court and jury where you were in Lincoln Park at approximately 11:30 Monday night?

THE WITNESS: I was walking through the barricade, my wife Anita and I.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see Allen Ginsberg at the barricade?

THE WITNESS: Yes. He was kneeling.
There was a crowd of people around. He was playing that instrument that he plays and people were chanting.
There was a police car that would come by and I believe it was making announcements and people would yell at the police car, you know, "Beat it. Get out. The parks belong to the people. Oink Oink.  Pig Pig. Pigs are coming. Peace Now."
People were waving flags. People were running around being scared and people were running around sort of joyous. I mean, it was strange, different emotions. It was very dark in that place.

MR. SCHULTZ: The witness is not answering the question any more. He is giving another essay. I object.

MR. WEINGLASS: When the police finally came to the barricade, from what direction did they come?

THE WITNESS: They came in through the zoo.
They proceeded to climb and immediately started to club people.
They were throwing parts of the barricade, trashcans, at people.
MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at the time the police came to the barricade what did you do?

THE WITNESS: Well, I was coughing and spitting because there was tear gas totally flooding the air, cannisters were exploding all around me---I moved with the people out this way, out of the park trying to duck, picking up people that were being clubbed, getting off the ground myself a few times.
The police were just coming through in this wedge, solid wedge, clubbing people right and left, and I tried to get out of the park.

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to approximately six o'clock the following morning, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I got in the car of the police that were following me and asked them to take me to the beach---the beach part of Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: What was occurring when you got there?

THE WITNESS: Allen Ginsberg and about---oh 150-200 people were kneeling, most of the people in lotus position which is a position with their legs crossed like this---chanting and praying and meditating.
There were five or six police cars on the boardwalk right in back, and there were police surrounding the group. Dawn was breaking. It was very cold, very chilly. People had a number of blankets wrapped around them, sitting in a circle.
I went and sat next to Allen and chanted and prayed for about an hour. Then I talked to the group. People would give talks about their feelings of what was going on in Chicago. I said, "I am very sad about what has happened in Chicago.
"What is going on here is very beautiful, but it won't be in the evening news that night.
"The American mass media is a glutton for violence, and it would be only shots of what was happening in the streets of Chicago."
I said, "America can't be changed by people sitting and praying, and this is an unfortunate reality that we have to face."
I said that we were a community that had to learn how to survive, that we had seen what had happened the last few nights in Lincoln Park. We had seen the destruction of the Festival.
I said, "I will never again tell people to sit quietly and pray for change.". . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to approximately 6:00 A.M. the following morning, Wednesday, August 28, do you recall what you were doing?

THE WITNESS: I went to eat. I went with Paul Krassner, Beverly Baskinger, and Anita and four police officers--- Paul also had two Chicago police officers following him, as well as the two that were following me. We walked and the four of them would drive along behind us.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you describe for the jury and the Court what you were wearing at that time?

THE WITNESS: Well, I had cowboy boots, and brown pants and a shirt, and I had a grey felt ranger cowboy type hat down over my eyes, like this.

MR.WEINGLASS: What, if anything occurred while you were sitting there having breakfast?

THE WITNESS: Well, two policemen came in and said, "We have orders to arrest you. You have something under your hat."
So I asked them if they had a search warrant and I said 'Did you check it out with Commander Braasch? Me and him got an agreement"---and they went to check it out with him, while we were eating breakfast.

MR. WEINGLASS: After a period of time, did they come back?

THE WITNESS: They came back with more police officers---there were about four or five patrol cars surrounding the restaurant. The Red Squad cops who had been following us came in the restaurant, four or five police, and they said, "We checked. Now will you take off your hat?" They were stern, more serious about it.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do?

THE WITNESS: Well, I lifted up the hat and I went "Bang! Bang!"
They grabbed me by the jacket and pulled me across the bacon and eggs and Anita over the table, threw me on the floor and out the door and threw me against the car, and they handcuffed me.
I was just eating the bacon and going "Oink Oink!"

MR. WEINGLASS: Did they tell you why you were being arrested?

THE WITNESS: They said they arrested me because I had the word "Fuck" on my forehead. I had put it on with this magic marker before we left the house. They called it an "obscenary."
I put it on for a couple of reasons, One was that I was tired of seeing my picture in the paper and having newsmen come around, and I know if you got that word on your forehead they ain't going to print your picture in the paper. Secondly, it sort of summed up my attitude about the whole thing---what was going on in Chicago.
I like that four letter word---I thought it was kind of holy, actually.

MR. WEINGLASS: Abbie Hoffman, prior to coming to Chicago, from April 1968 on to the week of the Convention, did you enter into an agreement with David Dellinger, John Froines, Tom Hayden, Jerry Rubin, Lee Weiner or Rennie Davis, to come to the city of Chicago for the purpose of encouraging and promoting violence during the Convention week?

THE WITNESS: An agreement?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: We couldn't agree on lunch.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examine.

MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, your Honor. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you see numerous instances of people attacking the Guardsmen at the Pentagon, Mr. Hoffman?

THE WITNESS. I don not believe that I saw any instances of people attacking National Guardsmen. In fact, the attitude was one of comradeship. They would talk to the National Guardsmen continuously and tell them they were not the people that they had come to confront, that they were their brothers and you don't get people to oppose [their ways] by attacking them.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffman, the Guards and the troops were trying to keep the people from entering into the Pentagon for two days, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: I assume that they were there to guard the Pentagon from rising in the air possibly. I mean, who knows what they are there for? Were you there?
You probably watched it on television and got a different impression of what was happening. That is one aspect of myth-making---you can envisualize hoardes and hoardes of people when in reality that was not what happened.

MR SCHULTZ: Did you see some people urinate on the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: On the Pentagon itself?

MR. SCHULTZ: Or at the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: There were over 100,000 people. People have that biological habit, you know.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you symbolically urinate on the Pentagon, Mr. Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: I symbolically urinate on the Pentagon?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I didn't get that close. Pee on the walls of the Pentagon?
You are getting to be out of sight, actually. You think there is a law against it?

MR. SCHULTZ: Are you done, Mr. Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: I am done when you are.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you ever state that a sense of integration possesses you and comes from pissing on the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: I said from combining political attitudes with biological necessity, there is a sense of integration, yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: You had a good time at the Pentagon, didn't you. Mr. Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes I did. I'm having a good time now too. I feel that biological necessity now. Could I be excused for a slight recess?

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we will take a brief recess.(brief recess)

MR. SCHULTZ: On the seventh of August, you told David Stahl that at your liberated area you---

THE WITNESS: What meeting was this, August 7?

MR. SCHULTZ: That's when you just flew in from New York.

THE WITNESS: Crossing state lines---

MR. SCHULTZ: At this meeting on the evening of August 7, you told Mr. Stahl that you were going to have nude-ins in your liberated zone, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: A nude-in? I don't believe I would use that phrase, no. I don't think it's very poetic, frankly.
I might have told him that ten thousand people were going to walk naked on the waters of Lake Michigan, something like that.

MR. SCHULTZ: You told him, did you not, Mr. Hoffman, that in your liberated zone, you would have---

THE WITNESS: I'm not even sure what it is, a nude-in.

MR. SCHULTZ: ---public fornication.

THE WITNESS: If it means ten thousand people, naked people, walking on Lake Michigan, yes.

MR.KUNSTLER: I object to this because Mr.Schultz is acting like a dirty old man.

MR. SCHULTZ: We are not going into dirty old men. If they are going to have nude-ins and public fornication, the City officials react to that, and I am establishing through this witness that that's what be did.

THE COURT: Do you object?

MR. KUNSTLER: I am just remarking, your Honor, that a young man can be a dirty old man.

THE WITNESS: I don't mind talking about it.

THE COURT: I could make an observation. I have seen some exhibits here that are not exactly exemplary documents.

MR. KUNSTLER: But they are, your Honor, only from your point of view-making a dirty word of something that can be beautiful and lovely, and---

MR. SCHULTZ: We are not litigating here, your Honor, whether sexual intercourse is beautiful or not. We are litigating whether or not the City could permit tens of thousands of people to come in and do in their parks what this man said they were going to do.
In getting people to Chicago you created your Yippie myth, isn't that right? And part of your myth was "We'll burn Chicago to the ground," isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: It was part of the myth that there were trainloads of dynamite headed for Chicago, it was part of the myth that they were going to form white vigilante groups and round up demonstrators. All these things were part of the myth. A myth is a process of telling stories, most of which ain't true.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffman---
Your Honor, Mr. Davis is having a very fine time here whispering at me. He has been doing it for the last twenty minutes. He moved up here when I started the examination so he could whisper in my ear. I would ask Mr. Davis, if he cannot be quiet, to move to another part of the table so that he will stop distracting me.

THE COURT: Try not to speak too loudly, Mr. Davis.

MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Go ahead.

THE WITNESS: Go ahead, Dick.

MR. SCHULTZ: Didn't you state, Mr. Hoffman, that part of the myth that was being created to get people to come to Chicago was that "We will fuck on the beaches"?

THE WITNESS: Yes, me and Marshall McLuhan. Half of that quote was from Marshall McLuhan.

MR. SCHULTZ: "And there will be acid for all" ---that was another one of your Yippie myths, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: That was well known.

MR. SCHULTZ: By the way, was there any acid in Lincoln Park in Chicago?

THE WITNESS: In the reservoir, in the lake?

MR. SCHULTZ: No, among the people.

THE WITNESS: Well, there might have been, I don't know. It is colorless, odorless, tasteless. One can never tell. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: The fact is, Mr. Hoffman, that what you were trying to do was to create a situation where the State and the United States Government would have to bring in the Army and bring in the National Guard during the Convention in order to protect the delegates so that it would appear that the Convention had to be held under military conditions, isn't that a fact, Mr. Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: You can do that with a yo-yo in this country. It's quite easy. You can see just from this courtroom. Look at all the troops around---

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may the answer be stricken?

THE COURT: Yes, it may go out. . . .

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffman, in the afternoon on that Thursday you participated ;in a march, and then you laid down in front of an armored personnel carrier at the end of that march, at 16th or 19th on Michigan, laid down on the street?

THE WITNESS: Was that what it was? I thought it was a tank.
It looked like a tank.
Do you want me to show you how I did it? Laid down in front of the tank?

MR. SCHULTZ: All right, Mr. Hoffman. Did you make any gestures of any sort?

THE WITNESS: When I was laying down? See. I went like that, lying down in front of the tank.
I had seen Czechoslovakian students do it to Russian tanks.

MR. SCHULTZ: And then you saw a Chicago police officer who appeared to be in high command because of all the things he had on his shoulders come over to the group and start leading them back toward Grant Park, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: He came and then people left---and went back to the park, yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you say to anybody, "Well, you see that cat?", pointing to Deputy Superintendent Rochford. "When we get to the top of the hill, if the cat doesn't talk right, we're going to hold him there, and then we can do whatever we want and the police won't bother us." Did you say that to anybody out there, Mr. Hoffman?

MR. WEINGLASS: That's the testimony of the intelligence officer, the intelligence police officer of the Chicago Police Department.

THE WITNESS: I asked the Chicago police officers to help me kidnap Deputy Superintendent Rochford? That's pretty weird.

MR. SCHULTZ: Isn't it a fact that you announced publicly a plan to kidnap the head pig---

THE WITNESS: Cheese, wasn't it?

MR. SCHULTZ: ---and then snuff him---

THE WITNESS: I thought it was "cheese."

MR. SCHULTZ: ---and then snuff him if other policemen touched you? Isn't that a fact, sir?

THE WITNESS: I do not believe that I used the reference of "pig" to any policemen in Chicago including some of the top cheeses. I did not use it during that week. . .

MR. SCHULTZ: You and Albert, Mr. Hoffman, were united in Chicago in your determination to smash the system by using any means at your disposal, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Did I write that?

MR. SCHULTZ: No, did you have that thought?

THE WITNESS: That thought? Is a thought like a dream? If I dreamed to smash the system, that's a thought. Yes, I had that thought.

THE COURT: Mr. Witness, you may not interrogate the lawyer who is examining you.

THE WITNESS: Judge, you have always told people to describe what they see or what they hear. I'm the only one that has to describe what I think.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to any reference to what a person thought or his being tried for what he thought. He may be tried for his intent.

THE COURT: Overrule the objection.

THE WITNESS: Well, I had a lot of dreams at night. One of the dreams might have been that me and Stew were united.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffman, isn't it a fact that one of the reasons why you came to Chicago was simply to wreck American society?

THE WITNESS: My feeling at the time, and still is, that society is going to wreck itself. I said that on a number of occasions, that our role is to survive while the society comes tumbling down around us; our role is to survive.
We have to learn how to defend ourselves, given this type of society, because of the war in Vietnam, because of racism, because of the attack on the cultural revolution---in fact because of this trial.

MR. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hoffman, by Thursday, the twenty-ninth, the last day of the Convention, you knew you had smashed the Democrats' chances for victory, isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: No. My attitude was it was a type of psychic jujitsu where the people smash themselves--or the party wrecks themselves. The same way this trial is.

MR. SCHULTZ: By Thursday there was no doubt in your mind when you saw the acceptance speech that you had won, and there would be a pig in the White House in '69?

THE WITNESS: Well, that was our role in coming here, to nominate a pig. That pig did win. He didn't actually---which one did?

MR. SCHULTZ: And you went out for champagne, and you brought it back to Mobilization headquarters and toasted the revolution, you did just that, right?

THE WITNESS: We drank some champagne. It was warm, warm champagne.

MR. SCHULTZ: And toasted to your success, to your victory, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: We toasted to the fact that we were still alive.
That was the miracle as far as I saw it, is still being alive by that last Thursday.

MR. SCHULTZ: That's all, your Honor.

THE WITNESSS: Right on!

THE COURT: Have you finished your cross-examination?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, I have.

THE WITNESS: Right on!

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD JOSEPH DALEY 



MR. KUNSTLER: What is your name?

THE WITNESS: Richard Joseph Daley.

MR. KUNSTLER: What is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am the mayor of the City of Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is that the chief executive officer of the City of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: It is referred to occasionally as that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mayor Daley, how many executive departments do you have in the City of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Approximately thirty-five.

MR. KUNSTLER: By whom are they headed?

THE WITNESS: Cabinet officers appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council.

MR. KUNSTLER: How are they removed?

THE WITNESS: They are only removed bv cause and also by trial before the Police Board.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you ever had occasion to remove the head of any executive department yourself?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you ever had occasion to remove a superintendent of police?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor,

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, who appoints the Police Board?

THE WITNESS: The mayor of the City of Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now with specific reference to the superintendent of police, what is his name?

THE WITNESS: James Conlisk.

MR. KUNSTLER: Was Superintendent Conlisk recommended by the Police Board?

MR. FORAN: I object to this. Now it is immaterial.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: Let's get on to the Democratic Convention if we are going to get there.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, who was the chairman of the Park Commission in 1968, specifically during the period from the first of the year going through August?

THE WITNESS: The proper designation is president, not chairman. The president was William McFetridge.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is this the same William McFetridge who announced your first candidacy for mayor in 1954?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: He was for many years a very close personal friend of yours. is that correct?

MR. FORAN: I object to that. It is clearly immaterial. It is a leading form of question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is a key portion of our interrogation, the relationship of the witness to--

THE COURT: It may be a key portion but--

MR. FORAN: Then let him ask the proper questions, your Honor.

THE COURT: I am ruling on it only as a matter of the law of evidence, sir. Whether it is key or not isn't important to me.

MR. KUNSTLER: Is it not true, Mayor Daley, that Mr. McFetridge once said the parks were not for dissenters?

MR. FORAN: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, do you know a Federal judge by the name of Judge Lynch?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: William Lynch.
At one time did you practice law with him?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, what is your relationship with Thomas Foran, the U.S. Attorney who is in this courtroom today?

THE WITNESS: I think he is one of the greatest attorneys in this country and the finest man I have met in private and public life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I would ask that that answer be stricken as not responsive as to what is his relationship.

THE COURT: I would like to have that said about me, but I agree with you that it is not responsive.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, something is happening in the rear row. I don't know what it is.

THE COURT: Will you let the marshals take care of the rear row?(jury excused)

A SPECTATOR: The marshals are interrupting the trial.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, something is happening in the back row. A marshal is going down--a woman marshal is going down--

VOICE: Ouch!
Ow, don't step on me, please!

VOICES: He isn't doing anything.
She didn't do anything.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, that is one of our staff people. I don't understand--I would like the Court to inquire--

THE COURT: Regardless of who the person is, if the person has been disorderly, the marshal must ask the person to leave.

VOICES: What's going on?
Leave him alone.
Hey, leave him alone.
Leave him alone.
Ouch!
Leave her alone.(shouts and screams)

VOICES: Stop it. Hey, stop that. Leave them alone.(shouts and screams)

VOICES: You're hitting Frank in the face.
Leave him alone, Leave him alone.(shouts and screams)

VOICES: Just leave him alone.
You're still hitting him.
Leave him alone.

MR. KUNSTLER: The defendants request to know what happened.

THE COURT: The marshals will explain at an appropriate time.

MR. KUNSTLER: We have information, your Honor, that some of the people doing the removing are not marshals, but employees of the City of Chicago, and we have a man standing there with his coat on who obviously is not a marshal. We would like to know who he is.

MR. WEINGLASS: He is the one who was hitting Frank.

THE COURT: If everybody will be quiet and listen to the testimony of the witness, the questions of the lawyers, there will be no disorder.

MR. KUNSTLER: We have asked your Honor to conduct an inquiry. Nothing could be fairer than that. I am not asking you to believe--

VOICES: Hey! Hey!
For crying out loud!
Come on, will you!
For Christ's sake!

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, that is the defendant Davis going back there, running to the spectator section of the courtroom.(shouts and screams)

VOICES: Leave him alone!

THE COURT: The place for Mr. Davis is at the defendants table and in his chair.
Bring in the jury, Mr. Marshal.
The Court directs the spectators to be orderly. If any spectator is not orderly, he will be appropriately dealt with by the Court.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I just want to request if the person in the brown suit is a marshal. Since some of our people have been beaten up, I would like to know who that man is.

MR. FORAN: Oh, your Honor.

MR. DELLINGER: It's true.

MR. FORAN: --I object to the comment of Mr. Kunstler, your Honor. That's outrageous. I ask the jury be directed to disregard his comments.

THE COURT: Yes, I do direct the jury--

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, if he will show his badge, we will be happy.

THE COURT: He doesn't have to be a marshal--

MR. KUNSTLER: To stand there in the position of authority?

THE COURT: I don't know who he is. I don't know most of the marshals.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor is not going to ask him for the production of the badge?

THE COURT: No, no. No, no.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, it's our information this is a personal bodyguard of the witness.

THE COURT: Will you please proceed, sir, with the direct examination of this witness? Otherwise I will direct the witness to leave the witness stand.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, do you hold a position in the Cook County Democratic Committee?

THE WITNESS: I surely do, and I am very proud of it.
I am the leader of my party. I am the leader of the Democratic Party in Cook County. . .

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention, Mayor Daley, to the week of August 28, 1968.
Did you attend any sessions of the Democratic National Convention?

THE WITNESS: I did.

MR. KUNSTLER: And were you there during the nominating speeches for the various candidates?

THE WITNESS: I was.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, on the twenty-eighth of August, 1968, did you say to Senator Ribicoff--

MR. FORAN: Oh, your Honor, I object.

MR. KUNSTLER [continuing]: --"Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch, you lousy mother-fucker, go home"?

MR. FORAN: Listen to that. I object to that kind of conduct in a courtroom. Of all the improper, foolish questions, typical, your Honor, of making up questions that have nothing to do with the lawsuit.

THE COURT: May I suggest to you, sir, that this witness is your witness and you may not ask him any leading questions even of the sort that you proposed--especially, rather, of the sort that I heard a part of a moment ago.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have the source, your Honor. I will be glad to read it into the record.

THE COURT: I order you now, Mr. Kunstler, not to ask leading questions. Under the law you may not ask him such questions.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, your Honor, then I would renew my motion out of the presence of the jury to have a hearing on the question of whether he is or is not a hostile witness.

THE COURT: I will be glad to do that. I'll excuse you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for a few moments.(jury excused)

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, Rule 43(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, states that a party may interrogate any unwilling hostile witness by leading questions and contradict and impeach him in all respects as if he had been called by the adverse party.*
Witnesses procured by the U.S. Attorney, particularly Mr. Simon, indicated that the City of Chicago had in every way cooperated with these defendants in the procuring of permits and that the City of Chicago had refused permits.
In fact, if your Honor recalls, Mr. Baugher testified that he couldn't understand why the permits were not issued.
Your Honor, the only way we are ever going to get to the truth of this matter is by being able to ask cross-examination questions of the Mayor. He is the chief executive officer, as he testified, of the City of Chicago.*

THE COURT: The motion of the defense will be denied. The Court finds that there is nothing in the testimony of the witness that has indicated hostility. His manner has been that of a gentleman. He's answered questions straightforwardly, pursuant to the oath administered by the clerk of the court.
Bring in the jury.(jury enters)

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, who is David Stahl? Do you know him?

THE WITNESS: He is a very fine young man, the Deputy Mayor, who is interested in public life. He is a former vice-president of one of the outstanding corporations in Chicago and he is doing an outstanding job for the people of our city.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will assume with all of the people I ask you about they are very fine young men and so on.
It will save time.

THE WITNESS: I would say that anyone that served in government today is a fine young man because of what they are trying to do.

MR. KUNSTLER: I direct your attention, Mayor Daley, to March 28, 1968: do you recall any conversation or meeting with Mr. Stahl with reference to the Youth International Party?

THE WITNESS: I gave Mr. Stahl the same instructions I gave any other department, certainly, to meet with them, to try to cooperate with them, and do everything they could to make sure that they would be given every courtesy and hospitality while they were in the city of Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you consider that the use of nightsticks on the heads of demonstrators was hospitable?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. FORAN: It's a leading question.

MR. KUNSTLER: Prior to the Democratic National Committee choosing Chicago for its 1968 convention, did you have any discussions with Mr. Bailey or any other official of the Democratic National Committee?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did those instructions relate to the coming of the Convention to Chicago?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to that as a leading question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you discuss in any of these discussions the war in Vietnam?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: In any of those discussions with Mr. Bailey, did you have any conversation about the black community in Chicago?

MR. FORAN: Same objection exactly, your Honor. Object to it.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, in your experience as the mayor of this city which goes back, I understand, to 1955, have you ever had knowledge of people sleeping in Lincoln Park overnight?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question. It is leading,

THE COURT: That is right. I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we have tried to get a declaration of a hostile witness here without success. You have the discretion, your Honor, to declare a hostile witness which would make things-

THE COURT: If that is true I do not choose to exercise my discretion to suspend the law. MR. KUNSTLER: Did any of these defendants to your knowledge attempt to meet with you with reference to the Democratic National Convention prior to August 25?

MR. FORAN: Object to the leading character of the question, your Honor, and I ask that counsel be admonished.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection, and I remind you of my order, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mayor Daley, do you believe that people have the right to demonstrate against the war in Vietnam?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question. It's an improper question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection to the question.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mayor Daley, you've testified that you were at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday, August 28, and I questioned you about a statement with reference to Senator Ribicoff.

Can you indicate what you did say to Senator Ribicoff on that day?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to the form of the question, and again I ask that counsel be admonished.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection, and I remind you again and admonish you, Mr. Kunstler, of my order.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I have tried to reiterate ten times that in view of the nature of this witness, it is impossible to examine him and get to the truth of anything with these restrictions--

THE COURT: This witness is no different from any other witness.

MR. KUNSTLER: But, your Honor, that isn't so. He is different from any other witness. He is the Mayor of the city-

THE COURT: The fact that he happens to occupy a high public place--other than that, he is a witness. In this court he is just a witness.

MR. KUNSTLER: We are trying, your Honor, to get to the truth of what happened during Convention week.

THE COURT: You must get at the truth through proper questions, sir.

MR. FORAN: Through the law of evidence, your Honor, that it has taken five hundred years to achieve.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, it is obvious to me that in view of the Court's rulings and in view of the restrictions under which I am working, that it is impossible to question this witness adequately as we have desired to do.
I would now, in view of the responses to my last twenty questions here, like to read into the record an offer of proof of what we had hoped to prove through this witness if we had been able to ask him either impeaching or questions as a hostile witness.
I have prepared that offer of proof and would be prepared to read it into the record at this point.

THE COURT: I will excuse you for a few minutes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.(jury excused)

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, the defendants make the following offer of proof. Had the Mayor been designated a hostile witness, the defendants would have offered proof through his testimony to show the following:

1. That there was a conspiracy, overt or tacit, between Mayor Daley and the Democratic administration of Lyndon B. Johnson to prevent or crush any significant demonstrations against war, poverty, imperialism, and racism. and in support of alternative cultures at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

2. That the members of this conspiracy planned and executed the use of every means at their disposal, including the open and blatant encouragement of violence toward demonstrators by police and other military forces, in order to prevent or crush such public exhibition of dissatisfaction with American domestic and foreign policies.

3. That in so doing the conspirators were determined to continue the fraudulent myth that the people of the United States had a real voice in their government and that they would have a significant choice in the national election of 1968 between candidates supporting virtually identical policies of war, imperialism, racism, and the continued degradation and exploitation and oppression of youth, ethnic, socioeconomic, racial and other minorities.

4. That Mayor Daley obtained and maintains in power in Chicago bv the creation and maintenance of a corrupt political machine which is supported by those individuals and corporations standing to gain the most bv a continuation of present American domestic and foreign policies.

5. That this political machine is determined, whatever the cost, to prevent meaningful solutions to the problems presently facing the people of the United States and those of the rest of the world.

6. That the conspirators have embarked on a program of intense and brutal repression against all those who are seeking such solution, including but not limited to individuals and organizations committed to the end of the war in South Vietnam and the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American troops therefrom, the right of black people and other racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic minorities to control their own communities, the right of rebellion against oppression, and the bedrock right of all people to adopt a new way or style of life.

7. That in furtherance of this conspiracy, Mayor Daley, among other things:

(a) On April 1 5, 1 968, ordered his police to respond to the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., with orders to shoot to kill arsonists and shoot to maim or cripple looters in the black community.

(b) Attempted first to obstruct the peace parade of the Chicago Peace Council on April 27, 1968, and then brutalized the marchers therein as a warning to peace demonstrators to stay away from the Democratic National Convention.

(c) Attempted first to obstruct the demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention in August of 1968 and then harassed, victimized, and brutalized the participants therein.

(d) Attempted to mislead the people of Chicago and the United States as to the nature and cause of such obstructive and brutal tactics.

8. That in furtherance of this conspiracy, Mayor Daley utilized the services of members of his political machine, including those of Thomas Foran, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Illinois and a former assistant Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago.

9. That the indictment in this case was procured as a result of the said conspiracy in order to:

(a) shift the deserved blame for the disorders Surrounding the Democratic Convention from the real conspirators to deliberately selected individuals symbolizing various categories and degrees of dissent from American foreign and domestic policies.

(b) punish those individuals for their role in leading and articulating such dissent and

(c) deter others from supporting or expressing such dissent in the future.

10. That the indictments of eight Chicago policemen, simultaneously with the instant one" were deliberately planned and procured to match the charges against the defendants and thus give the fraudulent illusion that an even-handed standard of Justice was being applied.

11. That Mayor Daley and his administrators have for years victimized the black community in the City of Chicago by means which include chronic police violence, economic oppression, and the abuse of Federal and state programs.

