Lankford v. Schmidt Appendix to Appellants' Brief

    In the

VaxxUh States (Emxrt n! Appeals
F oe the Fourth Circuit 

No. 10,384

Samuel James Lankford, et al.,
Appellants,

Bernard J. Schmidt,
Appellee.

APPENDIX TO APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

Jack Greenberg

James M. Nabrit, III
Melvyn Zarr

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Juanita Jackson Mitchell 
1239 Druid Hill Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland

T ucker R. Dearing 
627 Aisquith Street 
Baltimore, Maryland

W. A. C. H ughes, Jr.
1803 Pennsylvania Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland

Attorneys for Appellants



Answer .............................................................................  11a

Exhibit B Attached to Answer........................................ 18a

Motion for Judgment on Pleadings ............................  20a

Excerpts from Transcript...............................................  21a

Mrs. Corinthia Lankford
Direct..................................................................  21a
Cross ..................................................................  27a
Redirect............................................................... 38a

Samuel James Lankford
Direct..................................................................  39a
Cross ..................................................................  43a
Redirect ............................................................  45a
Recross .................................................. -........ 45a

Regina Summers
Direct...............................................................  45a
Cross ..................................................................  56a

Arthur Rayner
Direct..................................................................  63a
Cross ..................................................   70a
Redirect ............................................................  78a

Lucinda Patricia Wallace
Direct................................................................... 82a

Barbara Floyd
Direct ................................................................  90a
Cross .....................................................    95a
Redirect............................................................   97a
Recross ..............................................................  97a
Redirect ..................................      98a

INDEX TO  APPENDIX
PAGE

Complaint ...................................................................................  la



George J. Floyd
Direct................................................................ 99a
Cross ..............................................................  100a

Rita Miles
Direct ................................................................ 110a

Maggie Shepperd
Direct.................................................................. 114a
Cross ..........................................................   124a
Redirect ............................................................  129a

Florence Snowden
Direct.................................................................. 138a
Cross .................................................................  140a

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace
Direct.................................................................. 144a
Cross .................................................................  151a
Redirect ............................................................  152a

Dorothy J. Barriek
Direct.................................................................. 153a
Cross ....................................    156a

Terry Boots
Direct.................................................................. 159a
Cross .................................................................. 165a

Frankie Bond
Direct.....................................................    166a
Cross—Redirect—Recross .............................. 169a
Redirect ............................................................ 171a

Capt. Joseph A. Mahrer
Direct ............................................................  172a
Cross ..........................................    196a
Redirect .........................................................    202a
Recross ...................................    205a

11
PAGE



Lt. Anton T. Glover
Direct .............................................................  207a
Cross ...............................................................  223a
Redirect—Recross ......................................... 233a

Lt. Carlton H. Manuel
Direct .............................................................  234a
Cross ...............................................................  242a

Oliver Walker
Direct .............................................................  252a
Cross ...............................................................  256a

Sgt. George D. Shriner
Direct .............................................................. 264a
Cross ...............................................................  269a

Sgt. William C. Hughes
Direct .............................................................  274a
Cross ...............................................................  275a

Lt. Lyman Williams
Direct .............................................................  279a
Cross ...............................................................  281a

Lt. Robert J. Hewes
Direct .............................................................  282a
Cross ...............................................................  290a

Albert Gooddale
Direct ................   298a

Lt. James J. Cadden
Direct .............................................................  303a

Sgt. William H. Rehmann
Direct .............................................................  313a
Cross ...............................................................  324a

Ill
PAGE

Det. Lester C. Shearer 
Direct ................... 329a



IV

Det. Richard F. Bosak
Direct .............................................................. 332a
Cross ................................................................ 337a

Lt. Bernard William Coll
Direct .............................................................. 339a
Cross ......................................................... -.....  344a
Recross—Redirect ......................................... 345a

Sgt. Louis A. Brandt
Direct .............................................................. 346a
Cross ................................................................ 349a

Sgt. John T. Dunn
Direct .............................................................. 352a
Cross ................................................................ 354a

Lt. James J. Cadden
Direct .............................................................. 360a
Cross ..............................................................-  377a
Redirect ..........................................................  386a

Elizabeth Tompkins
Direct ..............................   387a

Regina Summers
Direct .............................................................. 395a

Sharon Laverne Wallace
Direct .............................................................. 403a

Colloquy .........................................................................  408a

Special Masters’ Report ............................................. 417a

Joint Exhibit 3 ................    420a

Joint Exhibit 4 ............................................................ 422a

Opinion of April 14, 1965 .........................................  424a

Order of May 7, 1965 ....................................................  447a

Notice of Appeal ..........................................................  448a

PAGE



In the

luttefc Btutts Sistrirt (Hiwrt
F ob the Disteict of Maryland 

at Baltimore City 

Civil A ction No. 16080

Samuel James Lankford and 
Corinthia Julia L ankford, his wife 

2707 Parkwood Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland;

Claude T ompkins and R ev. E lizabeth T ompkins, his wife 
2416 Eutaw Place 

Baltimore, Maryland
W alter Summers and R egina Summers, his wife 

2416 Eutaw Place 
Baltimore, Maryland

A rthur Rayner 
2416 Eutaw Place 

Baltimore, Maryland,
Plaintiffs,

v.

B ernard C. Schmidt, as Commissioner 
of Police of Baltimore City 

Police Headquarters 
Fayette Street and Fallsway 

Baltimore, Maryland,
Defendant.

Complaint

1.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under Title 28, 
United States Code, Section 1343, this suit being author­
ized by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. This



2a

is an action for an injunction to prevent the further dep­
rivation under color of state law, statute, ordinance, regu­
lation, custom, or usage of rights, privileges and immuni­
ties secured by the Constitution of the United States, 
namely, the due process and equal protection clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution as 
made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment.

2.

(a) Plaintiffs are Samuel James Lankford and Corinthia 
Julia Lankford, his wife; Claude Tompkins and Rev. 
Elizabeth Tompkins, his w ife; Walter Summers and Regina 
Summers, his wife; and Arthur Rayner. Plaintiffs are 
Negroes, citizens of the United States and residents of the 
City of Baltimore, Maryland.

(b) 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 common questions of law and fact 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 pursuant to the policy and prac­
tice 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.

3.

(a) This action is brought against Bernard C. Schmidt, 
Commissioner of Police for Baltimore City, Maryland, who

Complaint



3a

at all times and places recited herein was the duly ap­
pointed qualified and presently acting Commissioner of 
Police in charge of the police force of said City of Balti­
more.

(b) During all times mentioned herein the defendant, 
Bernard C. Schmidt, acted through his numerous agents, 
servants and employees in the various divisions and sub­
divisions of the Police Department, all of whom were duly 
appointed, qualified and acting police officers of the Police 
Department of the City of Baltimore, a municipal corpora­
tion of the State of Maryland, and were agents of the said 
City and State, acting in the course of their employment 
and engaged in the performance of their duties as police 
officers of the said City, and acting pursuant to orders and 
directives from defendant, Bernard C. Schmidt. All of 
said police officers are unknown to the plaintiffs and are 
not named in the suit, but they, and each of them, were 
during all times mentioned herein, assigned to said Police 
Department and acting under and pursuant to orders of 
said defendant Bernard C. Schmidt.

(c) During all times herein mentioned the defendant, 
Bernard C. Schmidt, and the unknown policemen who are 
agents, servants, and employees of defendant Bernard C. 
Schmidt, and each of them, were acting under color of the 
statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of 
the State of Maryland and of the City of Baltimore.

(d) The City of Baltimore at all times herein mentioned 
was the employer of the defendant and each of his sub­
ordinate police officers. Said City at all times herein men­
tioned provided the police officers, and each of them, with 
an offiical badge and identification card, which designated 
and described its bearer as Police Commissioner or officer

Complaint



4a

of the said City’s Department of Police. Said City is the 
municipal corporation in the name of which the defendant 
and his subordinate police officers, and each of them, per­
formed all acts and commissions alleged herein.

4.

On or about January 2, 1965, at about 2 :00 a.m., the 
plaintiffs, Samuel Lankford and Corinthia Lankford, his 
wife, were asleep in their beds in the house where they 
reside with their seven children as a family, located at 
2707 Parkwood Avenue, Baltimore, Maryland. Then and 
there, the defendant Bernard C. Schmidt, caused his nu­
merous agents, servants and employees, at least twelve of 
them, and each of them, to beat upon the front door of 
the home of the plaintiffs with loud, banging noises in the 
early morning hours, focusing the beams of strong search 
lights upon their home, and with drawn guns gained en­
trance to the home of the plaintiffs and did the following 
acts, among others:

(a) They aroused the plaintiffs from their sleep, caused 
them to rise from their beds, and placed them and their 
children in great fear.

(b) They searched all rooms and closets of the said 
house, including the basement, and left without any word 
of explanation for their acts, except a question to the 
plaintiff Samuel Lankford, as to whether he knew “ any 
Garretts,” which he did not, and an order to plaintiff 
Samuel Lankford to identify some pictures of men, which 
he could not.

(c) None of the plaintiffs have been charged with any 
crime or offense.

Complaint



5a

5.

Early Sunday morning, December 27, 1964, about 1:00 
a.m., plaintiff Claude Tompkins was at his place of em­
ployment, and the plaintiff, Elizabeth Tompkins, was asleep 
with her four foster children in a first floor back bedroom 
of their home at 2416 Eutaw Place, Baltimore, Maryland. 
Then and there, the defendant Bernard C. Schmidt caused 
about fifty of his agents, servants and employees to de­
scend upon plaintiffs’ home, surround it, man all places of 
ingress and egress, turned strong flood lights upon their 
home, beat upon their front door with loud banging noises, 
and with guns still drawn and the words, “Open this damn 
door,” did gain entrance to said plaintiffs’ home and did 
the following acts, among others:

(a) They aroused from sleep in the middle of the night 
the plaintiff Elizabeth Tompkins, her four foster children, 
her nephew, plaintiff Arthur Rayner, and her daughter, 
plaintiff Regina Summers, disrupting their rest, forced 
them to rise from their beds in their nightgowns and 
placed them and the children in their home in great fear 
of harm to their persons, their property and their lives. 
They did force plaintiff Arthur Rayner, who had been 
seriously ill, to stand in his pajamas with his hands against 
the wall, while they searched his body. They did ascend 
to the third floor apartment where plaintiff Regina Sum­
mers and her four children were asleep, awakened plaintiff 
Regina Summers, and still with drawn guns, searched the 
entire third floor, kicked open closed doors, and placed 
said plaintiff Summers in great fear, in the absence of her 
husband, plaintiff Walter Summers, who had gone to take 
a relative home from a Christmas visit to their apartment.

Complaint



6a

(b) They searched all rooms and closets of said plain­
tiffs’ residence, climbing up and down the fire escapes, 
still with guns drawn.

(c) None of the plaintiffs have been charged with any 
crime or offense.

Complaint

6.

The acts alleged in paragraphs 4 and 5 above were com­
mitted by officers subordinate to and subject to the control 
of defendant Bernard C. Schmidt. The aforesaid unlawful 
searches were conducted with said defendant’s knowledge 
and consent, and pursuant to his instructions or directions.

7.

(a) The defendant, his agents, servants and employees 
did not at any of the times mentioned herein, and, more 
particularly, at the time and place of the events alleged 
in the aforegoing paragraphs 4 and 5, have in their pos­
session or display to plaintiffs, any warrant issued by any 
judge, court, magistrate, or other proper official authoriz­
ing a search of the aforesaid homes; nor had any lawful 
warrants for these searches in fact been issued by any 
judge, court, magistrate, or other proper official.

(b) The defendant and his agents, servants and em­
ployees did not at any of the times mentioned herein and, 
more particularly, at the times and places of the events 
in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, have probable cause or law­
ful authority to make the aforementioned searches. There 
were no circumstances which legally justified these searches 
without warrants. These searches were arbitrary and un­
reasonable and violated plaintiffs’ rights to due process of



7a

law and to the equal protection of the laws as protected by 
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States. The acts of defendant and his subordinates 
violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to 
the Constitution which is made applicable to state of­
ficers by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment.

Complaint

8.

(a) Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the 
searches of their homes is a part of a widespread pattern 
and practice by the defendant Schmidt and his agents, 
servants and employees. Plaintiffs are informed and be­
lieve that defendant Bernard C. Schmidt and his agents, 
servants and employees of the Police Department of Balti­
more 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 believe that defendant Schmidt did agree 
and join together with his agents and employees in the 
Police Department of Baltimore City to suspend proce­
dures for procuring search warrants and to authorize spe­
cial “flying squads” 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. Plain­
tiffs 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



8a

discourtesy, and have been menaced with weapons by of­
ficers under 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 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 with­
out warrants in seeking to apprehend the persons sus­
pected of this crime. Plaintiffs further aver, on informa­
tion and belief, that the defendant Schmidt asserts that 
such police conduct is justified and lawful and that he in­
tends 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 defend­
ant’s policy, pattern and practice of making and authoriz­
ing such unreasonable searches and seizures has been par­
ticularly 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 pro­
tected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United 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.

9.

Plaintiffs and members of the class they represent have 
suffered, are now suffering, and will continue to suffer ir­
reparable injury by virtue of the defendant’s acts, policies

Complaint



9a

and practices as set forth above. They have no plain, ade­
quate 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 re­
lief. The pursuant of any other remedy would not offer 
plaintiffs substantial and complete protection from a con­
tinuation of the defendant’s policies and practices.

10.

W herefore, plaintiffs pray that this Court advance this 
cause on the docket and order a speedy hearing of this 
action according to law and after such hearing:

(a) Grant plaintiffs and members of their class similarly 
situated a temporary restraining order, a preliminary in­
junction, and upon final hearing, a permanent injunction 
enjoining defendant Bernard C. Schmidt, his agents, ser­
vants and employees and all persons in active concert and 
participation with him who obtain notice of the order as 
follows:

(1) from continuing or resuming the practice of making 
unlawful entries and searches of the homes and persons of 
plaintiffs and others similarly situated without lawful 
search warrants or other lawful cause in violation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States;

(2) from harassing, threatening, intimidating or other­
wise interfering with plaintiffs or any persons because 
they protest, object to, or resist such unlawful entries and 
searches;

(3) from combining or conspiring with other persons to 
engage in the conduct specified in (1) or (2) above, or

Complaint



10a

counseling or advising any other persons to do any of the 
acts mentioned therein.

(b) Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, their attorneys’ 
fees, and such further, other or additional relief as may 
appear to the court to be just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Juanita Jackson M itchell 
1239 Druid Hill Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland

T ucker R. D earing

627 Aisquith Street 
Baltimore, Maryland 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Complaint

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III  

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Of Counsel

*



11a

Answer

[same title]

The Answer of Bernard J. Schmidt, Police Commis­
sioner of Baltimore City, by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney 
General of Maryland, Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Attorney 
General, and John W. Sause, Jr., Assistant Attorney Gen­
eral, his attorneys, to the Complaint heretofore filed by the 
Plaintiffs herein respectfully shows:

1. That he admits that, under certain circumstances, re­
lief by way of injunction is afforded to citizens of the 
United States under the authority of the constitutional 
provisions and statutes cited in Paragraph 1 of the Com­
plaint. However, for the reasons hereafter set forth, he 
denies that the injunctive relief here sought is proper or 
authorized by the said provisions and statutes.

2. That he admits the allegations of Paragraph 2 (a) of 
the Complaint; but he denies that Rule 23 (a)(3) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits the granting of 
the relief here sought.

3. That he admits the allegations contained in Para­
graph 3 (a) of the Complaint and that at certain times 
mentioned in said Complaint various police officers under 
his command were acting in their capacity as such police 
officers and were lawfully discharging their duties pur­
suant to his orders and directives and pursuant to the law 
of the State of Maryland. He denies that such police of­
ficers were acting in the name of the City of Baltimore 
and avers that they were acting in the name of the State 
of Maryland.



12a

4. That lie denies the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the 
Complaint, particularly with regard to the personal condi­
tion or attitude of the Plaintiffs of which he has no knowl­
edge. However, he admits that at approximately 2 :00 a.m. 
on January 2, 1965, certain police officers went to premises 
2707 Parkwood Avenue, that upon request such officers 
were permitted to enter such premises for the purpose of 
ascertaining whether certain persons (for whom arrest 
warrants had been issued by a Judge of the Municipal 
Court of Baltimore City; who had been presented by the 
Grand Jury of Baltimore City; and for whom warrants of 
arrest had been issued by the Criminal Court of Baltimore 
City pursuant to Maryland Rule 706) were upon such 
premises and could be served with such warrants of arrest. 
That he refers the Court to the allegations contained in 
Paragraph 10 hereof for a more full and complete back­
ground for the aforesaid investigation and particularly for 
the reasons why precautionary measures were deemed im­
perative. That he particularly denies that more than one 
officer knocked upon the door of such premises; that such 
knocking constituted more than appeared necessary to re­
ceive a response from those within the premises; that the 
conduct of such officers was such as to reasonably place 
any person in fear of any sort; and that such officers 
failed to explain fully their presence and purpose. He 
admits that Samuel and Corinthia Lankford were not 
charged with any crime or offense on or since January 2, 
1965, and that certain questions were asked by the police 
officers as alleged in part (b) of said Paragraph 4.

5. That he denies the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the 
Complaint, particularly with regard to the personal condi­
tion or attitude of the Plaintiffs of which he has no knowl­

Answer



Answer

edge. However, he admits that at approximately 1 :00 a.m. 
on December 27, 1964, certain police officers went to prem­
ises 2416 Eutaw Place, that upon request such officers were 
permitted to enter such premises for the purpose of ascer­
taining whether certain persons (for whom warrants of 
arrest had been issued by a Judge of the Municipal Court 
of Baltimore City as aforesaid) were upon such premises 
and could he served with such warrants of arrest. That 
he refers the Court to the allegations contained in Para­
graph 10 hereof for a more full and complete background 
for the aforesaid investigation and particularly for the 
reasons why precautionary measures were deemed impera­
tive. That he particularly denies that more than one of­
ficer knocked upon the door of such premises; that such 
knocking constituted more than appeared necessary to re­
ceive a response from those within the premises; that the 
conduct of such officers was such as to reasonably place 
any person in fear of any sort. He admits that none of 
the plaintiffs referred to in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint 
were charged with any crime or offense on or since Janu­
ary 2, 1965.

6. That he denies the allegations of Paragraph 6 of 
the Complaint except as admitted in Paragraphs 4 and 5 
hereof.

7. That, with respect to the allegations of Paragraph 7 
of the Complaint, he denies (a) that either of the investiga­
tions made as set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 required any 
warrant, as such were consented to by the occupants of 
the respective premises and (ii) that the police officers 
were acting at any time without proper warrant, such 
warrants having been issued as alleged in Paragraphs 4



Answer

and 5 hereof. He further denies that the investigations 
made to ascertain whether the aforementioned fugitive 
persons were on the premises were without probably cause 
or lawful authority. That he denies the characterizations 
and conclusions made in Paragraph 7 (b) of the Complaint.

8. That he denies the allegations contained in Para­
graph 8 of the Complaint, except as set forth in Paragraph 
10 hereof. He categorically and emphactically denies that 
any citizens have been “treated roughly and with discour­
tesy” or have been “menaced” with weapons by the afore­
said police officers. Also, he categorically and emphatically 
denies that any investigation “has been particularly di­
rected at the homes of Negro residents of the City of 
Baltimore.”

9. That he is unable to ascertain the “class” which the 
Plaintiffs purport to represent and denies that the Plain­
tiffs or any other persons have or will “ suffer” by virtue 
of any act, policy or practice of this Defendant. He denies 
that other adequate remedies are unavailable to these Plain­
tiffs.

10. Further answering said Complaint, the Defendant 
is advised and therefore avers that on December 24, 1964, 
at approximately 9 :45 in the nighttime, several persons 
staged an armed robbery of certain persons upon the busi­
ness premises at 2002 Gfreenmount Avenue in the City 
of Baltimore; that during the course of said armed rob­
bery, Lieutenant Joseph Maskell, who was then and there 
a police officer for the City of Baltimore, was shot and 
critically wounded by one or more of the perpetrators of 
said armed robbery; and that on December 25, 1964, at



15a

approximately 4:50 in the morning, Sergeant Jack Cooper, 
who was then and there a police officer as aforesaid (and 
at the time was engaged in a search for Samuel Jefferson 
Yeney, Earl Veney, and others in connection with such 
armed robbery and shooting) was shot and killed. That 
subsequently warrants of arrest for the aforesaid Samuel 
Jefferson Veney and Earl Veney were issued by a Judge of 
the Municipal Court of Baltimore City, indictments were 
returned by the Grand Jury of Baltimore City against 
said Samuel Jefferson Veney and Earl Veney, and war­
rants of arrest were issued by the Criminal Court of 
Baltimore, said warrants and indictments being attached 
hereto, as part hereof, and marked collectively as Ex­
hibit A.

(b) That at all times alleged in the Complaint, this De­
fendant and the police officers under his command were 
engaged in attempting to execute the aforesaid warrants of 
arrest—such being the express and positive command con­
tained in said warrants. As police officers such duty is and 
will continue to be enjoined upon them by law until such 
persons are apprehended or the warrants are withdrawn 
by proper authority.

(c) That at all times alleged in the Complaint, this De­
fendant and the police officers under his command knew 
that Samuel Jefferson Veney and Earl Veney were charged 
in said warrants with “assault and robbery at the point 
of a pistol . . . ” and “assault and shooting with intent to 
murder” a police officer; they knew that one police officer 
had been shot and killed while engaged in a search for 
the aforesaid persons; and they further knew that the 
persons named in the aforesaid warrants had theretofore 
been tried and convicted of many other serious crimes.

Answer



16a

Answer

(d) That in connection with the duty to serve the afore­
said warrants of arrest, this Defendant and the police of­
ficers under his command are not required to, and do not 
now, draw inferences from the preceding paragraph with 
regard to the guilt or innocence of the persons named in 
the warrants. However this Defendant and the police of­
ficers under his command do and must draw such infer­
ences from the aforementioned circumstances as will enable 
them to correlate properly their concommitant duties to 
execute the warrants; to safeguard the lives and property 
of the citizens of the City of Baltimore; and to protect 
themselves from the danger which might reasonably be ap­
prehended under the circumstances.

11. That subsequent to the filing of this suit, on Janu­
ary 11, 1965, this Defendant issued an order, being styled 
“ General Order No. 10388 Service of Arrest Warrants” , 
copy of which is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and is 
prayed to be taken as part hereof. Such General Order 
has been issued to all police officers under the command of 
this Defendant, is declaratory of the law of the State of 
Maryland, and is in accordance with this Defendant’s pol­
icy and practice. In addition, Section 551 of the Charter 
and Public Local News Baltimore City (1949 edition) pro­
vided in pertinent part that:

. . . the Police Commissioner is authorized to make 
all such rules and regulations . . .  as he may judge nec­
essary, for the appointment and employment, uniform­
ing, discipline, trial and government of the police and 
detectives. . . . All rules and regulations of the Com­
missioner shall be obeyed by the policemen, officers of 
police and detectives on pain of dismissal or such



17a

Answer

lighter punishment as may he prescribed by the said 
Commissioner. . . .

W herefore, this Defendant requests that the relief 
prayed in the Complaint be denied.

T homas B. F inan 
Attorney General

R obert C. Murphy 
Deputy Atty. Gen.

John W . Sause, Jr. 
Asst. Attorney General



18a

Exhibit B Attached to Answer

General Order: N o. 10388
January 11, 1965

Subject: Service of Arrest Warrants

The question has recently arisen as to the precise scope 
of the authority conferred upon police officers by arrest 
warrants, and specifically whether such warrants authorize 
entry upon private property for the purpose of locating 
and arresting the defendant named in the warrant.

A police officer may make a peaceable or a forcible entry 
to search any premises for the purpose of arresting a per­
son for whom an arrest warrant has been issued, if, but 
only if, the officer has probable cause to believe the ac­
cused person to be on the premises to be searched.

In this context, “probable cause” is said to exist where 
the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge 
and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information 
are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable 
caution to believe that the accused person is on the prem­
ises to be searched.

The officer should, where practicable, seek admission to 
the suspected premises by announcing his identity, the 
existence of the arrest warrant, and his desire to search 
for and arrest the accused person. If the officer has any 
doubt as to the existence of “probable cause” , he should 
immediately either seek the issuance of a search warrant, 
or consult with the office of the State’s Attorney for Balti­
more City or of the Attorney General of the State of Mary­
land before attempting entry upon private premises in 
search of the accused person.

In all instances, consideration should be given to the 
convenience of the person whose premises are to be



19a

Exhibit- B Attached to Answer

searched and the other residents of the neighborhood. In 
this connection, it may at times be necessary, and in the 
public interest, to make such searches in the nighttime 
when most of the residents would not be on the street, 
when the possibility of warning and escape would be less, 
and when greater safety would be afforded the arresting 
officer.

B ernard J. Schmidt 
Police Commissioner

Copies:
Inspectors
All Districts, Divisions, Units



20a

Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

[same title]

Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, the Defendant moves the Court for judgment 
on the pleadings and for reason says:

1. That, as seen by Paragraph 11 of the Answer and 
Exhibit B thereto, it appears that the relief sought by the 
Plaintiffs has been sufficiently afforded by administrative 
order of this Defendant; and this Court, in its discretion, 
should not render injunctive relief at this time.

2. That Paragraph 2(b) of the Complaint alleges that 
the proceeding is one under Rule 23 (a)(3) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure; that such is nominated in law 
a “ spurious class action” ; and that the relief sought by 
the Plaintiff's is not available in such action, since it is not 
possible to define, and the Plaintiffs have not defined, the 
“class” which they purport to represent.

3. That the Complaint is based upon the erroneous as­
sumption that under the law of the State of Maryland a 
warrant of arrest does not authorize an inspection of the 
premises of third parties where there is probable cause to 
believe that the persons named in such warrants are on 
the premises.

T homas B. F inan 
Attorney General

Robert C. Murphy 
Deputy Attorney General

John W . Sause, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General



21a

Excerpts from Transcript

# * # # *
Mrs. Corinthia Lankford, 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. 

. , # # # #
Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mrs. Lankford, where do you live? A. I live at 2707 
Parkwood Avenue.

Q. What city? A. Baltimore.
Q. Who lives there with you? A. My husband and six 

children.
Q. What are their names? A. The names are Ele- 

anora—
Q. Talk so I can hear you back here. A. Eleanora,

—34—
Dizirla, Sherrill, Garald, Edward, and Leroy.

Q. And your husband’s name? A. My husband’s name 
is Samuel James Lankford.

Q. Are you employed? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Where? A. 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.

—33—



22a

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 to make my husbad’s lunch early be­
cause 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.

—35—
#  # # # #

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, 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, and I

—36—
heard a voice on the outside say, “It’s 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

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



23a

then they asked me did I know any Garretts, and I told 
them 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 some­
one had a flashlight, 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

—37—
was still standing there.

The Court: Did they tell you what they were 
going to search it for!

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 Gar­
rett, and I told them no, and that’s Avhen, 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 cir­
cumstances with there was so many policemen, no, I did 
not.

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



24a

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 I 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

—38—
their search.

And by that time I was, I still hadn’t, my 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 in? 
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 children were 
upstairs in the bedroom. They were all asleep at this time, 
and they went up in my husband’s and my room.

Q. Just a minute. Just describe what you saw and ob­
served? A. It was in the bedroom, it was, and there’s a

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



25a

hall between my living room and my dining room, and I 
was staying in my living room, and the policemens were

—3 9 -
coming, were continuing to come in my house, and some of 
them proceeded upstairs, and the others went to the first 
floor and the basement, and I 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 downstairs, and they went out 
the door, and that was all.

Q. Did you have any conversation with any of the offi­
cers 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 morning, 2:15 in the 
morning.

# #  *  *  *

—41—
# # * # #

Q. Is there anything else about this experience that even­
ing that you want to sell us, tell the Court? A. The only 
thing I want to say about is that it was a frightening ex­
perience to me because I still, I still, to me I still don’t know

- 4 2 -
why this thing happened because the only time, in fact as

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



26a

my husband pointed out to me that they didn’t even men­
tion 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 middle 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 Yeney or Earl Veney? A. No.
Q. Do you know anyone by those names? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you know anyone by the name Veney! A. No, I 

don’t.
Q. Do you know any of the people who have been charged 

in connection with a crime on December 24th? A. No, I 
don’t.

Q. 1964? A. No, I don’t.
Q. Do you know anyone named Garrett? A. No, I don’t 

know anyone by that name.
Q. Do you have any idea why the police came to your 

home? A. I don’t have any idea whatsoever why they
—43—

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 knowledge, 

ever been charged with a crime? A. No.
Q. What is your participation in church community af­

fairs?

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.

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



I

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, per­
haps 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 there all thirty-three years of your 

life? A. Yes.
—44—

Q. Now, are you familiar with the crime that took place 
i on December 24th of this year on Greenmount Avenue

which involved the shooting of a police officer and the kill- 
i ing of another police officer? A. Yes.

Mr. Nabrit: Objection, Your Honor, to the ques­
tion 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 

i the reason that the police came to your home was in con­
nection with those cases that you read about in the papers ? 

f  A. No, I ’m not because when they came to my 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 men­
tioned as to why they came in my house, nothing, no names

I

27a

\ Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

I



28a

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 my house, they didn’t say, only the name Garrett, 
the only name they mentioned was Garrett.

—45—
Q. Well, now, let’s go back a minute. They came to your 

door and knocked at you 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, I opened the door because 1 
heard the voice say that it was the police and I 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 out­
side door, and I 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. 1 couldn’t 
tell until I opened the door, and when I opened the door 1 
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? A. I had Venetian blinds so 1 
didn’t open the door 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. No, I didn’t.

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



29a

Corintliia Lank]ord—for Plaintiffs—Cross

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 uni­
forms and they had the guns with them when they came in.

Q. All right. Now, Mrs. Lankford, I didn’t understand. 
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 my house.

—47—
Q. There were fifteen policemen? A. Fifteen or more 

that came in, and roughly speaking, and I can’t say defi­
nitely 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 least fifteen; 
is that correct? A. Roughly speaking.

Q. Well, at least—

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, the witness has an­
swered the question four or five times.

The Court: 1 think it’s proper cross-examination. 
First it was four came in, and then she said more 
came 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 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 under­
stand 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 offi­

cers of these fifteen or twelve or how many you say it was,

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



31a

how many of these police officers were dressed in police 
uniforms? A. It’s going to be hard to say. I know the 
first tour of them that came in were in uniforms.

-4 9 —
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 m uni­
forms 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 uni­
forms. 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 police­
man uniform wears, and some had no stripes and some had 
wide stripes, like the policemen wear. You’re not a police­
man.

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. Yes.
Q. What color were the hats? A. The same color as 

the uniform of the policemen, blue, blue in color.
—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?

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



32a

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.
Mr. Sause: Yes, sir.
The Court: Or were all of the hats blue.
Mr. Sause: The police—

—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 as­
sume 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 
Honor, 1 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—

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



33a

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

The Court: Overruled.
Mr. Nabrit: If the purpose of this is part of the 

contention that these were not Baltimore City police­
men, I think that—

The Coui t . 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 recol­
lection, and I don t think it’s gotten to the badgering 
stage, though I think it has gotten past the effective 
stage.

By Mr. Saase:

Q. Now, my last question with regard to the hats, did
—52—

any of the 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. I 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.



34a

Q. And you and the dog were in the living room; is that 
correct! A. Yes, that’s right.

Q And none of the police—did any of the police officers
— 53—

come 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 look­
ing 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 them­
selves!

The Court: You mean the ones who were in the 
room!

Mr. Sause: The ones who were in the room. Ex­
cuse me.

By Mr. Sause:
Q. Did you overhear them, the officers talking between 

themselves while they were there! A. No, no.
0  The four of them just stood there and said nothing!

— 54—

A. They stood there and asked me was my name Garrett 
and when I told them it wasn’t they told me they were go­
ing to search the house, and that’s all. That was the only 
conversation I heard.

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



35a

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

Q. Now, none of them asked yon if they could look around 
the house? A. No, they said they were going to search the 
house.

Q. Now, did you—strike that.
Now, you had during this time—well, incidentally, how 

long were the police in your house altogether? A. Ap­
proximately 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. Now, and it took the police, it took the police, fifteen 

police fifteen minutes to search that small house; is that 
your testimony? A. I said approximately fifteen minutes,

—5 5 -
fifteen or 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 the pos­
session 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 officers say 
anything to any other police officer? They just looked



36a

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.

Q. Did they point them at you? A. They had the guns 
—what would you call it, cocked, whatever it’s called?

—56—
Q. 1 don’t know what you mean? A. Well, like you’re 

pointing it at somebody, that’s 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

- 5 7 -
wake up.

Q. What do you mean by when you say that there was a 
constant banging? A. Well, usually when someone comes

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



in the house they ring the doorbell, and I didn’t hear the 
doorbell because my dog usually jumps up when the door­
bell 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 get up. He did not get

- 58-

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.

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross



38a

Corinthia Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

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 keep­
ing 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 as­
certain 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 warrant or 
other piece of paper to you? A. No, they did not.

Q. When you opened the door—
—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.

Ry Mr. Nabrit :

Q. When you opened the door did they touch you at all, 
touch touch you at all or— A. No.

Q. Or give you any command 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. Did you invite them to come in? A. No, I did not 

invite them to come in.
*  *  *  *  *



39a

Thereupon
Samuel James Lankford 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: Samuel J. Lankford.
The Clerk: Samuel James Lankford. Take the 

stand, please.

Direct Examination by 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-half 

years.
Q. What did you do before that? A. I worked for Beth­

lehem Steel Company at Sparrows Point for six years.
—61—

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 Janu­

ary 2, 1965 I was awakened about two o’clock by lights shin­
ing 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 outline of at least four figures in the room, and T

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 60—



40a

could see that some of them had shotguns or rifles, or what­
ever 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 there? A.

- 6 2 -
Yes, it is.

And he asked me did I know any Garretts. 1 said no.
Then he said, “Do you know these men?”
And they had a picture, I believe, at the time, and I told 

them I couldn’t see, “ Put the light on,” and someone 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, and 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

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



41a

when I looked over at the clock and said, “ Gosh, it’s a 
quarter-after-two and I got to be to work at four o’clock.”

—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 
I didn’t know where my wife was. I 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. Be­
cause she went to work at four o’clock, and she went out, 
and I was asleep when she came back, and I didn’t 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. I 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 hoys were asleep and 
coming out the back room where three of my daughters 
were asleep.

Q. You saw the officers coming out of your children’s two 
bedrooms? A. Yes, and I saw one in there in the door­
way of the back room, and he was kneeling down as if look­
ing under the bed of my daughters’ room.

Q. Were your children there in the room? A. Yes, they 
were in the room.

—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 I know was that I saw a lot of rifles. They

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct



42a

had rifles in their hands, and one of the officers, they had a 
lantern, and I 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 con­
stantly 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 photo-
—65—

graphs.
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? A. As far as I know, I don’t.
Q. Do you know anyone named Garrett at all? A. No, 

I don’t know any Garretts.
Q. Do you have any idea why the police came to your 

home? A. No, that’s what I want to know myself why they 
came.

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Direct

# * * # #



43a

*  # # # #

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’t hear 
any of them say anything.

The Witness: I didn’t hear them say.
—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, my 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.

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross

— 66—



44a

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

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. Yes, sir, when did you find out that they were looking 
for the Veney brothers? A. You mean these particular 
officers that were in my house?

—68—
Q. Yes, sir. 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 Gar­
retts, 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 any­
one?

Q. Yes, to the police or anyone else? A. Not to the 
police, no.

Q. Did you ever complain to anyone, any organization or 
any person representing you? A. I had made my com­
plaint known to my attorney.

Q. Your present attorney? A. Yes.

Mr. Murphy: No further questions. Thank you, 
Mr. Lankford.

Mr. Nabrit: Keep your seat, please.



45a

Samuel James Lankford—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 
—Recross

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Mr. Lankford, are yon a member of any organization 

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. T had talked to the president, John 
White. We talked it over, and I know he has, he has dis­
cussed it, and he has stated the whole organization is behind 
me one hundred per cent.

Recross Examination by Mr. Murpliy.

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. Plow long after that before you talked with your at­

torneys? A. I talked to her the same day.
# # # # #

—70—
Mr. Nabrit: Regina Summers.

—69—

Thereupon Regina Summeks, 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 for the record. 
The Witness: Regina Summers.
The Clerk: Regina Summers, S-u-m-m-e-r-s.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
* * * * #

Q. Where do you live? A. 2416 Eutaw Place.



46a

C,). What? A. 2416 Eutaw Place.
Q. And who else lives there in that house? A. My 

mother and father, Reverend Elizabeth Tompkins and 
Claude Tompkins, my husband, Walter Summers, my four 
children. I have five foster children and also Mr. James 
Williams, and my cousin, Arthur Rayner.

—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 gmest 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, 1 mean a small rear room, it has a living 
room, bathroom, kitchen, dining room, and kitchenette and 
also a bathroom, and a basement.

Q. Now, do you recall the night of December 27th last, 
1964, A. Yes, 1 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

—72—
my four children, and my cousin, he was on the second 
floor.

Q. W"as 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.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



47a

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 my mother and—

Q. What’s her name? A. Reverend Elizabeth F. Tomp­
kins, 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, I was asleep and I 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 some­
one on the outside say, “ This is the place.”

So when I went to the window and raised it up, well, the
- 7 3 -

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 lefthand 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 I got down, after I got my robe on and went 
through my door to go down the steps, when I 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—

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



48a

Q. Where were you then? A. I was on the second land­
ing 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 up the second landing

—74—
of the steps, and they all had their rifles 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 I 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 hut Avait until after told me, you know, 
what it Avas 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 Avas 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 Avas a police officer, he had 
on an overcoat, I say something like a raincoat, tan colored 
coat, and they all said they were going upstairs and check.

—75—
So I Avas still on the steps and no one told me to come 

down or anything like that; but they all came up the steps,

Regina Summers— for Plaintiffs— Direct



49a

and the officer that was in the back of me, he had a rifle 
pointed right at my back, and he went up, I was, he was, 
I was in the front, and he was in the back, and there were 
other officers coming up the steps behind.

Q. You mean he was— A. He was coming up the steps 
with the guns in his hands like that, right at my back, and 
I was frightened at 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 any­
place else where the 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.

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 room and they 
asked where was the light, and the lamp light was not con­
nected. So they asked, one of the officers who was carrying 
a big, I don’t know, a searchlight or what kind of light it

—76—
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 other 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

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



50a

So he said, “Is there a key to this room!”
And I told him yes, but 1 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’
- 7 7 -

name? A. Mr. 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, Mr. 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

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



51a

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 checked under-
—78—

neatli the bed and the two large cupboards in the room, 
and they looked in another corner of the room where my 
husband has his desk there to see if anyone was back there.

Q. What is your husband’s employment? A. My hus­
band 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 actually took these 
big bright lights and shined them in each one of the chil­
dren’s face.

And I asked them not to do it because the children 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 went 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 blinds there were up, and 
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.

—79—
Q. Up and down what? A. The fire escape. We have a 

fire escape that is on the ground and that leads from the

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



52a

ground all the way up to the roof of the house, and 1 
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 wall, 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 bath­
room 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 was she visiting you? A. She was visiting 
us.

The Court: That doesn’t make any difference. 
Let’s get to the point.

Mr. Nabrit: I was trying to establish when the 
husband left the house.

The Court: He was taking his mother home.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Go ahead with your story? A. He asked me what
—80—

my husband looked like; so I 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 T know him,” and he



53a

said also, also his father, which he was talking about his 
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

- 8 1 -
pulling the trigger back or what 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—

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



54a

Q. When was this now? A. This was after all of the 
other officers came off the third floor, and 1 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 1 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
— 82-

know of an Earl Veney. I do know 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?

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct

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, T heard from 
him.



55a

Q. When? A. At Christmas, he sent us a Christmas
- 8 3 -

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.

—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.

# # # # #
—85—

*  *  # # #

Q. Can you—did any officers display a warrant to you or
—86—

tell you his purpose? A. No, they did not.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



56a

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, were the officers in uniform or 

plain-clothes or what? A. Well, there were a few in uni­
forms, blue coats, short blue coats, and blue hats, blue pants.

There were also officers in long coats, looked like rain­
coats but they were not all in uniform.

There were some that had on just jackets, that looked 
like tan, Army hunting jackets, and also 1 think there were 
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 went 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 they were

- 8 7 -
out there at least fifteen or twenty minutes after they 
searched the home.

Mr. Nabrit: Your witness. Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Sause:
Q. What were you doing prior to the time that the police 

came to your home, just right before? A. I was asleep.
Q. You were asleep? A. Yes.
Q. And what happened after that? A. I was awakened 

by a loud noise in the front.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross



Q. And what were those noises? A. Well, the noises 
that I heard was screeching of cars being parked, loud 
noises, and also a voice saying, “This is the place.”

Q. “This is the place,” and you looked out the window? 
A. Then I looked out of the window and the officers hol­
lered 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? A. My cousin opened the
— 88-

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 the 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 you 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.

Q. Well, the sun porch— A. Is on the back.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross

— 89—



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 cor­
rect? 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 indi­
cated that the police officers before they left, they showed 
you some pictures; is that right? A. Yes, they showed me

—90—
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?

58a

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross

4



59a

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 them that you knew a Sam Veney? A.
—91—

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. 1 
said they said that if I seen these two men on this picture 
to get in contact with the police.

Q. Did they tell you who the two men in the picture 
were? A. No, they did not.

Q. Now, this man Veney that you know was lie pictured 
in any of those pictures? A. No, he wasn’t.

Q. Did he ever live at 2416 Eutaw Place? A. Yes, he 
did.

Q. And for how long did he live there? A. Well, I 
couldn’t exactly say for how long he lived there but he has 
been living there for quite a while.

Q. Well, how long have you lived there? A. 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.

—92—
Q. All right. And when did you move back ? A. I moved 

back on, in July of 1963.
Q. So you were away two months? A. Yes.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross



Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross

Q. Now, was Sam Veney there when you left! A. Yes, 
he was, and when I came back he was there.

Q. He was still there! A. Yes, he was.
Q. How long had he been there before you left! A. I 

couldn’t say. I can’t remember how long he was there.
Q. Was it one year, two years, or what! A. No, I 

wouldn’t say it would be that long.
Q. It wasn’t that long! A. No, no.
Q. Now, where did he live in the house! A. Where did 

he live!
Q. Yes. A. He lived at that time on the third floor, mid­

dle room.
Q. Is that where you live! A. No. At that time I was 

living on the third floor front.
Q. Third floor front! A. Yes.

—93—
Q. You and your husband and four children! A. Three 

children.
Q. Three children were living there! A. Yes.
Q. In one room! A. No, it wasn’t exactly one room. It’s 

one, two rooms on the third floor front.
Q. I see. And this Sam Veney lived on the third floor 

also! A. Yes, he did.
Q. And you had the room and he used it ; is that correct! 

A. That is my living room, yes.
Q. Now, when was it that this Sam Veney left your home! 

A. It was in 19G3 going into ’61 because he was home for 
New Year’s.

Q. And you indicated that he worked where! A. He 
worked at Bethlehem & Steel Company, and I can’t say ex­
actly another place he worked also; I can’t remember.

Q. Did he ever work for a plastic company! A. Yes, he 
did.



61a

Q. Did he ever live at 1332 Northmount Street? A. 1 
don’t know whether he did before he moved there.

— 94—
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. Now, 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 work­
ing 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.
—95—

Q. Well, we’re talking about—I’m talking about the other 
end of the trial. When they left, did you say good-by? A. 
No, I was too nervous to say good-by. All I could do was 
to go back.

Q. Did you wish them a Happy New Year ? A. Not 
even a Merry Christmas.

Q. You’re certain of that? A. I’m most certain of that, 
yes.

Q. Now, have you made any complaint to anyone about 
this search?

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross



62a

Mr. Nabrit: I object. Objection, Your Honor.
This is the plaintiff in the case, and there is no 
requirement to exhaust any remedies or require­
ments of a complaint to anybody.

The Court: Well, I think it may go to some pos­
sible 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? A. Mrs. Mitchell and also the lawyer

- 9 6 -
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: 1 would object, Your Honor, rele­

vancy.
The Court: Overruled.
When was the first time you talked to her?

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Cross



63a

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, after

—97—
it happened.

The Court: On the Tuesday after the Sunday it 
happened ?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.

# # * # #

—103—
Thereupon, A rthur 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, approx­
imately about one or one-thirty I was laying in bed listen­
ing to the radio, and so and then all of a sudden all this 
noise, screeching—

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct



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 shot­
guns and submachine guns, and they said, “This is the

—1 0 4 -
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 bot­
toms.

The Court: You said they had pointed a gun at 
you?

The Witness: A shotgun at me.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct



65a

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct

— 105—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, where were you standing at this point? A. As 
I opened the door they shoved me back and they 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, were 
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 or shotguns or submachine guns,

— 106—

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.



6 6 a

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

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 like 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 reception hall, and they hollered again, “Turn on the

—1 0 7 -
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 I 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 two 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



67a

didn’t have a nightgown on, and I was in the kitchen, and 
so the other police told me to come with them that they 
want to search the cellar.

And so I took them down in the cellar, and they asked 
me who lives in there and I said nobody. I said that’s an 
extra spare room we got down there, so I 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 they went through that 
down there, see the washroom and kitchen combined is 
down there, and then they opened the back door, and that’s

—108—
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 still up­
stairs 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!”
I 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 ulcers 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!”

Arthur Rayner— for Plaintiffs—Direct



68a

I said, “ No, I’m on pills,” and he said, “Yon 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 didn’t

—109—
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, 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 of 

V eney!”
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 
my aunt did have a roomer at one time whose name was 
Samuel Veney.

Q. Now, was that, did you know that other, that 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 Jackson­
ville, Florida.

Q. Go ahead. A. And after that they just left out with­
out 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, they just barged in.

— 110—

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.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct



69a

Q. What do you mean! You’re counting those outside 
or what! 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 is 
what? A. About 115 pounds.

— Ill—
Q. What’s the color of your hair? A. Premature grey.
Q. Since this time have you seen pictures in the news­

papers or television of persons that the police were search­
ing 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 con­
siderable 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. Is he a Negro, colored? A. He’s brown-skin, medium 
build. I don’t know, just a sort of happy-go-lucky kid. nice 
to get along with.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Direct



7 0 a

Q. Describe what he looks like, how big is he? A. Oh, 
maybe about a 160, 165 pounds.

Q. How tall is he? A. Maybe about five-eight.
Q. About five-eight? A. Yes, roughly speaking now.

— 112—

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 respect­
able people. It doesn’t matter.

Mr. Nabrit: No further questions.
The Court: It doesn’t matter.

—1 1 3 -
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.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



71a

Q. Have you lived there continuously? A. Continu­
ously, 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 i*ea- 

sons under the circumstances.
The Witness: A bastardy charge because I didn’t 

have to serve time because it was paid. I did twenty-
—1 1 4 -

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 dol­
lars to pay for a window that was broken.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



72a

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

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 over­
night.

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.

—115—
Mr. Nabrit: This was a fine.
Mr. Sause: He asked what the offense was.
The Court: You can ask the witness. I just wanted 

to know what the offense was, because he said some- 
think about “around” or “ a run” 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 bot­
toms, yes, just pants.

Q. Did you have any top? A. No.
Q. No top? A. No.
Q. None at all? A. No.



73a

Q. Did you have any shoes on? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. When the police came in the first thing you say they

—116—
did was, pat you down? A. They shoved the gun in my 
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 guns, like, like, I can tell you that, 
but if you ever had anything like that yourself, I mean, 
you just, the gun just clicks like that.

Mr. Nabrit: If Your Honor will instruct the wit­
ness to be co-operative and not argue with counsel? 

Mr. Sause: Oh, I don’t mind.
The Court: Well, we said we would have the wit­

ness on for a-half-hour or so in order to accommo­
date everybody, and the witness can just answer the 
questions.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. How many officers was it that pushed you against 
the wall? A. No more than about one.

Q. No more than about one? A. 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? A. Between six and nine, roughly.

—117—
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.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



74a

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 my door, which is on the 
other side of the kitchen, and I said, “ Aunt Lizzie, wake

—118-
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, I 
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 Sam Veney who used to live in these premises? 
A. No, I did not because at that time I was showed a pic­
ture, and I forgot, I was so shook up, I was very nervous.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



75a

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 Yeney 
any time, has a Veney anytime lived here, and I said, “ No, 
he didn’t.”

Q. You said no? A. No, I stated that once before.
—119—

The Court: That’s what he said before.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. But you knew, you knew? A. I 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 re­
minded me, I said, “Yes, oh, yes, Sam did live here.”

Q. Well, Samuel lived there for a long time, didn’t 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 mean 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 hap­
pened.

— 120—

Q. Well, you knew why they were there? A. No.
Q. Well, when you found out did you tell them that you

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



76a

knew a Veney ? Did you call them and tell them 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 argu­
ing with the witness.

The Court: Sustained. The Court recognizes that 
both sides are using this case to some extent to pre­
pare 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 discovery proceeding for civil ac­
tions, and there is no use arguing with this witness. 
He has told you the facts that you want to know.

Mr. Sause: Yes, sir.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, did you ever make a complaint about this search 
to anyone? A. Well, the whole family have made com­
plaints at the same time about the people in the house to 
Mrs. Mitchell.

Q. To Mrs. Mitchell? A. Yes.
— 121—

Q. Did you ever make any complaints to the Police De­
partment about it? A. No, I didn’t because I was too busy 
going to the hospital.

Q. You were too busy going to the hospital? A. Yes.
Q. This Sam Veney that you know, when was the last 

time that you saw him? A. The last time he was on leave 
when he came up to see us.

Q. That doesn’t help me very much. When was it? 
When? A. Well, I’d say it was about, I think it was 
around about June, but I’m not sure.



77a

Q. It was in June? A. I say I ’m not sure. I said I think 
it was around June.

Q. And where did you see him? A. He visit the family 
at my aunt’s house where I live.

Q. He visited there? A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did he stay there ? A. No, he did not.

— 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 little 
younger.

Mr. Sause: Or a little younger, so I said he’s 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? A. No.
—123—

Q. You didn’t say good-by or anything? A. They didn’t 
say nothing to me.

Q. But your answer is, simply yes or no, did you say 
good-by to them? A. No, I did not.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Cross



78a

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, my cousin.
Q. That’s Mrs. 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 was 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 Mar­

shal.
—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 ques­

tion 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 dis­
orderly conduct, and you are saying something about

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



79a

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 difference.
Mr. Nabrit: Well, Your Honor, may 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 Balti­
more City police officer who was accused of killing 
a man, and he assisted this officer in exonerating him­
self. That’s the only point of that.

