Lankford v. Schmidt Transcript of Proceedings Vol. 1
Public Court Documents
January 14, 1965
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Lankford v. Schmidt Transcript of Proceedings Vol. 1, 1965. 142a9b54-ba9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3fa3baf8-d1df-4a29-ac1c-ae0a281c0439/lankford-v-schmidt-transcript-of-proceedings-vol-1. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SAMUEL JAMES LANKFORD, et al. :
vs. : Civil No. 16080
BERNARD j, SCHMIDT, gsCr'MMTSSIONER
of Police of Baltimore City. :
January 14, 1965
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Volume 1
(Page 1 to page 128 )
Francis T. Owens
Official Reporter
514 Post Office Bldg.
Baltimore 2, Maryland
1
1 N d
Witness Direct
Corinthla Lankford 33
Samuel J. Lankford 60
Regina Summers 70
Arthur Rayner 103
; x
Cross Redirect Recross
43 58
66 69 69
87
113 123
1
•>
4
|)
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
1(1
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
24
27)
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SAMUEL JAMES LANKFORD and
CORINTHLA JULIA LANKFORD, his
wife, CLAUDE TOMPKINS and
REV. ELIZABETH TOMPKINS, his wife,
WALTER SUMMERS and REGINA SUMMERS,
his wife, ARTHUR RAYNER
vs.
BERNARD J. SCHMIDT, as COMMISSIONER
of POLICE of BALTIMORE CITY
Civil No. 16080
Baltimore, Maryland
Thursday, January 14, 1965
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing
before His Honor, Roszel C. Thomsen, Chief Judge* at two
o'clock p.m.
A P P E A R A N C E S
For the Plaintiffs:
MRS. JUANITA JACKSON MITCHELL
MR. TUCKER R. DEARING
MR. JAMES M. NABRIT, III
MR. W. A. C. HUGHES, JR.
MR. MELVYN ZARR
For the Defendant:
MR. JOHN W. SAUSE, JR.,
Assistant Attorney General, State of Maryland
MR. ROBERT C. MURPHY,
Assistant Attorney General, State of Maryland
1
■)
:i
4
5
(i
7
S
<)
10
11
12
12
14
IT)
10
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
3
PROCEEDINGS
THE COURT: Mrs. Mitchell.
MRS. MITCHELL: May it please the Court, I wish
admission for the purposes of this case of Mr.
;, III.
THE COURT: What's the name?
. MITCHELL: James M. Nabrit, III.
THE COURT: Nabrit?
MRS. MITCHELL: Yes, a distinguished member of
the District of Columbia Bar, a graduate of Yale University
Law School, and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court
of the United States. Thank you.
THE COURT: I am happy to have him appear and
to have him participate.
THE CLERK: Matter before the Court Civil Actio
No. 16020, Samuel James Lankford, et al. vs. Bernard J.
Schmidt, as Commissioner of Police of Baltimore City.
Attorneys for plaintiffs: Juanita Jackson
Mitchell, Tucker R. Hearing, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit,
111, W. A. C. Hughes, Jr.
Attorneys for defendant: Robert C. Murphy,
John W. Sause, Jr.
THE COURT: After 1 came on the bench this
morning the State filed an answer and a motion for judgment
1
• )
2
4
:>
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!)
20
21
■>2
22
24
25
4
\on the pleadings, and a memorandum in support of the motion
fat judgment on the pleadings.
I think it would be better all around if I read
those papers before we start the argument instead of operating
a little in the air; bo I will read them Just as quickly as I
can.
The point is that the class is uncertain; is the
right?
MR. SAUSE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Once again 3A is answered, but 3-B,
C, and D aren't answered, I don't want to be petty about it
but they are factual allegations.
Was your answer to Paragraph C intended to
answer all four paragraphs of 3, and similarly was your
Paragraph 2 intended to answer all of Paragraph 2?
MR. SAUSE: Yes, Your Honor, and particularly
of the last sentence the answer denying that the officers
were acting in the name of the City.
THE COURT: Yes. I think then we had better
by interlineation indicate answering the allegations of
Paragraph 2-A and -B and then say 3-A, -B, -C, and -D so that
we will have it complete. You can do that by interlineation
if you wish.
MR. SAUSE: All right, sir.
THE COURT: So that there will be. some answer
5
:{
4
(i
7
s
to these. It looks like you did intend to do it by the
wording.
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, before you
go on to Paragraph A, before you finish with it, Mr. Nabrit
brought to may attention the fact that the word "indicted"
over in the eighth line at page 2 is incorrect. It should
have been "presented by the grand jury" and not "indicted",
sir.
!»
10
11
12
1 :t
14
15
Hi
17
18
lit
20
21
22
24
25
THE COURT: You want to change the word
"indicted" to "presented"?
MR. SAUSE: Yes, I would like to be allowed to
amend from "indicted" to "presented" and also, if Your Honor
please, I believe this morning at the time these papers were
filed they were unavailable to us, and Mrs. Mitchell and Mr.
Nabrit were aware of it, and the capiases or capii that have
been issued, although they are referred to as part of
Exhibit A, I move the Court that they be attached as part of
Exhibit A to the answer at this time?
THE COURT: Is that agreeable?
MR. NABRIT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
Do I have a copy of Exhibit B? Exhibit B
attached to the answer?
MR. SAUSE: I have another copy, and I think
it'8 much more satisfactory.
6
l
8
4
.)
(i
i
s
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
15
1(4
17
THE COURT: I want to see what the file shows.
MR. MURPHY: I thought there was one attached.
Here's another one.
THE COURT: Well, gentleman, I have read the
answer to the defendant's motion, motion for judgment on the
pleadings and the memorandum in support of the motion for
judgment on the pleadings. 1 have not, of course, read all
the esses that are referred to in it.
I suppose the first thing to do is to hear the
defendant on their motion for judgment on the pleadings.
They have the laboring oar in that, haven't they?
MR. NABRIT: Yes, Your Honor. The plaintiff
would object at this time to hearing that motion now.
THE COURT: On what grounds?
MR. NABRIT: On the ground that the motion is
made pursuant to Rule 12 (c), a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.
18
lit
20
21
28
24
25
Under Rule 12 (c) if the matters, if the matters
extraneous to the pleadings are attacked it's considered a
motion for summary judgment, which is Rule 56, and under
Rule 56 (c) the parties are entitled to ten days notice prior
to the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.
THE COURT: Well, they're entitled to more
notice than they had on the preliminary injunction, and it
was moved ahead fast in order to accomodate people.
1
•)
:i
4
5
ii
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
IK
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
7
MR. NABRIT: May it please the Court, the poin
about my motion is this that under Rule 56 (£), it provides
that where a party does bring in extraneous facts on a motion
for summary judgment opposing parties are entitled to put on
their case, their side, which is our position.
THE COURT: Well, they're not calling it a
summary judgment; they're calling it a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. What they want to do is to get in this order
which the Police Commissioner issued on Monday, wasn't it?
That's the only thing they referred to really it
seems to me that would be new. That's the basis of their
Paragraph 1 of their motion.
Their second one is really a motion to dismiss,
and their third is really a motion to dismiss, not for judgmen
on the pleadings.
I will begin by hearing the defendant on their
motion to dismiss the complaint, which is really Paragraph 2
and 3 of their motion for judgment on the pleadings, and after
I have heard them on those two matters 1 will then consider
what should be done with respect to Paragraph 1, which is the
only thing that brings in anything new that isn't in the
complaint.
I will hear you on your Paragraph 2 and 3 as a
motion to dismiss the complaint.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, Your Honor.
1
•)
4
4
5
(i
7
,s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
IT)
Ki
17
IS
10
20
21
22
24
24
25
8
Hay it please the Court, as was Indicated by
us to Your Honor the other day at the meeting with Mrs.
Mitchell and Mr. Dearlng we were then unable to ascertain
the class that the plaintiffs purport to represent.
After many careful rereadings we are still
unable to find or understand the class which they say that
they represent. There have been and there are in the
complaint--
THE COURT: I think it could be more happily
stated, and maybe they can clarify it for us.
The effort to state the class is, I take it, in
Paragraph 2 (b) where they say:
"Plaintiffs bring this action on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
pursuant to Rule 23 (a) (3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. There are coimnon questions of law
and fact affecting the rights of Hegro and other
residents of Baltimore, Maryland who have been
subjected to unlawful invasions and searches of their
homes and persons pursuant to the policy and practice
of defendant and his agents, and who are so numerous
as to make it impracticable to bring all before the
Court. A common relief is sought. The interests of
plaintiffs' class are adequately represented by the
plaintiffs."
1
•>
2
4
r>
<;
7
S
!)
10
n
12
12
14
15
i<;
17
18
lit
20
21
22
22
24
25
9
Nov/, with respect to anything that has been don<
in the past the remedy of the individual plaintiffs is for an
action for damages if their constitutional rights have been
violated.
If the allegation is intended to be that--and I
think there is an allegation later on that there are threats
of continuing this. That is Paragraph 9.
"Plaintiffs and members of the class they
represent have suffered, are now suffering, and will
continue to suffer irreparable injury by virtue of the
defendant's acts, policies and practices as set forth
above. They have no plain, adequate or complete
remedy at law to redress these violations of their
constitutional rights and this suit for injunction is
their only means of securing complete and adequate
relief. The pursuit of any other remedy would not
offer plaintiffs substantial and complete protection
from a continuation of the defendant's policies and
practices."
Now, they have in Paragraph 8, they have allege
there broadly that:
"The searches of their homes is part of a wide
spread pattern and practice by the defendant Schmidt
and his agents, servants and employees. Plaintiffs
are informed and believe that defendant Bernard J.
1
')
:i
4
5
(i
7
s
!»
10
11
1 4
14
14
15
10
17
18
10
40
41
•>4
44
44
25
10
Schmidt and his agents, servants and employees of the
Police Department of Baltimore City are engaged in a
wide-ranging search for two Negro men believed by the
police to have committed a serious felony on or about
December 24, 1964. Plaintiffs are informed and belli
that defendant Schmidt did agree and join together with
his agents and employees in the Police Department of
Baltimore City to suspend procedures for procuring
search warrants and to authorize special 'flying squadn
of heavily armed policemen to raid and search large
numbers of homes of Negro citizens at all times of the
day and night without search warrants.
"Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
defendant Schmidt and his agents have publicly
acknowledged that many of the raids were made on the
basis of false 'tips' and anonymous phone calls to the
Police Department. Plaintiffs are informed and
believe that many dozens of Negro citizens of the area
in which they reside and other areas of Baltimore City
have been subjected to the aforesaid raids and
searches, have been treated roughly and with discourte;
and have been menaced with weapons by officers on the
defendant's control and authority during such searches.
"(b) Plaintiffs aver, on information and belief,
that the aforesaid raids have not as yet resulted in
1
■)
:{
4
5
(i
7
s
!>
10
11
12
14
14
17)
1li
17
IS
10
20
21
•>2
24
24
25
11
the capture of the persons being sought by the police
In connection with the crime alleged to have occurred
on December 24, 1964 and that the defendant Schmidt
and his agents threaten to and will continue to make
illegal searches without warrants in seeking to
apprehend the persons suspected of this crime.
Plaintiffs further aver, on information and belief,
that the defendant Schmidt asserts that such police
conduct is justified and lawful and that he intends
and threatens to authorize his subordinate officers to
continue the practice of making similar searches in
the future.
"(c) Plaintiffs are informed and believe that
the defendant's policy, pattern and practice of making
and authorizing such unreasonable searches and
seizures has been particularly directed at the homes
of Negro residents of the City of Baltimore. Such
acts deny plaintiffs and other Negroes their right to
equal protection of the laws as protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unltec
States by systematically depriving them of the equal
right to privacy and to be secure in their persons
and homes against unlawful and arbitrary intrusions
by police officials, on the basis of race or color."
Now, one of the allegations also is that one of
1
■)
4
5
li
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:t
14
15
1(5
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
25
12
men at one of the houses, a man who had been ill was required
to stand in his pajamas with his hands against the wall while
they searched his body. Now, that is an allegation that goe
beyond searching for these two men.
Now, from these it seems to me that the class
appears to be either all Negroes in Baltimore on the grounds
that all Negroes in Baltimore are subjected to the possibllit
of the continuation of raids which they allege to be unlawful
and there is also a general allegation in Number 2. Paragraph
2 (b) which says:
"Affecting the rights of Negro and other
residents of Baltimore, Maryland who have been
subjected to unlawful Invasions and searches of their
homes and persons."
Now, there is no allegation that anybody except
Negroes have been subjected to unlawful invasions, and the
Paragraph 8 (c) says that they have been"particularly direct*
at the homes of Negro residents of the City of Baltimore,"
and they claim it is an arbitrary intrusion by police
officials on the basis of race and color.
Now, 1 take it that aside from this one
general statement of rights of other people that the class,
as I read the complaint, and if I read it wrong it ought to
be clarified, I read the complaint as being filed on behalf
of all Negro citizens of Baltimore on the theory that these
V 13
1 raids have been directed at the Negro community, various
• ) homes and houses and persons In the Negro community, and that
:t they are the class, and that the allegations of Paragraph 2,
• 8, and 9, that they believe that these raids against various
f) Negro homes are likely to be continued, and that the remedy,
i; their allegation is that the remedy a t law by damage suits
7 against the policemen and others participating and responsible !
S for the raids is inadequate and that the only adequate remedy
!) is injunction.
10 I'm not passing at this time on the propriety
11 of whether an injunction should issue or whether those facts
12 are true or not true and whether if the facts in the complaint
• are true, it would entitle them to an injunction. Those are
14
matters on which we will have to hear argument.
1 r>
But I take it that the entire Negro population
to
of Baltimore City is said to be the class.
17
Now, am I correct or wrong on that?
18 MR. NABRIT: I think it's substantially
1!)
correct, Your Honor, bearing in mind that there is the equal
20
protection claim which is based on the alleged pattern of
21
racial discrimination; and that in addition to that there is
a due process claim based on Fourth Amendment rights.•
28
THE COURT: All right.
24
MR. NABRIT: — which doesn't depend on race.
25
THE COURT: You are claiming both then?
1
■)
:{
4
5
(>
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
IT)
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
14
MR. NABRIT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: The entire Negro community and
the entire citizenry of Baltimore are the class. That is
what was not entirely clear, that all citizens of Baltimore,
white and colored, are also the class.
MR. NABRIT: Yes.
\THE COURT: Then you may have to elect some
time or other on what basis you are putting it on, as to
whether you are putting it on, whether the class you claim
to be, whether this is something that you are claiming that
this is something against the whole citizenry of Baltimore,
which is your Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth, or
whether you are claiming it as something directed primarily
against the Negroes.
There may be additional grounds for jurisdic
tion on the Negro aspect. On the other hand, it puts a
burden of proof on you of an additional fact which would have
to be proved to justify it.
You can make it both ways if you say that you
are bringing it on behalf of two classes: One, the class of
all citizens, one on behalf of all the Negroes as all
citizens whose rights are being harmed under the Fourth
Amendment; and the other, that you wish to attempt to prove
your right as discrimination against Negroes in the search,
which requires you to prove additional facts beyond what are
1
•)
4
li
7
s
!)