12. That Mayor Daley and his administration have for years harassed, intimidated, and terrorized young people in the City of Chicago who have adopted and maintained life styles of which he disapproves including the wearing of long hair and unconventional clothing.

13. That Mayor Daley maintains power in Chicago by a combination of:

(a) political patronage;

(b) furthering the interests of the city's financial and mercantile communities;

(c) oppression of racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and other minorities.

14. That behind the mayor are powerful corporate interests who determine broad public policy in Chicago but are responsible to no one elected or public body. These interests govern Chicago for self-serving private gains instead of social needs: urban renewal works to enrich these private interests and against poor and working people who are robbed of their homes-, no public programs effectively halt the polluting of our air and water by these powerful interests. The city practices genocide against the black community and in particular the Black Panther Party, which no group of citizens can effectively check or reverse without dislodging these private interests from their control over public officials and institutions.

VOICE: Right on.

MR. KUNSTLER: This is our offer of proof. This is what we would have hoped to have proved had we been able to have the mayor declared. as we think he ought to be, a hostile witness.

THE COURT: Your offer is made a part of the record, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: With that, your Honor, we have no further questions because of the reasons I have indicated.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination? Oh, just a minute. We must have the jury in.(jury enters)

MR. FORAN: Mr. Daley, in your conversations with anyone did you ever suggest that a permit be denied to any applicant or applicants for a march permit relating to the Democratic Convention?

THE WITNESS: No, I never did.

MR. FORAN: In your conversations with anyone did you ever suggest that a permit be denied to any applicant or applicants for a permit to use any of the parks in this city?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: That is all.

TESTIMONY OF ARLO GUTHRIE 



MR KUNSTLER: What is your name?

THE WITNESS: Arlo Guthrie

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Guthrie, what is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a musician. I am an actor and a writer.

MR. KUNSTLER: By the way, Mr. Guthrie, was your father Woody Guthrie, the writer of "This Land is My Land"?

THE WITNESS: Objection, your Honor.

MR. KUNSTLER: Sustain the objection.

THE WITNESS: Now, Mr. Guthrie, you stated that you were an actor. Could you elaborate on that?

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, I've done one film, "Alice's Restaurant."

THE WITNESS: Is that playing in Chicago now?

MR. KUNSTLER: I believe so.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, this is a long trial and this silly stuff---

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Guthrie, I call your attention to mid-January of 1968. Do you recall meeting with Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I met them in New York at an underground radio station. Abbie and Jerry were talking to me about having a Festival of Life here in Chicago.

MR. FORAN: Could we have who said what, please, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. We don't expect you to have all that other talent and still know how to be a good witness.

THE WITNESS: Abbie wanted me to come down and sing at a Festival of Life here in Chicago. What I said to Abbie was that it would be rather difficult, you know, for me to get involved in that kind of thing because we had had a lot of trouble before with festivals and gatherings because of police violence.
Abbie asked me if I had any song or kind of theme song for the festival, and I said yes. "Alice's Restaurant," and Jerry said, "What's that?" He had never heard it, and I proceeded to tell him about "Alice's Restaurant."

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you tell him?

THE WITNESS: Well, I told him that it was about Alice and Ray Brock, who live in a church in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and she ran a restaurant. They live in a church and they had a lot of room in the church, and having all that room in the church, they decided that they didn't have to take out their garbage. We had a big Thanksgiving dinner, and after we took out the garbage and we went to the garbage dump, but it was closed. There was a sign across the entrance saying, "Closed on Thanksgiving," and we drove around looking for another place to put the garbage. We found one and dumped it. We went back to the church and ate some more.
The next morning I got up. We got a phone call from a police officer who wanted to know who had dumped the garbage. He had found my name on a piece of paper in the middle of the pile, and said it was illegal to dump there, to come down to the police station and pick up the garbage. So I went down, and he arrested me, and I went with my friend, and we all went over to the garbage, looked around.  We went to court, got fined twenty-five bucks, and eventually picked up the garbage
And it was after that that I went down for my induction physical examination thing in New York City at Whitehall Street, and I went through a lot of tests and examinations, I had examinations and all kinds of things. I eventually went to see a psychiatrist.

THE COURT: Did you pass?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me?

THE COURT: Did you pass the examination?

THE WITNESS: Not yet. Anyway---

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this is a story of "Alice's Restaurant."

THE COURT: Oh, this didn't happen to him?

THE WITNESS: Yes it did.

THE COURT: Oh. You're mistaken. You're mistaken, Mr. Kunstler.
Did you pay the $25 fine?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did.
Anyway, I finally came to see the very last person in the induction center who had asked me if I had ever been arrested. I told him yes, I was. He said, "What for?" I said, "Littering," and he said, "Did you ever go to court?" and I said, "Yes," and I was unacceptable to the draft because I had been a litterbug in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
The end of the song is the chorus which goes: [sings] "You can get anything you want---"

THE COURT: Oh, no, no. No. I am sorry.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, that's what he sang for the defendants.

THE COURT: I don't want the theater owner where this picture is shown to sue me.

MR. KUNSTLER: We'll represent you, your Honor.

THE COURT: No singing. No singing. No singing, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Weinglass and I, free of charge, will represent you.

THE COURT: I will reserve my comment on that one. You, please don't sing.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you say the words of the chorus?

THE WITNESS: "You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant/You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant./Walk right in---it's around the back/About a half a mile from the railroad track, and/You can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant."

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call you attention, Mr. Guthrie, to the opening week, approximately, of July, 1968. Do you know where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was on the front porch of the Viking Hotel in Newport, Rhode Island. Abbie and Jerry approached me, and asked me if I would come to Chicago to sing the song. I said to both of them that I was still concerned about the fact that the permits had not been granted yet, and that I would not attend and that I would to my best to have other people not attend if the permits weren't granted because of the fear of police violence.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you go to Chicago?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.

MR. KUNSTLER: And would you state to the Court and jury why you did not go to Chicago?

MR. FORAN: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination?

MR. FORAN: I have no cross-examination.

THE COURT: You may go.

TESTIMONY OF ED SANDERS 



MR.WEINGLASS: Will You please state your name?

THE WITNESS: Ed Sanders.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where do you reside?

THE WITNESS-. In the Lower East Side of New York City.

MR. WEINGLASS: Prior to residing in the Lower East Side where did you lives

THE WITNESS: In Jackson County, Missouri.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what it was that brought you from Jackson County, Missouri to New York?

THE WITNESS: Reading Allen Ginsberg's "Howl" in shop class in high school in 1957.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Sanders, could you indicate to the Court and to the jury what your present occupation is?

THE WITNESS: I am a poet, songwriter, leader of a rock and roll band, publisher, editor, recording artist, peace-creep--

MR. SCHULTZ: What was the last one, please?

THE COURT: Peace-creep?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Will you please spell it for the reporter?

THE WITNESS: P-E-A-C-E, hyphen, C-R-E-E-P.

THE COURT: Peace-creep, Mr. Schultz.

THE WITNESS [continuing] --and yodeler.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now in connection with your yodeling activities

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, this is all very entertaining but it is a waste of time. We don't have to do anything in connection with his yodeling to get to the issues in this case.

THE COURT: You may finish your question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Sanders, can you identify these two items?

THE WITNESS: They are two phonograph records. The records were produced by me, by the group, The Fugs, of which I am the leader and head fug, so to speak.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, Mr. Sanders, have you also written a book about the Yippies?

MR. SCHULTZ: Leading, objection.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Witness, will you wait when there is an objection so that I can indicate my view of the objection? Will you do that?

THE WITNESS: I'll try.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the latter part of November in the year of 1967, did you have occasion to meet with any of the defendants seated here at the counsel table?

THE WITNESS: I met with Jerry Rubin. There was a conference at the Church Center for the UN in New York City.

MR. WEINGLASS: And at the time of that meeting did you have a conversation?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I mentioned the Monterey Festival, which was a free festival featuring all the rock bands in America. Mr. Rubin said it was inspirational that some of the major rock bands in America were willing to play for free at a large tribal-type gathering of people, and I said it was really great and that we should consider convening something for the following summer or in the following year of a similar nature, that is, a free rock festival composed of all the major rock bands in America.
Then Keith Lampe said, "Why don't we hold it next summer, you know, sometime in August?" And it was agreed-at that point everybody decided it would be a wonderful idea to have a free rock festival denoting the new life styles emerging, and that we would get in touch with Abbie Hoffman and other people and have a meeting right away.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the evening of January 4, 1968, do you recall where you were on that evening?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I went to Jerry Rubin's house in New York City to get briefed on a meeting that had taken place.

MR. WEINGLASS: What took place at that meeting you had with Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Well, first we had a period of meditation in front of his picture of Chi on the wall for a half hour.

THE COURT: Picture of whom?

THE WITNESS: Che, Che Guevara. Che, the great revolutionary leader.

THE COURT: Oh. Would you spell it for the reporter.

THE WITNESS: C-H-E.
Then we practiced for about a half hour toughening up our feet walking around in Baggies full of ice, and then Jerry informed me about the circumstances of the meeting that had taken place, forming the Youth International Party, and that it was decided to hold a free rock festival in Chicago during the time of the Democratic National Convention, and that the convening would be a convening of all people interested in the new politics, guerilla theater, rock and roll, the convening of the hemp horde from all over the various tribes in the United States. I was asked by Jerry if I would help coordinate, since I knew the major rock groups in the United States, if I would contact them and ask them if they would play.
I said I would be happy to and that I would proceed forthwith in contacting these major rock groups, and that I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, had you ever discussed with either Jerry Rubin or Abbie Hoffman in person your contacts with these major rock groups?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, would you please ask Mr. Weinglass not to ask leading questions, not to lead the witness?
We keep on getting up and getting up. It becomes embarrassing. For people who don't know the legal rules, it looks very bad for the Government to constantly be getting up.

THE COURT: I appreciate that, Mr. Schultz.

MR. SCHULTZ: I am begging--I am begging defense counsel to ask questions properly.

THE COURT: Don't beg.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is what it is.

THE COURT: Don't beg. You needn't beg. I will order them not to ask leading questions.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to March 27, do you recall where you were in the evening of that day?

THE WITNESS: I was at my home in the Lower East Side.

MR. WEINGLASS: What, if anything, occurred while you were at home that evening?

THE WITNESS: I received a phone call from Jerry Rubin.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you indicate to the Court and to the jury what the conversation was that you had with Jerry Rubin on the telephone that night?

THE WITNESS: Well, he said that he was very--he had gone to Chicago and that they had placed a petition for a permit, filled out the necessary forms with the necessary officials in Chicago.
Then I said to him, "I hear that you're thinking about nominating a pig for President, an actual pig, oinky-oink, you know, Pigasus, the Immortal."
Then I said--well, I let it be known, as a pacifist and a vegetarian, I had heard there was a faction within the hippie hemp horde that was advocating a big pig roast after the election at which point the pig would be made into bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches, and that I was a spokesman for the vegetarians and I was opposed, philosophically opposed to this.
And so it was agreed tentatively at that point that there would be no bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches made of our presidential candidate.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the date of August 7, at approximately nine o'clock that evening, do you recall where you were on that date and at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in an interior office somewhere near Mayor Daley's office for a meeting with Al Baugher, David Stahl, Richard Goldstein, myself, Jerry, Abbie, Krassner, I guess.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what was said at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: I addressed Mr. Stahl and Mr. Baugher, saying that for many months we had planned a Festival of Life with the basis of free music and that I had negotiated with rock groups and singing groups to come to Chicago on that basis and that we needed permits, and we needed the use of the park for our various festival activities.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, what, if anything, were you doing during the course of that meeting?

THE WITNESS: I was making notes for a document that had been requested by various editors and people about the Yippie program for the Festival of Life. You know, poetic rendering of it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, I show you D-252 for identification, and I ask you if you can identify that document.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I wrote it. I mailed it out to various editors and publishers who had requested me for a statement.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the defense offers Defendants' Exhibit D-252, identified by the witness.
Now, how many paragraphs appear on that document?

THE WITNESS: Eighteen.

MR. WEINGLASS: And could you read to the jury those paragraphs which are marked.

THE WITNESS: "Predictions for Yippie activities in Chicago:
"A. Poetry readings, mass meditation, fly casting exhibitions, demagogic Yippie political arousal speeches, rock music and song concerts will be held on a precise timetable throughout the week, August 25 to 30.
"A dawn ass-washing ceremony with tens of--

THE COURT: I didn't hear that last.

THE WITNESS: Excuse me.
"A dawn ass-washing ceremony with tens of thousands participating will occur each morning at 5:00 A.m., as Yippie revelers and protesters prepare for the 7:00 A.M. volleyball tournaments.
Three --oh, no, five, excuse me.
"The Chicago offices of the National Biscuit Company will be hi-jacked on principle to provide bread and cookies for 50,000 as a gesture of goodwill to the youth of America.
"The Yippie ecological conference will spew out an angry report denouncing Chi's poison in the lakes and streams, industrial honkey fumes from white killer industrialists and exhaust murder from a sick hamburger society of automobile freaks with precise total assault solutions to these problems.
"Poets will rewrite the Bill of Rights in precise language detailing 10,000 areas of freedom in our own language to replace the confusing and vague rhetoric of 200 years ago.
"B. Share your food, your money, your bodies, your energy, your ideas, your blood, your defenses. Attempt peace.
"C. Plan ahead of time how you will probably respond to various degrees of provocation, hate and creep vectors from the opposition."

MR. SCHULTZ: I didn't get that. Creep what?

THE WITNESS: It is a neologism. Creep vectors.
"D. Learn the Internationale.
"E. Bring sleeping bags, extra food, blankets, bottles of fireflies, cold cream, lots of handkerchiefs and canteens to deal with pig spray, love beads, electric toothbrushes, see-through blouses, manifestos, magazines, tenacity.
"Remember we are the life forms evolving in our own brain." . . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: All right. Is there any cross-examination of this witness?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, your Honor.

MR., SCHULTZ: Now, you said, I think: that on January 4, 196 8, you went to Rubin's house, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: And that you meditated before a picture of Che Guevara, is that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: Is this the same Che Guevara who was one of the generals of Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: How long did you meditate before his picture?

THE WITNESS: About a half hour.

MR. SCHULTZ: In Mr. Stahl's office on August 7, did you hear Hoffman say that the Festival of Life that you were discussing with Deputy Mayor Stahl and Al Baugher would include nude-ins at the beaches, public fornications, body painting, and discussions of draft and draft evasion? Did you hear that?

THE WITNESS: Nudism, draft counseling, the beach thing, but he didn't use the word "public fornication."

MR. SCHULTZ: He didn't use that word. What word did he use in its place?

THE WITNESS: Probably fuck-in.

MR. SCHULTZ: This was a very important meeting for you, was it not, because if you didn't get the permit, there was a possibility that your music festival would be off, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: The concept of the meeting was important; the substance turned out to be bilious and vague.

MR. SCHULTZ: And you wanted those permits badly, did you not?

THE WITNESS: We sorely wanted them.

MR. SCHULTZ: While you were writing this document, you were also listening to what was going on at the meeting, weren't you?

THE WITNESS: I was keeping an ear into it.

MR. SCHULTZ: Will you read number four of that document, please.

THE WITNESS: Four.
OK.
Psychedelic long-haired mutant-jissomed peace leftists will consort with known dope fiends, spilling out onto the sidewalks in pornape disarray each afternoon."

MR. SCHULTZ: Would you read eight, please?

THE WITNESS: "Universal syrup day will be held on Wednesday when a movie will be shown at Soldiers Field in which Hubert Humphrey confesses to Allen Ginsberg of his secret approval of anal intercourse."

MR. SCHULTZ: Will you read nine, please.

THE WITNESS: "There will be public fornication whenever and wherever there is an aroused appendage and willing apertures"

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you read thirteen?

THE WITNESS: You want thirteen read? "Two-hundred thirty rebel cocksmen under secret vows are on 24-hour alert to get the pants of the daughters and wives and kept women of the convention delegates."

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you ever see these principles, or whatever they are, published in any periodical?

THE WITNESS: Yes, a couple.

MR. SCHULTZ: They were published before the Convention began, weren't they?

THE WITNESS: Right. Before.

MR. SCHULTZ: I have no more questions, your Honor.

TESTIMONY OF CORA WEISS 



MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name for the record?

THE WITNESS: Cora Weiss.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mrs. Weiss, what is Your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I am a housewife.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you have any relationship with the Mobilization Committee?

THE WITNESS: I am a national cochairman of the New Mobilization Committee.

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention, Mrs. Weiss, to the evening of July 25, 1968, and I ask you if you know where you were.

THE WITNESS: I spoke at the Hotel Diplomat in New York City under the auspices of the Fifth Avenue Peace Parade.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did anybody else speak?

THE WITNESS: Tom Hayden spoke.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what Tom Hayden said?

THE WITNESS: I remember distinctly that he talked about the only alternative to genocide was the total withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and I remember he quoted General Westmoreland and the man who said that we have to destroy a town in order to save it, to demonstrate what he meant by genocide.
And because these were the only alternatives, he said that we had to raise the issue of the total withdrawal of troops from Vietnam as the only viable solution to the war.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did he say anything else that you can now recall in that speech?

THE WITNESS: I believe that he said that we should go beyond the perimeter of dissent which is limited by waiting for elections, that we should continue our protest, and I believe he used a phrase, "the rules of the game," meaning the electoral process, the elections.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mrs. Weiss, I show you D-302 for identification and ask you if you can identify that.

THE WITNESS: These are the children who survived the massacre of Pinkville whom I saw in North Vietnam two weeks ago.

MR. SCHULTZ: Object. Objection. That has no relevancy. If Mr. Kunstier is going to pursue this, we have to argue this, we should excuse the jury.

THE COURT: I will excuse you for a few minutes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, with my usual orders.(jury excused)

MR. SCHULTZ: There is no question but what Mr. Kunstier is trving to do is get before the jury the recent development of what is called the massacre of My Lai in Vietnam.
Now, that has no probative value in this case. It's only being injected here in an attempt to turn the jury, to get to the jury's sympathies, wholly unrelated to the merits of the charges and the evidence in this case.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, this massacre at Song My occurred in March 1968 before the Democratic Convention. There is an example of genocide which was testified to by the witness as being a portion of Mr. Hayden's speech in July of 1968. It seems to me it's perfectly proper to indicate that this was one of the motivations why people went to the Democratic National Convention. I was going to next show her a letter written by a survivor of the Song My massacre to the women of the United States and the women of the world.

THE COURT: If vou want to have some other exhibits identified, I will let you protect your record by having them identified.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will show the witness Defendants' 304 for identification and ask her to state for the record what that document is.

THE WITNESS: This is a letter written in the hand of Vo Thi Lien, who is a twelve-yearold child, who is orphaned, and came from the village of Song My, in Quang Ngai Province, South Vietnam, whom I met and spent a dav with several weeks ago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, your Honor, while the jury is out, I would like to ask the witness to read into the record the English translation of the letter from-

THE COURT: I will let you-even though I already conclude from the identification that the exhibit has no place in the trial of this case.

MR. DAVIS: Before she reads that, we have been admonished many times at this table for laughing in the courtroom. I wonder now if you would admonish Mr. Foran for laughing during this entire episode when we have been talking about the massacre of women and children in Vietnam.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I wonder how loud the screams from the defense table would be if the Government put in evidence of what the Weathermen, led by that young man, Hayden,-if we had put in evidence that they came charging out of Lincoln Park two-anda-half months ago and rampaged all over the North Side of Chicago. That's why I'm laughing, because it's absolutely idiotic that they should be offering this kind of evidence in this case, and they know it, your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: In light of what the U.S. Attorney has said I would like this Court in light of the fact that there are persons here from the press and the public, to admonish, openly and in public, the United States Attornev for this reckless, premeditated charge against men who sit here as innocent persons, who are part of the citizenry of this country which Mr. Foran supposedly serves, and to make that charge of a crime without convincing a grand jury or having any testimony-

MR. FORAN: What about the soldiers, your Honor, who have not been found guilty of the charge at Pinkville?

THE COURT: We will strike the remarks of Mr. Foran from the record.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, Mr. Foran will concede that he lost his temper in the face of the offer made by these gentlemen and is sorry he made the remark.

MR. WEINGLASS: Would your Honor invite Mr. Foran to the lectern where he could make a public confession of a misstatement of the truth of a fact?

THE COURT: He has done everything that is necessary, in my judgment.

MR. WEINGLASS: He's done virtually nothing except say he lost his temper.

THE COURT: That will be all, Mr. Weinglass.

MR. KUNSTLER: I might add, your Honor, that many of the American soldiers involved have confessed publicly that they participated in the murders at Song My.

THE COURT: Will you read the Defendants' Exhibit 304 for identification into the record, Mrs. Weiss?

THE WITNESS: "I am Vo Thi Lien, twelve years old, a native of My Hoi Block, Song My Village, Quang Ngai province. I have survived the murder by GI's of 502 inhabitants of my village early last year. My Hoi alone lost 87 people, including eighteen of my dearest relatives. Now I wish to tell you in detail how the massacre was committed.
"Aunties,
"The weather was fine at dawn on March 16, 1968. As usual, people were going about their work, heading for their fields with spades on their shoulders, or sailing off on their boats, or pounding coconut bark to make coir. Suddenly, from Mount Ram and other places, enemy artillery heavily pounded my village. Everybody hurried into safety.
"When the shelling ended, people got out of their shelters. But at that very moment eleven choppers rushed in from the Chu Lai airfield and landed troops. Realizing that the enemv had come for a sweep, they scurried back to cover.
"The enemy now made for My Hoi. My paternal grandfather and grandmother and myself were in an underground. Grandmother set out to see whether, as usual, they had withdrawn after plundering houses and setting fire to them. Unexpectedly, a volley hit her right at the entrance. Without even a moan, she collapsed by my side. Then there was a flash and an explosion and I lost consciousness.
"When I came to, I was frightened and trembling so much that I could hardly stand on my feet. I felt slimy bits of flesh of grandmother thrown by grenades on my body. In tears, I crawled out of the trench to see who had died and who had survived.
"Aunties, you can never imagine what a horrible scene of carnage I then saw. All the fifteen members of Le's family were a heap of bodies maimed beyond recognition, eight piled on the brink of the underground and seven with severed heads or limbs. Small pieces of flesh were all over the place. Other families were exterminated to the last man. Mrs. Mot with her child, Mrs. Trinh with her five daughters and sons. Mrs. Hoa and Mrs. Mui each with their four little ones. Corpses were sprawling in clusters on the ground, chests pierced by bayonets, broken skulls with brains spilling, and bodies with pieces of flesh carved oft
by grenade splinters.
"Survivors told me what had happened while I were lying senseless in the shelter. American soldiers after raping Mrs. Ngo, who was near her time, killed her with rifle shots. The fetus was ejected from her womb. And as her three panic-stricken children burst out crying, they shot them dead immediately.
"My own beloved ones died not less horribly. Soldiers dragged auntie Vo Thi Phu out of her shelter and tried to assault her, but as she desperately resisted, they gunned her down as her one-year-old baby was crawling toward her body for a stick. They threw straw on mother and child and set fire to them both. My uncle's wife Le Thi Hong was also killed by gunshots.
"It was terrible. In one day my populous village had become a deserted, devastated place with just a few survivors.
"Aunties, American troops have massacred not only mv fellow villagers. I have met many friends of mine from different parts Of South Vietnam, not a few of them orphaned by American bombs and bullets. I hope that you will do your best so that not one more GI will be sent to South Vietnam, that You will call for the immediate repatriation of all American troops so that my country sliffers no more destruction and no more mass killing like the one in my native village, and so that other friends of mine will not experience horrors and suffering like mine.
"I wish you good health, respectfully yours.
Vo Thi Lien."

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. Not only do I sustain the objection, I order counsel for the defendants to make no reference to the exhibits before the jury.

MR. SCHULTZ: And would you also instruct the witness, your Honor, who apparently is losing her composure, not to make any reference to her recent trip and to these materials that we have been discussing, because they are not relevant to our prosecution?

THE COURT: Yes, I will instruct the jury.

MR. SCHULTZ: May we inquire of the witness who apparently was crying a moment ago whether or not a brief recess would be--

THE WITNESS: No, it won't be necessary but I am a mother and I have three children and I am sorry that I lost my composure.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jurv, while you were out the defendants through their counsel offered Defendants' Exhibits 302, 303 and 304, respectively, for identification. The Court sustained the objection of the Government to those exhibits and I order counsel to make no further reference to them.

MR. KUNSTLER: In view of your Honor's ruling on that, we have no further questions of this witness.

THE COURT: All right. Is there any cross-examination of this witness?

MR. SCHULTZ: The defendant Hayden, when he gave that speech. made reference to the Democratic National Convention coming up in August, didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Yes, he spoke of Chicago.

MR. SCHULTZ: And he said that there were going to be the largest mass arrests in America's history during the upcoming elections and nominations, didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Not that I recall.

MR. SCHULTZ: He said, didn't he, that the peace demonstrators should have contempt for the rules because the United States has broken the rules and the peace demonstrators now have a right to break the rules?

THE WITNESS: The rules of the game for the electoral process. We shouldn't just wait to vote to change the man in office or the policy in office, that we have to keep on raising dissents and to keep on demonstrating.

MR. SCHULTZ: He said that the United States had violated the law and that the peace demonstrators should have contempt for the rules, didn't he?

THE WITNESS: He said the United States had violated the laws of mankind.

MR. SCHULTZ: As a matter of fact, he said that the demonstrators should be prepared to shed their blood?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall if that is the exact phrase, but he spoke of it would not be the first time that blood might have to be shed, our blood as demonstrators, for a cause.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is all.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

TESTIMONY OF LINDA HAGER MORSE



THE COURT: Call your next witness, please.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name?

THE WITNESS: Linda Hager Morse.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you indicate something of your background and education?

THE WITNESS: I was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. I went to high school there. While in high school I was a Merit Scholarship semifinalist. I won the Juvenile Decency Award from the Kiwanis Club, one of thirteen high school students in Philadelphia that year. I went to the University of New Hampshire after graduating from high school. Then I left college and went back to Philadelphia and worked for several years in a community organizing project for a nonviolent pacifist group. Then I went to New York City and started working for the Fifth Avenue Vietnam Peace Parade Committee in 1965.

MR. KUNSTLER: Calling your attention to Friday, August 23, do you know what you did on that particular day?

THE WITNESS: I went down to the Mobilization office and met Dave Dellinger down there.

MR. KUNSTLER: Will you state to the Court and jury what you said to Dave Dellinger, and what he said to you?

THE WITNESS: He asked me to come with him for a permit negotiation meeting, and the reason for that was they had just learned that the courts had overturned an injunction that the Mobilization had put into the court asking for permits, and therefore there were no permits for the upcoming march the next week. And so, David asked me to come along, because I had had a lot of experience in negotiating for permits, for this emergency meeting down at City Hall where they were going to ask to see Mayor Daley.

MR. KUNSTLER: As a result of this conversation, did you and Mr., Dellinger do anything?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We went down to City Hall. We went into an anteroom or waiting room outside of the mayor's offices and sat around for quite a long time asking to see Mayor Daley. There were press people down there with us from various TV stations and newspapers who had followed us down there. Finally, a man came out, a city official, and spoke to us and said that Mayor Daley would not see us and that the matter was closed at this point.
So that was the end of that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention to Sunday, August 25, approximately 10: 30, in Lincoln Park. Can you describe the scene when you arrived?