—125—
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 this 

man’s record in the service now in view of the cross- 
examination.

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, Carib­

bean, Great Lakes, Illinois, Norfolk, Virginia, Ports­
mouth, aircraft carrier, U.S.S. Coral Sea, AP 55, 
seaplane tender, and v.p. 49, aircraft squadron, sea­
plane squadron, Bermuda, and Somerset.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



80a

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What kind of discharge!

The Court: Well, you joined the Navy to see the 
world.

—126—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What kind of discharge! A. Honorable.
Q. Honorable! A. Yes.
Q. What is your health situation! A. Well, it’s 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-exam­
ination, 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 for.
Mr. Nabrit: I have another purpose.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. What’s been your health situation since this incident! 

A. Bad.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



81a

Q. Pretty bad. Pretty bad, for example, tell us about it?
—127—

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 these pains 
that 1 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 condition 
since it happened! A. I haven’t been able to eat.

Mr. Sause: Objection.
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 ques­

tion, I don’t have any motivations along that line, 
but I have nothing further. I have no further ques­
tions.

The Court: Just to show the seriousness of it.
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: Of the experiences these people have 

had.
*  # *  # *

—131—
Mr. Nabrit: Mrs. Lucinda Wallace, please.

Arthur Rayner—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



82a

(Thereupon, Lucinda Patricia W allace was called to the <
stand and sworn as a witness and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:)

1
*  *  *  *  *

The Court: Miss or Mrs.!
The Witness: Miss.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Miss Wallace, where do you live! A. I live at 2408 i
Huron Street in the City of Baltimore in an area called 
Mt. Winans.

Q. And who lives in that house with you! A. Well, the 
home is owned by my mother and my father, Mr. Harry 
Wallace, Mrs. Elizabeth Wallace. I have a brother who’s 
three and a half years old, a sister sixteen years old.

Q. What is her name! A. Sharon Wallace. Harrietta 
Wallace is twenty one.

Q. She is your sister! A. Yes. My aunt, my mother’s 
sister, Mrs. Hattie Burley, Mr. Clarence Burley.

—132—
Q. Are you employed and where! A. Yes, 1 am, for the ^

Department of Education in the City of Baltimore as a 
teacher in the Elementary School 116.

The Court: How old are you!
The Witness: Twenty nine and ten months.

<
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you recall the evening of December 30, 1964! A.
Yes, I do.

Q. Describe for us briefly what you did early that eve- t
ning, where you were! A. Well, I was home, T had invited

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct

1



three youngsters, teenagers, who had worked with me in 
my Vacation Bible School to share the Christmas spirit 
with us, and some friends, two friends from the city, Mrs. 
Dorothy Barrick and Mrs. Lorainne Philips were also 
there.

Q. What does Mrs. Barrick do? A. Mrs. Barrick is a 
counselor, guidance counselor at School 130. Mrs Philips 
is a teacher in the City of Baltimore also.

Q. All right, go ahead. Were they at your home that 
evening? A. Yes, they were all there.

Q. And what were you doing? A. My little brother and 
my two sisters, whom 1 have already mentioned, my aunt, 
and my uncle was in bed, we watched Shindig.

—133—
Q. Where was your mother? A. My mother was at 

the shop which is about four doors from the house.
Q. What kind of shop? A. Beauty shop.
Q. And she operates that? A. Yes, she does.
Q. Where was your father? A. Daddy was at the barber 

shop.

The Court: He was where?
The Witness: Barber shop.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. All right, go ahead and describe what you were doing 
that evening? A. Well, 1 had set up some cookies and Coke 
and candies and what not to eat.

Q. Now, what did this group do there that evening? A. 
Well, we watched Shindig. After watching Shindig they 
asked me to show them some slides which I had taken in 
Hawaii during the summer. I had set up the tray which 
holds thirty slides, T had shown thirty slides, T was refilling 
the tray.

Lucinda Patricia II allucc—for Plaintiffs—Direct



84a

Q. About what time was this? A. I think it was about 
nine o’clock, maybe nine fifteen, I ’m not too sure.

—134—
I had refilled the tray and I had shown about two or 

three slides and we talked about them and I saw a light 
flash to and fro across the dining room wall. I thought 
that maybe it was a car coming down the hill because there 
there is a hill that faces an alley that faces our house, 
but it kept moving and Harrietta or someone said, it looks 
like a search light or something. So I jumped up from 
the chair and I pulled back the drapes and looked out of 
the front window.

When I looked out of the window I saw, oh, I don’t know, 
six or seven policemen lined across our front fence with 
rifles, or long guns, whatever they were, pointed towards 
the house and I said, My God, what have we done, what do 
they want with us? And 1 ran to the door, Harrietta ran 
behind me, Sharon was with me, also, I opened the door.

Q. What door was that? A. It was the side door. Wo 
have a side entrance, front entrance and back entrance, 
two back entrances.

I opened the door first, Sharon was standing on the steps 
which are directly facing the side door, Harrietta was 
standing at the rail to my right of the steps, and as I 
opened the door there was a policeman there with a rifle, 
a long gun, in his hand, and he had the storm door open.

So I said, well, what’s wrong, what have we done, what 
do you want? He said, the Wallaces live here? I said,

—135—
Mr. Harry Wallace lives here, that’s my father. So he 
says, is this 2408 Huron Street? And I said, yes, it is. And 
he said, well, move back and I moved back up on the steps 
and he came in and he pushed the door open.

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Q. What steps are these! A. These are the side steps 
going up to the second floor. I moved back up on the steps. 
One policeman came in, behind him came two more and 
they proceeded to the living room.

He said, where are the men in the house, how many men 
in the house, where are they, who are they! So I said, my 
father—I don’t know, I said, I have some young men here. 
So he went to the back room sitting room and then I fol­
lowed him and I tried to name and he said, well, what are 
their names! I tried to name them, I didn’t even see the 
kids, they have all moved from where they had been sit­
ting. They were sitting in the dining room. I couldn’t even 
think of their names.

So then I said, well, what do you want! So he said, well, 
we got a call. I said, what kind of call! He said, we have 
to search the house.

At this time one of the policemen had started up the 
steps and Harrietta said, wait a minute, my father is asleep. 
She thought that daddy was asleep because he has to be 
to work at eleven o’clock and he usually sleeps until ten.

Q. Did you observe anything at the front door! A. 
Well, policemen came in the front door, about three or four

—136—
of them came in the front door.

Q. Did you go anywhere after this point that the po­
lice started the search! A. Well, yes, I did.

Q. What did you do! A. I turned on the hall light and 
I went upstairs and took him into the front bedroom, which 
is my aunt’s bedroom, and my uncle was in bed asleep. So 
he said, who is this! And I said, that is my aunt’s hus­
band. So he pulled the cover back from his face and he 
shined a light in his face and he looked underneath the 
bed.

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Then he said, well—he went through the other room, 
through my room. There is no hallway, one room enters 
into the other room.

The door bulges between my room and the childrens’ 
room because clothes are hanging behind the door. We 
have two closets.

He said, who is behind the door? I said, no one is be­
hind the door, I said, they’re just clothes. So I pushed the 
door back and then I pulled the clothes back and I said, 
see.

And then he went through the childrens’ room and back 
in mother’s room and looked in the closets and under the 
bed and came back through the childrens’ room and looked 
under the bed.

At that time I looked out of the back window, the
—1 3 7 -

childrens’ back window, and I saw policemen, about six or 
seven or eight, I don’t know how many, lined across the 
back fence with rifles pointed toward the house.

While I was in mother’s room I kept asking, well, what 
is wrong, what have we done, what do you want with us? 
And he said—I was sitting on mother’s dresser and he 
said, well, you know the Veney brothers? And I said, no. 
I said, I’ve heard about them on television, on the radio 
and read about them in the newspapers. He said, you don’t 
know them personally? I said, no.

Then he proceeded down the stairs.
Q. Did you have any other conversation with him up­

stairs at that point? A. No, just that this is a big house.
Q. Did you ask him any questions? A. I asked him 

what had been done, what did they want with us.
I asked him what kind of a call they had gotten, he said 

they had gotten this call and I said what kind of call. He

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



87a

said they had gotten this anonymous call that the Veney 
brothers were hiding out in our house, and I said, we don’t, 
you know, even know them.

Q. Go ahead. A. He came down the steps ahead of me 
and got half way down the steps and dropped on the steps.

—138—
Q. Who did? A. I did, I just dropped on the steps, I 

sat.

The Court: I didn’t hear what you said.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Repeat that for the Judge. A. The policeman pre­
ceded me down the steps and I got half way down and I 
just dropped, just fell on the steps.

The Court: Did you faint?
The Witness: No, I just got limp and I just 

dropped down on the steps, that’s all. There was 
so much going on, so much talking and we got words 
here and words there and there was so much confu­
sion and it seemed like so many people in the house, 
so many uniforms and guns, and I don’t know.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. All right, what was the next thing you remember? 
A. The next thing I remember 1 was sitting on the steps, 
I can remember mother coming in the door crying, where 
are my children . . . (Witness crying.)

Mr. Nabrit: If your Honor please.
Mr. Souse: If your Honor please, I would move 

that we strike that answer?

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



88a

The Court: It doesn’t seem to be material to any 
issue in the case but the Court is satisfied that this 
is a distressing experience to all these people and 
there is no use repeating it.

— 139—

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, this is not the answer I 
had anticipated eliciting.

The Court: I think you have offered evidence 
that is a necessary fact.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Are you able to describe what happened after that 
now! A. I know mother was all excited, Harrietta and 
Sharon both ran to her crying, and I ran to her and I tried 
not to cry to calm her, to tell her that everything was all 
right, that we were all right.

Q. Were there any officers there, was there any conver­
sation with them! A. I know there were officers in the 
sitting room and officers in the dining room and we finally 
got—in the living room and the dining room and we finally 
got mother to sit on the sofa in the living room and she 
was still crying and the officers were trying to say that 
everything was all right but she kept crying and they were 
trying to tell her that they had gotten the anonymous call, 
mother was still crying so one of the officers said, well, 
you tell her, he told me, you tell her what happened and 
I told Harrietta, I said, go get mother some smelling salts 
or some ammonia or something so that we can calm her so 
that she doesn’t get too excited and doesn’t get sick. And 
then one of the officers told one of the officers to get some

— 140-

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct

smelling salts.



89a

Q. Now, how many officers did you see in the home? 
A. I know three came in first in the side door and about 
four, I suppose, came in the front door.

Q. Did you learn any of their names? A. One or two 
names were called but I can’t remember any of them. It 
was during the time they were trying to console mother, 
I suppose, and tell her what had happened but I was too 
concerned with mother to even get any names or anything.

Q. Did you have or overhear any further conversation 
with the officers? A. I can’t . . .

Q. Well, what happened at this point? A. Well, mother 
kept crying and the children, the two girls kept crying and 
one of the officers asked me what was my young sister’s 
name, I gave her name, and asked me what Avas Harrietta’s 
name, I gave her name, and he asked for mother’s name, 
I gave her name and all of their ages. He asked me how 
many people lived in the house and I couldn’t even think 
about how many lived there, I just told him—I just started 
counting them off and telling him A\’ho they were, just the 
children, and how old they were. I just told him that the 
children were there and how old the children and how 
many adults Avere in the home.

Q. Now, these people that you mentioned earlier from 
the Bible School, Avho Avere they and Avhat are their ages?

—141—
A. Darlene McCoy, she’s about eighteen or nineteen, I ’m 
not too sure. She graduated from . . .

The Court: Well, that is all right. Hoaa7 many 
were there and hoAV old were they?

The Witness: Clarence Moore, Avho must be about 
seventeen or eighteen.

Lucinda Patricia Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



90a

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. There was a third person, who was that? A. There 
is a third person who is about eighteen or nineteen?

Q. A boy? A. A boy.
Q. Did you go anywhere at this point ? A. Well, mother 

had a customer, she had to see her.
Q. Did you go anywhere? A. 1 went outside on the 

front porch.
Q. What did you observe? A. Police cars, and I don’t 

know how many policemen, I don’t know how many people 
were standing in front of the house, in the yard, coming 
out of the alley facing the house there was a big patrol 
wagon.

Q. How long were the police in the house? A. (No 
response.)

Q. You don’t know? A. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five 
minutes. I couldn’t say.

—167—
* # * # #

(Thereupon, Barbara Floyd was called to the stand and 
sworn as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:)

The Clerk: State your name for the record,
please?

The Witness: Barbara Floyd.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. State your name? A. Barbara Floyd.
Q. And your address? A. 2204 North Rosedale Street.

—168—
Q. Are you employed ? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Where? A. Kriger Drug Store.



91a

The Court: Where!
The Witness: Kriger, K-r-i-g-e-r.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Drug store! A. Yes.
Q. Are you married! A. Yes, I am.
Q. Your husband lives there with you! A. Yes, he does. 
Q. What is his name! A. George Floyd.
Q. What does he do! A. He works at the Maryland 

State Building and also at the Gas and Electric Company. 
Q. Your age! A. Twenty two.
Q. Your husband’s! A. Twenty two.
Q. Now, this address on Rosedale Street, do you own 

that home, are you buying it or what! A. We’re buying.
—169—

Q. Do you recall on Monday, January 4th, a week ago! 
A. Yes.

Q. What did you do that day! A. Well, I got up around 
six thirty and I cooked breakfast for my husband and he 
left.

The Court: A.M. or P.M., morning or evening! 
The Witness: Morning, and fixed my husband 

breakfast so he could go to work and he left around 
seven o’clock A.M., and after that I started cleaning 
the house, then 1 had lunch, I stopped and had lunch, 
and I had to get a few clothes, washing, I did that 
and then I got ready for work.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you leave the house! A. Yes, T left around 2:30, 
maybe close to three.

Q. And what did you do then! A. I went to work.

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



9 2 a

Q. What are your working hours that day? A. My 
working hours are from four to ten.

Q. Your husband has two jobs, what are his working 
hours? A. His one, the main job, the Maryland State 
Building, he works from eight until 4 :30 and he leaves 
there and goes to the Gas and Electric Company and he 
works from five to ten there.

—170—
Q. Every day? A. No, sometimes he gets off around 

nine.
Q. Now, did anything unusual happen to you that eve­

ning or did you hear about? A. Yes.
Q. Strike that.

The Court: What did she notice when she came 
home?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you hear the last witness’ testimony? A. Yes.
Q. What do you know about this of your own personal 

knowledge? A. My husband called me on the job around 
quarter to ten and told me that the house was raided and 
I told him, what for? And he said, I don’t know.

Mr. Souse: I object to what the husband said, 
Your Honor.

Mr. Nabrit: I agree with that.
The Court: Is the husband here ?
Mr. Nabrit: No, he is not, Your Honor.
The Witness: Well, I got off around ten and went 

straight home and when I got there all the lights 
were on and I went upstairs.

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



93a

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Was your husband at home! A. Yes, he was, and I
—171—

went upstairs, the cupboard doors were open, everything 
was open, the closet doors, they were open, everything was 
intact though, but just the doors were open.

The Court: You will have to speak up. Some of 
the doors were open, that is the last I got.

The Witness: All my closet doors were open and 
everything was intact.

The Court: Everything was in what?
Mr. Nabrit: Intact.
The Court: Intact, everything was intact.
The Witness: And I went downstairs and I heard 

the dog whining and I asked my husband, what in the 
world was the dog doing in the kitchen.

Mr. Murphy: I object to what the husband is go­
ing to tell her.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What did you see in the kitchen. A. The kitchen was 
in a holy mess, the dog was there having a ball and I went 
to the kitchen door, one of my window panes were knocked 
out next to the latch.

Q. Describe what this door looked like? A. It’s a white 
door with four window panes in it, sections, four window 
panes in it, one of the window panes were out.

—172—
Q. Which one? A. The one next to the latch.
Q. What do you mean, the door knob? A. Yes.
Q. Now, where does this door lead, from where to where? 

A. It leads to the yard.



9 4 a

Q. From where ? A. From the kitchen into the yard.
Q. When you left the house what was the condition of 

that door? A. It was all right, it was locked when 1 left 
the house. Everything was all right when I left the house.

Q. When you left the house where was your dog? A. 
He was in the basement.

Q. How was he kept in the basement? A. Well, usually 
when I leave usually he’s in the yard but when I leave I put 
him in the basement because we had some trouble.

Q. Do you do this every day when you go to work, you 
do that regularly? A. Yes, I do.

Q. And is the dog able to come from the basement to 
the kitchen? A. No, he isn’t.

Q. What stops him? A. A door. The cellar door is in
—173—

the kitchen, I mean the dining room. You go down to the 
cellar through the dining room and we have a small nar­
row cellar door that we keep shut when he’s down there.

Q. And where did you find the dog? A. In the kitchen.
Q. Did you find any evidence of anything the dog had 

done in the kitchen? A. Yes, he had knocked trash all 
over the floor and pulled dish towels down and just ripped 
them up in little pieces.

Q. What about your cellar door? A. My cellar door 
was wide open but my kitchen door was closed to keep 
him in there.

Q. How do you lock the door that leads from the kitchen 
to the yard? A. We have a latch on there, one of those 
latches you pull, you know. We don’t have the key latch, 
it’s just one of those little regular latches that you have 
to lock the door.

Q. And was that when you observed it that even open?

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



9 5 a

The Court: Well, now, her husband was in there. 
Mr. Nabrit: Very well, Your Honor.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you or your husband, to your own knowledge, 
have any contact with the authorities after this! A. No.

—174—
My husband called his lawyer.

Mr. Murphy: 1 object to that.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Don’t give any conversations. What is the lawyer’s 
name! A. Mr. Cohen. I don’t know the first name.

Mr. Nabrit: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Souse:

Q. Mrs. Floyd, when you got home from work your hus­
band was already home! A. Yes, he was.

Q. Now, this pane of glass, you said the pane of glass 
was out in the door next to the latch, is that right! A. 
Yes.

Q. And there is a window divided up into four panes! 
A. Right.

Q. And one of those panes was completely missing, 
wasn’t it! A. Yes.

Q. It wasn’t just a hole in it, it was not there at all! A. 
There was just a little piece left in there, a little small 
piece up at the top that was left.

Q. A small piece left up at the top! A. Yes.
—175—

Q. Now, everything was still there when you got home!

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



9 6 a

A. Everything was still there, the trash and everything 
when I got home was still there.

Q. You cleaned the glass off the back porch then, did 
you? A. Yes, I did, I cleaned everything.

Q. Pardon me. A. I cleaned everything.
Q. And you had to clean glass from the back porch? A. 

Yes.

The Court: Where was the glass?
The Witness: The glass was partially in the door 

where the storm screen door was. We have a storm 
screen door there also and there was some glass in 
that, you know, where the screen door is and the 
regular door. And there was glass on the—pieces 
was on the back porch also, the back porch. We 
have a little cement porch there.

The Court: None on the kitchen door?
The Witness: My kitchen floor, there was some 

pieces, just pieces of fragments inside but most of it 
was inside under the door like, you know, and the 
dog had spread some of it on the floor, around on the 
floor.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Most of the glass you say though was in between the 
storm door and the back door? A. Yes.

—176—
Mr. Souse: I see.
I have no further questions. Thank you.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, in view of the ruling of 

the question made to the last witness, I could not try 
to anticipate the questions asked, I did not ask this 
witness to describe her husband. However, I reason

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiff s—Cross



97a

to think I know why the police went to this house 
and I would like to ask this witness to describe her 
husband.

The Court: All right.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Would you describe your husband? A. My husband 
is robust built, he’s 5'7"—he’s about b'S1//' or 5'9", kind of 
dark complexion, he has a mustache, that’s about all.

Q. And you gave his age before as what? A. Twenty 
two.

The Court: Twenty two is that?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs— Redirect—Recross

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Skin complexion? A. Dark. It’s kind of a dark com­
plexion.

Mr. Nabrit: That is all, Your Honor.
Mr. Souse: Just one or two other questions.

—177—
Recross Examination by Mr. Souse:

Q. Your husband whom you have just described, to your 
knowledge has he ever been arrested or convicted of any 
crime ?

Mr. Nabrit: Objection.
The Court: Overruled. You are talking about 

probable cause for going somewhere.
The Witness: Yes, I remember of last year he 

was arrested I think for disorderly conduct.



98a

Barbara Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Disorderly conduct. Is that the only one that you 
remember? A. That’s the only one that I remember.

Q. This incident with regard to the back door, did you 
report that to your insurance company? A. No, I didn’t. 

Q. I see.

The Court: Do you have any insurance that covers 
that?

The Witness: You mean covers the house?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes.
Mr. Souse: No further questions.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

—178—
Q. Did you receive any advice from your attorney with 

respect to the door? A. Yes, he told my husband that he 
couldn’t do anything.

Mr. Souse: Well, now I object to what he told the 
husband.

The Court: You are asking her if they filed any 
claim against the insurance company and if it was 
done on advice of counsel, if she knows.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, you got advice? A. Yes, he told him that lie 
should take the damage to the police station and have them 
pay for it.

Q. Have you done that? A. No. My husband put the 
window in himself.

*  #  *  #  *



99a

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs-—Direct

—191—
* * # # *

The Court: I)o you Avant to call another witness!
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honor.
George Floyd.
The Court: Do you want to put that stipulation in?
Mr. Dearing: Yes, Your Honor.
If it please the Court, at this time I would like to 

enter this stipulation:
It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel 

for the respective parties in the above-entitled cause 
that no search warrants were secured in the Munici­
pal Court of Baltimore City in connection with the 
search of any home or premises in an attempt to ap­
prehend, capture or bring to justice the Veney 
brothers.

Mr. Nabrit: I think the stipulation should be, “ or 
any other court.”

Mr. Murphy: We will so stipulate that after in­
vestigation if that is found to be true.

Mr. Dearing: Thank you.
Mr. Nabrit: Mr. George Floyd.

(Thereupon, George J. F loyd Avas called to the stand and
—192—

sworn as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, Avas 
examined and testified as follows:)

The Clerk: Please state your name for the record? 
The Witness: George Joseph Floyd.
The Court: He said that no search Avarrant Avas 

either sought or obtained?
Mr. Murphy: I think secured Avas the language.



1 0 0 a

Mr. Dearing: Secured. We are subject to correct 
later, Your Honor.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mr. Floyd, state your home address? A. I live at 
2204 Rosedale Street.

Q. And your occupation, where do you work? A. Well, 
I work for the Gas and Electric Company and 1 work for 
the State Office Building as a cook.

Q. And you have just come from there, is that true? A. 
I just come from there.

Q. What is your wife’s name, Mr. Floyd? A. Barbara 
Floyd.

Q. How old are you, sir? A. Twenty live.
Q. Now, on January 4, 1965, what time did you get up 

in the morning? A. Oh, I got up around six thirty.
—193—

Q. And what did you do? A. I got up, washed up and 
went to work around seven o’clock.

Q. You left the house around seven o’clock? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Was anybody home when you left? A. My wife was 
there.

Q. What did you do all day? A. Well, I worked all day. 
Q. Well, during the day where did you work? A. I 

worked at the State Office Building, I left one job and went 
to my other.

Q. What time did you leave the Staet Office Building? 
A. Oh, around quarter to six.

Q. And you went to the other job? A. That’s right.
Q. What period of time were you at your other job? A. 

Oh. I was there around 6:15, 6:20, something like that.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Q. Until when? A. I couldn’t tell you exact. Until 
about nine o’clock, maybe 8:30 nine o’clock.

Q. What did you do when you left there! A. Well, I 
went on—

Q. Where did you go? A. After I left work I went to
—194—

ma’s house on McKean Avenue, 1100 block, 1 stayed there 
for a short while, couldn’t tell you how long, and right after 
I left there I went home, caught a cab and went home.

Q. Caught a taxi cab and went home ? A. That’s right.
Q. About what time did you get home ? A. I ’m not sure 

but I think it was around ten o’clock.
Q. When you got out of the cab did you look at your 

house? A. Yes, the front light was on.
Q. Where is that light? A. That is the porch light 

which I usually keep it off.
Q. What else did you observe? Describe to the Court in 

your own words what you observed when you went into 
the house? A. The porch light was on, the vestibule door 
was shut but the main door was open, the side of the door 
was the first thing I saw as I walked in the house, that was 
open, the kitchen light was on, the cellar door was open, the 
cellar light was on and my dog was in the kitchen which 
had turned over everything, some trash, and the back door 
window was broke and that was—and the upstairs light was 
on. So, as soon as I saw this I went next door.

Q. Let’s go back a minute.
Describe what your front door—how many doors in

- 1 9 5 -
front? A. I have a storm door.

The Court: He said his vestibule door was shut 
and the main door was open. I think that is clear.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 0 2 a

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Which of the doors is the one that has the lock on it? 
A. Well, the main door. There’s three doors there count­
ing the storm door.

Q. How many of them have locks? A. The main door, 
just the one. The other ones just have a knob.

The Court: And that is the one that was left open?
The Witness : That’s right.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. What kind of dog is that? A. German Shepherd, 

police dog.
Q. How old is he? A. About eight months.
Q. What else upstairs, did you notice anything? A. 

Well, lights, the lights is the main thing, there wasn’t 
nothing broken, nothing like that, but I knew someone had 
been there. There wasn’t anything missing.

I talked to the lady next door and she told me what hap­
pened.

— 196—
Q. Now, did you subsequently get in touch with the po­

lice? A. Yes, I did.
Q. When was this? A. That same night.
Q. What, if anything, did the police tell you? A. Well, 

I had a time getting them, they connected me to Central 
and from Central to somewhere else and it seemed like 
each one would connect me with someone else and anyway 
I got to the last officer, he told me they were there and 
they had to take action to what was, I mean, as far as the 
Veneys were concerned because they—well, he put it this 
way, they would be wasting the taxpayers’ money to wait



George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross

on the outside of the house for the Veneys and watch how 
much money they spend so they had no other choice than 
to go into the house.

Q. And how long after you got home did your wife come 
home? A. Well, she came home immediately after I called 
her.

Q. About how much time elapsed? A. Oh, I think maybe 
twenty minutes or less.

Q. Did you do anything in the house by way of straight­
ening it out between the time you got there and the time 
your wife got there? A. No. Shut the doors, the closet 
doors. When she got there we cleaned the kitchen. Well,

— 197-

see, when my dog came up I guess he probably ran straight 
to the kitchen because there’s a door between the dining 
room and the kitchen, my dog was in there, he messed the 
kitchen up and we cleaned that up together.

Mr. Nabrit: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Souse:

Q. Mr. Floyd, you say you are twenty five, your wife 
testified you were twenty two, but your proper age is 
twenty five, is that correct? A. That’s right.

Q. Have you ever been convicted of any crimes? A. No.
I have been on a disorderly conduct but I haven’t served 
any time.

Q. Now, when you got home you said the porch light was 
on? A. The porch light was on. The cellar light, too, and 
a couple others.

Q. Who had left the house first, you or your wife? A.
I was.

Q. You left first? A. I was there first.
Q. Well, who left the house first?



The Court: He said he left at seven o’clock in the 
morning and his wife said she left in the afternoon.

— 198—

The Witness: I left first.

By Mr. Souse:
Q. You don’t know whether your wife left the light on 

or not, do you! A. She don’t have any reason to turn the 
porch light on.

Q. But you don’t know whether she turned it on or not? 
A. Well, I don’t know but I don’t believe she did.

Q. Now, when you called up the police what officer did 
you speak to? A. I don’t know. All I know is they con­
nected me from one officer to then another, from Central 
District to another district. All I know I wind up with one 
officer and I know what he told me and that was it.

Q. You didn’t ask him his name? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. All these officers you talked to they all answered by 

giving their name, didn’t they? A. Well, I told them my 
house had been raided and I was supposed to call about it. 
So the first thing one would do they connected me—I called 
at Central.

Q. Mr. Floyd, that is all very nice but didn’t this officer 
answer the phone by giving his name? A. He gave his 
name but I couldn’t tell you what the name was, that’s all.

— 199—

Q. Did he tell you what precinct he was in? A. I think 
he did.

Q. What precinct was it? A. I couldn’t tell you.
Q. When was this?

Mr. Nabrit: When was what?
Mr. Souse: When was it he had the conversation.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



105a

The Witness: It was right after I found my house 
the way I did, the same night.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. The same night, what time? A. About ten minutes 
after I got through talking to—a little bit more than that, 
I ’d say about ten or fifteen minutes after 1 got through 
talking to the lady next door.

Q. Well, I’ll ask you again, what time was it? A. I don’t 
remember the time.

Q. You don’t remember the time? A. I don’t remember.

The Court: Can you say about?
The Witness: Oh, maybe a little after ten maybe.
The Court: You said you got home around ten, is 

that right.
The Witness: Something like that.
The Court: Well, how long after you got home?
The Witness: Well, after I got home I stayed to

— 200—

my house around five or six minutes before I went 
next door to the lady and I talked to her.

The Court: And then you called the police before 
or after you called your wife?

The Witness: I talked to the lady next door and 
she told me what had happened, she told me the po­
lice told me to call them, which I did. I called my 
wife first.

The Court: You called the police before your wife 
got home?

The Witness: I called my wife first and then I 
called the police.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



The Court: Did you call the police before your 
wife got home or after she got home?

The Witness: No, I called before she home.
The Court: All right. I think that will give you 

a closer time.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, you say your wife wasn’t home when you called 
the police? A. No, my wife wasn’t home.

Q. When your wife got home did you tell her what the 
police said? A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what, if any, comment did she have about that? 
A. Well, she didn’t think the whole thing was right, she

— 201—

didn’t agree with it.
Q. But you did tell her that you talked to the police, is 

that right? A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you at any time after that contact anybody else 

with reference to this episode? A. Yes, I called my lawyer 
up and talked with him.

Q. And what is his name? A. Robert R. Cohen.
Q. Robert R. Cohen? A. That’s right, C-o-h-e-n.
Q. When was it you called him? A. The same night 

after I called the police.
Q. Was your wife there when you called him? A. No, 

she wasn’t.
Q. That was before she got home, too, wasn’t it? A. 

That’s right.
Q. Now, who was it who cleaned up—was there any 

glass there, was there any glass left in the door? A. There 
was glass on the outside of the door, maybe a couple pieces 
on the inside.

Q. But there was more on the outside? A. That’s right.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



107a

Q. Was there any glass in the frame? A. Yes, it was, 
a couple pieces, small pieces.

—202—
Q. Where was this glass that was on the outside, was it 

on the back porch or between the storm door? A. It was 
on the porch and between the storm door.

Q. Now, you said you talked to the lady next door, what 
was her name? A. I forget her name.

Q. Your next-door neighbor? A. That’s right, just 
moved up there.

Q. Where does she live, what is her address? A. 2203.
Q. 2203. Is that right next door or a couple doors away?

The Court: What is your number?
The Witness: 2202, 2202.
The Court: Which is your number?
The Witness: Mine is 2204 so hers is probably

2202.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. When you talked to her did you talk to her husband, 
too? A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did Mrs. Alston tell you? Was it Mrs. Alston? 
A. Yes.

Q. You are sure that was her name? A. That’s right.
—203—

Q. What did she tell you? A. She told me she heard a 
noise in the yard, she went to the front—let’s see, she went 
to the front, she saw a man getting out of the car, cranking 
up something, which was a shotgun or rifle, and she saw 
these cars and trucks all around the house, and then they 
went in my house.

Q. She told you they went in the house? A. Yes, she did.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



108a

Q. She told you she saw them go in the house? A. Yes, 
and they also went in her house, six of them, about six.

Q. I am particularly interested in what she told you. 
A. That’s what she told me.

Q. Now, you said that she told you that the police went 
in your house? A. That’s right.

Q. And she told you she saw them, is that right? A. 
That’s right,

Q. Did she tell you how they got into your house? A. 
No, she didn’t. All she told me was she heard a noise, they 
went up on the front, they went in the back, she told me 
they went in the back, too, which they did because my gate 
was down. The back and the front, they were all around 
the house.

Q. Well, did she tell you whether they went in the front
—2 0 4 -

door or the back door? A. No, she didn’t tell me which 
way they went in first but she told me they went in.

Q. Did she tell you the way they went in second? A. 
All I know is she told me they were at the front and they 
were at the back.

Q. She told you they were at the back! A. They were 
at both places.

Q. And she told you she saw them at the back?

Mr. Nabrit: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: This is cross examination. The wit­

ness has testified that he first said they went in the 
house and then on further questioning he said she 
saw them go in and he said both the second time. 
I think he can go on with cross examination for a 
reasonable length of time, I hope.

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



1 0 9 a

George J. Floyd—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, she said she saw them in the back of the house! 
A. At the front and at the back.

Q. I am talking about the back now, she told you she 
saw them at the back! A. That’s right.

Q. Are you certain of that! A. Huh!
Q. Are you sure she told you that! A. I think she did, 

she told me a lot.
Q. What else did she tell you? A. She told me about

— 205—

the police came up in her house and they just barges in, 
they asked who lived there, they showed a couple photos 
of the Veney brothers and a few other things which I didn’t 
pay too much attention to. I wanted to find out what was 
what.

Q. Do you know the Veney brothers? A. No, I don’t 
know nothing about them. I wouldn’t know them if I seen 
them.

Q. This police officer who you said you talked to but 
whose name you can’t remember, did he tell you whether 
or not he had been to your house? A. Yes, he told me they 
were there.

Q. I didn’t ask you about they, I asked you about, did 
he tell you he was there? A. No, he didn’t say he was 
there ?

Q. This dog that you say is about eight months old, 
where did you keep him? A. I keep him in the cellar? 

* * * * *
— 207—

* * * * *
Mr. Nabrit: Mrs. Rita Miles, please.



4

(Thereupon, R it a  Miles was called to the stand and *

sworn as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was 
examined and testified as follows:)

4
The Clerk: State your name for the record,

please?
The Witness: Mrs. Rita Miles.
The Clerk: Mrs. Rita Miles, take the stand, please.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. State your address, please? A. 1140 Shields Place. (?)
Q. Who do you live there with? A. Myself and five 

children.
—208—

Q. Are you employed? A. Yes.
Q. Where do you work? A. I work at the Womens 

Hospital.
Q. Now, do you remember last New Year’s Eve, Decem­

ber 31, 1964? A. Yes, I do. ,
Q. Where were you that day? A. I was at home.
Q. Did something unusual happen? A. Yes.
Q. What time? A. Just about 12:45. I was sitting in 

my kitchen, me and a girl friend across the street, she lives 
across the street from me, we were sitting in the kitchen 
talking.

Q. Go slowly.
What is her name? A. Johnson.
Q. What happened? A. We were sitting in my kitchen 

talking and first I had been across to her house and then 
I left her house and came over to my house and we were 
sitting in the kitchen talking.

So about quarter to one I heard banging on my door 
and I jumped up out of the seat to the door to see what

1 1 0 a

Rita Miles—for Plaintiffs—Direct



I l i a

it was. I opened my door and there was police out there
— 209—

on the steps they said, Police, open up. I said, what’s 
going on.

So the police just came on in and they went on through 
and when the other officer came in . . .

Q. How many officers came in? A. I don’t know, it 
was so many. It was seven or eight, I guess.

Q. And did they say anything to you? A. The ones that 
came in with the guns, they didn’t say anything, they kept 
going through the house. A colored officer came in and 
he told me to stand on the side and I have a chair at my 
window . . .

Q. I m sorry, I couldn’t hear you. A. I have a chair 
sitting at my window in the living room and he told me 
to stand there.

I asked him what was going on and he said they had a 
tip from one of my neighbors that the Veney brothers was 
at my house. I said I didn’t know anything about the 
Veney bi others and he said, you have a daughter named 
Tina ? I said I have a daughter and her name is Theresa,
I said, she’s only fifteen years old.

He said, we have a tip from one of your neighbors that 
your daughter was going with one of the Veney brothers.
I said, my daughter don’t know anything about any Veney 
brothers, I never heard of them before. So he said, well, 
we got a tip and we have to search the house.

—210—
So in the meantime I told him my sons was upstairs. 

They \\ ent on up he told me to stand where I was at in 
the living room, so I stayed there.

Q. While this conversation was going on what were the 
other policemen doing? A. They were going all through

Rita Miles—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 1 2 a

Rita Miles—for Plaintiffs—Direct

the house and my girl friend, she got up from the kitchen 
and came in the front room. She said to the officers there 
was somebody around there that didn’t like us.

The Court: She said what?
(The answer was read by the reporter.)
The Court: The girl friend said that somebody 

down there . . .
Mr. Nabrit: Around there.
The Witness: In the neighborhood, that called the 

police.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now, tell me what the officers were doing, what rooms 

did they go into? A. I remained in the living room, they 
went through the house. My two sons, oldest sons was up­
stairs in bed, my youngest son was in the back room. So 
they went upstairs and my . . .

Q. Did you go upstairs at all? A. No, I didn’t go up. 
They told me to stand where I was.

— 211—

Q. How many floors to the house? A. It’s only a two- 
story house.

Q. Do you have a basement or cellar? A. Yes, I have 
a cellar.

Q. Did the officers go there that you know? A. Huh?
Q. Do you know whether or not the officers went there? 

A. They went in the cellar also after they went upstairs. 
They came down and went in the cellar. I told them I had 
a switch on the side of the wall so they could turn it on 
to go down.



113a

Q. Light switch ! A. Yes.
Q. Did yon observe the officers do anything else? What 

else happened, in other words? A. Well, they went up­
stairs—-after they went upstairs, my sons were in bed and 
they came down, my sons, they came down, this officer he 
asked me my name, the one that stood in the front room 
with me.

Q. After they searched they asked you your name? A. 
No, just this one, the other ones didn’t say anything to me.

Q. Go ahead. A. He asked me my name, I told him,
— 212—

Rita Miles and he wrote that down. He asked me who lived 
there and I told him the children and myself. And he 
asked me where I worked and I told him.

And he asked me if my son had a black leather coat he 
asked me whose coat was that hanging in there and I said 
it was my son’s coat.

So I said to him I couldn’t imagine somebody doing 
anything as dirty as that to me and he said, well, that 
happens in every neighborhood, you know, somebody may 
not like you.

Q. Was your daughter—Theresa is her name? A. Yes. 
We call her Toni.

Q. Does she go to school? A. Yes.
Q. Where? A. She goes to 130.
Q. What grade? A. She’s in the 9th grade.
Q. What happened after that, how long did they stay? 

A. They stayed about twenty five minutes.
Q. Well, describe what happened? Did anything else 

happen? A. After they went in the cellar they came back 
up and showed me two pictures of the brothers and I told 
him I never seen them before.

Rita Miles—for Plaintiffs—Direct



114a

So they got ready and they left and the officer told me
—21.3—

I had a nice place and told me to keep my doors locked 
and I told him I will.

So after they went off, after they left I went to the door 
and all these police cars and big police trucks was out there 
and there was a lot of people out there looking. So I closed 
the door and went back in the house.

Q. Now, your friend from across the street, was she in 
the house with you all this time! A. Yes.

Q. All the time the police were there she was there! A. 
She was there.

Mr. Nabrit: Your witness.
Mr. Souse: One moment, please, Your Honor.
No questions. Thank you.
Mr. Nabrit: All right, you may step down.

(Witness excused.)

Mr. Nabrit: Mrs. Maggie Shepperd, please.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct

(Thereupon, Maggie Shepperd was called to the stand as 
a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:)

The Clerk: State your name for the record!
The Witness: Maggie Shepperd.
The Clerk: Take the stand, please, Mrs. Shepperd.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
—214—

Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Shepperd! A. 2003 North 
Monroe Street.

Q. How long have you lived there! A. Eighteen years.



1 1 5 a

Q. Who lives there with you? A. My grandson.
Q. What is his name? A. Roscoe Cooper.
Q. And his age, how old is he? A. Forty six.
Q. And how old are you, Mrs. Shepperd? A. Seventy 

two.
Q. How long have you lived in Baltimore? A. Over 

fifty years.
Q. Now, Mrs. Shepperd, what is the situation with your 

grandson? A. What?
Q. Tell us about your grandson. A. My grandson is 

a sick veteran.

Mr. Souse: Is what? I am sorry, I didn’t hear 
that.

The Court: Is a sick veteran.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What is wrong with him ? A. Mental.
—215—

Q. Mental? A. Yes.
Q. You mean he was in the war? A. Yes.
Q. When was that? A. In ’44.
Q. Do you get a—who supports him moneywise? A. 

The Veterans. He asked them.
Q. Do you get money from them? A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember what happened on Wednesday, the 

6th of January this year? A. This year, yes.
Q. Do you remember that Wednesday? A. Yes.
Q. Start in the morning and tell us what you did that 

day? A. Well, I went down to the Veterans and got down 
there about nine o’clock, then we got . . .

Q. Was anybody with you? A. Yes.
Q. Who was that? A. Miss Florence Snowden.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs■—Direct



116a

(̂ . Where did the two of you go? A. Where did I go?
Q. Where did you and Miss Snowden go then? A. Went

—216—
to the V.A., to the Veterans.

Q. What time did you leave the V.A.? A. Well, I guess 
we might have left there about, I guess about half past 
ten or maybe a little bit later because when I got home it 
was half past eleven. We come right out and got a cab 
and when I got back to 2003 North Monroe it was half past 
eleven.

Q. Now, who was in the taxi cab? A. Nobody but me 
and Miss Snowden, Florence Snowden.

Q. Where did the cab go first? A. Huh?
Q. Where did the cab go first? A. Where did he go 

first?
Q. Yes. A. Went to her house first, went to 1913 Druid 

Hill Avenue first, then he took me from Druid Hill Avenue 
to 2003 North Monroe Street. I guess that’s about half 
past eleven when he got me home and about twenty minutes 
to twelve a bell rung and I was in the kitchen cooking- 
chicken, and I was a little long getting to the door and a 
bam come on the door. And when I went to the door there 
was four police in uniform and a plainclothesman with a 
light coat on, and when I opened the door I said, what’s 
the matter, have you got a warrant? He pushed me against 
the wall and walked on in and walked on back.

Well, when I went back to the dining room and looked
—217—

again he had my grandson, one police on one arm and the 
other on the other arm taking him out without no hat and 
no coat and I said, don’t you take my boy out there without 
a coat and hat on. Well, they did give him time to get his

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



117a

hat and coat and I said—he said, you get ready and go, I ’m 
going to lock you up. And I said, what have I done for you 
to lock me up? He said, I ’ll tell you when you get over 
there where I ’m taking you, and then he give me time 
to get my hat and coat on and I said, can I use my tele­
phone? No, he said, you can’t use no telephone here.

Q. Who was this you were talking to? A. That plain- 
clothesman with the long, light coat on. Whoever he was. 
I don’t know who he was.

Q. What color was the coat? A. Light coat, and these 
police come in and they had their rifles with them, had 
their rifles pointed just like that (Indicating), four of them. 
The plainclothesman, he didn’t have any, he didn’t have 
any rifle, but the other four had them.

And then they took me out, I seen my neighbor on the 
other side of me and I told her to please to get word to 
Miss Florence Snowden to come up, they were locking me 
up.

And then when I got out there I asked to use the phone 
and they wouldn’t leave me use it.

Q. Now, wait a minute. When you left your house how
—218—

did you go, did you go in a car? A. Yes, in a radio car.
Q. Who was in the car? A. Another police and the 

gentleman that was driving, whoever he wras, and he said 
to me, if you didn’t lie so much, he said, you wouldn’t have 
to go out here. I said, lie about what, what have I done?, 
I said, and he took me on out there and took me up to the 
rail there somewhere and some man Avas asking me . . .

The Court: Did they take the grandson, too ?
The Witness: My grandson, they took him, too.
The Court: In the same car?

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



118a

The Witness: In the same car.
The Court: You didn’t mention that he was in the 

car?
The Witness: In the same car.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, they took you to the police station? A. They 
took me to the police station.

Q. When you went into the door of the police station, 
what happened first? A. Well, they was questioning my 
grandson and I said don’t question him, I said, because he’s 
not able to answer for himself, question me and I ’ll tell 
you all about him.

Q. What were the questions? A. They asked his age
—219—

and where he lived and who was taking care of him and 
that is about all they asked him. Then they searched him 
there, took off his belt and his tie pin, took that off and 
then they took him back and when they took him back I 
said, don’t hurt that boy because he’s a sick veteran, I said 
to them.

Then they commenced on me, asked me my name, where 
I lived, how long I been in Baltimore, on like that.

Then they took me back and locked me up in a cell and 
wouldn’t even let me take my pocketbook in there with 
me. Said they’d put it in the hall and nobody is going 
to take it, see, and then they took me from there—

Q. Do you know where Roscoe was at this time? A. 
He’s locked up, Roscoe was already locked up in some place 
back there. Then someone told me to go in this room, 
some room back there, then I asked to use the phone there. 
They had two phones and the police say they was looking

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 1 9 a

for a long call or something. Then another tall police 
come in—

Q. Did they allow you to use the telephone? A. No, 
they wouldn’t leave me use it. Then another police come 
in and said, mom, I didn’t bring you up here to hurt you, 
I brought you up here to ask some information. I said, 
information about what? I said, I ain’t got no informa­
tion, I don’t know anything about even what I’m locked up 
about.

Then I heard him say, he told this other police, two police
—220—

to go down and get Miss Snowden and bring her here but 
don’t go by yourself, he said to her, and that’s all he said 
to her.

Q. Who is Miss Snowden. A. Miss Florence Snowden. 
Q. How old is she, do you know? A. Huh?
Q. Do you know about how old Miss Snowden is? A. 

No, I don’t know. I don’t know how old Florence is. I 
don’t know, I don’t exactly know.

The Court: Do you know how old she is?
Mr. Nabrit: Miss Snowden is seventy odd years 

herself.
The Court: Is she the one who went down—
Mr. Nabrit: She’s the one who went to the V.A. 
The Court: She is the one who went down to the 

V.A.
Mr. Souse: Your Honor, I think this is very im­

portant and I think they ought to put all their wit­
nesses on.

The Court: She heard that, Miss Snowden wasn’t 
there. She is the one that can testify to that.

Mr. Souse: Just so we get them all, sir.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 2 0 a

The Witness: And they went out and left all my 
lights on in the house until nine o’clock that night. 
The neighbors couldn’t get in, they couldn’t even 
turn my lights off.

— 221—

And they went in every room in my house, he 
even tore my front room bed all to pieces, took the 
spread off and everything, and looked underneath 
the bed and everything like that and left my lights 
on until nine o’clock that night.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. They searched while you were still back at the house f 
A. That’s right.

Q. Did you see the officers go in different rooms in 
your house! A. Huh!

Q. When they first came in did you see where they went 
in your house! A. The plainclothesman went on back to 
the kitchen, they commenced in the kitchen and went on 
upstairs. Then he come downstairs and went on in the 
cellar and tore that cellar all to pieces, all to pieces.

Q. What do you mean by that! A. I mean he went in 
everything, took everything out, the papers and every­
thing and throwed them down on the floor, out of the 
cupboards, papers out of the cupboards, I suppose they 
was, I don’t know how they got out there.

Q. Now, when you were down at the police station and 
the officers said—you said one officer sent another officer 
to go get Miss Snowden! A. That’s right.

— 222—

Q. What happened after that! A. After Miss Snowden, 
he didn’t say anything more after Miss Snowden came.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 2 1 a

Q. No, no, after they sent for her? A. He asked mo 
what went on, what conversation was in the taxi. I said, 
what conversation, I said, we was talking about the busi­
ness that went on when I went down to the Veterans about 
my boy’s allotment.

The Court: About your boy’s what?
Mr. Nabrit: Allotment.
The Court: Allotment.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Why had you and Miss Snowden gone to the V.A.? 
A. She went there with me to tend to some business about 
the allotment.

Q. What were you trying to do? A. Yes.
Q. What were you trying to do? A. About money for 

my boy.
Q. Now, you told the officer—what did the officer say? 

You said he was questioning you, what did he ask you 
and what did you say? A. He asked me what conversa­
tion did you use coming up in the cab? I said, I didn’t 
know any conversation more than she was talking about 
my good boy. I said, I didn’t know any conversation we

—223—
had talked about.

Q. What else did he ask you, the policeman ask you? A. 
Up to the jail?

Q. Yes. A. Wherever it was. He didn’t ask me any­
thing else then. They he went out and said to Miss Snow­
den, and Mrs. Mitchell was out there, and said I had some 
friends out there, and that’s about all he said to me out 
there.



1 2 2 a

Q. Did he any anything to you about the Veney brothers? 
A. About what?

Q. The Veney brothers. A. No, he never said nothing 
to me about no Veney brothers.

Q. Did the policeman— A. He didn’t say nothing to me 
about no Veney brothers.

Q. Did he ask you whether or not you were talking about 
police or police being killed in the taxi? A. He asked me 
what was we talking about in the taxi.

Q. What did you tell him ? A. I told him we was talking 
about the business that went on in the Veterans, that’s 
what I told him, and it has never mentioned the Veney 
brothers or whatever their names are. And Miss Snowden 
or me never mentioned any names either.

Q. Do you know anything about it? A. I don’t know a 
thing about them. I wouldn’t know them if I fell over

—224—
them. I don’t know a thing about them.

Q. All right, what happened after the policeman told 
you that Mrs. Mitchell and Miss Snowden were there? A. 
Well, then he come and let me out, let me out and come on 
out in the hall.

Q. Did he tell you you could go? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know of anything else the policeman said to 

you? A. I can’t think of anything else he said to me.
Q. How did you leave there? A. We left—Mrs. Mitch­

ell and them brought me home.
Q. How long were you at the jail, at the station? A. 

Well, I guess I got up there about—I guess it was a little 
after twelve when I got up there, I guess, and it was after 
two before I left there, I ’m sure.

Q. Have you ever been arrested before? A. No.

Maggie Sheppercl—for Plaintiffs—Direct



123a

Maggce Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

Q. In all your life! A. No.
Q. Have yon ever been in trouble with the law at all? 

A. No, indeed, no, no indeed, the first time I been in any­
thing like that in my whole life, first time.

Q. How about your son, you grandson, Roscoe? A. 
What about him?

—225—
Q. Has Roscoe ever been in trouble with the law? A. 

Well, he’s been in trouble with the law with some boys, 
as a boy.

Q. How long ago was that? A. Huh?
Q. How long ago was that? A. That was when he was 

seventeen years old?
Q. How old is he now? A. If he was seventeen years 

old, that’s been a right good many years.
Q. How old is Roscoe today, do you know about? A. 