10
11
12
1M
14
IT)
Hi
17
18
10
20
21
22
24
24
2.7
15
necessary to prove, to show any violation of rights on the
Fourth-Fourteenth Amendment complex.
I see no harm In having the case go on, to begin
with at any rate until further clari.icatlon, with the class
being all Negroes for each reason Wxth the possibility of
expanding it to all citizens, if the evidence so justifies it.
I think that is not an Improper thing. That is
ray ruling on that at this point so that that disposes of
Paragraph 2 on your motion to dismiss. Of course, it is
without prejudice to your right to raise it as a defense to
the granting of the preliminary injunction, and later on as
a defense to the granting of a permanent injunction.
What we are hearing at this time, as I understan
it, is the motion for a preliminary injunction.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, Your Honor.
Your Honor, before we leave Point 2, that I
understand is Your Honor's ruling on that and that that is
not--
THE COURT: That is denied for the reasons I
have stated.
MR. SAUSE: Yes.
THE COURT: And which perhaps I can state more
eloquently or more clearly later on; but I think the point is
clear.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
16
s
!)
10
1 1
17
18
10
'20
21
28
24
25
We would like Co reserve the right to suggest
certain procedural things, but will confine ourselves at this
time to this.
THE COURT: Yes. They undertake to assume
the burden of proving that this is a racial thing, and they
are undertaking a considerable burden of proof.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Which you will have the right to
take advantage of.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: On any appropriate occasion.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
If Your Honor please, with regard to the third
point, this ha8 been a matter of great and intensive research
by many people, and that is the matter of serving arrest
warrants issued by the Judges of the Municipal Court and
capiases issued by the Criminal Court of Baltimore City.
The authorities which are cited here are in
complete agreement. We have been able to find no case which
holds that a police officer operating under a valid warrant
of arrest may not on probable cause enter the home of a
third person and make an inspection of those premises to
ascertain whether the persons named in the warrants of arrest
are on those premises.
The complaint Is based practically on the
17
•>
i
•>
(i
7
S
«>
10
11
12
10
14
15
i < ;
17
IS
1!)
20
21
20
24
25
premise that a search and seizure warrant is necessary.
Counsel for the plaintiff Indicated to Your Honor at the bench
this morning that they contend still that a search and seizure
warrant is necessary.
Your Honor invited them at that time to present
a case in support of their position, and indeed we should be
interested in it too. But in any event we feel that the
bill, as it now stands, is pitched on the theory that a
search and seizure warrant is necessary, and the authorities
indicate that it is not.
THE COURT: Well, that is one of their points,
but I don't understand it to be their only point. If you
are right on that, and plaintiffs have still not brought to
my attention any case holding to the contrary, and if you are
right that officers have the right to search for these men
without a search warrant if they have probable cause to
believe that these men are in the particular house they are
searching, there are other allegations in the complaint which
if true would charge and which do charge that you have done
it without probable cause on many occasions on tips.
I take it that the allegation is a colorful way
of saying that you have done it in many cases without probable
cause.
Now, that raises the second point, and it is on
that that I think we should take evidence on the motion for a
\1
*)
:{
4
f>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
18
10
20
21
22
22
24
2.7
18
preliminary injunction and on the other allegation that they
have succeeded, once they have gotten in, once they have gottc
their entry that in the entry or after entry that they have
gone beyond their rights, even assuming their rights are as
stated by you, there are, it seems to me, sufficient allega
tions in the complaint to justify that, and assuming that
they are wrong on the basic point in entering and after entry
have gone beyond rights.
As to the first point in entering, how much
warning, notice and statements they must make before they
enter is a matter which I gather the authorities in other
jurisdictions are not entirely uniform, and I don't presume
at this time to know what the Maryland law is on that or to
know what if any constitutional requirements there may be.
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, just to
simplify the matter I hate to make categorical statements on
things like that, but I am aware of no questions in this case
of any entry without prior notice.
MR. HABRIT: There will be.
THE COURT: Your answer, one part is that you
knocked on the door and you stayed long enough you thought to
give reasonable time for a response and then pushed the door
in.
MR. SAUSE: In the answer?
THE COURT: Yes.
1
■)
:{
4
.1
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
111
14
1.')
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
19
MR. SAUSE: Or In the complaint? No, sir.
THE COURT: Didn't you say In your answer at
one point that you knocked and gave reasonable time?
MR. SAUSE: No. I think Your Honor has
reference to Paragraph 4 of the complaint.
THE COURT: Maybe I misread it.
MR. SAUSE: On page 2 "That he particularly
denies that such knocking constituted more than appeared
necessary to receive a response from those within the premises
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
MR. SAUSE: Which was the reverse.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. I must have misread
it and misunderstood it.
MR. SAUSE: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, if there is no claim that
they entered without appropriate notice, then we have one
possible point eliminated from the case.
Is there any claim of that?
MR. NABRIT: I can't recall is there is any
claim spelled out as to the named plaintiffs, the two house
holders, but certainly that is part of the pattern of practic^
that has been going on. and we intend to offer proof on
unauthorized searches which involve the issue of this type
of entry.
THE COURT: Well, of course, it's not clearly
20
i < ;
17
is
1!)
20
21
2.5
24
25
alleged, and if any evidence Is offered to that effect the
State would be given a reasonable opportunity to Investigate
and to answer.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, of course.
THE COURT: Certainly it seems to me that this
allegation of standing a man up and searching him, which is
the allegation that goes beyond searching these other men.
MR. NABRIT: I would like to correct what I
said. Actually on the facts, I think the witness will
testify that there will be an issue of entry, a method of
entry as to these named plaintiffs as well.
THE COURT: Well, all right, whatever it is
the State is obviously entitled to have time to investigate
individual instances. I don't know whether you have told
them in advance all of the instances you intend to offer
evidence on; but there will be reasonable opportunity to
both sides to prove whatever facts they feel are necessary
to establish their position.
I am disposed therefore to deny the memorandum
for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of treating it as
a motion to dismiss, and I think for the same reasons, I
think that this Court cannot say at this time as a matter of
judgment on the pleadings that Commissioner Schmidt's order
of itself means that no possible injunctive relief should be
granted.
1
• )
:i
4
f>
(i
7
S
!)
10
1 1
12
i:{
14
1.7
10
17
IS
10
20
21
>2
2'i
24
20
21
That is not a ruling that even if plaintiffs
prove everything in their complaint that the Court would grant
injunctive relief. There are so many elements that have to
be considered; but I think that the answer of itself or the
order of itself does not bar it, nor the order taken with the
plaintiffs' complaint.
The Court believes that this is generally
speaking a situation where the decision on the preliminary
injunction and any injunction at all should be taken after the
evidence and the facts are more fully developed than there car
be in the complaint.
Now, I have been indicating these rulings, but
I would like to hear from the plaintiffs if they have any
authorities which deny the right of the police as indicated
in Commissioner Schmidt's order of last Monday.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Monday.
THE COURT: If you dispute the law on that.
Now, I am not saying that what has been done is probable caus<i
or is not probable cause; but I should like to know, Just so
we will know where we stand, the extent to which you dispute
the law as stated by Commissioner Schmidt in his order, assum.
that everybody obeyed his order, what would be wrong?
MR. NABRIT: Your Honor, may I restate what I
think the general proposition is and we may make full argument
later?
1
•)
4
2
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
l.'l
14
1.7
1()
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
22
22
THE COURT: You may what?
\ MR. NABRIT: May make full argument.
THE COURT: I don't want full argument now,
just your point. I want to know what your position Is.
MR. NABRIT: Yes.
THE COURT: So it will be clear.
MR. NABRIT: I think that where, assuming that
the police have a valid arrest warrant, that if they have
actual knowledge of the presence of the person named in the
warrant in the private premises belonging to a third person,
actual knowledge would be the basis for going in and executing
the warrant.
THE COURT: Do you have any case that says that
is the test?
MR. NABRIT: I don't have any holding. I
have cases that lead me to this view; but I think that where
the police have a reason to believe that the person or persons
named in the arrest warrant are present in the private premise
but also have ample time and opportunity to obtain a warrant
authorizing entry into those premises they are required to
obtain such a second warrant.
In other words, absent emergency circumstances,
emergency circumstances, which is a shorthand way of saying
they need probable cause, there are some circumstances which
make it impossible or dangerous or something for them to get
1
• )
:{
4
f)
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
15
K i
17
18
1!)
20
21
->2
22
24
25
23
a warrant, which is another thing.
THE COURT: You say there must be probable
cause?
MR. NABRIT:
THE COURT:
MR. NABRIT:
THE COURT:
And the special circumstances.
Plus special circumstances.
Yes, sir.
Now, I know that both sides have
been giving ray law clerk authorities from time to time to rea<
and I have not had a chance to have a report from him today
on any cases that were given him this morning.
Do you have some authorities that support that?
MR. NABRIT: I think that, Your Honor, I will
be able to present them to you in a more orderly fashion latê :
than now.
THE COURT: Well, have you given Mr. Joseph
the cases upon which you rely as the basis for your argument?
MR. NABRIT: No.
THE COURT: Whether they hold it exactly or
whether they simply permit the rational distinction of
principle.
MR. NABRIT: Well, I have some of them, but
I will be able to do it later. I think Johnson vs. United
States would be one of them, but I think I can really do this
better later, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I just want the State
\\
1
• )
:{
4
.’)
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
1M
14
15
1<>
17
IS
10
20
21
•>2
24
24
25
24
also to have the opportunity to have a reference to whatever
cases they have that you have. It doesn't have to be done
quite now, of course; but I do want to know exactly what each
side Is contending the law to be, and if this states your
view of the law it makes an issue of law as well as an issue
of fact.
I guess I have been asking you the questions,
and I imagine Mr. Sause is not through.
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, I know the
perils of and I don't want to argue this with the Court if th<
Court has made up its mind, but I would like, if I may, to
just make one or two observations regarding our first point.
The motion for the temporary restraining order
asks, the relief asked, it merely seeks an order requiring
him as a law enforcement officer to conform to the Constitutii
of the United States in authorizing and directing the searche
of persons in their homes.
Now, if Your Honor please, if this order does
that and it does what the plaintiffs are asking, then
certainly it seems to me that under the cases which were
cited under Number 1 in our memorandum in support of the
motion that this is a case where the Court can exercise its
discretion and not issue an injunction.
THE COURT: Well, yoti may well be right, and
that may well be the final decision; but I don't think the
1
•)
2
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
l(i
17
IS
111
20
21
•>2
22
24
25
25
Court can say that as a matter of pleading. I gather that
the State, that the defense is not admitting that there has
been any violation up-to-date So that if this order simply
says, "Keep on doing what you have been doing," it adds nothix
and the question is whether what has been done is legal or
not.
If there is evidence that what has been done is
legal, then this order, assuming that it states the law
properly and that counsel for plaintiffs' contentions are not
sound, that you have just made, assuming that it states the
law properly, it still may be violated, and maybe we will see
whether the order has been obeyed and whether there have been
any raids without probable cause, and if so whether it has
been an isolated instance or repeated Instances, whether ther<
have been some efforts to get search warrants on questions of
doubt since the order and before the order.
There are a number of facts which must be
considered to show even assuming you are right on the law,
that the te3t is whether there is a serious danger that the
alleged infractions will continue. Now, I do not see that
I can decide that properly as a matter of pleading but that
we ought to get the various facts.
Now, I think we also ought to get the facts so
that these law points that have been urged by counsel for the
plaintiffs can be decided in the context of some facts and
26
not decided as bare legal principles.
\ I believe that everybody recognizes that there is•>
no precedent for just such an injunction as asked for in this
case. There is no precedent for granting it, and so far as
1 know there is no precedent for turning it down. This is a
novel case, which means that the Court should proceed with
caution to protect the rights of all the persons involved
because everybody in this room and everybody out of this room
in the City has interests on both sides of this case.
Everybody has an interest in seeing that their
homes are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Everybody in this room and outside has an interest in seeing
that people who are charged with serious crimes and felonies
are apprehended and that unreasonable shackles are not placed
on the police.
on both sides of this case;. and I think that the decision, a
fair decision, can only be made after we find what the facts
have been and from then try to work out the proper principles
to be applied after the application to those facts of the
closest analogies we can have.
There is a very important allegation in the answer and one
i<; Everyone of us, every citizen of Baltimore, is
MR. NABRIT: May I call ray first witness,
Your Honor?
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, one final point.
27
l
:t
4
.)
(i
i
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
l(i
17
18
10
20
21
24
24
25
which we very seriously wish to urge and impress upon the
Court which is that even assuming what the plaintiffs say is
true they are not representatives of the class or of the two
classes as Your Honor has set them forth which they purport
to represent.
That is to say that even assuming, which we
strongly deny, that there were any searches which were outside
of constitutional permission, that such is not the case in
the two situations here alleged, and that particularly under
the recent Fourth Circuit case of Thaxton vs. Vaughan, which
is 321 F. 2d. 474, that these plaintiffs unless they can show
affirmatively, which is a question of fact, that they were
members of this class, and the one common element to both
classes, as Your Honor defined it, was that they were persons
who were subjected to an illegal search.
THE COURT: Or who sre in danger of being
subjected to an illegal search in the future, in the near
future. I am not sure whether the case is limited to hunting
for the Veney brothers or is a little broader. If it is
broader, it becomes very important and also becomes a more
difficult case. It is asking the Court to simply take over
the supervision of the Police Department, which is a pretty
big order to ask the Court to undertake.
So the narrower the case is the more chance
there is of getting relief, and it's just another one of the
1
• )
:t
4
r>
(i
7
,s
!»
10
11
12
14
14
IT)
1 (i
17
IK
l!l
20
21
■'2
24
24
2.7
28
\
difficult problems in this case from the Court's point of
view.
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, there are an
awful lot of problems here, as Your Honor points out, and one
that is implicit in what Your Honor says, which has not been
mentioned, of course, is the Veney brothers.
Now, if we are going to sit here, if Your Honor
please, and relate and recap all of the things that have been
done by the police in an effort to find them, all the premise!
upon which the police have gone and the necessary inferences
that they draw, all of the leads that they have gotten, the
Veney brothers are certainly under, under many, many theories
are certainly going to be done an injustice in this Court
by baring all of those facts and going into them indiscrlminal
here.
At the same time by going indiscriminately into
the police records, which the plaintiffs have sought,
certainly is also going to serve no one at all and is going
to be perhaps the best of pretrial discovery that has ever
been devised by a defense.
THE COURT: I think the Court recognizes the
dangers that you have mentioned and suggested, and I have not
yet approved the effort to require you to turn over to
counsel for the plaintiffs the information requested in the
subpoena, which I understand has been issued. That is a
1
■>
:i
4
it
<i
7
M
!)
10
11
12
i:l
14
1.7
1(1
17
18
10
20
21
22
22
24
25
separate question which we will come to in due time.
The grounds for protecting police information
in these situations, and certainly any information which may
lead to the arrest of these people is paramount.