THE WITNESS: Some people were sitting around, singing or talking, other people were walking around. It was just kind of an ordinary park scene with a little bit of excitement.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did there come a time when you saw some policemen in the park?

THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. There was a little house in the middle of the park, and at one point a group of policemen moved in front of the house, and stood with their backs up against the house, just standing there in formation.
I went over with a group of people to see what they were doing, and there was some chanting and stuff at them. I thought it was funny --we were teasing--

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see anything thrown?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see Jerry Rubin at all at this time?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know Jerry Rubin?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I have known him since 1967.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Miss Morse, I call your attention to Wednesday, August 28, and particularly to the time between 12:30 and 1:00 p.m. Do you know where you were then?

THE WITNESS: That is the time that I arrived at Grant Park, the Bandshell.

MR. KUNSTLER: What happened after that?

THE WITNESS: I went with the people who were going to march.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you tell the Court and jury where, if any place, the line moved to?

THE WITNESS: It moved about a block and a half or two blocks, and then we were stopped by policemen, a large group of them.

MR. KUNSTLER: After the march had been stopped by the police what happened to the demonstrators?

THE WITNESS: People got up slowly at first in small groups, couples, you know, twos and threes, and walked away from the march and across the first park toward the bridges to get across to the second park to the Hilton.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, did you do this yourself?

THE WITNESS: I went through the first park and came up to the first bridge. It was blocked off by National Guardsmen, and I got very frightened because we were trapped.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, if the Court please.

THE COURT: "I got very frightened" those words may go out and the jury is directed to disregard them.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have a conversation with Dave Dellinger"

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I told him that I was afraid that we were encircled by the National Guardsmen and the police, and that if we attempted to march that we would be beaten and arrested, and that I thought that it was too great a risk, and we had to call off the march and go back in front of the Conrad Hilton where I thought we would be safe.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did Dave Dellinger respond to the suggestion?

THE WITNESS: He told me that he felt we had to try to march; that Vietnamese and GI's were dying and this was least we could do, was to attempt to protest the war, and we had to follow through with it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you cross over the first bridge?

THE WITNESS: There was a row of Guardsmen in front and some trucks behind them and they were standing there with guns and tear gas masks, and one of the trucks had some weird kind of gun mounted on it. I don't know whether it was a machine gun or to shoot tear gas or what?

MR. KUNSTLER: When you couldn't get across the first bridge, what did you do?

THE WITNESS: Went up to the second bridge which was further north, I guess. We started to trot at this point and we came up to the bridge and the Guardsmen saw us coming and they shot tear gas at us. After that tear gassing we had to go and wash our eyes out in a fountain because it was really bad. Then we ran up to the last bridge, you know, and just made it across the last bridge as a group of Guardsmen were coming up.

MR. KUNSTLER: Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: We ran across the park and then back down that big street towards the Conrad Hilton. It was dark or late dusk by this time and there were really brilliant lights shining on the crowd and people were chanting. I remember hearing "The whole world is watching. The whole world is watching. Flash your lights. Flash your lights."
They were referring to the buildings and asking people in the buildings who were watching if they were sympathetic to us to flash their lights and there were lots of lights flashing. And people were standing around in that area and sitting on the side resting.

MR. KUNSTLER: Then what did you do yourself?

THE WITNESS: I sat there for a little while and I was exhausted and frightened and I just went home after that.

MR. KUNSTLER: I show you D-112 for identification and ask you if you can identify what is in that picture.

THE WITNESS: Yes, this is one of the bridges with Guardsmen blocking it off. And they have guns.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you see any of that equipment before?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that gun.

MR. KUNSTLER: What type of gun is that?

THE WITNESS: Machine gun is what it looks like to me.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions, your Honor.* * * * *   *

MR. SCHULTZ: You saw one of the machine guns in the picture; you don't know what caliber it is, do you?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. SCHULTZ: You practice shooting an M-1 yourself, don't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHULTZ: You also practice karate, don't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is for the revolution, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: After Chicago I changed from being a pacifist to the realization we had to defend ourselves. A nonviolent revolution was impossible. I desperately wish it was possible.

MR. SCHULTZ: And the only way you can change this country, is it not, is by a violent revolution, isn't that your thought?

THE WITNESS: I believe we have to have a revolution that changes the society into a good society, and to a society that meets the ideals that the country was founded on years ago which it hasn't met since then, and I think that we have the right to defend ourselves. The Minutemen in New York City were arrested with bazookas. Housewives in suburban areas have guns.

MR. SCHULTZ: And the way you are going to change this country is by violent revolution, isn't that right, Miss Morse?

THE WITNESS: The way we are going to change the country is by political revolution, sir.

MR. SCHULTZ: Miss Morse, isn't it a fact that in your opinion, there is no alternative but revolution?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: And is it a fact that you believe that the revolution will be gradual, and you and your people will gain control of the cities of the United States just like the guerrillas of the National Liberation Front are gaining control of the cities in Vietnam?

THE WITNESS: I believe that the people of the United States will regain control of their own cities just like the Vietnamese people are regaining control of their country.

MR. SCHULTZ: Isn't it a fact that you believe that the United States Government will control sections of its cities while the fighting rages in other sections of the cities not controlled by the Government of the United States?

THE WITNESS: The Government of the United States has lost its credibility today; there is fighting going on in cities in this country today. People's Park in Berkeley, the policemen shot at us when people were unarmed, were fighting with rocks, the policemen used doublebuckshot and rifles and pistols against unarmed demonstrators.
That is fighting. OK. People are fighting to regain their liberty, fighting to regain their freedom, fighting for a totally different society, people in the black community, people in the Puerto Rican community, people in the Mexican-American community and people in the white communities. They are fighting by political means as well as defending themselves.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, I move to strike that as nonresponsive.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, they are intensely political questions and she is trying to give a political answer to a political question.

THE COURT: This is not a political case as far as I am concerned. This is a criminal case. I can't go into politics here in this court.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, Jesus was accused criminally, too, and we understand really that was not truly a criminal case in the sense that it is just an ordinary.

THE COURT: I didn't live at that time. I don't know. Some people think I go back that far, but I really didn't.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, I was assuming your Honor had read of the incident.

THE COURT: We are dealing with a cross-examination of a witness, and I direct you to answer the question.

MR. SCHULTZ: Gradually the Government of the United States will be taken over by this revolution?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: And that your ultimate goal is to create a nation with this revolutionary party?

THE WITNESS: Revolutionary party? My ultimate goal is to create a society that is a free society; that is a joyous society where everyone is fed, where everyone is educated, where everyone has a job, where everyone has a chance to express himself artistically or politically, or spiritually, or religiously.

MR. SCHULTZ: With regard to the revolution that we are talking about, you are prepared, aren't you, both to die and to kill for it, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, in self-defense.

MR. SCHULTZ: And further, because the educational system is so rotten, that if you cannot change it you will attempt to totally destroy it in the United States, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: The educational system in the United States right now is destroying millions of people in Vietnam and around the world. The aerosol bombs that are used in Vietnam, or are being prepared to be used in Vietnam for CBW warfare were prepared right in Berkeley, California, where I live, and the educational system in the country is used currently to destroy people, not to create life. I believe we have to stop the murder of people around the world and in the United States and when the educational system of this country participates in it technologically, yes, we have to put our bodies in the way and stop that process.

MR. SCHULTZ: That is part of the reason why you are learning how to shoot your M-1 rifle?

THE WITNESS: I am learning how to shoot my M-1 rifle for two reasons, sir. One of them is to protect myself from situations that I was in in Berkeley some time back where I was grabbed by two young men and taken off to the hills and molested, and housewives all over the country have guns in their houses for that very purpose.  The other thing is the fact that every time I walk on the street in Berkeley and pass a police car, the policemen look out their windows and make snide comments and say, "Hi, Linda, how are you doing? You better watch out. Hi, Linda, you better be careful, and it seems like every single policeman in Berkeley knows who I am, and when policemen start doing things like what they have been doing lately, killing Fred Hampton, attacking the Black Panther office in Los Angeles, shooting people in People's Park and in Chicago, then I believe we have the right to defend ourselves.

MR. SCHULTZ: One of the reasons further for your revolution is your opposition to capitalism and imperialism, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. SCHULTZ: And the more you realize our system is sick, the more you want to tear it limb to limb, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: The more that I see the horrors that are perpetrated by this Government, the more that I read about things like troop trains full of nerve gas traveling across the country where one accident could wipe out thousands and thousands of people, the more that I see things like companies just pouring waste into lakes and into rivers and just destroying them, the more I see things like the oil fields in the ocean off Santa Barbara coast where the Secretary of the Interior and the oil companies got together and agreed to continue producing oil from those offshore oil fields and ruined a whole section of the coast: the more I see things like an educational system which teaches black people and Puerto Rican people and Mexican-Americans that they are only fit to be domestics and dishwashers, if that; the more that I see a system that teaches middle class whites like me that we are supposed to be technological brains to continue producing CBW warfare, to continue working on computers and things like that to learn how to kill people better, to learn how to control people better, yes, the more I want to see that system torn down and replaced by a totally different one, one that cares about people learning; that cares about children being fed breakfast before they go to school: one that cares about people learning real things, one that cares about people going to college for free; one that cares about people living adult lives that are responsible, fulfilled adult lives, not just drudgery, day after day after day of going to a job; one that gives people a chance to express themselves artistically and politically, and religiously and philosophically. That is the kind of system I want to see in its stead.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, isn't it a fact, Miss Morse, that your learning your karate and your other skill is to use these skills in revolutionary guerrilla warfare on the streets of the American cities?

THE WITNESS: I still don't know whether I could ever kill anyone, Mr. Schultz. I haven't reached that point yet.

MR. SCHULTZ: I have no further questions on the examination.

THE COURT: All right. Does the defense want to conduct a redirect examination?

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state to the jury what your views were about the United States and the world prior to the Democratic National Convention in 1968?

THE WITNESS: Prior to the Democratic Convention I had believed that the United States system had to be changed, but the way to bring about that change was through nonviolent means, through nonviolent action, and through political organizing. I felt that we could reach policemen, that we could reach the Government of the United States by holding nonviolent sit-ins and nonviolent demonstrations, by putting our bodies on the line and allowing ourselves to be beaten if they chose to do that.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you explain to the jury why your attitude toward your country and the world changed because of the Democratic Convention week?

THE WITNESS: The specific things that made me change my attitude were the actions on Mayor Daley's part in refusing to give us permits, in violating completely as far as I was concerned, the Constitution which allows you the right to march and demonstrate, the actions on the part of the policemen and some of the National Guardsmen in beating demonstrators horribly, and what I saw on television of what was going on inside the Convention which convinced me that the democratic process, political process, had fallen apart; that the police state that existed outside the Convention also existed inside the Convention and that nonviolent methods would not work to change that; that we had to defend ourselves or we would be wiped out.

MR. KUNSTLER: By the way, how old are you?

THE WITNESS: Twenty-six years old. Just twenty-six.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is all.

TESTIMONY OF JUDY COLLINS 


  
MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your name, please?

THE WITNESS: Judy Collins.

MR. KUNSTLER: What is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: I'm a singer. I sing folksongs.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Miss Collins, I call your attention to March 17 of 1968 at approximately noontime on that date. Do vou know where vou were?

THE WITNESS: I was at the Americana Hotel in New York City attending a press conference to announce the formation of what we have now come to know of as the Yippie Movement.

MR. KUNSTLER: Who was present at that press conference?

THE WITNESS: There were a number of people who were singers, entertainers. Jerry Rubin was there, Abbie Hoffman was there. Allen Ginsberg was there, and sang a mantra.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now what did you do at that press conference?

THE WITNESS: Well---[sings] "Where have all the flowers---

THE COURT: Just a minute, young lady.

THE WITNESS: [sings] "---where have all the flowers gone?"

DEPUTY MARSHAL JOHN J. GRACIOUS: I'm sorry. The Judge would like to speak to you.

THE COURT: We don't allow anv singing in this Court. I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: May I recite the words?

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, your Honor, we have had films. I think it is as legitimate as a movie. It is the actual thing she didl, She sang "Where Have All the Flowers Gone." which is a well-known peace song, and she sang it, and the jury is not getting the flavor.

THE COURT: You asked her what she did, and she proceeded to sing.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is what she did, your Honor.

THE WITNESS: That's what I do.

THE COURT: And that has no place in a United States District Court. We are not here to be entertained, sir. We are trying a very important case.

MR. KUNSTLER: This song is not an entertainment, your Honor. This is a song of peace, and what happens to young men and women during wartime.

THE COURT: I forbid her from singing during the trial. I will not permit singing in this Courtroom.

MR. KUNSTLER: Why not, your Honor? What's wrong with singing?

MR. FORAN: May I respond?
This is about the fifth time this has occurred. Each time your Honor has directed Mr. Kunstler that it was improper in the courtroom. It is an old and stale joke in this Courtroom, your Honor.
Now, there is no question that Miss Collins is a fine singer. In my family my six kids and I all agree that she is a fine singer, but that doesn't have a thing to do with this lawsuit nor what my profession is, which is the practice of law in the Federal District Court, your Honor, and I protest Mr. Kunstler constantly failing to advise his witnesses of what proper decorum is, and I object to it on behalf of the Government.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: What did you say at the press conference?

THE WITNESS: I said a great deal. I said I want to see a celebration of life, not of destruction. I said that my soul and my profession and my life has become part of a movement toward hopefully removing the causes for death, the causes for war, the causes for the prevalence of violence in our society, and in order to make my voice heard, I said that I would indeed come to Chicago and that I would sing.
That is what I do, that's my profession. I said that I was there because life was the force that I wished to make my songs and mv life known for. I said that I would be in Chicago with thousands of people who want to celebrate life, and I said these words, in the context of a song. I said:

"Where have all the flowers gone? Long time passing.
Where have all the flowers gone? Long time ago.
Where have all the flowers gone? Young girls have picked them, every one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where have all the young girls gone? Long time passing.
Where have all the Young girls gone? Long time ago.
Where have all the Young girls gone? Gone for husbands, every one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where have all the young men gone? Long time passing.
Where have all the young men gone? Long time ago.
Where have all the young men gone? Gone for soldiers, every one.
When will they ever learn?
Where have all the soldiers gone? Long time passing
Where have all the soldiers gone? Long time ago.
Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards, every one.
Oh, when will they ever learn?"

I said that I would give my music and my voice to a situattion in which people could express themselves about life with a permit, of course, from the City of Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention, Miss Collins, to the last or next to last day of April of 1968, did you have an occasion to see Abbie Hoffman on that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes. We met at my house. Abbie Hoffman said that there was a lot of trouble in Chicago getting the permits. I said that I felt if the Citv of Chicago wanted to provoke violence and wanted to provoke unrest, all they had to do was continue ignoring our requests for grants and also continue the kind of things that had been happening. Daley had just said that he Would shoot to kill, and I told Abbie that I was not encouraged bv that attitude on the part of the City of Chicago and that I felt that thev should further their efforts to get the permits for its to appear.
Abbie Hoffman said that the National Guard was going to be brought in, and I told him at that point that if it was possible, I'd like to arrange to perform and sing also for the National Guard, as they Would be there under duress, and they should hear what we all had to say.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, I call your attention to the third week in June of 1968. Did you have an occasion to have a conversation with Rennie Davis?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Rennie Davis called me, and asked me if I had any desire to join a group of people who were trying to set up coffee houses which would be hosts to GI's all over the country, He invited me to come to Fort Hood.
I told him that I felt that since the USO provides entertainment of a certain kind to GI's, that I would be very willing to go to an installation, a base, and perform at a coffee house to expose the GI's there to my point of view, to the young people's point of view, and to Our attempts to create a life force, and to also express to the GI's that we're on their side. We don't want them to die. We don't want them to be exposed to the kind of terror that war will perpetrate.

MR. FORAN: I object, your Honor, as to relevancy. There is no relevancy.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, the lives and deaths of American soldiers I think is highly relevant. It was the whole purpose or one of the main purposes people came to Chicago.

THE COURT: Life and death are really very wonderful. This is a great place to live in and be alive. I agree with you. But those things are not an issue in this case.

MR. KUNSTLER: Miss Collins, I call your attention to approximately one week before the opening of the convention, the week of August 19, 1968. Did you have an occasion to talk to Abbie Hoffman?

THE WITNESS: Yes. In fact, Abbie did call me to ask me again whether I would participate in the Yippie Celebration of Life.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, would you relate what he said to you and what you said to him?

THE WITNESS: Well. Abbie told me that what was happening in Chicago was that the police were acting antagonistically towards peace demonstrations. He wanted to warn me that I would be subject to that same kind of provocation as an entertainer performing in a public place without a permit.
I told him that I was frightened, now that I had seen things on television that were disturbing to me and upsetting to me. that I had heard Mayor Daley's declaration of war on me personally.
I said, "Abbie, you must continue to try in every way possible to get those permits, because if we're going to have a celebration, we must do it legally. I don't want to be violent. I'm not going to Chicago to do anything except sing for people in a legal situation."
Abbie asked if I was sure that I wouldn't come if they couldn't get permits because they didn't know if they could or not. And I said that it was doubtful, that I would have to think about it, but as far as my wellbeing went and as far as the wellbeing of all the people, that I feel I represent went, that I could not put myself in a position to jeopardize my physical wellbeing or those of thousands of other young people who would be there to celebrate with us.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you go to Chicago during Convention week?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not. I stayed away from Chicago because the permits were not granted.

MR. KUNSTLER: And anything that was planned, or generated, or that might cause or be a participating factor in violent activity, you wouldn't want anything to do with it, would you?

THE WITNESS: There was nothing violent about anything that went on in the preparations on our side for this Convention. We were provoked.

MR. KUNSTLER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examination.* * * * * * * * *

MR. FORAN: Miss Collins, you said in your meeting in April with Mr. Hoffman, didn't you testify that Mr. Hoffman told you that they had been trying to get permits for months in Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they had been attempting to get permits.

MR. FORAN: This is what he told you.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I knew this was a fact. This wasn't only Abbie Hoffman speaking. This was--

THE COURT: That will be all.

THE WITNESS: That was the consensus that had been going on.

THE COURT: Will you, young lady--

THE WITNESS: There was a refusal to grant it.

THE COURT: Do you hear very well? Do you want to move your hair back?

THE WITNESS: I think so, yes.

THE COURT: I want to ask you, I want to tell you that you have answered the question, you may not go beyond that.

THE WITNESS: Oh, well, I assumed that he wanted to hear more about what statement--

MR. FORAN: Did you know that only one permit had been filed for?

THE WITNESS: I believe that was what I knew then.

MR. FORAN: Did you know that it hadn't been turned down yet?

THE WITNESS: Well it had not been granted. It had been applied for for months.

MR. FORAN: Miss Collins, did Mr. Hoffman tell you that he was planning to tear up Lincoln Park in the city of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't believe he ever said that to me. No, I don't think so.

MR. FORAN: I don't think he would tell it to you either.

THE WITNESS: I told him I was going to create an exciting environment with my music, but he didn't say he was going to tear up Grant Park, no.

MR. FORAN: Did Mr. Hoffman tell you that he had come to Chicago prepared to die if necessary to open the city of Chicago up?  Did he tell you that?

THE WITNESS: I don't remember that he ever said those exact words.

MR. FORAN: I don't have anything further.

TESTIMONY OF RENNIE DAVIS



January 23, 1970

MR. WEINGLASS: Will you please identify yourself for the record?

THE WITNESS: Rennie Davis.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall the first time you came to the city of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: The first time I came to the city of Chicago was to visit the international Amphitheatre in a poultry judging contest in 1956. It was the international contest and I had just won the Eastern United States Poultry Judging Contest in 4-H and I came to Chicago to participate at the International Amphitheatre in the contest here.

MR. WEINGLASS: How old were you at that time?

THE WITNESS: I was, I guess, sixteen.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your present age?

THE WITNESS: Twenty-nine.

MR. WEINGLASS: What is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: Since 1967 my primary work and concern has been ending the war in Vietnam. Until the time of this trial I was the national coordinator for the National Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the early evening of November 20, 1967, do you recall where you were on that night?

THE WITNESS: I was at the University of Chicago in an auditorium called Judd Hall. It was a meeting of a group called The Resistance.  I was a speaker with Bob Ross and David Harris who is the husband of Joan Baez.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate now to the Court and jury the words that you spoke, as best you can recall, on that particular night?

THE WITNESS: I began by holding up a small steel ball that was green, about the size of a tennis ball and I said, "This bomb was dropped on a city of 100,000 people, a city called Nam Ding, which is about sixty-five miles south of Hanoi."
I said, "It was dropped by an American fighter jet, an F-105," and that when this bomb exploded over Nam Ding, about 640 of these round steel balls were spewed into the sky. And I said, "When this ball strikes a building or the ground or slows up in any way, these hammers are released, an explosion occurs which sends out about 300 steel pellets."
"Now one of these balls," I explained, "was roughly three times the power of an old fashioned hand grenade and with 640 of these bombs going off, you can throw steel pellets over an area about a thousand yards long, and about 250 yards wide.
"Every living thing exposed in that 1000-yard area from this single bomb, ninety percent of every living thing in that area will die," I said, "whether it's a water buffalo or a water buffalo boy."
I said that if this bomb were to go off in this room tonight, everyone in the room here would die, but as quickly as we could remove the bodies from the room, we could have another discussion about Vietnam.
I said "This bomb would not destroy this lecture podium, it would not damage the walls, the ceiling, the floor." I said, "if it is dropped on a city, it takes life but leaves the institutions. It is the ideal weapon, you see, for the mentality who reasons that life is less precious than property."
I said that in 1967, the year that we are in, one out of every two bombs dropped on North Vietnam was this weapon. One out of every two. And in 1967 the American Government told the American public that in North Vietnam it was only bombing steel and concrete.
Then I said, "I went to Vietnam not as a representative of the government and not as a member of the military but as an American citizen who was deeply perturbed that we lived in a country where our own government was lying to American people about this war. The American government claimed to be hitting only military targets. Yet what I saw was pagodas that had been gutted, schoolhouses that had been razed, population centers that had been leveled."
Then I said that I am going to the Democratic National Convention because I want the world to know that there are thousands of Young people in this country who do not want to see a rigged convention rubber stamp another four years of Lyndon Johnson's war.

MR. WEINGLASS: I show you an object marked D-325 for identification and can you identify that object?

THE WITNESS: Yes. This was the bomb that I brought back from Vietnam.

MR. WEINGLASS: If the Court please, the defense would like to offer into evidence D-325, the antipersonnel bomb identified by the witness as the object held by him on the night in question.

MR. FORAN: Your honor, the Government objects to this exhibit for the following reasons.
The Vietnamese war, your honor, has nothing whatsoever to do with the charges in this indictment. The Vietnamese war, which is a major difficulty of this country and a major concern of every citizen in this country, has nothing whatever to do with whether or not people in the United States have a right to travel in interstate commerce to incite a riot.
The methods and techniques of warfare have nothing whatever to do with that charge. The methods and techniques of the seeking of the end of the Vietnam war have nothing to do with the charges of this indictment.
The very purpose of the governmental system of the United States is to handle in a purposeful way within the Constitution of the United States the disposition of such complex and difficult and tragic problems that this notion has lived with for about two hundred years. The charges in this indictment your Honor, have nothing to do with this type of testimony or this kind of concept. and for that reason your Honor, the Government objects.

THE COURT: Objection sustained.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, at this point I would like to move for a mistrial

THE COURT: I deny the motion.

MR. RUBIN: You haven't heard it yet.

THE COURT: Oh, there is no ground for a mistrial.

MR. KUNSTLER: But, your Honor--

THE COURT: I direct the marshal to have this man sit down.

MR. KUNSTLER: Every time I make a motion am I going to be thrown in my seat when I argue it?

MR. DELLINGER: Force and violence. The judge is inciting a riot by asking the marshal to have him sit down.

THE COURT: That man's name is Dellinger?

MARSHAL JONESON: Will you be quiet, Mr. Dellinger?

MR. DELLINGER: After such hypocrisy I don't particularly feel like being quiet. I said before the judge was the chief prosecutor, and he's proved the point.

THE COURT: Will you remain quiet? Will you remain quiet, sir?

MR. DELLINGER: You let Foran give a foreign policy speech, but when he tries to answer it, you interrupt him and won't let him speak.
There's no pretense of fairness in this court. All you're doing is employing a riot--employing force and violence to try to keep me quiet. Just like you gagged Bobby Seale because you couldn't afford to listen to the truth that he was saying to you. You're accusing me. I'm a pacifist.

MARSHAL JONESON: Sit down, please, and be quiet.

MR. DELLINGER: I am employing nonviolence, and you're accusing me of violence, and you have a man right here, backed up by guns, jails, and force and violence. That is the difference between us.

MARSHAL JONESON: Will you sit down?(applause)

THE COURT: Will you continue, please, with the direct examination of this witness?

MR. DELLINGER: There goes the violence right there.

MR. KUNSTLER: That's the Government in operation, your Honor, as it has been throughout this trial.

THE WITNESS: Your Honor, that's my sister they are taking out of the courtroom.

THE COURT: Even your sister--

MR. RUBIN: Bill, they are taking out my wife. (cries of "Hey, stop it!")

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, must we always have this, the force and power of the Government?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor--

MR. RUBIN: They are dragging out mv wife--will you please--

THE COURT: We must have order in the courtroom.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, traditionally in American law, cases are tried in a courtroom by the participants in the trial, not the audience, not spectators, not by shouting and screaming. This is the American judicial system, and it's worked very well for two hundred years, and it's not going to change now for these people.

MR. DELLINGER: Yes, kept the black people in slavery for two hundred years and wiped out the Indians, and kept the poor people in problems and started the war in Vietnam which is killing off at least a hundred Americans and a thousand Vietnamese every week, and we are trying to stop it.

MARSHAL JONESON: Sit down.

MR. DELLINGER: And you call that ranting and raving and screaming because we speak the truth.

MARSHAL JONESON: Mr. Dellinger, sit down, please.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, in the American system there is a proper way to raise such issues and to correct them.

MR. DELLINGER: That was the proper way with Fred Hampton, wasn't it?

MR. FORAN: And to correct them, your Honor, by the proper governmental system, and there is a proper way to do that.

MR. KUNSTLER: This is as to Mr. Rubin's wife. She was thrown out of the courtroom, and he is a defendant here. We would like her returned to the courtroom.

THE COURT: No. As long as the marshals are in charge of the behavior of spectators in this courtroom, they will determine who misbehaves.

MR. RUBIN: Am I entitled to a public trial?

THE COURT: No--you have a public trial.

MR. RUBIN: Does a public trial include my wife being in the courtroom? Am I entitled to a public trial?

THE COURT: I don't talk to defendants who have a lawyer.

MR. RUBIN: You didn't listen to my lawyer, so I have to speak. Am I entitled to a public trial?

THE COURT: You may continue with the direct examination of this witness. If you don't, I will just have to ask him to get off the witness stand.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the witness has seen from his vantage point his sister forcibly taken from this room. I wonder if we could have a short recess to resolve that?

THE COURT: No recess. No, no. There will be no recess, sir. You will proceed to examine this witness.

MR. WEINGLASS: I direct your attention to February 11, 1968, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was in Chicago at what later became the Mobilization office, 407 South Dearborn.

MR. WEINGLASS: What was occurring in the office?