Forty six.
Q. And he hasn’t been in any trouble since then? A. No. 
Q. Is Roscoe able to work? A. No, indeed, he is totally 

disabled.
Q. Does he have any other relative except you? A. With 

me?
Q. Does Roscoe have any other relatives? A. No. His 

mother, father and all are dead.
Q. And you look after him? A. That’s right.
Q. How closely do you have to look after Roscoe? A. 

Well, Roscoe don’t—he hasn’t been in the street at night 
since ’44 and when he goes out in the day he might go

—2 2 6 -
up there to the drug store and stand in the door and wait 
until he comes back. He don’t go out anywhere by hisself.

Q. When did Roscoe get out of the police station? A. 
The same time I did.



\

\

124a

Maggie Slieppercl—for Plaintiffs—Cross

Q. Now, did you go down to the Mayor’s office after this? 
A. Right from the jail, the thing where I was, yes, I went 
right down there then.

Q. What time did you get to the Mayor’s office? A. 
Down to the Mayor’s office.

Q. What happened down at the Mayor’s office? A. What 
happened ? Well, we was sitting there and we was talking 
around and I don’t know that anything happened.

Q. Did you see the Mayor? A. No.
Q. Did you talk to anybody—who was with you? A. 

Miss Snowden, Mrs. Mitchell.
Q. Who else, anybody else? A. Let’s see l think Mrs. 

Mitchell’s son was with them, Clarence.
Q. That is Clarence Mitchell III, the State Assembly- 

man? A. Yes.
Q. The State Legislator? A. Yes.

—227—
Mr. Nabrit: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, Mrs. Shepperd, didn’t you talk to the State’s 
Attorney for Baltimore City down at the City Hall? A. 
I don’t know the State’s Attorney from anybody else, I 
don’t know him.

Q. Mr. Moylan? A. I don’t know him.
Q. You didn’t talk to Mr. Moylan? A. I didn’t talk to 

anybody. I thought it was the police there, that’s all I 
talked to.

Q. At the City Hall, the Mayor’s office? A. No, not me.
Q. And you didn’t tell Mr. Moylan that you knew him? 

A. Of course, I didn’t. I don’t know Mr. Balden. Some 
gentleman comes up there and shook hands with me but I 
don’t know him.



1 2 5 a

Q. Mr. Moylan ? A. I don’t know him. Whatever his 
name is, I don’t know him.

The Court: She seems to have the name wrong. 
Do you know Mr. Moylan?

The Witness: No, sir, I don’t know him. There 
was a gentleman there talking to me and Miss Snow­
den, if that was him. He wasn’t talking to me

—2 2 8 -
particular, he was talking to both of us.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. And didn’t you tell him that you knew him and that 
he knew you? A. No, indeed, no.

Q. You are certain of that? A. I am certain of it, yes, 
sir.

Q. Now, did Miss Snowden tell him that? A. I don’t 
know what Miss Snowden told him. I wasn’t paying that 
much attention. I don’t know what Miss Snowden told him.

Q. Miss Snowden is Mrs. Juanita Jackson’s aunt, isn’t 
she ? A. Aunt ?

Q. Isn’t she related to her? A. Yes.
Q. All right, how is she related to her? A. To Mrs. 

Mitchell ?
Q. That’s right. A. I guess that is Mrs. Mitchell’s aunt. 
Q. That is what I said. A. Yes.
Q. And Mrs. Mitchell and Miss Snowden came to the 

police station together, didn’t they? A. That’s right, we
- 2 2 9 -

all came together.
Q. You came with the police I thought? A. Come with 

the police?
Q. Yes. A. No, indeed.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



126a

The Court: 1 am not sure if you—
The Witness: No, indeed.
The Court: You are too fast for her. You have 

got her back at the police station now. She’s still at 
City Hall.

Mr. Souse: She did awfully well on direct, Your 
Honor.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I think serious consider­

ation ought to be given to the age of the witness by 
counsel. Pardon me for sitting, Your Honor, in 
addressing the Court.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I think that—I must 

request that counsel give appropriate, definite con­
sideration to the age of the witness to make sure 
that she understands the questions.

The Court: It is futile cross examination, the 
Court has concluded that she doesn’t, and my im­
pression was that she didn’t understand the ques­
tion, so I think you had better clear up what you 
want to clear up, what conversation you are talking 
about.

—230—
Bg Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, Miss Snowden and Mrs. Mitchell came to the 
police station to see you, they came together, didn’t they, 
down to the police station? A. I think they did. When 
1 seen them they were together. I was back there in the 
room.

Q. You were back there in the room with the police 
officer? A. With somebody. I don’t know who he was. 
I guess it was an officer.

Maggie Sheppercl—for Plaintiffs—Cross



127a

Q. Did he have a uniform on? A. I think he did.
Q. Well, then he was a police officer?

Mr. Nabrit: He is arguing with the witness.
The Court: Mr. Souse, that is not the way to be 

successful in this court.
Go ahead.
Mr. Souse: I don’t understand, Your Honor.
The Court: Go ahead. Don’t argue with her. She 

said she was talking to a man who had a police 
officer’s uniform on, and you say then he must have 
been a police officer. There is no use arguing with 
her, you have got the point you want, go ahead to 
the next point.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, you were in a taxi cab earlier that day with
- 2 3 1 -

Miss Snowden, isn’t that correct? A. That’s right.
Q. And didn’t Miss Snowden say to you that—didn’t she 

say something about you were a fool or you were foolish? 
A. Poor?

The Court: I am not sure she is hearing you be­
cause when she repeats your question she repeats it 
wrong every time.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Didn’t Miss Snowden say to you that you were a fool 
or you were foolish? A. That she was foolish. I don’t 
remember her saying to me I was foolish.

Q. Didn’t she say—didn’t you say, I wouldn’t call you 
that, I wish T hadn’t taken you down to the Veterans with

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



128a

me? A. I can’t remember Florence saying that to me, 1 
really don’t.

Q. Did you tell her you wish you hadn’t taken her with 
you?

The Court: When ?
Mr. Souse: In the taxi cab.
The Court: We are still in the taxi cab?
Mr. Souse: Still in the taxi cab.
The Witness: I might have said that to her, I

—2 3 2 -
might have said it. I don’t know.

Q. You might have said that to her, and didn’t she say 
to you, you wouldn’t have gotten anything if I hadn’t been 
with you? A. Wouldn’t have got anything? No, she didn’t 
say that to me.

Mr. Nabrit: Object to the relevancy of this line 
of questioning.

The Court: I presume it is leading up to some­
thing. It is obvious that these immediate questions 
have no materiality or relevancy but I can’t imagine 
that they are being asked if they are not leading up 
to something, and we have to give him a little time 
to develop something.

By Mr. Souse:

Q. Now, didn’t Mrs. Snowden say to you, “That fool 
son of yours—” A. Fool son?

Q. “—when he gets some liquor in him, you know he 
shot a policeman?” A. No, no, she did not. Shot a police, 
no, she did not say it, no, sir, she did not.

Q. Did you have any conversation about shooting any 
police? A. No, I did not.

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Cross



129a

Q. Did you hear anyone at the Mayor’s office say that
—233—

there was some conversation about shooting a policeman? 
A. No, 1 did not hear it.

Q. And did you tell anyone in the Mayor’s office that 
the only thing you said was that you were glad you had a 
good boy who wouldn’t shoot a policeman! A. No, sir, I 
did not say that.

Q. All right. A. I did not say it.
Q. Now, this car driver, the cab driver that you had 

when you came back from the Veterans, did you have any 
conversation with him! A. I ain’t had no conversation 
with him, not a soul, I didn’t open my mouth to him.

Q. Did he say anything to you! A. No indeed he didn’t 
say anything to me.

Q. And did you know him? A. Know him? No indeed 
I didn’t know him.

Q. Had you ever seen him before? A. I have never 
seen that bird, that boy before, never in my life.

Mr. Souse: That is all, thank you.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. When you got out of the taxi cab, Mrs. Shepperd, 
did you pay the driver? A. Yes.

—234—
Q. How much was the fare? A. The fare, let me see, 

what did I pay that man? I give the man 500 for a tip, I 
don’t know. I think he charged me a dollar, I think he 
charged me 650, something like that, I think he did, but I 
know I gave him 560 for a tip. I think he charged me 
650, something like that.

t,). Did he say anything to you about the fare?

Maggie Shepperd—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



1 3 0 a

The Court: About what I
Mr. Nabrit: Fare, the fare, the taxi fare.
I withdraw that.
No further questions.

(Witness excused.)
The Court: Are you going to call Miss Snowden!
Mr. Nabrit: 1 would like, if Your Honor’s sched­

ule would permit a five minute recess, I have put 
on several witnesses and I would like to—

The Court: Well, that is all right but I think you 
had better call Miss Snowden. 1 think we ought to 
hear from Miss Snowden.

Mr. Nabrit: All right.
The Court: We will take a short recess.

(Recess.)
—235—

Mr. Nabrit : Mrs. Florence Snowden.

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Thereupon, M r s . F lo r e n c e  S n o w d e n  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. Florence Snowden.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit :

Q. Where do you live, Mrs. Snowden? A. 1930 Druid 
Hill Avenue.

Q. How long have you lived there! A. Twenty years. 
Q. What is your age? A. Seventy-two. It will be 

seventy-three the nineteenth of this month.



131a

Q. Where were yon born? A. Born in Baltimore City.
Q. How long have you lived in the City? A. Lived in 

Baltimore all my life, seventy-two years.
Q. Do you know Mrs. Maggie Sheppard? A. I do, yes.
Q. How long have you known her? A. I’ve been know-

—236—
ing her since 1917 when we met together in Bethel Irving 
Church as church workers, and been friends ever since, 
like sisters.

Q. Do you belong to any community groups? A. I am 
president since 1937 of Northwest Residential Protective 
Association, and our aim was to dispresent taverns on 
Druid Hill Avenue, McCullough Street and Madison Ave­
nue in northwest Baltimore, and that has been my activity 
as a social worker.

Q. How about church? A. In the church I ’m in the 
Missionary Society and president of one of the clubs and 
a regular attendant.

Q. And do you know Mrs. Sheppard in any of those? 
A. I know that Mrs. Sheppard since her son has been 
disabled, she hasn’t been able to attend church regularly 
because she stays home with him, and I pay her church 
dues for her every Sunday, and she is a member, active 
member through her financial support to the Missionary 
Society and the church proper.

Q. Now, do you remember January 6, 1965? A. I do.
Q. You remember that? A. Yes.
Q. Did you see Mrs. Sheppard that day? A. That’s 

right.
—237—

Q. When was that? A. Mrs. Sheppard called me the 
night before and asked me would I go with her down to

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



132a

the Veterans’ Administration to see about an increase in 
her son’s allotment.

Q. When you say her son, who do you mean? A. Roscoe 
Cooper.

Q. And she calls him her son? A. That’s right.
Q. Is that her grandson? A. That’s actually her grand­

son.
Q. All right. A. She’s had him since he was three years 

old. Her daughter died.
Q. All right. Now, what happened when you saw her?
A. She got a cab at her door and came to my door, 1930 

Druid Hill Avenue, and we got in the cab and we went to 
the Veterans’ Administration, and that was about ten 
o’clock. The appointment was for ten o’clock.

Q. Did you go somewhere else? A. No, we went first 
to the bank. The bank is her administration, I think. Her 
checks comes through the bank, but she has to go to the Vet­
erans’ Administration for an increase.

Q. And that’s what you did that day? A. That’s what 
we did that day.

—238—
Q. And who did you see there? A. I saw the lawyer for 

the Veterans’. I can’t remember his name. It was not name, 
and his secretary—

Q. And how long were you there? A. We were there, I 
guess, about a-half-a-hour. About eleven o’clock or a little 
after we came out.

Q. And this was the business discussed there? A. That 
was our business, yes.

Q. Now, what was your role in that meeting? A. My 
role was in that meeting when such words as rehabilitate 
himself and like as that I know the meaning better than

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



133a

she would, and lie knowed, the lawyer knowed that he was, 
the medical report, lie’s one hundred per cent disability.

Q. So you were there to help your friend out ? A. That’s 
right.

Q. Then did yon all get in some kind of a little argument? 
A. No, no, just when we came out, there was a delay, there 
was a little delay on giving her two tons of coal, and I was 
talking for the coal delivery right away. If not I ’d have to 
advance it for her.

Q. You mean to the lawyer? A. To the lawyer, for the 
administration, to the Veterans!

—239—
Q. And did she go along with that or what? A. She 

said, “Well, you know, I ’ll wait,” and I said, “Well, you 
wait for two weeks, and you can’t go without coal for two 
weeks. I ’ll put it in and pay for it, and they’ll pay me,” 
but they did right away the next day put the coal in.

Q. 1 see. And you were kind of put out about that? A. 
Yes.

Q. When you got in the taxicab? A. Yes, and there was 
the insurance money that was due the Veterans’ and it 
wasn’t paid him and 1 was trying to get that for him, and 
1 think it will come certain.

Q. All right. When you got—how did you leave the 
Veterans’ Administration? What did you do? A. When 
Ave left the Veterans’ Administration we hailed a cab. He 
Avas in the second lane and pulled to the pavement right at 
Fayette and St. Paul Street, and we got in, and that’s all 
Ave Avere saying, talking in the cab about, about, “I hope 
you get your coal,” and I hope, you know, I Avant everything 
at one time, you knoAv, and I Avas just talking like that, 
discussing it, discussing our business about the Veterans’

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



134a

Administration, and the cab driver was no interest in us, 
and he was sitting in the front seat and we were just sitting 
in the back seat.

— 240—

Q. Now, did you, in this conversation with Mrs. Shep­
pard about coal, this was all in the taxicab? A. Yes, that’s 
right.

Q. Were you put out about this, talking about the coal? 
A. I was only put out because she was saying, she thought 
I was maybe, you know, asking, didn’t want to get the 
gentleman angry, you know, about getting this increase, 
you know, how they, you know, like with people who are 
poor sometimes, and I just said we should get more on the 
check each month.

Q. And that’s all the conversation was. Were you talking 
about the police in the cab? A. No, no, that was all the 
conversation it was.

Q. Was there any conversation about the police? A. No 
indeed.

Q. Was there any conversation about the Veney brothers? 
A. Not a word in that cab.

Q. You were talking about Roscoe? A. Yes, Roscoe, 
yes, what a good boy Roscoe was because that’s what we 
went down to see after Roscoe’s allotment because a good 
boy like Roscoe is, and we don’t have to live cheap, and we 
wanted more money, and the expense of living is more.

— 241—

That was our errand to go down and get an increase in 
this payment, and then it didn’t take on long to get to my 
house, to Druid Hill Avenue from Fayette Street.

Q. Now, when you got to your house you got out? A. 
T got out, yes, and T even said to her, “Give him a tip” be-

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 3 5  a

cause some of these cabe drivers say we don’t tip, but we 
do.

Q. Did you pay the cab driver? A. Oh, no, because the 
first one I told them to pay, and the last one paid the taxi 
man, and I was the first one out.

Q. What time was this when you got there? A. Well, 
that was about eleven-thirty, 1 guess. We were, went to 
the bank at ten, and that gentleman was a little late, and 
then we went down to the Veterans’ Administration, I guess 
about a block below, about a-half-hour, and we didn’t stay 
too long there. You know they don’t take too much time 
with you.

So we was about, I guess, about eleven or a little later 
when we came out and got a cab; and when I got home it 
must have been near twelve o’clock.

Q. What did you do after that? A. I went on home.
Q. And after you got home, than what? A. I got home,

—242—
and I had to attend to—I have an apartment that I rent, 
and I have a vacancy, and I left my home right away to go 
to 1136 Druid Hill Avenue.

Q. You left your home at— A. I left my home at 1930 
Druid Hill Avenue to go to 1136 Druid Hill Avenue, my 
family home.

The Court: To go to 1136?
The Witness: 1136 where I have my family home.
The Court: And you home is 1930 Druid Hill 

Avenue ?
The Witness: Yes, that’s right, and I have an 

apartment house I rent, and I went down there to see 
about, I had an appointment to meet a tenant to move 
in, and when—you want me to tell what happened?

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



136a

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, now, did you later see Mrs Sheppard that after­
noon! A. I ’m trying to lead up to it.

Q. Well—

The Court: Let her go ahead.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Go ahead. A. While I was at 1136 Druid Hill Avenue 
I had called Mrs. Mitchell’s office to tell my husband to pick 
me up at that office, which is the only reason why that I 
ever found out that Mrs. Sheppard was arrested.

—243—
The call came from Mrs. Mitchell’s secretary to 1136, 

my tenant’s first floor phone, “ Miss Snowden, Miss Snow­
den, your friend, Miss Sheppard’s locked up.”

Oh, I jumped up and ran out the door and got a cab at 
the corner of Baltimore and Druid Hill Avenue. I rushed 
up to my next door neighbors who called, in turn who had 
called Miss, the next door neighbor, to call Mrs. Mitchell’s 
office to find out where can she find Mrs. Snowden.

Am I talking too fast!
Q. Did you eventually get together with Mrs. Juanita 

Mitchell? A. I finally got with Mrs. Mitchell, but before—
Q. Go ahead. A. But before I got to Mrs. Mitchell my 

neighbor had the next door neighbor Mrs. Sheppard to tell 
me what happened.

She come for Miss Sheppard had told her to notify Mrs. 
Snowden because the Police Department wouldn’t let her 
call nobody.

Then—shall I go ahead?
Q. Well—



137a

The Court: Well, I understand a message get to 
her and she gets to Mrs. Mitchell.

The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: Let’s move along. Let’s move on from 

that.
—244—

The Witness: That’s right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Is Mrs. Mitchell related to you, Mrs. Juanita Mitchell? 
A. Mrs. Mitchell is my niece.

Q. And did you all go somewhere and get her? A. Mrs. 
Mitchell, I figure, 1 figured that in any of those things I 
ought to have a lawyer because 1 don’t see as a layman I 
could get her out.

So I went and got Mrs. Mitchell as a lawyer to go with me 
to see if I could get Mrs. Mitchell out—get Mrs. Sheppard 
out.

Q. Did you all go? A. So we went in the car with Mrs. 
Mitchell and went to north—because we were a little be­
wildered because at first they said Northeastern, but we 
didn’t know what it was all about, but Mrs. Snowden, Mrs. 
Mitchell found out it was at Northwestern, and we went 
to Northwestern.

Q. Now, what happened when you got there? A. When 
we got to Northwestern, why Mrs. Mitchell went to the 
desk and asked about Mrs. Sheppard, and they in turn re­
leased Mrs. Sheppard to her, to Mrs. Mitchell.

O. Did vou have an conversation with anv of the officers
—245—

you saw there at that time? A. Yes, one of the officers 
in the station house came to me in the assembly room at the

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



138a

station house and said to me, “We were going to send for 
you.”

Send for me for what?
He says, “Why you was talking in the cab about the 

Veney brothers.”
What Veney brothers? I said, “Why, I don’t know them.” 

I said we were discussing in a cab, and I said—
Q. Go slower, slow down.

The Court: I think you had better let her tell her 
own story. Mr. Owens can take it. He’s taken faster 
than that.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Tell us in your own way. Go ahead. I ’m Sorry. Go 
ahead. A. And so he said, I says, “Well, I ’m going to tell 
all my background, who I was, and how I knew Captain 
Poole, how I knew Captain Horton, how I worked in the 
community with the police officers—

The Court: No, let’s not get into that.
The Witness: You don’t want that? Oh, I see.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, what did the officers say to you about the taxi­
cab? A. Well, then he said, “Didn’t you discuss the Veney

—2 4 6 -
brothers in the cab?”

I said, “No, I did not.” All I was saying was that Mrs. 
Sheppard got a wonderful boy, and that’s all we discussed 
in the cab.

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



139a

Q. Well, what did the officer say to you then? A. Then 
1 said—

Q. What did the officer say to you? A. Then he said 
the taxi driver man said that “you had a conversation.”

I said, “Bring him in, bring him in here and I will face 
him,” and he didn’t bring him in. He was in the hall but 
he didn’t bring him in to let me face him, wouldn’t let me 
face him.

Q. The taxi driver was in the hall? A. Yes.
Q. AVhat did the officer say to you? Did the officer say to 

you what the cab driver said? A. The officer said the cab 
driver said we were discussing the Veney brothers.

Q. Are you sure about that? A. Yes.
Q. Withdraw the question.
Now, after you left the jail, did you go anywhere after 

that? A. We went to the—the ministers had been saying 
that—

Q. No, don’t discuss that. Tell us where you went? A. 
Oh, no complaints, so, so we went down to the Mayor’s 
office to let the Mayor see that there were some complaints 
about the policemen coming into the home without a war­
rant.

Q. And what happened down there ? A. And down there 
they sent for the State’s Attorney to come over, and Mr. 
Moylan came over, and I do know Mr. Movlan personally, 
and he was very courteous to us.

Q. Who is he? A. Mr. Charlie Moylan.
Q. What’s his job? A. His job is State’s Attorney for 

Baltimore City.
Q. Who did you make the complaint to? To him? A. 

We were going to make it to him and the Mayor, and the

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 4 0 a

Mayor was coming out at one time, and they sent word 
that he was busy and he couldn’t come out.

The Court: Is that all!
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
You may examine.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Murphy:

Q. Mrs. Snowden, now in the cab all you say you talked 
about was what a good boy Roscoe was? A. That’s right.

—248—
Q. And that the Veney brothers were never mentioned? 

A. That’s right.
Q. What, if any, conversation did you have with the cab 

driver? A. None whatever, never talked to the cab driver 
in all my riding around.

Q. Now, when you went to the Mayor’s office— A. 
What’s that?

Q. When you went to the Mayor’s office you say you dis­
cussed this matter with State’s Attorney Moylan? A. 
Judge Moylan.

Q. Was that in the presence of Mrs. Sheppard? A. 
Mrs. Sheppard was sitting in a chair she was, and she was 
sitting in a chair, and we got up to meet Mr. Moylan when 
he came into the Mayor’s office, and he politely shook our 
hands.

Q. She knows Mr. Moylan as well as you do! A. No, 
she doesn’t.

Q. She doesn’t know him at all? A. Total stranger, no, 
this is the first time she’s ever seen him. I knew him in my 
civic work.

Q. Do you know the name of the officer at Northwestern 
to whom you spoke? A. Do I what?

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Cross



141a

Florence Snoivden—for Plaintiffs—Cross

—249—
Q. The name of the officer at Northwestern Police Sta­

tion to whom you spoke? A. No, I don’t know him.
Q. You say that the police officer said that they had the 

cab driver there? A. That’s what he said, but I didn’t 
see him, and then went I went out in the hall the gentleman 
who was talking, I don’t know whether he was a uniformed 
police because he had a sweater on, a tall gentleman, and 
they tell me he was a sergeant of the riot squad.

Q. He told you he was a sergeant? A. I don’t know. 
Someone said he was a sergeant. I don’t know who he was. 
All I know he came in there to tell us that he had, was 
questioning Mrs. Sheppard, and “if you all don’t talk no 
more, we’ll all go get her and bring her out, and let you have 
her.”

The Court: Say that again.
The Witness: What did you say?

By Mr. Murphy.

Q. I asked you if you knew the officer, could identify the 
officer to whom you spoke concerning the cab driver? A. 
I could not identify him no more than he was a tall white 
gentleman that had a sweater on, and he was the one that 
was questioning, whoever he was, the one who was question-

—250—
ing Mrs. Sheppard, was back in the cell, was questioning 
her when we came in.

Then he come out to find out who we were, and we were 
the people who came to find out what she was doing locked 
up, but we didn’t know, and he was giving us the informa­
tion.



1 4 2 a

The Court: Now, what did he say?
The Witness: He said that what the cab driver 

said, that “you all were discussing the Veney brothers 
in the cab.”

I said, “Oh, no, we weren’t. All we were saying 
was what a fine boy he is.”

The Court: Well, I think she lost the track of it, 
of the statement that I think the Reporter did not 
quite get and I know I did not quite get.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Have you seen the police officer in the courtroom 
today! A. I don’t know. It was a tall light, a tall white 
gentleman.

Mr. Murphy: Mr Cadden, would you stand up!
The Witness: No, he’s taller than that, taller than 

that.
Mr. Murphy: Would you identify yourself, Officer!
A Voice: Lieutenant James Cadden, Homicide 

Squad.
The Witness: However, whoever saw—Mrs. Mit­

chell can tell better than I can because I’m older, 
and I don’t know, I can’t see too good.

No, he ain’t the man, no. He don’t look like the 
man to me.

Mr. Murphy: Thank you, Lieutenant.
The Witness: No, he’s a tall man, more settled 

man than he. He’s nothing but a young man.
Mr. Murphy: Bear with us for a moment, Your 

Honor.

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Cross



143a

Florence Snowden—for Plaintiffs—Cross 

By Mr. Murphy.

Q. Mrs. Snowden, while you were at the Mayor’s office 
on this day with State’s Attorney Moylan was there, was 
there any discussion about shooting a police officer at all! 
A. No.

Q. None at all! A. No.
Q. Did you say or did you hear Mrs. Sheppard say at 

any time that you had a boy who would not shoot a police 
officer! A. Good boy, she’s got a good boy, yes, a good 
boy who wouldn’t shoot no policeman, no.

—252—
Q. Who would not shoot a police officer? A. No, I don’t 

remember whether I said that or not, but I was praising 
what a good boy he was. He was a good boy, and never, 
never, we are law-abiding citizens.

Q. You are referring now to Mr. Cooper? A. Mr. Ros- 
coe Cooper, and his grandmother, Mrs. Maggie Sheppard.

Q. And you did say, did you not, if I understand your 
testimony correctly that you both denied that Mr. Cooper 
would ever shoot a police officer ? A. He would never shoot 
a police officer, no, no, a good boy, would not shoot no police 
officer.

Q. Did you say that to anyone in the Mayor’s office, say 
that? A. No.

Q. While Mr. Moylan was present ? A. No.
Q. “That Leroy was a good boy who would not shoot 

a police officer” ? A. Would never shoot a police officer.
Q. Not Leroy. I ’m sorry; Roscoe Cooper.
Roscoe Cooper? A. What?

The Court: Well, I think she has answered the
—2 5 3 -

question in a way that is not entirely unclear to me,



144a

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct

but she has answered it several times, and since the 
question was raised, I gather that she did tell Mr. 
Moylan that the grandson of her friend was a good 
boy and he wouldn’t shoot a police officer, but that 
that was possibly said in the conversation with Mr. 
Moylan, but she has no recollection of saying any­
thing like that in the taxicab.

Now, that’s the substance of it, as I understand her 
testimony.

*  # # # *

—255—
#  #  #  *  *

E l iz a b e t h  D o n n e l l a  W a l l a c e  w as ca lled  as a w itn ess  

fo r  and on b e h a lf o f  the p la in tiffs  and, h a v in g  been first 

d u ly  sw orn , w as exam in ed  and testified  as fo llo w s :

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Elizabeth Donnella Wallace.
The Clerk: Is that Miss or Mrs?
The Witness: Mrs.
The Clerk: Mrs. Elizabeth Donnella Wallace.

—256—
Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. State your full name, Mrs. Wallace? A. My name is 
Elizabeth Donnella Wallace.

Q. And you address? A. My address is 2408 Huron 
Street.

Q. And you have been in the courtroom here today, during 
the hearing today and heard your daughter Lucinda and 
Henrietta testify? A. Yes, I was.

Q. Now, they talked about—where were you that night 
they testified about? Were you at home when the officers



1 4 5 a

arrived! Were you at home when the officers came that 
night! A. No, I wasn’t at home.

Q. Where were you! A. I was in my business, a beauty 
shop.

Q. Where is that located! A. That is located at 2356 
Highland Ferry Road.

Q. Where is that located!

The Court: That doesn’t make any difference. 
Mr. Nabrit: All right. I’m trying to establish this.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Where is that with relation to your house! A. Well, 
that’s about, about four houses from my house where I live.

—257—
Q. How long have you lived in that house? A. Twenty- 

one years.
Q. The same house twenty-one years? A. The same 

house. The only thing, it has been remodeled.
Q. Now, did anything unusual happen, and if so, describe 

for us what happened, as briefly as possible? A. Well, as 
briefly as possible—

The Court: Well, I don’t think you have to, if 
she doesn’t know anything about their coming in. 

Mr. Nabrit: Well, Your Honor, I have to—
The Court: Did she hear anything the officer said?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you hear anything?

The Court: Or how the officers happened to come 
to her house?

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



146a

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Answer the Judge’s question?

The Court: Did you hear the officer say anything?
The Witness: Yes, yes.
Judge, Your Honor, Judge, Your Honor, if I may 

say, if you will give me the privilege to say.
—258—

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: I, I have to explain it in this man­

ner because I was at my place of business working, 
and I heard the knock on my door, and I opened the 
door, and Mr. Redmond came in, and he said Mrs. 
Wallace, he said, “What is wrong at your house?” 
He said, “There, the whole place is flooded with 
police cars and policemen and machine guns, and 
they’re going all through your house.”

So 1 ran out of the business and left the door open. 
I was working on a customer, and when I ran out I 
had to pass the alley and three doors before T could 
get up to my home, and I saw all these cars, and I saw 
a big, big, I guess a patrol wagon with, you know, 
lights, a lot of bright lights up there and everybody, 
there was so many people standing in the street.

So I ran up to an officer and T said, “My God, 
what is happening in my house?”

So he said, he said, “What is your name?”
I said, “Well, I live there.”
He said, “Well, what is your name? Is your name 

Wallace?”
I said, “Yes, my name is Elizabeth Wallace.”
So he said, “Well, this is 2408 Huron Street?”



147a

I said, “Yes.” 1 said, “What’s going on in the 
house!”

—259—
So iie said, “Don’t go in there.”
So 1 said, “Well, please, somebody tell me what is 

going on!”
So he said, “Well, they’ll be out in a few minutes.”
So I, then I got upset because 1 didn’t know what 

was going on in the house after leaving the home 
respectfully when 1 left home and when, well, it got 
me upset because I didn’t know what had happened 
in the house, and seeing these policemen, seeing all 
these policemen, I could see all these policemen, and 
1 could see that my door, the door was open, and I 
could see them coming down my stairs and coming 
out the door.

So the policeman said that I was talking with, he 
said, “Well, just calm yourself; they’ll be out in a 
few minutes.”

I said, “Please, somebody tell me what is going on 
in the house!” I said, “If you will only just tell 
me what is going on in the house!”

“Well,” he said, “We’re waiting until they get out.”
So at that time there was some coming out on the 

porch and I started knocking on the door. So he 
said, “Well,” we had gotten, after we got near the 
porch, and T was upset, and the children ran out 
and grabbed me, and we all was upset.

—260—
So the policeman said, “Well, we got an anonymous 

phone call.”
So I said, “What kind of phone call!” Well, at the 

first he didn’t say what kind of phone call it was

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



148a

until 1 was there, so he said, “Sit down,” and I sat 
down on the sofa, and they said, “Well, we had a 
phone call that the Veney brothers was hiding out 
here.”

I said, “Well, 1 don’t know anything about them,” 
and I guess I still was upset, and the children they 
all started to crying, at least Sharon and Henrietta 
started to crying, and some of them asked something 
about ammonia or something, and I just felt limp, 
and I just sat there until the policemen all said, 
“Well, Mrs. Wallace, there is nothing to be excited 
about now.” They say, “We just got this phone call 
that the Veney brothers were in your house,” and 
naturally my legs were shaking and my teeth were 
chattering, and I just couldn’t talk.

The Court: All right.
The Witness: They stayed around there and some­

one gave me some spirits of ammonia. Something I 
did hear one officer say, “Well, Sharon, do you have 
some spirits of ammonia!” So Sharon, one of the 
girls said, “Well, I have some here,” and they said 
it wasn’t strong, and he said something about—

—261—
Mr. Nabrit: No.
The Court: Of course, she was very much upset. 

There is no question about that. I ’m sure it must 
have been a distressing and terrifying experience.

Mr. Nabrit: All right, sir.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, Mrs. Wallace, did you hear any other officers 
comment about why they were there or was that all? A.

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



149a

That is the only thing I heard them say that they had, that 
they had the anonymous phone call, they had the fellow out 
there, but they didn’t show me any identification or any­
thing that they had.

Q. Did you see any warrants ? A. I didn’t see any war­
rants because I asked them, I asked him, well, who let them 
in and there was no one said anything about they had a 
warrant or anything.

Q. Now, did you make any complaints about this! A. 
Well, I had to get myself together and had to go back and 
shut the place up, and I told the officers—

Q. Later on I mean? A. T didn’t make any complaints 
right at that time.

Q. Well, that’s all right. Now, did you try to get in touch 
with the Mayor or Governor about that? A. Well, I say 
not at that instant.

The Court: Well, did you try to get in touch with
— 262—

the Mayor.
The Witness: I did, yes, I did.
The Court: And attempt to see a lawyer? Did 

you see a lawyer first?
The Witness: I tried to get in touch with the 

Mayor first, and I ’m sorry, and the Mayor, I didn’t 
call him at that time, no, sir; but I called the Police 
Headquarters and I complained to them about it.

When I called they said to me, “Well, did they 
come in your house?”

I said, “Yes.” So I said—“Well,” they said “What 
do you want us to do about it?”

“Well,” I said, “Well,” I said, “ The damage has 
been done,” And, I say, “ It’s just that now we are

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs— Direct



1 5 0 a

all upset,” and I said, “We are just as much with 
the law for apprehending the Veney brothers as any­
one else,” I said, “But we would like respect when 
they come in our home,” I said, “ Because we don’t 
know what you’re coming in for unless you show us 
a warrant.”

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you get in touch with anybody else ? A. The next 
morning, yes. I called Governor McKeldin’s office. I was 
told—

Q. Mayor McKeldin. A. —that I couldn’t talk to Mayor 
McKeldin. They asked me what did I want to talk with him

— 26” —

about. I said, “Well, that I wanted to make a complaint.” 
They said, “Well, what kind of complaint?”
I said, “Well, about the Police Department.”
They said “Well, I ’m sorry that he does not have any­

thing to do with that part of it. You have to contact the 
State.”

Q. And then? A. Then at that time before I moved 
from the phone that morning, I then called the office in 
Baltimore and Annapolis and asked to speak to Governor 
Tawes.

Elisabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: Well, I don’t see that there is any 
use in going into all of this. She did complain. 
That’s the effort she made with respect to complain­
ing.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. You did complain to Governor Tawes? A. I tried to, 

to get to Governor Tawes.



151a

The Court: It doesn’t make any difference. That’s 
the only thing that would have any bearing on it.

Mr. Nabrit: No further questions.

By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Mrs. Wallace, just one or two questions. When the 
officer told you that they had received anonymous telephone 
calls, what did that mean to you! A. I asked what kind

—264—
of anonymous telephone calls.

Q. And what did they say? A. They didn’t say any­
thing. They didn’t say that they were looking for the 
Veney brothers at all at that time.

Q. What does the word “anonymous telephone call” mean 
to you? A. Anonymous means someone that calls and they 
didn’t give their name or something. Some, someone called 
around; I don’t know.

Q. You say maybe they didn’t give their name? A. I 
don’t know. I’m sorry, Your Honor.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, this is irrelevant and 
immaterial.

The Court: Well, what’s the matter with the de­
finition she gave us ?

Mr. Nabrit: I think she gave it pretty good as far 
as I can see.

The Court: What’s the matter with the definition 
she gave?

Mr. Murphy: I think she gave it pretty accurate 
except for something else. I don’t think it’s a ques­
tion of something else.

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Cross



152a

Elizabeth Donnella Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Redirect 

By Mr. Murphy.

Q. Mrs. Wallace, did I understand you to say that the 
police officers were rude to you? A. I didn’t say that they

—265—
were rude to me; I said that they didn’t tell me what they 
were doing in the house until it was all over, and I, I call 
that not giving a law-abiding citizen good citizenship.

Q. Didn’t they treat you as a law-abiding citizen? A. 
No, because I didn’t know what was going on in my home 
at the time when I arrived at home and I couldn’t go in, 
and I had, I had girls in there and I didn’t know what was 
happening in my house; and if I had known what they were 
in there for I would not have been upset as much as I was.

Q. Well, they eventually told you that they were looking- 
for the Veney brothers? A. After I got in the house and 
set down.

Q. In other words, once you were in the house they told 
you why they were in the house? A. No, I went in the 
house because I came from up the street and stood out with 
no coat on, and they wouldn’t let me go in the house.

Mr. Murphy: No further questions. Thank you.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you get sick after this episode? A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was that?

The Court: No, no, there’s no need of that. We’re
—266—

not trying to prove damages.
Mr. Nabrit: Withdrawn.
The Court: We’re not proving damages here, and 

the fact that I have not let you testify to this will not



153a

be used against you in a damage suit that you may 
file, the fact that I have cut you off.

Mr. Nabrit: Again I represent to the Court as a 
member of the Bar that I have not been retained in 
any damage suit at all.

The Court: I understand that, and I ’m cutting 
people off, and it might well be a defense in some 
of these cases, why didn’t you say that to Judge 
Thomsen, and if there are damage suits filed and I 
cut people off, I want it clearly understood that that 
can be brought out if any such points are used on 
cross-examination.

# # *  # #

—267—
Thereupon, D o r o t h y  J. B a r r ic k  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 for the record.
The Witness: Dorothy J. Barrick.
The Court: This is the guidance counselor?
The Witness: That’s right.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit :

Q. And your residence? A. 3321 Gwynn Falls Parkway.
Q. And you were at the Wallace home on Huron Street 

on December 30th? A. That’s right.
Q. Describe to us—did you observe any police officers or 

officer come into the house? A. I heard of them.
Q. Explain to us briefly what happened when they came 

there? A. We were looking at slides from a trip to Hawaii 
that Miss Lucinda Wallace had made, and the police, the 
lights flashes in the window because the lights were out.

Dorothy J. Barrick—for Plaintiffs—Direct



154a

and this light flashing through the window made everyone 
jump up to see what was going on, and we said, “What is

—268—
that!”

And of course with the sudden lights flashing it fright­
ened everyone, and by the time we reached from the din­
ing room into the other section of the home the place was 
crowded.

Q. Did you say anything to the police officers about why 
they were there, what they were doing, you personally? 
A. Yes.

Q. What did you say to them? A. When I walked from 
the living room to the dining room I said, “Well, wait a 
minute, why are you in this lady’s home?”

And nobody answered me. They went through and 
passed up, and I said, “You have no right to be in here like 
this because there’s nothing going on in here.” And I said. 
“The least you could do would be polite; you’re rude and 
you’re crude, and you could be polite about the matter.”

And one officer said, “Well, that is why he was killed 
because he was polite.”

And I said, “Well, that doesn’t speak very well of you,” 
and I think I said something to him about—

Q. Did you ask him the reason they were there? A. 
Yes, I said, “Do you know why you’re being in this lady’s 
home?” And nobody answered that.

—269—
Finally one officer went to the cellar door to go down 

to the cellar, and I said, “Why are you running around in 
the home like this?”

And he said, “I ’m going to search the cellar.”
And I said, “There’s a dog down there and don't you kill 

it.”

Dorothy J. Barrick—for Plaintiffs—Direct



155a

And he said, “Well, he’d better not bite me.”
And I said, “Well, he could bite you. He belongs to this 

home.”
And he said, “Well, do you belong in the home!”
And I said, “Well, that is too bad,” and I said, “Don’t 

you kill these peoples’ dog,” and then one of the officers 
said, “ I have to search the home.”

And I said, “For what reason!” And I never heard an 
answer to that yet until we went in the home, into the liv­
ing room where Mrs. Wallace was crying in the home, and 
that’s when one officer was telling her that he received this 
anonymous phone call, and he said to her, “We have anony­
mous phone calls that the Veney brothers are hiding out in 
here.”

And I said, “ In a home like this!”
And he said, “Well”—I said, “Well, who called you!”
He said, “I can’t reveal that,” and I thought that’s a 

strange sense of the word. “Anonymous” to me means
— 270—

with no name.
And he said, “Well, who—,” why can’t you reveal a name! 

And he wanted to know who was choosing this word, and 
I said, “Don’t choose my word. You choose one of your 
own.”

Q. Who were the officers! A. I have no idea who they 
were.

Q. Can you describe the officers! A. No, there was a 
herd of them. At that moment I could not recognize them, 
the ones in uniform, perhaps, but not the others.

Q. How many officers were there in the house? A. I did 
not bother to count them, officers; there were too many.

The Court: Well, were there two or three?
The Witness: Many.

Dorothy J. Barrick—for Plaintiffs—Direct



156a

The Court: Were there ten or twelve or more?
The Witness: They were constantly coming and 

going and they were in there—there were two doors, 
one coming this way and one from this way and 
they were coming both ways, and they were up the 
steps and down the steps and standing around, and 
they were behind each other.

And there was no counting for me. I never 
bothered to look at them. I saw faces and uniforms 
and machine guns, and I was upset. I was perturbed 
because this was a neAv experience for us.

—271—
I didn’t count them. I wouldn’t pin myself to a 

number because there was too many of them.
Mr. Nabrit: No further questions.

Cross Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. I didn’t understand the word that you used. Was the 
word “crude” ? C-r-u-d-e, crude? A. Crude, c-r-u-d-e, yes.

Q. Now, when you said that the officers were being crude, 
what did you have reference to? A. I had reference to 
their sudden entry, their no announcement, their up and 
down in a home that, that nobody knew why they were 
there, no reason given for the entry. That is crudeness.

The Court: How do you know that they came in 
without any announcement for the entry?

The Witness: Because no word, nobody said any­
thing, there was no word about it.

The Court: You weren’t there when they came in, 
were you?

The Witness : I was right in the dining room when 
they entered and nobody said a word because we, I

Dorothy J. Barrick—for Plaintiffs—Cross



1 5 7 a

heard, the door is here, and it’s just a little curve 
here, and you can hear, and the child answered the 
door and didn’t have a chance to ask who was it ; so

—272—
there was not a word mentioned, and we heard the 
bump, bump, bump of many feet.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Who was the child who answered the door? A. 
Either Henrietta or Sharon because I did not see. 1 was 
looking at the slides this way, and one of the children be­
hind me, everybody was lined up.

Q. Was this the side door? A. I don’t know which. 
They probably came in both doors because there are two 
doors, and by the time, and by the time we come from this 
direction to this direction somebody is in.

Q. I ’ll ask you again was this the side door or what? 
A. Probably both. They came in both dors, the side and 
front.

Q. Well, how did they get in the side door? Who let 
them in? A. The side door was not locked, I don’t think. 
I don’t know how they got in. Someone must have let them 
in or they came in themselves.

Q. How did they get in the front door? A. One of the— 
[ don’t know. I didn’t see them come in the door at all 
because I was turned in this direction, turned around, and 
the children said one of them let themselves in.

—273—
Q. Well, yon don’t know whether anybody admitted them 

to this house or not, do you?

The Court: Well, she doesn’t know who opened 
the side door. She thinks it was one of the girls.

Dorothy ,7 . Barrick—for Plaintiffs—-Cross



1 5 8 a

What she said she didn’t hear them say anything 
as to why they wanted to come in, and she was in 
the dining room somewhere around the corner, and 
I think that’s all it amounts to on the entry, and 
she may or may not have been in a position to hear. 

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.

Dorothy J. Barrick—for Plaintiffs—Cross

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, your characterization of “crude” has no refer­
ence to any mistreatment by the police officers, does it, of 
you personally? A. Well, no, not personally, but I’m well- 
read.

Q. You’re well what? A. Well-read.
Q. What do you mean by that? A. I have read too, to 

us, to us a police officer means different things than it does 
to you perhaps.

Q. Well, I don’t know about that. I don’t understand. 
I still don’t understand what you mean. A. May I explain 
it to you?

Q. Yes.
—274—

The Court: Yes.

By Mr. Sause:
Q. I wish you would. A. Well, from Mississippi to 

Maryland, the symb—a police officer to a Negro is a symbol 
of snarling dogs and firehoses and machine guns, and I, 
when I see a police officer as a Negro, even though I may 
be non-violent, I have feelings. I may not be out, acting 
them out, but inwardly I have a personal feeling whether 
I say it or not, I was angry enough at that moment to say 
the word “crude” and “ rude” .



1 5 9 a

Q. You don’t like police officers; is that what you say? 
A. No, I probably may not like them inwardly and I don’t 
know whether I have analyzed them or not.

The Court: Do you feel—let me ask you this ques­
tion—that the attitude that you have just expressed 
is that the attitude of the Negro community?

The Witness: No, I may not feel that. I don’t 
think we, you know, it’s not, it’s a personal feeling 
perhaps, but I don’t say that is, it isn’t something 
you can say that a person should be, you know, you 
don’t come by it lightly that a person has to feel that 
he is all of a sudden have a wrong thought about a 
police officer perhaps. I don’t have any personal 
dealings with them, but I thought the way they came 
in made me angry about it.

—275—
And so I thought this sudden desire to express, 

expressed my feelings.
# # # # *

—278—
* #  *  *  #

T erry B oots was called as a witness for and on behalf of 
the plaintiffs and, having been first duly sworn, was ex­
amined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name for the record.
The Witness: Terry Boots.

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct



160a

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Miss Boots, where do you live? A. 2303 Allendale
- 2 7 9 -

Road.
Q. And where do you work? A. Jewish convalescent 

home, 1601 Pall Mall Road.
*  *  #  #  *

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And what do you do there? A. I ’m a practical nurse. 
Q. And do you have children? A. Yes, I do.
Q. What are their names and ages? A. Well, I have 

Vera. She is fifteen; Prentice, fourteen; Avis, nine; 
Scooter, two; Clifton, two; and Nebra, one.

Q. Would you describe briefly for us the house that you 
live in and how many floors it has? A. It is a detached 
house, wooden frame, and three stories, broken into three 
apartments.

I occupy the third floor, me and my kids, and my sister, 
M iss Elizabeth Greene has the second floor, and Mr. and 
Mrs. Bailey on the first floor.

Q. And each apartment has a separate entrance? A. 
The first floor has a separate entrance; the second and 
third has the same entrance.

—280—
Q. Describe how you enter when you go in? A. Well, 

there’s a side door which leads, that has steps that leads 
up to the second and third floor.

Q. And is there a door to the second floor going up into 
your apartment with steps? A. Yes.

Q. And another door up to the third floor for the steps? 
A. Yes.

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 6 1 a

Q. Now, do you remember Monday, December 28th? A. 
Yes.

Q. 1964? A. Yes.
Q. What did you do that day? What do you remember 

about that day? A. Well, it’s a day that I ’ll never forget 
as long as I live. I was—I stayed home from work that 
day. I was laying in bed reading. My kids was in the 
living room listening to the radio, dancing.

Q. When was this? A. This was on Monday.
Q. About what time of day? A. About 4:15 to 4:30.

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: p.m.?
The Witness: p. m.

The Court: The afternoon? 
The Witness: Yes.

—281—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. All right. What happened? Just describe in your 
own words what happened? A. Well, I was laying in bed 
reading, and as I say, my kids were in the living room 
listening to the radio, dancing, and my niece came to the 
bedroom and tells me there’s a man in the yard with a 
gun pointing at the house.

Well, I didn’t pay her any attention. I told her to forget 
it and go ahead and dance.

And about two seconds later there was a big banging on 
the door, and before 1 could get to the door to answer it it 
came open, a lot of policemen came in, guns in hand.

They spreaded out and went all over the apartment. I 
asked them what they were looking for. They said, “Well, 
we’re looking for people.”



162a

I said, “ That figures.”
Well, my, I was in the bedroom to the left of my door 

and my kids were in the living room, and this one police­
man with plain-clothes was standing between me and my 
children, and 1 couldn’t get by.

They looked around, underneath the bed, in the closet, 
and they left.

—282—
Q. Now, when the officer was standing there what were 

they doing! A. My children was in the living room 
screaming.

Q. What about Clifton! A. He was hollering, “Mommy, 
help me, mommy, help me.”

Q. How old is he! A. He’s two.
Q. Now, what happened when the officers left! A. Well, 

when the officers left, my girl fourteen, she was so afraid, 
so she left. She got her clothes and she went to my sister’s 
house to spend the night. The rest of the kids were so 
upset and myself.

Q. Now, did the officers, when they came in the bedroom, 
what happened when they came in the bedroom, how many 
came in the bedroom! A. Two officers.

Q. What did they do in there! A. One got on each side 
of the bed, got down on their knees, gun in hand, and looked 
underneath the bed.

One was on the right side of the bed and looked in my 
wardrobe.

Q. Ho you know how many policemen came into the 
apartment! A. No, I don’t.

—283—
Q. Did you or any of your children open the door for 

them! A. No.

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 6 3 a

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

Q. Was the door locked? A. No.
Q. Why not! A. Well, the kids go in and out all the 

time; so I don’t lock it.

The Court: Which door are you talking about? 
The one that leads up to the two apartments?

The Witness: That one wasn’t locked either.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, what about the door up to the third floor? A. 
That wasn’t locked either.

Q. Now, did the officers ask you any questions at all? 
A. No.

Q. Did they show you any pictures? A. No.
Q. Did they show you any piece of paper, any search 

warrant or anything like that? A. No.
Q. Do you remember anything else that they said? A. 

No, they didn’t say anything.
Q. And nothing when they left? A. Nothing when they

- 284-

left, no.
Q. Do you know anyone named Sam Veney? A. No.
Q. Earl Veney? A. No.
Q. Have you any idea why the police came to your home? 

A. No.
Q. Now, at the point where the officers left, as they 

walked out of the house, what did you do then? A. I went 
to the front window and looked down on the street.

Q. What did you see? A. Well, I saw quite a few 
policemen lined up in the front of the house with guns 
pointing at the house.



164a

The Court: Is this during the search or after the 
search.

The Witness: This is after they had left my apart­
ment.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, do you know who—withdrawn.
Did you later come to hear why the police officers came 

to your house? A. Yes.
—285—

Q. What was that? A. That was at eleven o’clock on 
the eleven o’clock news; I hear it on the TV.

Q. What did you see? A. I saw the pictures of my 
house and the explanation of why my house was raided.

Q. Which was what? A. It was on TV.
Q. The explanation was what? A. The explanation—

Mr. Murphy: I object.
Mr. Nabrit: Withdrawn.
The Court: I think this would be hearsay.
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honour. I won’t press it.
The Court: I don’t know where they got the in­

formation.
Mr. Nabrit: I won’t press it, Your Honor.
The Court: But you can perhaps get the informa­

tion from the police. It’s conceivable they may be 
able to testify.

Mr. Nabrit : The only explanation was they were 
looking for the Veneys. That’s the only explanation 
I know of, that they were looking for the Veneys.

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Direct



165a

Terry Boots—for Plaintiffs—Cross

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Referring to the third floor door now, was that shut?
—286—

A. Yes.
Q. Before the police came? A. Yes.

Mr. Nabrit: All right. Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. This happened at four o’clock in the afternoon, did 
it? A. No.