If it's a question of protecting what you say
are the rights of the Veney brothers to be tried, the papers
have had a great deal about the Veney brothers, all sorts of
information in the papers recently, and I don't think this
suit is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
If it is, the camel's back is very broad and extends to the
- e r n
south/ most counties of the Eastern Shore and the far reaches
of western Maryland, and I am sure that there is somewhere in
the State where the Veney brothers can get a fair trial, and
in fact there are counties in which the Baltimore newspapers
run very slightly.
MR. NABRIT: May it please the Court, on that
point I would like to formally state that while neither I nor
any of my cocounsel represent the Veney brothers, we too want
to do nothing to prejudice their right to a fair trial; so
that if at any time during the hearing we come to a point
where there is doubt, the plaintiffs have no objection to the
courtroom being closed to the public, if the Court or counsel
thinks that is necessary to protect their rights to a fair
trial.
29
We have no objection; we are not making any
1
•)
:s
4
5
(i
7
,s
!)
10
11
12
I S
14
15
l(i
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
28
24
25
30
request, but we have no objection.
THE COURT: Whenever the State thinks it is
desirable to do so the Court will consider it even to the
extent o£ clearing the newspapers and to have it in chambers
if and when it is necessary.
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, if in an
attempt to provide these safeguards and overcome the difficult
which Your Honor has mentioned and also to channel this case,
Mr. Murphy and I, as I might state, we don't exactly understar
it; but in any event we sincerely urge upon the Court that if
we could confine the case in the first instance to the status
of the plaintiffs to represent this class and to confine
ourselves to these two cases, if Your Honor please, and let
Your Honor rule upon them.
THE COURT: Doesn't any citizen have a right
to bring this? Doesn't anyone whose home has been searched,
and in fact I should think someone whose home hadn't been
searched is more likely to be searched legally, I'm sure, as
someone whose home heretofore may have been searched, and it
would seem that once you have been searched, lightning maybe
having struck, it's not likely to strike a second time.
On the other hand, it may be that some of the
places that have been searched are perhaps those which should
be watched further, and if the State in any case wishes to
put the State'8 case on in private with respect to one or raori
31
l
:i
4
f>
(i
i
s
!)
10
11
12
1.1
14
ir>
1(1
17
18
1!>
20
21
22
24
24
24
of the places the Court will grant It if it is necessary to
protect the rights of the Veney brothers and to protect the
rights of the community that a substantial part of the State'it
case be put on in chambers, the Court will consider it.
This is not a criminal proceeding. The Court
is plowing new ground in attempting to work out what is
justice for all people of this community, and I want to do it
in the way that will do the most good and the least harm; so
I'll be glad to hear from you further on that.
Your suggestion that the individual instances,
the individual plaintiffs be put on, I think that's a sound
one, and as I gathered from Mrs. Mitchell that is what they
intended to do.
I think it is not limited to the question of
whether these particular plaintiffs have been hurt. I think
any Negro citizen of Baltimore could claim either ground that
counsel for the plaintiff is relying on, any citizen of
Baltimore, never mind what his color is, might claim the
broader Fourth Amendment-Fourteenth Amendment complex grounds,
and in proving his case could show it has been done in other
cases and would have to show that there is a substantial
danger that his rights will be violated without compensating
constitutional rights in the State being hurt.
If you feel that the plaintiffs are going
beyond what they should at any time I'll be glad to hear any
1
•)
:{
4
5
(i
7
s
«)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!1
20
21
22
22
24
25
32
suggestion by the State that they are going too far or that
some of the evidence they wish to offer should be taken in
camera,
MR. SAUSE: All right, Your Honor.
MR. HUGHES: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. HUGHES: With respect to what has been
stated, I heard the Court state that no cases have been cited,
but I do think that we do have cases, several cases which are
in point.
THE COURT: I didn't say no case in point but
no case which has granted any such injunction as this.
MR. HUGHES: Oh, I see.
THE COURT: I haven't heard of any, and if you
have such cases I will read them tonight.
MR. HUGHES: All right, sir.
MR. NABRIT: Corinthia Lankford, if I may cal!,
the first witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. You don't wish to make an
opening statement?
MR. NABRIT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is the State satisfied to go ahead
without opening statements?
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right.
- 33 —
Triereup Ion
MRS. CORINTHIA LANKFORD
X
BY MR. NABRIT:
was called as a witness for and on behalf of the plaintiffs
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
THE CLERK: State your full name.
THE WITNESS: Mrs. Corinthia Lankford.
THE COURT: Well, we have to take a short break
so we might as well take it at this time before the first
witness begins.
(Thereupon, there was a short recess taken,
after which the following occurred;)
MR. NABRIT: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
17
IS
19
20
21
22
24
27)
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Mrs. Lankford, where do you live? C
I live at 2707 Parkwood Avenue.
What city?
Baltimore.
Who lives there with you?
My husband and six children.
What are their names?
The names are Eleanora-- 1 8
Talk so I can hear you back here.
1
• )
:i
4
5
li
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
15
111
17
18
1!»
20
21
22
28
24
25
34
Eleanora, Dizirla. Sherrill, Garald, Edward,
and Leroy.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
And your husband's name?
My husband's name is Samuel James Lankford.
Are you employed?
Yes, I am.
Where?
I work at Continental Can Company, 7100 East
Baltimore Street.
Q And your husband?
A My husband works at the U.S. Post Office, main
office.
Q This building right here?
A Yes.
Q Now, where were you on the night of January 1st
and January 2, 1965?
A On January 1st I had worked from four to twelve
at my job, and I just gotten home. I got home about 12:30.
Q After midnight?
A After midnight, January 2nd, and I had gotten
home at 12:30, gotten home at 12:30, and that day I decided t<
make my husband's lunch early because he gets up at 3:15 for
work, and after working two days in succession I decided to
make his lunch so I would be able to sleep through instead of
having to get up, as I usually did.
19
1
•)
:{
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
1>
12
12
14
15
1<»
17
18
1!*
20
21
■’2
22
24
25
35
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, I can't hear
the witness. I wonder If we could use the microphone?
THE COURT: I suppose you could push the
witness chair over there closer. There is a good deal of
noise here. Just come and help and push the chair closer
and put her right in back of the jury box, that may help.
I think that will help. I think it will do much better over
there. Using the microphone makes it very difficult. See
if that helps.
^ All right.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q How, what happened that evening then at your
house?
A Well, that night, that morning I got in bed
around one a.m., and about two o'clock I heard this banging
at my front door, and I couldn't make out at first just what
it was, but the banging was constantly.
So I got out of bed and put my clothes on and
started down my steps, and I saw this bright light shining in
my living room, and the first thing that I had thought about
was that I had left the Christmas tree lights on because it
was a bright light shining in my living room.
Then I went to the door, and at that time my
dog, I went to the door, and I pulled him back because he was
trying to get out at the time that I was opening the door,
1
•)
:t
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
1(4
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
2.4
24
25
36
and I heard a voice on the outside say, "It'a the police."
So actually I opened the door, and about four
of them came in, rushed into my hallway, into my living room
rather.
And the first thing they asked me was my name
Garrett, and I told them no,
THE COURT: What name?
THE WITNESS: Garrett, and I told them no, and
then they asked me did I know any Garretts, and I told than
no I did not.
In the meantime the other policemen was still
coming into the house, about eight of them or more and I don't
know, can't say how many it was because I was frightened, but
anyway, after--
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Well, now, Just a minute. Did they have
equipment with them?
A The first thing I saw when they opened the door,
when I opened the door was the policemen come in, and it was
a long rifle, long rifle, I assume, and someone had a flash
light, a lantern light, one of the policemen, one of them was
holding a lantern light in his hand.
But they came in, and after they asked me about
the Garretts, and I told them no, they said they were going
to search the house. So they did, and in the meantime I was
2 1
37
l
•>
.)
ii
t
s
!l
10
1 1
12
12
14
1.')
l(i
17
IS
10
20
21
22
24
25
still standing there.
THE COURT: Did they tell you what they were
going to search it £or?
THE WITNESS: No, they didn't, they didn't tell
me what they were searching it for or why they were searching,
They just asked me was my name Garrett, and I told them no,
and that's when, they said, "We are going to search your
house."
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Did they ask your permission?
A No, they didn't. They said they were going to
search my house.
Q Did you make any protest?
A No, under the circumstances with there was so
many policemen, no, 1 did not.
Q Why not?
A Because I was frightened and I had no other
choice but to let them come in.
Q All right. What happened at this point then?
A Then I backed into my living room, and as I
said, the policemen were still coming into the house, and I
was so frightened, the dog and 1 both were just sitting there
in the living room, and they proceeded to, some of them then
went up the stairs and the others proceeded in the kitchen
and the dining room and in the basement, and continued their
* 2
1
•)
4
4
5
(i
7
S
!(
10
11
12
14
14
ir>
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
■*2
24
24
24
38
search.
*»nd that time I was, I still hadn't, ray
husband still did not know what was going on, and I was too
frightened even to do anything and I stayed there, and they
went on up stairs.
Q Do you have any idea how many policemen came ini
A It was, I would say between fifteen or more
because when some came in and went back and immediately came
in, and I was really too frightened to count all of them, and
the police had the guns, and the police had the guns, and
there were many of them, and they had the guns, and I asked
them, you know.
Q Describe these guns?
A They were the long rifles, the long rifles.
Q They were not hand guns?
A No, oh, no, these were rifles, long guns like
that, they had long guns when they came in and went in my
house.
And they continued their search, and my childre:
were upstairs in the bedroom. They were all asleep at this
time, and they went up in ray husband's and ray room.
Q Just a minute. Just describe what you saw
and observed?
A It was in the bedroom, it was, and there's a
hall between my living room and my dining room, and I was
_ 23
1
•)
:t
4
f>
li
7
s
«)
10
11
12
12
14
1 it
l(i
17
18
10
20
21
•>•_>
22
24
25
39
staying in ray living room, and the policemens were coming,
were continuing to come in my house, and some of them proceed*
upstairs, and the others went to the first floor and the
basement, and 1 just got to the dining room and I didn't get
any further than that because I was still in shock and
frightened and everything and just stayed there, and they went
upstairs and looked, you know.
Q How much time did all this take?
A It just took, about, roughly speaking, about
fifteen or twenty minutes.
Q After that time what happened?
A Then they after they searched, they came down
stairs, and they went out the door, and that was all.
Q Did you have any conversation with any of the
officers while they were there, the ones you saw?
A No, other than what I said about mentioning
Garretts and telling me they were going to search, that's the
only conversation I had with them, and that was the entire
conversation in the house and nothing was said about anything
to do with their search.
Q And what time, what time was this?
A This was about two, about two o'clock in the
2 4morning, 2:15 in the morning.
Q Have any of your children displayed any reactioj
to this to you?
1
• )
:{
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
ltt
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
25
40
A Well, yes, my daughter Eleanora, the one that is
eleven years old, she's in the sixth grade in junior— in
elementary school, and I was talking to her and to the extent\
that ŝ ie was alarmed after when they came into her room.
\\
MR. SAUSE: Now, I object to anything that she
told this witness, Your Honor. If they want to bring the
\children in, that's something else.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q What is the age of this child?
A She is eleven years old.
THE COURT: Well, we're not trying damages,
don't think it's necessary to go into the effect on the
children in this case. Obviously it was a difficult
V
experience.
MR. NABRIT: Very well, Your Honor.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Were there any--leave out what she told you--
but were there any effects as you observed them?
A Well, now, Eleanora, now today I noticed
Eleanora, what happened was that the police crowd that was,
went up our block and driving very slow, and she went to the
window, and she said, 'Mommy, the police is driving by very
slowly," and this is the first time that I have ever seen any
reactions from her concerning the policemen as they, you know,
1
•>
:{
4
f)
<i
7
,s
!)
10
11
12
1.4
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!)
20
21
•>2
24
24
25
41
have ever noticed any reaction from her as to showing any
sigria of fear or anything concerning a reaction from what
happened the other night.
MR. SAUSE: Of course, Your Honor, it's a
conclusion.
THE COURT:
there was any reaction.
Well, she says it's the first time
It's trifling.
MR. SAUSE\ Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I don't think it is material to the
issue, and certainly the evidence itself is not very strong.
MR. SAUSE: That's why I mentioned it.
THE COURT: It was a difficult experience.
MR. NABRIT: Your Honor is saying that the
evidence is not what?
THE COURT: I mean about the daughter. I
mean about the daughter. I don't see any use in going into
matters as trifling as that, and I'm not sure that even if
you had any immediate reaction that it is really technically
admissible.
MR. NABRIT: Very well.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Is there anything else about this experience
that evening that you want to tell us, tell the Court?
A The only thing I want to say about is that it
was a frightening experience to me because I still, I still,
— *5
\
1
•)
:i
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
10
14
15
i<;
17
18
10
20
21
22
20
24
25
42
to me I still don't know why this thing happened because the
only time, in fact as my husband pointed out to me that they
didn't even mention to me why they were coming into my house,
and I still, I still don't know, still don't know why they,
you know, they came into my house, and I'm still frightened
over it, and it's a strange experience to wake up in the midd!
of the night and hear a banging on your door because when you
have a doorbell and it's not being used, to be awakened by a
sound, banging on your door after you have been in a sound
sleep because I had worked two days and I was very tired.
Q Do you know Sam Veney or Earl Veney?
A No.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
charged in
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Do you know anyone by those names?
No, I don't.
Do you know anyone by the name Veney?
No, I don't.
Do you know any of the people who have been
connection with a crime on December 24th?
No, I don't.
1964?
No, I don't.
Do you know anyone named Garrett?
No, I don't know anyone by that name.
Do you have any idea why the police came to
your home?
X G
1
•»
4
r>
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:s
14
l'»
10
17
IS
1!)
20
21
■>2
24
24
2.7
43
A I don't have any idea whatsoever why they came
to my house.
Q Have you ever been charged with a crime?
A No, I haven't.
Q Have any member of your family, to your knowledg
ever been charged with a crime?
A No.
Q What is your participation in church community
affairs?
MR. SAUSE: Oh, well, I object.
THE COURT: I don't think we have to go into
that. She has never been charged with a crime.
I take it that the defense does not deny that
many of these people whose homes were entered were highly
respectable members of the community, perhaps all of them,
but that many of them were, and that's all you need to prove
on that.
MR. NABRIT: No further questions, Your Honor
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Mrs. Lankford, were you born in Baltimore?
A Yes, I was.
Q And you've lived here all thirty-three years of
your life?
A Yes. z yA Yes.
1
■>
:{
4
f>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
ir>
Ki
17
18
1!)
20
21
■»2
22
24
22
44
Q Now, are you familiar with the crime that took
place on December 24th of this year on Greenmount Avenue which
involved the shooting of a police officer and the killing of
another police officer?
A Yes.
MR, NABRIT: Objection, Your Honor, to the
question directed to personal knowledge or what she read in
the paper.
THE WITNESS: Just what I read in the paper.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Yes?
A Yes.
Q And you're aware of it?
A Yes, I am.