THE WITNESS: I believe it was a planning meeting to talk about the conference that I had requested of the National Mobilization, a bringing together of all groups interested in Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you talk about Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I said that the key questions before us today was what to do in Chicago, what to do at the Convention itself. Then I listed four positions that I proposed as a kind of agenda.
I said position number one would be we should go to the Democratic Convention to disrupt it.
I said there may be people in this room who do believe that the Democratic Convention, which is responsible for the war, should be physically disrupted, torn apart. I said I don't think that is the MOBE's position--but I think that it is essential that we put it on the agenda, It is an issue that has been created in the press and that we vote it up or down so that we can make ourselves clear on this issue.
So issue position number one would be disrupt the Convention.
Position number two, I said, that has been talked about, is that the peace movement should support a candidate. Maybe we should support Eugene McCarthy.
Then I said position number three, that had been talked about by some organizations, was what we called stay-home. This was a position that said that Daley is so concerned about the Convention and having demonstrators come into Chicago that he'd bring in the troops, he'd bring in the police, he'd start cracking heads. And in fact this might play right into Johnson's hands. It might show that the Democratic Party is the party of law and order.
So I said position three, that we should talk about here, is whether or not we should have a demonstration at all.
Then I said position number four is a campaign that begins in the spring, it goes into the fall, it goes into the summer, and then finally brings to Chicago literally every possible constituency of the American people.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, after you outlined these four alternatives, did you say anything further about them then?

THE WITNESS: Well, there was a very long discussion of these four proposals, and I guess at the end of that discussion I said that it was clear that in this meeting of representatives of major national groups across the country there was not a single person who did not favor position number four.
Then Tom interrupted me, and he said he thought that was wrong.
A group of so-called leaders of organizations shouldn't just get together and decide what position to present to everyone. Tom thought that we should now talk about calling a very large conference of organizations to consider all four alternatives, and then he said that each one of these positions should be written up in a paper and presented to--to this conference.

MR. WEINGLASS: Was such a conference called?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was. It took place at a place called Lake Villa. It was a YMCA camp, just beside a big lake.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now I show you a document which has been marked D-235 for identification, and I ask you if you can identify that document?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I can. Tom Hayden and I wrote this paper. It's called, "Movement Campaign 1968, an Election Year Offensive."
The paper was mimeographed in our office and then presented to every delegate at this Lake Villa meeting outside of Chicago. This was alternative number four that was agreed upon.

MR. WEINGLASS: I offer into evidence D-235 as Defendant's Exhibit Number D-235.

THE COURT: Show it to counsel.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, this document was offered once before.  This document is some twenty-one pages in length. It contains in it a number of broad summary statements that are not supported by factual data.
Each statement in itself has elements in it that are both irrelevant summary statements of a gross character totally unprovable by evidence, and self-serving in nature, and the law, your Honor, is clear that a self-serving declaration of an act or a party is inadmissible in evidence in his favor.

MR. WEINGLASS: If the Court please, the first time this document was offered, it was through the testimony of the witness Meacham. At that time the Government objected on the ground that the authors of the document were the only persons who could qualify the document for admission. The author is now on the stand, and of course now we are met with the objection that it is self-serving.
If you deny this document then you are proceeding on the assumption, your Honor, that the defendants are guilty and they are contriving documents. That has to be the beginning premise of your thinking if you feel this document is self-serving. If they are innocent, which is what the presumption is supposed to be--then I don't know why the Court would consider that this document would be possibly contrived.

THE COURT: You have here as a witness a very articulate, well-educated, seemingly intelligent witness; why can't he be questioned about his participation in the composition of that document? .

MR. WEINGLASS: The defendants are entitled to the benefit of all of the legal evidence they have indicating their innocence, writings as well as spoken words. If this document contained plans to bomb the Amphitheatre or to create a disturbance or riot in the city streets, we clearly would have had this document in evidence in the Government's case, but it contains the contrary and that is why it is being offered. I think they are entitled to the benefit of anything that indicates their innocence as well as their guilt.

THE COURT: I shall not take it in. I sustain the objection of the Government.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor has read the document?

THE COURT: I have looked it over.

THE WITNESS: You never read it. I was watching you. You read two pages.

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, will you instruct that witness on the witness stand that he is not to address me.
You may continue sir, with your direct examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: Without referring to the document, what did you say about Chicago, if anything?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, the form of the question is bad.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion to speak at the conference?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I spoke at a workshop Saturday evening. Tom and I were both present because we were presenting our paper.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and to the jury what you said at the workshop respecting Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Tom spoke about the paper and what was in it and then someone asked Tom why there was an entire page devoted to the issue about disruption and I answered that question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall your answer?

THE WITNESS: I said that the reason that this document devotes so much attention to the question of violence and disruption at the Convention is because we think that this is not a demonstration where simply the peace movement comes to Chicago. This is, rather, a demonstration where the peace movement is the instrument to bring literally hundreds of thousands of people to Chicago, and I said that is why it is necessary to make crystal clear our position on disruption.
And I said that is why we feel that we have bent over backwards in this document to make our position on violence and disruption very clear, and we think that we should argue with every organization in the country who is for peace that that must be the strategy in Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to the twentieth of July, 1968, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was in Cleveland, Ohio, at a meeting in a church in Cleveland.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were any of the other defendants seated here at the table present?

THE WITNESS: Both Dave and Tom were present.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you speak at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. I said that I thought what was happening in Chicago was that our original plan to bring a half million American citizens to Chicago was so upsetting to the Mayor of Chicago, who was hosting a Convention of his own party, that there was a real danger that the Mayor had made a decision somewhere along the line to try to scare people away, to try to reduce the numbers of people expected, by stalling on permits and through suggesting that anybody who came to Chicago was going to be clubbed or beaten or Maced.
I said, "On the other hand, I don't want to discourage people into thinking that we are not going to get permits. There are several things in the works that give me a considerable amount of optimism. . . .

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to the morning of August 2, 1968, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was at the Palmer House, at the coffee shop in the basement. I was meeting with David Stahl, the deputy mayor of the City of Chicago, and with me was Mark Simons.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall, did a conversation occur between yourself and David Stahl?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it did. I said that I felt that given the reports that we had seen in the past, that there was some question about our purposes and intentions in coming to Chicago. I said I did not understand any other explanation for the military sort of saber rattling that was going on at that time, the constant talks in the past about disruption of the Convention.
I indicated that the character of the demonstration that was planned by our coalition was not like the Pentagon, where civil disobedience was called for, but was more like the character of the April 15 demonstration in New York, where we hoped to be effective in our protest by numbers and not by militant tactics.
I said that I thought the problem areas that we had to work out were, first of all. the matter of a march and an assembly to the Amphitheatre, and that when we had applied for a permit for the use of Halsted, that that was negotiable and that we have at this point not even applied for how to get to Halsted because we wanted to make this an open meeting between you and me.
I then said that the second area of concern for us was the whole matter of parks, that we thought that integral to our program was having park space set aside by City officials so that people could meet and sleep throughout the week of the Convention.
Then Mr. Stahl indicated to me that he thought it might be difficult for the city to grant a permit for the use of a park; that there was a curfew at I I :00 P.m., and that this would be a violation of a city ordinance to give a permit for park space beyond I 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Stahl was not sure what the feeling of the City would be with respect to an assembly at the Amphitheatre. I said I thought it was very dangerous for us to even consider an area not adjacent to the Amphitheatre, because people on their own would then go down to the area, they would not have marshals, they would not have organization, and the possibility of disruption and violence would be very great.
Then Mr. Stahl said that he agreed, that it probably would create less problems if people did not march as pedestrians but went in an orderly group.
I then asked him, "Well, how do we begin to talk about these matters?"
And he said, that the mayor's office was not responsible for granting of permits, that these matters were the responsibility of the Park District, the Streets and Sanitation Department and the Police Department and the other agencies directly involved, and then I said, "Mr. Stahl, you're not dealing with an out-of-towner. I live in Chicago, and you can say this to the press, but I really wish you wouldn't say it to me." I said, "Everyone knows in this town who makes decisions like this. You can't tell me that the Streets and Sanitation Department head that's appointed by Mayor Daley is going to make a decision independent .of the Mayor," and he sort of smiled at that point and didn't say anything.
Mr. Stahl was very cordial at the end and said, "Thank you very much for what you've said, and I'll relate this back to the appropriate bodies."

MR. WEINGLASS: At approximately six o'clock that night, still on August 21, 1968, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was on my way to the Mobilization executive committee meeting, an apartment in Hyde Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you were outside, about to enter the apartment, did you have occasion to meet with anyone?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I met with Irv Bock.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, without going into your conversation with Mr. Bock just now, do you recall what Mr. Bock had in his hand, if anything?

THE WITNESS: He went to his car and he came back and he had--it is hard to describe. It was a very large balloon, and attached to the balloon was a small tube, and stuck in the tube was a cloth fiber, and he took the glass tube and put it into some water, and the air from the balloon would pass through the glass tube in what appeared to be a regular way, so that one bubble would come up and then another and then another and then another, and he explained how this worked.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did he say to you?

THE WITNESS: Well, he said that with this device it's possible to fill the balloon with helium gas and to launch the balloon in the air and allow the helium gas to come out of the balloon in a way that can be computed mathematically so that you know when all of the air will be out of the balloon, and by computing the velocity it's possible to send the balloon up in the air and figure out exactly where it will fall. I said, "Why in the world would anyone be interested in that?"
And he said, "Well, you can attach anything that you want to this balloon, send it up into the air, and then we can drop it on the International Amphitheatre."
And I said, "Well, what would you want to attach to the balloon?" And he said, "Anything you want."
I thanked Irv for his suggestion and went inside.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, on August 4, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was at a Mobilization steering committee meeting just outside of Chicago. It was in Highland Park at a sort of old fancy hotel that disgusted me. I mean, it was fancy, so I didn't like it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at noon of that day, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: There was a lunch break around noon or 12:30, and the meeting emptied out down towards the lake. I was on a sandy beach on the edge of Lake Michigan, eating my lunch.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were you alone?

THE WITNESS: No, there were a number of people. Irv Bock was present. Well, Tom Hayden, really, and I were together and we talked and ate lunch together.

MR. WEINGLASS: And did you have a conversation with Tom Hayden on the beach?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I told Tom that I had received a letter from Don Duncan who was a close friend of ours and Don had sent us sort of a list of the various kinds of gases that were being used by the Army in South Vietnam. He described in some detail a gas called CS, which he said caused extreme congestion of the chest, a burning sensation in the face, the eyes filled with tears. Actual burns could occur on the face from this. and in heavy dosage, it could cause death.
Don said that he had information that these kinds of new chemicals being used on the people of Vietnam were now going to be used on the peace movement, and he was especially concerned that this might be the case in Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you and Tom Hayden had that conversation, did you notice the whereabouts of Irv Bock?

THE WITNESS: He was there. I mean, he was close by.

January 24, 1970

MR. WEINGLASS: Directing your attention to August 13, in the evening at approximately six o'clock, did you have occasion to speak with anyone?

THE WITNESS: I spoke with my attorney, Irving Birnbaum, by phone.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall that conversation you had with him on the phone?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I said, "Irv, things are going very badly with permits. This morning the Park District met. I absolutely cannot understand it. Mr. Barry promised us it was going to be on the agenda and it was not even brought up in the meeting."
I said in addition to that, "Yesterday we had a meeting with David Stahl and Richard Elrod where all of the agency heads were supposed to attend, and none of them did." I said that "I feel, very frankly, that the Mayor is now using the permit issue as a kind of political device to scare people away." And I said, "Very frankly, he's being extremely effective."
I then asked Irv whether or not he thought it made sense to file sonic kind of lawsuit against the City and take this whole question of permits into the courts.
Irv then said that he thought that would be a practical proposal, that we should draw up a lawsuit against the City, that the City is using its administrative control over permits to deny fundamental First Amendment and Constitutional rights.
I then said to Irv that Mr. Elrod has been quite emphatic with me about the matter of sleeping in the parks beyond 11:00 p.m. "Do we have any legal basis," I said, "for staying in the parks beyond 11:00?"
Irv Birnbaum said that he thought that very definitely that should be included in the lawsuit because he said that parks were made available for the Boy Scouts and for National Guard troops beyond 11:00 p.m., and that under the Civil Rights Act of equal protection under the law, the same kind of facilities should be made available to American citizens, and he indicated that this should be put in the lawsuit.

MR. WEINGLASS: The following Sunday, which was August 18, do you recall where you were in the morning of that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes. In the morning I was at a union hall on Nobel Street. We were having a meeting of the steering committee of the Mobilization.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were there any other defendants present?

THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines was present.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall what John Froines said at that particular meeting?

THE WITNESS: I recall that John reported on our work with marshals. He said that we were well under way with training sessions in Lincoln Park.
He then went on to talk about some of the problems that we were having, concerns about police violence, the fact that we were going to have to be very mobile through this week if the police came in to break up demonstrations.
I think at one point he said, "We may have to be as mobile as a guerrilla, moving from place to place in order to avoid arrest and avoid police confrontation."

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Davis, directing your attention to Wednesday, August 21, at about 10:30 in the morning, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was in this building, in Judge Lynch's chambers.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, who went with you into the Judge's chambers?

THE WITNESS: An attorney, who was assisting the National Mobilization Committee, Stanley Bass. I believe that Richard Elrod was present, Ray Simon, the Corporation Counsel, was present. Judge Lynch, of course, and others.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and jury specific conversations in connection with that lawsuit?

THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Simon proposed to the Mobilization a number of assembly areas for our consideration. He said he made these proposals rather than the one that we suggested because he thought it unreasonable of the Mobilization to insist on a State Street march, that this Would disrupt traffic too much.
I then told Mr. Simon that I thought these proposals were quite generous, and I was certain that on this matter we could reach an accommodation.
I said, "The problem with your proposal. Mr. Simon, is that it does not address itself to the fundamental issue for us, which is an assembly in the area of the Amphitheatre at the time of the Democratic nomination."
I went on to say that I would make two concrete proposals at this time. I said that it Would be satisfactory to our coalition to consider the area on Halsted Street from 39th on the north to 47th on the south.
I said if that was not acceptable to the City, that there's a large area just west of the parking lot, that would be suitable for our purposes, and I thought would not interfere with the delegates.
Mr. Simons then said that the area on Halsted from 39th on the north to 45th on the south was out of the question for consideration, that it was a security area, he said, and that it was not possible for the City to grant this area to the Mobilization.
He then said that the second area that I had proposed similarly was out of the question because I think he said it was controlled by the Democratic National Convention and the City had no authority to grant that space to the Mobilization.
Then I said, "Assuming both of these areas are just not available, could you, Mr. Simon, suggest an area that would be within eyeshot of the Amphitheatre for an assembly on the evening of the nomination?"
Mr. Simon then said he didn't see why we needed to have an assembly area within eyeshot or close to the Amphitheatre. He said that the City was willing to make other proposals for such an assembly, they would offer us Grant Park, they would offer us Lincoln Park, they would offer us Garfield Park on the west side of Chicago.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, can you remember where you were in the afternoon of Friday, the twenty-third of August?

THE WITNESS: I think I was in the Mobilization office at that time.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you receive a phone call at approximately that time in the office?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. It was my attorney, Mr. Birnbaum. He said to me that the had just received the opinion of Judge Lynch denying us a permit for an assembly and denying us the right to use parks beyond 11:00 p.m.
I then said, "We should appeal this matter immediately. We are in absolute crisis."
Then Mr. Birnbaum said that, in his professional opinion, no appeal would produce a permit in time for our activities during the week of the Convention, but that he was willing to draw up the papers for appeal for the purpose of preserving the record.

MR. WEINGLASS: I show you D-339 for identification, which is a photograph. Can you identify the persons in that photograph?

THE WITNESS: Myself, Tom Hayden and one of the police tails who followed me through much of the convention week, Ralph Bell.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall when you first saw Mr. Bell, the police tail?

THE WITNESS: Well, on Friday after the phone call from Irv Birnbaum, I then walked out of the building, just to take a long walk alone and to think about what I personally was going to do during this week, and when I came back into the building, there were two men in sort of casual clothes who approached me at the elevator door and flashed badges, said they were policemen, and they were coming up to the office. I went back into the office and they waited outside, and I got Tom, and Tom and I then went back out to talk with them.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could you relate to the Court and jury the conversation that you and Tom Hayden had?

THE WITNESS: Well, one of the gentlemen just flashed his badge for the second time and said, "My name's Officer Bell. This here's Riggio. We're gonna be around you a lot, Davis, so we'll just be around you and going wherever you go from now until the Convention's over," and I said, "Well, what's the purpose of this?"
And Bell said, "Well, the purpose is to give you protection," and I said, "Well, thank you very much, but I'd just as soon not have your protection."
And then Bell said, "Well, just pretend like you're President and got protection everywhere you go, day and night," and I said, "Well, what if I would request not to have this protection."
And then he said, "Motherfucker, you got the protection, and you try to shake me and you're in big trouble. Now, you cooperate, and we'll get along real fine, hear?"
And I said, "Yes, sir," and walked back into the office.

MR. WEINGLASS: I draw your attention to Monday, August 26, at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of that day.
Do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: Well, that afternoon, Monday, I was in Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: When Tom Hayden was arrested, were you at the scene of the arrest?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I was not. I was in the park at the time, yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when did you first become aware of the fact that he had been arrested?

THE WITNESS: It was around 2:30. A number of people came to me and said that Tom Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal had been arrested and I could see the people sort of were spontaneously coming together. Many people were talking about marching on to the police station in response to this arrest.

MR. WEINGLASS: And then after receiving that information, what did you do?

THE WITNESS: Well, I talked to a number of marshals about the urgency of getting on with this march and trying to see that it has direction and that our marshals are involved in this march. I was just sort of concerned that people not run out into the streets and down to the police station, so I got on the bullhorn and started to urge people to gather behind the sound for the march to the police station.

MR. WEINGLASS: Approximately how many people joined the march?

THE WITNESS: Well, my recollection is hazy--over a thousand people, I think, joined the march. I was marching about four or five rows from the front with the sound.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were any defendants in your company at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes. John Froines was with me, really throughout the march that day.

MR. WEINGLASS: And was this march proceeding on the sidewalk, or was it in the roadway?

THE WITNESS: No, it was on the sidewalk, all the way across the sidewalk until a police officer requested that I urge people to stay on one half of the sidewalk.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, as you were proceeding south on State Street, were you in the company of any officials of the city of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was in the company of two members of the Corporation Counsel, one of whom was Richard Elrod.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you approached the police station, did you have occasion to speak again to Mr. Elrod?

THE WITNESS: Yes. About a block away from the police station, I spoke with Mr. Elrod. I said, "Mr. Elrod, the police station is completely encircled with uniformed police officers. I'm attempting to move the people out of that area and move past the police station, but you've created a situation where we have to move demonstrators down a solid wall of policemen.
"All that has to happen is for one demonstrator to strike a policeman or for one policeman to be too anxious walking past that line, and we've got a full-scale riot on our hands. I'm just not moving this line until those policemen are taken back into that building." And at that point Mr. Elrod said well, he'd see what he Could do.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you observe what Mr. Elrod did after that conversation?

THE WITNESS: I didn't see what he did, but minutes later the policemen in formation marched back into the police headquarters at 11th and State.

MR. WEINGLASS: After the police went back into the police headquarters building what did you do?

THE WITNESS: I urged people to march past the police station staying on the sidewalk, staying together, and I think we began to chant "Free Hayden." We continued then east on 11th Street toward Michigan Avenue, and north on the sidewalk on Michigan.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you were proceeding north, what, if anything, did you observe?

THE WITNESS: To the best of my recollection the march had stopped while we were waiting for the other participants to catch up and it was at that moment that some of the people in the demonstration just sort of broke Out of the line of march and ran up a hill. the top of which had the statue of General Jonathan Logan.

MR. WEINGLASS: At that time that the demonstrators broke from the line of march and ran up the hill, were you speaking on the microphone?

THE WITNESS: Not at the time that they broke, no. I had stopped and was waiting for the rest of the people to catch up.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were these people carrying anything in their hands?

THE WITNESS: Yes. They were carrying flags of all kinds, Viet Cong flags, red flags.

MR. WEINGLASS: After you saw them run tip the hill to the statue, what, if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: A police formation developed at the base of the hill and began to sweep upward toward the statue and at that point I yelled very loudly that people should leave the statue and go to the Conrad Hilton. I said a number of things very rapidly like, "We have liberated the statue, now we should go to the Conrad Hilton. The Conrad Hilton is the headquarters of the people who are responsible for the arrest. Let's leave the statue, let's liberate the Hilton," basically urging people to get away from the statue.

MR. FORAN: I object to the characterization of the words, your Honor.

THE COURT: The use of the word "urging"?

MR. FORAN: "Basically," from the word "basically," on, I move to strike.

THE COURT: Yes. I don't know precisely what it means.
Read the last answer to him. Try to use words that would satisfy the requirements of an answer to the question, Mr. Witness.

THE WITNESS: I can continue. As the police got right up on the demonstrators and began to club the people who were around the base of the statue, I then said as loudly as I could, "If the police want a riot, let them stay in this area, If the police don't want a riot, let them get out of this area."

MR. WEINGLASS: Did there come a time when you left the area?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I left--after I urged people to leave the area, I then left the area myself. I went back to the Mobilization office.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion to meet with Tom Hayden that night?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did. We went to several places and finally we went to the Conrad Hilton. I guess it was a little before midnight.  Tom ran into some friends that he knew, a man named Mr. Alder, and some others. I think Jeff Cowan was present, people that I don't know very well.
And they were involved in various capacities in an official way with the Democratic Convention, and they invited Tom to come into the Conrad Hilton to watch the Convention on television. So Tom and myself then accompanied them to the entrance on Balbo Street.

MR. WEINGLASS: Were they successful in getting Tom Hayden into the hotel?

THE WITNESS: No. They returned shortly after that, and Tom said we couldn't get in.

MR. WEINGLASS: Then what did you do?

THE WITNESS: I proceeded to walk across the intersection of Balbo, going north on Michigan. Tom Hayden was directly behind, and I guess I was about halfway across the street on Balbo when I heard someone veil very loudly, "Get him, get him " screaming from a distance, and I turned around and saw the policeman who had been following me through the Convention week, Ralph Bell, running very fast, directly at Tom, and he just charged across Michigan Avenue. Tom and I were sort of frozen in our places, and Bell grabbed Tom around the neck and just drove him to the street.
At that point a second police officer in uniform came from behind and grabbed Tom as well, and I believe he actually held the nightstick against Tom's neck. I then took a few steps towards Bell and Tom and this second police officer, and I yelled at Bell, "What do you think you're doing?"
And then this uniformed policeman took his nightclub and chopped me across the neck and then twice across the chest. Then my second police tail whom I hadn't seen at that point, suddenly had me by my shirt, dragged me across the intersection of Balbo and Michigan, and just threw me up against something. I think it was a lightpole. I remember just being smashed against something, and he said--his name was Riggio--he said, "What do you think you're doing, Davis?"

MR. WEINGLASS: Were you placed under arrest at that time?

THE WITNESS: No, I was not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you see what happened to Tom Hayden?

THE WITNESS: Tom was put into a paddy wagon, and taken away from the area.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you do then?

THE WITNESS: Well, I stood still for a moment, just stunned, wandered around alone, then I ran into Paul Potter. Then Paul and I walked back to the office on Dearborn Street.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you recall approximately what time of night you arrived at the office?

THE WITNESS: Well, frankly I don't think that I would recall except that Mr. Riggio when he testified in this trial, indicated the arrest was around midnight, and it's about a five- or ten-minute walk back to the office, so it must have been somewhere between 12:20, 12:30 in that area.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you got back to the office, what, if anything, did you do?

THE WITNESS: Well, I called our legal defense office and explained what had occurred. Then I made a few more phone calls, talked to some people in the office. Paul left the office, and shortly after Paul left, I got in a car and drove towards Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you recall any of the persons who were in the office at the time you have just indicated?

THE WITNESS: Well, Paul and Carrol Glassman were both in the office, and Jeff Gerth. As a matter of fact, I think it was Jeff Gerth who drove me to Lincoln Park.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, do you know what time it was that you left the office?

THE WITNESS: Close to one o'clock.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, when you arrived at Lincoln Park, did you go to the park?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not go into the park. I drove past the park and into the Old Town area, and there I saw Vern Grizzard. I got out of the car and talked to Vernon for a couple of minutes and then Vernon and I got back into the car and we then left the area.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, approximately twenty-four hours later, very late Tuesday night, do you recall where you were at that time?

THE WITNESS: Well, late Tuesday night I was in Grant Park directly across from the Conrad Hilton Hotel.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, at 4:00 a.m., were you still in the park?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, I was there certainly up till four o'clock.

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you have occasion at that time to see any of the defendants?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I met with Tom Hayden.

MR. WEINGLASS: Can you describe Tom Hayden's appearance at that time?

THE WITNESS: Well, Tom had a ridiculous hat, and he was sort of dressed in mod clothing. I think he had a fake goatee, as I recall, and for a while he was carrying a handkerchief across his nose and mouth.
I said, "Tom, you look like a fool."

MR. WEINGLASS: Did you and Tom have a conversation after that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, we did. I said to Tom that I was concerned about the lateness of the hour, I was concerned that television and cameras and photographers and newsmen were now leaving the area; the crowd was thinning out.
I said that this is the kind Of Situation which could lead to problems, and I told Tom that I thought that someone should make an announcement that this has been a great victory. that we're able to survive tinder these incredibly difficult conditions, and that people should now be encouraged to leave the park, and return tomorrow morning. Tom then agreed to make that announcement.

MR. WEINGLASS: The following morning, Wednesday, August 28, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: Wednesday morning before Grant Park I was in the Mobilization office. Fifteen people, something like that, were having a meeting.

MR. WEINGLASS: Do you recall who was present at that meeting?

THE WITNESS: I recall that both Tom and Dave Dellinger were present. Linda Morse I think was there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will You relate to the Court and jury what the defendants said while they were there, including yourself?

THE WITNESS: Dave said that he thought after the rally in Grant Park the most important thing to do was to continue with our plan to march to the Amphitheatre.
Tom said that there is no possibility of going to the Amphitheatre.
Dave said that the City, even though it has not granted permits, has allowed us to have other marches, and that perhaps they will allow us to go to the Amphitheatre.
Tom insisted that we were not going to the Amphitheatre.
Then David said that he felt that even if the police did not allow us to march, that it was absolutely necessary that we assemble, we line up, and we prepare to go to the Amphitheatre. Dave said that if the police indicate that they are going to prevent this march by force, that we have to at that time say to the world that there are Americans who will not submit to a police state by default; that they are prepared to risk arrest and be taken away to jail rather than to submit to the kind of brutality that we had seen all through the week.
Tom said that he agreed that there were people coming who intended to march, but he said as well there are many people who are not prepared to be arrested and he thought that we needed now to suggest another activity for Wednesday afternoon and evening for those people who were not prepared to he arrested.
Dave said he agreed that those people who were unprepared to be arrested should be encouraged to leave the park and return to the hotels as we had the night before.
I then said that I thought that we needed as well to announce that those people who do not want to participate in either activity should simply stay in the park or go home.
Everyone agreed with that and Dave then said that this should be announced from the platform, these three positions, and that I should inform the marshals of these three positions.

MR. WEINGLASS: Now, directing your attention to approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of that same day, do you recall where you were at that time?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in Grant Park just south of the refreshment stand. I saw a commotion near the flagpole and shortly after that I heard Dave Dellinger's voice. It was clear that something was happening and Dave indicated that he wanted marshals to move to the flagpole, so I then said to everyone there that we should go toward the flagpole.