Q. What time was it? A. It was between 4:15 and 4:30.
Q. And you were in bed? A. Yes.
Q. Now, have you ever been convicted of any crimes?

Mr. Nabrit: Objection.
The Court: I ’ll overrule the objection. I think 

it may be relevant not only on the question of credi­
bility, which would be limited to certain ones, but 
conceivably could tie-in with probable cause, and I ’ll 
overrule it.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Have you ever been convicted of any crimes? A. 
No.

Q. None at all? A. None at all.
—287—

Mr. Sause: All right. No further questions. 

(Witness excused.)



166a

Mr. Nabrit: Frankie Bond.
The Clerk: How old are you?
The Witness: Fourteen.
The Clerk: Do you understand the significance 

and meaning of an oath?
The Witness: Yes.

Frankie Bond—-for Plaintiffs—Direct

Thereupon, F rankie B ond 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: Frankie Bond.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Frankie, how old are you? A. Fourteen.
Q. Where do you live? A. 917 North Chapel Street. 
Q. What? A. 917 North Chapel Street.

The Court: North Chapel Street? 

The Witness: North Chapel Street.
—288—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Do you go to school, Frankie? A. Yes.
Q. What grade? A. Ninth.
Q. What school? A. Fairmount Hill Junior High School. 
Q. And do you live there with your mother? A. Yes, 

sir.
Q. What is her name? A. Violet Bond.
Q. Do you remember the day before New Year’s, Decem­

ber 31st? A. Yes.



167a

Q. In your own words tell the Judge what happened that 
day when you got up that morning? A.Well—

Q. Talk loud so the Judge can hear you. A. Well, after 
I got up I didn’t have to go to school, and I got up and 
got something to eat, and I came back and my mother 
cooked my breakfast, and then I eat my breakfast, and 
while I was eating my mother was getting ready to go to 
the funeral home.

And then when I got through eating my mother was
—289—

about to leave, and when she left I played some records.
Then after I played some records I went outside and 

played with some friends of mine, Samuel Burley.
Q. Was anybody else in the house? A. No, sir.
Q. Well, go ahead. A. Then later on the police came 

up the street and they knocked on my door, and I told 
them that I lived there.

Q. Where were you? A. I was across the street but I 
was coming towards my house.

Q. You say the police came to your door, what did you 
see coming down the street? A. They came up the street.

Q. What did you see come up the street? A. The police 
vans and some more cars behind them.

Q. And how many police, do you know? A. What? Went 
into my house?

Q. Yes. A. It was about four or five.
Q. Well, where were they? A. They, when they first 

came in, well, they came through the living room.
Q. Well, let’s go back. You were outside? A. Yes.

—290—
Q. What did you say to them out there? A. That I 

lived there.
Q. Go ahead. You tell us what happened. A. Then they

Frankie Bond—for Plaintiffs—Direct



168a

told me to stand back, stand back, and then they knocked 
on the door again, and 1 told them that I lived there. And 
then, after he saw that I lived there he let me push the 
door open, and he went, the policemen went in lirst, and 
then while the others were searching the house he asked 
me some questions, and he asked me did I know Price.

Q. Did you know who? A. Price.
Q. Price? A. Yes, and then he asked me my mother’s 

and my father’s name, and I told them my mother’s name 
was Violet Bond, and my father’s was William Fix, and 
then, and then he told me to sit down, and they searched up­
stairs and downstairs in the cellar, and then they left, and 
then they left me in there, and then I came outside.

Q. When they left did they say anything to you? A. No, 
sir. Then I came outside, and Mr. Warren, he asked me 
what was going on, and I told him that—

Q. Who is Mr. Warren? A. He’s, he lives on Washing­
ton Street.

Q. Where did you see him! A. He was coming down 
the street when I came out.

—291—
Q. Were the police still there? A. Yes, sir. Then he 

asked me what was going on, and I told him that there 
was a raid in our house, and he asked me my name, and 
I told him, and then after that he left, and I went on and 
played some football.

Then after that I had to go in the house again, but, I 
was, oh, yes, you asked me was I scared, and I told him 
yes, sir, I wasn’t going in the house no more, and then 
when I had to go in and change my shoes, well, I went, I 
brought a friend in with me, Albert Young, and then T 
went in to change my shoes and put on a heavy sweater, 
and I came back outside and played some more football, and

Frankie Bond—for Plaintiffs—Direct



169a

Frankie Bond—for Plaintiffs—Cross—Redirect 
—Recross

then my mother came, and I told my mother that 1 had 
something to tell her, and 1 told her to sit down before I 
told her.

Mr. Sause: Well, 1 object to what he told her. 
Mr. Nabrit: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

Cross Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. The police didn’t hurt you in any way, did they? A. 
No, sir.

Q. You opened the door for the policemen, didn’t you? 
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sause: No further questions.
Mr. Nabrit: Frankie, just one moment, please.

—292—
Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did the officers ask you if it was all right if they 
went in the house or anything like that? A. No, sir.

(The witness left the stand.)
Mr. Sause: Just a minute, please. Go back up 

there.

(The witness returned to the stand.)

Recross Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. What did the policeman say when he came to your 
door? A. Well, after he had knocked the first time I told 
him I lived there, and then he told me to stand back. Then 
after he knocked again, I told him that I lived there, and 
he said, “Oh,” and then I pushed the door in.



170a

Q. Well, he didn’t have to ask you to open the door? 
You did it all by yourself, didn’t you? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sause: All right. No further questions.
The Court: Did he tell you why he wanted to go 

in the house?
The Witness: No, sir.

—293—
The Court: You are sure of that?
The Witness: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did he have any equipment with him? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was that? A. They had some rifles.
Q. Now, where were you when you pushed the door 

open? A. I was, I was by my steps. Oh, when I pushed 
the door open I was on the steps.

Q. Outside, that’s outside the house? A. Yes, yes, sir. 
Q. And the policeman was standing there with you? 

A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nabrit: I have no further questions.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. You say the police officer told you to stand back? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do then? A. He knocked again then 
I told him that I lived there.

Q. So you didn’t stand back; you came back again;
—294—

is that right? A. I did and he knocked on my door.
Q. But you didn’t stand back the way he told you to? 

You came back despite the fact that he had this rifle; 
is that right? Is your answer yes?

Frankie Bond—for Plaintiffs—Recross



171a

The Court: The testimony was that he knocked 
and the boy approached, and the officer said, “Stand 
back,” and he knocked again, and the boy said he 
told him he lived there, and then without the officer 
saying anything why the officer wanted to go in, 
he apparently pushed open the door, which are the 
facts, as I gather it from the testimony.

Mr. Sause: Well, the point also being, if Your 
Honor please, that there is testimony about guns, 
and the police officer told him to stand hack, and 
he was so afraid, hut even when the policeman 
told him to stand back he didn’t stand back but 
went back up with the police officer.

The Court: I don’t remember he said, I don’t 
remember the testimony that he was afraid at that 
time. I don’t remember that he opened the door 
because he was afraid. I don’t remember the affirma­
tive evidence to that effect. Maybe he said it and 
I missed it but I don’t remember him saying that 
one way or the other. The evidence, as I recall 
it, or the substance of it is what I just summarized.

Mr. Sause: All right. T interpreted it as Your 
Honor did.

That’s all: Thank you.
—295—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, when you were standing up there, how many 
policemen were there? A. I don’t know.

The Court: Well, he said four or five went in 
the house when you asked him how many policemen 
came up the street, and he answered it four or five 
went in the house.

Frankie Bond—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



172a

Did more come up the street than went in the 
house?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And when did you get or at what point did you get 
afraid, do you know?

Mr. Sause: Object.
The Court: Well, I think there was some testi­

mony somewhere that he was afraid.
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: All right. At what point did he 

become afraid?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. When did you become afraid? A. Well, what made 
me afraid? Well, seeing all these guns and rifles, seeing 
the rifles.

Mr. Nabrit: You may step down.
—306—

*  *  *  #  #

Captain Joseph A. Mahker 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 for the record, 
Captain.

The Witness: Captain Joseph A. Mahrer.
The Clerk: Take the stand, please.

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



173a

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Captain, what is your position and occupation? A. 
I am the Commanding Officer of the Northeastern Police 
Station.

—307—
Q. And with what police force? A. Baltimore City 

Police Department.
Q. And how long have you worked on the Baltimore 

City force? A. Twenty-seven years.
Q. And have you participated in a search for the Veney 

brothers, Earl Veney and Sam Veney in any way, direct 
it at all? A. 1 did.

#  #  *  • #

—309—
*  #  #  ♦ #

Q. Captain, isn’t it substantially correct that on or about 
December 25, 1964, a police officer, Sergeant Cooper was 
a victim of a homicide in your district? A. That is cor­
rect.

#  #  #  *  #

—310—
*  #  #  *  *

Q. Captain, you’ve been on the force twenty-five years,
—311—

I believe you stated? A. Yes, going on twenty-seven.
Q. Doing on twenty-seven? A. Yes.
Q. And you’re Commander of the Northeast District. 

What is that, the Northeast District? A. What is it?
Q. Yes. A. Oh, you mean the boundary lines?
Q. No, no. I mean, the City, does the Police Depart­

ment have districts and what are they? A. They are

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—-Direct



1 7 4 a

divided into nine different districts and this is one of the 
nine.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: What is this Northeast!
The Witness: Northeastern goes from North Ave­

nue on the south to the City line on the north, and 
from Greenmount Avenue on the west to Belair 
Road on the east.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And who is your immediate superior officer in the 
department? A. Inspector Clarence German.

Q. Inspector German? A. Yes.
Q. And is he the highest ranking uniformed officer? 

A. He’s—
—312—

Q. Or does he have a superior? A. Oh, yes, he has a 
superior. The Chief Inspector, Inspector George Murphy 
is his superior.

Q. And the Commissioner over the Chief Inspector? 
A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. Commissioner Bernard C. Schmidt?
# * # # #

—316—
#  *  #  *  *

The Witness: Well, during the early stages of 
the investigation I had many, many meetings with 
my superior officers. As a matter of fact the Com­
missioner was there the morning that the Sergeant 
was killed, and my Inspector was there.

I had meetings with the Captains of the Detective 
Bureau, the Captain of the Homicide Squad.



I had many meetings and we discussed many 
things. Now, I don’t know specifically what you 
want. If you ask me I ’ll probably be able to tell you.

The Court: Well, the answer is that you had 
many meetings. It doesn’t answer still whether they

—317—
were general discussions or whether any of those— 
the question was orders or whether any of them 
were in the form of orders, whether oral or written 
or were they general discussions of what should be 
done?

The Witness: The only, the only written orders 
that I can recall offhand is the one Teletype message 
which was put out for all districts and if an in­
vestigation or an inspection was made of any prem­
ises.

# # * # #

—319—
*  *  #  *  *

Q. Is the message that you referred to the one on this 
piece of paper which was encircled? A. Yes, it is.

Q. Can you tell from that date that is on there? A. 
This is issued on December 25th.

Q. 1964? A. Yes, 1964 at 6:44 a.m.

The Court: Do you want this in?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And would you describe generally what it is, as it’s 
a message from who to who? A. This is a message to 
all, all districts and divisions.

Q. From? A. And it was from Inspector Clarence 
German.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 7 6 a

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Mr. Nabrit: Counsel has requested that I read 
it. I have no objection to it, Your Honor.

The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: 12/25/64.
“Any post officer or radio car turning up a house 

for anyone of the subjects wanted in the North- <
eastern District for homicide of a police sergeant 
will notify the ‘emergency vehicle’ to meet them at 
said location before doing so.

“ Signed,
“Inspector Clarence German”

The Court: Well, now, off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The Court: Do you want this marked?
Mr. Nabrit: I would like to have this marked as 

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1.
The Court: Yes, and you can have a photostat 

made.
The Clerk: Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 1 marked in 

evidence.
(Document above referred to was marked Plain­

tiffs’ Exhibit No. 1.)

The Court: May I see it?
Well, I notice, and I don’t know that it’s par­

ticularly important, but there are some notes, pen-

<



177a

—321—
ciled notes on it, for instance, the word “must” , 
and then something about “special” , and I don’t 
know whether these notes have any particular im­
portance or not, but it may be that the notes that 
appear on these things may in certain cases have 
importance.

All right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Captain, was it determined who would be in charge 
of this investigation, and who was that? A. This was 
a joint-investigation by the Detective Bureau and the 
Homicide Squad and the officers of the Northeastern Dis­
trict.

Q. Can you tell me who were the principal officers who 
were in charge of conducting the investgation for the 
various departments? A. Well, of course—

Q. Not the top man, but one or two of the top men. A. 
The ones who were actually on the scene most of the time?

Q. Yes, sir. A. Lieutenant Glover and Lieutenant Cad- 
den from the Homicide Squad.

The Court: What are the names?
The Witness: Lieutenant Glover, G-l-o-v-e-r, and 

Lieutenant Cadden.
The Court: They are not the heads of Homicide?

—322—
The Witness: No, they are not the heads of Homi­

cide, Your Honor.
The Court: They are the men—
The Witness: They were the senior ranking offi­

cers from that Bureau on the scene most of the time.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 7 8 a

From the Detective Bureau I think it was, Lieu­
tenant Manuel would he the senior ranking officer 
from the Detective Bureau from the Robbery Squad.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. From the robbery that was committed that was 
thought to be connected with this homicide; is that correct ? 
A. Well, of course, the robbery that occurred on Green- 
mount Avenue at the time Lieutenant Maskell was shot, 
and of course, the Robbery Squad was brought into the 
investigation.

Q. And from your district were there officers also in­
volved? A. Yes.

Q. I mean were some senior officers involved? A. The 
only officer that I, that is, the only senior officer that I had 
assigned to this particular squad was Sergeant Hartmann, 
and Sergeant Hartmann was assigned to the squad the en­
tire time, I think.

The Court: Assigned to the squad?
—323—

The Witness: To the squad making this investi­
gation.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Now, was there organized at some point during this 

period, something either colloquially or actually called the 
“flying squad” ? A. 1 think it was referred to as the fly­
ing squad by the newspapers, but we never used the term 
ourselves.

The Court: Did you use the term “ squad” ?
The Witness: Yes, squad, yes.

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



179a

The Court: Who were making the investigation.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And the squad making the investiga­

tion contained representatives of the Detective Bu­
reau, the Homicide Bureau at Northeastern?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
Your Honor, if I may, I would like to say that I 

had lieutenants working on this investigation at all 
times. I had lieutenants working around the clock, 
whatever lieutenant was working at that particular 
time would assist with it in any way that he could.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, were you the person that was, at least in tacti­
cal command of the search to apprehend these people? A. 
I would say that most of the time I was the senior ranking

—3 2 4 -
officer.

Q. On the scene? A. On the scene, yes—not on the 
scene, but outside.

Q. At headquarters? A. Yes, in headquarters, at the 
Northeastern.

Q. Now, what was the size of this squad in the search for 
the alleged perpetrators of the crime? A. Oh, T suppose 
that at times we had as high as fifty to sixty men working 
at one time or another.

The Court: You mean at once or at different 
times?

The Witness: Well, at different times, the entire 
number of men that worked on the case in one way or 
another is approximately, is approximately sixty.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 8 0 a

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And were there other men in other parts of the City 
who were also working on the case independently of your 
command! A. Yes.

Q. Now, were they also—did your men conduct investiga­
tions and searches in an attempt to find the alleged perpe­
trators? A. Oh, yes.

Q. And they were, these alleged perpetrators were be­
lieved to be Samuel and Earl Veney; is that correct? A.

- 3 2 5 -
Yes, that’s correct.

# # # # #
—327—

# # # * #
Q. Captain, on the 27th or the 26th did you issue a state­

ment or make the statement to the members of the press
that the Commissioner, it was something like this, that 
“The Commissioner has given us a free hand to call in as 
many men or cars as you need for each shift?” A. Yes, I 
did.

Q. And was that true?

The Court: What is that? I didn’t hear that. I 
wasn’t sure that I got all of that.

(The last question was read by the Reporter.)

Mr. Nabrit: Tip.
The Witness: I misunderstood the question.

—328—
The Court: As many men as he needed for each 

tip. Are you reading from something?
Mr. Nabrit: I’m reading from my notes.



1 8 1 a

The Court: Or are you making up this as you go 
along?

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honor, I ’m reading from 
my notes, a copy of the quote from a newspaper arti­
cle, December 27th in the Sun.

The Court: And this is a statement that the wit­
ness made to whom, to a reporter or to whom?

Mr. Nabrit: This is not indicated. It’s a quote at­
tributed to him.

Mr. Murphy: The Captain doesn’t remember say­
ing it.

Mr. Nabrit: The Captain is not saying this.
Mr. Murphy: He’s modifying that.
The Court: I thought he said that he did.
Mr. Nabrit: I thought he said he misunderstood 

my question.
The Court: Would you read the question.
The Witness: I misunderstood the last word.
Mr. Nabrit: The last word, which was tip.
The Witness: Tip, no, I didn’t say that.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Can you tell us as best in your own words substan-
—329—

tially what the Commissioner told you? A. I said the 
Commissioner gave us the authority to call as many men 
and as many cars as we need at any time.

Q. I see.
The Court: At any time. You mean for any, do 

you mean for any search or what you felt you 
needed?

The Witness: For any purpose that we may need, 
any additional men, we had the authority to call.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 8 2 a

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And this was a special authorization for this partic­
ular investigation of the alleged perpetrators of this homi­
cide? A. 1 would say that that would be for me because 
ordinarily a Captain is not given that authority.

Q. And what is the largest—do you have any idea what 
is the largest number of men that you called on? You told 
me sixty, and I wasn’t sure what that figure was. A. Well, 
we had sixty. That’s the total number of men that I have 
a record of that actually participated in the case working- 
out of Northeastern District. I have the record of approxi­
mately sixty. Now, 1 may be a few off either way. 1 don’t 
think I counted them; but I would say approximately sixty.

We use—excuse me.
Q. Go ahead. A. We used many more men in the dis-

—330—
tricts when the men went out to inspect the premises and 
they would call for two or three radio cars depending upon 
the number of men they had with them. If they thought 
they needed more help they would call for two or three 
radio cars. So therefore there were many more men in the 
districts.

Q. For your men from Northeastern? A. The North­
eastern District.

Q. Were you called to investigate premises in other dis­
tricts in the City? A. That’s correct.

Q. How many of them of the districts?

The Court: Of this squad?
You said sixty men working out of the North­

eastern District. Does that include some of the homi­
cide men as well?

The Witness: That included—



1 8 3 a

The Court: And some of the detective men!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Detectives also!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: So you meant that sixty men at one 

time or another had been on the squad!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And if the squad would go to the 

Northern District, for instance, they would likely 
ask for a couple of radio cars from Northern to join

—331—
them in the activity or they might not, hut you had a 
right to do it?

The Witness: Yes, that’s right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, did this squad have certain special equipment 
for this type of investigation, like weapons and automobiles 
and rifles and things like that? A. At all times they had 
with them the emergency truck, which is mentioned in the 
Teletype, one, and sometimes two depending upon whether 
there was a call.

Q. Does that emergency truck carry weapons? A. Yes, 
every emergency truck carries all sorts of protective de­
vices, guns, riot guns, machine guns, tear gas, and many 
other articles and equipment that we may need.

Q. Now, I guess the investigation is still going on up to 
this date?

Mr. Sause: Now, if Your Honor please, we object 
to that after the time of the bringing of this suit, 
and one, and two, and what the police are presently 
doing is something that is not relevant.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 8 4 a

The Court: I think the present activities of the 
police—

Mr. Sause: Present activities of the police.
The Court: —as such as it may be conducted in 

any raids, you have a statement that no houses have 
been raided, I believe you said.

—332—
Mr. Murphy: Not raided.
The Court: No houses?
Mr. Murphy: Not raided, not that term.
The Court: No houses have been raided.
Mr. Murphy: No premises have been entered, I 

believe, since then.
The Court: That no premises have been entered 

since the eleventh and if any are entered will you 
bring this report up to date?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir. That’s in the information 
I have.

The Court: As the case goes along. Won’t that 
take care of it?

Mr. Nabrit: Well, if Your Honor please—
The Court: Well, of course they want to find peo­

ple, but whether it’s going on in Baltimore or some 
other city is something that we can discuss later.

Mr. Nabrit: I wasn’t trying to inquire into any­
thing like that at all, Your Honor. What I want to 
know is have they caught the people they are look­
ing for yet and are they still looking?

The Witness: We are still looking.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Well, from the beginning to now, have you, do you 

know of any attempts by either your superiors or you or

Ca-ptain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 8 5 a

—3 3 3 -
officers under your command to obtain a search warrant to 
enter premises in the search for these alleged perpetrators'? 
A. There were no search warrants applied for in any case, 
no.

* * # * *

—334—
* * * * *

Q. When the squad that you are referring to would go to 
a place to investigate would they customarily surround the 
place? A. Yes.

Q. With their weapons pointed in the direction of the 
place? A. Yes.

Q. And wearing the protective equipment if it was avail­
able? A. The men who entered the premises first always 
wore some sort of protective equipment, yes.

Q. And they would proceed with or try to enter carrying- 
weapons? I mean the people who entered would carry their 
weapons? A. Oh, yes.

Q. And if it was during the nighttime did you use search­
lights routinely or on occasions or what? A. Any time we

—335—
needed lights we’d use them if they were available.

Q. And the officers conducting this were both plainclothes 
and uniforms? A. That is correct.

*  *  *  *  *

—352—
* * * * *

The Court: So that people may know about it, the 
question has arisen with respect to the information 
upon which the police acted. Counsel for the plain­
tiffs subpoenaed all of the police records. The Court 
felt, and I think counsel for both sides agreed, that

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs— Direct



186a

it might not be in the interest of justice generally to 
make all the police records available to any counsel 
in the case.

Arrangements have therefore been made by the 
Court with the president of the Junior Bar that a 
team of Junior Bar Lawyers will each examine a cer­
tain number of police records and extract from those 
records information which counsel for one side or the 
other or the Court deems important, and that a com­
pilation of the records so made by the members of 
the Junior Bar, who will be in effect Special Masters 
for the Court, may be offered in evidence by either 
side subject to the usual objections of relevancy and 
materiality and subject to possible questions of the 
men to clarify any ambiguous things.

—353—
This will not prevent either side having the right 

to call any evidence; but it is an effort to get the 
substance of the essential facts of the case into the 
record in as short a form as possible.

Is that a fair statement for both sides!
Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir.
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Thereupon, C a p t a in  J o se p h  A. M a h r e r  resumed the wit­
ness stand and testified further as follows:

The Clerk: Captain, you are still under oath. 
The Witness: Yes.

Direct Examination (Resumed.) by Mr. Nabrit :

Q. Captain, you have testified earlier that you do not 
know of any search warrants being applied for in connec­
tion with this investigation.



1 8 7 a

I was wondering whether you could tell me whether or 
not there was a specific decision not to seek warrants in this 
case or whether or not this was more or less following 
general orders or general policies? A. To the best of my 
knowledge, it was never discussed, obtaining search war­
rants. We just followed the normal operating procedures.

Q. Now, am I correct in understanding that your men on
—354—

the squad were, that you attempted to have them ready 
for an almost immediate response that you received infor­
mation that you would have men placed about waiting for 
instructions to proceed? Is that a fair way of saying it? 
A. That’s correct.

Q. Exactly how did you work that so that they could re­
spond quickly? A. Well, most of the time they operated 
out of the Northeastern District; they were working right 
from my district, and if we had information that the Veneys 
may be located at a certain address or location they, the 
squad went out.

Q. Were there occasions when teams of officers would be 
assembled, located in automobiles or trucks or cars in a 
neighborhood waiting for further instructions to go to the 
next raid during the—I don’t mean to use the word “raid” , 
but I mean for the next investigation? A. We don’t sta­
tion any cars at certain locations, if that’s what you mean, 
and the only time that we would do something like that is 
where we have a certain house or building under surveil­
lance, and then we would take the car there.

Q. Well, were there times, well, were there times in the 
periods during the investigation when the important part 
of the investigation was waiting for leads or tips or phone 
calls? A. Oh, yes.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



188a

—355—
Q. And I think you said one day it was just working on 

tips, at one point in the investigation; is that right? A. 
I’d say the first two days we received very little in the form 
of tips. Most of our information that we had to develop 
during our investigation as to the friends and families of 
the Veneys, and most of our investigation was almost from 
the first, I ’d say the first or day-and-a-half was entirely on 
information developed in our investigation.

Q. And then after that? A. After that we worked on 
tips. We got a lot of them.

Q. And some of these tips come to you through the News, 
American-News newspaper which offered rewards? A. 
Yes, we got quite a few.

Q. And other newspapers as well I suppose, or press 
people, do you know? A. I don’t know; I have no knowl­
edge.

Q. Now, did there come a time in this investigation when 
you had a problem or realized that you had a problem of 
false tips or might obviously be false tips that might he 
caused by spite or things like that? A. That’s a problem 
we face in all investigations, especially the ones that have 
a lot of publicity.

Q. And this one included, I suppose? A. Yes.
—35&—

Q. And isn’t that kind of problem particularly associated 
with a phone call where the caller doesn’t give his name? 
A. It’s in most of them, yes.

Q. Now, there were some such calls in this investigation, 
were there not? A. Oh, yes.

Q. And wouldn’t you think that this is a general prob­
lem in widely publicized crime, that the police get barraged 
with these?

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



1 8 9 a

Mr. Sause: He already said he did, if Your Honor 
please.

Mr. Nabrit: When he nodded his head, if he 
nodded his head, but he didn’t answer.

The Court: He said that, at least my note is that 
false tips are always a problem in investigations es­
pecially ones that are widely publicized.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir.
Mr. Sause: Yes.
Mr. Nabrit: Withdrawn, withdraw the question. 

Thank you.
The Court: That’s not exactly what he said but 

I thought that was the substance of the couple of 
questions that you asked, a couple of questions and 
answers.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Hid there come a point in this investigation where
—357—

there was a decision made to change the method of investi­
gating these tips because there were so many false phone 
calls or something? A. As the number of tips and infor­
mation subsided we, of course, reduced the number of our 
squad, and as a matter of fact during the last two days 
we only had four men on each shift working.

Q. Now, I think you told me that—well, do you have any 
idea of what was the largest amount, what was the largest 
raid in terms of the number of officers involved? Was 
Preston Street, was that one of the larger ones? A. Pres­
ton Street was rather large, yes. We had a large number of 
policemen from the Northern District and the Central Dis­
trict showed up on that particular raid.

Q. You call it a rather large one. How many officers

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer— for Plaintiffs— Direct



1 9 0 a

would be there! That’s what I want to know! A. Do you 
want me to guess!

Q. Well, can you give us sort of an informed guess or 
educated guess, to try to calculate it for me? A. I would 
say approximately twenty-five.

The Court: Do you think there were more than 
twenty officers present in five entries? I don’t mean 
all went in the house but present in the investigation 
at particular locations, was it five or twenty-five or 
fifty or a hundred or more?

—358—
The Witness: x\t that particular location?
The Court: No, at any location, all locations? 

How many times did you have as many as twenty 
officers?

The Witness: To my knowledge, and I was only 
on three or four of these myself, but on 1634, going 
to 1634, where we had information, going to 1634 
that on arrival we had information that they were 
running over the rooftops, and I think on that raid' 
we probably had twenty or twenty-five.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, was Lieutenant Cadden—

The Court: You wouldn’t always know how many 
men from other districts were involved, would you?

The Witness: No, sir, I would not.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Lieutenant Cadden or Glover were on most of these 
raids, Captain, were they? A. They were on quite a few.

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



191a

Q. Now, during the investigation were there cases where 
people were stopped on the street and searched as a part of 
this investigation? A. There could have been; I have no 
personal knowledge of it.

Q. How about public establishments such as bars, tav­
erns, pool halls, searching the patrons? A. The men had 
reported to me that they had searched the patrons in a pool

- 3 5 9 -
hall, I think, in Walbrook.

Q. Walbrook Avenue? Is that it or is that the name of 
the section? A. I think it’s Walbrook Junction; Walbrook 
Junction, as I recall it. Clifton Avenue, I think it was.

Q. Now, sir, would you know the names of the magis­
trates or other officials normally available in the Northeast 
District who would issue search warrants?

Mr. Sause: Now, if Your Honor please, 1 object 
to that; I don’t see what relevancy that has to this 
case.

Mr. Nabrit: As to their names.
The Court: Well, the Court doesn’t know how 

often magistrates sit. On plaintiffs’ theory the 
availability of a magistrate would be an essential 
fact. I ’ve got to look at the decisions of law before 
I can say whether it is material or not.

I think I’ll take it subject to exception. It’s a 
question of how often or at what times of the day 
a magistrate is normally at Northeastern, and if not 
at Northeastern whether there is always at all times 
some Municipal Court Judge available somewhere. 
Not magistrates; I mean Municipal Court Judges.

Can that be stipulated? T guess the officer would 
know as well as anybody.

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



192a

Mr. Murphy: I think the Captain can testify to
—360—

that.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Can you enlighten us on this, Captain? A. The 
Judge at Northeast sits daily at nine a.m. seven days a 
week, and he is there until he finishes his case load, and 
then he leaves.

There are no hours where he must stay there until eleven 
o’clock or twelve o’clock. He leaves after his work is com­
pleted in the morning.

Q. Which is usually about when? Do you know? A. It 
all depends upon the amount of cases he has assigned for 
the day.

Q. Sometimes into the afternoon? A. No, no, I’d say 
most of the times he is out of there by ten-thirty at the 
latest.

The Court: But supose you need a search warrant 
to search a house, not connected with this case, but 
a search warrant where you haven’t got an arrest- 
warrant, and you want to get a search warrant, what 
do you do?

A. If our Judge is not in the station house we can prob­
ably call Judge Harrington, the Chief Judge, who I think 
is available most of the time during the day from nine until 
five, and if he didn’t want to handle it himself he would 
probably make arrangements somewhere to get one for us.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



193a

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Does your Judge come to your precinct in the after-
—3 6 1 -

noons or another Judge? A. He is there from Monday 
until Friday. There are no afternoon sessions on Saturday 
or Sunday or holidays.

The Court: But he’s back there on Monday to Fri­
day afternoons?

Mr. Nabrit: In the afternoon?
The Witness: At three p.m.
The Court: What?
The Witness: At three p.m., Monday to Friday.
The Court: And how long does it last?
The Witness: And the same rule applies, when 

he’s finished his work he leaves.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, during this— have you ever had occasion at which 
you have been commander there when you tried to get in 
touch with a magistrate at night? A. I have had no occa­
sion, no sir.

Q. Did you attempt in connection Avith this— Avell, am I 
correct in understanding that for a given number of days, 
and I don’t knoAV how many days it Avould be that this Avas a 
sort of around-the-clock police investigation that you 
Avorked, had some men working constantly? A. That’s cor­
rect.

Q. Was there any attempt to, did you make any effort to 
have a magistrate available around-the-clock or a Judge?

—362—
The Court: For what purpose ? For Avhat purpose ?



194a

Mr. Nabrit: For the—I beg your pardon, sir?
The Court: For what purpose ? T don’t understand. 

For what purpose?
If they arrested a man they can bring him in and 

they might or might not have to take him before a 
magistrate at a certain time, and that would have been 
a problem.

It’s their understanding that when they have an 
arrest warrant they don’t have to have a search war­
rant to go into any house that they think they have 
probable cause to go in.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: I understand that’s the police position 

and there was no need to have a magistrate avail­
able on their theory.

Now, if their theory was wrong, obviously with a 
Municipal Court with—what is it? Sixteen or more 
Judges, you can find a Judge somewhere most any 
time.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: I would think there can’t be much 

doubt about that.
Mr. Nabrit: I have nothing further. Your witness.
The Court: Mr. Murphy, there’s one question that 

I think ought to be asked. I usually don’t intervene 
in a case except after the examination and the cross-

—3 6 3 -
examination, but this is somewhat unusual.

I haven’t seen the manual, and I don’t know 
whether you have given it to counsel for the plaintiff, 
but I should like to know in some appropriate way 
the normal procedure for authorizing entry of the 
house to look for a felon for whom you have a war­

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Direct



195a

rant of arrest and whether there was any variation 
from procedures in this case.

I understand in hot pursuit, of course, when any 
officer can go in chasing after a man but not in a 
situation where you have a warrant for the arrest 
of a man and say at least twenty-four hours have 
passed since the commission of the felony, does an 
individual officer have the right to go into a house 
to search for the felon? Does he have to get authority 
from somebody, and if so from whom, and whether 
there was any variation from the usual procedures 
in this case?

Now, I don’t know. I would think this Officer was 
as capable as any man of answering the question, 
perhaps better able than anyone to answer whether 
there was any variation.

Would you like to bring it out in your way?
Mr. Murphy: Well, perhaps we can do that if we 

can stipulate into evidence the manuals of procedure 
of the Police Department that they have here it

—3 6 4 -
might be helpful.

Mr. Nabrit: What’s this?
Mr. Murphy: Well, these are the manuals with 

the supplementations which appear in the back, and 
I have one of these.

One of them is identified as the rules and regula­
tions and manual of procedures of the Police Depart­
ment of Baltimore City, 1959 edition as supple­
mented, the supplements are in the back, and we can 
perhaps introduce this into evidence as a joint ex­
hibit.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs— Direct



1 9 6 a

The other is designated as Digest of Laws of the 
Police Department of Baltimore, 1961. That also, I 
believe, is supplemented, and in that volume, Your 
Honor, there is the Digest of Laws on page 11 of that 
Digest.

Cross Examination by Mr. Murphy:

Q. Captain, an Officer, each officer has a copy of these 
two documents that I ’ve referred to? A. Yes, they do.

Q. When do they get them? A. When they are ap­
pointed, or when a book, when a new book is issued, of 
course they are issued a new book.

Mr. Murphy: Your Honor, page 11 of this, of this 
work talks about force in making an arrest, breaking 
doors. Doors may be broken open by an officer under

—365—
No. 1 for the purpose of arresting for any offense 
upon a warrant when entrance is denied him, that 
demand of entrance must first be made.

Then it cites 120 Massachusetts 190.
Mr. Nabrit: Identify the book, will you, please.
Mr. Murphy: 1 have.
On page 11, it talks about force in making an arrest.
Mr. Nabrit: We have no objection to the admis­

sion of the two books as instructions given to the 
officers or the booklet furnished to the officers, but 
we don’t agree with all the law in that law manual.

The Court: Well, that is very helpful to know 
what is in the manual, but what I wanted to get clear 
was when there is a warrant for arrest, and the time, 
some time has expired, and the officer is not in hot

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



197a

pursuit of someone who he is following, is it custom­
ary for any officer to break into a house if he is re­
fused admission if he thinks he has probable cause 
that the man is there or does he generally get author­
ity from somebody higher up!

The Witness: The patrolman would have to get 
authority. He would have to get it either from the 
sergeant or the lieutenant.

The Court: A sergeant or lieutenant has authority 
to authorize it!

—366—
The Witness: Yes, they have.

By Mr. Murphy.

Q. In this specific case, Captain Mahrer, when the situa­
tion arose where the police felt that they had probable cause 
to enter any premises, what procedure was followed! A. 
In these particular cases!

Q. In these particular cases of which we are speaking 
now! A. We follow the same procedure in all cases. We 
knock on the door and we gain admittance by whoever 
opens the door. I never went in first to any of the places 
that I went to, so I don’t know the conversations that took 
place but I knew they were instructed to talk to the people, 
tell them why they were there and get their permission.

The Court: Well, what I was trying to get—they 
were the general instructions—but what I was try­
ing to get at was who authorized people to go into 
a specific house in order to search as a result of in­
formation received in connection with this case!

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



1 9 8 a

The Witness: Whoever was in charge of the squad 
at that particular time.

The Court: Whoever was in charge of the scjuad 
at that time did it.

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Now, it is unusual, I suppose, to have

—367—
such a squad?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: I suppose the person in charge of the 

squad would usually have been a lieutenant or 
higher.

The Witness: Most of the times it was a lieuten­
ant.

The Court: Most of the time a lieutenant, it was 
a lieutenant.

Now, in the ordinary case where you don’t have a 
special squad set up for a particular case, and let 
us say you have a homicide case and you get a tele­
phone call to the district, to your district where the 
crime occurred in your district today and the person 
is supposed to be in your district, who authorizes 
the search of the house routinely? Not this case but 
a routine case?

The Witness: Ordinarily it would be the district, 
the division commander who would be the lieutenant 
or the bailwick sergeant if they couldn’t reach the 
lieutenant.

The Court: The divisional lieutenant.
The Witness: The division commander. That

would be the lieutenant or the bailiwick sergeant.
The Court: Or the bailiwick sergeant.
The Witness: Yes, sir.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



199a

The Court: By the bailiwick sergeant you mean 
the sergeant in charge of a particular area less than 
a district.

—368—
The Witness: Of that, yes, sir. The district is di­

vided into five, six, or seven bailiwicks and we have 
a sergeant in charge of each area.

The Court: Is that sergeant usually in the Central 
or usually in the district station or is he out?

The Witness: No, he’s usually out.
The Court: But you would normally get in touch 

with him ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: If the lieutenant was not available.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: I wanted to get the general procedure, 

and that was helpful to me.
If either side wishes to develop that further, of 

course, they may do so.

By Mr. Murphy.

Q. Captain Mahrer, you referred to the fact that there 
are approximately sixty men on the squad involved in this 
case? A. I ’d say that was the total number of them.

Q. Do all of them go out on each case? A. Oh, no, no.
Q. Did they go out in teams? A. Most of the time we 

went out in teams, yes.
—369—

Q. Teams? A. Most of the time we went out in teams, 
yes.

Q. What is—strike that. Is there any—strike that also.
In each case did the officers carry guns? A. The only 

officers who carry, that is, shotguns or machine guns were

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



2 0 0 a

the officers who were specially trained in their use, and 
they are always members of the Riot Squad or have special 
training in the use of that particular weapon.

Q. Then why do they carry guns, Captain? A. For 
their protection.

Q. For their protection? A. Yes, and the protection of 
everyone, and a place like Preston Street where you have 
thousands of people around, and you need a lot of guns 
around to protect not only the police officers but the citizens.

You never know what moment the Veneys may come run­
ning out the door or start shooting out the window, and 
they wanted to protect everyone.

Q. Did you have any information that at any time, Cap­
tain, to suggest that there might be others with the Veney 
brothers at any given location? A. Do I have any infor­
mation as to that there were others with the Veneys?

— 370—

Q. Yes. A. I can’t think of any specific case, no, sir.
Q. Captain, what if any other protection did you have 

with you other than guns? A. The men who entered the 
premises first in all cases were, wore bulletproof vests. That 
was done under instructions, only men going in first.

Q. How many people would that be, Captain, generally? 
A. Usually four. I think they only carry six vests on the 
trucks, to the best of my knowledge, and usually they use 
about four of them at one time

Q. You referred to the Preston Street investigation. How 
many houses did you enter on Preston Street? A. I think 
six on Preston Street and one on Linden Avenue.

Q. Were they vacant or occupied? A. They were all 
occupied, so far as I know.

Q. Would you describe the procedure in any one of those 
cases, the police procedure from the time that you got the

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



2 0 1 a

information, from the time that you went to the particular 
location, what did you do? A. Before going there we sent 
a car and men in plain-clothes to look the area over, and 
when they came back we planned just where each car, where 
each car would cover, such as the back of the Preston Street 
houses, the sides and the fronts, and the Linden Avenue 
house, and when everyone was in readiness, when everyone

—371—
knew their assignment, we converged on the scene.

The men wearing the bulletproof vests entered each house 
separately while the rest of the men stood around the area 
covering the roofs, roofs, windows, and alleyways.

Q. Captain Mahrer, why did the police officers search 
the patrons in the poolroom, if you know? Why did the 
police officers search the patrons in the poolroom that you 
referred to a moment ago? A. I know from the informa­
tion received from the officers when they came back.

Q. Would you tell us what it was? A. Yes, it was a 
phone call supposedly from the man who owned the pool- 
room—I don’t recall his name offhand—but he claimed that 
the Veneys were in the poolroom with, and they were armed, 
they had guns, and went in the men’s room.

When the officers got there they searched the men’s room 
and found no one, but they searched everyone in the pool- 
room looking for weapons.

Q. Now, at what time of the day was that or night? A. 
Offhand I don’t know.

Q. Did you find any weapons? A. T don’t think so. It 
may have been but I don’t recall.

Q. Is that standard procedure that in any place you went
—3 7 2 -

in you searched the occupants? A. As far as I know the 
occupants weren’t searched anywhere.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Cross



2 0 2 a

Q. Execpt in the poolroom! A. Except in a place like 
this where they, someone was supposed to have a weapon.

Mr. Murphy: 1 have no further questions.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Captain, this poolroom incident did you also subse­

quently learn later that the man who owned the poolroom 
denied calling! A. I think he told the officers that that 
very same day, he told them—

Q. That’s right. A. That he had not made the phone 
call.

Q. I think, Captain, in answer to some questions at least 
you agreed with the suggestion or didn’t contradict the as­
sertion that this was an unusual investigation, search for 
the Veneys. What were the things about it that were un­
usual, would you say!

Mr. Sause: First ask him if he thought it was 
unusual!

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: That’s why 1 thought it was unusual

—373—
to set up a separate squad, and T may have led him 
into it.

Is it unusual to have a separate squad, a repre­
sentative squad?

The Witness: Any time we have a murder case we 
always have a squad of detectives and district men 
working together on it.

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



2 0 3 a

Q. Were there any features about this particular squad 
or the investigation of this case that was unusual either in 
size or length of itf A. Except that it was large, the 
largest group of men working on it. I think it was unusual 
in the fact that we had two police officers shot in one night, 
and it’s the first time it has ever happened in, so far as I 
know, as far as I can remember that we had one man killed 
and one man shot, very seriously wounded in one night by 
the same persons.

Q. Were there off duty officers who volunteered in any of 
these searches? A. Yes.

Q. On their own time, on their off time? A. On their 
own time, yes.

Q. And I suppose many of them were friends of the in­
jured and deceased officer? A. Most of the volunteers were 
from my district and both ot the men were their superiors.

—374—
Q. Has the number of tips or leads dwindled as time went 

on? A. Well, in this last week we have not, to my knowl­
edge, gotten over three of them.

Q. In the last week? A. It’s dropped down.
Q. W ell, what was it at the peak period, at the beginning 

of it? You don’t remember? A. I couldn’t answer that.
Q. Do you know what’s the largest number of raids? I ’m 

sorry; I don’t mean to use that word “raids” in any invid­
ious sense but the largest number of places visited in any 
single day? A. No.

Q. On any single piece of information? A. No, I don’t 
know offhand.

Q. Can you find out swiftly or by just a glance at your

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs—Redirect

By Mr. Nabrit:



204a

record or would it take you a long time? A. I don’t think 
so.

I’m sorry. I thought I had them down on a sheet but I 
don’t and I don’t know just where I can fiind it.

Mr. Nabrit: All right. Thank you for looking.
The Court: 1 would think that would be something 

we could hope to get from the investigation on this. 
Mr. Nabrit: Thank you. Thank you for looking.

—375—
Mr. Murphy: Had you finished!
Mr. Nabrit: No, I had not quite finished.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Have you had reported to you by any of your subor­

dinate officers any violations of your instructions by officeis 
in the course of these raids, about officers who disobeyed 
orders? A. None.

The Court: Well, there is one thing. We won’t get 
this business about tips because we are only getting 
the ones where there was an entry made, and I imag­
ine there were tips. Were there any tips received 
which were not followed up?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: —by entries?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: So that they wouldn’t show here unless 

we have some separate record.
Do you have any record made of that, Mr. Murphy? 
Mr. Murphy: Of those that were not, no, Your 

Honor. I think there is a record showing the total

Captain Joseph A. Mahrer—for Plaintiffs Redirect



205a

number of calls made, but we have to get that off the 
tapes or the cards.

The Court: Well, perhaps it would be well to 
develop that from your point of view as to how many

- 3 7 6 -
tips came in that they didn’t enter on.

Mr. Nabrit: You may inquire?
The Court: You say you have no reports of any 

violations of instructions?
The Witness: No, sir.

Recross-Examination by Mr. Murphy.

Q. Captain, did you confine your investigation to the 
houses or other premises occupied by colored persons? A. 
I don’t think we knew the race of anyone when we went 
there but just went because we had information about a 
particular location and we had no idea whether they were 
white or colored.

Q. Did you make any record as to whether a particular 
house was occupied by colored or white persons? A. Not 
to my knowledge. It seems to me like I read one report 
where it was mentioned that the family was white. I think 
it was a Jewish family on Reisterstown Road, if I’m not 
mistaken.

I think we investigated that by phone, that we didn’t 
bother to go out there.

Q. Captain, did you actually investigate any premises 
occupied by white persons during your investigation? A. 
There could have been; I wouldn’t know.

Mr. Murphy: No further questions.

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—for Plaintiffs—Recross



206a

Captain Joseph A. Malirer—•for Plaintiffs— 
Redirect—Recross

—377—
Further Redirect Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. In your description of the Earl Veney and the Sam 
Veney to the officers, did that indicate that they were Negro? 
A. I ’m sure it was.

Q. And was that description made public, that is, made 
available to the press to try to aid in the capture of them? 
A. I think the press published their pictures.

Q. The press published their pictures? A. Yes.
Q. Were you aware that any of the leads to you or is it 

true that any of the leads or tips that were received were 
of this nature that someone saw men who resembled the 
Veneys at a given location and that type of tip? A. Yes.

Q. Can 1 take it from your answer to Mr. Murphy’s ques­
tion that certainly most, a large majority of the premises 
visisted were occupied by Negro people? A. Yes, that’s 
correct.

Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.
Q. And that you are not aware of any particular ones at 

least that were occupied by white people although you think
—378—

there might have been some? A. I think there may have 
been some but I ’m not aware of them.

Mr. Nabrit: Thank you.

Further Recross-Examination by Mr. Murphy.

Q. Captain, what reason, if any, would you have for 
going into a colored house or investigating more colored 
houses than opposed to white? A. Well, the friends and 
relatives of the Veneys were colored, and certainly they



207a

were the houses that we gave the most attention to from 
the beginning.

*  *  #  *  *

Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, counsel have 
indicated that they are willing to stipulate that the 
witnesses who testified in this hearing with the ex­
ception of the last witness, the Captain, were colored 
people. This is something I didn’t bring out.

Is that agreeable to counsel?
—379—

Mr. Murphy: Yes.
*  «  *  *  #

—385—
Thereupon, L ieutenant A nton T. Glover was called as 

a witness for and on behalf of the defendant and, having 
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name for the record. 
The Witness: Lieutenant Anton T. Glover, Balti­

more City Police Department, Homicide Squad.
The Court: What’s that?
The Witness: Baltimore City Police Department, 

Homicide Squad.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, how long have you been a member of the 
Baltimore City Police Department? A. Eighteen years.

Q. And you started as a patrolman, I presume, and you 
are now a lieutenant? A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Q. And you are assigned to the Homicide Squad; is that 
correct? A. Yes, sir.

*  *  *  *

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct

*



2 0 8 a

—394—
* * * * *

Q. Now, Lieutenant, you indicated that you participated 
in the investigation for some persons suspected of having a 
connection with certain offenses that took place on Christ­
mas Eve and obtained warrants for those people on Christ­
mas Day and the killing of Sergeant Cooper. Now, follow­
ing this did you continue to investigate any and all of these 
crimes in any way? A. We did, sir.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, I am not interested in—well, let’s 
say this, you were one of the leaders in this investigation; 
is that not correct? A. That is correct, sir.

Q. And the Commissioner, who is the head of the entire 
police force in Baltimore City designated Captain Mahrer 
as the over-all commander of this investigation; is that cor­
rect? A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. And you however, as I understand it, and Lieutenant 
Cadden were the line officers, subject, of course, to the 
over-all command of Captain Mahrer, but you and Lieuten­
ant Cadden were the field linemen; is that correct? A. 
That’s correct, sir.

Q. Now, His Honor is interested in what was the nature 
of your participation, the formation of any special groups,

—395—
and how you went about your investigation, and your rea­
sons for doing it, your modus operandi in conducting your 
investigation and anything else that you might feel is perti­
nent to explain to the Court the scope and the extent of 
any investigation you made? A. After the investigation 
was initially conducted on the crime scene the latter part 
of Christmas morning Ave convened at the Northeastern 
District, with the information \\Te had pertaining to friends.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 0 9 a

relatives of the two subjects sought, we detailed what we 
call a squad.

We then went out, we had the emergency crew which we 
were instructed to take on all turn-ups with this—we had 
the men ho had worked—

The Court: Would you tell me what the word 
“turn-up” means?

The Witness: Turn-up, Your Honor, if we have an 
address which is a relative or friend of the two per­
sons that we were seeking we would go to their 
home; we would then make request, in the instance 
of a relative, we would knock on the door, we went 
in, we searched for the subjects.

In the matter of friends, we went to their home; 
we knocked; if we had a response we told them what 
our purpose was, our reasons for being there; we 
were admitted to the home; the homes were searched, 
just the premises and nothing on the premises, look­
ing for the two subjects.

—396—
Mr. Nabrit: I object.
The Court: Does “turn-up” mean search?
The Witness: Yes, it would be search, inspections, 

search.
*  *  *  *  #

—400—
#  •  *  *  #

Q. Now, in this case what heavy firearms did the emer­
gency vehicle carry? A. The shotguns, Rising submachine 
gun.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant— Direct

The Court: Rising?



2 1 0 a I

The Witness: Rising submachine gun and tear 
gas.

—401—
The Court: Rising? How do you spell that?
The Witness: R-i-s-i-n-g.
The Court: Rising submachine gun.
The Witness: Rising submachine gun, and the tear 

gas guns or the tear gas bombs.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, this emergency, the persons who handle this 
equipment during this particular investigation were these 
people known to you to be persons especially trained in 
how to handle this equipment? A. This was one of the 
reasons that we have the squad there, sir, so the persons 
who were issued weapons were specially trained personnel.

Q. Were specially trained personnel? A. Yes, sir, that’s 
correct, sir.

Q. Was there ever any time when anyone was ever issued 
any firearms other than service revolvers other than these 
specially trained personnel? A. No, sir. Several times we 
refused the weapons to persons which did not hold a partic­
ular card.