Q And you are also aware of the fact, are you not,
that the reason that the police came to your home was in
connection with those cases that you read about in the papers ’
A No, I'm not because when they came to ray house
they didn't say anything about why they were at my house, and
I still don't know, and there wasn't even anything mentioned
as to why they came in my house, nothing, no names was even
mentioned in my presence, and I was the one that opened the
door when they came in my house, and why they came in ray
house, they didn't say, only the name Garrett, the only name
they mentioned was Garrett.
— * 8
45
i
4
(i
!»
10
11
12
12
14
1f>
Id
17
15
111
20
Q Well, now, let's go back a minute. They came
to your door and knocked at your door and you let them in; is
that correct?
A Yes, that's right.
Q They didn't break into your house in any way?
You opened the door?
A Yes, X opened the door because I heard the voicet
say that it was the police and 1 opened the door, and when I
opened the door they came in.
Q Did you look out the door first to see who was
there?
A No, because when I, when I, when I opened, I
have two doors there, I have an inside door and I have an
outside door, and I opened the inside door, and I went to the
outside door, and 1 heard a voice outside the door say it's
the police, so I opened the door.
Q Does your outside door have a pane of glass?
A Yes.
Q Well, did you see it was the police?
A I couldn't tell until I opened the door, and
when I opened the door I heard a voice say that it's the
police.
Q Well, if there was a pane of glass in the door
why couldn't you see them?
25 A 1 had Venetian blinds so I didn't open the door
1
•)
:{
4
5
(>
7
s
!)
10
1 1
12
1.4
14
15
l(i
17
IS
1!)
40
21
22
24
24
25
46
to see, and I just, when I just, when I opened the door, when
I saw it was policemen I had already opened the door.
Q And you didn't even check to see whether it was
a policeman or somebody else making out they were the police
coming into your home?
A Ho, 1 didn't.
Q These police officers, how were they dressed?
Were they in uniforms?
A They were in uniforms, yes.
Q All of them were in uniforms?
A Yes, all, I can't say all because when I, when I
when I saw them come in, and I didn't look to see whether they
were in uniforms. Some of them were in uniforms, but whether
they all were in uniforms I cannot say, but I do know that
some, the ones that came in first, the first four that came in
were in uniforms and they had the guns with them when they can
in.
Q All right. Now, Mrs. Lankford, I didn't under
stand. You say you can't say why or whether all of them were
dressed in police uniforms; is that correct?
A Because there was so many of them they just came
in, they just kept coming in, and I don't know.
Q Well, how many of them were there?
A Well, I can't say, but roughly speaking there
were about fifteen or more policemen that came into ray house.
30
1
•)
:i
4
5
(i
7
s
!»
10
11
12
l.:t
14
15
1(1
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
25
Q There were fifteen policemen?
A Fifteen or more that came in, and roughly
speaking, and I can't say definitely that there were fifteen
or more. There might have been more or less, but roughly
speaking, I'd say roughly speaking.
Q But it's your testimony that there were at leasl
fifteen; is that correct?
A Roughly speaking.
Q Well, at least—
MR. NABRIT: Your Honor, the witness has
answered the question four or five times.
THE COURT: I think it's proper cross-examina
tion. First it was four came in, and then she said more cam
in, and there was something I think about eight and I didn't
know whether it was eight in addition to the four or what
when she first testified, and I didn't know whether it was
eight altogether, and it can go to credibility, and the State
can cross-examine to see whether her recollection is really
sound or not.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, was it at least fifteen?
A It was about fifteen. I can't say definitely
whether it was fifteen or whether it was twenty. I know
there were four when they first came in and there was eight
more that followed, and they were still coming in my house
47
31
1
•)
:i
4
5
<i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
15
10
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
and while I was standing there they were still coming in, and
I didn't take time much to count them, and I don't know how
many.
Q Well, you don't understand my question. I
understand your testimony to be that it wasn't twelve, that it
was at least fifteen, that it might have been slightly more,
but it was at least fifteen; is that your testimony?
A Yes.
MR. NABRIT: Objection.
THE COURT: Oh, she has made it perfectly clear
on direct and on cross-examination both that four came in
originally and then at least eight more came in and then they
were coming in and out, that more came in, and some may have
gone out, and there may have been some repeaters. She can't
say. She says about fifteen.
I don't see any use in trying to pin her down
any tighter than that.
MR. SAUSE: All right, Your Honor.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, how many, about how many of these police
officers of these fifteen or twelve or how many you say it wau
how many of these police officers were dressed in police
3 %uniforms?
A It's going to be hard to say. I know the first
48
four of them that came in were in uniforms.
49
i
•>
(i
i
s
!)
10
1 1
12
14
l r,
l(i
17
18
1!)
20
21
20
24
25
Q All of those four?
A All of those four, yes, the first four that came
in were in uniforms. Now, I can't say whether the ones that
followed the first four were in uniforms or not.
Q Were any of the first four wearing overcoats or
were they—
A No.
Q Just short coats; is that correct?
A Just police uniforms. Whether it was short
coats or not I don't know.
Q Explain to me what you mean by a police uniform?
A I saw the police— regular police uniforms like
a policeman uniform wears, and some had no stripes and some
had wide stripes, like the policemen wear. You're not a
policeman.
Q Of course I'm not, but was it a coat just like
this or did they have overcoats?
A They did not have overcoats on.
Q None of them had overcoats on?
A No.
Q Did they have hats on?
A Ye8' _ 33
Q What color were the hats?
A The same color as the uniform of the policemen,
blue, blue in color.
1
•>
:t
4
fi
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
IT)
Hi
17
18
10
20
21
22
22
24
2.7
50
Q Mrs. Lankford, they were all blue hats? Is
that your testimony?
A They were all blue hats.
Q Is that right? The first four all had blue
hats on; is that correct?
A No, I can't say whether they all had blue hats
or not when they came in. I can't say it was all blue; I
don't know.
Q Did any of them have any other color than blue?
THE COURT: Are you talking about--police hats
have silver badges or gold badges?
MR. SAUSE: No, I'm talking about the color of
the hats.
THE COURT: You're talking about police hats
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, I certainly
think that we can test this witness' recollection.
THE COURT: Yes, you can. Go ahead and do it
so long as you understand, and It wasn't clear to her as it
wasn't clear to me what you mean by all blue.
MR. SAUSE: All right.
THE COURT: And it's a question of whether you
meant the hats were all blue or what.
34MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Or were all of the hats blue.
MR. SAUSE: The police—
1
•>
4
r>
(i
7
s
!l
10
11
12
14
14
15
1<>
17
18
HI
20
21
22
24
24
25
51
THE COURT: She said that all of the hats were
blue hats. Now, that doesn't mean that they didn't have,
the police, she said they had police hats, and I assume they
had insignia on them.
MR. SAUSE: All right, sir.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Were any of them white hats, Mrs. Lankford?
MR. NABRIT: Just a minute. I would like to
inquire to make objection or to make inquiry, if the purpose
of this is to test the recollection of the witness, Your Hono
I think that this type of repetitive badgering of the witness
is objectionable, and I object to it.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NABRIT: If the purpose of this—
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. NABRIT: If the purpose of this is part
of the contention that these were not Baltimore City policeme
I think that—
THE COURT: Oh, of course, they were Baltimore
City policemen. There isn't any question about that. That
isn't denied. The purpose is to test her recollection, and
I don't think it's gotten to the badgering stage, though I
think it has gotten past the effective stage.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, my last question with regard to the hats,
1
•)
:{
4
r.
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:l
14
15
i<;
17
is
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
52
did any of Che policemen have on white hats?
A Any of the first four that came In, I can't say
I don't think, I can't say, I can't say now.
Q You don't remember that now?
A 1 can't say because when I opened the door and
looked out and saw the officers there with the shotguns and
they came in my home, and I can't recollect whether they all
had white hats or all blue hats or what kind of hats they had,
but I do remember some blue hats, but I can't say whether
they all had the same color hats on or not.
Q Did any of the police officers talk to you
while the search was going on?
A No, none.
Q None of them?
A No, they didn't open their mouths to me except
when they first came in.
Q You were in the living room and sat down with
the dog?
A No, I didn't, I stood up, I stood up, I was too
shaken to sit down and I just stood up in the middle of the
floor.
Q And you and the dog were in the living room; is
that correct? 3 6
A Yes, that's right.
Q And none of the police— did any of the police
1
•)
2
4
.’)
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
If)
1(1
17
18
19
20
21
•>2
22
24
2.7
53
officers cone In and search the living room?
A Yes, they, some of them came into the living
room first.
Q How many?
A These were all of the four that first came in,
they came into the living room, the first four, and I sat
there while the others were continuing to come in, in the
living room still, in the living room between the hallway
and my living room discussing whether I knew Mr, Garrett
which I guess they would have taken, well, they were looking
around the living room, just looking around.
Q And they said nothing to you?
A They said nothing to me other than was my name
Garrett and did I know any Garrett.
Q Now, did they have any conversation between
themselves?
THE COURT: You mean the ones who were in the
room?
MR. SAUSE: The ones who were in the room.
Excuse me.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Did you overhear them, the officers talking
between themselves while they were there?
A No, no.
Q The four of them just stood there and said
1
•>
2
4
f>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:i
14
ir,
Ki
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
2f>
nothing?
A They stood there end asked me was my name
Garrett and when I told them it wasn't they told me they were
going to search the house, and that's all. That was the only
conversation I heard.
Q Now, none of them asked you if they could look
around the house?
A No, they said they were going to search the
house.
54
Q Now, did you--strike that.
Now, you had during this time--well, Incidental
how long were the police in your house altogether?
A Approximately fifteen or twenty minutes.
Q Fifteen or twenty minutes?
A Yes.
Q And how many rooms are in your house?
A I have three rooms on the first floor, three
rooms and bathroom on the second floor and basement.
Q And a basement?
A Yes.
Q There's no attic on the third floor?
A No.
Q No t , and it took the police, it took the police
fifteen police fifteen minutes to search that small house; is
that your testimony?
1
•)
:i
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:t
14
15
10
17
18
1«)
20
21
22
22
24
25
55
A I said approximately fifteen minutes, fifteen oz
twenty minutes, yes.
Q It couldn't have been less?
A No, it could have been less, but as I say, I
would say approximately ten or fifteen minutes or more or less
Q Did the police show you any photographs?
A No, they did not.
Q Did you, at any time, see any photographs in th<t
possession of any of the police officers who were in your
house?
A No, I did not.
Q Now, when the police left what did you say to
them?
A I didn't say anything to them. I was waiting
for them to say something to me, and they just, they said,,
they said nothing.
Q They said nothing? You heard no police office^:
say anything to any other police officer? They just looked
around and left; is that correct?
A They just looked around and left.
Q Did they point any of these guns at you?
A They had the drawn guns when they first came in
the door, when I, when I, when I, when I first opened the door
3 9
Q Did they point them at you?
A They had the guns— what would you call it,
1
•>
2
4
5
<i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
ltt
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
56
whatever it' s called?
Q I don't know what you mean?
A Well, like you're pointing it at somebody, that
the way they came into the house.
Q Were they pointing it at you?
A When I opened the door they came in.
Q Did they tell you to put your hands up?
A No.
Q Did they search you?
A No.
Q Now, did your husband ever come downstairs?
A After they had finished the searching upstairs
he came downstairs, yes.
Q After they had finished the search?
A Yes, that's right, that's right.
Q But you, you and your husband sleep in the same
bedroom?
A Yes, yes.
Q But you were the one that got up and went down-
stairs and opened the door; is that correct?
A That's right.
Q Was your husband awake when you went downstairs
A No, he wasn't because he had to get up and go
to work and he was sound asleep and I had just gotten in from
work, and I had just gotten into a sound sleep, so he didn't
4 0
1
•>
:i
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:l
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
57
wake up.
Q What do you mean by when you say that there was
a constant banging?
A Well, usually when someone comes in the house
they ring the doorbell, and I didn't hear the doorbell
because my dog usually jumps up when the doorbell rings, so
I know the doorbell didn't ring.
Q Well, you don't know the doorbell didn't ring
because the dog didn't jump up; is that it?
A The doorbell didn't ring.
MR. NABRIT: Objection, Your Honor. He's
arguing with the witness.
MR. SAUSE: No.
MR. NABRIT: He's arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: You can argue the case to me. She
is explaining why she infers that the doorbell didn't ring.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Well, you didn't hear the doorbell?
THE COURT: And she can state her inference
and the reason for it.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q And you didn't hear the dog bark?
A No, I didn't hear him bark. I say he wakes up
when the doorbell rings, and he didn't, he didn't bark. He
gets up whenever he hears the doorbell ringing, and he did not;
41
1
■)
:{
4
f>
(i
7
S
!»
10
11
12
12
14
17)
1<>
17
IS
lit
20
21
°2
20
24
25
58
get up. He did not get up.
Q Now, what do you mean by constant banging, Mrs.
Lankford?
A Constant banging whenever somebody comes to the
door, and somebody bangs, and I had the storm door, and it
was constant banging on the storm door.
Q Then you have three doors there?
A I have a storm door, I have an outside door and
an inside door.
Q And somebody was knocking on the door?
A That's right.
THE COURT: There is no evidence, no suggestion
that they were trying to break it in. They were keeping on
knocking until they got somebody. I should think you would
be happy and satisfied with that.
MR. SAUSE: Well, Your Honor, I'm trying to
ascertain the extent of the banging.
That's all. Thank you.
THE COURT: Any further questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Did the police officers display any search
or
warrant/ other piece of paper to you?
Q
No, they did not.
When you opened the door--
1
•>
8
4
5
(i
7
S
it
10
11
12
12
14
15
it;
17
18
lit
20
21
22
28
24
25
59
THE COURT: Did the officers tell you— you say
they didn't show you a search warrant? Did they tell you
they had a warrant to arrest anybody?
THE WITNESS: No, they did not.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q When you opened the door did they touch you at
all, touch you at all or--
A No.
Q Or give you any coomand or orders?
A No, they did not. I just looked and then moved
back when they came in.
Q You stepped back?
A Yes.
Q 43Did you invite them to come in?
A No, I did not invite them to come in.
MR. NABRIT: That's all, Your Honor,
THE CLERK: Any other questions?
MR. SAUSE: No.
MR. NABRIT: You may be excused.
(Witness excused.)
MR. NABRIT: Mr. Samuel Lankford.
60
:{
4
(i
i
s
!)
10
1 1
12
1.4
14
14
1 (i
17
IS
1!)
20
21
24
24
25
Thereupon
SAMUEL JAMES LANKFORD
was called as a witness £or and on behalf of the plaintiffs
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
THE CLERK: State your full name.
THE WITNESS: Samuel J. Lankford.
THE CLERK: Samuel James Lankford. Take the
stand, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
3Y MR. NABRIT:
Q Mr. Lankford, is the last witness who testified
your wife?
A Yes, she is.
Q You live at the same address?
A Yes, we do.
Q How old are you, sir?
A Thirty-five.
Q Where are you employed?
A I'm employed at the post office, this building.
Q How long have you worked here?
A Ten-and-a-haIf years.
Q What did you do before that?
A I worked for Bethlehem Steel Company at Sparrows
Point for six years.
44
10
11
12
18
14
IT.
l(i
17
18
10
20
21
22
22
24
25
Q And prior to that?
A I was in school.