MR. WEINGLASS: When you went to the flagpole, did you have anything in your hands?

THE WITNESS: I had a speaker system with a microphone.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you arrived in the vicinity of the flagpole, what was occurring?

THE WITNESS: The flag had been lowered to halfmast and the police were dragging a young man out of the area. The police seemed to be withdrawing from the area as I arrived, and a lot of people who were gathered around the flagpole began to throw anything they could get their hands on at the police who were withdrawing from the crowd. They threw rocks and boards and lunches and anything that was available right on the ground.

MR. WEINGLASS: What were you saying, if anything, at that time on the microphone?

THE WITNESS: I kept directing the marshals to form a line, link arms, and then I constantly urged the people in the crowd to stop throwing things. I said, "You're throwing things at our own people. Move back."
As our marshal line grew, I urged our marshal line to now begin to move back and move the demonstrators away from the police.

MR. WEINGLASS: Where did you go?

THE WITNESS: I continued to stand in front of the marshal line that had been formed.

MR. WEINGLASS: What did you then observe happen?

THE WITNESS: Well, at that time another squadron of policemen in formation began to advance towards my position.
I was standing in front of our marshal line sort of sandwiched in between our marshal line and the advancing police formation.

MR. WEINGLASS: What were you doing as the police were advancing?

THE WITNESS: Well, as the police advanced, I continued to have my back to the police line, basically concerned that the marshal line not break or move. Then the police formation broke and began to run, and at that time I heard several of the men in the line yell, quite distinctly, "Kill Davis! Kill Davis!" and they were screaming that and the police moved on top of me, and I was trapped between my own marshal line and advancing police line.
The first thing that occurred to me was a very powerful blow to the head that drove me face first down into the dirt, and then, as I attempted to crawl on my hands and knees, the policemen continued to yell, "Kill Davis! Kill Davis!" and continued to strike me across the ear and the neck and the back.
I guess I must have been hit thirty or forty times in the back and I crawled for maybe --I don't know how many feet, ten feet maybe, and I came to a chain fence and somehow I managed to crawl either under or through that fence, and a police fell over the fence, trying to get me, and another police hit the fence with his nightstick, but I had about a second or two in which I could stand and I leaped over a bench and over some people and into the park, and then I proceeded to walk toward the center of the park.

MR. WEINGLASS: As you walked toward the center of the park, what, if anything, happened?

THE WITNESS: Well, I guess the first thing that I was conscious of, I looked down, and my tie was just solid blood, and I realized that my shirt was just becoming blood, and someone took my arm and took me to the east side of the Bandshell, and I laid down, and there was a white coat who was bent over me. I remember hearing the voice of Carl Oglesby. Carl said, "In order to survive in this country, we have to fight," and then--then I lost consciousness.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have completed my direct examination.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination of this witness?

MR. FORAN: Mr. Davis, could you tel me what you consider conventional forms of protest?

THE WITNESS: Writing, speaking, marching, assembling, acting on your deepest moral and political convictions, especially when the authority that you--

MR. FORAN: I mean methods. You were going along fine.

THE WITNESS: Well, conventional activity would include those forms and others.

MR. FORAN: All right. And do you support those forms of protest or do you like other forms of protest?

THE WITNESS: It depends on what the issue is.

MR. FORAN: Haven't you stated in the past that you opposed the tendency to conventional forms of protest instead of militant action in connection with Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Well, it really depends at what time that was.

MR. FORAN: Well, in March, say.

MR. WEINGLASS: If he is referring to a prior writing, I would like him to identify it so we may follow it.

MR. FORAN: There is no necessity for me to do that, your Honor.

THE COURT: No, no necessity for that. I order the witness to answer the question if he can. If he can't he may say he cannot and I will excuse him.
Now read the question again to the witness.

THE WITNESS: I understand the question. Maybe if Mr. Foran could define for me what he means by the word "militant," because we may have different views about that word.

THE COURT: There is no necessity for defining words.

THE WITNESS: I would like very much to answer your question, Mr. Foran, but I am afraid that your view of militant and mine are very different, so I cannot answer that question as you phrased it.

THE COURT: He said he cannot answer the question, Mr. Foran. Therefore I excuse him from answering the question.

MR. FORAN: Did you tell that meeting at Lake Villa that the summer of '68 should be capped by a week of demonstrations, disruptions, and marches at the Democratic National Convention clogging the streets of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Well, I certainly might have said "clogging the streets of Chicago."

MR. FORAN: Did you tell them at that meeting what I just said to you?

THE WITNESS: Well. I may have.

MR. FORAN: Did you ever write a document with Tom Hayden called "Discussions on the Democratic Challenge?"

THE WITNESS: Yes, I recall this. This was written very early.

MR. FORAN: When did you write it?

THE WITNESS: I think we wrote that document around January 15.

MR. FORAN: Have you ever said that "Countless creative activities must be employed that will force the President to use troops to secure his nomination?" Have you ever stated that?

THE WITNESS: That's possible.

MR. FORAN: But in January, in your little document that you and Hayden wrote together, that's what you said you were going to do, wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: Well, you've taken it out of context. I would be happy to explain the whole idea.

MR. FORAN: And it was your intention that you wanted to have trouble start so that the National Guard would have to be called out to protect the delegates, wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: No, it was not.

MR. FORAN: You've stated that, haven't you?

THE WITNESS: No. We thought it might be possible the troops would be brought into the city to protect the Convention from its own citizens, it would be another--

MR. FORAN: From the citizens that were outside waiting to pin the delegates in, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No. It's not correct.

MR. FORAN: On August 2 you met Stahl for breakfast over at the coffee house and you told him that this was an incendiary situation and that you'd rather die right here in Chicago than in Vietnam, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: No, Mr. Foran. I don't want to die in Chicago or Vietnam.

MR. FORAN: Then you saw Stahl again on August 10, that time at the coffee shop on Monroe Street?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right.

MR. FORAN: And you told Stahl that you had housing for 30,000 people, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

MR. FORAN: And you told Stahl that you expected at least another 70,000 people to come, and they wouldn't have any place to go, so they had to sleep in the park.

THE WITNESS: I think that I did.

MR. FORAN: And Stahl told you about the park ordinance again, didn't he, reminded you of it, that they couldn't sleep overnight in the park? He also told you about the Secret Service security requirements at the Amphitheater, didn't he, at the August 10 meeting?

THE WITNESS: No, no, absolutely not. On the contrary, there was no indication of a security area until August 21.

MR. FORAN: You told the City that you had to be able to march to the Amphitheatre, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Well, I told the City that we would assemble in any area that was in proximity to the Amphitheatre.

MR. FORAN: That the terminal point of march had to be the Amphitheatre, didn't you say that?

THE WITNESS: No, I never said that. I talked about eyeshot or being near the Amphitheatre.

MR. FORAN: By the way, you people got permits at the Pentagon, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, permits were granted for the demonstration at the Pentagon.

January 26, 1970

MR. FORAN: And the Mobilization had planned or some people in it had planned civil disobedience at the Pentagon, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: What do you mean by civil disobedience?

MR. FORAN: In fact, at the Pentagon, you planned both an active confrontation with the warmakers and the engagement of civil disobedience, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Well, if 150,000 people gathered in assembly is regarded as an active confrontation, as I regard it, the answer, of course, is yes.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that on the August 12 meeting with Stahl that you told him that during Convention week the demonstrators were going to participate in civil disobedience? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: No. May I say what I said?

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you had found that that was a very successful tactic at the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: No, I believe that Dave Dellinger said that that was a tactic we did not want to use in Chicago. We had one tactic for the Pentagon and another view for Chicago.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that that tactic, a permit on the one hand and active confrontation combined with civil disobedience on the other hand, gives the movement an opportunity to get both conventional protest groups and active resistance groups to come together in the demonstration? You have heard Dellinger say that, haven't you?

THE WITNESS: No, he never used those words for Chicago, Mr. Foran. What he always said--

MR. FORAN: Did he say it in connection with the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: Oh, for the Pentagon? There was no doubt there was a conception for civil disobedience which was wholly different from what we wanted to do in Chicago. Can't you understand? It is so simple. The Pentagon was one thing, Chicago was another thing.

MR. FORAN: I know you would like to explain away what happened in Chicago very much, Mr. Davis, but you also have to take into consideration what happened at the Pentagon was the blueprint for Chicago and you know it.

MR. DELLINGER: You are a liar.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, every time we try to get one of our witnesses to talk about the Pentagon, who was the quickest on his feet to say "That is outside the scope, you can't go into that--

MR. FORAN:, Not on cross-examination it isn't outside the scope
Isn't it a fact that Mr. Dellinger said that the Mobilization at the Pentagon can have its maximum impact when it combines massive action with the cutting edge of resistance? Didn't he say that?

THE WITNESS: What do you mean "cutting edge of resistance?"

MR. FORAN: Did Mr. Dellinger ever say that?

THE WITNESS: Well, I never heard him use those words.

MR. FORAN: In substance did you hear him say it? In substance?

THE WITNESS: Yes, all right.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that your plan both at the Pentagon and in Chicago was to combine, in Dellinger's words, the peacefulness of Gandhi and the violence of active resistance? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS:. No, that is not a fact. In fact, that is not even close.

MR. FORAN: May that be stricken, your Honor?

THE COURT: "In fact, that is not even close," those words may go out and the jury is directed to disregard them.

MR. FORAN: You testified on direct examination that on February 11, 1969, you gave a talk at 407 South Dearborn, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. FORAN: Very good.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

MR. FORAN: In the course of that talk you said on direct examination that "there may be people in this room who do believe that the Democratic Convention which is responsible for the war should be physically disrupted."

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that among the people in that room at 407 South Dearborn who did believe that the Democratic National Convention should be physically disrupted and torn apart were you and Hayden? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: No, it is not a fact. If you will read my testimony, you will see that--

MR. FORAN: You and Hayden had written--

THE WITNESS: Yes. Now if you will put that document before the jury.

MR. FORAN: --a "Discussion on the Democratic Convention Challenge," hadn't you?

THE WITNESS: We wrote a paper in January that was substantially revised by that very meeting, sir.

THE WITNESS: So you changed your mind between January 15 and February 11, is that your testimony?

THE WITNESS: We did not change our mind. We dropped some of the language that Dave Dellinger criticized as inappropriate, confusing--I think he said the word "disruption" was irresponsible.

MR. FORAN: In addition to you and Hayden, isn't it a fact that another person in that room who wanted to physically disrupt that National Democratic Convention was Dave Dellinger? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: Your questions embarrass me, they are so terrible. They really do.

MR. FORAN: Well, answer it.

THE WITNESS: The answer is no.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that Dellinger ran the show at the Pentagon? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: Sir, our movement doesn't work that way with one man running the show, as you say. It is a movement of thousands of people who participate each year.

MR. FORAN: You said that the Yippies wanted a gigantic festival in the park in Chicago to show the contrast between your culture and the death-producing culture of the Democratic Convention. Did you so testify?

THE WITNESS: I think I said "the death-producing ritual of the Democratic Convention."

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that all the vile and vulgar propaganda the Yippies were passing out was for the purpose of making the City delay on the permit, and to make the authorities look repressive?

THE WITNESS: Sir, no one had to make the City look repressive. The City was repressive.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that that vile and vulgar advertising along with all of the talk about a rock festival was for the purpose of attracting the guerrilla active resistance types to your protest?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. FORAN: And the purpose of the permit negotiations was to attract people who believed in more conventional forms of protest, wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: The purpose of the permits was to allow us to have a legal assembly.

MR. FORAN: That is exactly what you had done at the Pentagon, wasn't it, the synthesis of Gandhi and guerrilla, isn't that what you did at the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: No.

MR. FORAN: Mr. Davis, you testified that you had young Mark Simons request the use of various park facilities for meeting and for sleeping back around the thirty-first of July, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Now, isn't it a fact that you were always told by every city official that the 11:00 p.m. curfew in the parks would not be waived, isn't that a fact? Stahl told you that again on August 2, didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Not that emphatically.

MR. FORAN: He told you there was an 11:00 p.m. curfew that did not permit sleeping in the parks, did he say that?

THE WITNESS: But in the context at that time it would be waived, as it was waived all the time for the Boy Scouts and the National Guard troops.

MR. FORAN: Well, You didn't consider the Yippies Boy Scouts, did you?

THE WITNESS: Well, I considered that under the Civil Rights Act that American citizens have equal protection of the law.

MR. FORAN: You think that the Yippies with what they were advertising they were going to do in Lincoln Park are the same as the Boy Scouts? Is that what you are saving?

THE WITNESS: Well, as someone who has been very active in the Boy Scouts during all of his young life, I considered--

MR. FORAN: Did you ever see the Boy Scouts advertise public fornication, for heaven's sake?

THE WITNESS: The Yippies talked about a festival of Life and love and--

MR. FORAN: They also talked about public fornication and about drug use and about nude-ins on the beach? They also talked about that, didn't they?

THE WITNESS: They talked about love, yes, sir.

MR. FORAN: You and I have a little different feeling about love, I guess, Mr. Davis.
Now, isn't it a fact that the continuous demands for sleeping in the park were just for the purpose of again making the authorities appear repressive, isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: Oh, no. We wanted Soldiers Field as a substitute, or any facility. I indicated to the superintendent that we would take any facilities that could possibly be made available to get around this ordinance problem.

MR. FORAN: Now, in Judge Lynch's chambers, Raymond Simon proposed four different march routes as alternatives to your proposed march routes, didn't he?

THE WITNESS: Surely.

MR. FORAN: And you told him that while they appeared reasonable for daytime demonstrations, they were completely unacceptable to your coalition because there was no consideration of an assembly at the Amphitheater?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. FORAN: Did you accept any of these proposals of the four routes of march?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Well, we accepted the proposal to assemble in Grant Park at 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.

MR. FORAN: And no other proposals were accepted, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: No other proposals were made.

MR. FORAN: Other proposals that Mr. Simon had made to you, you rejected, did you not? You rejected them saying that you wanted to assemble at the Amphitheatre?

THE WITNESS: They were absurd proposals. People everywhere understood why young people were coming to Chicago: to go to the Convention.

MR. FORAN: After all of these meetings, the cause was argued?

THE WITNESS: On August 22, yes, sir.

MR. FORAN: And it was dismissed on the next day, August 23, is that right?

THE WITNESS: That's right, by the former law partner of Mayor Daley.

MR. FORAN: We can strike that statement.

THE COURT: I strike the remark of the witness from the record, and direct the jury to disregard it.

MR. FORAN: Was a motion to disqualify the judge made by your attorneys in this case?

THE WITNESS: No, it was not.

MR. FORAN: Did you instruct them to do so?

THE WITNESS: We discussed it as to whether or not we could get a fair shake from a former law partner of Mayor Daley, and we decided all of the judges were essentially the same, and that most of them are appointed by Daley.

MR. FORAN: So you thought all eleven judges in this district were appointed by Mayor Daley?

THE WITNESS: Not all eleven judges were sitting at that time. We thought that the court might be a face-saving device for the mayor. A mayor who didn't politically want to give permits might allow the courts to give permits. That is why we went into court.

THE COURT: Did you say all of the judges were appointed by Mayor Daley? Does he have the power to appoint judges?

THE WITNESS: No, I think that I indicated that they were all sort of very influenced and directed by the Mayor of the city of Chicago.  There is a lot of feeling about it in the city.
There is a lot of feeling of that in this city, Judge Hoffman. You can't really separate the courts from the Daley machine in this town.

THE COURT: Did you know that I was just about the first judge nominated on this bench by President Eisenhower in early 1953?

THE WITNESS: I do know. I understand that. You are a Republican judge.

THE COURT: I am not a Republican judge; I am a judge of all the people. I happen to be appointed by President Eisenhower in the spring of 1953.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I know that.

THE COURT: So do you want to correct your statement about Mayor Daley? If Mayor Daley had his way, he wouldn't have had me. I just want to reassure you if you feel that I am here because of Mayor Daley, I am not really.

THE WITNESS: I see.

THE COURT: Mayor Daley, as far as I am concerned, and so I am told, is a good mayor. I don't think I have ever spoken three sentences to him other than--I don't know whether I spoke to him when he was on the stand here or not. Perhaps I did direct him to answer some questions, I don't know.

MR. FORAN: When you were talking to Judge Lynch, you knew that you were going to have your people stay in the park with or without a permit, didn't you, and you didn't tell the judge that, did you?

THE WITNESS: I told the judge that we wanted to avoid violence and that was the most important thing possible.

MR. FORAN: If you wanted to avoid violence so much, did you tell the people out in the ballfield across the Balbo bridge from the Hilton Hotel that you had 30,000 housing units available and if you don't want trouble in the park, why don't you come take advantage of our housing? Did you say that in Grant Park that day?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Foran, we didn't come to Chicago to sleep.

MR. FORAN: Did you say that? Did you tell those people when you were telling them to go back to Lincoln Park that night for the Yippie Festival, did you tell them, "Don't stay in the park tonight, it might cause trouble. We have got plenty of housing available"? Did you tell them that?

THE WITNESS: We made constant references to the availability of housing through our Ramparts wall posters, through announcements at the movement centers. We communicated very well--

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, may I have that stricken'?

THE WITNESS: --that housing was available.

MR. FORAN: Well, as you were leaving that crowd from Lincoln Park, did you ever announce over that bullhorn, "Now look, we don't want any trouble in the park tonight, so any of you people who don't have housing, just let us know. We have thirty thousand housing units available"?
Did you announce that over the bullhorn while you were conducting that march?

THE WITNESS: On that occasion, no. We had other concerns, namely the arrest of Tom Hayden and Wolfe Lowenthal. But we did make constant announcements about--

MR. FORAN: You heard Oklepek testify, did you not, and it is a fact, isn't it, that at the August 9 meeting if the demonstrators were driven from the park, they ought to move out into the Loop and tie it up and bust it up, and you told the people that at that August 9 meeting, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: That is very close, very close. What I said was that they will drive people out of the parks and people will go into the Loop.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: The answer is not responsive. Therefore I must strike it.

THE WITNESS: I heard Mr. Oklepek testify to that but it is not a fact. There was something said that he--

MR. FORAN: You did tell people at that time at that meeting that if the police kept the demonstrators in the park and they couldn't get out, that you had an easy solution for it, just riot. That's what you said, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: I have never in all my life said that to riot was an easy solution to anything, ever.

MR. FORAN: And you sat here in this courtroom and you heard Officer Bock and Dwayne Oklepek and Officer Frapolly testify to all of these things, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: I listened to your spies testify about us, yes, sir, and it was a disgrace to me.

MR. FORAN: And isn't it a fact that you structured your testimony sitting at that table--

THE WITNESS: The answer is no.

MR. FORAN: --on direct examination to appear similar to the testimony of the Government's witnesses but to differ in small essentials because you wanted to lend credibility to your testimony?  That is a fact, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: It is not a fact and you know it.

MR. FORAN: May we strike that, your Honor. He whispered to the court reporter "and you know it."

THE COURT: Is that what you told the reporter at the end of your answer to the question?

THE WITNESS: No, I made that man to man to Mr. Foran.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, a lawyer in court is unable to comment on his personal opinions concerning a witness and because of that reason I ask the jury be instructed to disregard Mr. Davis' comment because I cannot properly respond to it.

THE COURT: "And you know it," to Mr. Foran, words to that effect may go out, and the jury is directed to disregard them.

THE WITNESS: I hope after this trial you can properly respond, Mr. Foran. I really do. I hope we have that chance.

MR. FORAN: I don't know what he is--what are you--

THE WITNESS: That you and I can sit down and talk about what happened in Chicago and why it happened.

THE COURT: Mr. Witness--

THE WITNESS: I would like to do that very much.

THE COURT: Mr. Witness--

MR. FORAN: Your Honor--

THE COURT: Do you hear me, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: You didn't--

THE WITNESS: I am sorry.

THE COURT: You paid no attention to me.
I direct you not to make any volunteered observations. I have made this order several times during your testimony.

THE WITNESS: I apologize.

THE COURT: I do not accept your apology, sir.

January 27, 1970

MR. FORAN: You and your people wanted to have violence in Lincoln Park, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. We wanted to avoid violence.

MR. FORAN: You wanted it for one purpose. You wanted it for the purpose of discrediting the Government of the United States, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: I wanted to discredit the Government's policies by bringing a half million Americans to Chicago at the time of the Convention.

MR. FORAN: Have you ever said that you came to Chicago to display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the government?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall saying that.

MR. FORAN: Could you have said it?

THE WITNESS: Well, that would be out of context. I would talk about the war. I would talk about racism.

MR. FORAN: Have you ever said it in context or out of context?

THE WITNESS: But the context is all-important, don't you see? It is most important.

MR. FORAN: Not in a statement like that. Have you ever said that?

THE WITNESS: Show me the document.

MR. FORAN: I am asking you a question. I want you to tell me.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall ever saying that.

MR. FORAN: And you wanted violence at the International Amphitheatre also, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Just the opposite.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you wanted violence in order to impose an international humiliation on the people who ruled this country? Isn't that a fact?

THE WITNESS: It is my belief that it was you wanted the violence, Mr. Foran, not me.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, may that be stricken, and may I have the question answered?

THE COURT: Certainly, the statement may go out. The witness is directed to be careful about his answers. Please read the question for the witness.(question read)THE WITNESS: I did not want violence, Mr. Foran.

MR. FORAN: You did want to impose an international humiliation on the people who ruled this country, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: I am afraid that our government has already humiliated itself in the world community, sir.

MR. FORAN: Now, you had another alternative to the march to the Amphitheatre, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

MR. FORAN: And that was for people who didn't want to march to drift away in small groups from the Bandshell and return to the hotel areas in the Loop.

THE WITNESS: That is right.

MR. FORAN: And it was planned, wasn't it, that they were to come back to the Hilton Hotel in force and cause a violent confrontation with the police, wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: No, of course not.

MR. FORAN: Was the objective of the second alternative to paralyze the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue?

THE WITNESS: No, that is a Government theory, a Government theory to try to figure out and explain away what happened in Chicago.

MR. FORAN: You have actually stated, haven't you, that all of those things I have been asking you about were the things that you accomplished in Chicago, haven't you?

THE WITNESS: You mean violent confrontations and tearing up the city and--

MR. FORAN: That the purpose of your meeting in Chicago was to impose an international humiliation on the people who rule this country, to display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the Government, to paralyze the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue. You have said all of those things, haven't you, that that was your purpose in coming to Chicago and that you achieved it?

THE WITNESS: No, I never indicated that that was our purpose in coming to Chicago.

MR. FORAN: Did you ever write a document, coauthor one with Tom Hayden, called "Politics After Chicago?"

THE WITNESS: I may have.

MR. FORAN: I show you Government's Exhibit No. 104 for identification and ask you if that is a copy of it.

THE WITNESS: Yes. You have butchered the context, just as I suspected.

MR. FORAN: Now, have you and Mr. Hayden stated in this "Politics After Chicago" that since the institutions of this country cannot be changed from within, the people will take to the streets? Have you stated that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I wish you would read the whole context.

MR. FORAN: You have stated that, have you not?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: You have stated "We learned in Chicago what it means to declare that the streets belong to the people."

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. FORAN: Did you state that the battle line is no longer drawn in the obscure paddies of Vietnam or the dim ghetto streets, but is coming closer to suburban sanctuaries and corporate board rooms? The gas that fell on us in Chicago also fell on Hubert? The street that was paralyzed was the "magnificent mile" of Michigan Avenue?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That is quite different from what you said before.

MR. FORAN: Did you state this:
"Our strategic purpose is two-fold: To display a growing militant defiance of the authority of the Government."
Did you state that?

THE WITNESS: It is possible. Read the whole document.

MR. FORAN: You stated that, didn't you?

THE WITNESS: Why don't you read the whole document or give it to the jury?

MR. FORAN: You have stated that your program is to discredit the authority of the Government which is deaf to its own system and railroad an election through America as if Vietnam were the caboose?

THE WITNESS: Boy, that's right on.

MR. FORAN: You stated that, did you not, that you wanted to discredit the authority of a Government which is deaf to its own citizens?

THE WITNESS: Well, I embrace those words. I don't know if I said them, but those words are just right.

MR. FORAN: And you believe that you won what you called the Battle of Chicago, don't you?

THE WITNESS: What do you mean by the Battle of Chicago?

MR. FORAN: Have you ever called what occurred in Chicago during the Convention the Battle of Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Yes, and I have defined it and I wonder if you would let me define it here. I will be happy to answer the question.

MR. FORAN: Have you ever stated in the words that I have asked you, "We won the Battle of Chicago"? Have you ever said that in any context?

THE WITNESS: You are not interested in the context, I suppose.

MR. FORAN: In any context, Mr. Davis.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe we won the battle in Chicago.

MR. FORAN: That you--it was your--your program would include press conferences, disruptions and pickets dramatizing whatever demands you wanted?

THE WITNESS: May I see the context so we can clarify it?

MR. FORAN: I show you Government's Exhibit No. 99. It starts at the top.

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was right.

MR. FORAN: Now, you feel that the Battle of Chicago continues, don't you?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that contest that will shape the political character in the next decade was really shaped in Chicago in the context between the Daleys and the Nixons, and the Hayakawas, and the Reagans and the young people who expressed their hopes in the streets in Chicago. And I think, frankly, in that context, it is going to be clear it is not the Daleys, or the Humphreys, or the Johnsons who are the future of this country. We are the future of this country.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you have said, Mr. Davis, that the Battle of Chicago continues today. The war is on. The reason we are here tonight is to try to figure out how we are going to get the kind of mutiny that Company A started in South Vietnam and spread it to every army base, every high school, every community in this country. That is what you said about the Battle of Chicago continuing today, isn't it?

THE WITNESS: Young people in South Vietnam--

MR. FORAN: Haven't you said just exactly what I read to you, sir?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, could we have the date of that statement?

THE COURT: Certainly, if you have the date, give it to him.

THE WITNESS: August 28, 1969.

MR. FORAN: On the one year anniversary of what happened on Wednesday, August 28, 1968?

THE WITNESS: A year after the Convention.

MR. FORAN: Isn't it a fact that you have said, "If we go about our own work, and if we make it clear that there can be no peace in the United States until every soldier is brought out of Vietnam and this imperialistic system is destroyed." Have you said that?

THE WITNESS: I don't recall those exact words, but those certainly are my sentiments, that we should not rest until this war is over and until the system--

MR. FORAN: And until this imperialistic system is destroyed?

THE WITNESS: Until the system that made that war is changed, the foreign policy

MR. FORAN: The way you decided to continue the Battle of Chicago, the way you decided to fight the Battle of Chicago, was by incitement to riot, wasn't it?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, by organizing, by organizing within the army, within high schools, within factories and communities across this country.

MR. FORAN: By inciting to riot within high schools, and within colleges, and within factories, and within the army, isn't that right, sir?

THE WITNESS: No. No, sir. No, I am trying to find a way that this generation can make this country something better than what it has been.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, he is no longer responding to the question.

THE COURT: I strike the answer of the witness and direct the jury to disregard it.

MR. FORAN: And what you want to urge young people to do is to revolt, isn't that right?

THE WITNESS: Yes, revolt.

MR. FORAN: And you have stated, have you not, "That there can be no question by the time that I am through that I have every intention of urging that you revolt, that you join the Movement, that you become a part of a growing force for insurrection in the United States"') You have said that, haven't you?