Q. And at whose direction was it that the emergency 
vehicle participated in the investigation? A. It was, I 
was verbally instructed by the Commissioner at the hospi­
tal that we were not to seek any turn-ups unless we carried

—402—
the emergency squad with us, and subsequently at a later 
hour a Teletype was issued by Lieutenant German instruct­
ing all districts and divisions that they should not proceed 
unless they had the emergency squad.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 1 a

—404—
#  #  *  *  *

Q. From the Detective Bureau and the Northern District.
Now, would you explain to His Honor what this squad 

did and what was its method of operation as it went out 
and made the investigation in this case! A. Well, the 
early hours of Christmas morning and Christmas Day, the 
26th and 27th we were interested in turning-up homes of 
relatives or known friends or associates of the brothers, and 
with this in mind having all the information that we re­
ceived from various persons that we talked to in the homes 
of the relatives, we would go to each home and turn-up, 
trying to ascertain the whereabouts of the two person we 
were seeking.

Then in the latter part of the investigation when we had 
sort of subsided on relatives and friends, then we began 
getting information channeled to us through the police 
radio and also telephone calls.

When this information was obtained we sent out what we 
call a surveillance crew. This crew would proceed us to 
a destination; they would look this situation over such as 
exits, entrances, how many homes, look for any activity, 
and then after it was ascertained the way of means in and 
out, that we had an advance crew which Avore bulletproof

- 4 0 5 -
vests. This crew—

*  #  *  #  #

—408—
*  *  *  *  ♦

Q. Noav, Lieutenant, when you talk about this surveillance 
car, the surveillance car Avas sent out, and the purpose Avas, 
I think you testified to survey the areas A\There the officers 
would have to be employed? A. That’s correct, sir.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 2 a

Q. And were they to get some general idea of the house, 
or what were they to do? A. Well, they were to look the 
premises over which we were going to inspect or turn-up, 
and they would find out what activities, if any, were present 
and also try to ascertain the persons that resided there.

And another reason this was done was so that if it neces-
—409—

sitated our going in we like to have everything covered 
for the protection of the citizens that may arrive.

In other words, if it’s going to be a large area we want 
to have the necessary amount of cars to block the streets off 
so the citizens would not wander down.

Q. Well, when the squad arrived at a particular location 
would they consult with the advance crew? A. Well, we 
would have word from the advance group prior to our ar­
rival. Someone would talk to them, and then we would lay 
out our plan of how many cars would be in each designated 
spot.

Q. How would they talk to them? By radio? A. Oh, no, 
sir, the supervisor would go or Lieutenant Cadden would 
go up or I may go up, and Captain Mahrer would be there, 
and we would confer.

Q. Did it ever happen that the main body of the squad 
arrived at the scene and had a consultation with the advance 
crew, the surveillance crew and determine that it was un­
necessary to complete the turn-up? A. Yes, sir, there were 
several occasions.

Q. Now, after you arrived, you say that someone would 
go and talk to the advance crew about what was necessary 
at the particular location; is that correct? A. That’s cor­
rect, sir.

Q. All right. Now, what do you mean by what was neces-

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 3 a

—410—
sary? What did the advance crew or what did you all take 
into account as to what was necessary or what factors in­
dicated what was necessary! A. Well, as I say, we would 
determine the number, the amount of automobiles that 
would be stationed at whatever egress my be present, the 
alleyways, or the fronts; also if it was determined that we 
would have to have a traffic cruiser to block the streets or 
if it was a large turn-up area such as in the northern sec­
tion of town, this is taken into consideration, or if it was 
just a home which was pretty well to itself, then we just 
use the, the members from the departmental cars instead 
of using vehicles to block everything off.

Q. Now, when the main body of the squad arrived at the 
scene, at the location where would the men normally be 
employed! A. Well, you would have what we call a back 
alley crew. These men would immediately proceed down 
to the rear of the building. They would station themself 
under cover in the rear of the buildings so no one could 
exit from the back.

You would have your advance crew which would be the 
four men that wore the bulletproof vests. You would have 
your supervisor who would follow your main crew and go 
in and speak to the persons in the home, and your other 
uniformed officers would be deep, wide outside under cover, 
which was to cover any windows or rooftops or any base-

—411—
ments where you could expect trouble.

# * * • •
—412—

• # # * •
Q. Now, this advance crew that you indicated that had 

on the bulletproof vests which you said consisted of the

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 4 a

four men and the supervisor, would you explain to His 
Honor in detail how that worked? A. The four men wear­
ing the vests would approach the door; they would rap on 
the door, and when someone came to the door they, the first 
man would step inside because he had protective covering.

Then the supervisor would go to the person they were 
talking to and explain your reason for being there, that 
you were seeking two subjects. You had photographs avail­
able; ask if they knew them; you would show the photo­
graphs, and they would say that they were there or they 
weren’t there. Then you’d ask permission if we could look 
the premises over. Permission being granted, one of the 
four men that wore the bulleproof vests would go up­
stairs and look in the rooms upstairs, under beds.

One would take the basement, and one would also go 
out in the kitchen. Prior to this you would ascertain 
whether there was any children or women in the home.

—413—
If you found out that there were children and female oc­
cupants, these would be taken into one separate room in 
the event that you had anything to arise that they would 
not be in the line of trouble.

Q. Now, these men with the bulletproof vests, were they 
armed? A. They were, sir.

Q. And with what were they armed? A. Possibly a 
shotgun or a Rising machine gun.

Q. Now, were these men in the bulletproof vests spe­
cially trained? A. They were, sir.

Q. Now, who was it that acted as the supervisor or ul­
timately described as a public relations man? A. In most 
instances it would be Lieutenant Cadden or myself or when 
a shift was under the supervision of a sergeant, the ser­
geant acted as your supervisor.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 5 a

Q. Now, would the supervisor be wearing a bulletproof 
vest or would it depend upon who was acting as the su­
pervisor? A. It depended. Lieutenant Cadden or myself 
never wore vests, but the supervisor on the four to twelve 
shift did wear a vest.

Q. Now, were you ever armed with anything in addition

to your service revolver? A. I was, sir.
Q. And what were you armed with? A. Rising machine 

gun.
Q. Now, when you made these inspections in homes was 

there any instances in which you failed to follow the pro­
cedure in asking a person or in explaining the purpose for 
your visit? A. The homes that I was in charge of, I 
asked each person, each occupant.

Q. And did you tell why you were there? A. We did, 
sir.

Q. And when you were inspecting these homes did you 
meet with any opposition to your entry? A. No, sir, after 
ascertaining our reason for being there they were more 
than willing to let us search for them because each one 
said that they weren’t hiding them, that they didn’t want 
them in their homes and that we were free to look these 
premises over.

Mr. Nabrit: May it please Your Honor, I move to 
strike that out with respect to a state of mind.

The Court: He is saying what they told them.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You can strike out the part, the part 

of saying that they were willing unless it is what 
they said.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 6 a

—4 1 5 -
Strike out the answer and let the witness answer 

it again stating, you may say what they told you, 
not what you thought they said.

The Witness: As I say, in each instance where 
I was, they told us that the brothers weren’t there 
and we were willing to look the premises over be­
cause they did not want to have them in their homes, 
and we looked the premises over, the second floor, 
first floor, and the basement.

By Mr. Sanse:

Q. Now, Lieutenant, there were—

The Clerk: Can you talk louder. The Reporter 
cannot hear you.

Mr. Sause: I ’m sorry. I’m doing the best I can. 
I have a cold.

The Court: Would you like to come closer.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, Lieutenant, you were, when you were engaged 
in these inspections were these done at any particular time 
of the day or night or was any time of the day or night 
chosen to do these or how would you determine when they 
were to be done? A. No, sir. As I stated at the beginning 
on the 25th, 26th, and 27th it was just a matter of going to 
relatives and friends, but we began to get the calls, we 
would send a crew out, and in a matter of forty-five minutes 
to an hour would elapse before we would go to these homes

—416—
because we wanted to make certain where we were going.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 7 a

Q. Did you only do these in the nighttime or what? A. 
No, sir, all hours of the day and night.

Q. All hours of the day and night? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Was there any effort to do them in 
the middle of the night?

The Witness: No, sir, Your Honor. If they came 
in at a particular, in particular, at a noon hour we 
would go at noon, and if they came in in the evening 
hours we would go in the evening. It wasn’t just any 
designated time.

The Court: I understand that there were some 
times when you did select—

The Witness: There were certain cases, but cases 
of this magnitude necessitated any hour of the day, 
but in several cases it would be more advisable to 
turn-up in the wee hours of the morning.

#  #  *  •  *

—418—
*  # *  *  #

Q. Now, would you tell His Honor how you personally 
would evaluate the information that came in and what you 
do with regard to, and what, we’d like you to give examples 
of what instances you would follow up this information 
and what instances you rejected and be as specific with 
His Honor as possible? A. If we received a call, the per-

—4 1 9 -
son would say, “The two boys you are seeking are in such 
and such an address,” and hang up, we would just call this 
more or less as an anonymous call with nothing to back 
it up.

But if we could hold a person in conversation we would 
ask them what was the reason for thinking that the two

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant— Direct



2 1 8 a

suspects would be in such a home, they would say, “We’ve 
seem them entering at such and such a time, the two boys 
whose picture we saw in the newspaper, they very much 
resemble the boys,” and we would then ask the person if 
they would care to give their name and identify them­
selves.

Nine out of ten they would say, “We don’t wish to reveal 
our identity due to the fact that if it comes out it will be 
in the newspapers and everyone will be looking for us.”

Then we would evaluate it. If it sounded like the person 
was sincere and wasn’t just a crank or someone calling in 
to get even, these were then given to the advance crew 
to go out.

There were several calls we received, for instance, “You 
proceed to the intersection of Washington Boulevard and 
Fremont. Look in the grocery store. The boys come in 
every day.”

“ There’s an automobile going down Pulaski Highway, 
and these two men resemble the two boys you are looking 
for.”

—420—
These were disregarded, but if it sounded like the caller 

was authentic and they weren’t very much fast talking and 
it sounded like they’d like to talk to you we would call 
these authentic calls and we would then, we went out and 
checked them.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, you indicated, I think, you had been 
on the police force for— A. Eighteen years.

Q. Eighteen years.
Now, during the course of your police work in eighteen 

years did you take any case during that period of time 
or any serious case, is it unusual for you to receive in­

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



2 1 9 a

formation of this type with reference to a case that you 
are investigating? A. No, sir, it isn’t.

Q. And from time to time during your eighteen years 
have you been called upon to evaluate this type of in­
formation! A. We have, sir.

Q. And does that happen frequently or not? A. Well, 
the majority of times we get a case of any magnitude we 
get these calls, and we evaluate them, and we try to run 
each and everyone out.

Q. Now, perhaps it goes without saying but in order to 
complete the record, do these sort of calls vary in intensity

—421—
with the amount of publicity and the seriousness of the 
case? A. Normally they do but it’s surprising in this case 
that after a certain date they sort of fell off.

Q. They fell off? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you have indicated to His Honor that in this 

police work you have been called upon to evaluate these 
telephone calls. Did you use any other different standard 
of evaluation in this case than you have in the other eight­
een years that you have been in police work? A. I 
wouldn’t say so, no, sir.

Q. Was there anything unusual or anything different 
about the pattern of telephone calls in this case or the in­
formation that you received or anything that stands out 
in your mind? A. No, sir, other than the fact that the 
photographs of the two subjects we were seeking were 
printed in the paper, which is unusual, and this led to 
people calling saying they saw someone resembling boys 
going into a certain place because normally the photo­
graphs are not printed in the paper.

Q. Lieutenant, as I understand it, this information would 
come in sometime to you, to you and Lieutenant Cadden

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



220a

in which instances would not be recorded! A. That’s cor-
—422—

rect, sir.
Q. And sometime it would go downtown to Communica­

tions? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In which event it probably would be recorded? A. 

That’s correct, sir.
Q. After this evaluation would be made and in some 

cases would be referred to the squad; is that correct? A. 
That’s correct, sir.

Q. In cases where it was referred to the squad the ad­
vance crew or the surveillance group would be sent out; 
is that correct? A. That’s correct.

Q. And there would be consultations by the supervisor 
of the persons connected with the main body of the squad, 
between him and this surveillance crew, and then a determi­
nation, another determination would be made as to whether 
to enter any particular premises; is that correct? A. 
That’s correct, sir.

Q. Lieutenant, would you suggest to His Honor the ap­
proximate number, and possibly exactly, of how many of 
these inspections of premises were made? A. I myself I 
figure I participated in fifty-two.

Q. Fifty-two.
And in each of these cases did you as supervisor, that

—423—
is, did you follow in the vanguard of the four. A. In ap­
proximately thirty I was accompanied by Lieutenant 
Cadden, and in either one of the cases Lieutenant Cadden 
would proceed or I would go up and supervise.

Q. In each of the cases in which you participated did 
you identify yourself? A. In this particular case all of­
ficers in civilian clothes were made to wear their badge 
pinned to the left breast of the outermost garment. This

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



221a

was so that you could be identified by anyone in the home 
plus you were identified by anyone of your own squad 
that you were working with.

All officers wore their badges on the outer garment.
Q. So that even though an officer might have been in 

plain-clothes he had on a police badge; is that correct? 
A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. Now, when the door was opened by someone in the 
home, would you or someone else always identify yourself 
verbally? A. Yes, we would say who we were.

Q. Was there any instance in which you did not identify 
yourself orally? In other words, any in which you did not 
identify the purpose of your visit? A. To my knowledge, 
no, sir.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, you are under oath and you are
—424—

expected to be as candid as possible, in your opinion was 
the use of the heavy firearms and the equipment that was 
used in this case, was this necessary on the basis of your 
experience in your police department practice? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Lieutenant, you’ve been involved in this from the be­
ginning. Would you explain to His Honor now in general 
over-all view, apparently the intensity of the activities of 
this special squad, that is, starting off on Christmas Day, 
and it gained in intensity and reached its peak and went 
on, and just explain that? A. It was very intense on the 
morning of the 25th, 26th, and 27th. It leveled off about 
the 29th, and on the 31st of December we went into two 
working squads, which would be a day squad consisting of 
eight men or men from the Northeastern District who 
stayed over, and also the three to eleven squad, which con­
sisted of eight men.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



222a

After eleven o’clock or twelve o’clock if the men weren’t 
out it was left in the hands of the commanding officer in 
charge of the division.

It was also times that the districts, various districts had 
received calls after twelve midnight. When these calls were 
received they would contact the commander of the North­
eastern District, and then they would go with the emergency 
squad to make their turn-up or inspection.

—425—
As far as the intense search for the Veneys, for the 

brothers, it’s still being carried on but just that the unit 
isn’t moving, that’s the whole unit, which is sort of Citv- 
wide, and no one at this present time will move unless they 
have the emergency crew with them.

Q. That rule of the Commissioner which went into force 
right after all this began is still in effect! A. It’s still in 
effect, yes.

Q. And there must be the emergency crew with all special 
equipment! A. At all times.

Q. For the protection of the police! A. And the public.
Q. Now, with regard to your receipt of information, if 

you could give His Honor some idea of the volume of in­
formation, this same sort of thing, the amount of it coming 
in, when it reached the peak, when there was the intensity 
of the information received, and what it is today and so on! 
A. I think that the peak of the information which was for­
warded from outside of the Bureau of Communications was 
between the 31st and the 4th of January. Since then we’ve 
been getting calls that have been transferred to our office, 
and after we would evaluate it, we would transfer it to the 
district.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Direct



223a

At the present time it’s just very minute, one or two calls
—426—

we may have received.
I think there’s only been about two inspections or two 

turn-ups since the 13th or 14th of January.
Q. Well, Lieutenant, in applying your experience, your 

eighteen years of experience on the force, is there any dif­
ference in the quality of the calls that you received a month 
after an incident or the one that is received the day of the 
incident ? I mean, does the quality vary in difference or 
what? A. We regard each call the same, from the very 
first day to the very apprehension of the person, each call 
is the same quality. We carry out on each one as though it 
was something which may be important; we never know. 
We treat each one as a call the same as we do the first day 
as the last day.

* * * * *

—428—
* * * * *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Lieutenant, would you agree that the use of the phrase 
or the word “turn-up” usually means search? A. Search 
or inspection or a surveillance, true.

•  *  *  •  *

—432—
Q. When you were, were calls received at a time when 

you were out in your automobiles going to investigate 
homes, presumably at least? A. If there were they were 
given to us when we arrived back. I mean they weren’t 
answered by anyone, and if your switchboard operator in 
the Northeast District received a call, upon our return to

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



224a

the building he would give us the call that he had received 
for such an address.

In other words, a person wouldn’t leave their name or 
left an address, this was given to us for our discretion 
as to where and what to do with it.

The Court: Well, the question is, I suppose, if 
you were out on an investigation which took three- 
quarters-of-an-hour or a half-hour to complete your 
search or whatever you were doing in a house, and 
if a call came in and they ask you if you left, which 
looked like an important call, who would take it?

The Witness: As I say, your switchboard opera­
tor at the Northeastern District kept this until we 
returned, and he would tell us that he received a 
call for a certain address. This was all given to 
us, Your Honor.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. The switchboard operator would take whatever mes­
sage there was personally? A. If we weren’t there, yes, 
sir, who in turn turned it over to us.

—433—
Q. In other words— A. If we weren’t there.
Q. In other words, if somebody called during that 

period that you were out and would say, “ I think I saw 
the brothers at such and such a place,” the switchboard 
operator would write that down? A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. And he would give you a slip of paper when you 
got back? A. When we returned he would tell us that 
he received a call for such and such an address, and then 
we would evaluate this.

Q. And you would evaluate what the switchboard opera-

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



225a

tor told you, what he had written down? A. Well, he 
would maybe just put down an address, 1217 so-and-so 
street, and we would find, when we’d get together, find 
out if we’d been there previously. If not then we would 
send out our surveillance crew to look this over. If we 
hadn’t talked to the person and we wanted to go down 
we would look the situation over.

The Court: What would the surveillance crew tell 
you except how many entrances there were and 
things like that? Did they make inquiries in the 
neighborhood ?

The Witness: No, sir, Your Honor. One of the
—434—

things was, the neighborhood in general, if it was, 
say, a well residential district where the homes ap­
peared to be nice and responsible persons, this was 
looked into.

In fact, a lot of the homes we went into were run­
down, opened to anyone, in which the transients 
would be in and out, and they were the things that 
we looked for, any unnecessary or any movement 
that may have participated while we were sitting 
there.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. \ou indicated that the surveillance, the advance sur­
veillance group went on, went to the area of some ad­
dress that the switchboard operator gave you, were there 
any of those addresses where an actual entry was subse­
quently made? A. I imagine so, yes, sir.

The Court: On the information you had gotten

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



226a

without any further information except what you 
got from the switchboard operator?

The Witness: Your Honor, we couldn’t evaluate 
it if we hadn’t talked to the person so there is no 
chance of overlooking anything we went down, after 
looking it over, we decided amongst ourselves if 
we should talk to the persons in the home, which 
we did.

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Would it be fair to say that your operating premise 

was that if there was—that you had to check out all such
—435—

places where you thought you might turn up something? 
A. Any place where there was a possibility that the 
brothers were we were going to turn-up.

Q. And did you always do this as soon as you were 
able to get co-ordinated to do this? A. As I say, after 
the crew went ahead and looked the situation over, and 
then when they had reported to us what they found, then 
we made our plan of operation, then we would go ahead, 
yes, sir.

Q. Well, the thing that you waited for was just what I 
call the logistical problems, getting the men there and the 
surveillance people go out there and then report back to 
you? A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. Were there any cases during this investigation where 
you made tactical decisions in the area such as to wait 
for people getting off the street or during the early morn­
ing hours when persons may not be on their guard? A. 
As I stated before, for early morning hours, we never 
waited; as far as for the safety of the public this was

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant Cross



227a

arranged for by having certain cars rope off the area by 
placing their cars with respect to not allowing traffic to 
proceed; when we went to go to the home certain per­
sonnel would tell the individuals to get off the street or 
go back inside.

As you know when a large crew turns out you have
- 4 3 6 -

people, you have people likely to come running out the 
doors and look, and you have men telling these people, 
“Kindly get back inside, remain inside until such time as 
we tell you you may come out and it’s clear.”

This was done, yes, sir.
Q. Were there any occasions when you received a tip 

in the middle of the night and delayed it until daylight 
hours? Were there occasions like that? A. To my knowl­
edge, no, sir. We received it after going out, we went to 
the premises.

Q. Just as fast as you could get you would go out? 
A. Not just as fast. I mean, there would be a lapse of 
time to find out what the situation was. It wasn’t get a 
call and run in. It was get a call, go down, and look it 
over, and if it necessitated half-an-hour or forty minutes, 
twenty minutes, it wasn’t a spur of the moment thing to 
rap on the door and go in.

Q. In your testimony you indicate then that it was 
generally say something like approximately forty-five min­
utes; is that true on the average? A. I didn’t look at a 
watch but I’d say a half-hour or forty-five minutes; we 
didn’t time our stay.

The Court: You mean before?
The Witness: Before.
The Court: Before you would stop and go over?

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



228a

—437—
The Witness: Yes, we make a note of where we 

are going, Your Honor, where we are going to in­
spect.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And during this half-hour or forty-five minute period 
your primary reliance to get other information was on the 
advance surveillance group! A. This—also, we took our 
time to deploy our men. We wanted to make sure that 
the men were in a strategic point to keep anyone from 
getting hurt. If it was in the day hours we didn’t want 
the public hurt, and the wee hours of the morning we 
didn’t want our men hurt.

Q. You didn’t understand my question. What I wanted 
to ask was, was the main group, you got a phone call, 
you got a message from the switchboard operator, and 
then I suppose the next step would be to notify your sur- 
surveillance group? A. They were right with us; they 
were in the office.

Q. And they would go? A. That would be our four 
men advance group that would go on the surveillance.

Q. And they were the ones you relied on to get you the 
information to determine whether to go ahead with the 
raid, or not, I don’t mean the word “raid” , but to go ahead 
with the investigation, or perhaps not to go? A. The 
majority of time we relied on their judgment. That’s why

— 438—

they were designated to be the men to go ahead because 
of their judgment.

Q. What, was there a particular, what were their ranks? 
Were they detectives? A. They would be two sergeants 
and detectives, yes, and at no times were they uniformed

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



229a

men other than the uniformed sergant and the detail with 
us, but the man in charge was in all probability a detec­
tive sergeant or a detail sergeant specifically picked for 
this.

*  # # # #

—443—
*  #  #  #  *

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. In the advanced party, the men in the advance party 
and the supervisor, they wore the bulletproof vests; is 
that correct? A. That’s correct, sir.

—444—
Q. And the men with the bulletproof vests they had heavy 

weapons? A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. And did I understand you correctly to say that when 

the door was opened the first man’s job was to step inside? 
A. To step, as soon as the door was opened, to stand in 
next to whoever opened the door.

* * * * *

—453—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you keep any records of calls that you answered? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Would it be fair to say that you kept no records of 
the substance of what was said to you in the telephone 
call either whether you discarded it or acted upon it? A. 
We have an official police document which could verify 
our runs. Now, as to what actual record we kept for our­
selves of phone calls we have not; but after receiving a 
phone call which necessitated our running or making a 
turn-up before we move we have an official police record

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



230a

which would indicate the amount of runs or turn-ups that 
we made.

The Court: They are the ones—
Mr. Murphy: We supplied them.
The Court: They are the papers that were turned 

over to these Masters.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. These reports indicate places you went to? A. Yes, 
if we were going to go it would either he from a phone 
call or a relative and therefore if we made the run, that 
would be a phone call, and our reports so indicate that 
these were houses turned-up due to a phone call or rela­
tive, family or friend.

Q. But if I suggest to you that some of those reports
—454—

don’t indicate, would you be surprised?

Mr. Murphy: I object.
The Court: Well, the reports show, as I under­

stand it, that there is no dispute, as Mr. Murphy 
called attention to yesterday morning, that some 
of the records simply showed the places that had 
been turned-up and the names of the people in 
charge of the group or squad that turned them up—- 
is that a fair statement—and the date? Is that 
correct?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir.
The Court: Showing three to ten a day in certain 

cases.
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Murphy: That’s correct.

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



231a

The Court: Would they be the only records the 
police would have?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, other than the 
fact of the emergencies crew run, this is police 
records, official police records, every time they made 
runs.

This would correspond with runs that we had, 
and as far as the ones on which my name appears 
I can answer for those, and if I don’t appear on the 
run I ’m not able to answer.

The Court: And they would show where the run 
was made?

The Witness: Yes, sir, that’s right.
—455—

The Court: But they would not show the infor­
mation upon which any decision was made to go?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Is that your understanding?
Mr. Murphy: That’s correct.
The Court: That’s what counsel was, I thought, 

leading up to or trying to get.
Mr. Nabrit: Thank you, Your Honor.

By Mr. Nabrit-.

Q. Now, do I understand your testimony correctly that 
when you would take a phone call you would form your 
judgment based on the sound of a person’s voice whether 
or not he seemed, in your hearing credible and reasonable, 
somebody that was not an obvious drunk or crank? A. 
Sincere, if he was willing to talk other than give his name, 
I would say this would be evaluated for a good call, but 
if a person just would call and say, “ Go to such and such 
a place and find somebody,” and he’d hang the phone up,

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



232a

this is a call that you wouldn’t answer, but if you’re willing 
to discuss with me without telling me who you are the 
reason for your believing that they are there I would 
evaluate this as a good call and we’ll make a turn-up or 
a surveillance.

Q. Would you indicate that you operated on that policy 
long before and subsequent to this investigation? A. Long

—456—
before? No, sir, I think you’ll find out our proceeding 
dated the 25tli, 26th, 27th, and 28th, and most of our turn­
ups would be friends, relatives or acquaintances of the 
brothers.

Q. I mean during this investigation?

The Court: Well, was it different, I suppose is 
the question, from the regular police practice, was 
it in accordance with the regular police practice in 
the Baltimore Police Department or did the prac­
tice in this case differ in any way from the regular 
police practice?

The Witness: This is the practice.
The Court: And if so how ? Is there any objec­

tion to that?
Mr. Murphy: No, sir.
The Court: I take it that’s the broad question 

that you’re trying to get?
The Witness: This is the practice that we’re 

following in any ease that Ave’re working. If some­
one calls and tells us something we’ll run it out. 
I mean, but first of all it’s going to revert back if 
the message is going to be a crank, but if someone 
sounds authentic or sincere we’ll follow this up.

*  *  *  #  #

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant—Cross



233a

Lieutenant Anton T. Glover—for Defendant 
—Redirect—Recross

—467—
* * * * *

Redirect Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. You indicated that people on the telephone expressed 
to you that they had fear of publicity, that is, that some 
people did; is that correct! A. That’s correct, sir.

Q. And did anyone, did any of those people express 
any fears or any reservations of any other sort! A. Yes, 
sir, they were afraid of probably what they could get 
from the Veneys, from the family of the brothers, sisters, 
along with the brothers themselves.

Q. Of the suspects! A. Of the suspects, yes, sir.

Recross-Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. How many of those calls did you get! A. I have no 
recollection of how many but we’d get a call and they’d 
say, they’d say they’d like to tell ns but they don’t want 
to divulge their name because they were afraid of what 
the sisters or the brothers would do.

Q. How many calls did you get! Was it ten or a hun­
dred or what! A. I have no recollection.

—468—
The Court: You must be able to estimate whether 

it was near ten or near a hundred!
The Witness: Your Honor, I would say in the 

neighborhood of fifty, forty-five or fifty since the 
case when it started, and actually it’s about the 
twenty-sixth.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. How many did you discard and how many did you 
accept! A. It wouldn’t be no more than about three or 
four that would be discarded; the others were acted upon.



234a

The Court: That also ties-in with the report of 
the Masters assuming as nearly the ratio of the 
people in charge.

*  *  #  #  #

—479—
*  # *  # #

Carlton H. Manuel was called as a witness for and 
on behalf of the defendant and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your name for the record.
The Witness: Lieutenant Carlton H. Manuel,

Baltimore City Police Department, Detective Bureau.
The Court: I think this had better be put in a 

glacein envelope because I have seen better prints 
but I have certainly seen worse prints; so I think 
this had better be put in a glacein case.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, would you state your name and your 
position, please, your station! A. Detective Lieutenant 
Carlton H. Manuel, Detective Bureau, Baltimore City 
Police.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, directing your attention to Decem-
—480—

ber 27th of this year, the early morning hours, did you 
have occasion to participate in an investigation at 2416 
Eutaw Place! A. I did.

Q. Tell His Honor what you know about the background 
of this house on the occasion when you went to Eutaw 
Place from your own personal knowledge! A. I received 
a call from Sergeant John Dunn of the Western District 
stating that Samuel Veney had cashed a check at Al’s

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct



235a

Liquor Store, Fulton and Lanvale and had given the ad­
dress of 2416 Eutaw Place.

Q. You received that call from Sergeant Dunn! A. I 
did, yes, sir.

Q. Now, just for His Honor’s information Sergeant 
Dunn is in the hospital; is that correct at this time? A. 
Sergeant Dunn?

Q. Yes. A. I do not know that. I do not know that, 
no, sir.

Q. Now, do you know approximately what time you re­
ceived that call? A. I don’t know exactly, no, sir.

Q. Was it in the evening, sir? A. It was in the evening, 
yes, sir.

Q. Now, after receiving that information what did you
- 4 8 1 -

do? A. After receiving that information we proceeded to 
that address.

Q. Now, Lieutenant—

The Court: Are you the one that decided to go or 
were you acting under instructions?

The Witness: I was the one that decided; I acted 
on the information, yes.

The Court: Did he tell you the date that the 
check had been cashed?

The Witness: Yes, sir. As well as I remember it 
was in June of this past year.

The Court: Did you make a note of it in any way? 
Is there any note on that? Is there any note on 
that showing the information?

The Witness: June 19, 1964.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct

#



#  *  *  *  #

Q. Lieutenant, when you went to 2416 Eutaw Place 
you indicated that how many officers in the crew went to 
the door? A. Four went to the front door.

Q. Four? A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember what they did to gain ad­

mittance? Did they knock or ring the doorbell? A. They 
knocked and rang the doorbell.

Q. Both? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, do you remember who answered the door? A. 

I don’t know the man or I didn’t know the man at that 
time, a man clad only in pajama bottoms answered the 
door.

Q. And what happened after that? Tell His Honor 
what happened after that? A. Well, Sergeant Shrimer

—499—
went in and talked to this man, and then I entered and 
told him what our reason was for being there.

# # # * #
Q. Sergeant Shrimer, was he clad in a bulletproof vest? 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he had a weapon? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, he went in and then what happened? A. 1 

entered after him.
Q. All right, and what was said? A. And he was talk­

ing to the man when 1 walked in, and I informed this 
man of our reason for being there, and this gentleman 
walked back with me to the dining room.

Q. I think it’s fairly important for you to tell His 
Honor exactly along as best you remember it whether

236a

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct

— 498—



237a

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct

—500—
you told this man why you were there! A. I told him that 
we had information that one of the Veneys had lived at 
this address or was at this address at this time.

The Court: Do you remember which it was?
The Witness: Samuel Yeney.
The Court: I know, but you are saying, you said 

“or” and were you saying that you told him “or” 
or that you don’t remember exactly what you told 
him or are you correcting your first statement? 
I ’m not quite clear.

The Witness: I told him that we had information 
that Samuel Yeney lived at this address and could 
be at this address at this time.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. And what, if anything, did this man say?
The Court: Well, let me get this clear. Didn’t 

you know where Yeney lived or what was the home 
of Veney? I thought that the previous witness said 
that the home of Veney was on or near Kirk 
Avenue ?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Well, was it true that you believed 

that Sam Yeney lived at this address?
The Witness: He could be, yes, sir, according to 

our information.
The Court: All right.

—501—
By Mr. Sause:

Q. Well, the information that you referred to is the



238a

information that you received from Sergeant Dunn; is that 
correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Lieutenant, how long have you been on the police 
force? A. Eighteen years.

Q. Is it unusual in the course of your work that when 
you find that someone was a suspect or a wanted person 
or whoever had more than one address? A. No, sir, it’s 
not unusual.

Q. Now, you told this man who answered the door that 
you had information that Samuel Veney had lived there 
and might be there at that time? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you—what, if anything, did he say to 
you in response to that? A. He told me that no one lived 
there by that name and no one was there by that name now.

Q. All right. What happened after that? A. I told 
him that we had a warrant for this man, and he told me 
that we were perfectly welcome to search.

Q. Now, did you have any photographs with you at that
- 5 0 2 -

time? A. I did not have any photographs with me, no, sir.
Q. And did you ask him if he knew anyone named Sam 

Veney? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was his answer to that? A. He said he 

knew no one by that name.
Q. He said he knew no one by that name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, from the time that this man opened the door 

and the Sergeant stepped in, were both of those in your 
sight the whole time until you went inside? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What, if anything, did you see that the Sergeant did 
after he went inside before you got inside? A. He didn’t 
do anything; he talked to the man.

Q. Talked to the man? A. Yes, sir.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct



239a

Q. Did you see him pat the man down, A. No, sir.
Q. Is it customary in police work to pat a man down when 

he’s only clad in pajama bottoms, A. No, sir. If he is 
fully clothed, then we would pat him down.

Q. Now, after you and the Sergeant went inside, what
—503—

happened? A. Other men came in.
Q. How many of them went in? A. That was Detective 

Walker, De Paola, Sergeant Connelly, Lieutenant Gonce.
Q. Anybody else? A. And a couple of officers, I don’t 

know their names.
Q. Now, Lieutnant, what did these men do when they 

got inside? A. Detective Walker talked to a woman in 
the back room. She wanted to know what was going on, 
and he talked to her and told her what we were there for.

The rest of the officers then went to the second and third 
floors or upper floors. I don’t remember how many floors 
there were, and I remained there and talked to the man 
who opened the door.

Q. Now, these people that went up to the second and 
third floors, these officers, were any of them clad in bullet­
proof vests, bulletproof clothing? A. Yes, sir, they were.

Q. Is it usual practice for persons wearing bulletproof 
clothing to go to the second, to go to the other parts of 
the house? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what is the reason for that? A. For their own
- 5 0 4 -

protection.
Q. Now, while you—did you ever talk to anyone else 

other than this one man? A. No, sir, I never talked to 
anyone else.

Q. Did he ever make any complaints to you about how

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct



2 4 0 a

lie was being treated or about the fact that the search was 
being undertaken? A. No, sir, he never made any com­
plaints to me. He said that this was a terrible thing and 
that we were welcome to search, and he told me that he 
was a diabetic and had ulcers too.

I told him I knew what he was when he had a diabetic 
because I ’m a diabetic myself, but his ulcers had made him 
a lot worse.

Q. Did you talk to anyone else in the house? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Now, when you left did he say anything to you? A. 
He wished us a Happy New Year and hoped we soon found 
the men. He was very pleasant.

Q. Did he make any complaints at that time to you? A. 
He made no complaints to me whatsoever. He seemed 
willing to co-operate.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, during the course of this search or 
the portion of it that was under your view, did the officers 
under your command conduct themselves in accordance

—505—
with not only the regulations of the Department but with 
common decency and propriety? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Nabrit: Objection, opinion evidence.
The Court: Well, he didn’t see them all. He was 

downstairs, and he wouldn’t see what happened up­
stairs.

Mr. Sause: Well, he saw some of these people. 
The Court: Well, T don’t think any impropriety 

has been suggested, has there, in this case? I don’t 
remember any impropriety that is suggested except 
the claim of searching this man or patting the man 
down in the front.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct



2 4 1 a

Mr. Nabrit: There was the testimony that this 
witness was taken upstairs at gunpoint.

The Court: She wasn’t taken upstairs; she led the 
men up, and the man behind her had a gun which 
was in her back, and the paper said something about 
that they had a gun in her back.

I didn’t understand the gun was poked in the 
woman’s back from her testimony, but the man with 
the gun at “ready” was walking up behind her, im­
mediately behind her, and she was afraid that if he 
had slipped it might hurt her.

Is that the question that you were asking him?
Mr. Nabrit: I object to the question.
The Court: I don’t know what you mean by “im­

propriety.” If that’s what you are talking about, if
—506—

you want to ask him whether he noticed how a man 
going upstairs carries a gun, he may or may not 
have.

*  *  # *  *

—507—
#  *  #  *  #

Q. Did all the officers who had heavy firearms who went 
to 2416 Eutaw Place in your view handle those firearms in 
accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Com­
missioner? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you see anyone take anyone anywhere at 
2416 Eutaw Place at gunpoint? A. No, I didn’t, I did not.

Q. Lieutenant, from the time that the door was opened 
at this 2416 Eutaw Place until the time that you and the 
other officers left there, approximately how long a time 
was it? A. I ’d say approximately fifteen minutes.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Direct



2 4 2 a

Q. And there are three floors in that house? A. That’s
what I was told but I don’t know for sure.

Q. And you didn’t leave the first floor? A. I didn’t
leave the first floor, no, sir.

#  #  *  #  *

—509—
# # * # *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Lieutenant, your recollection was that there were 
about twenty men there? A. I’d say around twenty; I 
couldn’t, I didn’t count them.

—510—
Q. They were men under your supervision, from your 

Bureau? A. Yes, sir.
* # # # *

—513—
* * # # #

Q. Where were you standing at that time? A. I was 
standing back on the curb back of a car.

Q. When the knocking began? A. Yes, sir. I took 
cover as all the rest of them did.

Q. Well, how many people were actually up by the door 
during the knocking? A. Four.

Q. Four? A. That’s right.
Q. So that you were behind the car? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how many feet away? A. Approximately fif­

teen feet.
Q. And were you to the right or the left of the door? 

A. To the right of the door.
Q. How many feet to the right of the door? A. Two

- 5 1 4 -
feet, almost right in front of the door.

Carlton II. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross



2 4 3 a

The Court: And standing about fifteen feet away? 
The Witness: Yes, sir.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And behind this car, behind the automobile? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Which was parked on the near side of the street? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. One of your cars? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Well, now, who went in? What was 
the order in which these people went in?

The Witness: Sergeant Shrimer went in first and 
then I was right after him.

The Court: What did the other people do, the 
men who came up to the door?

The Witness: They followed me in.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, how soon did you get inside after Sergeant 
Shrimer? A. Seconds.

Q. Seconds? A. Seconds.
Q. How many seconds? A. Two or three seconds, from

—515—
the time it took me to go from this car to the door where 
he was after the door opened.

Q. Did you run or walk? A. I didn’t run I made a— 
fast steps.

Q. You got in as soon as you could? A. Yes, sir.
Q. After the door was opened? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Was Sergeant Shrimer covering the 
man who opened the door?



2 4 4 a

The Witness: No, sir, he was, he had the gun in 
front of him but he wasn’t pointing it at him or 
anything.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Was he pointing the gun up the steps behind the man! 
A. No, sir, he was pointing it up at the ceiling.

Q. Was he looking behind the man up the steps! A. 
The man was standing in the hallway; he wasn’t up the 
steps.

Q. Were they behind him, the steps! Any steps behind 
of him! A. Back of him there were some steps, yes, sir.

Q. When you entered did you look up those steps! A. 
No, sir. 1 talked to the man right in the hallway.

—516—
Q. Bid you see anyone come down those steps! A. 

Later on a woman came down the steps, and I asked for a 
key.

Q. Asked for a key! A. Yes, sir.
Q. You hadn’t seen her come down before that! A. No, 

sir.
Q. Now, who did you find on the first floor! A. I found 

this man, the woman standing in the door in the rear room.
Q. Now, when you went in was her door open! A. She 

opened the door, and Detective Walker was talking to her, 
yes, sir.

Q. Were you there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you look in the room? A. No, sir, I didn’t look 

in the room.
Q. How was she dressed? A. She was fully clothed as 

far as I could see.
Q. Fully clothes? A. Yes, sir.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant■—Cross



2 4 5 a

Q. Was she in night clothes or day clothes? A. It was 
dark; I couldn’t see. She looked like she was fully clothed.

—517—
Q. Well, you don’t know whether she had day clothes or 

night clothes?

Mr. Sause: If Your Honor please, he has answered 
it ; he said she was fully clothed.

The Court: Well, he doesn’t know. It was dark 
and he doesn’t know whether she had night clothes 
on or day clothes on.

• * # • •

—518—
# # # # #

Q. Go back to the front door. Describe what it looked 
like. Are there steps in front? A. One step there, I be­
lieve.

Q. One step? A. Yes, sir. Well, there is about, there 
are three steps leading up to the vestibule, and then there’s 
one step up after the inside door, as well as I remember.

Q. Is there a middle door or single door? A. There’s a 
double door outside and a single door inside, as well as I 
remember.

Q. When the door was opened the man at the door, 
Shrimer, went right in? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And how far inside did he go before you got in there? 
A. Approximately six or eight feet.

Q. Where was he at that point? A. He was in the hall­
way.

Q. In the hallway? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many—to get to the hallway do you go through 

three doors? A. As well as I remember, there is the hall,

Carlton II. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross



Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

—5 1 9 -
in the hall there’s a doorway at the end, and then there’s a 
double door in the living room.

The Court: Well, he said to get into the hallway, 
and he said there was an outside door, and I don’t 
know this house, but it’s not uncommon in these 
houses in that part of the City to have a double 
outside door that opens in the middle, and then a 
large inside door inside the vestibule.

That’s what I took him to mean by his description. 
The Witness: That’s correct, sir.

*  *  #  *  *

—526—
# * # # *

Q. What time did you decide that you would raid this
—5 2 7 -

house'? A. It’s approximately one o’clock, one a.m.
Q. What time did you actually enter? A. Approximate­

ly one-thirty.
# * # # #

—531—
* # * * *

Q. Lieutenant, isn’t it true that your report indicates 
that your procedure was for the four men you named 
would go into the house and that then you would go into 
the house? A. The four men would go in the house.

Q. This paragraph 3 of your report, and I just ask you 
if it is true? A. Four men went to the door.

Q. Is that what your report says?



2 4 7 a

#  *  #  *  #

Q. You may answer the question. A. The report says 
that three—four men entered the house and I entered after 
them, but they were at the door.

Q. So, which is correct now, that one entered and then 
you or that four entered and then you? A. The one en­
tered and I, they were at the vestibule, and I entered.

Q. They crossed the threshold of the door before you 
did; is that right? At the door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. All four of them? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that nobody outside was left to point at the sky 

now before you?

The Court: Well, they had people there.
The Witness: There were people on the outside.
The Court: Well, he had thirteen people, he had 

between thirteen and twenty.
Mr. Nabrit: I understand, but I was phrasing my 

question that there was nobody among this four 
who was outside before you got in; is that correct? 
Who stood outside when you went in pointing a 
rifle at the sky?

The Witness: Not necessarily; they could be in 
the vestibule, on the steps.

—533—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you move from behind the back of the car before 
the front door was opened? A. No, sir.

Q. And as soon as the door opened the four men were 
standing right by the door? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Moved forward? A. Yes, sir.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

— 5 3 2 —



2 4 8 a

Q. All four of them moved forward? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you moved forward too? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they went through the door before you did? A. 

They were standing in the vestibule or the doorway when 
I went in.

Q. All four of them went through the outer door before 
you did? A. They were—

The Court: You don’t mean the outer door? You 
mean the door into the vestibule.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, the interior of the house.
The Court: No.
Mr. Nabrit: The door leading in.
The Court: As I understand it, the vestibule is

—534—
not inside of the house. Maybe I am wrong in my 
legal, but I have lived in Baltimore a long time, and 
the door that is usually locked is the inner door, and 
that’s the door to the house.

The vestibule door is usually unlocked in Balti­
more City and I ’ve lived, visited row houses for a 
long time, and unless the practice has changed, and 
I would say this that the testimony certainly has 
been that the men, that all four of them at all times 
the testimony has been that all four were in the 
vestibule before, that all that could get in were ahead 
of him.

His testimony and his report differed, and it is 
whether one or four were in through the house door 
before him. That’s what I understand, and if you’re 
talking about the vestibule door, you’ve been treat­
ing it as the house door, and T think that’s where 
the misunderstanding may be.

Carlton II. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross



2 4 9 a

Q. When your men arrived was the outer door locked, 
the door that leads from the street into the vestibule? A. 
I don’t know whether it was locked or not.

Q. The door was closed? A. I do not know that.

The Court: Well, didn’t you say that the men 
went into the vestibule ahead of you?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
—535—

The Court: That all four men went in ahead of 
you?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Well, how did they get in if it was 

locked?
The Witness: Well, apparently it was unlocked. 
The Court: All right.
The Witness: Unlocked, Your Honor.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did they open it or someone else did? A. No, sir, 
none of my men opened the door.

Q. None of your men opened the outside door from the 
vestibule, from the street into the vestibule? A. If it was 
unlocked they opened it.

Q. If it was unlocked they opened it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I thought you were looking at it all the time? You 

don’t know whether they opened it or someone opened it? 
A. It was dark there; I couldn’t see everything.

Q. So you couldn’t see into the, clearly into the hallway? 
A. As I entered, yes, I could see into the hallway, yes, sir. 

Q. From where? A. As I entered the house.

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Nabrit:



2 5 0 a

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

—536—
Q. You couldn’t see into the hallway from behind the 

truck? A. No, I couldn’t see into the hallway but as soon 
as I seen the door opened I entered, I started for the door.

Q. You’re not able to tell then whether the outer door 
was opened by your men or by someone inside the house?

Mr. Sause: He said that.
The Witness: I could not say whether the other 

door was open, no, sir.
* * * * *

—537—
* * * * *

Q. Lieutenant, did you make the decision to go to this 
house based on the oral report from Sergeant Dunn? A. 
I did.

Q. And that alone? A. I did.
Q. And you made it upon the basis of the oral report 

alone? A. That’s correct.
—538—

Q. And you never saw Sergeant Dunn’s written report 
until after? A. That’s correct,

Q. Was Sergeant Dunn along with the raid? A. No, sir.
Q. Sergeant Dunn’s oral report to you did not contain— 

did it or did it not contain or include the date when the 
check was supposed to have been cashed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what date was given you? A. January the 9th 
or June 19th ’63, as well as I remember.

Q. June the 19, 1963? A. Yes, sir, or ’64 rather.
Q. Well, which was it? A. 1964.
Q. Are you sure? A. That is the information he gave 

me, yes, sir.
* *



2 5 1 a

Carlton H. Manuel—for Defendant—Cross

—541—
* * * * *

The Court: Well, suppose you just find out about 
it.

Mr. Murphy: Just the fact that this is not the 
Sam Veney that the police were looking for, if he 
lives there.

The Court: Well, it seems pretty clear that it’s a 
different Sam Veney.

Mr. Murphy: Oh, yes.
The Court: And I don’t see any point in chasing 

this, if it’s admitted that it’s a different Sam Veney 
and there is no contradiction of the fact that he 
went in the Navy, I don’t see any reason to go be­
yond that in this case.

If either side disagrees I ’ll be glad to hear your 
reasons why.

Mr. Nabrit: Well, again, I gather there is no 
stipulation.

Mr. Sause: You gathered correctly.
—542—

The Court: Well, there’s no stipulation but it’s 
not contested. We’ve got a stipulation that it’s a 
different Sam Veney.

Mr. Nabrit: I gathered I didn’t even get that 
stipulation.

The Court: I thought Mr. Murphy said so.
Mr. Murphy: Your Honor, for the purposes of 

this argument I will agree with everything you said.
The Court: Well, if it’s just a question of check­

ing the fingerprints, I think I could do that with five 
fairly clear prints.



252a

Q. Have you made any efforts to compare the finger­
prints of Sam Veney with the fingerprints on the card, on 
the liquor store card! A. i was not aware of the finger­
prints being on that card until today.

The Court: I don’t see any use in harrying him 
on that. We’ve got more important issues than that. 
Mr. Murphy has admitted that it is a different man 
for the purposes of this case.

• * # * #
—547—

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Direct

By Mr. Nabrit:

Thereupon Oliver W alker was called as a witness for 
and on behalf of the defendant and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Detective Oliver Walker, Robbery 

Squad, Baltimore Police Department.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Detective Walker, tell His Honor your regular as­
signment? A. I am in the Assault and Robbery Squad of 
the Detective Bureau of the Baltimore Police Department.

Q. Detective, directing your attention to the early morn­
ing hours of December 27th of last year, did you make an 
inspection of certain premises at 2416 Eutaw Place? A. 
I did, sir.

Q. Now, Detective, have you received clearance and have 
you taken special training in the handling of heavy weapons 
of the Police Department? A. As far as the riot guns or



253a

tile shotguns are concerned 1 have had training in the use 
of the shotgun, yes.

Q. You have? A. Yes, sir.
—548—

Q. Now, on that night did you have any of those weapons 
in which you had been specially trained in the handling of? 
A. 1 did, I had a shotgun.

Q. A shotgun? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any protective clothing? A. Yes, I had 

on a bulletproof protective vest on my body.
Q. Now, tell His Honor what your part was in the in­

spection of these premises on December 27th? A. On the 
night of December 27th in company with Sergeant Shrimer, 
Lieutenant Manuel, Detective DePaola, and Sergeant Con­
nelly, we made a search of the premises of 2416 Eutaw 
Place.

I was on the first floor of these premises and I went to 
the rear of the first floor where I was told by the man 
that had entered, given us admission to the house, that a 
lady by the name of, what I understand, was Aunt Lizzie 
was asleep.

This man called to the rear of the house, “Aunt Lizzie, 
the police officers are here and they are looking for some­
one.”

This lady stuck her head out of the door in the rear of 
the kitchen, which appeared to be a bedroom, and she says,

—549—
“What is going on?”

And we, I explained to her that we were looking for a 
Samuel Veney who was wanted for assault and murder.

She in turn told me that we could search the house be­
cause there was no one there but she wanted to make sure 
that no one would be hiding in her house.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Direct



254a

Q. She told you she wanted to make sure no one was 
hiding in her house! A. That is correct.

Q. Now, Detective, going back for a few minutes, who 
were the officers who went up to the front door and sum­
moned someone from the inside and knocked at the door 
and rang the bell? A. Sergeant Shrimer rang the doorbell 
at this residence.

Q. And where were you at that time? A. I was stand­
ing on the steps.

Q. You were standing on the steps? A. On the steps 
of 2416 Eutaw Street.

Q. And you had your gun and bulletproof vest on at 
that time? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Now, what happened after he rang the bell? A. The 
man, approximately about five foot three to five foot five, 
125-130 pounds, medium brown skin, opened the front door,

—550—
and Sergeant Shrimer had a conversation with this man.

The Court: Where was he standing when the door 
was open?

The Witness: He was standing right the—the 
Sergeant you are speaking of?

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: He was standing right in front of 

the door.
The Court: You’re speaking about the inner door?
The Witness: The inner door.
The Court: He had gone through the vestibule?
The Witness: He had gone through the vestibule. 