Q Do you recall the night of January 1st and
January 2, 1965?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember that night?
A The night of January 2, 1965 I was awakened
about two o'clock by lights shining in my face.
Q And where were you?
A I was in my bed in the front bedroom.
Q What floor?
A The second floor, and I could make out the out
line of at least four figures in the room, and I could see
that some of them had shotguns or rifles, or whatever they
were in their hands. I think at least three of them did.
Q Was the room light or dark?
A The room was dark but there was evidently the
light from the hall, you could see the outline of the figures,
and the light, the light was shining in my face at the time.
And one of the officers asked me what was my
name, and I gave it to him, and he asked me how long did I
live there at that address, and I told him.
Q What did you tell him?
A I said since 1949.
Q Is that the length of time you have lived therei
61
45
1
• )
2
4
f)
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
A Yes, it is.
And he asked me did I know any Garretts. I sai
no.
Then he said, "Do you know these men?"
And they had a picture, I believe, at the time,
and 1 told them I couldn't see, "Put the light on," and some
one put the light on, and then I could see this large picture.
Q What did you see when the lights came on in the
room?
A Oh, then I saw these four policemen there, three
of them with shotguns, and the one that was questioning me,
he was a superior officer. I don't know what he was.
Q Why did you think that?
A Well, by the gold badge he wore, end he had
pictures in his hand, and he asked me did I know these men.
It was a large picture with a woman and a child in it, and
two smaller ones with a paper clip on the top of it, the two
men at the top, and I said no, I don't know them. I've only
seen them in the papers, and that was all, and he, they asked
me did I know any Garretts that lived in the block.
I said, "As far as I know there are no Garretts
living in this block," and then they turned around to leave
and that's when I looked over at the clock and said, "Gosh,
it'8 a quarter-after-two and I got to be to work at four
46
62
o'clock."
1
•)
:t
4
5
(i
7
S
f)
10
11
12
12
14
15
10
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
20
24
25
63
And the one that was questioning me said to one
of the other officers on the way out, he said, "This one has
to be to work at four o'clock; that's tough," and they went
on out of the room.
So I got up, got my robe because I was concerned
because 1 didn't know where my wife was. 1 hadn't seen her,
you know, because she went to work at four o'clock.
Q Is that the last time you had seen your wife?
A Because she went to work at four o'clock, and
she went out, and I was asleep when she came back, and I didn'
know whether she was home, and I didn't know whether she was
home or not.
So I went out in the hall and saw some of the
officers in the hall. 1 really don't know how many it was.
I'm sure it was eight or more. I know that, and saw them
coming out the middle room where three of my boys were asleep
and coming out the back room where three of ray daughters were
asleep.
Q You saw the officers coming out of your
children'8 two bedrooms?
A Yes, and I saw one in there in the doorway of
the back room, and he was kneeling down as if looking under
the bed of my daughters' room.
A
Were your children there in the room?
Yes, they were in the room. 47
1
• )
:i
4
.’)
li
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
IS
lit
20
21
22
22
24
25
64
Q What were they doing?
A They, I don't know if they were standing out
in the hall, I didn't hear them, you know, say anything.
Q How were the officers equipped? Did you
observe that at all?
A All 1 know was that I saw a lot of rifles.
They had rifles in their hands, and one of the officers, they
had a lantern, and 1 stood there in the hall until they come
past me and went downstairs, and I followed the last officer
down and stood on the steps until, well, some more was coming
out of the dining room, and they were just constantly coming
by, and that's why I just stood up on the steps until they
had got by, and they went on out.
I went down into the living room, you know,
where my wife was and closed the door.
Q Did any officer show you any search warrant or
any piece of paper at all?
A No, sir, no search warrant, only photographs.
Q No other piece of paper besides the photographs?
A No.
Q Did any officer state to you the reason they
were there?
A They only asked me was my name Garrett, did I
know any Garretts and did I know the men in the photographs.
They did not mention who the men were in the
48
14
15
1<>
17
IS
111
20
21
22
22
24
photographs.
Q Do you have any knowledge of Earl Veney, Sam
Veney?
A No, I don't.
Q Do you know anyone associated with them or any
member of their family?
As far as I know, I don't.
Do you know anyone named Garrett at all?
No, I don't know any Garretts.
Do you have any idea why the police came to
No, that's what I want $o know myself why they
49
What was the position of the weapons that you
observed, how the police were holding them?
A Well, they were holding— well, they were holding
them up well, there's no other way for them to hold them when
you come down the hall past me, when he come in the room they
had them, they had them slanted like, you know, but when they
come down the hall it was so many of them.
THE COURT: I don't see that there is any need
to go into that.
MR. NABRIT: All right.
THE COURT: They had their rifles out, and
there's no threat, there's no expressed threat to shoot him,
65
1
•)
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
i<;
17
is
1!)
20
21
• >2
22
24
25
but they had their rifles available for use if they wanted to,
or whatever weapons they had, they were available for use.
That's the only thing.
6(t-
MR. NABRIT: I was trying to elicit the facts,
Your Honor, and I confess that I talked to so many witnesses
that I can't remember in which case they pointed them and in
which case they didn't.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NABRIT: Your witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MURPHY:
Q Mr. Lankford, who did the police say these
people in the picture were?
A They did not say who they were.
Q Did they say what, if anything, these people
allegedly had done?
A No, they didn't.
Q Just asked you if you knew these men?
A Yes. That's all they asked.
Q Did I understand you to say that all your
children woke up?
A No, I didn't say that.
THE COURT: No, he didn’t say that. He didn'
hear any of them say anything.
THE WITNESS: I didn't hear them say.
S o
1
•)
:{
4
f>
(i
7
s
!»
10
11
12
12
14
12
1(1
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
2.7
67
BY MR. MURPHY:
Q All your children were asleep then?
A I presume that they were asleep. My youngest
son was in the front room with me, and I know he was asleep.
Q And they all slept through this interlude?
A No, no, no.
Q How many of them woke up?
A The ones that told me, ray oldest, my, the one
that told me, told me she woke up.
Q Any others wake up?
A And my son nine years old said he woke up, that
he had pretended to be asleep when he saw them.
Q And I assume that the rest of them were asleep?
A I assume so.
THE COURT: Are they the two older children?
THE WITNESS: No, one older daughter.
BY MR. MURPHY:
Q Mr. Lankford, when did you find out that the
police were looking for the Veney brothers?
A When did I find out?
Q
looking for
A
Yes, sir, when did you find out that they were
the Veney brothers?
You mean these particular officers that were in
my house?
Q Yes, sir.
51
1
■)
:{
4
r>
<>
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1.S
14
15
1 (5
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
20
24
25
68
A I took it for granted that's what they wanted.
They didn't mention their names. They showed me the two
photographs and asked me did I know those men.
Q Did they tell you why they were there?
A They asked for Garretts when they asked me did
I know any Garretts, was my name Garrett.
Q Did you recognize the pictures as the Veney
brothers?
A I took it for granted that's who they were from
the newspapers.
Q Mr. Lankford, following this matter did you
make any complaint to anyone?
A Did I make a complaint to anyone?
Q Yes, to the police or anyone else?
A Not to the police, no.
Q Did you ever complain to anyone, any organiza
tion or any person representing you?
A I had made my complaint known to my attorney.
Q Your present attorney?
A Yes.
MR. MURPHY: No further questions. Thank you
Mr. Lankford.
Keep your s e a t , p le a s e .MR. NABRIT:
1
• )
:{
4
5
<>
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i:t
14
15
l(i
17
IS
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
69
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Mr. Lank£ord, are you a member of any organiza
tion in connection with this Postal Alliance or something?
A Yes, I’m a member of the Baltimore Postal
Alliance.
Q Did you make any complaint to that organization
or members of it?
A I had talked to the president, John White.
We talked it over, and I know he has, he has discussed it,
and he has stated the whole organization is behind me one
hundred per cent.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. MURPHY:
Q How many days after the incident, Mr. Lankford,
was it before you talked to Mr. White?
A I talked to Mr. White the next day.
Q The next day?
A Yes.
Q How long after that before you talked with your
attorneys?
A I talked to her the same day.
MR. MURPHY:. Thank you, sir.
(Witness excused.)
mm •*» mm
1
• )
:{
4
Ti
i;
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
ir>
10
17
IS
1 !•
20
21
22
24
24
27)
71
Q Who Is Mr. James Williams?
A He's a roomer on the second floor there.
Q Now, describe this house for us, please?
A Well, downstairs has a living room, a reception
hall, a dining room, kitchen and a bathroom and a sun porch.
The second floor has a large front room, a
guest room. They're both on the front.
Then there's a middle room, and a bathroom and
Mr. Williams' room on the second floor back.
I have the third floor apartment which also has
a front, a large front, I mean a small rear room, it has a
living room, bathroom, kitchen, dining rocra, and kitchenette
and also a bathroom, and a basement.
Q Now, do you recall the night of December 27th
last, 1964?
A Yes, I do. Well, I was asleep.
Q Tell us about this time, what it was? Did
something unusual take place?
A Yes, it did.
Q Now, tell us what time it was and who was in
the house?
A Well—
Q And where they were?
A Well, it was about ten minutes after one a.m.,
and I was on the third floor with my four children, and my
55
1
•)
4
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
1 1
12
1.4
14
15
10
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
25
72
cousin, he was on the second floor.
Q Was your husband there?
A No, he wasn't.
Q Was he in the house?
A No, he wasn't.
Q All right.
A And my mother was there.
Q How about the cousin?
A Oh, my cousin was on the second floor.
Q What's his name again?
A Arthur Rayner, and there was no one else on the
second floor but him, and on the first floor there was ray
mother and—
Q What's her name?
A Reverend Elizabeth F. Tompkins, and the five
foster children.
Q What room were they in?
A They were in the back room on the first floor.
Q All right. Now, what unusual happened that
night?
A Well, 1 was asleep and 1 had the front window
part-way open and I was awakened by a loud noise on the front.
So I got up and went towards the window, and I heard someone
on the outside say, "This is the place,"
So when I went to the window and raised it up,
56
73
well, the officer was standing on the sidewalk, and he said,
"Come down and open the door."
Q And what did you see out the window at that time
A Well, when I looked out the window, the left-
hand side of the street, which Is the even side, well, It
was lined up from as far as I could see was police cars, and
they had these bright searchlights all the way up to the
third floor.
?
Q Of your house?
A Yes, past roof, you know, straight up In the
air.
And when 1 got down, after 1 got my robe on
and went through my door to go down the steps, when 1 reached
the first floor landing of the steps, the officers, the hall
was covered with police officers, and when I got down to the
second landing of the steps all the rifles and pistols was
pointing up towards the steps where I was, and I was very
nervous, and I didn't know exactly what they were doing there,
and when I asked the question why they were there--
Q Where were you then?
A I was on the second landing of the first floor
steps.
Q And where, the police were where?
A They were down in the reception hall. It's
an open banister and you can look up from the reception hall
57
1
•)
:i
4
n
(i
7
s
il
10
11
12
14
14
15
10
17
IS
10
20
21
22
24
24
25
74
up the second landing o£ the steps, and they all had their ri:
pointing up toward the steps.
So when I asked what was wrong or why they were
there, I never got any answer.
So by that time my cousin was coming through
the dining room, and in front of him was police officers and
in back of him was police officers.
Q Now, tell me, your cousin, how was your cousin
clothed?
A Well, he had on his pajama pants, and he didn't
have on an undershirt nor a top pajama shirt nor socks or
shoes on his feet when 1 saw him, and there was some of the
police standing there and no one to tell you exactly why they
were there, and there wasn't anything else for me to say but
wait until after told me, you know, what it was all about.
Q All right. So what happened next?
A So one of the officers asked, "Who else is
upstairs?"
So I told him there was no one else up there
but my four children and they were asleep.
So he said, "What floor is that on?" And I
told him the third floor. So then, I guess it was a police
officer, he had on an overcoat, I say someting like a raincoa
tan colored coat, and they all said they were going upstairs
and check.
58
75
1 So I was still on the steps and no one told me
to come down or anything like that; but they all came up the
:{ steps,/and the officer that was in the back of me, he had a
, rifle pointed right at my back, and he went up, 1 was, he was
- I was in the front, and he was in the back, and there were
(i other officers coming up the steps behind.
; Q You mean he was--
s A He was coming up the steps with the guns in his
,, hands like that, right at my back, snd 1 was frightened at
d this time, which I still am because the thought ran to my
, mind that if he fell with the rifle and it went off I would
have got shot right in the back or anyplace else where the
:l gun was being pointed at, and I was very frightened.
So when they got up on the second floor the
officers all stopped, and they went to, they went through the
front room, which is a large front room, and it was dark.
7 So I put the light on in the front room, and
̂ the police officers, I couldn't say which one it was, I was
, pushed from the big front room into the little small room,
, and these rooms on the side, still on the front,
, Q Did someone put his hands on you?
, A Someone pushed me from the back into the other
j room and they asked where was the light, and the lamp light
( was not connected. So they asked, one of the officers who
- was carrying a big, I don't know, a searchlight or what kind
59
1
•>
:t
4
a
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
i:S
14
15
Hi
17
1H
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
76
of light it was, but they asked the officer to bring it up,
and he looked underneath the bed and in the two big closets
in the front, the small front room.
So after they found no one there some of the otl
officers that went down toward the second floor back hall,
and they was hollering, "Why is this door locked? Who is in
this room?"
So I told them was Mr. James Williams' room.
He was not in town; he was in North Carolina.
So he said, "Is there a key to this room?"
And I told him yes, but I would have to go
downstairs to get the key from my mother.
So he said, "Go down and get the key and hurry
back."
So I ran down the steps as fast as I could,
which I was very nervous, and I asked my mother for the key,
and she was still in the bedroom. I asked her for the key
and I ran back up the steps and give the officer the key.
And when I got to the second floor another
officer met me. at the foot of the steps, and he took the key
and he went down the hall to Mr. Williams' room and unlocked
the door himself and they went in the room. So when they
came back--
Q And this room belonged to--what is Mr. Williams'
name? B O
1
■)
:{
4
.7
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
14
14
1.7
1<»
17
IS
1 !1
20
21
22
24
24
2.7
77
A Hr. James William.
Q And what is he? He's a roomer you say?
A Yes, he's a roomer, and he was in North Carolina
at the time.
And after they had checked the second floor, an
officer stopped me and said, "I thought you said you slept on
this floor?"
I said, "No, I said I lived on the third floor."
Q Tell me this, does Mr. Williams normally keep
his door locked?
A Well, Hr. Williams, no, he don't normally keep
his door locked, but he was out of town at the time and his
door was locked.
Q Go ahead.
A And the officer said, "I thought you said you
lived on the second floor?"
I said, "No, I told you I lived on the third
floor with my four children."
So he says, "We'll go up and check the third
floor also."
So I led all the polices up on the third floor,
and when we got to the third floor we went through the door,
and you go to one door and there is another door which is a
bedroom in which my four children were asleep.
Well, they went through my room first and check<
e l
1
• »
2
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
17)
1<)
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
27>
78
underneath the bed and the two large cupboards in the room,
and they looked in another corner of the room where my husband
ha6 his desk there to see if anyone was back there.