THE WITNESS: I was standing right next to Fred Hampton when I said that, who was murdered in this city by policemen.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I move to strike that.

THE COURT: Yes, the answer may certainly go out. The question is wholly unrelated to one Fred Hampton.

MR. FORAN: Wouldn't it be wonderful, your Honor, if the United States accused people of murder as these people do without proof, without trial, and without any kind of evidence having been presented in any kind of a decent situation

MR. KUNSTLER: A man is murdered in his bed, while he is sleeping, by the police.

MR. FORAN: With nineteen guns there.

THE COURT: I am trying this case. I will ask you, Mr. Kunstler, to make no reference to that case because it is not in issue here.

MR. FORAN: In Downers Grove on August 30, you told all of the people out there, "We have won America." Didn't you tell them that? Didn't you tell them that?

THE WITNESS: I believe that I said--

MR. FORAN: Didn't you say that to them out at Downers Grove, sir?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

MR. FORAN: I have no further cross-examination.

THE COURT: Redirect examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: Redirect is unnecessary, your Honor.

TESTIMONY OF NORMAN MAILER 



MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name, please?

THE WITNESS: Norman Mailer is my full name. I was born Norman Kingsley Mailer, but I don't use the middle name.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state, Mr. Mailer, what your occupation is?

THE WITNESS: I am a writer.

MR. KUNSTLER: I show you D-344 for identification and ask you if you can identify this book.

THE WITNESS: This is a book written by me about the march on the Pentagon and its title is The Armies of the Night.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state whether or not this book won the Pulitzer Prize)

THE WITNESS: It did.

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. I strike the witness' answer and I direct the jury to disregard it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what awards this book has won?

THE WITNESS: The book was awarded the National Book Award and the Pulitzer Prize in 1969.

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention, Mr. Mailer, to--let me withdraw that.
Did you have a conversation with Jerry Rubin after the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I did in December in my home. I had called Mr. Rubin and asked him to see me because I was writing an account of the march on the
Pentagon. I was getting in touch with those principals whom I could locate. Mr. Rubin was, if you will, my best witness. We talked about the details of the march on the Pentagon for hours. We went into great detail about many aspects of it. And in this period I formed a very good opinion of Mr. Rubin because he had extraordinary powers of objectivity which an author is greatly in need of when he is talking to witnesses.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor--Mr.Mailer--

THE COURT: I will have to strike the witness' answer and direct the jury to disregard every word of it.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, would you instruct Mr. Mailer even though he can't use all of the adjectives which he uses in his work, he should say "he said" and "I
said," or if he wants to embellish that, then "I stated" and "he stated." But that's the way it is related before a jury.

THE COURT: We are simple folk here. All you have to do is say "he said", if anything, "I said," if anything, and if your wife said something, you may say what she said.
I strike the witness' answer, as I say, and I direct the jury to disregard it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, was anything said in the conversation about what happened at the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: Mr. Rubin went in to considerable detail about his view of the American military effort in Vietnam and the structure of the military and industrial establishment in America, and it was in Mr. Rubin's view--

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, could he state what Mr. Rubin said relating to what he observed at the Pentagon?

THE WITNESS: This is Mr. Rubin s view. Mr. Rubin said it was his view, Counselor, he said that military-industrial establishment was so full of guilt and so horrified secretly at what they were doing in Vietnam that they were ready to crack at the smallest sort of provocation, and that the main idea in the move on the Pentagon was to exacerbate their sense of authority and control.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Mailer, was anything said about Chicago in this conversation?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Mr. Rubin said that he was at present working full time on plans to have a youth festival in Chicago in August of 1968 when the Democratic Convention would take place and it was his idea that the presence of a hundred thousand young people in Chicago at a festival with rock bands would so intimidate and terrify the establishment that Lyndon Johnson would have to be nominated under armed guard.
And I said, "Wow."
I was overtaken with the audacity of the idea and I said, "It's a beautiful and frightening idea."
And Rubin said, "I think that the beauty of it is that the establishment is going to do it all themselves. We won't do a thing. We are just going to be there and they won't be able to take it. They will smash the city themselves. They will provoke all the violence."
And I said, "I think you're right, but I have to admit to you that I'm scared at the thought of it. It is really something."
And he said, "It is. I am going to devote full time to it."
I said, "You're a brave man."

MR. KUNSTLER: Now did you go to Chicago?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention to approximately 5:00 P.m. on August 27, 1968. Do you know where you were then?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was in my hotel room with Robert Lowell and David Dellinger and Rennie Davis.

MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state what was said during that conversation?

THE WITNESS: The conversation was about the possibility of violence on a march that was being proposed to the Amphitheatre.
Mr. Lowell and I were a little worried about it because we were McCarthy supporters and we felt that if there was a lot of violence it was going to wash out McCarthy's last remote chance of being nominated.
And Mr. Dellinger said to me, "Look, you know my record, you know I've never had anything to do with violence." He said, "And you know that we have not been the violent ones. For every policeman that has been called a pig, those police have broken five and ten heads. You know that I never move toward anything that will result in violence," he said, "but at the same time I am not going to avoid all activity which could possible result in violence because if we do that, we'll be able to protest nothing at all. We are trying at this very moment to get a permit, We are hoping we get the permit, but if they don't give it to us, we'll probably march anyway because we have to: it's why we're here. We're here to oppose the war in Vietnam and we don't protest it if we stay in our rooms and don't go out to protest it."
He then asked me to speak at Grant Park the next day.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did You accept that invitation?

THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. I said I was there to cover the Convention for Harper's Magazine, and I felt that I did not want to get involved because if I did and got arrested, I would not be able to write my piece in time for the deadline, and I was really very concerned about not getting arrested, and losing three, or four, or five days because I had eighteen days in which to write the piece, and I knew it was going to be a long piece.

MR. KUNSTLER: I call your attention to the next day, Wednesday, the twenty-eighth of August, between 3:30 and 4:00 P.m. approximately. Do you know where you were then?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in Grant Park. I felt ashamed of myself for not speaking, and I, therefore, went up to the platform and I asked Mr. Dellinger if I could speak, and he then very happily said, "Yes, of course."

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what you did say on Wednesday in Grant Park?

THE WITNESS: I merely said to the people who were there that I thought they were possessed of beauty, and that I was not going to march with them because I had to write this piece. And they all said, "Write, Baby." That is what they said from the crowd.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, Mr. Mailer, I call your attention to Thursday, August 29, did you give another speech that day?

THE WITNESS: Yes, that was in Grant Park on Thursday morning, two or three in the morning.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you recall what you said?

THE WITNESS: Yes. That was--

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection. What he said is not relevant. What he said at the Bandshell where the Bandshell performance was sponsored by the defendants, that is one thing, but where he makes an independent statement-

THE COURT: There hasn't been a proper foundation for the question.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will ask one question.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Mailer, at the time you spoke, did you see any of the defendants at this table in the vicinity?

THE WITNESS: No, I don't think so.

MR. KUNSTLER: Then I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination?

MR. SCHULTZ: A few questions, your Honor.
Mr. Mailer, when you had your conversation with Rubin at your home, did Rubin tell you that the presence of a hundred thousand young people would so intimidate the establishment that Johnson would have to call out the troops and National Guard?

THE WITNESS: He did not use the word intimidate, as I recollect.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did he say that the presence of these people will provoke the establishment and the establishment will smash the city themselves?

THE WITNESS: That was the substance of what he said, yes.

MR. SCHULTZ: All right. Now at your speech in Grant Park, didn't you say that we are at the beginning of a war which would continue for twenty years and the march today would be one battle in that war?

THE WITNESS: Yes, I said that.

MR. SCHULTZ: But you couldn't go on the march because you had a deadline?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was in a moral quandary. I didn't know if I was being scared or being professional and I was naturally quite upset because a man never
likes to know that his motive might be simple fear.

THE COURT: I thought you said you had to do that piece.

THE WITNESS: I did have to do the piece, your Honor, but I just wasn't sure in my own mind whether I was hiding behind the piece or whether I was being professional to avoid temptation.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you tell the crowd, Mr. Mailer, at the Bandshell, "You have to be beautiful. You are much better than you were at the Pentagon?" Did you tell them that?

THE WITNESS: Yes. I remember saying that.

MR. SCHULTZ: You were talking about their physical appearance rather than their actions?

THE WITNESS: That is right. To my amazement these militant activities seemed to improve their physique and their features.

MR. SCHULTZ: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Is there any redirect examination?

MR. KUNSTLER: Could you state if Rubin didn't use the word "intimidate" as you have answered Mr. Schultz, what word he did use? What was his language?

THE WITNESS: It would be impossible for me to begin to remember whether Mr.Rubin used the word "intimidate" or not. I suspect that he probably did not use it because it is not his habitual style of speech. He would speak more of diverting, demoralizing the establishment, freaking them out, bending their mind, driving them out of their bird.
I use the word "intimidate" because possibly since I am a bully by nature, I tend to think in terms of intimidation, but I don't think Mr. Rubin does. He thinks in terms of cataclysm, of having people reveal their own guilt, their own evil.
His whole notion was that the innocent presence of one hundred thousand people in Chicago would be intolerable for a man as guilt-ridden as Lyndon Johnson. When this conversation took place, Lyndon Johnson was still President and the war in Vietnam gave no sign of ever being diminished in its force and its waste.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions.

TESTIMONY OF JESSE LOUIS JACKSON



MR. KUNSTLER: Would you state your full name?

THE WITNESS: Jesse Louis Jackson.

MR. KUNSTLER: Mr. Jackson, what is your position?

THE WITNESS: I am a Christian minister employed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

MR. KUNSTLER: Reverend Jackson, in what capacity are you employed by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference?

THE WITNESS: As director of its economic arm, Operation Breadbasket.

MR. KUNSTLER: Could you state for the jury what Operation Breadbasket is?

THE WITNESS: Operation Breadbasket is an economic movement that is designed to be the antidote to the racist domination of our black community by engaging in boycotts and consumer withdrawals from the companies that have an imperialistic relationship with our community. That is, the companies control the capital and blacks are merely reduced to consumers. So far, we've been able to get about five thousand jobs directly, perhaps ten thousand indirectly, but more importantly, we've been able to develop black institutions as a result of this movement.

MR. KUNSTLER: By the way, who is president of the Southern Christian Leadership movement?

THE WITNESS: Dr. Ralph Abernathy. . .

MR. KUNSTLER: Reverend Jackson, I call your attention to the third weed in August, 1968. Did you have an occasion to see Rennie Davis?

THE WITNESS: Yes. At my house here in Chicago.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you have a conversation at that time with Mr. Davis?

THE WITNESS: Yes, we had three or four issues to discuss. One was the relationship between the assassination of Dr. King and some things that we wanted to happen during the Convention. Rennie really wanted to know what was on my mind about the Convention and I told him that the reason we had not pursued relentlessly through any legal process who killed Dr. King was, that we thought that what killed him was an atmosphere that had been created because the nation was so split over the war question, and somehow if the Democratic Convention really became consistent with democracy, perhaps something could come in that Convention that would indicate a real sorrow for his assassination as opposed to just a holiday.

Then Rennie told me he would like to try to go to Hanoi. He felt that if I went to Hanoi that I could talk with the prisoners that were to be released and that through this process we could make the negotiations in Paris more meaningful . . . .

I related to Rennie that the shoot to kill order had come out, and therefore we had heard rumblings that if blacks participated in a big demonstration, that we would be shot down. We had talked with some of the policemen, and we saw some shotgun shells that had overkill pellets in them, so some of us who were afraid that some of the younger blacks might get involved in riots had begun to hold some workshops on he South and West sides.

So Rennie told me that he saw the danger, but what kind of decision was I going to make? I told him we felt that if blacks marched downtown there would be a massacre, and it wasn't that we were afraid to go, but we still were hung up because we had some dissenting delegations among us from Mississippi and Georgia. We wanted to support them.

So Rennie said that perhaps the only thing that could do, rather than my being caught in so much ambiguity, was that he was trying to get a legal permit through the city, and asked me what was my advice in case he didn't get the legal permit. I told him that I hoped he got the legal permit, but even if he didn't that it would be consistent with Dr. King's teaching that we then got a moral permit. Rather than getting permission from the city, we'd have to get a commission from our consciences and just have an extralegal demonstration, that probably blacks should participate, that if blacks got whipped nobody would pay attention, it would just be history. But if whites got whipped, it would make good news: that is, it would make the newspapers.

Rennie told me he didn't understand what I was saying. I told him that I thought long haired whites was the new style nigger, and if he didn't think they would get whipped, to try it.

We finally decided that we would explain to our people what the demonstration was about, that we would hope the permits would come through, that Dr. Abernathy was going to come back to the black community with the buggy and the mules. But we were afraid of the tremendous police build up in our community, so we felt too helpless to just put our heads in a meat grinder, and therefore I would spend my time working in the black community telling blacks not to get involved, and I would hope that those who were involved would appreciate that we were with them, but we just couldn't be there physically because chaos was anticipated as opposed to peace.

This was the substance of that conversation as I recall it.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination of this witness?

MR. FORAN: Reverend Jackson, did you call Mr. Davis or did Mr. Davis call you?

THE WITNESS: He called me, then I called him back.

MR. FORAN: That is all.

THE COURT: You may go, thank you.(applause)

The marshals will exclude everyone that they have seen applaud.
MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, with the testimony of Reverend Jackson, the defense has concluded its presentation of live witnesses. We do have a film that we hope to qualify. We think we will be able to procure the cameraman. We also have a few documents that we are still working on which we may present to the Court.

THE COURT: I would give consideration to recessing until Monday, provided counsel for the defense will rest or will go forward with the remainder of whatever evidence it has.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, if that evidence is going to be in addition to what Mr. Kunstler stated--- that is, that they not over the weekend decide on another dozen or thirty witnesses to start up again.

THE COURT: Mr. Kunstler represented that was the last witness, as he put it.
It that is the way you want to leave it, with the condition that you must rest Monday, if you don't have anything further, I am perfectly willing to put this case over to Monday morning.

MR. KUNSTLER: That is agreeable, you Honor.

THE COURT: The jury may now be excused until Monday morning at ten o'clock and I will ask counsel and the parties to remain . . . .


February 2, 1970


MR. KUNSTLER: I am going to go back on my representation anyway with one more witness, your Honor. We had originally contacted Dr. Ralph Abernathy to be a witness for the defense in this case. Dr. Abernathy was then out of the country and has just returned and is willing to appear as a witness for the defense. He is arriving at this moment at O'Hare Airport.

We think his testimony is crucial inasmuch as the Government has raised the issue of the mule train and I think your Honor may recall the testimony of Superintendent Rockford where the Superintendent tried to give the that the mule train was afraid of the demonstrators and therefore the police obligingly led it through the line.

Also Mr. Abernathy made a speech at Grant Park directly related to the events of the night of Wednesday, August 28. I did not know that he would be back in the country when I spoke to your Honor on Friday Afternoon. His testimony is not long and it would be the last witness we would offer subject only to those records

THE COURT: I certainly am not going to wait for him.
Who will speak for the Government?

MR. SCHULTZ: I will, your Honor.
The Government is ready to start its case this morning.
We are ready to go and would like to proceed with the trial. We would like to put on our first witness this morning.

THE COURT: There have been several witnesses called here during this trial whose testimony the Court ruled could not even be presented to the jury--- singers, performers, and former office holders, I think in the light of the representations made by you unequivocally, sir, with no reference to Dr. Abernathy, I will deny your motion that we hold---

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I think what you have just said is about the most outrageous statement I have ever heard from a bench, and I am going to say my piece right now if you wish to.

You violated every principle of fair play when you excluded Ramsey Clark from that witness stand. The New York Times, among others, has called it the ultimate outrage in American justice.

VOICES: Right on.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am outraged to be in this court before you. Now because I made a statement on Friday that I had only a cameraman, and I discovered on on Saturday that Ralph Abernathy, who is the chairman of the Mobilization is in town, and he can be here, I am trembling because I am so outraged. I haven't been able to get this out before, and I am saying it now, and then you can put me in jail if you want to. You can do anything you want with me, because I feed disgraced to be here.

To say to us on a technicality of my representation that we can't put Ralph Abernathy on the stand. He is the cochairman of the Mobe. He has relevant testimony. I know that doesn't mean much in this court when the Attorney General of the United States walked out of here with his lips so tight he could hardly breath, and if you could see the expression on his face, you would know, and his wife informed me that he never felt such anger at the United States Government as at not being able to testify on that stand.

I have sat here for four and a half months and watched the objections denied and sustained by your Honor, and I know that this is not a fair trial. I know it in my heart. If I have to lose my license to practice law and if I have to go to jail, I can't think of a better cause to go to jail for and to lose my license for---

A VOICE: Right on.

MR. KUNSTLER: ---than to tell your Honor that you are doing a disservice to the law in saying that we can't have Ralph Abernathy on the stand. You are saying truth will not out because of the technicality of a lawyer's representation. If that is what their liberty depends upon, your Honor, saying I represented to you that I had a cameraman that was our only witness, then I think there is nothing really more for me to say.

THE COURT: There is not much more that you could say, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: I am going to turn back to my seat with the realization that everything I have learned throughout my life has come to naught, that there is no meaning in this court, and there is no law in this court---

VOICES: Right on.

MR. KUNSTLER: ---and these men are going to jail by virtue of a legal lynching---

VOICES: Right on.

MR. KUNSTLER: And that your Honor is wholly responsible for that, and if this is what your career is going to end on, if this is what your pride is going to be built on, I can only say to your Honor, "Good luck to you."

VOICES: Right on. Right on.

THE COURT: Out with those applauders.

MR. DAVIS: I applauded to, your Honor. Throw me out.

THE COURT: Unfortunately, you have to remain, Mr. Davis, but we note that you applauded. You say you applauded.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may we proceed with this trial?

THE COURT: Yes. But they must---we must have the defendants rest here when they have no more evidence.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your honor, we are not resting. We are never going to rest, your honor is going to do the resting for us because we have a witness who is available and ready to testify.

THE COURT: I will do the resting for you.

MR. KUNSTLER: You will have to do it for us, your Honor. We are not resting.

THE COURT: Mr. Clerk, let the record show that the defendants have in effect rested.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, may the defendants and their counsel then not make any reference in front of this jury that they wanted Dr. Abernathy to testify?

MR. KUNSTLER: No, no.

THE COURT: I order you not to make such a statement.

MR. KUNSTLER: We are not going to abide by any such comment as that. Dr. Ralph Abernathy is going to come into the courtroom, and I am going to repeat my motion before the jury.

THE COURT: I order you not to.

MR. KUNSTLER: Then you will have to send me to jail, I am sorry.  We have a right to state our objection to resting before the jury.

THE COURT: Don't do it.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, what is an honest man to do when your Honor has done what he has done? What am I to do? Am I to stand here and say, "Yes, yes, yes."

THE COURT: I will ask you to sit down. I have heard enough from you along that line this morning, sir. I have never as a lawyer or a judge heard such remarks in a courtroom made by a lawyer.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, no one has heard of such conduct as is going on in this courtroom from the bench. This is the ultimate outrage. And I didn't say that, the editorial writers of the New York Times said that.

MR. SCHULTZ: May we proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes. I have ordered the jury brought in.

Judy Collins



   Having presented both the cases for the Prosecution and the Defense in the trial of People V Dellinger, et. al, we now present the transcripts of the Prosecution's rebuttal witnesses, the Defense and Prosecution summations, the verdict, and the sentencing. I'm pretty sure you will enjoy this. 



Bobby Seale

A certain Mr. Abbie Hoffman





TESTIMONY OF JAMES D. RIORDAN



February 4, 1970

MR. SCHULTZ: Please state your name.

THE WITNESS: James D. Riordan.

MR. SCHULTZ: And what is your occupation?

THE WITNESS: Deputy Chief of Police in the Chicago Police Department.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, calling your attention specifically to approximately 5:45 in the evening on Wednesday, August 28, do you recall where you were?

THE WITNESS: I was about fifty feet south of Balbo on Columbus Drive in Grant Park on the east sidewalk.
There were approximately, about 1500 people on the sidewalk from the location where I was standing back to about 9th Street. This was a group of people that wanted to march.

MR. SCHULTZ: And where were you in relation to this group of people that wanted to march?

THE WITNESS: I was in front of them. I stopped the march.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, at 5:45 that evening on Columbus Drive, did you have occasion to see David Dellinger?

THE WITNESS: I did. He was confronting me at the head of the march.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, at approximately 5:45, what if any announcements were made?

THE WITNESS: There was announcement made approximately thirty or forty yards back to the south of the front of the march by an unknown man with a loudspeaker.

MR. SCHULTZ: What if anything did you hear on the bullhorn?

THE WITNESS: I heard this unidentified speaker announce to the group that inasmuch as the march had been stopped, to break up in small groups of fives and tens, and to go over into the Loop, to penetrate into the hotels, the theaters, and stores, and business establishments where the police could not get at them, and disrupt their normal activity, and. if possible, to tie up the traffic in the Loop.

MR. SCHULTZ: After that announcement was made, what if anything did you observe the people in your area do?

THE WITNESS: The march disintegrated, and approximately 500 people crossed Columbus Drive and walked west through the ballfield toward the Illinois Central bridge on Balbo.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did Dellinger say anything when this announcement was made?

THE WITNESS: I did not hear him say anything.

MR. SCHULTZ: Did you see where he went?

THE WITNESS: He left with the head of the group that were carrying the flags.

MR. DELLINGER: Oh, bullshit. That is an absolute lie.

THE COURT: Did you get that, Miss Reporter?

MR. DELLINGER: Let's argue about what you stand for and what I stand for, but let's not make up things like that.

THE COURT: All of those remarks were made in the presence of the Court and jury by Mr. Dellinger.

MR. KUNSTLER: Sometimes the human spirit can stand so much, and I think Mr. Dellinger reached the end of his.

THE COURT: I have never heard in more than a half a century of the bar a man using profanity in this court or in a courtroom.

MR. HOFFMAN: I've never been in an obscene Court, either.

THE COURT: I never have as a spectator or as a judge. I never did.

MR. KUNSTLER: You never sat here as a defendant and heard liars on the stand, your Honor.

MR. SCHULTZ: Now, your Honor, I move that that statement--how dare Mr Kunstler--

MR. KUNSTLER: I say it openly and fully, your Honor.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, we had to sit with our lips tight, listening to those defendants, to those two defendants, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Hoffman, perjure themselves. I mean Davis and Hoffman.

MR. KUNSTLER: A little Freudian slip, your Honor.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, I have no further direct examination.

MR. DELLINGER: You're a snake. We have to try to put you in jail for ten years for telling lies about us, Dick Schultz.

MARSHAL JONESON: Be quiet, Mr. Dellinger.

MR. DELLINGER: When it's all over, the judge will go to Florida, but if he has his way, we'll go to jail. That is what we're fighting for, not just for us, but for all the rest of the people in the country who are being oppressed.

VOICES: Right on.

THE COURT: Take that man into custody, Mr. Marshal. Take that man into custody.

VOICES: Right on, right on.

MR. SCHULTZ: Into custody?

THE COURT: Into custody.

VOICES: Right on.

MR. DAVIS: Go ahead, Dick Schultz, put everybody in jail.

MR. DELLINGER: Dick Schultz is a Nazi if I ever knew one.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, will you please tell Mr. Davis to walk away from me?

MR. DELLINGER: Put everybody in jail.

THE COURT: Mr. Davis, will you take your chair.

MR. HOFFMAN: Nazi jailer.

THE COURT: You may proceed with your cross-examination.

MR. KUNSTLER: Chief Riordan, what time did the march disintegrate?

THE WITNESS: Oh, I would sav about six o'clock.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, would it surprise you, Chief, to know that some forty minutes later, Superintendent Rochford stated that the march was still present, and that he had a conversation with Dave Dellinger at 6:40 that night on that very spot?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I don't deal in surprises. That is always an improper question.

THE WITNESS: It could have happened.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: At approximately six o'clock, that time was when you say Dave Dellinger left that scene, isn't that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is true. He left my presence.

MR. KUNSTLER: Have you had any conversation with Superintendent Rochford about this?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Do you know yourself that Superintendent Rochford was there forty minutes later talking to Dave Dellinger and the march had not disintegrated?

MR. SCHULTZ: Objection, your Honor.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Chief Riordan, at any time after you heard this speaker make those remarks, did you get on the radio and alert the police in the city of Chicago that a mob was invading the Loop?

THE WITNESS: No, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: You heard the words, and did nothing?

THE WITNESS: That's right. I reported in to the Yard, the communications center.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did you do that?

THE WITNESS: When I arrived there.

MR. KUNSTLER: At what time did you arrive there?

THE WITNESS: 6:45.

MR. KUNSTLER: And what you had heard over a loudspeaker forty-five minutes earlier about invading the Loop and penetrating the stores and tying up traffic, you didn't think that was important enough to alert a Chicago policeman, is that correct?

THE WITNESS: That is not correct.

MR. KUNSTLER: I have no further questions.(jury excused)THE COURT: I have some observations to make here, gentlemen.
Time and again, as the record reveals, the defendant Dave Dellinger has disrupted sessions of this court with the use of vile and insulting language. Today again he used vile and obscene language which, of course, is revealed by the record.
I propose to try to end the use of such language if possible, and such conduct, by terminating the bail of this defendant.
I do not, if I can help it, intend to permit such tactics to make a mockery out of this trial.
I hereby, Mr. Clerk, terminate the bail of the defendant David Dellinger and remand him to the custody of the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois for the remainder of this trial.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, is there not going to be any argument on this?

THE COURT: No argument.

MR. KUNSTLER: I would like to say my piece. He is my client, and I think this is an utterly-- (There is disorder in the courtroom.)

MR. KUNSTLER: You brought this on, your Honor. This is your fault. This is what happened in Chicago. You exerted the power, and I would like to argue the point.

THE COURT: You won't argue the point.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will argue, your Honor, that your Honor's action is completely and utterly vindictive, that there is no authority that says because a defendant blurts out a word in court--

THE COURT: This isn't the first word, and I won't argue this.

MR. DAVIS: This court is bullshit.

THE COURT: There he is saying the same words again.

MR. DAVIS: No, I say it.

MR. KUNSTLER: That was not even David Dellinger who made the last remark.

MR. SCHULTZ: It was Davis, the defendant Davis who just uttered the last--

MR. RUBIN: Everything in this court is bullshit.

MR. DAVIS: I associate myself with Dave Dellinger completely, 100 percent. This is the most obscene court I have ever seen.

MR. RUBIN: You are going to separate us. Take us, too.
Take us all. Show us what a big man you are. Take us all.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Rubin's wife they are now taking--

MR. RUBIN: Keep your hands off her. You see them taking away my wife?

MR. DAVIS: Why don't you gag the press, too, and the attorneys, gag them?

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, there was no need for your action.

THE COURT: The court will be in recess. Mr. Marshal--

THE MARSHAL: Sit down, Mr.--

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, is there no decency left here? Can't we just argue the point?

THE COURT: You will have to go away from that lectern. You can't stand there and insult the United States District Court.

MR. KUNSTLER: Everything in this case is an insult.

THE COURT: You just insulted me again and you have done if often.

MR. KUNSTLER: Every argument is not an insult.

THE COURT: This case is recessed.

THE MARSHAL: Everyone please rise.

THE COURT: Clear the courtroom.

MR. DAVIS: You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.

MR. HOFFMAN: You are a disgrace to the Jews. You would have served Hitler better. Dig it.

THE MARSHAL: That was Mr. Hoffman, your Honor.