He was standing there, and he had a conversation 
with this man, and Lieutenant Manuel then came up 
on the steps, and we were admitted to this residence.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Direct



255a

Q. By this man! A. By this individual.
Q. Now, did you or anyone else in your presence pat 

this man down? A. I nor anyone in my presence patted 
the man down because he only had on a pair of pajama 
pants.

Q. And how long have you been on the force, been a
—5 5 1 -

member of the force? A. It will be seventeen years the 
11th of March of this year.

Q. Now, in your experience is it necessary or customary 
to pat a man down when he has only that amount of 
clothes on? A. No, you never pat a man down like that.

Q. Now, did you go anywhere other than the first floor 
in this house? A. Yes, I did.

Q. Tell us about that? A. After having the conversa­
tion with the lady on the first floor who was identified as 
Aunt Lizzie, to my recollection, I went to the second floor 
of this residence along with Sergeant Shrimer and Lieu­
tenant Gonce.

We were admitted to a rear room on the second floor, 
which was locked. This door was unlocked by the lady sit­
ting there in the blue dress with the white collar.

She admitted Sergeant Shrimer and myself and Lieu­
tenant Gonce to this room.

At that time she told us that the room belonged to a 
roomer who was away at the time. We walked in, looked 
in the room. We could see that there was no one in the 
room. We immediately left the room and returned to the 
first floor of the house.

—552—
Q. Did anyone make any complaint to you at that time

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Direct

By Mr. Sause:



1

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross

about the way they were treated? A. No one made any 
complaint in my presence, no, sir.

Q. You indicated that you told this Aunt Lizzie who 
you were looking for; is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Did she indicate to you that anyone named Sam 
Veney ever lived in the premises? A. No, she didn’t make 
any indication that anyone had lived there by the name of 
Sam Veney to me.

Q. She didn’t tell you that? A. She did not tell me that, 
no.

Q. Did anyone in those premises tell you that Sam Veney 
had lived there? A. No one told me, no, one way or the 
other.

256a

Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. You are Detective Walker? A. That’s correct, De­
tective Oliver Walker.

Q. Detective Walker, how was the person who you say— 
or the one you called Aunt Lizzie clothed, as you recall? 
A. This person was apparently in night clothing. There 
was a dim light in the kitchen of this residence where I 
was standing, and the room that this lady stuck her head

—553—
out of was in the rear of the kitchen on the first floor of 
this residence.

Q. Before she stuck her head out, did you or any of the 
other officers knock on her door? A. No, and I presume 
you are referring to the conversation, but the man that 
admitted us to the house, I know, he called her, he called 
to her, and I think the name that he used was “Aunt Lizzie”

i

1

*

<



257a

and lie said to her that the police were there looking for 
someone.

Q. But he called, he called to her that you were there 
and the other officers, did you and the other officers take 
up his call and call Aunt Lizzie? A. I did not, no, nor 
anyone in my presence.

Q. And you didn’t hear any of the other officers? A. 
No, I didn’t hear any of the other officers, no.

Q. Did you hear anyone or see anyone knock on this 
inner door that this lady came out of? A. No, because I 
was standing right next to the door and no one passed me.

Q. And you didn’t knock? A. I did not knock, no.
Q. Did you say anything through the door? A. T didn’t 

say anything to her through the door, no. Her nephew 
called to her or at least the man that admitted us to the 
house called to her.

—554—
The Court: Before or after she stuck her head 

out?
The Witness: Before she stuck her head out of the 

door he called, “Aunt Lizzie, the police are here 
looking for someone.”

She in turn stuck he head out of the door.
• #  #  *  *

—559—
Q. Did you see any children in the house at all? A. T 

didn’t see any children in this residence at all.

The Court: Did you hear any?
The Witness: No, sir, I didn’t hear any children. 

I saw three adults; the man that admitted us to the 
house, the lady that I know as Aunt Lizzie, and Mrs.

Oliver Walker— for Defendant— Cross



258a

Summers there. They are the only three individuals 
that I saw in this house.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, where was this person that—can you describe 
this person that you call Aunt Lizzie?

The Court: What is that?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Can you describe the person you heard called Aunt 
Lizzie ?

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross

The Court: You mean the man who opened the 
door?

Mr. Nabrit: No, no, the lady.
The Court: Called Aunt Lizzie ?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir.
The Witness: The lady that I saw that was on 

the first floor in the residence, I noticed when she 
stuck her head out of the door it was disarranged 
and I could see that it was an elderly woman; and 
that is the only description that I could give of her, 
other than maybe she was about five foot two or

—5 6 0 -
five foot five. She was not a very tall person; but 
she just stuck her head out of the door.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you ask her what her name was? A. No, sir, T 
did not ask her her name.

Q. Did you ask her who she was or anything about the 
ownership of the house? A. No, sir, T did not.



259a

Q. Well, what was your conversation with her? A. I 
told her that we were looking for a man that was wanted 
in connection with an assault and a shooting of a police 
officer, assault and murder, assault and murder of a 
policeman at that time.

And she said, “Well, he doesn’t live here, and if there’s 
anybody in here I want you to search the house and see 
that they are not in my home.”

Those were her words.
Q. Was there any other conversation? A. That’s the 

only conversation I had with her.
Q. Where was she standing when this conversation oc­

curred? A. At the door with her head stuck out of the 
door.

Q. Was the door wide-open? A. No, it wasn’t wide-open. 
It was open, say, about ten to twelve or maybe fourteen 
inches.

—565—
* * * * *

Q. And what was the first thing you did Avhen you got 
in there? A. The first thing I did when I got inside of 
the house?

Q. Yes. A. I walked inside of the house and after Lieu­
tenant Manuel had received permission, he and Sergeant 
Shrimer had received permission for us to search the house, 
I went towards the first floor rear of the house.

Q. 11 ow long was this conversation where you received 
permission? How long did that take? A. It was just a 
matter of seconds.

Q. A matter of seconds? A. Yes.
Q. How many? A. I could not define how many seconds 

but it was not a long conversation.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross



260a

Q. Did you overhear it! A. I heard them talking, but 
the various things they were saying and whatnot, I could 
not tell you that; not word for word, I could not tell you.

Q. Did you accept somebody’s word for it that they got 
permission? A. I was acting under the orders of a su-

—566—
perior officer.

Q. You assumed he got permission? A. No, I did not 
assume. I Avas acting under orders of a superior officer.

Q. Well, you testified that the Lieutenant got permis­
sion and I am asking you whether you heard and you said 
you didn’t hear the coirversation? Which is it? A. You’ll 
have to bring me back to that. I don’t understand.

The Court: Well, the point is that you testified, 
or the effect of your testimony is that after Lieuten­
ant Manuel had obtained permission to search the 
house, you walked to the rear of the first floor.

The question was, did you hear the conversation 
in which he was given permission, and you then said 
in effect that you couldn’t answer, that you Avere 
acting under instructions.

I think you’ve got to clear that up. Did you hear 
Lieutenant Manuel obtain the permission yourself, 
and if not, horv do you knoAv if he obtained per­
mission?

The Witness: It Avould be an assumption.
The Court: That’s the effect of the question, isn’t 

it?
The Witness: Tt Avould have to be an assumption.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross



Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross

—567—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, when the woman you referred to as Aunt Lizzie 
came to the door, did you make another assumption that 
her room was empty or what?

The Court: Did he say that ? Did he say that 
her room was empty? I never heard any assump­
tion about rooms being empty.

Mr. Nabrit: I ’m just curious about why the police 
didn’t search the room, didn’t search this room if 
they were looking for someone.

The Court: Well—
Mr. Nabrit: Just curious about his version of it.
The Court: Well, he said he didn’t search that 

room, and I ’m not sure whether it’s his decision or 
somebody else’s.

Whose decision was it not to search the room that 
this old lady was in? Was it your decision or some­
body else’s?

The Witness: Well, if Your Honor, if I may infer 
at this point, there are certain things where you use 
common knowledge when you are doing these things, 
and if you’ve been doing them long enough you can 
use a certain amount of judgment.

The Court: I ’m asking you whether it was your
- 5 6 8 -

judgment or somebody else’s judgment?
The Witness: Well, I consider it my judgment, 

I consider it my judgment, that it was my judgment 
not to walk into that lady’s room.



2 6 2 a

The Court: Then it was your judgment not to go 
in?

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: I ’m not criticizing you for not going 

in. I just wanted to know whether it was your 
decision or somebody else’s decision not to go in, 
and the witness says it was his decision not to go 
in.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Nabrit:
Q. Did you say anything else to her when you moved 

away? A. No, I didn’t say anything else to her when I 
moved away from her, no.

Q. Did you question any of the other, any of the adults 
in the house, did you question either the Summers or the 
man who lived there? A. I showed a photograph or a 
pair of photographs to Mrs. Summers after we all came 
back to the first floor before we left the residence. At 
that time 1 asked her did she know either of the two people 
that were on these photographs.

Q. And she replied? A. And she replied to me, her
- 5 6 9 -

response was, no, that she did not know the two individuals 
that I showed her.

Q. Was there any other questions that you asked her? 
A. I didn’t ask her any other questions, no.

Q. Did you say anything else to her? A. Yes, I did. 
In fact, we both said something to each other at that time. 
She wished us a Happy New Year, and I returned the 
reply to her.

Q. Was this Mrs. Summers or who it was wished you 
a Happy New Year? A. You say was it Mrs. Summers?



263a

Q. The lady! A. That was the lady sitting there that 
I am speaking of (indicating).

Q. Where were you standing at that time? A. Right 
there in the foyer of the house.

Q. As you and the others were leaving? A. As I was 
leaving, yes.

Q. Had the others left before you? A. They may have 
preceded me going out of the door.

Q. Did Mr. Rayner wish you a Happy New Year? A. 
Is that the man that entered—that admitted me to the 
house? If that’s the person you are speaking of, yes.

Q. They both waved? A. They both—no, they didn’t 
wave. They said the words.

—570—
Q. Happy New Year? A. Happy New Year, yes.
Q. And this was December 27th, wasn’t it? A. That’s 

right.
Q. How did you reply to that? A. I returned the greet­

ing.
Q. Christmas or New Year’s? A. I returned the greet­

ings she said.
* * * * *

—584—
* * * * *

The Court: I think we ought to put on the record 
that the Master’s Report has been filed this Thurs­
day, January 21st, and may be considered a part 
of this plaintiff’s case.

Oliver Walker—for Defendant—Cross



264a

Thereupon, George D. Shriner, was called to the stand 
and sworn as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your name for the record!
The Witness: George D. Shriner, Detective, Balti­

more City Police Department.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Sergeant, how long have you been on the police force? 
A. Fourteen years, sir.

Q. Now, during the early part of this month or the 
latter part of 1964 did you participate in an investigation 
connected with the homicide of Sergeant Cooper? A. I 
did, sir.

Q. And during the course of that investigation did you 
have occasion to go to 2416 Eutaw Place? A. I did, sir.

—585—
Q. Now, in what capacity did you go to Eutaw Place, 

what was your job at that time, your position? A. As a 
procedure is set up prior to each investigation I was one 
of the men selected who would wear body armor, to carry 
a heavy weapon and would enter first in company with 
other officers of the group.

Q. By body armor you mean bullet proof vest? A. That 
is correct, sir.

Q. Would you tell His Honor very briefly without men­
tioning names why you felt it was necessary to wear bullet 
proof vest and body armor? A. Prior investigation dis­
closed the subjects wanted in this offense were deemed 
to be considered armed and extremely dangerous due to 
acts committed prior to this and due to acts in leading to 
the homicide of Sergeant Jack Cooper.

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Direct



2 6 5 a

The Court: Let me see if we can save time.
Is there any dispute about the last statement as 

a fact without any question of its legal effect, is 
there any dispute of this fact?

Mr. Nabrit: About the—
The Court: That they were reasonably believed 

to be dangerous.
Mr. Nabrit: No.
The Court: So that that need not be proved any 

further.
—586—

Mr. Nabrit: All right.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, Sergeant, would you tell His Honor, starting 
from the time that you arrived at Eutaw Place until you 
left, what took place to the best of your recollection? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. First of all, what time was it that you arrived there? 
A. Our time of arrival was approximately in the neighbor­
hood of 1:10 A.M. the morning of December 27tli in com­
pany with the lieutenant and the other officers of the ad­
vance group, the detective cruiser, we made an observa­
tion of the dwelling known as 2416 Eutaw Place. From 
our advantage point in the neighborhood and in the same 
block we observed the dwelling. We observed at that time 
there was lights on on the lower level.

From this point we returned a couple, several blocks 
away where the remainder of the rest of the investigating 
group was standing by. The lieutenant advised the cer­
tain groups that would go to the rear, our group pro­
ceeded to the front of the dwelling at 2416 Eutaw Place 
arriving at this time at approximately 1 :30 A.M.

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Direct



266a

At this point in company with Detective De Paula, 
Detective Oliver Walker, Sergeant Richard Connolly, 
Northeastern District, we went to the front of the dwelling 
at 2416 Eutaw Place.

—587—
The outer or vestibule doors, double-swinging doors that 

opened inward, were opened, one side. T approached the 
door, opened the door, the second swinging door was open 
inward.

At this point I knocked on the door and I also rang the 
bell. Approximately one, two minutes later a small, slight 
built colored subject answered the door clad only in pajama 
bottoms. We had our shields affixed on the front of our 
body and we advised that we were police officers acting 
on information, we were looking for two wanted subjects 
and we had information that one of the subjects had 
resided there and may be there at this time.

With that he advised us that we could enter the house 
and look anywhere we wanted. I entered the house and 
at this time Lieutenant Manuel had entered behind the 
other two officers.

We began our search and at this time the Lieutenant 
stood there talking to this subject. Detective Walker went 
through and was talking to some lady in the rear of the 
dwelling, first floor level.

After he left the door was open, the lady was there, 
to the best of my recollection she was clad in night gar­
ments. A light was shown in a room, we looked around, 
there was several beds there, there was figures in the beds 
and to the best of my knowledge I would say that they

—588—
were young people and did not answer any descriptions 
that we wanted.

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Direct



267a

At this point we went to the second level of the dwelling 
where other officers were. I went down the hall, there 
was in the middle of the second level of the dwelling, there 
was a bath facility, I looked in there. I went to the rear 
and there was a locked door. We requested, who had 
keys to open this door. With this a female subject came 
down the hall, handed the keys to me, I opened the door, 
we shown a light and this room was empty. We closed 
the door, I returned the keys, the keys were left there.

We went back down the hall, down to the first floor 
level. By this time there were other officers who I do 
not know were on the third level. We went down, I ob­
served Lieutenant Manuel still holding conversation with 
the subject who had answered the door.

We proceeded to leave the building after the all-clear. 
The other officers were on the first level and on the way 
out somebody said, Happy New Year, spontaneously. The 
officer with me, standing by my side, to the best of my 
knowledge he was either by my side or to the rear of me, 
we said Happy New Year.

We left the premises known as 2416 Eutaw, returned 
to our vehicles and at once returned to the Northeast Dis­
trict awaiting further assignment.

Q. Now, Sergeant, approximately what time was it that
—589—

you left the dwelling? A. To the best of my knowledge 
I placed the time at approximately in the neighborhood 
of 1 :45-l :48, no more than fifteen to eighteen minutes 
from the time of entrance to the time of departure.

Q. Now, this person who opened the door, the slightly 
built subject, did you explain to him the reason for your 
being there? A. When this subject answered the door I 
told him at this time that we were police officers, we were

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Direct



268a

hunting for a fugitive subject wanted by our department 
and he said you are welcome to come in and look around.

Q. Did you tell him the name of the person for whom 
you were looking! A. To the best of my knowledge I ’d 
say, yes, sir, we did.

Q. In addition to protective body armor did you have 
any other protection? A. Yes, sir. I was carrying a .45 
caliber sub-machinegun.

Q. And this was visible to anyone in the house, this 
man who opened the door? A. Yes, sir. This weapon 
was at the ready and on safe.

Q. And have you received special training with the
—5 9 0 -

handling of that weapon? A. I have been a member of 
the department riot squad for thirteen years, sir.

Q. And as a member of the riot squad you do receive 
training on the handling of the sub-machinegun? A. Yes, 
sir. All heavy weapons of the department, we are trained 
over a period of years on numerous occasions to frequent 
us with the weapons or any new weapons that are received.

Q. Now, other than service revolvers did anyone have 
any heavy equipment— A. Yes, sir.

Q. —specially trained personnel? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Specially trained in the use of the weapon they 

handled? A. Yes, sir. Every man that entered first was 
trained personnel in the use of the weapon that they 
handled.

Q. Now, when you went in the house did you touch the 
person who opened the door? A. I at no time and no 
one in my presence did I observe anyone touch this sub­
ject at any time, sir.

Q. Did you have him put his hands up against the wall 
and pat him down? A. No, sir. From my first visual

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Direct



observation of the subject with pajama pants on, if he
—591—

had a weapon it would have been very easily seen through 
this garment.

Q. So there wasn’t any need? A. No, sir, no need what­
soever to touch the subject or pat him down.

Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Detective Shriner, you observed lights on the first 
floor from your observation, were those Christmas lights? 
A. From our advantage point in observing this dwelling, 
I wouldn’t say definitely they were, I wouldn’t say they 
weren’t, sir.

Q. Did I understand you correctly to say that you 
turned your flashlite, or a light like that, into the first 
floor bedroom and observed some young people in bed? 
A. You heard me incorrectly, sir, I did not say that. I 
said a light was shown into that room.

Q. A light carried by an officer? A. That is correct, sir. 
I had a weapon which was at the ready and on safe. I 
couldn’t handle a flashlite and a weapon, too, sir.

Q. Well, this was someone accompanying you? A. Yes, 
sir. There was an officer behind me, Sergeant Richard 
Connolly.

Q. And he had what kind of light? A. He had a hand
—5 9 2 -

torch, as we refer to them. It is a high-powered, twelve 
volt light.

Q. Did the two of you look into this room, the first floor 
bedroom? A. I would hardly say that he could look 
through me, sir. He had the light at a point where if

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Cross



270a

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Cross

anyone was there, the light—the first instinct, if anybody 
can see a light they are going to go for the light. The light 
would be off from my body so if anything was coming 
my way I wouldn’t get it.

Q. Did you look into the room? A. I did, sir.
Q. Did you have any conversation with the lady— A.

I had no conversation with no one except the person that 
I talked to when I entered the building.

Q. Now, this first floor bedroom, would you describe 
the rooms—how many rooms did you go through to get 
to that first floor bedroom? A. Upon entering the dwelling 
at 2416 Eutaw there is a long hall; right as you enter the 
front door to the left going in there is the old time sliding 
doors, you proceed down the hall, from there there is an 
opening to a dining room, then further back would be a 
more or less kitchen affair and beyond it was the room 
that we looked into the—it was quite a congested area, 
I ’d say, from quick observation, with beds around and 
several subjects in them and this female Negro subject

—5 9 3 -
standing outside of the door who had had conversation 
with Detective Walker.

Q. And there is a little area-way, like a small hall 
between the kitchen and the rear room? A. To the best 
of my recollection I think there was, sir.

Q. So that to get to the door of that rear room you went 
down the hallway, through a dining room, through the 
kitchen, through this little hallway behind the kitchen? 
A. There was a hall from the entrance foyer to the dining 
room area, then the kitchen, then there may have been a 
small passageway or hallway, as you refer to it, to that 
back room, yes, to the best of my knowledge.

Q. Referring to the second floor locked room which you



271a

mentioned, did I understand you correctly to say that some­
one gave you a key and that you personally opened the 
door with a key! A. That is correct. When we found 
the door was locked we requested that the key or someone 
to open the door and the next thing I know I was being 
handed a set of keys on a ring—there was several other 
keys on the ring—and I tried one or two, the second or 
maybe the third key opened the door.

Q. Did you inquire before that who that room belonged 
to! A. I did not. To the best of my knowledge I did 
not, sir.

— 594—

Q. When you first entered the dwelling did you or any­
one with you tell the person Avho answered the door to 
turn on the lights in the corridor? A. When we first 
entered the dwelling to the best of my knowledge we asked 
that lights be put on. In fact, once again, I will say, to 
the best of my knowledge when the subject answered the 
door I think a light was lit in the hallway when he an­
swered the door.

Q. But to the best of your knowledge you recall asking 
him to turn some more lights on as you went back? A. As 
we went through, yes, sir, because we were not familiar 
with the lighting system or where the lights switches were.

Q. Detective Shriner, when the door was opened did 
you enter and then begin this conversation you described 
with the man who opened the door? A. I did not enter 
the premises until I advised the person who answered the 
door what purpose we were there for and after—

Q. Where were you standing when you said this? A. 
From the top contact of the steps to the first passing door 
that leads to the vestibule there is another large single 
door, when this subject answered the door we advised him

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Cross



2 7 2 a

we were police officers, we advised him of our purpose and 
only at this point when he said you are welcome to come

- 5 9 5 -
in and look around did we enter the dwelling.

Q. Now, you said you advised him of your purpose, do 
you recall his words! A. At this time, to the best of 
my knowledge, I would say that when the subject answered 
the door I said, we are police officers, we are acting—have 
information that a wanted subject wanted in a homicide 
of a police officer was at this address and with this his 
response was, you are welcome to come in and look around.

Q. Sergeant, am I wrong in thinking that the operating- 
procedure was that when, in these series of investigations, 
that when a person opens a door responding to your knock­
ing, the procedure was for one person to enter and then 
for the lieutenant or person in charge to come up and ask 
and explain what was going on! A. You are wrong, sir.

The Court: It was my understanding that it was 
the testimony—it is my recollection that was Lieu­
tenant Glover who testified, was it, this entry was 
by another lieutenant other than the one who was 
in charge—one of the three in charge of the North­
eastern section.

Mr. Nabrit: Lieutenant Manuel testified on it 
last Wednesday, testified about this.

The Court: That is right. Now you speak of a 
policy. I think policy was stated by Lieutenant

—5 9 6 -
Glover as being the established policy of the group 
which he was one of the three top men operating 
out of Northeastern. Lieutenant Manuel wasn’t one 
of the top men. You asked this man very properly

George D. Shriner—for Defendant—Cross



273a

whether this was the—what you have just said is 
what I understood Lieutenant Glover said was 
policy.

This witness has said you are wrong about the 
policy. Are you familiar with the general policy or 
are you talking about the policy of raids that you 
participated in or are you talking about what was 
done in the raids of some of the others?

The Witness: To clarify that, Your Honor, his 
statement was—his question was, as soon as I en­
tered would the lieutenant come in. The policy was 
the first three or four men with the body armor 
would enter to make sure that nobody was laying 
and waiting in the hall or any room that we entered, 
then the superior officer was directly behind these 
four men. His question was, did the lieutenant come 
directly behind me and I answered no.

The Court: Well, I think the question—there was 
a misunderstanding—do you know what the policy 
was with respect to who should tell the person who 
opened the door the purpose of the visit. Was there 
a policy that you knew about or was it just a custom 
in the raids that you participated in, or the searches 
you participated in?

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor. I can answer the
—5 9 7 -

question this way. The policy was that after we 
knocked on the dwelling or any place that we en­
tered, as soon as we had a response we would advise 
them of our purpose there, we were police officers 
and once we entered then the lieutenant in charge 
would be directly behind the first three or four men

George I). Sliriner—for Defendant—Cross



2 7 4 a

who were wearing the body armor, then he would 
further advise them in detail.

The Court: So it is your understanding of the 
policy that the initial announcement that they were 
policemen and they were making some sort of a 
search, was by the people who entered first with 
the body armor and the weapons?

The Witness: Yes, sir. Then the superior officer 
would be directly behind these people.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Well, Detective Shriner, did Lieutenant Manuel come 
in after you or did he come in after Walker, De Paula 
and Connolly? A. To the best of my recollection, sir, I 
was the first to enter in the dwelling and due to the serious­
ness of the situation I didn’t look over my shoulder to see 
who was directly—I knew who would be behind me, the 
other three men of the group that would enter first. But 
now as far as Lieutenant Manuel, I know that he had to 
be very close behind which was the normal procedure.

# * * * #
—609—

# * # # #
W illiam C. Hughes, was called to the stand and sworn 

as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was exam­
ined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your name for the record?
The Witness: Sergeant William C. Hughes,

Northern District, Baltimore City Police Depart­
ment.

William C. Hughes—for Defendant—Direct

* * * # #



William C. Hughes—for Defendant-—Cross

—613—
* * * * *

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
* * * * *

—614—
* * * * *

Q. Sergeant, were there periods during this investiga­
tion when you were in command! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know what those periods were? A. I don’t 
know when it—

Q. Was it a certain shift? A. I don’t know exactly 
when it started but 1 had the three P.M. to eleven P.M. 
shift for a period of time, the dates I don’t recall.

Q. Was it later in the investigation? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Later? A. Later, after the 27th of December.
Q. In that capacity did you lead any raids? A. Yes, 

sir.
* * * * *

—615—
* * * * *

Q. Northern District.
During the period when you were in charge of the in­

vestigation, Sergeant, did you have a problem with false
- 6 1 6 -

telephone tips? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you indicate that to a newspaper man saying 

it was a problem? A. I beg your pardon.
Q. Did you indicate that to a newsman that that was 

one of the problems?

Mr. Sause: If Your Honor please, 1 don’t under­
stand that question at all and I don’t see how the 
Sergeant can answer it.



Mr. Nabrit: He can answer.
The Court: I don’t know whether he can or not. 

If the Sergeant doesn’t understand the question he 
can say so. If he does understand it he can answer 
it. I don’t know enough of the background to be 
able to say whether he should or should not. I will 
overrule the objection and see if the Sergeant under­
stands the question enough to answer it.

The Witness: You mean did I tell newspaper 
people in particular?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. That you were having a problem of false tips. A. I 
told everybody that, my superiors and so forth, that we 
were having problems with false tips.

Q. What was the problem, what kind of false tips? Did 
you take calls yourself, for example? A. People would

—6 1 7 -
call and give us information, give us their name, their 
own name purportedly, and we’d attempt to meet them at 
a location to receive information and by the time we’d 
get there or have some unit there to meet them, no one 
would show. We were wasting a lot of time running out 
this false information. They were giving us vacant houses 
or houses that were torn down, no longer existed. We’d go 
into the area and waste a lot of time.

Q. Was there any change in the method of investigating 
tips because of this problem? A. Well, that is when we 
set up the change where the whole unit would leave from 
the station house. We were leaving on surveilance and in­
vestigation and observation.

Q. Do you remember about when that change was made? 
A. No, sir, I don’t.

William C. Hughes—for Defendant—Cross



2 7 7 a

Q. Was it— A. It was early in the investigation to 
best of my knowledge but the date I don’t—

Q. After two or three days? A. Honestly, I couldn’t 
answer that, I don’t recall.

Q. How about anonymous phone calls, did you make 
raids because of phone calls where people wouldn’t give 
their names? A. We received information from all 
sources, communication bureau, the news media, other 
districts received information and we governed ourselves 
accordingly with what our information and our sur-

—618—
veilance would turn up to whether we would make a raid 
or not.

William C. Hughes—for Defendant— Cross

The Court: The question was, were some of them 
anonymous.

The Witness: Anonymous, yes, sir.

By Mr. Nahrit:

Q. Do you remember about how many of them that you 
knew about? A. No, sir, I have no knowledge.

Q. A great many? A. I couldn’t even answer that.

The Court: I don’t know what a great many 
means. Would you ask the question was it in the 
nature of ten, in the nature twenty five, in the 
nature of fifty, in the nature of a hundred anonymous 
tips?

The Witness: I don’t think it would be twenty 
five. It would be less than twenty five, probably 
more than ten.

The Court: And do you know how many you 
failed to go out on?

The Witness: No, sir.



The Court: Any, did you go out on any?
The Witness: Yes, sir, we failed to go out on 

some, yes, sir.
When I say failed to go out, we failed to take 

the unit on a raid. We went out on it but we didn’t 
make any raids.

—620—
* * * * *

Q. Sergeant, you testified you had been on the force 
sixteen years? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How long have you been a sergeant, sir? A. April 
of ’64, I think it was. Not a year.

Q. Had there been prior investigations into other crimes 
where procedures similar to those used in this investiga­
tion in terms were used? A. I don’t understand.

Q. Let me narrow that down, acting on anonymous 
phone calls, other crimes? A. Yes, sir, service of war­
rants.

Q. I beg your pardon. A. In the service of warrants, 
yes, sir.

Q. Service of arrest warrants? A. Yes, sir. People
—6 2 1 -

call in information that so and so is now at such and such 
location and we have a warrant for him, we check and 
we do have a warrant for that person. A car is dispatched 
there to look into the matter. If it seems that there is 
anything to the person being there he calls for another 
car and they attempt to serve the warrant.

Q. And they make an entry and search on occasion? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. So from that point of view this is something—have 
you participated in others over a period of years? A. In 
serving warrants it is a requisit that the sergeant accom-

William C. Hughes— for Defendant— Cross



2 7 9 a

i

Lyman William Gonce—for Defendant—Direct

pany the patrolman on the service of all criminal war­
rants.

Q. So you have done this before since April ’64, other 
crimes? A. Yes, sir. We don’t tear a place up or search 
a place, as you put it, we go in and Ave question the person, 
if he is knoAvn there and so forth, talk to the people, and 
one occasion we ha\re requested and recei\7ed permission 
to check his room.

*  *  *  #  #

—622—
* * * * *

L y m a n  W il l ia m  G o n c e  Avas called to the stan d  and SAvorn 

a s  a w itn ess and, h a v in g  been first d u ly  sw orn , w as e x ­

am in ed  and  testified  as fo llo w s :

* * * * *
Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, Iioav long have you been a member of 
the police force? A. Eighteen years.

Q. H oav long have you been a lieutenant? A. Since No­
vember 19, 1964.

Q. 1964? A. That is correct.
Q. N oav, directing your attention to December 27th of 

last year, did you have occasion to go to 2416 EutaAV Place? 
A. I did.

Q. And Avould you tell His Honor first of all A\diat was
—623—

your position or AA’hat Avas your capacity in going to 2416 
EutaAv Place? A. I didn’t have an official capacity other 
than being a police lieutenant. The investigation Avas be­
ing conducted by Lieutenant Manuel and actually 1 was 
working on the four to twelve shift and after my tour of 
duty I cleaned up my papers and so forth, I Avas drinking 
a cup of coffee and several phone calls had came in and

t



2 8 0 a

Lieutenant Manuel was discussing this one from the in­
formation that he received from this liquor store and so 
forth and I went along with them on this raid, only as an 
assist, that is all.

Q. Did you go up to the house? A. After the armor 
division and Lieutenant Manuel had entered the home, it 
was approximately two or three minutes or maybe five 
minutes after they were inside, then I went in.

Q. You went in? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, did you have any special equipment? A. No. 

The only thing I had was my service revolver and that 
was in my overcoat pocket, in my uniform holster in 
my overcoat pocket.

Q. Did you have the gun out? A. No, I did not have 
my gun out. I had my hand on my gun in my pocket.
I never took my gun out.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, there was testimony here the other
—6 2 4 -

day by a woman who indicated that she walked up the 
stairs and there was a man, a police officer behind her 
with a gun in her back. A. That was not a police officer, 
that was me.

Q. It was you? A. That is correct.
Q. And, Lieutenant, you said you never had your gun 

out. Would you explain how that was? A. What happened, 
when I arrived I walked back through the hallway and 
if I am not mistaken it was Detective Oliver W alker, De­
tective Sergeant Shriner standing on the steps. I asked 
them how far they had gotten with the search and Lieuten­
ant Manuel was standing off the the side talking to some, 
apparently an occupant of the home and Detective Walker 
and Sergeant Shriner said they anticipated going upstairs 
but they were waiting for a member of the family or some­
body to go up with them.

Lyman William Gonce—for Defendant—Direct



2 8 1 a

At that point a lady came down the stairs and while the 
three of us were standing there she said, what’s going on! 
And at that time I told her, I said, we have reason to be­
lieve that subjects are here that are wanted for a serious 
offense, assault and shooting, and she said who? And I 
said the Veneys. She said, well, they’re not here. I said, 
well, would you mind if we go upstairs? She said, of 
course not, come on up. She started to go first and I said, 
no, please, don’t go first, we just want you to accompany

—625—
us.

As we started up the stairs I started to follow the two 
men with armor plate on hut with that the lady got around 
on the side of me, in fact, I even took her arm while she 
got around on the side of me and then the lady followed 
them and I followed the lady up to the second floor. Then 
there were several other officers who followed me. I don’t 
know, I ’m not positive just which ones.

Q. Lieutenant, is the usual practice that the men with 
the body armor go first if they have reason to believe 
there is a dangerous suspect in the house? A. Yes.

Q. And where there is danger of—is it a rule of your 
department where there is danger you don’t put a citizen 
in front of a police officer? A. Oh, of course, not, no.

Q. That is what I thought. A. We just wanted the 
lady to go with us, in fact, before we went up there I asked 
her if there were any other women upstairs in bed asleep, 
unclothed and she said no.

Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:
# * * * #

Lyman William Gonce—for Defendant—Cross



2 8 2 a

*  *  #  *  *

Q. Did you go to the third floor? A. No, I did not. 
When I arrived on the second floor the back door was

—627—
locked and to the best of my memory it was Sergeant 
Sliriner asked for a key, the lady said, wait a minute. We 
waited and she came back with a key. I don’t know where 
she went to get the key. She went down the hall and I 
remained between the door and the steps leading down 
to the first floor. I do not know who actually opened the 
back door but I know the lady did not go in first, the lady 
backed off away from the officers as they went in.

After the officers went in, then I went in. There was a 
back door, another door and—

# *  *  # #

—665—
* * * * *

Robert J. H ewes, was called to the stand and sworn as 
a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was exam­
ined and testified as follows:

* * * * *
Direct Examination b/j Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, how long have you been a member of the 
police force? A. Since ’41.

Q. And how long have you been a lieutenant? A. Since 
’56.

Q. Lieutenant, January 2nd, this year, at one o’clock in 
the morning, a little after, did you have occasion to go

— 666—

to 2707 Parkwood Avenue? A. Considerably after one 
o’clock, yes.

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Direct
— 6 2 6 —



2 8 3 a

Q. All right. Why did you go there? A. I received a 
call from the dispatcher over my radio to call the dispatcher. 
When I called the dispatcher I was put through to Lieu­
tenant Gilbert Krutzer who was the lieutenant in charge 
of communication on that particular shift.

Lieutenant Krutzer informed me that he had received a 
call that the Veney brothers were shacked up at 2707 Park- 
wood Avenue with a family by the name of Garrett.

Q. Did the lieutenant tell you—he told you that informa­
tion had come from where? A. He had received a call.

Q. Now, acting on that information from the lieutenant 
what did you do? A. First I drove by 2707 Parkwood 
Avenue to familiarize myself with the location. I then 
went to Fulton and Flora and called the radio dispatcher 
to notify the night inspector, Inspector Frank Battaglia, 
that I was to make a turn up and search of the Yeney 
brothers.

Then I called for 501, 502, 503, Cruiser Patrol 5, Cruiser 
Patrol 11 and the radio sergeant 530, and also the bailiwick 
sergeant 534, to meet me at Fulton and Flora. While this 
information was going over the air I received another call 
from the dispatcher to the effect that Inspector Battaglia

—G67—
would not be able to meet me but to proceed with my turn 
up.

While I was awaiting the arrival of my own cars Lieu­
tenant Schnabel, accompanied by two sergeants and a pa­
trolman and his cruising patrol, drove up. Now, I didn’t 
know at the time what Lieutenant Schnabel Avas there for 
and T assumed that he had heard me call my cars and that 
he, a lieutenant in the Northeastern District, Avas to take 
over the turn up.

N oav, my Cruising Patrol 5 arrived on the scene and they

Robert J. Reives—for Defendant—Direct



2 8 4 a

had a prisoner and seeing that Schnabel was there with 
his men I told him it won’t be necessary, continue to the 
station. And then Lieutenant Schnabel told his cruising 
patrol that they wouldn’t be needed, to continue on their 
rounds.

All this was taking place, it covered a good five minutes, 
possibly longer, and while I was talking to Lieutenant 
Schnabel and my Sergeant Schaffer, who was then the 
man in the 530 car, a colored man crossed the street from, 
I would suppose you would call the south side of Fulton 
Avenue to the north side where we were standing, and 
asked me if we were going to make a turn up on Parkwood 
Avenue. And he was a real respectable looking man that 
I took it for granted that he was probably the reporter 
for the Afro. I don’t know who he was. And I said to him, 
why are you inquiring? He said, well, the Afro boy who 
serves this neighborhood told me that he observed two 
colored men who resembled the Yeney brothers going into 
a house on Parkwood Avenue. And I said to him, are you

— 668—

the man Avho called communications and he said, yes. At 
this time one of my officers came up to me and asked me 
a question and I turned away from the man and the con­
versation continued between he and Sergeant Schaffer.

Now, do you want me to repeat the conversation?

Mr. Nabrit: Objection, unless he heard it.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Did you hear it? A. I did not hear it. When I 
turned back this man was crossing the street back to the 
south side of Fulton Avenue from which he had come.

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant-Direct



285a

Q. You made no effort to pursue him, did you? A. Beg 
pardon.

Q. You made no effort to pursue him? A. I, no, no.
The Court: Let me get this clear. Tell me again 

what this nice looking colored man, who you thought 
to be an Afro reporter, had said the Afro boy had 
told him.

The Witness: Had told him?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: What did he say the boy said?
The Witness: That he had seen two men who re. 

sembled the Veney brothers entering this house at 
2707 Parkwood Avenue.

The Court: The first time you stated it you didn’t
- 6 6 9 -

mention 2707, you said entering a house.
The Witness: Well, he—I beg your pardon, Your 

Honor, he didn’t say 2707, he said Parkwood Avenue.
The Court: Well, where did the 2707 Parkwood 

Avenue come from?
The Witness: When he called communications he 

must have given communications that address be­
cause that is the address that they gave me.

By Mr. Sarise:

Q. Every time somebody mentioned Parkwood Avenue 
to you, you inferred that they were talking about the same 
place that you were? A. Well, I wasn’t going to come out 
and say I was going to turn up 2707 ParkAVOod Avenue to 
a stranger \\Tho hadn’t identified himself. I asked him, Avhy 
are you inquiring? And he told me that he A v a s  the man 
Avho called communications.

Robert J. Reives—for Defendant—Direct



286a

Q. All right, what happened after that, Lieutenant! A. 
Well, by this time Cruiser Patrol 11 arrived on the scene. 
Now, from the call sheets of my cars they called out of 
service at 1 :55 A.M.

I placed the crew of 503 car and Sergeant Schaffer in 
the alley in the rear of 2707 Parkwood Avenue. I placed 
the crew of 502 car on the even side of Parkwood Avenue, 
which would have been across the street from the subject 
house. At this time the officer of 518 car, which is a single-

—670—
manned car, and I told him to go up the street where the 
cruising patrol was parked and he was to remain with 
that until we returned.

I then took the two officers from the cruising patrol, one 
of my officers from 501 car, and incidentally, the other 
officers from the 501 car went to the rear. That was not 
my instruction, he went on his own.

My bailiwick sergeant did not show up at this time though 
he tells me that when I came out of the house he was there.

Mr. Nabrit: Object to what he told him.
The Witness: Well, Pm just telling you, he wasn’t 

there.
The Court: Oh, well, he doesn’t have to go into 

the details.
The Witness: So that left me with Lieutenant 

Schnabel, myself, Sergeant Mathias and Sergeant 
McManus of the Northeastern District, with two 
officers from Cruising Patrol 11, that is the emer­
gency wagon, and myself. The two officers from 
the emergency wagon had on the protective vests. 
One of the men in the street, across the street, had 
on a protective vest and one of the officers in the

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Direct



287a

alley in the rear had on a protective vest. One of 
the officers from the C.P., cruising patrol, emergency 
vehicle, had a Reising machinegun, submachinegun, 
the other officer had a shotgun. Officer Hyde had a 
shotgun and Officer Brown from the—let me see,

—671—
wherever he’s from, he had on a protective vest, and 
he was also carrying one of these portable lights.

Now, I walked up and I looked for a doorbell 
which I didn’t see. It is possible, I don’t know, 1 
haven’t been back to the house, maybe the doorbell 
is one of those kind if your outside storm door is 
closed it isn’t available, I don’t know. I didn’t see 
the doorbell.

So I took my hand and rapped on the door. I 
waited several minutes and I received no response 
and heard no stirring in the house so I borrowed a 
night stick from Sergeant Mathias and with the 
night stick I rapped on the door.

Shortly thereafter the door was opened by a 
colored female and I said to her, police, may we come 
in? And she stepped back from this outside storm 
door, back to the inside door and I said to her, what 
is your name, please ? And I thought that she said her 
name was Lankford. I asked her if there was anyone 
there by the name of Garrett and she said, no, there 
is not. And I said, well, we have information that the 
Garrett brothers—the Veney brothers are shacked up 
here, were holed up here, whatever you want to call 
it, may we come in. While this lady was talking to 
me she had gradually been stepping backwards so 
that by this time she was at the living room entrance 
and the living room entrance here to my recollection

Robert J. Ilewes—for Defendant—Direct



288a

wouldn’t be but maybe three or four feet from that 
inner door, and she stepped inside to the living room 
where she had a light and I showed her the pictures

—672—
of the Veney brothers that I had and also another 
photo of Earl Veney that I had and asked her if she 
knew them. She said, no, she had never seen them 
before. And I said, do we have permission to search 
your house? She nodded her head first and then said 
yes.

Now, while I was talking to this lady it is quite 
possible that other officers had passed me. In fact, 
it must be that they did pass me because when I 
went upstairs to the second floor, the front room, 
bedroom, Officer Brown from the C. P. was shining 
the portable light on a colored male who was in bed 
who identified himself. Again, I thought the name 
was Lankford. He says, Mr. Lankford. And as I 
walked in I heard him say to this officer, take that 
light out of my face, there’s a light switch on the 
wall. And I went to turn it on and someone else 
turned it on. I believe it was Officer Yieldhall, 501 
car, and, of course, Mr. Lankford wanted to know 
what was going on and I said, we had information 
that the Veney brothers were holed up here and I 
showed him the pictures that I had and asked him 
if he knew them and he said, no, I don’t know them, 
only from seeing their pictures in the paper. And 1 
said, how long have you been a resident of this 
house? And he said, seven years, I believe. I said, 
do you know any of your neighbors? And he said, 
no, I ’m a man who keeps to myself pretty much, T 
don’t mix with the neighbors. And I said, do you

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Direct



289a

know of a man by the name of Garrett? He said, no, 
I don’t. I said, well, would either one of yonr next-

—6 7 3 -
door neighbors on either side of you named Garrett? 
He said, no, that I know they’re not.

So I walked back to the hall then and I called to 
Lieutenant Schnabel, come on, there’s nothing here, 
let’s get out of here. And as Lieutenant Schnabel 
walked up I remember saying to him, this man’s got 
to get up at four o’clock, it’s after two now, let’s get 
out of here. It’s rough. I was in the post office five 
years myself and that’s one reason I quit because I 
didn’t like getting up.

Anyhow, we went downstairs and when we got 
downstairs the lady of the house was still in the 
living room. To my knowledge she had never left 
the living room, and I went in and I apologized to 
her. I said, I ’m awful sorry to disturb you at this 
time of the morning, we get these calls, we have this 
information and we have to make these turn ups. I 
apologized to her, took my men and went out. I went 
back to my car, got back in my car and as I turned 
on the motor of the car the radio came on, I heard 
of a police being shot at at Pennsylvania and Elgin 
Avenue and that call came over at 2:10 A.M. I 
couldn’t have entered the house before 2:00 A.M., 
and I was out, walked up the street and in my car 
at 2:10 so I couldn’t have been in the house at the 
outside eight minutes.

Now, in that front bedroom there was a young 
child sleeping and that young child was not 
awakened.

Robert J. Heives—for Defendant—Direct



290a

—674—
I don’t see how the raid could have been conducted 

with more circumspection.
Mr. Sause: Your Witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Lieutenant, what time was it when you got your first 
call from communications that gave you this Parkwood— 
A. The call from communications?

Q. 2707 Parkwood. A. Yes. Well, the only thing I can 
tell you, counsel, is that I know that at 1:15 I was sitting on 
a vacant lot on Retreat Street for the purpose of watching 
Pennsylvania Avenue for any possible yokings and I know 
that 1 left there at 1 :15, and I would say that I had driven 
for possibly five minutes or so when I received that original 
call. Now, I can’t place the exact time but I know that it 
was at least five minutes after 1 :15.

Q. Now, did you give the address 2707 Parkwood over 
the police radio in the police car? A. Oh, no, no, no, no, 
never. You get a call to call the dispatcher.

Q. So it was somewhere around, sometime after 1 :15 that 
you first learned of 2707 Parkwood? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was sometime after 1:15 that you entered the
- 6 7 5 -

house sometime shortly after— A. I ’m quite sure of that, 
counsel, because the men all called out of service at 1 :55, 
it would take me—well, the distance we had to walk Avas 
not too far, maybe five hundred yards but it Avould take me 
a couple minutes to place the men and I remember this—

Q. I ’m not trying to pin you doAvn to the exact minute. 
A. Well, I ’m going to tell you this, as I turned into Park- 
wood Avenue the lights on the tavern doAvn the street went

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Cross



291a

out and people started coming out of the side door. Now, I 
don’t think that would have happened before 1 :55, possibly 
closer to about 1 :58.

Q. It would have been at least forty five minutes after 
you first heard of it that you entered the house? A. With­
in forty five minutes ? Oh, definitely, I’m sure.

Q. Now, were you ordered to make a turn up by a su­
perior officer at this house? A. Ordered to make a turn 
up?

Q. Yes, were you ordered to go, did some superior officer 
that you answer to order you to go there or did you make 
the decision to go there? A. When you receive these calls 
that the Veney brothers, naturally, as a lieutenant in charge 
of the shift it is my duty to make the turn up.

—676—
Q. You acted on your own responsibility as the man in 

charge? A. Sure.
Q. Now, as soon as you got the call you drove by the ad­

dress to familiarize yourself with the neighborhood? A. I 
answered the call to the operator from Whitelock Street, 
the 900 block of Whitelock Street from the call box, and 
then I drove over to Parkwood Avenue. Actually, frankly, 
I wasn’t sure just exactly the 2700 block was and I wanted 
to be sure.

Q. So you just drove by, you didn’t stop in the block? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Did any surveilance team go into that block? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Were any of the neighbors or anyone questioned by 
your men or men working under your direction? A. No, 
sir, not at two o’clock in the morning.

Robert J. Heives—for Defendant—Cross



292a

Q. Now, the dispatcher told you, am 1 correct, that he 
had received a call? A. Yes, sir.

Q. —that the Veney brothers were holed up at this place? 
A. With a man by the name of Garrett.

Q. With a man by the name of Garrett? A. Yes, he gave 
me that name, a man by the name of Garrett.

—677—
Q. Now, did you ascertain where the dispatcher got this 

information? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you make any attempt to find out where the dis­

patcher—who the dispatcher got the call from? A. Coun­
sel, it isn’t my job to question the radio dispatcher, even 
though I am far and away senior and so forth and so on, 
and was the night commander, night shift commander of 
the Northern District 1 am still more or less under his 
orders just like I would be under Lieutenant Cadden’s in a 
homicide even though I’m many years his senior.

Q. So the answer is it wasn’t your job to do it and you 
didn’t? A. No, sir. It is my job to carry out the instruc­
tions, period.

The Court: Instructions from whom?
The Witness: From the radio dispatcher.
The Court: Well, that is not quite clear to me 

either. I thought you said a moment ago that it was 
your decision to make the turn up and now you say 
you were carrying out the instructions of the radio 
dispatcher.

I think counsel wants to know, and the Court wants 
to know, who was it that made the decision to make 
the turn up, was it you on the basis of the informa­
tion that had been given you, or was it the dispatcher

Robert J. Iiewes—for Defendant—Cross



Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Cross

—678—
or someone over him who made the decision on the 
information that had been given him?

The Witness: Well, let’s say it this way, having 
received the information from the radio dispatcher, 
who was doing his job, it then became my job to make 
the turn up.

Now, the only one who could stop that turn up 
would have been the night inspector who I was un­
able to contact; and I am sure he would not have 
stopped it.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. You base that last statement on your general pro­
cedure. A. The general procedure of the department is 
that whenever you are to do anything out of the ordinary 
like that, or there is a serious crime or anything out of the 
—injury to an officer or something like that, you are to in­
form the night inspector, it is a courtesy as much as an 
order. After ail, if he is responsible for the City I figure, 
you know, it is only a matter of courtesy.

Q. You say you are sure he wouldn’t have stopped it be­
cause you were acting in accordance with regular proce­
dure? A. That’s correct, sir.

The Court: What did you understand you were 
required to do, when did you understand you were 
required to make a turn up, whenever what?

The Witness: Judge, I am going by twenty four
—6 7 9 -

years experience in the police department. You ask 
me why would I feel T was required to make that 
turn up?



294a

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: I would feel I’d been derelict in my 

duty if I hadn’t made the turn up.
The Court: Based on the information you re­

ceived ?
The Witness: I received information that the 

Venev brothers were there and, as I say, T have been 
in the department twenty four years and it’s never 
been done any different.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And just to make sure I understand you, you didn’t 
check on the dispatcher to find out who he had talked to and 
got this information from? A. He just said he had re­
ceived a phone call.

Q. And he didn’t say from whom? A. Actually, it isn’t 
his place to have to tell me.

The Court: Well, actually, of course, at the time 
you went in you had found out who he received it 
from?

Mr. Nabrit: Well, maybe not, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, he said the man who had told 

him he was the one who called the dispatcher.
The Witness: No, counsel, I can’t say that the 

decision was made because of this latter conversa­
tion with the person. I would have had to have gone

—680—
anyhow. Judge, under the procedure of the depart­
ment. There is no use trying to hide behind that.

Robert J. Reives—for Defendant—Cross

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. That was after you made your initial surveilance? 
A. Yes. If that man had never come up to me on the street



2 9 5 a

I would still have gone in. Of course, I had no intention of 
having all those men with me. Lieutenant Schnabel and his 
men appearing on the scene was a bolt out of the blue to 
me. Of course, he later told me that he had come over to 
contact me to make this turn up on Newington Avenue, 
which was not made because I knew better on that one.

Q. Now, this man who came up to you on the street who 
you thought was a reporter, is he in the court room today? 
A. Sir, I have been on medical ever since that morning, 
I have had no chance to contact anybody, this is my first 
day back to work.