Q What is your husband's employment?
A My husband works at Montgomery Wards, and his
desk was in the other rear room, and when they left my room
they went into the childrens' room with these very large
searchlights, and the children were asleep, and they ac
took these big bright lights and shined them in each one of
the childrens' face.
And I asked them not to do it because the childr
were asleep. So one of the officers said that they had to
do it because he wanted to make sure that they were children
and no one else.
And after they left out of the bedroom they wen:
to the living room, and in my living room I have a big window.
Q All on the third floor now?
A Yes, all on the third floor, and I have a big
window there that leads directly onto a fire escape, and the
Venetian blind3 there were up. en^ that was the first time
that I noticed that the police were also in back of the house,
and they were all coming across the roof of the house, and
you could actually hear them walking, and they were coming
back and forth, up and down the fire escape.
Q Up and down what?
S 2
1
• )
2
4
5
(i
7
s
!>
10
11
12
12
14
IT)
11)
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
i s
A The fire escape. We have a fire escape that/o;
Che ground and Chat leads from the ground all the way up to
the roof of the house, and I stayed in the bedroom.
And I was so nervous I Just told the officers
the light to the kitchen was on the right-hand side of the wa
and they went, and the light to the bathroom was on the left-
hand side, and they went to the kitchen and the bathroom, in
the bathroom by themselves because I did not go all the way
back with them.
Q Did any of these officers ask your permission
to do this?
A No, they did not, but one officer asked me
where was my husband, and I told him that my husband had to
take my mother home because she was visiting us on, on the
night before. So he said--
Q Where uas she visiting you?
A She was visiting us.
THE COURT: That doesn't make any difference.
Let's get to the point.
HR. NABRIT: I was trying to establish when
the husband left the house.
THE COURT: He was taking his mother home.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Go ahead with your story?
A He asked me what my husband looked like; so I
79
83
80
showed the officer a picture of my husband, and he looked at
it.
First he asked what was his name. Then he
asked what he looked like. I told him his name was Walter
Summers and he had taken his mother home.
He looked at the picture and said, "I think I
know this young man." He said, "Didn't he work at
once?" And I told him he did and he said, "I think I know
him," and he said also, also his father, which he was talking
about my father.
And so he told the other officers had they
found anything and they said no.
So they all go downstairs and I was up on the
third floor by myself.
Q By yourself?
A Yes, because they went downstairs.
THE COURT: You mean with the children?
THE WITNESS: With the children, and the only
thing that they left upstairs was the smell. I don't know
whether it's the grease from the guns or the odor of the guns,
but they just fixed the guns, each one.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q They did what with the guns?
A They sound like they were clicking them. I
don't know whether they were pulling the trigger back or what
84
1
■)
:i
4
7>
(i
7
S
!)
10
1 1
12
l.'l
14
17)
10
17
18
10
20
21
•>2
22
24
2o
81
they were doing with them, but they had pistols and rifles
and each room they went in they would kick the door open and
just click these guns back if someone was going to jump out
they would be ready to shoot.
So the only thing they left up there was just
this smell, the odor of the guns. Then they left.
Q Now, your father you said lived in the building
but was not at home?
A No, he was not at home but was working at that
time.
Q Now, did an officer show you any papers or tell
you why he was there or anything?
A Well, after I had gotten down to the bottom of
the steps on the first floor--
Q When was this now?
A This was after all of the other officers came
off the third floor, and I came down the steps by myself,
and the officers were standing at the foot of the steps and
showed me a photograph of two men and asked me had I seen
them before, and I told them no, and that was all.
He asked me did I know anybody by the name of
Veney or something like that, and I told him no, and they
left.
Q Now, did you know one Earl Veney?
A No, I don't know of an Earl Veney. I do know
65
1
•(
:i
4
5
(>
7
S
!(
10
11
12
i:s
14
15
l(j
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
24
25
82
a young fellow.
Q Go ahead and tell us, tell us who you know?
A I do know a young fellow by the name of Samuel
Veney who is now stationed in Jacksonville, Florida.
Q What do you mean "stationed"?
A He's in the Navy.
Q Now, is he, was he one of the people whose
pictures you saw?
A No, he was not.
Q How did you happen to know him?
A Well, he used to be, used to be a roomer in my
mother's home, Reverend Tompkins, and he used to be on the
third floor, middle room.
Q When was he there?
A Well, he's been in the service now for about
a-year-and-a-half.
Q What service is he in?
THE COURT: She said the Navy at Jacksonville.
THE WITNESS: He's in the Navy.
THE COURT: You don't have to repeat it.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q How do you know he's in the Navy? Do you know,
have you heard from him recently?
A Yes, I heard from him.
Q When?
_ 66
1
•)
:i
4
.I
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1.4
14
17)
Hi
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
24
83
A At Christmas, he sent us a Christmas card.
Q And where was it sent from?
A It was sent from Jacksonville, Florida.
Q What does he look like?
A He Is a fair-skinned young man, very nice.
He's just a gentleman„ That's all.
Q What was his occupation?
A He used to work at Bethlehem Steel Company, and
he used to drive a car, and he even, at one time, he went to
try to get on the police force.
Q Do you know the Sam Veney who is being sought
by the police now?
A No, I do not.
Q Or his brother Earl?
A No. I do not.
Q Or any of their family?
A No, I do not.
Q Did the police ever ask you about this Sam
Veney who used to live in your house?
A No, they did not.
Q When was the last time you saw that Sam Veney?
A Well, the last time that I saw Sam Veney was
during the Christmas before he went in the service.
Q This was what year?
A I think it was, I think it was the end of '63.
67
1
• )
4
.”>
(i
7
S
!)
ID
1 1
12
12
14
IT)
Hi
17
IS
1!1
20
21
22
22
24
2.7
84
THE COURT: I can't hear the witness.
THE WITNESS: I think it was the end of '63
because he was home for New Year's '64. I think it was the
end of '63.
BXMR. NABRIT:
Q Did you recognize any of the officers as people
you knew, any of the people in the house, any of the officers
who came to your house?
\
A Well, I have seen a few of them.
Q Where?
A Well, let's see. There were some
the back.
Q Of the courtroom today?
A Yes, they were.
THE COURT: Were the officers all white or all
Negro or some one and some the other?
THE WITNESS: Well, the majority of them were
white with the exception of one,
MR, NABRIT: Will Lieutenant Cadden and
Lieutenant Glover stand up if they are in the room?
(Two persons stood up in the courtroom.)
V
BY MR. NABRIT:
\
Q Do you recognize either of those men?
A No, sir.
MR. NABRIT; Thank you.
88
1
•>
:i
4
5
<;
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
ir>
Ki
17
IS
1 !•
20
21
22
22
24
25
\ 85
\ THE COURT: Did you see them? Did you see
them? Was the light good enough so that you could see them
so you could see whether you could recognize them or not?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: They can come closer if you want?
BY MR. NABR1T:
Q Doyou recognize anyone you see back there?
A Let's see. There was--
THE COURT: It's a little hard. It's rather
dark there, and there's a brighter light up here, and the
one on me, the light is So bright it's hard to recognize
anyone.
MR. NABRIT: All right. You may sit down.
THE COURT: If she wants to walk around?
MR. SAUSE: Yes, if she wants to walk around.
MR. NABRIT: Withdraw the question, Your Hono}
THE WITNESS: Of the officers I have seen, I
don't see any of them now.
MR. NABRIT: All right. Withdraw the ques
tion, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: They were in here before.\
THE COURT: They were in here before?
THE WITNESS: They were in here before, yes.\
BY MR, NABRIT: ______ _
Q Can you— did any officers display a warrant to
G9
86
k
1
:i
4
.)
()
I
s
!l
10
11
12
l.'i
14
IT)
Ki
17
IS
10
20
21
2'i
24
25
you or tell you his purpose?
A No, they did not.
Q No one told you the purpose of coming there?
A No, they did not.
Q Why they came there?
A No.
Q Can you describe, vere the officers in uniform
or plain-clothes or what?
A Well, there were a few in uniforms, blue coats,
short blue coats, and blue hats, blue pants.
There were also officers in long coats, looked
like raincoats but they were not all in uniform.
There were some that had on just jackets, that
looked like tan, Array hunting jackets, and also I think there
was at least two who were in suits,
Q Have you described everything that happened that
night?
Strike that.
After the officers showed you this picture and
had the conversation, what happened next?
A Well, after they showed the picture, and they
all got together and want out the front door together
I went behind them and closed the front door,
and some of them drove away, and there was at least six cars,
police cars, still parked on the outside of the street, and
70
87
l they were out there at least fifteen or twenty minutes after
they searched the home.
MR. NABRIT; Your witness. Your witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
s A I was asleep.
9 Q You were asleep?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And what happened after that?
12 A 1 was awakened by a loud noise in the front.
12 Q And what were those noises?
14 A Well, the noises that I heard was screeching of
ir>
i«
17
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q What were you doing prior to the time that the
police came to your home, just right before?
cars being parked, loud noises, and also a voice saying, "Thi|s
is the place."
Q "This is the place," and you looked out the
18
19
20
21
29
24
25
window?
A Then I looked out of the window and the officer
hollered up to the window, "Come down and open the door."
Q And you went down from the third floor?
A And I opened the door.
Q And you opened the door?
A No, I didn't, I didn't open the door, no.
Q Who did open the door?
s
71
1
•)
:t
4
7>
(i
7
s
!(
10
11
12
14
14
17)
1(5
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
20
24
27)
88
A My cousin opened the door.
Q Your cousin opened the door?
A Yes.
Q And you were standing on the steps?
A Yes, that's right.
Q From the second floor to the first floor?
A I was standing on the steps leading from the
first floor reception hall up to the second floor.
Q Yes. Now, how many police officers came in
house altogether?
A Altogether?
Q Yes, that you saw, yes.
A Altogether that I saw I most sure it was over
thirty police officers.
Q Over thirty?
A Over thirty police officers, yes.
Q How many rooms are there on the first floor of
this house?
A Altogether the whole house has eighteen rooms
and four bedrooms.
Q Eighteen. I didn’t ask you that. I asked yoi
how many were on the first floor?
A The rooms on the second floor, on the first
floor there is a living room, a reception hall, a dining room,
a kitchen, a bathroom, a back room and a sun porch.
72
1
•<
:{
4
;1
(i
7
s
!t
10
1 1
12
18
14
15
l(i
17
IS
10
20
21
•»2
22
24
25
89
Q Well, the sun porch--
A 1s on the back.
Q Let me finish my question. Is that enclosed
or Is it an open porch?
A Yes, it's enclosed, an enclosed porch.
Q Now, you testified, you testified that you went
and got the keys for the room on the second floor; is that
correct?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Do you remember getting any other keys for the
police officers?
A No, I did not.
Q Did they make any request for you to get any
other keys?
A No, they did not.
Q But when they asked you to get the keys you went
and got them?
A Yes, I did.
Q And when they went up to the third floor to
where your apartment, was you went up there with them; is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, let's get to this Samuel Veney. Now, you
indicated that the police officers before they left, they
showed you some pictures; is that right?
73
90
l
:t
4
.)
(i
i
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
Hi
17
IS
10
20
21
24
24
25
A Yes, they showed me some pictures,
Q They showed you some pictures. Then you said
they, you testified that they asked you about somebody named
Veney; is that right?
A No, I did not. They asked me did I knew the
men that were on the pictures, and I told him no.
Q And then your testimony was before--
A Did I know of a Samuel Veney
Q Would you please let me finish?
A Yes.
Q Then you testified before that they asked you
if you knew anybody by the name of something like Veney?
Didn't you testify to that?
A Yes, that is true.
Q All right. Is that true?
A Yes, it is true.
Q And what did you tell them when they asked you
that?
A I told them yes, but they never found, waited
to find out who it was.
Q You told them that you knew someone named Veney
and the police officers didn't ask anything else about that?
A Nothing else except if I had seen these two
men to get in contact with the police officers.
Q And you told than that you knew a Sam Veney?
74
91
A I said of a Veney.
Q You said yes you did?
A Yes, I did.
Q And they just turned their back on you and they
left?
A They, I didn’t say they turned their back and
left. I said they said that if I seen these two men on this
picture to get in contact with the police.
Did they tell you who the two men in the picture
No, they did not.
Now, this man Veney that you know was he
any of those pictures?
No, he wasn't.
Did he ever live at 2416 Eutaw Place?
Yes, he did.
And for how long did he live there?
Well, I couldn't exactly say for how long he
but he has been living there for quite a while.
Well, how long have you lived there?
Well, I have lived at 2416 Eutaw Place for at
least six years but I have moved away once.
Q Well, when did you move away?
A When I moved away it was in May of 1963 , and I
lived on Shirley Avenue in the 2400 block.
75
10
11
12
US
14
1f>
i<;
17
is
10
20
21
were?
pictured in
A
Q
A
Q
A
lived there
Q
A
92
l
:{
4
• >
(i
i
M
10
II
12
i:i
14
ir>
l(i
17
18
1!)
20
21
24
2.')
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
was there.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
middle room.
Q
A
floor front.
Q
A
All right. And when did you move back?
I moved back on, in July of 1963.
So you were away two months?
Yes.
Now, was Sam Veney there when you left?
Yes, he was, and when X came back he was there.
He wa6 still there?
Yes, he was.
How long had he been there before you left?
I couldn't say. I can't remember how long he
Was it one year, two years, or what?
No, I wouldn't say it would be that long.
It wasn't that long?
No, no.
Now, where did he live in the house?
Where did he live?
Yes.
He lived at that time on the third floor,
Is that where you live?
No. At that time I was living on the third
Third floor front?
Yes. 76
93
1 Q You and your husband and four children?
*> A Three children.
:{ Q Three children were living there?
4 A Yes.
r> Q In one room?
<i A No, it wasn't exactly one room. It's one, two
7 rooms on the third floor front.
s Q I see. And this Sam Veney lived on the third
!) floor also?
10 A Yes, he did.
11 Q And you had the room and he used it; is that
12 correct?
1.4 A That is my living room, yes.
14 Q Now, when was it that this Sam Veney left your
15 home?
lli A It was in 1963 going into '64 because he was
17 home for New Year's.
IS Q And you indicated that he worked where?
1!) A He worked at Bethlehem & Steel Company, and I
20 can't say exactly another place he worked also; I can't
21 remember.
*)*> Q Did he ever work for a plastic company?
25 A Yes, he did.
24 Q Did he ever live at 1332 Northmount Street?
25 A I don't know whether he did before he moved
. 7 7
94
:i
.)
<i
s
!(
10
11
12
12
14
ir>
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
24
22
there.
Q Well, did he live there after he left there?
A Mount Street?
Q Yes.
A When he left 2416 Eutaw Place he went into the
service.
Q Wow, did you have any, did you make any small
talk with the police officers?
A Did I what?
Q Did you have any conversation with them other
than about searching the house?
A No, with the exception of showing them my
husband's picture and telling them, they wanted to know what
he looked like and where he was working at, and did he used
to work on Chase Street.
That's the only conversation I had with the
police officers.