THE COURT: I saw him and I heard him.

MR. RUBIN: You are a fascist, Hoffman--

THE MARSHAL: Clear the court.

THE COURT: Clear the courtroom, Mr. Marshal.

MR. DAVIS: Get as many people as you can. Just like the Convention all over again.

THE MARSHAL: Clear the court.

THE COURT: Clear the court.

A FEMALE VOICE: You little prick.

MR. RUBIN: You are fascist.

THE MARSHAL: Get out of the courtroom.
Let's go.

MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, yes, I forgot, it's a public trial.

TESTIMONY OF BARBARA LAWYER 

MR. FORAN: Will you state your name, please?

THE WITNESS: Barbara Lawyer.

MR. FORAN: What is you occupation, Miss Lawyer?

THE WITNESS: I am a cocktail waitress at the Den in the Palmer House.

MR. FORAN: Directing your attention to the month of August 1968, where were you employed at the time?

THE WITNESS: In the Haymarket Lounge in the Conrad Hilton.

MR. FORAN: Now, calling your attention to a period of time shortly after eight o'clock on August 28, 1968, where were you?

THE WITNESS: I had just finished taking a break, and I was crossing the lobby into the Haymarket Lounge to go back to work. I had just come through the doorway into the center of the room.

MR. FORAN: Ad at that time, what did you see, Miss Lawyer?

THE WITNESS: There were about twenty-five or thirty people running toward me from the window, and they were yelling and shouting and pushing and shoving customers.
I saw them leap over tables where customers were seated, and with their arms they just swept glasses and drinks off the tables onto the floor, knocked over furniture, and one man ran up to the bandstand and pushed the drums off the stand onto the floor, and a lot of yelling.

MR. FORAN: And how were these people dressed? Could you describe these people?

THE WITNESS: Well, they were dressed in the hippie fashion with moccasins and vests, and some were shoeless.

MR. FORAN: And what happened then, after what you have described?

THE WITNESS: Well, I saw a couple of policemen come through from behind these people and try to clear out the room.

MR. FORAN: Now, the people had come through the entrance of the building?

THE WITNESS: They came in through a broken window.

MR. FORAN: What occurred them?

THE WITNESS: Well, then the police tried to get them out of the lounge into the lobby and I couldn't see them from there because I was over in the corner of the room.

MR. FORAN: Now, Miss Lawyer, was there anything unusual about the lobby that night?

THE WITNESS: Yes, there was an odor in the lobby?

MR. FORAN: And what type of odor was it?

THE WITNESS: It smelled like vomit. It was very strong.

MR. FORAN: That is all, Miss Lawyer.(jury excused)

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I would want at this time, because I sincerely and honestly feel that the Court realizes that its position with respect to the jailing of Dave Dellinger is indefensible in law--

THE COURT: I will not hear you further on that motion.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, your Honor, you are keeping a man in custody, and you are not permitting a lawyer to make an argument for his freedom. THis is unheard of. That is unprecedented in law.

THE COURT: I ask you to sit down sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your honor knows--

THE COURT: Mr. Marshall, will you ask that man to sit down?

MR. WEINGLASS: You have no authority for taking that man's freedom away, and you will not let me make a legal argument on his behalf/

MR. SCHULTZ: That is disgraceful.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is disgraceful.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I said yesterday you were vindictive, you are doing this because he spoke. You told us on Thursday, you waited for the opportunity.

THE COURT: Have that man sit down. I will hear no further argument on this motion.

MR. HOFFMAN: You put him in jail because you lost faith in the jury system. I hear you haven't lost a case before a jury in twenty-four tries. Only the Corbiasin people got away. We're going to get away, too. That's why you're throwing us in jail now this way.
Contempt is a tyranny of the court, and you are a tyrant. That's why we don't respect it. It's a tyrant.

THE COURT: Mr. Marshall, will you ask the defendant Hoffman to remain quiet?

MR. HOFFMAN: Schtunk.

MR. RUBIN: You are a tyrant, you know that.

MR. HOFFMAN: The judges in Nazi Germany ordered sterilization.  Why don't you do that, Judge Hoffman?

MARSHAL DOBKOWSKI: Just keep quiet.

MR. HOFFMAN: We should have done this long ago when you chained and gagged Bobby Seale. Mafia-controlled pigs. We should have done it. It's a shame this building wasn't ripped down.

THE COURT: Mr. Marhall, order him to remain quiet.

MR. HOFFMAN: Order us? Order us? you got to cut our tongues out to order us, Julie.
You railroaded Seale so he wouldn't get a jury trial either. Four years for contempt without a jury trial.

THE MARSHAL: No, I won't shut up. I ain't an automaton like you.  Best friend the blacks ever had, huh? How many blacks are in the Drake Towers? How many are in the Standard Club? How many own stock in Brunswick Corporation?

THE MARSHAL: Shut up.

THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.(jury enters)

THE COURT: You may cross-examine this witness.

MR. KUNSTLER: Miss, Lawyer, you stated that there were twenty-five, thirty people that you saw coming through the window, is t hat correct?

THE WITNESS: They were running from the direction of the window.

MR. KUNSTLER: You asked how they were dressed. Do you recall that? You said hippie fashion.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Can you state what you mean by hippie fashion?

THE WITNESS: Well, it's the current mode, I guess, of describing dress, moccasins, mod clothes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Yes, what else?

THE WITNESS: And the fact that it includes long hair, beards. . . .

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, after the people came through the window, did you see any police come through the window?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I saw two.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, when the police came through, were they carrying stretchers or night sticks.

THE WITNESS: They had nothing in their hands.

MR. KUNSTLER: And how many customers were there in the room at that time?

THE WITNESS: Well, I really don't know because when I got in there, everything was in such confusion that I really couldn't say.

MR. KUNSTLER: Now, lastly, Ms. Lawyer, you have told us here today you smelled an odor in the lobby. Do you recall that?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did you smell that?

THE WITNESS: We smelled that most of the week, but that night also.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you smell it Monday night?

THE WITNESS: I can't tell you whether we did. I just remember smelling it that week.

MR. KUNSTLER: You are sure about Wednesday night?

THE WITNESS: I am sure.

MR. KUNSTLER: Did you tell the FBI about that?

THE WITNESS: No, I did not.

MR. KUNSTLER: When did it first come to you in a way you can testify about-- when you spoke to the United States Attorney?

THE WITNESS: When I spoke to Mr. Foran, yes, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Thank you. No further questions.

THE COURT: We shall recess until tomorrow morning.
Tomorrow morning at ten o'clock, ladies and gentlemen.


February 6, 1970

THE COURT: Where are the defendants?

THE COURT: May the record show defendants Hoffman and Rubin came in at 1:28, attired in what might be called collegiate robes.

MR. RUBIN: Judges' robes, sir.

A DEFENDANT: Death robes.

THE COURT: Some might even consider them judicial robes.

MR. RUBIN: Judicial robes.

THE COURT: Your idea, Mr. Kunstler? Another one of your brilliant ideas?

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I can't take credit for this one.

THE COURT: That amazes me.

Closing Argument for the Defendants by Mr. Kunstler 



MR. KUNSTLER: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury:
This is the last voice that you will hear from the defense. We have no rebuttal. This Government has the last word.
In an introductory fashion I would just like to state that only you will judge this case as far as the facts go. This is your solemn responsibility and it is an awesome one.
After you have heard Mr. Schultz and Mr. Weinglass, there must be lots of questions running in your minds. You have seen the same scenes described by two different people. You have heard different interpretations of those scenes by two different people. But you are the ones that draw the final inference. You will be the ultimate arbiters of the fate of these seven men.
In deciding this case we are relying upon your oath of office and that you will decide it only on the facts, not on whether you like the lawyers or don't like the lawyers. We are really quite unimportant. Whether you like the judge or don't like the judge, that is unimportant, too. Whether you like the defendants or don't like the defendants

THE COURT: I am glad you didn't say I was unimportant.

MR. KUNSTLER: No. The likes or dislikes are unimportant.
And I can say that it is not whether you like the defendants or don't like the defendants. You may detest all of the defendants, for all I know; you may love all of them, I don't know. It is unimportant. It shouldn't interfere with your decision, it shouldn't come into it. And this is hard to do.
You have seen a long defense here. There have been harsh things said in this court, and harsh things to look at from your jury box. You have seen a man bound and gagged. You have heard lots of things which are probably all not pleasant. Some of them have been humorous. Some have been bitter. Some may have been downright boring, and I imagine many were. Those things really shouldn't influence your decision. You have an oath to decide the facts and to decide them divorced of any personal considerations of your own, and I remind you that if you don't do that, you will be living a lie the rest of your life, and only you will be living with that lie.
Now, I don't think it has been any secret to you that the defendants have some questions as to whether they are receiving a fair trial. That has been raised many times.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to this.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: They stand here indicted under a new statute. In fact, the conspiracy, which is Count I, starts the day after the President signed the law.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to that. The law is for the Court to determine, not for counsel to determine.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I am not going into the law. They have a right to know when it was passed.

THE COURT: I don't want my responsibility usurped by you.

MR. KUNSTLER: I want you to know, first that these defendants had a constitutional right to travel. They have a constitutional right to dissent and to agitate for dissent. No one would deny that, not Mr. Foran, and not I, or anyone else.

MR. KUNSTLER: Just some fifty years ago, I think almost exactly, in a criminal court building here in Chicago, Clarence Darrow said this:
"When a new truth comes upon the earth, or a great idea necessary for mankind is born, where does it come from? Not from the police force, or the prosecuting attorneys, or the judges, or the lawyers, or the doctors. Not there. It comes from the despised and the outcasts, and it comes perhaps from jails and prisons. It comes from men who have dared to be rebels and think their thoughts, and their faith has been the faith of rebels.
"What do you suppose would have happened to the working men except for these rebels all the way down through history? Think of the complacent cowardly people who never raise their voices against the powers that be. If there had been only these, you gentlemen of the jury would be hewers of wood and drawers of water. You gentlemen would have been slaves. You gentlemen owe whatever you have and whatever you hope to these brave rebels who dared to think, and dared to speak, and dared to act."
This was Clarence Darrow fifty years ago in another case.
You don't have to look for rebels in other countries. You can just look at the history of this country.
You will recall that there was a great demonstration that took place around the Custom House in Boston in 1770. It was a demonstration of the people of Boston against the people who were enforcing the Sugar Act, the Stamp Act, the Quartering of Troops Act. And they picketed at one place where it was important to be, at the Custom House where the customs were collected.
You remember the testimony in this case. Superintendent Rochford said, "Go up to Lincoln Park, go to the Bandshell, go anywhere you want, but don't go to the Amphitheatre."
That was like telling the Boston patriots, "Go anywhere You want, but don't go to the Custom House," because it was at the Custom House and it was at the Amphitheatre that the protesters wanted to show that something was terribly and totally wrong. They wanted to show it at the place it was important, and so the seeming compliance of the City in saying n "Go anywhere you want throughout the city. Go to Jackson Park. Go to Lincoln Park," has no meaning. That is an excuse for preventing a demonstration at the single place that had meaning, which was the Amphitheatre.
The Custom House in Boston was the scene of evil and so the patriots demonstrated. They ran into a Chicago. You know what happened. The British soldiers shot them down and killed five of them, including one black man, Crispus Attucks, who was the first man to die, by the way, in the American revolution. They were shot down in the street by the British for demonstrating at the Custom House.
You will remember that after the Boston Massacre which was the name the Colonies gave to it. all sorts of things happened in the Colonies. There were all sorts of demonstrations---

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I have sat here quite a while and I object to this. This is not a history lecture. The purpose of summation is to sum up the facts of the case and I object to this.

THE COURT: I do sustain the objection. Unless you get down to evidence, I will direct you to discontinue this lecture on history. We are not dealing with history.

MR. KUNSTLER: But to understand the overriding issues as well, your Honor-

THE COURT: I will not permit any more of these historical references and I direct you to discontinue them, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: I do so under protest, your Honor. I will get down, because the judge has prevented me from going into material that I wanted to---

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to that comment.

THE COURT: I have not prevented you. I have ruled properly as a matter of law. The law prevents you from doing it, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: I will get down to the evidence in this case. I am going to confine my remarks to showing you how the Government stoops to conquer in this case.
The prosecution recognized early that if you were to see thirty-three police officers in uniform take the stand that you would realize how much of the case depends on law enforcement officers. So they strip the uniforms from those witnesses, and you notice you began to see almost an absence of uniforms. Even the Deputy Police Chief came without a uniform.
Mr. Schultz said, "Look at our witnesses. They don't argue with the judge. They are bright and alert. They sit there and they answer clearly."
They answered like automatons---one after the other, robots took the stand. "Did you see any missiles?"
"A barrage."
Everybody saw a barrage of missiles.
"What were the demonstrators doing?"
"Screaming. Indescribably loud."
"What were they screaming?"
"Profanities of all sorts."
I call your attention to James Murray. That is the reporter, and this is the one they got caught with. This is the one that slipped up. James Murray, who is a friend of the police, who thinks the police are the steadying force in Chicago. This man came to the stand, and he wanted you to rise up when you heard "Viet Cong flags," this undeclared war we are fighting against an undeclared enemy. He wanted you to think that the march from Grant Park into the center of Chicago in front of the Conrad Hilton was a march run by the Viet Cong, or have the Viet Cong flags so infuriate you that you would feel against these demonstrators that they were less than human beings. The only problem is that he never saw any Viet-Cong flags. First of all, there were none, and I call your attention to the movies, and if you see one Viet Cong flag in those two hours of movies at Michigan and Balbo, you can call me a liar and convict my clients.
Mr. Murray, under whatever instructions were given to him, or under his own desire to help the Police Department, saw them. I asked him a simple question: describe them. Remember what he said? "They are black." Then he heard laughter in the courtroom because there isn't a person in the room that thinks the Viet Cong flag is a black flag. He heard a twitter in the courtroom. He said, "No, they are red."
Then he heard a little more laughter.
Then I said, "Are they all red?"
He said, "No, they have some sort of a symbol on them."
"What is the symbol?"
"I can't remember."
When you look at the pictures, you won't even see any black flags at Michigan and Balbo. You will see some red flags, two of them, I believe, and I might say to you that a red flag was the flag under which General Washington fought at the Battle of Brandywine, a flag made for him by the nuns of Bethlehem.
I think after what Murray said you can disregard his testimony. He was a clear liar on the stand. He did a lot of things they wanted him to do. He wanted people to say things that you could hear, that would make you think these demonstrators were violent people. He had some really rough ones in there. He had, "The Hump Sucks," "Daley Sucks the Hump"---pretty rough expressions. He didn't have "Peace Now." He didn't hear that. He didn't give you any others. Oh, I think he had "Charge. The street is ours. Let's go."
That is what he wanted you to hear. He was as accurate about that as he was about the Viet Cong flag, and remember his testimony about the whiffle balls. One injured his leg. Others he picked up. Where were those whiffle balls in this courtroom?
You know what a whiffle ball is. It is something you can hardly throw. Why didn't the Government let you see the whiffle ball? They didn't let you see it because it can't be thrown. They didn't let you see it because the nails are shiny. I got a glimpse of it. Why didn't you see it? They want you to see a photograph so you can see that the nails don't drop out on the photograph. We never saw any of these weapons. That is enough for Mr. Murray. I have, I think, wasted more time than he is worth on Mr. Murray.
Now, I have one witness to discuss with you who is extremely important and gets us into the alleged attack on the Grant Park underground garage.
This is the most serious plan that you have had. This is more serious than attacking the pigs, as they tried to pin onto the Yippies and the National Mobe. This is to bomb. This is frightening, this concept of bombing an underground garage, probably the most frightening concept that you can imagine.
By the way, Grant Park garage is impossible to bomb with Molotov cocktails. It is pure concrete garage. You won't find a stick of wood in it, if you go there. But, put that aside for the moment. In a mythical tale. it doesn't matter that buildings won't burn.

February 13, 1970

In judging the nonexistence of this so-called plot, you must remember the following things.
Lieutenant Healy in his vigil, supposedly, in the garage, never saw anything in anybody's hands, not in Shimabukuro's, whom he says he saw come into the garage, not in Lee Weiner's hands, whom he said he saw come into the garage, or any of the other four or five people whom he said he saw come into the garage. These people that he said he saw come into the garage were looking, he said, in two cars. What were they looking into cars for? You can ask that question. Does that testimony make any sense, that they come in empty-handed into a garage, these people who you are supposed to believe were going to fire bomb the underground garage?
Just keep that in mind when you consider this fairy tale when you are in the jury room.
Secondly, in considering it you have the testimony of Lieutenant Healy, who never saw Lee Wiener before. You remember he said "I never saw him before. I had looked at some pictures they had shown me."
But he never had seen him and he stands in a stairwell behind a closed door looking through a one-foot-by-one-foot opening in that door with chicken wire across it and a double layer of glass for three to four seconds, he said, and he could identify what he said was Lee Wiener in three to four seconds across what he said was thirty to forty yards away.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to "three or four seconds." It was five minutes.

MR. KUNSTLER: No, sir. The testimony reads, your Honor, that he identified him after three or four seconds and if Mr. Foran will look---

MR. FORAN: Then he looked at him for five minutes.

MR. KUNSTLER: He identified him after three or four seconds.

THE COURT: Do you have the transcript there?

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I would accept that. He identified him immediately but he was looking at him for five minutes.

MR. KUNSTLER: I just think you ought to consider that in judging, Lieutenant Healy's question. This officer was not called before the grand jury investigating that very thing. And I think you can judge the importance of that man's testimony on whether he ever did tell the United States Attorney anything about this in September of 1968.
I submit he didn't because it didn't happen. It never happened. This is a simple fabrication. The simple truth of the matter is that there never was any such plot and you can prove it to yourselves. Nothing was ever found, there is no visible proof of this at all. No bottles. No rags. No sand. No gasoline. It was supposed to be a diversionary tactic, Mr. Schultz told you in his summation. This was a diversionary tactic. Diversionary to what? This was Thursday night.
If you will recall, the two marches to the Amphitheatre that got as far as 16th and 18th streets on Michigan had occurred earlier. The only thing that was left was the Downers Grove picnic. It was a diversionary operation to divert attention from the picnic at Downers Grove. It was diversionary to nothing. The incident lives only in conversations, the two conversations supposedly overheard by Frapolly and Bock, who are the undercover agents who were characterized, I thought, so aptly by Mr. Weinglass.
Now just a few more remarks. One, I want to tell you that as jurors, as I have already told you, you have a difficult task. But you also have the obligation if you believe that these seven men are not guilty to stand on that and it doesn't matter that other jurors feel the other way. If you honestly and truly believe it, you must stand and you must not compromise on that stand.

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to that. Your Honor will instruct the jury what their obligations are.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. You are getting into my part of the job.

MR. KUNSTLER: What you do in that jury room, no one can question you on. It is up to you. You don't have to answer as to it to anybody and you must stand firm if you believe either way and not

MR. FORAN: Your Honor, I object to that.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection. I told you not to talk about that, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: I think I have a right to do it.

THE COURT: You haven't a right when the Court tells you not to and it is a matter of law that is peculiarly my function. You may not tell the jury what the law is.

MR. KUNSTLER: Before I come to my final conclusion, I want to thank you both for myself, for Mr. Weinglass, and for our clients for your attention. It has been an ordeal for you, I know. We are sorry that it had to be so. But we are grateful that you have listened. We know you will weigh, free of any prejudice on any level, because if you didn't, then the jury system would be destroyed and would have no meaning whatsoever. We are living in extremely troubled times, as Mr. Weinglass pointed out. An intolerable war abroad has divided and dismayed us all. Racism at home and poverty at home are both causes of despair and discouragement. In a so-called affluent society, we have people starving, and people who can't even begin to approximate the decent life.
These are rough problems, terrible problems, and as has been said bv everybody in this country, they are so enormous that they stagger the imagination. But they don't go away by destroying their critics. They don't vanish by sending men to jail. They never did and they never will.
To use these problems by attempting to destroy those who protest against them is probably the most indecent thing that we can do. You can crucify a Jesus, you can poison a Socrates, you can hand John Brown or Nathan Hale, you can kill a Che Guevara, you can jail a Eugene Debs or a Bobby Seale. You can assassinate John Kennedy or a Martin Luther King, but the problems remain. The solutions are essentially made by continuing and perpetuating with every breath you have the right of men to think, the right of men to speak boldly and unafraid, the right to be masters of their souls, the right to live free and to die free. The hangman's rope never solved a single problem except that of one man.
I think if this case does nothing else, perhaps it will bring into focus that again we are in that moment of history when a courtroom becomes the proving ground of whether we do live free and whether we do die free. You are in that position now. Suddenly all importance has shifted to you---shifted to you as I guess in the last analysis it should go, and it is really your responsibility, I think, to see that men remain able to think, to speak boldly and unafraid, to be masters of their souls, and to live and die free. And perhaps if you do what is right, perhaps Allen Ginsberg will never have to write again as he did in "Howl," "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," perhaps Judy Collins will never have to stand in any Courtroom again and say as she did, "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

Closing Arguments on Behalf of the Government by Mr. Foran



MR. FORAN: May it please the Court, counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury: The recognition of the truth, which is your job, is a very strange thing. There is a real difference between intellectualism and intelligence. Intellectualism leaves out something that intelligence often had and what it really is is a kind of a part of the human spirit. You know many men will be highly intellectual and yet they will have absolutely terrible judgment.

When you stop and think of it. among the twelve of you there is certainly somewhere in excess of four hundred years of human intelligence and instinct, and that is a lot, and that is important. . . .

Much of the concept of the assault by the defendants on the Government's case is: Would anybody do some of these wild things?  Most people wouldn't. But those defendants would.

Some of the things that the Government's witnesses testified that some of these defendants did were pretty wild things, and it would be hard to believe that most people, most decent people, would ever do anything like it. Is it so hard to believe that these men would do it?

Has any one of you, for instance, noticed how in the last few days as we reach the end of the case and it comes before for decision, the sudden quieting in the courtroom, the sudden respect, the sudden decency that we see in this courtroom? For that, are we to forget the four-and-a-half months of what we saw?

The defendants in this case---first of all, they kind of argued in a very strange way that there was no violence planned by these defendants at the Democratic Convention.

Since they have no evidence that violence wasn't planned, the way they argue it is that they say Bock, Frapolly, and Oklepek and Pierson lied. They state that they lied categorically. They said, "Because Bock, Frapolly, Pierson, and Oklepek were undercover agents for the police or newspapers, and therefore, they cannot be honest men.

Now how dare anybody argue that kind of a gross statement? Some of the bravest and the best men of all the world, certainly in law enforcement, have made their contributions while they were undercover. That statement is a libel and a slander on every FBI agent, every Federal narcotics agent, every single solitary policeman who goes out alone and unprotected into some dangerous area of society to try to find out information that is helpful to his government. It is a slander on every military intelligence man, every Navy intelligence man who does the same thing.

There is something that is very interesting, and I bet you haven't noticed it.

The August 9 meeting, you remember that meeting was at Mobilization headquarters. There was a lot of talk and a lot of planning at that meeting. Frapolly, Bock, and Oklepek were all there. So were Dellinger, Davis, Hayden, Weiner, Froines, and Hoffman.

All three of the Government witnesses testified that the march routes to the Amphitheatre were discussed. All agreed that the dangers of the march routes were discussed. All agreed that mill-ins in the Loop were planned during that week: disruptions, blocking cars driving down the street, smashing windows, shut the Loop down, generally make havoc in the Loop area, setting small fires---and, by the way, it all happened.

All of those things that I just mentioned happened on Wednesday of Convention week, and all of them happened in the downtown area right at Michigan and Balbo.

You know, they were saying, "What did they plan that happened?" Well, everything. That was a pretty good shot on the first big meeting.

In addition to the defendants, who else was there at that meeting? Bosciano, Radford, Baker, Steve Buff, and about eight other people.  Where are they? If Bock and Frapolly and Oklepek were lying, why weren't they in here testifying that something else was said at that meeting, or that Davis was telling the truth about what he said was said at that meeting. Where are they?

Buff took the witness stand, and they didn't even ask him about the meeting. They didn't even ask him.

The reason that none of the friends and pals of these defendants that were at those meetings didn't come in here and testify or, if they did, ignored the meetings, was because Bock, Frapolly and Oklepek were telling the truth, and if they talked about those meetings on the witness stand, they would have no choice, they would either have to back Bock and Frapolly and Oklepek or they would have to lie. They were at those meetings planning and organizing for the violence that they were going to instigate and incite in Chicago.

And when all that organizing and planning was completed, the time to start the execution of the plan had arrived.

The first thing they had to do is they had to keep this crowd of people getting excited, getting into trouble, but not so much trouble that they would run into a mass arrest situation before Wednesday because they needed the crowd on Wednesday if they were going to have their big confrontation.

And so what they decided---and stop and think of it, remember at the beginning of this case they were calling them all by diminutive names, Rennie and Abbie and Jerry, trying to pretend they were young kids. These are highly sophisticated, highly educated men, every one of them. They are not kids. Davis, the youngest one, took the witness stand. He is twenty-nine. These are highly sophisticated, educated men and they are evil men.
(laughter)

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal.

MR. FORAN: What they have in mind they need to be sophisticated for and they need to be highly educated for because what they have in mind is what Davis told you he had in mind. It is no judgment of mine. Davis told ' you from that witness stand after two-and-a-half days of the toughest cross-examination I was ever involved in because he was so smart and so clever and so alert, but at last he told you "Revolution. Insurrection." And he told you---I am not---you heard it right from the witness stand.

And so these sophisticated men decided that the first thing that they had to do was to test the police. They had to find out what they could do, where they would be stepping too far, you know, where they would run into trouble.

So the first march they had on Sunday they sent the whole--most of them went down opposite the Hilton Hotel. They had an orderly legal march, legal picketing, and there was absolutely no trouble.

Remember Davis back at that August 9 meeting, "We'll lure the McCarthy kids and other young people with music and sex and try to hold the park." And all of this was done the first night. The first night they carried out that plan. But to carry out the big plan they had to generate more heat the next day so that by Wednesday the psychological training ground of this crowd and the psychological torture of the police, that combination would have reached the proper mix for what they had in mind for Wednesday night.

Say you are in the park after 11:00 p.m., and the law says you are supposed to go; a policeman says, "Leave." You say, "Hell, no." He has only two choices, doesn't he? He either has to walk away from you and not enforce the law, or he has to use whatever physical force is necessary to make you leave.

So, he reaches down-say he takes you by the arm. Then what do you do? You scream, "Let me alone! Let me alone! Police brutality!" And you start wrestling around. Then he had again only two choices.  Either he had to physically subdue you right there on the spot, or he had to get help in order to carry you out.

MR. KUNSTLER: There is no evidence of that at all, your Honor. Mr. Foran is making up a story here. I object, your Honor.

THE COURT: I overrule your objection. You may continue, sir.

MR. FORAN: If the police get tough and wrongfully---and it is wrong for a policeman to say, "This man is not going to go," so he cracks him, that is wrong. He shouldn't do that. But say he does it, which they do, policemen do that, then the crowd takes that as total justification to attack the police with rocks and bottles. and to say, "We are defending ourselves."

The technique is simple, and it can fit any situation, and you have seen it fit situations in this courtroom.

Somebody violates the regulation of this courtroom, and the marshal asks him to leave, and he won't, so he takes him by the arm, "Aaaaccchhh! Dirty rotten marshal!" And that had happened, and that is the way it is done, and it is done. You know, this is done in complicated situations and in simple situations.