Q. I asked you if this man is in the room today, the man 
who talked to you on the street? A. I wouldn’t have the 
slightest idea. It was two o’clock in the morning—

The Court: The Afro has more than one reporter.
The Witness: I don’t even know he was an Afro 

reporter, Your Honor, he was just a clean cut and 
nice looking fellow and he had sucli a nice manner 
with him, clean cut and all and I thought, well, the 
only person who would know something like this

— 681—

would be an Afro reporter. They are just things 
that go through you mind, that’s all.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, the men who wont into this house with you were 
Lieutenant Schnabel, Sergeant Mathias, Officer McManus— 
A. Sergeant.

Q. —Sergeant McManus, Officer Hyde and Officer 
Brown? A. And Phelan.

Q. Theland? A. Phelan, P-h-e-l-a-n. He would have 
been on one of the cruising patrols. He and Brown were on

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Cross



296a

the cruising patrol, and also an officer from my district by 
the name of Yealdhall, Y-e-a-l-d-h-a-11.

Q. Now, the man you found upstairs in the bed you 
thought his name was Lankford or something like that? 
A. Yes.

Q. Did you ask him where he worked? A. No, I didn’t. 
Q. Did he tell you? A. No, he did not.
Q. Well, when did you find out that he worked at the 

post office? A. He had it in the paper. I had nothing to 
do for the last four weeks but read the paper. You can’t 
leave the house on medication.

—682—
The Court: How did you know he worked at the 

post office when you were there?
The Witness: It said so in the paper, Your Honor. 
The Court: When?
The Witness: When? I couldn’t tell you the exact 

day.
The Court: Did you know it when you were in the 

house?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: You didn’t know it in the house— 
The Witness: No, sir, I didn’t know it.
The Court: —that he worked for the post office? 
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Then why did you say it was rough 

getting up at four o’clock?
The Witness: It is rough getting up at four

o’clock.
The Court: You just testified that you said to him 

or that you said that to one of the other officers.

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Cross



297a

The Witness: I said to him, the man has to get up 
at four o’clock, here it is two, it is rough getting up 
at four.

The Court: How did you know that?
The Witness: He told me he had to get up at four 

o’clock. He said, I might as well stay up now, it’s 
four o’clock, I have to get up at four.

—683—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, you showed the pictures you had to the man who 
was in the bed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you quite sure, are you quite positive that you 
also showed them to the lady? A. Yes, sir, I had them in 
my left hand as a matter of fact, and the picture I had, the 
personal picture picture of Earl Veney was too large to put 
in my pocket. It was a picture this big. (Indicating.)

Q. As she opened the door did she have a dog with her? 
A. No, sir.

Q. A small one? A. Well, if she did it didn’t bother me. 
I paid no attention to it.

Q. Did an officer go into the rear bedroom on the second 
floor? A. Now, counsel, you told me before you didn’t 
want me to testify to anything I didn’t overhear. The only 
thing I can say is that I did see Officer Brown come from 
that hall and what I said, there’s nothing here, let’s go, I 
was already turning down the steps and Lieutenant Schna­
bel and somebody else came from that hallway, too, so I’m 
going to have to assume they were in a room.

*  *  *  •  •

Robert J. Hewes—for Defendant—Cross



Albert Gooddale—for Defendant— Direct

—695—
#  *  #  *  *

A lbert Gooddale was called to the stand and sworn as a 
witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your name for the record?
The Witness: Albert Gooddale.

—696—
Direct Examination by Mr. Murphy.

Q. Mr. Gooddale, what is your address, sir? A. 4739 
Amberly Avenue.

Q. How old are you? A. 1 am fifty six.
Q. Are you a licensed taxi cab driver in Baltimore City? 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been driving a taxi cab? A. Fif­

teen years.
Q. Mr. Gooddale, I direct your attention to January 6, 

1965, around twelve noon, did you have occasion to pick up 
two ladies in front of the Veterans Administration Build­
ing in downtown Baltimore? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that location? A. That was at St. Paul 
and Fayette Streets.

Q. Now, would you look around this court room and see 
if you see either of the ladies that you picked up that day? 
A. Yes, this lady on the end here.

Q. Wearing the red— A. Yes.

Mr. Murphy: What is your name, ma’am ?
Mrs. Snowden: Mrs. Snowden.

Mr. Murphy: What is that?
Mrs. Snowden: S-n-o-w-d-e-n.

— 6 9 7 —



299a

Albert Gooddale—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Murphy:

Q. Bo you see any other, Mr. Gooddale? A. I ’m not 
sure.

Q. What happened, Mr. Gooddale, after you picked up 
the two ladies? Would you relate what happened in your 
cab? A. Well, as a rule I don’t listen to conversations and 
I just overheard an argument between the two ladies and 
one said to the other—

Q. Before you tell me what one said, where were you 
taking these ladies, the address ? A. The first address was 
1900 block of Druid Hill Avenue.

Q. What was the other address ? A. 2000 block of North 
Monroe.

Q. Now, when you say, you identify one lady as speaking 
to the other would you refer to them as the Druid Hill 
Avenue lady— A. Yes.

Q. —or the North Monroe Avenue lady? A. Yes.
Q. Who said what to whom? A. It was some kind of 

argument about money that they came down to get, money 
—to try to get a pension increased or something to that

—6 9 8 -
effect, and one lady, the mother of the son, she was arguing 
with her and told her that she didn’t know how to take care 
of business or anything like that and they got to arguing 
and the one, this lady, the Druid Hill Avenue lady told her 
that she didn’t have sense enough to get the increase of what 
they were trying to get, the pension increased. So the other 
lady told her, she said, I wouldn’t tell you that. She called 
her a fool, I think. Yes, she said, you’re a fool, you don’t 
know how to take care of business or something to that 
effect. And the other lady told her, I wouldn’t call you a 
fool. And she said, well, you’re like your son, she said, he’s



a fool, when he gets full of liquor he shoots a police, and 
that’s all 1 heard.

Q. And were they whispering in the cab, Mr. Gooddale, 
the ladies! A. Pardon.

Q. 1 say, were they whispering? A. They wasn’t whis­
pering. The other lady told her to shut her mouth, she said.

Q. Now, you said the other lady told her to shut her 
mouth, who said that ? A. The mother of the son.

Q. And you were taking the mother of the son to the 
Monroe Street address, is that correct? A. That was on 
the way to the 1900 block of Druid Hill Avenue.

—699—
Q. Which fare did you let out first ? A. This lady her on 

the end.
Q. The Druid Hill Avenue fare? A. The Druid Hill

Avenue.
Q. Then you proceeded to Monroe Street? A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you had let out the Monroe Street lady 

what did you then do, if anything? A. I stopped the first
police cruiser that I saw and told them about it.

* * * * *

Q. Mr. Gooddale, may I ask you, how long was it after 
you left the Monroe Street fare out that you stopped a 
police cruiser? A. Within fifteen minutes.

Q. Is that the first police cruiser you saw? A. Yes, sir.
—700—

Q. What did you then do when you stopped the cruiser? 
A. T told them about it, just what T did here.

Q. Did you mention the Veney brothers to the police offi­
cers? A. No, sir.

Q. You didn’t mention any specific case? A. No, sir.
Q. Now, after you were talking to the police officers in

Albert Gooddale—for Defendant—Direct



301a

the police cruiser— A. The first thing 1 thought of was 
this police that was shot in the cap in the 2200 block of 
North Monroe Street. 1 didn’t have the Veney brothers 
even in my mind.

Q. What specific incident, you say a police officer was 
shot in that area, what knowledge do you have of that inci­
dent 1 A. Only what I read in the paper.

Q. What was that? A. That a police was shot, I think 
it was in his cap. He was then knocked down in the time 
he got shot in the cap.

Q. Uo you know where he was shot? A. I think it was 
the 2200 block of North Monroe Street.

Q. About how far was that from—

The Court: What was that, 2200 block of what?
The Witness: North Monroe Street. That was 

several days before this incident.
—701 —

By Mr. Murphy:

Q. How many blocks away was that from the house of 
the Monroe Street fare? A. About two blocks, I think.

Q. After stopping the police cruiser, what happened af­
ter that? You told the police officers about this conversa­
tion that you heard in the cab, then what happened? Did 
you go with the police anywhere? A. I also told another 
police.

Q. Told another what? A. Told another policeman.
Q. You mean you stopped on cruiser and had a conversa­

tion with them and then stopped another? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you tell the second group of police officers? 

A. The same story that I told them.
Q. Why did you do that, Mr. Gooddale, after stopping

Albert Gooddale—for Defendant— Direct



302a

one police cruiser, why did you tell the same story twice? 
A. Well, I wanted to be sure that—I guess 1 was a little 
over anxious to solve some of this crime that’s going on.

Q. Well, did you subsequently go to the police depart­
ment with any police ofiicers? A. Pardon me, sir.

Q. I say, did you subsequently go to the police liead-
—7 0 2 -

quarters with any of the officers that you stopped that day ? 
A. I went out to the Northwestern later in the day.

Q. At your own instance or at the request of the police? 
A. At the request of the police.

Q. Who did you talk to there? A. I don’t remember the 
officer’s name.

Q. Do you remember what time it Avas? A. I don't re­
call his name.

Q. Do you remember what time it was, Mr. Gooddale? 
A. It was just about quarter of three.

Q. And did the police officers there question you further 
concerning this incident? A. Nothing more than, they took 
down what i  told them, the secretary did.

Q. Did you sign a statement? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Gooddale, did you see either of the ladies that you 

picked up at the police station that same day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which of the ladies did you see, both of them or one? 

A. I saw both of them.
Q. Did you identify them for the police that day? A. 

Well, no, sir. I told the police they were out there, the ladies 
were out there. I told him that I saw them out in hall.

—703—
Q. Did you speak to them? A. Or in the corridor,

Albert Gooddale—for Defendant— Direct

rather.



3 0 3 a

Q. Did you speak to them at the station, Mr. Gooddale? 
A. No.

Q. Mr. Gooddale, are you related to anybody in the po­
lice department? A. No, nobody, sir.

Q. Had you ever seen either of the ladies that you picked 
up that day before? A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know either of them before? A. No, sir.
# # # # #

—718—
# # # # #

Thereupon, James J. Cadden, was called to the stand as 
a witness and, having been first duly sworn, was examined 
and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your name for the record?
The Witness: James J. Cadden, C-a-d-d-e-n, Lieu­

tenant, Homicide Squad, Baltimore City Police De-
—719—

partment.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, how long have you been a member of the 
police force? A. Sixteen years this forthcoming April, sir.

Q. And how long have you been a lieutenant? A. A 
little over a year, sir.

* * * * *

—720—
# *  *  *  *

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct

Q. Lieutenant, you are familiar Avith the warrants of ar­
rest which were issued for two persons in connection with 
certain incidents arising on Greenmount Avenues, I think



3 0 4 a

it was the 2000 block, on Christmas Eve of last year, is that 
correct? A. I am, sir. I swore out the warrants.

Q. And Lieutenant, you are a member of the homicide 
squad, you indicated? A. That is correct.

Q. And as such this investigation came under your su­
pervision, is that correct? A. That is right.

Q. Now, there is a captain of the homicide squad who is 
over you, is that correct? A. That is right, sir.

Q. And then, of course, an inspector who is generally the 
supervising authority over him? A. Right.

—724—
# * # * *

Q. Now, when you say—just stop there for a moment— 
when you say searching homes, were they searching for 
evidence or persons or for what? A. For persons and evi­
dence, sir.

Q. All right, go ahead. A. Along about four thirty— 

The Court: When was this?
—725—

Mr. Sause: This was early Christmas morning. 
The Witness: I’m giving you a chronological— 
The Court: You say searching for evidence?
Mr. Sause: Searching for suspects and evidence. 
The Witness: There was an amount of money 

taken in the robbery and, of course, weapons were 
utilized, naturally.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Well, what was the primary purpose of the search? 
A. For the suspects.

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 0 5 a

Q. This was prior to the time that any police officer had 
been shot and killed ? A. That is correct, sir.

The Court: Well, of course, among the things that 
they might be looking for were the fruits of the rob­
bery?

The Witness: That is right, that is what I testi­
fied.

The Court: That includes the fruits and the weap­
ons?

The Witness: Yes, six'. I think it was two
thousand.

By Mr. Sanse:

Q. You mentioned a moment ago the money? A. Yes, 
sir, the money and the weapons.

Q. Did this involve a sizeable amount of money? A. 
Yes, sir, over two thousand as I recall, sir.

* * * * *
—729—

* * # # #
Q. Lieutenant, these special units, these emergency units, 

to your knowledge and experience in the police department 
have these units ever been utilized in connection with the 
service of warrants in any case? A. Well, sir, to my 
knowledge in the recent slaying of an A&P manager at 
Hampden they were used on sevei’al occasions to turn up 
the wanted suspects in that particular investigation.

The Court: That was the man who was shot and 
killed when he was attempting to deposit—

The Witness: November, 36th Street, yes, sir.

James J. Cadden—for Defendant— Direct



3 0 6 a

The Court: When was that?
The Witness: That was in November, Your

Honor. I think, sir.
The Court: He was making a deposit and three 

or four men shot him?
The Witness: Yes, sir. He was accosted by two 

assailants and shot during a robbery.
—730—

The Court: I remember the newspaper story be­
cause it made very considerable public discussion.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Were the circumstances of the danger considered to 
be roughly similar in both of these cases? A. They were 
considerably more in the latter case, or this particular case. 
This was an unusual situation. I, myself, in the time I have 
been with the department—I have only been here sixteen 
years, but never do I recall where two policemen were shot 
within a matter of six hours by the same assailant. I think 
these circumstances are extraordinary themselves.

Of course, you are dealing with two men who shot two 
armed officers and then you have a problem to the com­
munity.

Q. Well, in short, did you feel despite any prior prac­
tices that any particular precaution was needed in this 
case? A. Oh, yes, sir, circumstances warranted them.

Q. And you felt the safety of your men required them? 
A. Very definitely, sir.

Q. All right. Now, proceed. You have indicated that the 
emergency units were assigned to the Northeastern, you be­
gan your investigation. Could you describe your usual 
modus operandi in this particular case? A. Well, usually

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 0 7 a

most of the calls were directed—of course, for the first 
several days we inspected homes, known associates, rela-

—731—
tives, former associates, cousins and so forth of the wanted 
suspects, and they were long days. We had approximately 
forty five to fifty men and I guess each day was fourteen to 
sixteen hours a day for the 25th, 26th, 27th and 28th, and 
finally—

The Court: What was that call you said? I just 
didn’t understand what you said—off the record.

(A discussion off the record.)

The Witness: Of course, I didn’t particularly go 
out on a lot of turn ups the first couple days, I was 
interviewing witnesses, typing. We had scores of 
people in there from the Gfreenmount Avenue area 
who were friendly with the Veneys, who knew the 
Veneys and so forth. We consumed long hours then. 
Of course, I guess around the 28th, 29th, we started 
getting these phone calls, some from the newspapers, 
some from anonymous sources, some from officers on 
the streets. Then, of course, we would subdivide our 
units, I would take a group of men, Lieutenant 
Glover would take a group of men. He would take 
the calls in East Baltimore, I would take the calls in 
West Baltimore.

By Mr. Sause:
Q. Was there anything unusual, Lieutenant, about check­

ing the homes of relatives and known friends and places 
that the persons named in the warrants frequented, was 
there anything unusual about your investigating those

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 0 8 a

places in an attempt to serve the warrants? A. No, sir,
—7 3 2 -

nothing unusual, not that I encountered, sir.
Q. Well, I mean, was there anything unusual about your 

doing that or do you do that in every case? A. That is 
the natural procedure, sir. It is daily routine in law en­
forcement.

Q. Now, several times you used the word turn up, would 
you describe for His Honor what you understand the word 
turn up means? A. It can be an inquiry or it can be a 
search.

Q. In other words the words turn up do not necessarily 
involve a search? A. Oh, no, sir.

Q. But it has to do with looking for suspects? A. Yes, 
sir, that is the general term that is used by the police de­
partment.

Q. Now, you have indicated that around the 28th or 29th 
you started receiving these various telephone calls. Did 
you receive any phone calls, to your knowledge, or any in­
formation from persons, known informers or that type of 
person? A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. And you have indicated that you received some anony­
mous information, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Information from officers on the beat? A. Oh, yes, 
sir, quite a few.

—733—
Q. And are you familiar with the testimony of the last 

witness, Mr. Gooddale, did you receive information from 
those sources? A. Well, yes. I didn’t receive information 
from Mr. Gooddale but similar sources.

Q. Similar sources? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Lieutenant, in as much as the criminal cases

James J. Cadden—for Defendant-—Direct



3 0 9 a

themselves are untried we would like you to be unspecific 
as to the results but you have also indicated that you had 
certain other persons connected with the suspects in cus­
tody, is that correct? A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. And did you in addition receive information from 
them? Just yes or no. A. Yes, sir, we did. We had two 
additional suspects that are presently in custody.

Q. And were any of the turn ups that you made at any 
time based upon the information that you received from 
these people in custody? A. Yes, sir. I would like to say 
this, that a good deal of the turn ups were concerned with 
these other two suspects.

The Court: Did you say a good deal of these, you 
mean some of these—

—734—
The Witness: Well, we were seeking two addi­

tional suspects besides these youths mentioned in 
this particular incident, the Veney brothers.

By Mr. Sause:
Q. In addition to the Veney brothers you were looking 

for certain others? A. Yes, sir, the 26th and 27th we were 
seeking the two accomplices other than the Veneys.

#  #  #  #  *

—738—
*  #  #  *  *

Q. Now, Lieutenant, you have indicated that you received 
various types of information from various sources. Would 
you ever participate in any of the turn ups which were sug­
gested or indicated by this information? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And would you describe to His Honor—strike that.

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 1 0 a

Was there a general procedure that was followed in these 
turn ups! A. Yes.

Q. That you participated in? A. Yes, sir. You have 
heard from prior testimony that a call was evaluated, each

—7 3 9 -
call as we got it, at the Northeastern District, or if I re­
ceived it from—I received many calls from officers through­
out the City who, of course, wouldn’t name their informer 
because their informer was frightened, Your Honor, and 
didn’t want to become involved and I received a number of 
calls myself from officers, via phone, and, of course, we felt 
that that was somewhat reliable. We asked the officer what 
he thought, he’d say, well, he’s a good fellow, I knew him 
before, he has related certain information to me before. 
And, of course, on this basis we would go out and perform 
our turn ups. Of course, we had a surveilance car, as has 
already been testified to by other officers, to proceed ap­
proximately two or three blocks from the particular ad­
dresses and send a scout car in advance to survey the 
situation and return and then we would proceed with the 
turn up.

Now, of course, if someone picked a phone up and said, 
we received a call from the switchboard downtown and they 
said, we got a call from a certain address, someone picked 
up the phone and they say the Veneys were at a certain 
address and hung up. Then we might try to send a car there 
to look this address over.

Of course, you had to evaluate the emotions, the emo­
tional voice, the audibility of the voice calling. We would 
give credence to the reliability of the call. I have taken 
calls from women, from men, who told me the Veneys were 
in this house there, there’s a woman living there with them

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 1 1 a

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct

—740—
that lias a daughter and she’d been taking food to them and 
so forth. I can’t specifically cite the address but I have had 
those sort of calls.

The Court: Have you finished the answer?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Well, did you keep a record of these 

calls, any memorandum?
The Witness: They would be jotted down on the 

reports, sir. Now, they were subsequently typed up.
The Court: Well, where are those; because the 

Special Masters looked over and found so many cases 
in which there wasn’t any information as to the 
source.

The Witness: Well, sir, they wouldn’t identify 
themselves, these people who called.

The Court: You said something would be jotted 
down but in many cases the report is from the men 
who went over it, the reports showed there simply 
wasn’t anything in your records to show the sources 
in the records that were turned over, there was abso­
lutely anything in the record as to the source of 
information.

Is there anything, do you know of any records 
that were not given to Mr. Murphy?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: That would be a good deal of help to

—741—
the Court.

The Witness: No, sir.



3 1 2 a

James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Well, have calls that did not result in turn ups, Lieu­
tenant, was any records kept of those! A. No, sir, not to 
my recollection.

The Court: The records show, of the men who 
looked at the records, they had records of nine tips 
that did not result in turn ups and Lieutenant 
Glover testified that he thought that there were 
about three tips that he got that he discarded and 
didn’t follow. I thought he perhaps had received 
maybe somewhere around a third of the calls that 
came in. Can you give us any estimate of the num­
ber of calls that you took and/or what portion of 
the total calls you took and how many tips you dis­
carded, if you can, either exactly or roughly?

The Witness: Well, sir, roughly, I would say 
between twelve or fifteen calls that I took personally, 
that I can recall personally.

The Court: You mean only calls that you took?
The Witness: Personally.
The Court: Now, how many of those, if any, did 

you discard?
The Witness: I don’t recall discarding any that 

I took, sir.
The Court: All right.

* # #
— 7 4 5 —



3 1 3 a

Sergeant W illiam H. Rehmann was called as a witness 
for and on behalf of the defendant and, having been first 
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

# # * # *
Direct Examination by Mr. Sausc:

Q. Sergeant, how long have you been a police officer? 
A. Eighteen, going on nineteen years.

Q. And how long have you been a sergeant, sir! A. 
Going on six years.

Q. Now, directing your attention to January 6th of this 
year, did you have occasion to make an investigation in 
the 2000 block of North Monroe Street? A. I did.

—746—
Q. Now, would you tell His Honor what was the basis 

for that investigation and what was the nature of the in­
vestigation? A. Well, at approximately 11:20 a.m. I re­
ceived a call to Gwynn Galls Parkway and Dukeland Street 
to meet Radio Car 601.

The Court: You say 11:20?
The Witness: About 11:20 a.m. approximately.
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: Upon my arrival there I met Officer 

John Hess and Officer Larrimore, who was occupy­
ing that radio car, and they gave me a report that a 
cruising patrol from the Western District had stop­
ped them and gave them information that a cab 
driver had stopped them and reported he had picked 
up a fare, two ladies at Fayette and St. Paul Street 
and was directed to take them to the 2000 block of 
North Monroe Street, and while they were being 
transported to this location they were quibbling

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



3 1 4 a

among one another about money, and the one lady 
said to the other—

Mr. Nabrit: Objection, Your Honor.
The Court: Well, this is the basis upon which 

this man made some decision. It’s part of the res 
gestae. It doesn’t tend to prove the truth of the 
fact of what the other man said; but it tends to 
prove the basis on which certain action was taken.

—747—
The Witness: All right, Your Honor?
The Court: Go ahead.
The Witness: One lady said to the other, “ I wish 

I hadn’t taken you along.” She said, “If I hadn’t 
gone along you wouldn’t have gotten anything,” and 
they proceeded, and one said to the other—

The Court: This is what, the report of the cab 
driver as reported to you by—

The Witness: By the officers.
The Court: Of the cruising patrol?
The Witness: Of the cruising patrol.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: “That son of yours when he gets 

liquored up, you know he went out and shot a police 
officer.”

He then dropped one lady off in the 1900 block of 
Eutaw Place and then proceeded to take the other 
lady to the 2000 block of North Monroe Street, and 
he watched until she went into 2003 North Monroe 
Street.

I then asked the officers if they had the cab driver’s 
name, and so on and so forth, and they told me yes, 
that the information was good.

William H. Relimann— for Defendant—Direct



3 1 5 a

I then went to a call box because there was some 
people around, and so on and so forth, and I went 
away from that location and went to a call box and 
called my station.

— 748—

I relayed it to the station what information I had 
received. After relating this information to the sta­
tion I then contacted Radio and then contacted the 
Special Unit that was for this purpose of going to 
places looking for someone especially the Veney 
brothers.

They answered the radio, and they arranged to 
meet me at Gwynn Falls and Dukeland.

In approximately five or ten minutes the special 
detail arrived at Gwynn Falls and Dukeland, and I 
told the officer in charge, Lieutenant Cadden what 
information I had received, and this information as 
a unit with several cars from our district and a 
cruising patrol and the Special Unit we proceeded 
to 2003 North Monroe Street.

Several officers—
The Court: What time of day was this!
The Witness: Getting near twelve o’clock noon, 

Your Honor, hut I don’t know the exact time but it 
it was around about that time.

The Court: May T see that exhibit?
All right.
The Witness: All right.
The Court: All right. Go ahead.
The Witness: We arrived at that location, and 

several officers from the special detail went on the 
steps of 2003 North Monroe Street. I was right be-

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



3 1 6 a

side the steps, and Lieutenant Cadden was right be-
—7 4 9 -

hind the two officers that knocked on the door.
After three or four times that he had rapped I 

also observed that there was lights in the basement.
After three or four times that he knocked on the 

door a lady opened the door. Lieutenant Cadden 
advised this lady as to what our mission was, that 
we had received certain information, and that we 
would like—and told her this information and that 
we would like to go into the house.

She says, “Come on in.”
At that we entered the house. I was doing other 

things. I know Lieutenant Cadden, I overheard him 
talking to Mrs.—later she was identified as Mrs. 
Maggie Sheppard. He was talking to this lady, and 
I heard him ask her if she had just come home, and 
she made a statement yes, and he asked her where 
she had come from.

She said St. Paul and Fayette, the Veterans’ Ad­
ministration, and he asked her how she had came 
home, and she said in a taxicab.

He then wanted to know about the statement and 
who was with her.

She became—I wouldn’t say belligerent but she, 
but she said, “ I don’t know where it’s any business 
of yours,” and after numerous times he tried to get 
this information from her, and she would not do it, 
we decided it would be best to take her into the

- 7 5 0 -
station where we could talk to her.

She was transported into the station.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



317a

The Court: You mean you arrested her? Who 
arrested her? You or Lieutenant Cadden, or was 
she arrested then?

The Witness: Well, she was actually arrested 
because she was booked, Your Honor.

The Court: All right. So that you took her to 
the station?

The Witness: In a radio car, Radio Car 601, along 
with her son. She requested that he be taken along 
with her.

At the Northwest Station they were both booked 
for investigation of assault and shooting.

I then immediately took Mrs. Sheppard over into 
the Sergeant’s room where I talked to her about the 

information that we had had and as to who the 
other woman was with her.

While I was talking to her I was advised that 
there was a Mrs. Mitchell in the courtroom or in 
the building wanting to see me.

But before I—I’m a little ahead of my story. 
While I was talking to Mrs. Sheppard she still de­
nied to tell me who the other lady was or what the 
conversation was.

She said, “I don’t know what this other lady said. 
I don’t have anything to do with what the other lady

—751—
said.”

When I got out into the hall to meet Mrs. Mitchell, 
she was with two other young ladies, and an older 
lady, and she began talking to me, and I found out 
from talking to her that the other lady who was 
with her was the other lady that was in the taxicab,

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



3 1 8 a

and I related to her why we had Mrs. Sheppard 
there in front of Mrs. Mitchell. This was all in 
front of Mrs. Mitchell.

And I related to Mrs. Snowden, who the other 
lady was, as she was identified later, what had taken 
place and why Mrs. Sheppard was arrested and we 
were looking for Mrs. Snowden to talk to her.

And I asked Mrs. Snowden what had been said 
in the taxicab to make this cab driver give this re­
port, if anything was said about the Veney brothers 
or someone’s son going around and shooting a police 
officer, in front of Mrs. Mitchell.

Mrs. Snowden then said she could have mentioned 
the Veneys, the Veney brothers and that it was pos­
sible she said, “At least we don’t have sons that go 
out and get liquored up and go around shooting 
police officers.”

I said, “Then you did say about going out and 
shooting police officers and somebody’s son going 
out getting liquored up?”

And she said, “Yes, and I said that at least we
—752—

don’t have a son or you don’t have a son, meaning 
Mrs. Sheppard didn’t have a son that went out and 
got liquored up.”

Satisfied from my investigation as to what took 
place, that it was possibly the cab driver misunder­
stood what took place and what was said, we ended 
our investigation and Mrs. Sheppard and her son 
was released.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct

*  *  *  #  #



319a

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct

—753—
# # ■ * # #

The Court: Did anybody search the house or was 
it just a conversation in the front room?

The Witness: We looked through. We were look­
ing for people.

—754—
By Mr. Sause:

Q. Approximately what time was it that Mrs. Sheppard 
was released! A. I ’m not sure. But I have it in the folder 
here. I think it was approximately 2 :30 that same day.

Q. Sergeant, when you went into the home did anyone 
seize Mrs. Sheppard? A. What do you mean “ seize” ? Do 
you mean take hold of her?

Q. Take hold of her? A. No, she was met at the door 
by Lieutenant—two officers from the special detail and 
Lieutenant Cadden, and she opened the door, and she 
was—I wras right there, and she wasn’t touched.

She was talked to, and she was advised what our mission 
was there, and she says, “Come on in.”

Q. Anybody push her up against the wall? A. No.
Q. Anybody rush in and grab her grandson, Roscoe 

Cooper? A. Grab her or him?
Q. Yes. A. After wre got inside I saw Roscoe standing 

in the living room, and I patted Roscoe down for a gun.
Q. Well, did you ever see anyone holding her physically 

or restraining her or anything like that? A. There was
—7 5 5 -

no need to.

The Court: Why did you pat him down? Did 
you think he was one of the Veneys?



320a

The Witness: Well, there was also another case 
that I was investigating, the case of an officer Dodd 
Charis who was shot at right directly behind the 
coliseum, which is only a block from this location, 
and the gentleman that took the shot at Officer 
Dodd Charis, he just said, “ Hey, cop,” and took a 
shot at him. That’s about all we had of it.

This gentleman named Mr. Cooper resembles
somewhat the description that was given by Officer 
Charis, and the description was, this was night­
time and the place, it’s possible he could be the 
man that also shot at Officer Charis.

•  #  *  *  •

—757—
# # # # #

Q. Sergeant, what else was said prior to the time that
you took Mrs. Sheppard to the police station, if anything?

—758—
A. Well, like I said before, Lieutenant Cadden was talk­
ing to Mrs. Sheppard while I was doing other things in 
the house, and like I said, I was talking to Roscoe, and 
I patted Roscoe Cooper down.

So I overheard Lieutenant Cadden talking to Mrs. Shep­
pard relative to where she had, if she had just gotten 
home that morning and where she had come from and 
how she had gotten there and what kind of transportation 
she used.

And she stated that she did come from St. Paul and 
Fayette and that she had just gotten home and she came 
home in a taxicab and she was with another woman but 
she wouldn’t state who the other woman was.

There was more conversation, I mean, trying to get her 
to tell us who the other lady was and why we wanted to

William II. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



321a

know about the statement and we told her what her state­
ment was supposed to be.

She said she don’t know anything about shootings or 
what this other lady said.

She told me that same thing in the station house, and 
she cannot, she will not tell me anything, and she can’t 
help it if—well, she didn’t tell me then, what Mrs. Snowden 
said. I mean, it’s up to her what she said. It’s none of 
our business what Mrs. Snowden said, and after repeated 
times, I don’t know how many times, two or three or four 
times, Lieutenant Cadden tried to get this information

—759—
from Mrs. Sheppard and we were on an investigation of 
a shooting, someone’s son going out and shooting a police 
officer.

And it would have been very easy for her to tell us 
what was said and it would have cleared the whole situa­
tion up immediately.

Mr. Nabrit: Object and move to strike the opinion 
of the witness how easy it would have been for the 
witness to answer, for Mrs. Sheppard to answer.

The Court: Strike it out if you want. Strike it 
out.

Who arrested her? You or Lieutenant Cadden? 
Who made the decision to arrest her?

The Witness: Well, I guess it would be the officer 
in charge. I was right there. I was with Lieutenant 
Cadden.

The Court: Well, who told her to come to the 
station?

The Witness: The Lieutenant did.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



322a

The Court: Did anyone take hold of her to take 
her at any time?

The Witness: Only maybe to help her down the 
steps, to keep her by the arm. I was right there.

The Court: When he told her to come to the 
station she went?

The Witness: Yes, she went without any—
—760—

The Court: Without any force?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Sergeant, did you at any time go into the cellar of 
this home? A. The basement? The cellar?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was the purpose of going there? A. Looking 

for the—a person.

The Court: Looking for whom?
The Witness: Whom? Oh, someone that may have 

shot any police officer. We don’t know who. There’s 
one case we don’t know who it is, and possibly the 
Veney brothers.

The Court: Well, had you identified—you had 
already seen this man Cooper, hadn’t you?

The Witness: Yes, he was on that first floor.
The Court: And had you been told that he was 

her son?
The Witness: That’s correct.
The Court: And he didn’t run away down in the 

cellar or anything, did he?
The Witness: No.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct



323a

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Sergeant, when you left the basement was it in the 
same condition as when you went down there? A. There 
was nothing in the basement to change. I mean, it was 
just a routine basement check.

Q. Well, this suggestion here that someone tore this 
basement apart; is that correct? A. I don’t know. You 
say tore it apart. I don’t know what you mean. There 
was nothing in the basement to tear apart. It was a routine 
basement furnace as a basement would have, I mean.

It was, I mean, no club basement, just a routine cellar 
or basement, whatever you want to call it.

Q. Well, what did you do down there? A. Just looked 
mostly for a person.

Q. At any time did anyone—did Mrs. Sheppard request 
permission to make a phone call? A. It’s quite possible. 
Just right before I was told that Mrs. Mitchell was out­
side she could have said that, “ Can I make a phone call?”

And I said, “You can.” I said, “Wait until I come back. 
I have to see someone,” and she could have said she wanted 
to make a phone call.

The Court: Well, you say she may have and you 
answered. Are you just imagining what may have

—762—
happened or what you would have said or do you 
remember that she did and that you made a reply?

The Witness: Well, I ’ll say, before Mrs. Snowden 
came in she requested to make a phone call. She 
requested.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Direct

—761—



324a

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Cross 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Do you recall her making any such request prior to 
that time? A. No.

The Court: Was anything said at the home or 
as she was leaving the home about making a call ?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Or at the time she was arrested?
The Witness: No, sir.

#  *  #  *  *

—763—
*  #  *  *  #

Cross-Examination by Mr. Hughes-.

Q. Sergeant, if I understand you correctly two people 
preceded Lieutenant Cadden into the house; is that right? 
A. They went in, yes.

Q. Anybody ring the hell? A. They rapped, knocked.
Q. With what? A. With their hands.
Q. Not with their guns? A. With their hands.
Q. Did they have rifles or machine guns? A. I think 

they had riot guns.
Q. Riot guns? A. Yes.
Q. Was there a vestibule there or not? A. I think it 

was a double door situation; I mean an outer door and 
an inner door.

Q. Did they rap on both doors? A. I think the outer 
door.

Q. Now, who went in first? A. I believe one of the 
officers from the special unit after Lieutenant Cadden who 
was behind the two officers stated his business to these—



325a

—764—
to this lady. The lady was Mrs. Sheppard, and she let 
him into the house, one of the, or both of the officers went 
in, and Lieutenant Cadden was right behind the two offi­
cers, and I went in behind Lieutenant Cadden.

Q. The two officers with rifles went in first! A. Yes.
Q. And they did not speak! A. Sir?
Q. They did not say anything? A. Lieutenant Cadden 

did the talking, to the best of my knowledge.
#  #  #  #  •

—774—
# # # # #

Q. Sergeant, what do you mean when you say “booked” ? 
A. In other words they are taken into the station house, 
taken before the desk sergeant where the desk sergeant 
makes—goes through a procedure of filling out a form

—775—
which is, this is taking anyone who is arrested and is 
held either for a charge of disorderly conduct going up 
or held for investigation, which Mrs. Sheppard was.

Q. For investigation? A. That’s right.
# # * # #

—776—
*  *  *  #  #

The Court: And who told the sergeant what to 
put in the arrest register?

The Witness: You mean as to the charge?
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: From instructions from the Lieu­

tenant, before I left the scene I asked if he wanted 
them booked, and he said yes, and he also—I said, 
“For what shall I charge them with?” And he told

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant— Cross



me, apprised me then to charge them—not charge 
them, book them for investigation of assault and 
robbery relative to the Dodd Charis shooting.

The Court: Relative to the what?
The Witness: Dodd, Officer Dodd Charis.
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: I’m sorry. I mean assault and 

shooting.
The Court: Now, did you then tell or did you 

take charge of the booking and tell the desk sergeant
— 777—

what to book them for?
The Witness: When I got to the Northwest Sta­

tion I advised the desk sergeant as to the officers 
to put on the case, who instructed me Lieutenant 
Cadden, myself, and I think there was two officers, 
the original officers who got the information, Officer 
Hess and Officer Larrimore.

I think they are the four officers you will find 
on the arrest register.

•  • #  * •

—783—
#  *  *  *  *

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, when you got your information you said you 
got it from a cruiser patrol? A. It was relayed from a 
cruising patrol to Radio Car 601.

Q. And you got the information from Radio Car 601?
—784—

A. That’s correct.
Q. So the officers of 601 told you what the officers in 

the cruiser patrol had told them about what the cab driver

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Cross



3 2 7 a

had told them about what one of these ladies had said in 
the taxicab; is that right? A. That’s right.

Q. And on the basis of that and on the basis of your re­
lay of that information to Lieutenant Cadden you went to 
the house; is that right ? A. After talking to the radio car, 
like 1 said previously, I asked them about if they had the 
cab driver, if they had his name, and so on and so forth, 
and they said yes that the information was good.

Q. Now, did you talk to the cab driver before you went 
to Mrs. Sheppard’s house? A. No.

Q. Make any effort to? A. Contact the cab driver, no.
Q. Do you know if Lieutenant Cadden made any effort 

to ? A. What ?
Q. Do you know whether or not Lieutenant Cadden made 

any effort to talk to the cab driver? A. No, he did not.
Q. Did you ascertain who lived in that house before you

—785—
went there, in 2003 North Monroe? A. No, I don’t think 
we did; I didn’t.

Q. As far as you know, Lieutenant Cadden didn’t know? 
A. I don’t know; lie’ll have to answer that.

Q. Did you make any investigation in the neighborhood 
or did the other officers make any investigation in the 
neighborhood before you entered her house, about who 
lived in 2003? A. We went to the house at the time—

Q. Personal knowledge that you know by yourself? A. 
As far as I know we went to the house prepared to appre­
hend someone that was going to shoot us.

Q. Well, could you answer my question as to whether or 
not you made inquiries in the neighborhood?

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Cross

Mr. Sause: I object.



3 2 8 a

The Witness: I didn’t.
Mr. Sause: I say, if Your Honor please, this is 

completely irrelevant. They were going to this house.
The Court: It’s a question of probable cause. As 

I understand it, they never made any inquiries as 
to who lived in the house. If you want me to make 
that finding, all right.

At the present time I'm prepared to find that 
when they were given the address of a house they 
never made any inquiries as to who lived there.

- 7 8 6 -
Now, is that the finding that should be made?
Mr. Sause: If Your Honor please, this case is 

entirely different from the other. They had specific 
information about a person-—

The Court: That’s right.
Mr. Sause: About a person having said something 

and going into that house. It was completely irrele­
vant to the police—

The Court: About who this someone was.
Mr. Sause: About who the someone was, yes.
The Court: I ’m inclined to think that’s true. We 

haven’t gotten to that point.
I don’t see any occasion for making the inquiry 

here if the reasonable cause was sufficient. I ’m not 
saying that it was.

Mr. Sause: Well, I’m just objecting on the
grounds that the question was irrelevant, Your 
Honor.

The Court: I don’t think it’s irrelevant, but I 
didn’t see any use in it because so far as I know 
they never did make any inquiry as to who lived in 
any houses that they may have gone to.

William H. Rehmann—for Defendant—Cross



3 2 9 a

Lester C. Shearer—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Officer, answer the question?

The Court: Yes, I ’ll overrule the objection.
Mr. Murphy: If he knows.

—787—
The Witness: 'Would you repeat the question 

again, please?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Whether or not you made any inquiries in the neigh­
borhood about who lived in that house, 2003 North Monroe, 
before you entered the house? A. I did not.

Q. Did you have any warrant for the arrest of Mrs. 
Sheppard or Roscoe Cooper? A. No, we did not.

Q. Did you have any warrant to search 2003 North Mon­
roe? A. No, we did not.

Q. Did you actually—strike that.
What was Roscoe Cooper booked for? A. The same as 

his mother.
Q. Which was? A. Assault and shooting a police officer. 

* * # * •
—793—

* * * * *
Detective L ester C. S hearer was called as a witness 

for and on behalf of the defendant and, having been first 
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Detective Lester C. Shearer.



330a

Direct Examination by Mr. Sanse:

Q. Detective Shearer, how long have you been with the 
police force! A. It will be twelve years in April.

Q. Directing your attention to January 4th of this year, 
in the evening, were you on duty at that time? A. Yes, I 
was.

— 794—

Q. Where were you on duty, sir? A. I was in the office, 
working the four to twelve shift.

Q. All right. Now, did you receive any information with 
regard to a certain outstanding arrest warrant involving 
crimes that took place on January 24th and January 25th 
on Greenmount Avenue? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, would you tell His Honor—

Mr. Hughes: You said January.

By Mr. Sause:
Q. December 24th and 25th.
Did you—would you tell His Honor, please, the informa­

tion that you received at that time? A. Well, I received 
a phone call from a voice sounded as though it was a man, 
and he said that he knew the Veneys, and that they were— 
he knew both of the Veneys personally, and they were both 
in this address on Rosedale Street.

Q. Did you ever know what the address was? A. The 
best I can recall it was 2204.

Q. Now, was there anything else said at that time? A. 
I asked him who he was, and he wouldn’t answer; he hung 
up.

Q. Now, what did you do with that information that you
—795—

received? A. I relayed it to the Northeastern District,

Lester C. Shearer—for Defendant—Direct



331a

and Officer Robert DePaola answered the phone, and I told 
him what the message was and he said, “We’ve already re­
ceived information on that address.”

Q. Approximately what time was it that you received 
this information, Detective? A. That was around 8:30 
p.m.

Q. And did you relay this information immediately to 
the Northeastern District? A. Yes, I did.

# # # # #
—797—

# *  # # #

Mr. Murphy: Your Honor, we have the arrest 
register here, and we can put it in evidence, I be­
lieve, by stipulation.

The Court: You can put them in evidence and 
we can photograph them, and you can have the 
original records back.

Mr. Murphy: These are copies, I believe.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I have no objection to 

these. I ’m just looking at them to become familiar 
with them.

They may be introduced by agreement.
The Court: All right. Make them joint exhibits 

then.
The Clerk: Joint Exhibits 3 and 4.

(Arrest records were marked Joint Exhibits 
No. 3 and 4.)

Lester C. Shearer—for Defendant—Direct



332a

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Direct

—798—
Thereupon Detective R ichard F. Bosak was called as a 

witness for and on behalf of the defendant and, having 
been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as fol­
lows :

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Detective Richard F. Bosak, Homi- 

icide Squad.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Detective Bosak, how long have you been a member 
of the police force? A. Thirteen years, sir.

Q. And you’re now assigned to the Homicide Squad; is 
that correct? A. Yes, as of December 6, ’62.

Q. And you work with Lieutenant Cadden from time to 
time; is that right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you assist Lieutenant Cadden in his activities 
with regard to the Veney warrants? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, directing your attention to 2204 Rosedale Ave­
nue, did you have any connection with that case? A. Yes, 
sir, I did.

—799—
Q. Now, before we get into the actual inspection of the 

premises, did you receive any information with regard to 
those premises? A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Well, did you receive any information from any in­
formants? A. I didn’t personally, no. The person that I 
worked with did.

Q. And they received some information? A. Yes, a 
phone call.



333a

Q. And what was the nature of that information? A. 
There were four phone calls received in reference to that 
address, sir.

Q. Four phone calls? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were there any phone calls, any of those phone calls 

from anyone who identified themselves? A. Yes, sir, not 
at the present, no, sir. One phone call was received which 
was given to us from the shift we relieved, and there were 
other phone calls received into the district and into the 
Northeast District, it was a phone call received.

Q. Well, now, were any of those phone calls received 
from any known informants? A. Not to my knowledge,

—8 0 0 -
no. Later on it was determined that a name was given to 
us.

Q. I don’t understand what you mean by that. A. Well, 
there was a phone call received from the Balitimore News 
Post as to that address.

Q. Yes. A. And the name at that time was not given 
to us.

Q. I see.

The Court: Was the name given to the Post, you 
mean?

The Witness: Yes, sir.

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Direct

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Acting upon this information, what did you do? A. 
We proceeded and put the place under observation; and 
then later on in the evening we went and, went to the 
premises and entered.

Q. When was the place put under observation? A. 
Well, I was, at the time, if I might clarify it, sir, early



334a

in the day I was sent on another location to take a state­
ment from a person involved in this, and when DePaola 
and I returned we were instructed to go to another loca­
tion and meet the units.

The building, the location had been under observation 
up until that time, and it was then we joined the unit 
and went to 2204 Rosedale Street.

Q. Well, when was it put under observation? A. I
—801—

imagine-—I don’t know, sir.
Early in the day the phone calls were received early 

while we were at this location investigating another person.
Q. Well, now, at what time of day did you arrive at the 

scene at Rosfedale Street! A. At Rosedale Street, sir?
Q. Yes. A. Approximately nine, nine p.m.
Q. What did you do after you arrived? A. Along with 

other officers went to the front porch.
Q. All right. Now, tell His Honor—and this was Jan­

uary 4th, was it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right. Tell His Honor just exactly what hap­

pened? A. We proceeded on to the porch. I don’t know 
who it was. Somebody rang the doorbell, and no one an­
swered, although we heard something on the inside.

We waited, and the doorbell and the window was knocked 
on by myself, and the window is level with the porch.

Q. This is the front door? A. Yes, the front door, 
knocking on the door, and the window, and again we heard 
something on the inside.

—802—
We waited again. I observed that the window in the 

front was unlocked and practically open at the bottom 
maybe a quarter-of-an-inch or so, maybe better than that,

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Direct



335a

I raised the window and hollered in, “Police, open the 
door.”

No one answered; but again we heard something on 
the inside.

I entered the building along with another officer, and 
opened the front door and admitted the officers on the 
porch, turned the lights on, and I along with another 
officer went to the second floor and searched.

However, there was a light on on the second floor front 
bedroom. The search was negative, and we left the build­
ing.

Q. Well, now, you say a light was on on the second floor. 
Did you notice the light on? A. Yes.

Q. Before you went in? A. When we approached the 
premises you could see the light on on the second floor, 
and it was a pink light or a red light.

Q. Did you at any time ascertain who or what it was 
that was making the noise that you heard in the house 
when you were trying to get in? A. Later on we found 
out that there was a dog in cellar, that it was apparently

- 8 0 3 -
making the noise.

Q. Detective Bosak, did you ever go in the kitchen of 
this house? A. No, I didn’t myself.

Q. Did you ever go into the rear door of that house? 
A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you ever break any window in the rear door? 
A. No, sir.

The Court: How did you get in?
The Witness: The front window on to the porch 

and the front entrance was unlocked. You could see

Rickard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Direct



336a

it from the window and if you’re standing, you can 
see right on in, I observed that it was unlocked.

We raised the window and hollered in, and I guess 
that was the noise that we heard on the inside.

The Court: You hollered in, but how did you get 
in?

The Witness: I went in through the window. It’s 
a step maybe of six or eight inches off the porch.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. The window opens on to the porch? A. Yes, sir. 
It’s a sill maybe six or eight inches.

Q. Of your own knowledge, do you know whether any 
police officers came in through the back door? A. I have

- 8 0 4 -
no knowledge of that, sir.

Q. Well, who else went into the house other than you? 
A. Sergeant Brathuhn, Sergeant Hartman, Detective De- 
Paola, an emergency unit, I don’t know the names of the 
officers.

Q. Now, what did you do when you left the premises? 
A. I left the premises and make sure that the doors were 
secure, I then went next door, which is 2202, and spoke 
to the people at that house.

I identified myself. I had a badge on my coat, and told 
them the purpose we were there and asked them was there 
any information necessary, how we did obtain the man’s 
name that lived at that premises, and instructed them that 
if Mr. Floyd wanted any additional information that he 
could call the station house and we would give him all 
the information he was seeking.

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Direct



337a

Q. Did you leave your name or just your— A. I don’t 
recall whether I did or not, sir. I did identify myself to 
the woman, and there was a man there also.

Q. Well, you had your badge on too? A. Yes, sir. I 
had my badge on on my left lapel.

Q. Exactly what was the nature of this noise that you 
heard? Can you describe it for His Honor? A. It

—805—
sounded like someone moving on the inside because that’s 
why we demanded—when I opened the window I demanded 
entrance, and it sounded like someone moving about.

Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross-Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you see the dog, Sergeant? A. No, sir, I had 
never seen the dog; I haven’t.

Q. What did you do on the second floor? A. Went 
through the rooms up there, searched any closet that 
would hide, open the door and looked into it, and we left 
the premises.

Q. Had you heard any noises from upstairs? A. Not 
going up there, no, sir. The only noise we heard was 
when we were about to enter the building and when we 
knocked on the door we heard noises.

Q. What kind of noises? A. Like someone moving 
about, someone moving on the inside.

Q. What time was the-—do you know what time it was 
the News American got the phone call? A. Four o’clock 
in the afternoon.

Q. And you say the paper got a name, the name of the 
caller, but you didn’t learn until some later time, after

—806—
you had been to the house? A. Yes, sir, that’s correct.

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Cross



338a

The Court: Why not?
The Witness: Sir?
The Court: Why not? Why didn’t you?
The Witness: The newspaper, through the reward 

money and their ad in the paper, stated that it 
was strictly confidential information, and the people 
when they gave this information requested that 
their names not be given out.

By Mr. Nahrit:

Q. Well, was that information from the, that the news­
paper got, that somebody was going in there who looked 
like the Veneys? A. That’s correct.

Q. That someone entered the building that fit the descrip­
tion of the Veneys? A. That’s correct, that someone en­
tering and exiting the building had fit the description of 
the Veneys, one of the Veney brothers.

Q. Now, the house had been under observation prior 
to—

The Court: Just a minute. Would you read that 
answer back about fitting the description?

(The last answer was read by the Reporter.)

The Court: Well, that is supposed to be what? 
What is that?

—8 0 7 -
Read the question before. What was the question?

(The last question was read by the Reporter.)

The Court: Well, he said the man fit the descrip­
tion.

The Witness: I believe your question was that 
the information given to the newspapers—

Richard F. Bosak—for Defendant—Cross



339a

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. I wish you would make that clear. Would you state 
that again? A. I believe your question was that the in­
formation, what was that, and that information was given 
to the newspapers as to a man entering fit the descrip­
tion of the Veney brothers, was entering that building.

Q. Now, prior to that—

The Court: That’s right. That’s a little different 
from the message that was given to Detective 
Shearer, which might make a difference with respect 
to whether it was the same person or a different 
person who was given the message. The other one 
was that he knew him personally, and this was one 
that fit the description.