Q Well, Mrs. Summers, you appear to me to be a
very pleasant person. When they left did you say good-by to
them?
A Did I what?
Q Did you say good-by to the police officers?
A Did I say good-by to them?
Q Yes.
A They didn't even say hello to me.
78
1
• >
2
4
5
ii
7
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1(>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
95
Q Well, we're talking about— I'm talking about
the other end of the trail. Whee&Jthey left, did you say
good-by?
A
could do was
Q
A
Q
A
Q
/No, I was too nervous to say good-by. All I
to go back.
Did you wish them a Happy New Year?
Not even a Merry G^istmas.
You're certain of that?
I'm most certain of that, yes.
Now, have you made any complaint to anyone abou
this search?
MR. NABRIT: I object. Objection, Your Hono
This is the plaintiff in the case, and there is no requiremen
to exhaust any remedies or requirements of a complaint to
anybody.
THE COURT: Well, I think it may go to some
possible issues in the case. I'll overrule the objection.
It's proper cross-examination.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Did you ever make any complaint to anyone about
this search?
A Yes, I did.
Q To whom?
A To my attorney.
Q Who is that?
7 S
1
• )
:{
4
7>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
1.7
1(1
17
IS
10
20
21
22
22
24
27>
96
A Mrs. Mitchell and also the lawyer sitting next,
next to her, Mr. Nabrit.
Q You made a complaint to him?
A Yes, to her.
Q To her?
A Yes, and I talked to Mr. Nabrit.
Q When?
A When?
THE COURT: Well, that's a double question.
When did you make the complaint to Mrs. Mitchell? I guess
you talked to Mr. Nabrit later after that?
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q When did you talk to her?
THE COURT: When did you talk to Mrs. Mitchell
THE WITNESS: When did I talk to Mrs. Mitchell
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. NABRIT: I would object, Your Honor,
relevancy.
THE COURT: Overruled.
When was the first time you talked to her?
THE WITNESS: On a Tuesday.
THE COURT: Of this week?
THE WITNESS: No.
THE COURT: You mean after, after it happened?
THE WITNESS: Yes, right after it happened,
80
after it happened.
THE COURT: On the Tuesday after the Sunday it
happened?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
97
BY MR . SAUSE:
81
Q When did you talk to Mr. Nabrit?
\ THE COURT: Oh, what difference does that make?
He's just come into the case as counsel. She went to see he:
lawyer within two days, two days later.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, Mrs. Summers, I would like to ask you, with
Your Honor's permission, for you to leave the witness stand,
and I would like for you to point out to us the two, or the
police officers that you say you recognized, please?
MR. NABRIT: Objection.
THE COURT: She said that they were here and
had gone out.
They were here but had gone out.
That's what I understood her to
Yes.
officers in the back of the room earlier sometime but before
she took the stand and that they had gone out by the time yo\i
asked her to look around.
She said they had been sitting in the back of
the room. That's ray recollection of her testimony.
MR. SAUSE: All right.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Mrs. Summers, were those police officers that
you recognized in police uniforms?
A No, not the ones that I recognized, they were
not in police uniforms.
Q They were not in police uniforms?
A No, they were not.
Q Would you tell us how they were dressed, please"
A Well, one officer that I know 1 did see, he had
a hunting jacket on.
Q Oh, I mean today?
A Yes, one that I saw today, I think that he had u
hunting jacket on, and he also had a rifle in his hand.
Q No, I mean the ones you saw today, how were they
dressed?
A That's the ones I'm talking about.
THE COURT: You mean how were they dressed
today?
THE WITNESS: Today, in a suit.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q What kind of a suit?
N 98
I
1
■>
:{
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
1 1
12
12
14
IT)
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
22
99
A A suit. The officers was sitting way in the
Is that the one? You're identifying him?
Yes, I think that's the one I'm talking about.
THE COURT: Tell him to come forward and let's
see who he is.
MR. SAUSE: Step over here.
THE WITNESS: I'm most sure that's the one.
MR. SAUSE: Would you give your name?
What did you say?
THE WITNESS: I'm most sure that's the one.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q You're what?
THE COURT: I'm most sure that is the one, the
one she recognized or the one she saw.
THE WITNESS: The one that I recognized.
THE COURT: Come forward. Come inside the
rail, the bar and tell the Reporter who you are so that we
can keep the record straight.
A VOICE: Detective Bosak, Homicide Squad.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Detective,
You can go back.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Mrs. Summers, is there anyone else, any of the
other police officers in the courtroom?
1
■ >
:i
4
5
li
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
17
1(5
17
IS
1!)
20
21
•>2
22
24
25
100
THE COURT: She can walk around if she likes.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR .\ SAUSE:
Q And how was the other one dressed?
A Well, he was not in uniform.
Q \ He was not?
A He was not in uniform.
Q He was not. What--*
THE COURT: You mean how was he dressed today
or how was he dressed at that time?
MR. SAUSE: Yes.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q How was he dressed today, yes?
A Today?
Q Yes, today?
A He had on a suit today.
Q Now, what color was the suit?
A Oh, my goodness, I didn't look to see what colo|
the suit was, but he was in a suit. It might have been a
change from the one he had on and it might not or it might be
another one.
Q Mrs. Sumners, in June of this year was this
Samuel Veney that you know in Baltimore**-*
A June of this year?
Q Or June of '64?
1
• )
:{
4
5
li
7
s
!>
10
11
12
i:i
14
IT)
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
2'1
24
25
101
\ A June '64?
\ Q Yes.
A Not that I know of.
Q When he comes back does he stay with you, when 1
comes back to Baltimore to visit, does he stay with your
family?
MR. NABRIT: Object. I don't know whether
she knows. I object.
THE COURT: Well, when he says whether he stayi
with her or stays with the family when he comes back, I don't
think he meant to make any invidious suggestions.
MR. NABRIT: No.
THE COURT: Or did he stay with her family.
MR. SAUSE: Did he stay at 2416 Eutaw Place,
stay in the building?
MR. NABRIT: Objection, Your Honor. The
question is incapable of being answered the way it is asked,
and it's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
MR. MURPHY: If she knows.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q He doesn't?
A No.
102
Q He hasn't been back to stay on those premises?
A No, he has not.
v MR. SAUSE: That Is all, Your Honor.
\ Thank you.
THE COURT: What's that?
MR. NABRIT: We were just conferring at table.
Pardon me, Your Honor.
I have no questions.
(Witness excused.)
MR. NABRIT: Mr. Arthur Rayner.
THE COURT: Well, It's twenty minutes of five
and 1 think we had better adjourn until tomorrow morning.
usually run until four o'clock, and we have been going hard
since before nine o'clock, and I think we ought to stop now.
We have a motion tomorrow morning at ten
o'clock, and It won't take more than a-half-hour to an hour,
and if you want to get the most time In, I would suggest we
start at ten-thirty.
(Discussion off the record.)
Now, do you have some one particular witness?
MR. NABRIT: Yes, 1 do.
THE COURT: Well, it's getting late, and we
\
1
')
:{
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
IT)
l(i
17
IS
lit
20
21
•>2
22
24
25
103
Thereupon
ARTHUR RAYNER
was called as a witness for and on behalf of the plaintiffs
and, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified
as follows:
THE CLERK: State your full name.
THE WITNESS: Arthur Rayner.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Mr. Rayner, were you in the courtroom and heard
the last witness' testimony?
A Yes.
THE CLERK: Will you keep your voice up?
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Were you at home the night that the last
witness described?
A Yes, I was.
Q Tell us what happened that night?
A Well, approximately about one or one-thirty I
was laying in bed listening to the radio, and so and then all
of a sudden all this noise, screeching--
Q Keep your voice up?
A — out on the street and all these cars. So I
turned the radio down and got out of bed and seen all these
policemen getting out of cars with shotguns and submachine
82
1
■>
4
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
i<;
17
18
10
20
21
22
24
24
25
104
guns, and they said, "This is the house."
So I opened up the window, and they told me to
open up the door. I said I'd be down in just a minute, and
they constantly kept kicking and banging on the door, and I
went down, and I opened the door, and they shoved me back
beside the wall and put a shotgun in my face, and they pat
me down, and I was in my pajamas, and that was my pants.
Q Now, go through that again slowly. What did
they do?
A Well, I opened the door and they shoved me
against the wall and pat me down.
Q What did you see when you opened the door?
THE COURT: They shoved you against the wall
and what?
THE WITNESS: And pat me down.
THE COURT: They patted you down?
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q What do you mean by that?
A Well, they searched me.
Q How were you dressed?
A In just my pajama bottoms.
THE COURT: You said they had pointed a gun at
you?
THE WITNESS: A shotgun at me.
83
1
■>
:s
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
l(i
17
18
10
20
21
■>2
24
24
25
105
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Now, where were yo\i standing at this point?
A As I opened the door they shoved me back and thi
told me to "Turn on the damn light."
Q And what happened?
A And they kind of pushed me through the hall to
the reception hall.
Q You say they pushed you. Did they put their
hands on you?
A Yes, in my back, and they shoved me and told me
to turn on the light, and they asked me who was in the back.
Q Well, now, is this before they searched you, pat
you down or what?
A After.
Q Now, go back to where they patted you down, wei
there any other weapons there?
A Well, they had rifles, shotguns, submachine
guns.
THE COURT: There is no question that each
officer was armed with some sort of weapons.
THE WITNESS: Pistols.
MR. SAUSE: Yes.
THE COURT: So you don't need to worry about
that, that all the officers who participated in this raid
were armed with either hand guns and some of them had rifles
84
1
•)
:i
4
5
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
lit
14
IT)
1<>
17
18
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
106
or shotguns or submachine guns, so you can just take that as
proved.
MR. NABRIT: All right, sir. I was trying
to get the witness to recall something else, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q When they were searching you, were any weapons
pointed at you?
A Yes, a pistol.
Q What was this? Describe this? What
happened?
A Well, they looked like they was, I was scared,
I was shook up, and they pointed the pistol at me, at the
back of my head.
Q They pointed the pistol at the back of you?
THE COURT: Well, he said that.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q How far was the pistol from the back of your
head?
A Well, I mean, I couldn’t estimate anything lil
that because I was too nervous at the time. You see, I’m
not well as it is.
q All right. You go ahead in your own words
and tell us what happened?
A So they took me through the hall, the recepti<
85
1
•)
:{
4
7>
0
7
S
!>
10
11
12
12
14
17)
Hi
17
18
111
20
21
22
22
24
27)
107
hall, and they hollered again, "Turn on the damn light."
They say who was in back, who lives in back.
I said, "Nobody but my aunt and my five foster
kids," and the police was in front of me and the police was
in back of me.
So 1 knocked on my door, I said, "Aunt Lizzie,
Aunt Lizzie," I said, "Open the door." I said, "The police
are back here."
And she was pretty tired, and after knocking tw
more times more they were very impatient so they pulled me
back in the kitchen, and they yelled, "Aunt Lizzie, open this
door," and, well, she had to get out of bed, and she didn't
have a nightgown on, and 1 was in the kitchen, and so the
other police told me to come with them that they want to
search the cellar.
And so 1 took them down in the cellar, and they
asked me who lives in there and I said nobody. I said that'
an extra spare room we got down there, so 1 tried the door,
and they kicked the door, cocked the rifles, pulled me back
and cocked the rifles and shined the light all through there
and went all through the small room, the bathroom.
Q This is what part of the house now?
A Down in the cellar. See the washroom, and the
went through that down there, see the washroom and kitchen
combined is down there, and then they opened the back door,
8 6
1
•>
4
4
a
(i
7
s
«»
10
1 1
12
14
14
17)
1 (i
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
24
108
and that's when I seen all the officers was on the outside.
So after they finished searching down there we
come on upstairs, and so I sit down while the police was stll..
upstairs with Regina, and some more officers, about twenty
was downstairs, at least between twenty or twenty-five was
down there.
And so, one officer, he was pretty nice, so he
said, "What's your name?"
I said, "My name is Arthur Rayner."
So he said, "Where do you work?"
T said, "I haven't been working lately because
I've been in the hospital fourteen times in two years with
operations."
Q Is that correct? Is that true?
A That is true.
Q Go ahead.
A Because I'm a diabetic and I have peptic ulcere
too.
So he said, "Well, I know you had a pretty
rough time because I'm a diabetic myself." He said, "What
are you on? Insulin, needle?"
I said, "No, I'm on pills," and he said, "You
know, they have this special diet?"
And I said, "Yes," and he was pretty nice, only
one, and the rest of them were very abusive, and I mean, they
87
109
didn't tell me what they were there for or anything.
So when the other officers coming downstairs,
the other officer showed us the pictures of these two fellows,
4
and he said, "Do you know, do you know these two fellows on
the picture?"
I said, "No, I don't."
And he said, "Do you know anybody by the name o;:
Veney?"
And at the time, I was not thinking, I was
shaken so I couldn't even sit still, and I said, "No." But
I forgot that ray aunt did have a roomer at one time whose nams
was Samuel Veney.
Q Now, was that, did you know that other, chat
other roomer?
A Did I know him?
Q Yes.
A Personally?
Q Yes.
Was he the person in the picture?
A No, he wasn't. This fellow was in the Navy,
stationed down in Jacksonville, Florida.
Q Go ahead.
A And after that they just left out without any
apology, and still didn't give me, didn't tell me what they
were there for and didn't show us no search warrant or nothing,
8 8
110
1
4
5
<>
i
s
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
l(i
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
24
they just barged In.
Q How long were they in the house?
A About a half-an-hour.
Q How many of them?
A Well, 1 could say, about approximately about
twenty or twenty-five.
Q What do you mean? You're counting those outs
or what?
ide
A Well, a rough estimate of what was in the house,
what went upstairs in Regina's apartment and what had went
downstairs.
THE COURT: You mean counting those who went
in the back and upstairs and went up on the roof?
THE WITNESS: Not, no, sir, not even counting
them.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q How tall are you?
A About five-six, five-seven.
Q How much do you weigh? How much did you weigh
at that time?
A Well, at that time I was weighing about
approximately 130 pounds. I'm not that now.
Q How much do you weigh now? Your weight now in
what?
About 115 pounds.
Ill
1
:t
4
;>
(i
7
S
!)
10
1 1
12
DS
14
IT)
l(i
17
18
lit
20
21
24
Q What's the color of your hair?
A Premature grey.
Q Since this time have you seen pictures in the
newspapers or television of persons that the police were
searching for?
A The pictures that I have seen that the police
had.
Q Is that the person, the person who lived in your
house?
A No, it isn't.
Q How do you know that?
A Because I know he don't look nothing like that
because I've known him for a considerable length of time,
maybe a year or more that he has been living in the house,
and he went in the Navy.
Q Describe this roomer whose name is Veney?
A Well—
Q
A
just a sort
Q
A
Q
A
Q
Is he a Negro, colored?
He's brown-skin, medium build. I don't know,
of happy-go-lucky kid, nice to get along with.
Describe what he looks like, how big is he?
Oh, maybe about a 160, 165 pounds.
How tall is he?
Maybe about five-eight.