Monday night in Lincoln Park as the curfew approached, there was Rubin, "Arm yourselves with anything you can. Now is the time to make our stand." Earlier, he had been doing the same thing. That is the night they built the barricade, just like they planned on August 9.

It was a rough night in the park. There was gas. Davis is there on the bullhorn. He is shouting encouragement to the crowd to "Fight the pigs" and "Hold the park," committing a criminal act, by the way, inciting a crowd. He had just left his cohort, Hayden, downtown. who had been arrested near the Hilton . . . .

Rubin, as usual, was in the park on Tuesday. He gives a speech to the crowd telling them to take this country away from the people who run it. "Take to the streets in small groups," just as he told Pierson that the Viet Cong had done, and he finished up his revolution exhortation with, "See you in the streets."

These are criminal acts. They are urging people to violence.

Seale followed on the podium with a wild speech telling the crowd to "Get their pieces and barbecue that pork." And we are supposed to wonder, you know, it doesn't mean what it means. That is what the argument is. "It doesn't mean what it means." Of course, you know what it means. "You get your gun and you kill a policeman." That is what is means. It is as obvious as anything from the context of the speech. You heard the whole speech. To say anything else is ridiculous. It is calling black white.

Up at the park, again, Tuesday night, over and over again, the police were saying, "Clear the park. Clear the park." Finally, at 12:30 A.M., the police moved forward again, and again they were met with a hail of missiles. This time, Froines was right up in the front line, throwing rocks and stones himself.

The police really let them have it with tear gas that night. They had a dispenser, and there was a lot of gas, and the crowd got out quickly. I don't know, maybe that is a better way, but I don't know. There was a lot of gas. It is a temporary bad feeling, but at least nobody gets hurt. Maybe it is a better way.

The battle plan that had been talked about by Davis on August 9, was almost ready. Young people had been moved into the park. They fought and resisted the police.

And now the time had come to start shifting the scene down to the downtown area, and just as they planned, the Hilton area was going to be the focus of the next action.

The crowd was pretty heated and pretty militant, and it gad been whipped up really in Lincoln Park, starting way back on August 13 with all of these things, wit at crazy snake dancing, and with the skirmish lines. To be trained in karate is something because karate is a vicious thing. If you are any good at it, you can kill somebody with it. It is a vicious way to fight.

The police had been taunted and insulted and attacked until the weak ones among them, and there are plenty of weak policemen, were losing their professionalism. and they were ripe to be driven into joining some of these participants in rioting.

And then they have that meeting in Mobilization headquarters the next morning where they set it up with a kind of---well, it is a combination of "the massive action with the cutting edge of resistance." They used it successfully at the Pentagon and they were now going to transfer it into the practicalities of Chicago.

Dellinger, Davis, Hayden, Froines, Weiner and Rubin all leave to do their various jobs.

The meeting started at the Bandshell. Dellinger was running the public show up on the stage and Davis was giving instructions to his marshals out behind that refreshment stand, those marshals who, as Froines said, were a lot better street fighters than they ever were what marshals are supposed to be.

He says "Disperse the police. Reduce their effectiveness."

Others of the militant group were seen preparing their vicious, filthy weapons--- bags of urine, pointed sticks, sharpening tiles.

The mood of those militants in that crowd was shown real quickly when that flag came down to half-mast. When that flag came down and those six policemen went in to arrest the man, they were grossly attacked by that crowd.

And the honesty of the defense is pointed out most clearly by the argument of counsel that they were throwing their lunches at the police and that these were picnickers throwing lunches at the police.  These weren't picnickers unless those picnickers eat rocks and bottles for lunch.

Rubin in his volatile way had been caught up in the excitement and he was in there pitching, "Kill the pigs. Kill the pigs."

But Dellinger and Davis were a lot cooler than that. They let them continue for a while. It went on for about fifteen minutes and then they cooled it down because it was still daylight and things were---you know, it wasn't quite ready yet. And that's when Davis got hit. Look at this picture in the jury room. He's got a cut on his head and he's bleeding some and he's smiling and he looks very alert and he doesn't look like he's going to fall unconscious to me.

The thing that you have got to recognize is that you have to tie the Bandshell back to that meeting Wednesday morning. Exactly what was planned at that meeting Wednesday morning happened at the Bandshell.

A diversionary march was set up by Dellinger. Another action was set up by Dellinger. As I said earlier, I think like a ventriloquist he used Tom Neumann. Neumann's name had been talked about that morning at that meeting at the Mobilization office as one of the speakers. Neumann was one of the men. The plan was made there at that meeting.

You can gather a whole bunch of people, most of them don't want to riot, but maybe want to protest, maybe want to get in on the act, maybe want to have some fun, maybe want to fight policemen. You gather enough people together, and you have some people who are dedicated to causing public disorder for serious purposes. You don't need a big crowd. And that is what these people always try to do. They tried to shift it off on all youth. They are talking about our children.

There are millions of kids who, naturally, if we could only remember how it is---you know, you resent authority, you are impatient for change, you want to fix things up. Maybe you are very sensitive and you feel the horrors of racism which is a real cancer in the American character, there is no question about that. You feel a terrible frustration of a terribly difficult war that maybe as a young kid you are going to have to serve in. Sure, you don't like things like that.

There is another thing about a kid, if we all remember, that you have an attraction to evil. Evil is exciting and evil is interesting, and plenty of kids have a fascination for it. It is knowledge of kids like that that these sophisticated, educated psychology majors know about. They know about kids, and they know how to draw the kids together and maneuver them, and use them to accomplish their purposes. Kids in the 60s, you know, are disillusioned. There is no question about that. They feel that John Kennedy went, Bobby Kennedy went, Martin Luther King went---they were all killed---and the kids do feel that the lights have gone out in Camelot, the banners are furled, and the parade is over.

These guys take advantage of them. They take advantage of it personally, intentionally, evilly, and to corrupt those kids, and they use them, and they use them for their purposes and for their intents.  And you know, what are their purposes and intents?

Well, they tell you, these men tell you this, and this is what troubles me, that some of the things you can really taste.

What is their intent? And this is their own words: "To disrupt. To pin delegates in the Convention hall. To clog streets. To force the use of troops. To have actions so militant the Guard will have to be used. To have war in the streets until there is peace in Vietnam. To intimidate the establishment so much it will smash the city. Thousands and thousands of people perform disruptive actions in Chicago. Tear this City apart. Fuck up the Convention. Send them out. We'll start the revolution now. Do they want to fight? The United States is an outlaw nation which had broken all the rules so peace demonstrators can break all the rules. Violate all the laws. Go to jail. Disrupt the United States Government in every way that you can. See you in Chicago."

And these men would have you believe that the issue in this case is whether or not they really wanted permits.

Public authority is supposed to stand handcuffed and mute in the face of people like that and say, "We will let you police yourselves"? How Would public authority feel if they let that park be full of young kids through that Convention with no policemen, with no one watching them? What about the rape and the bad trips and worse that public authority would be responsible for if it had?

They tried to give us this bunk that they wanted to talk about racism and the war and they wanted a counter-convention. They didn't do anything but look for a confrontation with the police. What they looked for was a fight, and all that permits had to do with it was where was the fight going to be, and that's all.

And they are sophisticated and they are smart and they are well-educated. And they are as evil as they can be. . . .

Riots are an intolerable threat to every American and those who lead others to defy the law must feel the full force of the law." You know who said that? Senator Bob Kennedy said that, who they tried to adopt.

"In a government of law and not of men, no man, no mob, however unruly or boisterous, is entitled to defy the law."

Do you know who said that? John Kennedy.

The lights in that Camelot kids believe in needn't go out. The banners can snap in the spring breeze. The parade will never be over if people will remember, and I go back to this quote, what Thomas Jefferson said, "Obedience to the law is the major part of patriotism." These seven men have been proven guilty beyond any doubt. They didn't attack the planning they were charged with. They did not say it didn't happen. The are guilty beyond any doubt at all of the charges contained in the indictments against them.

You people are obligated by your oath to fulfill your obligation without fear, favor, or sympathy. Do your duty.





February 18, 1970

THE COURT: I understand, gentlement, that the jury has brought in a verdict.
Is the jury here? Have you brought the jury here?

THE MARSHAL: Your Honor, the jury hs reached a verdict.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honroe, before the jury is brought in, may I make a statement? May I address the Court please?

THE COURT: You certainly may.

MR. SCHULTZ: Your Honor, considering what has gone on in this courtroom before, we would ask your Honor to have the court cleared of all spectators except the press. I have the authority for it if your Honor requires it.

THE COURT: Oh I have done it often before in the trial of jury cases.
I want to ask you a question, Mr. Schultz, before I call on Mr. Kunstler. I see there are a number of ladies. I can identify some one or two as members of the press. You think my rule of exclusion hre should apply to the wives of the defendants?

MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, your Honor, in fact, the wives of the defendants have been probably more contumacious than any others.

THE COURT: You may reply, Mr. Kunstler.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honro, we would want to voic the strongers possible objection to the application by the Government. To clear the courtroom at what is probably the most significant part of the trial, the rendering of a verdict, of the friends and relatives of the defendants is to deny them a public trial. The verdict of this jury should not be received in secret with or without the press being here. I think this is making a star chamber proceeding out of this procedure.
There have been many claims made by the defendants about this trial, that it has not been a fair trial, that it has been a trial which has been dictated by an almost indecent effort to comvict them, and we have made this contention, as your Honor knows, against you and against the prosecution.
This is the last possible motion that the Government can make in this case and the defense is hoping that with this last motion, that your Honro will at long last deny a motion made by the prosecution and not let these men stand here alone in the courtroom that has essentially been their home for five months. I beg and implore you to deny this motion of the Government.

THE COURT: I will decide to enter this order. The following remain: of course, the defendants and those who have sat at the Government's table throughout this trial. The ladies and gentlement of the press, all media.
Now all of the parties here other than those I have mentioned are directed to leave the courtroom.

A SPECTATOR (ANITA HOFFMAN): The ten of you will be avenged. They will dance on your grave, Julie, and the grave of the pig empire.

A VOICE: They are demonstrating all over the country for you.

MR SCHULTZ:: I just might point out for the record that we have in the hallway now the same kind of screaming we had in the courtroom.

MR. DELLINGER: That's my thirteen year old daughter they're beating on.

MR. HOFFMAN: Why don't you bring your wife in, Dick, to watch it?

MR. DELLINGER: You ought to be a proud man

MR. HOFFMAN: She would like to hear it.

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, will you please bring in the jury?(jury enters)THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
I am informed by the United States Marshall that you have reached a verdict or some verdicts.
Is that true? Is there a forewoman or foreman?

THE FOREMAN: A foreman.

THE COURT: Would you hand the verdicts to the marshal, please, and, Mr. Marshal, will you hand them to the clerk?
I direct the clerk to read the verdicts.

THE CLERK: "We, the jury find the defendant David T. Dellinger guilty as charged in Count II of the indictment and not guilty as charged in Count I."
"We, the jury find the defendant Rennard D. Davis guilty as charged in Count III of the indictment and not guilty as charged in Count I."
"We, the jury find the defendant Thomas E. Hayden guilty as charged in Count IV of the indictment and not guilty as charged in Count I."
"We, the jury find the defendant Abbott H. Hoffman guilty as charged in Count V of the indictment and not guilty as charged in Count I."
"We, the jury find the defendant Jerry C. Rubin guilty as charged in Count VI of the indictment and not guilty as charged in Count I."
"We, the jury find the defendant Lee Weiner not guilty as charged in the indictment."
"We, the jury find the defendant John R. Froines not guilty as charged in the indictment."
Signed by Edward F. Kratzke, Foreman, and eleven other jurors.

THE COURT: Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
I wish I were eloquent enough to express my appreciation to you for your several months of service in this case, one of the most difficult I ever tried, one of the longest, and I know you had a great responsibility also.
I express to you in behalf of everybody concerned our deep and appreciative thanks for your service.
You are excused now.

February 20, 1970

THE COURT: I now proceed with the imposition of sentence.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, we were not informed on Wednesday that sentence would occur today.

THE COURT: There is no obligation of a Court to notify you of every step it takes.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, it is wrong, your Honor, both morally and I think legally.

THE COURT: If you are telling me I am morally wrong in this case, you might add to your difficulty. Be careful of your language, sir. I know you don't frighten very easily.

MR. KUNSTLER: The defendants had no way of knowing they are going to be sentenced today. Their families are not even present, which would seem to me in common decency would be permitted.

THE COURT: The reason they were kept out is my life was threatened by one of the members of the family. I was told they would dance on my grave in one of the hearings here within the last week.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, are you serious?

THE COURT: Yes, I am, sir.

MR. KUNSTLER: Well, your Honor, I have no answer for that then.

THE COURT: I am not a law enforcement officer.

MR. KUNSTLER: It is your life.

THE COURT: I deny your motion to defer sentencing.

MR. KUNSTLER: I think my other applications, your Honor, can await sentencing. I have several other applications.

THE COURT: All right, I will hear from you first then with respect to the defendant David T. Dellinger.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I think for all of the defendants, Mr. Weinglass and I are going to make no statement. The defendants will speak for themselves.

THE COURT: All right, Mr. Dellinger, you have the right to speak in your own behalf.

MR. DELLINGER: I would like to make four brief points.
First, I think that every judge should be required to spend time in prison before sentencing other people there so that he might become aware of the degrading antihuman conditions that persist not only in Cook County Jail but in the prisons generally of this country.
I feel more compassion for you, sit, than I do any hostility. I feel that you are a man who has had too much power over the lives of too many people for too many years. You are doing, and undoubtedly feeling correct and righteous, as often happens when people do the most abominable things. . . .
My second point is whatever happens to us, however unjustified, will be slight compared to what has happened already to the Vietnamese people, to the black people in this country, to the criminals with whom we are now spending our days in the Cook County jail.
I must have already lived longer than the normal life expectancy of a black person born when I was born, or born now. I must have already lived longer, twenty years longer, than the normal life expectancy in the underdeveloped countries which this country is trying to profiteer from and keep under its domain and control.
Thirdly, I want to say that sending us to prison, any punishment the Government can impose upon us, will not solve the problem of this country rampant racism, will not solve the problem of economic injustice, it will not solve the problem of the foreign policy and the attacks upon the underdeveloped people of the world.
The Government has misread the times in which we live, just like there was a time when it was possible to keep young people, women, black people, Mexican-American, anti-war people, people who believe in truth and justice and really believe in democracy, which it is going to be possible to keep them quiet or suppress them.
Finally, all the way through this I have been ambivalent in my attitude toward you because there is something spunky about you that one has to admire, however misguided and intolerant I believe you are. All the way through the trial, sort of without consciousness or almost against my own will I keep comparing you to George III of England, perhaps because you are trying to hold back the tide of history although you will not succeed, perhaps because you are trying to stem and forestall a second American revolution. . . .
I only wish that we were all not just more eloquent, I wish we were smarter, more dedicated, more united. I wish we could work together. I wish we could reach out to the Forans and the Schultzes and the Hoffmans, and convince them of the necessity of this revolution.
I think I shall sleep better and happier with a greater sense of fulfillment in whatever jails I am in for the next however many years than if I had compromised, if I had pretended the problems were any less real than they are, or if I had sat here passively in the courthouse while justice was being throttled and the truth was being denied. . . .

THE COURT: Mr. Davis, would you like to speak in your own behalf? You have that right.

MR. DAVIS: I do not think that it is a time to appeal to you or to appeal the system that is about to put me away. I think that what moves a government that increasingly is controlled by a police mentality is action. It is not a time for words; it is a time that demands action.
And since I did not get a jury of my peers, I look to the jury that is in the streets. My jury will be in the streets tomorrow all across the country and the verdict from my jury will keep coming for the next long five years that you are about to give me in prison.
When I come out of prison it will be to move next door to Tom Foran. I am going to be the boy next door to Tom Foran and the boy next door, the boy that could have been a judge, could have been a prosecutor, could have been a college professor, is going to move next door to organize his kids into the revolution. We are going to turn the sons and daughters of the ruling class in this country into Viet Cong.

THE COURT: Mr. Hayden, you have the right to speak in your own behalf.

MR. HAYDEN: I have very little that I want to say because I don't have very much respect for this kind of freedom of speech. This is the kind of freedom of speech that I think the Government now wants to restrict us to, freedom to speak in empty rooms in front of prosecutors, a few feet from your jail cell.
We have known all along what the intent of the Government has been. We knew that before we set foot in the streets of Chicago. We knew that before we set foot on the streets of Chicago. We knew that before the famous events of August 28, 1968. If those events didn't happen, the Government would have had to invent them as I think it did for much of its evidence in this case, but because they were bound to put us away.
They have failed. Oh, they are going to get rid of us, but they made us in the first place. We would hardly be notorious characters if they had left us alone in the streets of Chicago last year, but instead we became the architects, the masterminds, and the geniuses of a conspiracy to overthrow the government. We were invented. We were chosen by the Government to serve as scape goats for all that they wanted to prevent happening in the 1970s.
I have sat there in the Cook County Jail with people who can't make bond, with people who have bum raps, with people who are nowhere, people who are the nothings of society, people who say to me, "You guys burned your draft cards. I would like to burn my birth certificate so they can never find me again."
I sit there and watch television, and I hear Mr. Foran say the system works. this trial proves the system works.
Mr. Foran, I would love to see a television cameraman come into Cook County jail and show the people how the system is working. Maybe you could televise us sitting around the table with the roaches running over our wrists while we watch somebody on television, a constitutional expert explaining how the jury verdict demonstrates once again the vitality of the American system of justice.
If you didn't want to make us martyrs, why did you do it? If you wanted to keep it cool, why didn't you give us a permit? You know if you had given us a permit, you know that by doing this to us it speed sup the end for the people who do it to us.
And you know that if this prosecution had never been undertaken, it would have been better for those in power. It would have left them in power a little longer. You know that by doing this to us it speeds up the end for the people who do it to us.
You don't believe it but we have to do this. We have no choice. We had no choice in Chicago. We had no choice in this trial. The people always do what they have to do. Every person who is born now and every person under thirty now feels an imperative to do the kind of things that we are doing. They may not act on them immediately, but they feel the same imperative from the streets. Some day they are going to proclaim the that imperative from the bench and from the courthouse. It's only a matter of time. You can give us time. You are going to give us time. But it is only a matter of time.

THE COURT: Mr. Hoffman, the law gives you the right to speak in your own behalf. I will hear from you if you have anything to say.

MR. HOFFMAN: Thank you.
I feel like I have spent fifteen years watching John Daly shows about history. You Are There. It is sort of like taking LSD, which I recommend to you, Judge. I know a good dealer in Florida. I could fix you up.
Mr. Foran says that we are evil men, and I suppose that is sort of a compliment. He says that we are unpatriotic? I don't know, that has kind of a jingoistic ring. I suppose I am not patriotic.
But he says we are un-American. I don't feel un-American. I feel very American. I said it is not that the Yippies hate America. It is that they feel that the American Dream has been betrayed. That has been my attitude.
I know those guys on the wall. I know them better than you, I feel. I know Adams. I mean, I know all the Adams. They grew up twenty miles from my home in Massachusetts. I played with Sam Adams on the Concord Bridge. I was there when Paul Revere rode right up on his motorcycle and said, "The pigs are coming, the pigs are coming. Right into Lexington." I was there. I know the Adams. Sam Adams was an evil man.
Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every ten years. Thomas Jefferson had an agrarian reform program that made Mao Tse Tung look like a liberal. I know Thomas Jefferson.
Hamilton: Well, I didn't dig the Federalists. Maybe he deserved to have his brains blown out.
Washington? Washington grew pot. He called it hemp. It was called hemp them. He probably was a pot head.
Abraham Lincoln? There is another one. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address said, and I quote "When the people shall grow weary of their constitutional right to amend the government, they shall exert their revolutionary right to dismember and overthrow that government."
If Abraham Lincoln had given that speech in Lincoln Park, he would be on trial right here in this courtroom, because that is an inciteful speech. That is a speech intended to create a riot.
I don't even know what a riot is. I thought a riot was fun. Riot means you laugh, ha, ha. That is a riot. they call it a riot.
I didn't want to be that serious. I was supposed to be funny. I tried to be, I mean, but it was sad last night. I am not made to be a martyr. I tried to sign up a few years, but I went down there. They ran out of nails. What was I going to do? So I ended up being funny.
It wasn't funny last night sitting in a prison cell, a 5 x 8 room, with not light in the room. I could have written a whole book last night. Nothing. No light in the room. Bedbugs all over. They bite. I haven't eaten in six days. I'm not on a hunger strike; you can call it that. It's just that the food stinks and I can't take it.
Well, we said it was like Alice in Wonderland coming in, now I feel like Alice in 1984, because I have lived through the winter of injustice in this trial.
And it's fitting that if you went to the South and fought for voter registration and got arrested and beaten eleven or twelve times on those dusty roads for no bread, it's only fitting that you be arrested and tried under the civil rights act. That's the way it works.
Just want to say one more thing.
People-- I guess that is what we are charged with-- when they decide to go from one state of mind to another state of mind, when they decide to fly that route, I hope they go youth fare no matter what their age.
I will see you in Florida, Julie.

THE COURT: The next defendant, Mr. Rubin, do you desire to speak in your own behalf? You have that privilege.

MR. RUBIN: Well, five months are over. Look at the courtroom, fluorescent lighting. We sat for five months in swivel chairs. The press, the marshals, the judge, now it is over.
This is one of the proudest moments of my life. This one of the happiest moments of my life, if you can dig what I mean. I am happy because I am in touch with myself, because I know who I am.  I am happy because I am associated with Rennie, Tom, Dave, Abby and myself. That makes me very happy.
This is my life. I used to look like this. I use to look like this, Judge. See? (displaying picture)
I was a reporter for a newspaper. Most everybody around this table once looked like this, and we all believed in the American system, believed in the court system, believed in the election system, believed that the country had some things wrong with it, and we tried to change it.
I'm being sentenced to five years not for what I did in Chicago-- I did nothing in Chicago. I am going to jail because I am part of a historical movement and because of my life, the things I am trying to do, because, as Abbie said, we don't want to be-- we don't want to have a piece of the pie.
We don't just want to be part of the American way of life. We don't want to live in the suburbs. We don't want to have college degrees. We don't want to stand before the judge and say, "Yes, we respect you judge, no matter what happens." We don't want that. We are moved by something else. We are moved by a firm belief in ourselves.
And you are sentencing us for being ourselves. That's our crime: being ourselves. Because we don't look like this anymore. That's our crime/
Judge, I want to give you a copy of my book. I want you to read it on your vacation in Florida, because this is why I am on trial. I inscribed it. I made two little inscriptions. One says, "Dear Julius, the demonstrations in Chicago in 1968 were the first steps in the revolution. What happened in the courtroom is the second step." Then I decided to add another note, and that was: "Julius, You radicalized more young people than we ever could. You're the country's top Yippie." I hope you will take it and read it.
What you are doing out there is creating millions of revolutionaries.  Julius Hoffman, you have done more to destroy the court system in this country than any of us could have done. All we did was go to Chicago and the police system exposed itself as totalitarian.
And I am glad we exposed the court system because in millions of courthouses across this country blacks are being shuttled from the streets to the jails and nobody knows about it. They are forgotten men. There ain't a whole corps of press people sitting and watching.  They don't care. You see what we have done is, we have exposed that. Maybe now people will be interested in what happens in the courthouse down the street because of what happened here. Maybe now people will be interested.
This is the happiest moment of my law.

THE DEFENDANTS: Right on.

THE COURT: I call on the Government to reply to the remarks of the defendants and each of them.

MR. FORAN: The Government has no comment on their remarks, your Honor, I think the evidence in this case speaks for itself/

THE COURT: Mr. Clerk, the defendant David T. Dellinger will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his authorized representative for imprisonment for a term of five years. Further, the defendant Dellinger will be fined the sum of $5,000 and costs of prosecution, the defendant to stand committed until the fine and costs have been paid. That sentence of five years will be concurrent with the sentence the court imposed for contempt of court previously. The two sentences will run concurrently.
Mr. Clerk, the defendant Rennard C. Davis will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the Untied States for a term of five years. Further a fine of-- a fine will be imposed against Mr. Davis in the sum of $5,000 and costs of prosecution.
The defendant Thomas C. Hayden will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a term of five years.  Further a fine of $5,000 and costs of prosecution will be imposed.
The defendant Abbott H. Hoffman will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for imprisonment for a term of five years. Further a fine of $5,000 and costs--

MR. HOFFMAN: Five thousand dollars, Judge? Could you make that three-fifty?

THE COURT: --$5,000 and--

MR. HOFFMAN: How about three and a half?

THE COURT: --and costs will be imposed, costs of prosecution will be imposed.
The defendant Jerry C. Rubin will be committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a term of five years. Further there will be a fine of $5,000 and cost of prosecution will be imposed.
Not only on the record in this case, covering a period of four months or longer, but from the defendants made here today, the Court finds that the defendants are clearly dangerous persons to be at large. Therefore the commitments here will be without bail.

THE COURT: Does the defense have any observations?

MR. KUNSTLER: In conclusion, your Honor, speaking both for Mr. Weinglass and myself, we didn't need to hear our clients speak today to understand how much they meant to us but, after listening to them a few moments ago we know that what they have said here has more meaning and will be longer remembered than any words said by us or by you.
We feel that if you could even begin to understand that simple fact, then their triumph would have been as overwhelming today as is our belief--

MR. KUNSTLER: --as inevitable--

THE COURT: I gave you an opportunity to speak at the very beginning. You said counsel did not desire to speak.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, couldn't I say my last words without you cutting me off?

THE COURT: You said you didn't want to speak.

MR. KUNSTLER: Your Honor, I just said a moment ago we had a concluding remark. Your Honor has succeeded perhaps, in sullying it, and I think maybe that is the way the case should end, as it began.

ABBIE HOFFMAN: We love our lawyers.

THE COURT: Mr. Marshal, the court will be in recess.

Reversal by the Appellate Court.  

To save the reader some time, we will skip to the pertinent closing paragraphs:

In the case before us, I would hold that the statute was not drawn sufficiently narrowly to avoid the conflict and that the convictions must be reversed because of being grounded on an unconstitutional enactment. Inasmuch as the majority of the panel have reached a contrary result and inasmuch as this court is not one of final resort, I address myself to the remainder of the majority opinion only on the basis of an arguendo assumption of statutory constitutionality.

Every judge writing an appellate court opinion will probably phrase similar analysis and result somewhat differently. The difficult issues and extensive record before us make it unlikely that the present case would be an exception. Thus, while I might not have approached some of the issues in exactly the same manner, nor used identical language, upon my consideration of the results reached as to the issues covered, other than those pertaining to statutory constitutionality, I concur in the majority opinion.

As this opinion was in the process of being finally drafted, the people of the world were stunned and shocked by the terroristic violence occurring at the site of the 1972 Olympic games. Indubitably the shock will be followed by popular demand for suppression of violence as a political weapon. An ideal state of civilization should find no person in any jeopardy of loss of life or well-being from violence irrespective of its motivation. To attain that state, however, by suppression of the free interchange of ideas and beliefs would be a pyrrhic sacrifice of a precious freedom for an illusory safety. It is because of my underlying belief in the preservation of that freedom that I have written as I have herein. My brothers of the panel share my views on the importance of the preservation but do not find the cause for alarm that I do in this particular statute.

No comments:

Post a Comment