About five-eight? o / >
1
•>
:t
4
7>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
i :t
14
If)
1<>
17
IS
1!>
20
21
*2
22
24
27)
A
112
Yes, roughly speaking now.
THE COURT: Is he light or dark complexion?
THE WITNESS: About brown skin.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Does he bear any resemblance that you know of
to the Veneys in the picture?
A None whatsoever.
Q None, no resemblance?
A None whatsoever.
Q How do you know he's in the Navy? How do you
know he's in the Navy?
A How do I know? Because we have letters from
him, because we have letters that he sent home when he was on
leave.
Q When was that?
A Well, it seems like maybe down around June.
Q In '64?
A Yes.
Q What is your military service?
THE COURT: Oh, what difference does it make?
What difference does that make? These are respectable
people. It doesn't matter.
MR. NABRIT: No further questions.
THE COURT: It doesn't matter.
91
113
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Mr. Rayner, how long have you lived at Eutaw
Place, at this address?
A Between six or seven years?
Q Six or seven years?
A Yes.
Q Have you lived there continuously?
A Continuously, yes.
Q Have you ever stayed anywhere else?
A Yes, I. have, for about two months of my life at
1922 Edmondson Avenue.
Q And when was that?
A 1962.
Q Have you ever stayed anywhere else?
A No, I haven't.
Q Now, have you ever been convicted of any crimes ?
MR. HUGHES: Objected to.
THE COURT: It might affect credibility; I
don't know.
MR. HUGHES: Well—
THE COURT: It might be irrelevant for other
reasons tinder the circumstances.
THE WITNESS: A bastardy charge because I
didn't have to serve time because it was paid. I did
9 2
1
• )
2
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
12
14
15
1<>
17
18
1!»
20
21
■*2
22
24
25
twenty-two days, and a hundred dollars was paid.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Well, you didn't spend any time in jail for
violation of probation?
A No, I did not.
Q Were you arrested for that? Is that all?
A I was arrested for that and around—
THE COURT: And what?
MR. NABRIT: And what?
THE COURT: Something about around.
THE WITNESS: I was arrested for that, and a
man and me was playing one day and it cost me fifty dollars
to pay for a window that was broken.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q That's another conviction; is that correct?
A It wasn't no conviction, no. I didn't even
stay in jail overnight.
Q But you received thirty days in the Baltimore
City Jail which was suspended, is that correct?
A Yes, and put on probation.
Q Put on probation for a year?
A Fifty dollar fine.
THE COURT: What was the offense?
THE WITNESS: A broken window.
MR. SAUSE: Disorderly conduct, Your Honor.
114
93
1
•)
:t
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1 :i
14
15
l(i
17
IS
10
20
21
22
22
24
25
115
HR. NABRIT: This was a fine.
MR. SAUSE: He asked what the offense was.
THE COURT: You can ask the witness. I ju6t
wanted to know what the offense was, because he said something
about "around" or "a tun" and I didn't know what he meant, and
I wanted to find out what it was, and that was what I was
trying to find out.
THE WITNESS: It happened around November,
Thanksgiving Day, and we was horsing-around and accidentally
I broke this window.
THE COURT: It's a trifling conviction. It's
trifling.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, Mr. Rayner, this evening you were dressed
with, in your pajamas; is that correct?
' A In my pajama bottoms, yes, just pants.
Q Did you have any top?
A No.
Q No top?
A No.
q None at all?
A No.
Q Did you have any shoes on?
A No, I didn't.
Q When the police came in the first thing you say
94
1
•>
4
4
.’)
(i
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
IT)
l(i
17
IS
1!)
20
21
■>2
24
24
25
116
they did was, pat you down?
A They shoved the gun in nry face and shoved me
against the wall.
Q Well, how did they shove you against the wall?
With a gun or with their hands or what?
A With their hands. They had the pistols or guni
like, like, I can tell you that, but if you ever had anything
like that yourself, I mean, you just, the gun just clicks lik
that.
MR. NABRIT: If Your Honor will instruct the
witness to be co-operative and not argue with counsel?
MR. SAUSEs Oh, I don't mind.
THE COURT: Well, we said we would have the
witness on for a-half-hour or so in order to accomodate every
body, end the witness can just answer the questions.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q How many officers was it that pushed you agains
the wall?
A
Q
A
No more than about one.
No more than about one?
That pushed me up against the wall, and there
was about between six and nine in the vestibule at the time
when I opened the door, and then they barged in,
Q Now, how many officers came in at that time,
at that time?
35
1
•>
:{
4
r>
li
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1.4
14
15
l(i
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
24
24
24
117
A Between six and nine, roughly.
Q Between six and--
A Yes.
Q --and nine?
A Yes.
Q And they all came in together in a group?
A Yes, they all rushed in and shoved me against
the wall.
Q They all shoved you against the wall?
A No, not all of them.
Q Now, did any other officers come in the house?
A Yes, some of them was in the back and some was
in the vestibule, six or nine was in the vestibule, and after
after I, after they told me to turn on the light, I turned on
the light, and after I turned on the lights the rest of them
come in, and some went upstairs and some went in the basement,
toward the back with me.
Q Mr. Rayner, you took them back and showed them
where the cellar door was?
A Yes, sir, they said they wanted to search and
this was on the first floor at the time and went back to my
aunt's room.
Q Yes.
A And they said who lived back there and I said
my aunt, and I knocked on ray door, which is on the other side
9G
1
•)
:i
4
.")
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1 {
14
15
i<;
17
18
10
20
21
22
22
24
2o
118
of the kitchen, end I said, "Aunt Lizzie, wake up, the police
are here."
And I knocked again, and I walked in, and she
didn't get up in time enough so they pulled me back and they
knocked, and they said, "Aunt Lizzie, you open this door,"
Q Well, I understand that, but didn't you show
them where the cellar door was and how to get down to the
cellar?
A Yes.
Q Did you go upstairs with them at all?
A No, 1 didn't, just on the first floor and the
basement.
Q You stayed on the first floor?
A Yes, and down in the cellar.
Q Now, did you tell any of the police officers
that you knew a Sara Veney who used to live in these premises?
A No, I did not because at that time I was showed
a picture, end I forgot, I was so shook up, I was very nervous.
Q Well, didn't they ask you?
A No, they showed me pictures and they said, "Do
you know these two fellows?"
I said, "No,"I don't because they said has a
Sam Veney any time, has a Veney anytime lived here, and I said,
"No, he didn't."
Q You said no?
s ?
1
• >
:{
4
5
(i
7
S
!)
10
1 1
12
i:i
14
15
1(>
17
18
1!)
20
21
■>2
2.4
24
25
119
A No, I stated that once before.
THE COURT: That's what he said before.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q But you knew, you knew?
A 1 forgot at the time because I was shook up.
Q I see. When did you remember that a Veney had
lived there?
A After they had left and after my aunt had
reminded me, I said, "Yea, oh, yes, Sam did live here. "
Q Well, Samuel lived there for a long time, didn'
he?
A Yes, about a year, a year or more.
Q A year or a little more?
A Yes, a year or more.
Q Do you know anybody else named Veney?
A No, I don't.
Q That's the only Veney you know?
A Yes, that's the only one.
Q Did you ever call the police and tell them you
made a mistake and that you did know a Veney?
A No, because they never made the mistake— I mear
they never told me why they was there.
Q Well, you knew why they were there, didn't you?
A No, because I didn't know anything about what
had happened.
’ 38
1
• )
:i
4
5
(i
7
S
!>
ID
11
12
l-'S
14
15
1<>
17
IS
1!)
20
21
22
22
24
25
Q Well, you knew why they were there?
No.
120
A No.
Q Well, when you found out did you tell them that
you knew a Veney? Did you call them and tell then you'd made
a mistake?
A No, I didn't.
Q You just didn't want to co-operate at all; is
that it?
MR. NABRIT: Objection, Your Honor. He's
arguing with the witness.
THE COURT: Sustained. The Court recognizes
that both sides are using this case to some extent to prepare
to prosecute or defend civil actions. The Court must allow
some evidence for that purpose in, but I'm going to limit it
strictly on both sides as far as I can. This is not a disco
proceeding for civil actions, and there is no use arguing wit
this witness. He has told you the facts that you want to
know.
MR. SAUSE: Yes, sir.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q Now, did you ever make a complaint about this
search to anyone?
A Well, the whole family have made complaints at
the same time about the people in the house to Mrs. Mitchell.
Q To Mrs. Mitchell?
SB
1
2
:i
4
.')
(i
7
s
it
10
11
12
12
14
1T>
1 (i
17
IS
10
20
21
•>2
22
24
25
121
A Yes.
Q Did you ever make any complaints to the Police
Department about it?
A
hospital.
No, I didn't because I was too busy going to th e
Q You were too busy going to the hospital?
A Yes.
Q This S8tn Veney that you know, when was the last
time that you saw him?
A
to see us.
The last time he was on leave when he came up
Q
When?
That doesn't help me very much. When was it?
A Well, I'd say it was about, I think it was
around about June, but I'm not sure.
Q It was in June?
A
around June.
I say I'm not sure. I said I think it was
Q And where did you see him?
A
live.
He visit the family at my aunt's house where I
Q He visited there?
A Yes, he did.
Q And did he stay there?
A No, he did not.
too
1
•>
:{
4
r>
(i
7
S
!)
10
11
12
14
14
IT)
1(>
17
18
10
20
21
•>2
24
24
2.7
122
Q And where did he stay?
A I do not know.
Q And how often did he visit there?
A I only seen him the one time since he was on
leave.
Q You only saw him once?
A Yes, that's right.
Q Did you ask him where he was staying?
A No, I did not.
Q How old was this Samuel Veney that you know?
A Well, maybe about twenty-six, maybe a little
younger.
Q But not over twenty-six?
A No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: He said about twenty-six or a litt
younger.
MR. SAUSE: Or a little younger, so I said he'
not more than twenty-six.
BY MR. SAUSE:
Q He's not older than twenty-six?
A No, I don't think so.
Q When the officers left did you say anything to
them?
A I did not,
Q You said nothing?
i O l
123
A
Q
A
Q
No.
You didn't say good-by or anything?
They didn't say nothing to me.
But your answer is, simply yes or no, did you
say good-by to them?
A No, 1 did not.
Q Did you wish them a Happy New Year? Yes or no|?
A No, I did not.
Q All right. Who shut the front door?
A Regina.
Q Who is that?
A Regina, ray cousin.
Q That's Mr8. Summers?
A That's right, yes.
MR. SAUSE: That's all. Thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Now, you testified that you were in court two
times? Did you testify in court a third time?
A Yes, I testified for Officer Presbury. He wa^
on indictment for killing a person.
Q Who is this Officer?
A Presbury.
Q What is his job now?
A He's a United States Marshal.
t 0 2
1
■>
:t
4
5
(i
7
M
!)
10
11
12
l.'l
14
17)
1<>
17
IS
10
20
21
■>2
20
24
25
124
MR. SAUSE: If Your Honor please, I'm going to
object to that.
THE COURT: That's got nothing to do with it.
MR. SAUSE: I move to strike it out.
MR. NABRIT: May we show incredibility, Your
Honor. He attacked the credibility of the witness.
THE COURT: You can go ahead and show his war
record now if you want to if he has one.
MR. NABRIT: All right.
THE COURT: I didn't hear him say— the only
question before was whether he had been convicted.
MR. SAUSE: Yes.
THE COURT: And they brought out a couple of
trifling matters, one for bastardy and one for disorderly
conduct, and you are saying something about being in court a
third time when he testified for some officer.
MR. NABRIT: I'd better let him explain that.
THE COURT: I don't think it makes any differeji
MR. NABRIT: Well, Your Honor, make I make
an offer of proof?
THE COURT: All right.
MR. NABRIT: I expect the witness to respond
to my question, sir, that he testified on behalf of a
Baltimore City police officer who was accused of killing a
man, and he assisted this officer in exonerating himself.
103
1
• )
:t
4
r>
<i
7
S
!)
10
11
1 2
10
14
15
1<>
17
18
10
20
21
•>•>
20
24
25
125
That’s the only point of that.
THE COURT: I don't think that it is material.
I don't see that it's relevant and material.
Well, you made the proffer and you can show thi
man's record in the service now in view of the cross-examinet
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Were you in the military service?
A Navy.
Q What year?
A Four years.
Q When?
A From 1951 to 1955.
Q Where did you serve?
A I served in the Persian Gulf, North Africa, and
Caribbean.
MR. SAUSE: What was that?
THE WITNESS: Persian Gulf, North Africa,
Caribbean, Great Lakes, Illinois, Norfolk, Virginia, Ports
mouth, aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Coral Sea, AP 55, seaplane
tender and v.p. 49, aircraft squadron, seaplane squardon,
Bermuda, and Somerset.
BY MR. HA3RIT:
Q What kind of discharge?
THE COURT: Well, you Joined the Navy to see
the world
104
1
.)
(i
I
s
!)
10
11
12
l:i
14
15
1(5
17
1H
lit
20
21
25
24
25
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q What kind of discharge?
A Honorable.
Q Honorable?
A Yes.
Q What is your health situation?
A Well, it'8 not good?
MR. SAUSE: That's not proper redirect.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q What is your health situation?
THE COURT: That ought to have been on direct,
but I think there is--
MR. NABRIT: This was in response to cross-
examination, but I'll withdraw the question and rephrase it.
THE COURT: I think he said he had been in the
hospital twelve times.
THE WITNESS: Fourteen times.
THE COURT: Well, he said he had been in
fourteen! times and you can ask him what far.
MR. NABRIT: I have another purpose.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q What's been your health situation since this
incident?
A Bad.
Q Pretty bad. Pretty bad, for example, tell us
126
105
1
■)
4
4
r>
ii
7
s
!)
10
11
12
14
14
15
ltt
17
IS
10
20
21
•>2
24
24
25
127
about It?
A I'm like to have to go on what they call, oh, I
can't, I can't pronounce it, but I can't say the name, but th<
pains that I had which is on my lower testicles and also will
call for surgery and when I had the last test--
THE COURT: Well, what was the matter with you
when you were in the hospital twelve times?
THE WITNESS: Well, all of them was about the
ulcer and diabetic.
THE COURT: All right.
BY MR. NABRIT:
Q Have you noticed any difference in your conditi
since it happened?
A I haven't been able to eat.
hfil. SAUSE: Obj ection.
THE WITNESS: And I have nausea.
THE COURT: It's a little late to object, but
I would have sustained it. We're not trying a civil case.
MR. NABRIT: Well, I think, Your Honor, this
question, I don't have any motivations along that line, but ]
have nothing further. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Just to show the seriousness of
it.
106
MR. NABRIT: Yes.
THE COURT: Of the experiences these people
have had.
1
•)
4
4
.')
(>
7
S
!)
10
11
12
1.1
14
17)
l(i
17
18
l i t
20
21
•)•>
22
24
2.7
128
MR, NABRIT: Yes.
THE COURT: And I don't think it's necessary to
emphasize that to this Court.
MR. NABRIT: I have no further questions.
MR. SAUSE: No questions. Thank you.
(Witness excused.)
Thereupon, at 5:25 o'clock p.m. the Court
adjourned to Friday, January 15, 1965.)