# # # # #
—839—

# # * # #
L ieutenant B ernard W illiam Coll Avas called as a wit­

ness for and on behalf of the defendant and, having been 
first duly sworn, Avas examined and testified as folloAvs:

—838—
The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Lieutenant Bernard William Coll, 

Baltimore City Police Department, assigned to 
SoutliAvest District.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, Iioav long have you been a member of the 
police force? A. Going on eighteen years, sir.

Q. H oav long have you been a lieutenant? A. A little 
over tAvo years.



3 4 0 a

Q. Directing your attention to December 30th of last 
year, did you have occasion to go to 2408 Huron Street? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, what was the reason for you going there, Lieu­
tenant! A. Your Honor, on December 30th around eight- 
twenty p.m., I was notified by Mrs. Pollack Hammer who 
was a clerk at Southwest District that she was in receipt 
of a telephone message from the Northeastern District 
to the effect that the Veney brothers were at 2408 Huron 
Street.

For verification I contacted the Northeastern District 
and spoke to a Mrs. Greene who was the clerk at that 
District.

—840—
She informed me that at eight-ten p.m. on December 30th 

she received an anonymous phone call from a man who 
informed her that one of the Veney brothers was being 
sheltered at 2408 Huron Street.

I made several efforts to contact the special unit who was 
heading this investigation, but I was notified that they 
were unavailable due to the fact that they were processing 
other information pertaining to this case.

I then instructed Sergeant Louis Brandt to organize a 
search team, which he did, and we then proceeded to 2408 
Huron Street at approximately nine-twenty-five p.m. that 
evening.

Q. All right. Now, did you have the emergency vehicle 
there? A. Yes, sir, one unit was there.

Q. CP-11 or -12? -12? A. Yes, sir, -12.
Q. All right. Now, tell His Honor, did you send an ad­

vance car to Huron Street? A. No. sir.

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Direct



341a

Mr. Nabrit: I couldn’t hear the answer.
The Witness: No, sir.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. And Lieutenant Cadden’s group, special unit, was not 
involved in this? A. No, sir.

—841—
Q. So this was conducted by the District rather than by 

the— A. Special units.
Q. Special units? A. Yes.
Q. Now, tell His Honor what you saw when you arrived 

at the scene there on Huron Street? A. When we arrived 
at 2408 Huron Street I stationed several officers around 
the premises. Sergeant Brandt and two officers went to 
the side door of this location.

I went to the front door accompanied by two officers. 
There was a light on in the middle room on the first floor. 
I knocked several times on the front door and received no 
response. A second or two later the front door was opened, 
at which time I was admitted to the premises.

The Court: By whom?
The Witness: A police officer.
When I entered the home, Sergeant Brandt and 

two other officers who were inside.
I then inquired as to who occupied this home, and 

the young lady by the name of Sharon Wallace said 
she lived there with her parents.

I asked where her parents were at the present 
time, and she told me they were both working. I 
then advised her of our reason and purpose for

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Direct



3 4 2 a

—8 4 2 -
being at her home, and she allowed us to search the 
premises.

By Mr. 8arise-.

Q. Now, what police officer was it that admitted you to 
the home! Do you remember? A. I can’t recall the name, 
no, sir.

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Direct

The Court: What was the question?
Mr. Murphy: What police officer admitted him to 

the home.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, how were you armed at the time that you en­
tered the home! A. I was armed with my service revolver. 
Sergeant Brandt, if I recall right, had a, was armed with a 
shotgun, and Officer Little or Tittle of the emergency unit 
was armed with a machine gun, I believe.

Q. Now, with whom did you talk when you were there? 
A. I talked with a lady who identified her name, herself 
as being Sharon WTallace of 2408 Huron Street.

Q. Can you estimate the age of that person that you 
talked to? A. Well, I would say she was approximately 
eighteen, around that, eighteen.

Q. Did you see anyone else in the premises? A. There 
were several young adults on the premises, and one elderly

—843—
one.

Q. Did you have any discussion with the young adults? 
A. The one, the only one I talked to at that time was Sharon 
Wallace.



3 4 3 a

Q. Well, at any time before you left did you talk with 
any of the others! A. I talked with another young lady 
there. I don’t know who she was, and when I, before I left 
the premises there was a lady who was seated in the living 
room, and at that time I was notified by Mrs. Wallace, Miss 
Wallace rather, that this lady was her mother. She owns 
a beauty parlor at Huron and Hollins Perry Road.

I asked her if she explained to her mother why the police 
were in her home, and she said she did.

Later on I then had occasion to escort Mrs. Wallace back 
to her beauty parlor at Huron and Hollins Ferry Road.

Q. So that after this was all over Mrs. Wallace went back 
to her beauty parlor? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When you saw Mrs. Wallace in her living room of her 
home, was she concerned? A. She seemed to be, yes, sir. 
She was seated in a chair.

—844—
# # # # #

Q. Lieutenant, would you describe for His Honor what 
you personally did when you got into the home, everything 
that you did? A. I explained to Miss Wallace the pur­
pose of our presence, that we had received information that 
one of the Veney brothers was being harbored in this home, 
and I asked her if she would permit a search to be con­
ducted, and she said yes she would.

We made a search of the premises, Your Honor, and in 
fact, Miss Wallace accompanied me to the basement of that 
house for the reason that she said her dog was in the

- 8 4 5 -
cellar.

The search lasted approximately three to four minutes. 
The officers then left the home, and I went to the front, and

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Direct



3 4 4 a

that’s when I seen Mrs. Wallace seated in the chair with 
her daughters around her.

*  #  *  •  *

—846—
#  *  *  #  #

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Lieutenant Coll, is it? A. Coll, yes, sir, C-o-1-1.
Q. Did I understand you to testify on direct examination 

that you went to this house with your men on what you 
were told was an anonymous phone call? A. Yes, sir.

—847—
Q. Did you have any other information about this house 

prior to going there? A. No, sir.
Q. Did I understand you to say, Sergeant, that you went 

to the front door with two other men, and that an Officer 
Grant, is it? A. Sergeant Brandt, B-r-a-n-d-t, Sergeant.

Q. Sergeant Brandt? A. Sergeant Brandt.
Q. With the Sergeant and two men? A. Yes.
Q. So that three at the front door and three at the side 

door? A. Yes.
* * * * *

—850—
* * * * *

Q. Did you give those officers who were outside, to re­
main outside, instructions to keep people who came up out 
of the house? A. While the search was in progress?

Q. Yes. A. Yes.
Q. That was their standing instructions, that anyone who 

came along they would keep them away? A. Not to enter 
the home?

Q. Yes. A. Yes, until the search was completed, yes, sir.
*  *  *

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant— Cross

*



3 4 5 a

Bernard William Coll—for Defendant—Recross 
—Further Redirect

—854—
Mr. Sause: Thank you.
The Court: Was the officer on the beat there? 
The Witness: Well, in that particular area that’s 

a motorized post, yes, he was there, yes, a two man 
car.

The Court: Well, did you discuss with him
whether he knew the people who lived there?

The Witness: No, sir, I did not.
The Court: Anything else?
Mr. Sause: No further questions.

Recross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Captain. I don’t know whether you said this before. 
Can you tell me the total number of men that were there? 
A. What?

Q. In your command, the total number of officers? A. 
Approximately fourteen officers.

Q. And how many cars? A. Offhand I can’t tell you.

Mr. Nabrit: That’s all.

Further Redirect by Mr. Sause:

Q. How many were inside the house? A. There were 
six; myself, Sergeant Brandt, and four officers.

—855—
Q. And the rest of them were positioned outside? A. 

Outside of the premises, yes, sir.
Q. This is a large house? A. Yes, it’s not too large a 

house, but it sits by itself, I believe with the grounds.

The Court: It’s a detached house, you say?
The Witness: I think it is.



3 4 6 a

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. And you indicated that this is a motorized police post? 
A. Yes.

Q. And is that a large post? A. Yes, it covers a large 
area, Mount Wynans’ area.

Q. Lieutenant, would you explain to His Honor why it 
was that you felt that this information was sufficiently re­
liable to act upon? A. Your Honor, due to the fact that 
this was the first time that the Police Department had re­
ceived information to place the Veneys in this particular
area, I felt it should be investigated.

#  #  *  *  *

—857—
# # # * *

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt was called as a witness for 
and on behalf of the defendant and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: Louis A. Brandt, Southwestern

District.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sause:

Q. Sergeant Brandt, how long have you been a police 
Officer? A. Sixteen years, sir.

Q. And how long have you been a sergeant? A. Ap­
proximately six years.

Q. Sergeant, did you have occasion to participate in the 
attempts, any of the attempts to serve the arrest, the war­
rants for the arrest of the Veney brothers? A. I did, sir.

Q. Now, directing your attention particularly to 2408 
Huron Street, did you go to that address? A. I did, sir.



—858—
Q. Now, did you receive any calls or information about 

this or did you just go to the premises? A. I didn’t re­
ceive any phone calls. On information received by Mrs. 
Greene at Northeast District, the telephone operator, in 
company with Lieutenant Coll we went there, yes, sir.

Q. Now, tell His Honor what happened after you arrived 
there and particularly what it was that you did at that ad­
dress? A. Upon our arrival at 2408 Huron Street, myself 
in company with two other officers, went to the side door. 
1 knocked upon the door. It was a very short time the door 
was opened by a young lady.

I asked who resided in the house. She said, “ I did.”
I told her that “we have information that one of the 

Veney brothers was supposed to be inside. Do you mind if 
we look around?”

At that point she stepped back and said, “ Oh, yes.”

The Court: She said—
The Witness: Upon entering the house, the knock­

ing was coming from the front door, and I told the 
young lady that was another police officer and said, 
“Do you mind, you better open the door for him.”

—859—
At that time one of the other officers went to the 

front, and he admitted Lieutenant Coll to the front, 
to the front door.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. All right. How many officers were with you, Ser­
geant? A. Approximately two officers.

Q. And how were they and you armed? A. They had

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt—for Defendant—Direct



their side arms, service revolver. I was the only one that 
had a shotgun.

Q. You had a shotgun! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did they have their side arms out of the holsters! 

A. No, sir.
Q. They were in the holsters? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was anyone wearing any protective equipment! A. 

No one, to my knowledge, that entered the house had any 
vests on.

Q. No one had a vest on? A. No, sir. Several men on 
the outside did.

Q. Did you get the name of the person who admitted you 
to the house? A. The young lady was later identified as 
Mrs. Sharon Wallace who lived there.

— 860—

Q. Sharon? A. Wallace.
Q. Sharon Wallace? A. Yes.
Q. Now, what did you personally do when you were in 

the house, after you were admitted by Miss Wallace? A. 
After I seen Lieutenant Coll was coming in, myself and 
another officer went, proceeded to go upstairs.

LTpon going upstairs I opened one of the bedroom doors 
and observed a male sleeping in the bed. I put the flash­
light around in the room and under the bed and closed the 
door and the man I observed in the bed didn’t even awake.

Q. He didn’t even wake up? A. No, sir.
Q. And then, go ahead, what did you do then ? A. Then 

the remaining rooms still on the second floor was searched, 
and we went right back downstairs again, and at that time 
Lieutenant Coll was coming up from the cellar, and 1 told 
the other officers that was in the house to go on the outside, 
and I handed him my shotgun and told him to take it out­
side with him.

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt—for Defendant—Direct



r

Q. You told him to take it outside with him? A. Yes.
Q. This is after you ascertained no one was in the house ?

— 861—

t A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have any further conversation with any of 

the occupants of the house ? A. Only with a lady who was 
later identified, I believe, as Mrs. Ethel Wallace, trying to 
explain to the other daughter to make sure she understood 
whv we were there, and she said she did.

h TQ. This Mrs. Wallace was the mother of the— A. The 
mother ?

Q. Of the daughter who had admitted you? A. Yes. 
y Q. Is that correct? A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any pictures of the suspects in your 
possession at the time you went to this house ? A. Several 
of the officers had pictures but I didn’t have any in my 
personal possession, no, sir.

Q. Did you or anyone in your presence show any pictures 
► to the occupants of the house? A. Not to my knowledge.

They were questioned if they knew of the Veneys and it was 
only just what they read in the paper and there was nothing 

f else about it.
Q. Did you go in the basement at all? A. No, sir.

— 862—

Q. Were any of the people in the house seized or patted 
down or was there anything of that kind going on? A. 
Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Wliat day was this, Sergeant, A. B r a n d t ,  
B-r-a-n-d-t.

3 4 9 a

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt—for Defendant—Cross

I



Q. Yes. What day was this? A. On December 30th. I 
can’t tell you the exact day.

Q. At about what time? A. Approximately 9:25 p.m.
Q. And how many officers did you have with you at the 

side door? A. Two officers.
Q. Earlier you said approximately two. Do you mean 

exactly two or approximately two? A. Approximately 
two.

Q. Maybe more? A. No, sir.

The Court: Well, what does “approximately two” 
mean? It couldn’t be more. You mean you may have 
had only one or you may have had three?

The Witness: Well, so the outside of the house,
—863—

it was right there by the door, and there was one man 
stationed outside of the house.

The Court: Yes.
The Witness: And the two officers that was with 

me, it could have looked like four to anyone else, hut 
two officers were with me when I entered the 
premises.

The Court: Two came in with you ?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And there was one outside?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, when the door was opened, you were standing 
outside of the side door when the door was opened, what 
did you see inside immediately? A. I seen the young lady 
who opened the door and no one else.

Sergeant Louis A. Brandt—for Defendant—Cross



351a

Q. You saw one person? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you—how long after she opened the door did 

you step inside? A. After I finished the brief conversa­
tion with her, and she stepped back, and she said, “Come 
on in.”

Q. Now, can you describe to me what that person who 
opened the door looked like? A. Not today, no, sir. She

—864—
identified herself to me as a lady by the name of Mrs. 
Sharon Wallace, and I had no reason to doubt her word.

Q. Did she say she was Mrs. Wallace? A. Well, she was 
sixteen years of age, Miss, Miss, not married.

Q. Did she tell you her age? A. I asked her her age, 
and she said she was sixteen.

Q. Where were you when you asked her her age? A. 
Later on as we came downstairs, and I wrote the name 
down.

Q. Did she tell you her name when she opened the door 
while you were still outside or after you came from up­
stairs ? A. She told me her particulars as to her name and 
her age when we came downstairs.

I asked her when the door was opened, I asked her, “Who 
lives here?” And she said, “ I do.”

Then I repeated the information that we had pertaining 
to one of the brothers supposed to be in the house, “Do you 
mind if we look around?”

She said, “Come on in.”
Q. Did you ask if Mrs. Wallace lived there? A. No, I 

didn’t, I didn’t know the name of the people who lived there.
—865—

Q. You didn’t? A. No, sir.
Q. Was there anybody else standing there in the door-

Sergeant Louis A. Branclt—for Defendant—Cross



352a

way with you talking? A. Standing with me or with Miss 
Wallace?

Q. With you or any other officers talking to gain en­
trance? A. No, sir, they didn’t.

Q. Now, was the officers who—did you or any officers 
with you have lookout sheets for the Veneys with their 
pictures printed on them? A. We have them but there was 
none displayed there, to my knowledge. T didn’t show any.

Q. But you had—the officers had them with them? A. 
There was some in the group, yes, sir.

Q. When you went upstairs, how many—who—did any­
one go upstairs with you? A. Just me and another officer. 

Q. Any occupants of the house! A. No, sir.
Q. No lady who went upstairs with you? A. Not to my 

—not that I can recall, no, sir.
Q. Did you see any lady up there? A. No, sir.

#  #  #  *  *

—867—
*  *  *  *  *

Sergeant John T. Dunn  was called as a witness for and 
on behalf of the defendant and, having been first duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: State your full name for the record.
— 868—

The Witness: Sergeant John T. Dunn, Western 
District.

Direct Examination by Mr. Sanse:

Q. Sergeant, how long have you been a member of the 
police force? A. This June the 1st, it will be twenty-three 
years, sir.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant—Direct



353a

Q. How long have you been a sergeant, sir? A. Thir­
teen years.

Q. Sergeant, did you participate at all in the attempts 
to serve the arrest warrants for the Veney brothers! A. 
No, sir.

Q. You did however receive certain information with re­
gard to a person named Samuel Veney; is that correct! 
A. That is correct.

Q. Would you tell His Honor about that, please, where 
and when it was and how you received the information? 
A. To the best of my knowledge, having worked in the area 
of Fulton and Landvale for approximately thirteen years, 
Your Honor, I knew that Al’s Liquor Store had a very good 
file, as far as cashing checks. So I went into the liquor store.

To the best of my recollection it was the night of Decem­
ber 27th, and I did find in his check card file for identifica-

—869—
tion purposes a card bearing the name of one Samuel 
Veney.

To the best of my recollection it was, the check at that 
time was a Bethlehem Steel check, and on the card was the 
name Samuel Veney, and the birth date of this Samuel 
Veney who did cash the check, and the address of 2416 
Eutaw Place, along with a badge plate number designating 
his specific job at Bethlehem Steel along with a Virginia, 
either an operator’s license with the serial numbers or a 
registration card, I don’t recall which.

I do have a due report somewhere. I do not know where 
that report is.

Q. Sergeant, what did you do with that information ? A. 
I copied the information on my own notes, and then pro­
ceeded to the Western District, which is approximately 
four-and-a-half or five blocks from Fulton and Landvale.

I then contacted the sergeant—I mean the Lieutenant

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant— Direct



354a

Carlton Manuel. I had telephonic conversation with him, 
and after that I set down and made out a due report to my 
Captain.

Q. You reported this information you got to the officers 
who were conducting the search; is that correct? A. 
That’s correct.

*  #  #  *  *

—871—
* # * * #

Q. Sergeant, I’m handing you Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1 
and ask you if you can identify that? A. Yes, sir, this 
seems to be the card that I took all of my information from 
other than—here’s the Virginia driver’s license.

Q. I see.
Mr. Sause: Your witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Sergeant, you had used the files of this liquor store 
before? A. Yes, I had.

Q. You were familiar with, were you familiar with the 
information they kept on their cards, the type of informa­
tion? A. Oh, yes, yes.

Q. When you looked at this particular card, did someone 
there at the store have to interpret it for you or what?

—872—
A. No, sir, no indeed, sir.

Q. Did you ask anyone at the store any questions about 
the card? A. I just asked, I asked permission from the 
liquor store operator if I could take that information be­
cause that is his own business information, and he so did 
give me permission.

Q. Mr. Tucker? A. That’s correct.
Q. But you didn’t ask Mr. Tucker any questions about 

the card? A. No, sir, he had no idea what I wanted with it.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant— Cross



355a

Q. Now, from your previous visits to the card file had 
you learned that they kept fingerprints on the back of the 
card? A. That’s correct. The first time that any person 
that they do not know comes in to cash a check, they will go 
through that routine with each individual regardless of who 
he is.

Q. Did you notice the fingerprints on this particular 
card? A. Yes, sir.

Q. You did? A. Y"es.
Q. Did you make any attempt to copy them or classify

— 873—

them or anything like that? A. No, sir.
Q. Or study them at all? A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have a—strike that.

The Court: Is there any date on it? I know what 
you’re thinking about. Is there any date on it?

Mr. Nabrit: I didn’t notice.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. What time of the evening was it when you went into 
Al’s Liquor Store? A. If I had my original report to the 
Captain, I don’t know what has happened to it, I could pin 
it down pretty closely.

Q. Well, I’ll pass that for the moment.
Looking at the Defendant’s Exhibit No. 1, did you, what 

did you—would you look at the second line and tell me 
what the writing on the second line indicates to you? A. 
To the best of my belief, this 619 would be the date of June 
19th.

Q. Yes. A. Bethlehem Steel. This would be the badge 
plate number, and this other particular number would des­
ignate his particular shop or mill.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant—Cross



356a

Q. What is that? Speak it out loud. A. 520-2115. That
—874—

would be his payroll or badge number, to the best of my 
knowledge.

Q. And what else? A. 2416 Eutaw Place, which would 
be where Samuel Veney was residing on June the 19th.

Q. Now, why did you think it was—I believe you testi­
fied it was a Bethlehem Steel Company check. What made 
you think that? A. Because of the fact that the man at the 
liquor store, Mr. Tucker, had the Bethlehem Steel plus the 
employment number.

Q. So you took it that since he had the employment num­
ber the man must have cashed the check there and showed 
his employment badge? A. That’s correct.

Q. Now, did you reach any conclusion as to what year 
that was? A. Yes, I would, I would, of course, use my own 
mind on that and figure that it was 1964.

Q. But nothing on the card says 1964? A. No.
Q. The only year given on the card is 1962? A. That’s 

correct.
Q. December 26, 1962, another entry? A. Yes.

—875—
The Court: That’s for an earlier—
Mr. Nabrit: An earlier—
The Court: Apparently an earlier address.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Is that correct? A. Well, I really don’t know. 1 see 
a date here 10/26/62. 1 do see that.

Q. You don’t know what that refers to? A. I do not. I 
did not question Mr. Tucker with reference to that or this 
here. This means nothing to me.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant—Cross



357a

Q. Referring to the bottom line of the card? A. Yes.
Q. Where there is a series of numbers and slashes? A. 

Yes. To the best of my, I would personally, being a police 
officer, would testify this to be 155 pounds, 21 years of age.

Now, what this means, I don’t know. That could be a 
scribble plus 11 plus 155 plus 21.

That is my impression, that he would be 21 years of age, 
weighing approximately 155 pounds, and I would imagine 
5-11; I ’m not sure.

Q. Now, when you called up Lieutenant Manuel on the 
phone, can you remember what you told Lieutenant Manuel, 
as best you can? A. To the best of my knowledge, I gave 
him all this information here: Samuel Yeney, 2416 Eutaw

—8 7 6 -
Place, on the date of June 19, 1964, cashed a Bethlehem 
Steel check, with the employment number of 520-2115.

Then this Gilbert’s Plastic Supply, I know from personal 
knowledge that they’re out of business, as far as our dis­
trict is concerned.

I discarded that. That was my disregard.
Then the Virginia driver’s license, 426519 was given to 

Lieutenant Manuel in case the Samuel Yeney here did not 
reside at 2416 Eutaw Place, the Lieutenant through police 
procedure could then get a Virginia address possibly from 
this number, and from the Virginia address seeing the 
Veney brothers had left town.

Q. But basically everything you told us is from some­
thing you seen on the card except the year 1964; is that 
correct? A. That’s correct, in my view, my view of that 
it contains everything that I used on the telephone conver­
sation.

Q. Just indicating, I asked the previous question about 
the time, and if you want to look at it, I have no objection 
to your looking at it.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant—Cross



358a

The Court: All right.
The Witness: I, at that time I was working the 

four to twelve shift and were not even referring to 
this, and my recollection would be about approxi­
mately about somewhere in the neighborhood of

—877—
10:45, 11:00 p.m. that night, and after my report I 
went home at midnight.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. 10:45 to 11:00 p.m.! A. Yes, somewhere in that.
Q. Was the time! A. Approximately the time.
Q. 10:45 to 11:00 p.m.? A. Somewhere in that time 

range. It could have been a little sooner or it could have 
been a little later.

Q. Now, your report is dated December 26th so your 
visit must have been December 26th and not 27th? A. 
That’s correct. That would be correct, yes.

The Court: The report, yes, he worked up until 
midnight on the 26th.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir.
The Court: And if he wrote his report after he 

got back to the station, he would have written his 
report, he would have written the report after mid­
night.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. The report and the visit were both on the 26th? A. 
That’s correct.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant—Cross



359a

The Court: You got back to the station then before 
midnight ?

—878—
The Witness: Yes, Your Honor. I visited the liq­

uor store, got my information, went to the station, 
and made the phone call, and then after making the 
phone call, made those two reports.

The Court: Well, the question that occurred to me, 
and I might as well ask it now. Did it occur to you it 
might have been a different Samuel Veney?

The Witness: Well, yes, yes, it could have been. 
The only thing to show on this card was one Samuel 
Veney, and Your Honor, we wanted one Samuel Jef­
ferson Veney; but I was acting on the premise it 
may have been either one and the same party.

The Court: Did you have any information as to 
where the Veneys had been working?

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Did you tell the Lieutenant that there 

were fingerprints on the record you had seen?
The Witness: I did, sir.
The Court: You did tell him that?
The Witness: Yes, I did.
The Court: Is it “ Sam” on the front?
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: It’s hard to say whether it’s close 

enough or not close enough. It’s not the same but 
it’s not so far off. If it had been the man on the back 
it’s clear there would have been a great deal of dif-

—879—
ference. You can’t say it’s real close; you can’t say 
it’s real far away.

Sergeant John T. Dunn—for Defendant— Cross



360a

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Did you ask for permission to borrow that card from 
Mr. Tucker or to take the fingerprints? xY. No, sir, I 
didn’t.

Q. Did it occur to you? A. I removed the card from 
the file, and there’s a counter there about three feet from 
the file, and all I did, I copied the information. I did not 
remove it from the store.

Q. And you didn’t ask then if you could ? A. No.

The Court: Well, if he told the Lieutenant that 
there were fingerprints on it, I don’t know what more 
is expected of the Sergeant in his position, it would 
seem to me.

* # # # #
—880—

L ieutenant James J. Cadden resumed the witness stand 
and testified further as follows:

The Clerk: Lieutenant Cadden, you are still under 
oath.

Direct Examination (Continued) by Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, yesterday we reviewed with you the types 
of phone calls and the types of leads you got with regard 
to the whereabouts of the persons named in the arrest war­
rants and other suspects and related matters, ami we were 
just about to get to the point where we would like to ask 
you for a summary of the procedure that you followed in 
investigating these tips or leads or reports, whatever you 
want to call them, that is, how after making an evaluation 
of them, how you followed them out?



361a

Was there a general pattern to that? A. Yes, sir, the 
first, to answer, sir, the entire unit would respond, and of 
course, the adavnce car, the scout car to observe the neigh­
borhood, and of course, to setup the necessary safeguards. 
This has already been testified to, and to protect pedestrian 
traffic and all motor traffic, and of course after, of course 
the scout car would return and meet the unit approximately 
three or four blocks away, and we would proceed to the 
destination, and of course, make the turn-up.

— 881—

Of course, after numerous days the unit was divided, to 
a nine to eight or a nine to three and three to eleven, if you 
follow me.

# # * # *
— 882—

#  #  #  *  *

Q. Now, did you go out on any of these investigations 
yourself? A. 1 participated in fifty-eight.

Q. Fifty-eight? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, was there any general routine procedure in 

those investigations? A. Oh, yes, as I say, if we received 
a call, of course, we’d evaluate it, and whoever received 
the call relayed it to us, and if we felt the basis of it, the 
sincerity of the caller, and if he didn’t sound like a crank 
and so forth, then we would proceed.

Q. Then after you got out to the home what Avas the pro­
cedure there? A. Well, sir, a detective or officer with a 
protective vest, of course, Avould approach the front of the 
house, the front of the house, there being an exterior to 
safeguard the front and rear, and several officers armed 
with shotguns and automatic Aveapons, of course, would go

—883—
to the rear, and of course traffic Avould he detoured to either

Lieutenant James J. Caclden— for Defendant— Direct



362a

end of the block, if possible, and pedestrian traffic would 
be detoured.

Then we would approach the house, and it would be 
Lieutenant Glover, Lieutenant Glover and I participated 
jointly in approximately thirty-some. I don’t recall the 
exact number.

But a protective officer with a vest would proceed, he 
or I, one of us went to the door, and we would knock, and 
whoever responded opened the door, and we would explain 
our purpose there, that we were searching for the Veney 
brothers. This is apparently well-known by most of the 
populace, and we had the information, and we’d usually 
name our source, anonymous calls or information from 
other officers that the Veneys could be found there, and 
request their permission to search.

This was granted in all cases where I entered the homes, 
and of course, about four or five officers would follow us 
into the home and conduct the search, and the search would 
vary from, would range from two to three minutes, some­
times five minutes, not a great deal of lengthy time, as I 
recall it.

Q. These searches that were in homes, was it part of the 
procedure to pat down the persons in the home or to other­
wise inspect the clothing of the persons in the home? A.

- 8 8 4 -
Sir, I was never on inspection in the fifty-eight that T 
participated in, of any officer and myself or any officer in 
my presence or viewT to pat anyone down.

We usually viewed the human form particularly if it was 
a male, of course, to determine if it was the Yeneys, and 
there was no patting down in my presence as I recall it, 
or by myself.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



363a

Q. Did anyone ever make any complaints to you about the 
searches! A. Never, never, sir, on any occasion.

Q. You found the citizenry in Baltimore City to be gen­
erally co-operative? A. Extremely co-operative, sir. We 
made daily reports to the Commissioner or Captain Malirer 
about the wonderful co-operation we received.

Q. Were most people you found were aware of the crimes 
and of the suspects for whom you were searching, the 
Veney brothers? A. That’s true, sir.

Q. Lieutenant, before we get into some of these specific 
investigations or inspections, you indicated that there were, 
a few minutes ago you said that some, that all the calls were 
evaluated; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

*  *  *  *  *

—885—
* * * * *

Q. Now, directing your attention to December 31st of
— 886-

last year, did you go to 917 North Chapel Street? A. Yes, 
sir, I did, sir.

Q. And would you tell His Honor what you did upon 
your arrival there? A. We left the Northeast Station. 
Captain Mahrer, as I recall, furnished this address.

The Court: Captain who ?
The Witness: Captain Mahrer, sir, of the North­

eastern District.
The Court: Yes.
The Witness: And as I recall it, as I recall it cor­

rectly, I could be mistaken, the resident at this ad­
dress, he acquired information by phone that the 
inhabitant of this residence had signed Veney, Sam

Lieutenant James J. Cadden— for Defendant—Direct



364a

Veney had used their name as a reference on an 
insurance policy, or something to that effect.

Mr. Nabrit: Now, may it please the Court—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, I don’t, 1 

do not make any hearsay objection; I just note for 
the record that the witness is apparently recounting 
what someone else told him about a phone call, and 
says to his recollection.

The Court: He says it was something to this ef­
fect, and it’s so vague, that they made the decision, 
as I gather it, they made the decision to make the

—8 8 7 -
raid, and the decision was made by Captain Mahrer, 
as I understand it.

Mr. Sause: Yes, sir.
The Witness: That it should be looked into.
Mr. Nabrit: 1 beg your pardon?
The Witness: It sounded sound.
The Court: Well, who made the decision to go 

there? You or Captain Mahrer?
The Witness: Oh, I did, sir. Captain Mahrer re­

layed the information to me.
The Court: Well, I think he can tell. Then what 

you are saying, Mr. Nabrit, is really argument, that 
you’re calling my attention to the fact that he is 
stating hearsay; but again it is res gestae of what 
went on, and your statement that it was probably 
something less than probable cause because it’s so 
vague or otherwise, which is argument, which I will 
hear, of course.

# # * * *

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 6 5 a

— 888—

* # * # *
The Witness: And there was an additional ad­

dress—I don’t recall now—in east Baltimore, not 
too far from this particular address, that the Cap­
tain furnished, where there was found information, 
and of course, we proceeded to the Chapel Street 
address, Sergeant Clifford.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. You mean that on another occasion the Captain fur­
nished you with another address? A. On that particular 
day along with this address there was another address, I 
think, that I recall, it was in east Baltimore where Sam 
Veney used as a credit the inhabitants of a home, an ad­
dress, along with this Chapel Street address.

Of course, as I recall, it was an insurance policy, and 
we responded.

Q. You say in this other instance that Captain Mahrer 
had given you, that this information had been good in­
formation, was it? What do you mean by that?

The Court: He didn’t say that. I gather that the 
Captain gave him two addresses, and you are fol­
lowing the two of them together.

The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: And they were both down in the same 

general neighborhood.
—889—

The Witness: Yes, sir, and they seemed to be 
reasonably sound information that he had replied 
by phone.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 6 6 a

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. All right. A. So we proceeded to Chapel Street, and 
Sergeant Clifford, and when I say Sergeant Clifford I was 
mistaken. It’s Sergeant Connelly, and Detective Conroy, 
and I think Detective Walker and myself, and then the— 
there were several other officers from Northeast, and we 
proceeded to this address.

We went around the block and looked it over, the men, 
and the exterior was safeguarded in the back, which is 
routine, and I and Detective Conroy proceeded to the door. 
He had the vest on, and I think immediately in back of me 
was Detective Walker and Sergeant Connelly, and I can’t 
be exact as to who was first and who was second behind me.

As I was knocking on the door a young, a youth came up, 
a boy about fourteen or fifteen, and there was no response 
to the door and he told me he lived there.

And I told him our purpose there. I asked him if he 
knew the Veneys. I exhibited photographs of the Veneys 
as I did in most cases in my visits to homes, and he said he 
didn’t know them, and I heard him even testify in court 
the other day, I think he used the name Bryce or Price, 
or something like that, I couldn’t recall that.

He told me his parents were working. I asked if we
—890—

could look the house over, and he said yes. He seemed 
quite interested in us because we were police, and we went 
in, looked this house over, took, consumed no more than 
two minutes, it was a small home, two-story home.

The Court: The boy went in with you ?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: He testified that he did.



3 6 7 a

The Witness: Yes, he was interested in the guns, 
as I remember, he was looking at the guns that I 
remember one officer had, he had a shotgun or some­
thing, and he was asking what kind of gun it was.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Did he appear to you nervous or afraid? A. No, sir, 
definitely not.

Q. How many officers went into the home? A. There 
was four, sir, including myself, Sergeant Connelly, Detec­
tive Conroy, Detective Walker. They conducted the search. 
I remained in the living room there talking to the youth.

Q. And Detective Walker is a Negro officer; is that cor­
rect? A. Yes, he is.

The Court: That’s the man who testified the other 
day?

The Witness: Yes, a rather strapping fellowT.
—891—

The Court: Yes, I remember him.

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, Lieutenant, did you also participate in an in­
spection of 2303 Allendale Street? A. I did, sir.

Q. On December 28th at 4:15 in the afternoon? A. I 
don’t know the exact date, sir; I remember the address. 
I think it was approximately that time.

Q. Lieutenant, I have just one other question there. 
These times have been, of some during the day, some in the 
morning, some in the afternoon, some at night, and some 
in the early morning hours? A. Yes.

Q. Is there any pattern in these? Was there any reason 
for the time of these or has the time any independent

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 6 8 a

significance? A. No, sir, there was no distinction. If we 
received a call at three o’clock or in an hour the turn-up 
would be conducted.

Q. Well, Lieutenant, was it felt that there was any neces­
sity for acting promptly on these calls ? A. Certainly, this 
particular call, this house, Allendale Street, we were going 
to that, and that address, as I recall, was obtained from a 
chum, a friend of Sam Veney, or a former resident of a 
chum, a friend of Sam Veney, and in addition I think there

—892—
were several phone calls that the Veneys were being fed at 
that location or foodstuff was being taken to them at that 
location.

Q. Tell His Honor, what did you do when you got there? 
A. Well, the entire unit responded to that location, as I 
recall. We looked it over. Sergeant Conroy and I scouted. 
Lieutenant Glover was in another car, and we returned 
to that about two blocks away, and as I recall, the house 
was situated by itself, it was a stuekboar house, and as I 
recall it, it was light in color, three or four stories. I can’t 
really state whether it was two or three. There was an 
attic on it, as I recall, and a large porch.

We went up; we surrounded the premises, and I— 
Lieutenant Glover remained outside, if I ’m not mistaken. 
I proceeded to the immediate front door, and Sergeant 
Hughes preceded me.

Behind me was Detective Bosak, and Detective—Officer 
DeCarlo from the Northeast District, and Sergeant Roy 
remained on the outside in the immediate area of the porch.

As I recall there was another door to the left or to the 
right, and Sergeant Pryor and Detective DePaola went to 
that particular door.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 6 9 a

Sergeant Hughes knocked on the door immediately in 
front of me, and a young a girl about nine or ten, answered

—893—
the door. She was attired in a lady’s dress; she was ap­
parently playing house. There were two or three other 
small children with her.

We asked her who was home, and she said only her and 
the kids there, and I think one was a neighbor’s child.

I explained my purpose for being there and asked her if 
she had any recent visitors there, and she said no, and she 
said her mother and father worked and they wouldn’t be 
home until six o’clock.

I showed her a photo of Sam and Earl Veney. She 
didn’t recognize them.

I asked was it all right to search the house, and she said 
yes. We looked over the first floor, and I don’t know if the 
officers with me, the three officers, the three officers with 
me looked the premises over. I don’t know where they 
went. They went in, looked around, and it was only a mat­
ter of thirty or forty seconds maybe when they returned.

Sergeant Roy came in with me, and right beside the 
door there is a bedroom where the children were playing 
apparently.

And with that, as I recall, I even left my calling card 
there for Northeastern, and when the parents returned 
home to contact us for any information.

—894—
By Mr. Sause:

Q. Lieutenant, did you also participate in the somewhat 
related, I suppose, investigation of Monroe Street with 
regard to Mrs. Sheppard? A. I did, sir.

* # # * *

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 7 0 a

—895—
* * * * *

The Witness: I’m sorry. I ’ll try to do better with 
this.

We were en route to another location. I’m sorry. 
And we were proceeding west across Twenty-ninth 
Street when the dispatcher called our particular unit, 
and we acknowledged, and he advised us to meet 637 
car, the Northwestern car, at Gwynn Falls and Duke- 
land Street.

Now, we arrived at Gwynn Falls and Dukeland, I 
imagine about 12:15, and I met Sergeant Raymond, 
and he had with him a cruising patrol and two or 
three other radio cars.

—896—
He came over to my ear and he relayed this in­

formation to me that this unit, 601 car earlier had 
received information from a Western District police 
car from whom in turn had received information 
from a cab driver, and he said it sounded like pretty 
good information.

He related that the cab driver informed the officer 
that he had taken two female passengers from some­
where downtown, had dropped one off at Druid Hill 
Avenue and taken the other one to the 2000 block of 
North Monroe Street, and en route to that location 
the two women passengers engaged in an argument, 
and the results of this argument were one complained 
to the other, it was, “Well, my son doesn’t go out 
drinking like your son shooting policemen.”

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



3 7 1 a

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. After receiving this information, did you go to this 
address on Monroe Street? A. Yes, sir.

Well, Sergeant Raymond, of course, reminded me that 
one of his officers had been shot at in back of the Coliseum, 
and it was in that week, of course, January 2nd, and he 
had his hat shot off, and it just missed him, almost missed 
him from being killed.

Q. Was that the one where the police officer’s badge or 
his hat— A. Yes, sir.

—897—
Q. —or part of the emblem? A. Yes.
Q. Was shot off? A. Yes.
Q. The head of the plowman on the Maryland seal, I 

think? A. That’s right, sir. The officer was felled when 
his hat was struck, as I recall it.

Q. Now, Lieutenant, when you went to this address were 
you in command of the unit when you went there ? A. Yes, 
I was.

Q. You were the ranking officer? A. That’s correct, sir.
Q. Now, when you went there, you made—did you make 

the decision to go to Monroe Street? A. 1 did, sir.
Q. Now, when you went there, did you proceed, and your 

purpose—what did you perceive your purpose was in the 
case of your going there? A. Well, it could have been as­
sociated with the Veney case, or, of course, Officer Charis. 
There was a two-fold purpose there. It could be connected 
with either case.

Q. Well, tell the Court what—whether or not there is 
anything in addition that you would like to add about your 
conversation with the Sergeant? A. Except he told me, he



3 7 2 a

—898—
reminded me about Officer Ckaris, so we said, “Well, let’s 
look into it,” and down we went.

We set up the usual safeguards, knocked on the door. 
Mrs. Sheppard opened the door. 1 immediately stated our 
purpose there.

She admitted us into the house. We went into several 
nooks there. I stood in the hallway and talked to her, and 
there was a gentleman to the right.

I think Sergeant Raymond asked her who he was, and 
she said it was her son.

Now, Sergeant Raymond, 1 heard it testified that he 
patted this man down. I didn’t see him pat him down; I 
saw him talking to him.

And I proceeded to ask Mrs. Sheppard, I asked her, I 
asked her if she had arrived home in the previous hour. 
She said she had.

I asked her if she had been in a Diamond cab, and she 
said she was. Then I asked her if she was accompanied 
by someone else, and she was hesitant; she wouldn’t answer.

I asked her if she had conversation with another passen­
ger in the cab, and she wouldn’t answer that.

I told her we had the cab driver who relayed this infor­
mation, and I related to her what information I had re­
ceived, and she said it was a lie, and I asked her who—may

—899—
we search her house?

And she said, “ Yes, you may, there’s nobody in this 
house,” and as 1 remember she was waving her arms, and 
the officers proceeded to search.

I asked her if she would confront this cab driver to 
straighten this out, to clarify this matter, and she said she’ll

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



see anybody, she wanted to see this cab driver. I remember 
that; it was quite audible.

Then she wanted to turn the stew o ff; she had some stew 
cooking in the kitchen, and we were only in the house, I ’d 
say, five minutes.

We left. No one touched her. I didn’t touch her, and I 
didn’t touch her son. As I recall, I told the officer to put 
her in a radio car, and when I left she was going out the 
door, and I ’d say she had her son by the arm.

I followed her out. When she got to the sidewalk they 
put her in a police car.

Sergeant Raymond closed the house up. I instructed 
Sergeant Raymond in front of the steps to do that, to go 
into the station, to get a lieutenant, to ascertain the identity 
of this other woman if he could, to get the cab driver and to 
confront him with these two ladies to straighten this matter 
out one way or the other.

The Court: Well, did you arrest her there !
The Witness: Certainly, I told them to take her

—900—
into the Northwest District.

The Court: You told them to take her!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Isn’t that arresting her!
The Witness: She wanted to go with them, Your 

Honor.
The Court: Well, she went with Sergeant Ray­

mond but she was arrested there!
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: And she was told to go!
The Witness: Yes, sir, and I understand what 

was testified here.
The Court: And you deny that she was arrested!

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct



The Witness: Oh, no, sir, she was arrested. There 
was sufficient cause to arrest her for investigation, 
but I would however have handled the matter dif­
ferently myself.

The Court: Well, all right. You say they put her 
in the car and took her down. Was she under arrest ? 
Could she have refused to go ? Had you told her that 
she’d go?

The Witness: I asked her to confront the cab 
driver since she wanted to face this cab driver and 
tell me and straighten this matter out, and she said 
she definitely wanted to straighten it out, and I said, 
“Would you go to the Northwest District,” and as I

- 9 0 1 -
recall, she said yes. I can’t recall definitely what I 
said.

The Court: Well, I ’m not trying to make difficulty 
between you and the other man.

The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: But do you deny that you gave him in­

structions to book her?
The Witness: I did not give instructions to book 

her, no, sir, emphatically no, sir.
1 told him to take her to his district, to get his 

lieutenant to pursue the matter, to find the identity 
of this other lady and get the cab driver, confront 
her, and straighten the matter out.

The Court: Well, she’s a woman certainly at least 
seventy, isn’t she?

The Witness : Yes, sir.
The Court: Did it ever occur to you to bring the 

cal) driver to her house ?
The Witness: No, sir.

Lieutenant James J. Caclden—for Defendant—Direct



3 7 5 a

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Direct 

By Mr. Sause:

Q. Now, Lieutenant, when this woman stopped asking 
you questions, did she give any reason for refusing to an­
swer your questions as to who the other person she had 
been in the cab with and whether or not these statements 
had been made in the cab? A. She denied any such state-

—902—
ment. She said, at first, she said she wasn’t with anyone, 
and I asked her was she with another lady. The cab driver 
said she was with another lady.

She said, “If I was with another lady, so what?” Or 
something to that extent. I don’t remember exactly what 
she said, but she denied making any such statement. She 
denied being with a lady, and she said she was with a lady. 
It was very confusing.

Q. Well, initially she had answered the first question you 
asked her? A. Yes.

Q. Now, after she was sent to the station, did you go 
back to the station too and follow this? A. Well, sir, I felt 
that after this, after talking to the lady, I felt that there 
was no connection with the Veneys at that point, it was a 
matter of probably, if there was any connection Avith the 
shooting of the officer in the Northwestern District that oc­
curred several days prior to this, and I advised Sergeant 
Raymond of that, and I advised him to get hold of the lieu­
tenant and pursue the investigation at that point.

I proceeded on to our original destination from the 
Northeast.

The Court: That is, the Northwestern shooting
—903—

was not a part of your problem?



3 7 6 a

The Witness: No, sir, and I ’m sorry I didn’t go to 
the Northwestern; perhaps I should have. 

* * * * *
— 907—

*  *  #  *  *

Q. Lieutenant, let me be certain that I fully understand 
it: At the time that you left the Monroe Street address, 
Mrs. Sheppard was either in or going to the police cruiser. 
Was it your impression that you had placed her under ar­
rest? A. No, sir, I didn’t.

* * * * *
— 908—

* * * * *
Q. Now, did Mr. Cooper go to the police station too ? A. 

Yes, sir.
Q. As far as you know? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And for what reason did he go? A. As I recall that
Q. Did you place him under arrest? A. Sir?
Q. Did you place him under arrest, A. No, sir, I didn’t 

place anyone under arrest.
Q. All right. A. I asked him as I asked her to go to 

Northeast, and she wanted her son to go with her, and I 
didn’t know he was demented or anything like that until 
several days ago. I had no conversation with the gentle­
man.

Q. And did she make a request of you or someone else 
that he be allowed to go, A. She said, “ I want my boy to 
go with me, my son to go with me,” and that was it ; he 
went with her.

Q. Did you have any request made of you by her to make 
a phone call? A. No, sir, no.

Lieutenant James J■ Cadden—for Defendant Direct



3 7 7 a

Q. Did you or anyone in your presence push Mrs. Shep-
—909—

pard against the wall? A. No, sir, definitely not.
Q. Did you or anyone in your presence make an inspec­

tion of the bed and muss it up? A. No, sir. I was on the 
first floor, sir. The other officers went about the house, and 
I think there were two additional officers, three additional 
officers that searched the house.

I remained in the living—remained in the hallway and 
dining room talking to Mrs. Sheppard.

Q. Did you or anyone in your presence tear the cellar 
apart? A. No, sir, I didn’t go in the cellar.

Q. At the time you left the Monroe Street address had 
Mrs. Sheppard ever admitted to you or told you the name 
of the person, the other person that was in the cab with 
her, A. No, sir, she had never told me personally, sir. 
I wish she would have because I could have gotten this 
other lady and straightened this matter out then and there, 
but she wouldn’t tell me and I don’t know why or what rea­
son she wouldn’t tell me.

Q. Did you treat her with what you considered to be 
courtesy and civility, A. I did, sir.

# * # # #
—913—

#  *  *  #  *

Cross-Examination by Mr. Hughes:

Q. Lieutenant Cadden, you and Lieutenant Glover were 
in charge of this whole investigation; is that right, A. 
Yes, with Captain Mahrer who was our immediate superior, 
Captain Mahrer of the Northeastern District, and we 
handled the entire phase for Homicide.

Q. Now, you say that you never arrested Mrs. Sheppard? 
A. Sir, it wasn’t my intention to arrest her, I ’ll say at this

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross



3 7 8 a

time also that there was sufficient cause there for the arrest,
—914—

but my intentions were not, and had I handled the matter 
I would have handled it differently.

Q. Well, who did arrest her, A. My understanding was 
she was taken to Northwestern District and placed in the 
hooks.

*  *  *  #  #

—920—
Q. Did you arrest or take anyone else to the station 

house in investigating these murders? A. Oh, yes, yes, 
sir. You mean the Veney investigation? Oh, yes, a good 
many, a dozen or possibly more, friends, relatives, yes, sir.

Q. Was there ever, to your knowledge, a search warrant 
obtained?

Mr. Murphy: Now, we have stipulated that.
The Court: Everybody has admitted that there 

wasn’t. There is no use in going over admitted mat­
ters.

The Witness: We swore out a warrant of arrest, 
sir. There was no search warrant obtained, to my 
knowledge, sir.

By Mr. Hughes:
Q. Were these people you referred to taken to the sta­

tion house for investigation, were they relatives? A.Well—

Mr. Murphy: I object.
The Court: Were they what?
Mr. Hughes: Were they relatives.
The Court: He said there were some relatives and 

friends, but that is not before the Court at this time.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross



3 7 9 a

Mr. Hughes: Your Honor, I think general pro­
cedure, which is the thing that is complained of, 
whether or not it can continue.

—921—
The Court: Well, did they voluntarily go or were 

they arrested! You can ask him that question.
You say you took them. The question is, these 

people who went to the station house that you speak 
of, did you arrest them or did they go voluntarily!

The Witness: Some, sir, went voluntarily. Some 
were held for investigation, and some were, I didn’t 
particularly, I don’t recall offhand those I held for in­
vestigation at Northeastern. Sir, I don’t know.

There were numbers of people that were held for 
investigation regarding this shooting of the officer 
in the Northeast District.

By Mr. Hughes:

Q. Did you receive any special instructions from Com­
missioner Schmidt! A. Yes, sir, for tactics to be employed, 
public safety, in this particular special unit. Is that what 
you are referring to!

Q. Are you talking about the particular circulars?

The Court: No, lie is talking about the instructions 
given to this special unit, as I understand it.

The Witness: Yes, Your Honor, I ’m sorry, sir.
The Court: That’s what T understood you were 

answering, isn’t it?
The Witness: Yes, sir.

—922—
The Court: I understood he was answering in­

structions given to the special unit.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross



380a

Lieutenant James J. Catlden—for Defendant—Cross 

By Mr. Hughes:
Q. But they were not in writing at that time, were they! 

A. No, they were oral on Christmas morning at Northeast­
ern District.

Q. Were you told to turn out every place that you re­
ceived a telephone call on? A. Not any place we received 
a call on. We were told to pursue the investigation. Sir, 
we’re investigators. We’re aware of our responsibility as 
police officers as is the Commissioner.

Q. Has there ever been in the history of the Police De­
partment, to your knowledge, been a visitation of as many 
homes?

Mr. Sause: If Your Honor please, Lieutenant 
Cadden is not the historiographer of the Police De­
partment. That’s the Police Commissioner.

Mr. Hughes: I asked of his knowledge.
Mr. Sause: Well—
The Court: Objection overruled.
The Witness: No, sir, not to my knowledge, this 

much, but I remember the Profili case, with the FBT 
we turned-up scores of homes with federal agents 
in January of ’64 or ’63 when an officer was killed 
during a bank robbery in progress.

We turned-up a number of homes. Of course, 
that does involve the Police Department in Baltimore 
and of course federal officers.

By Mr. Hughes:

Q. Is it true or not that when a policeman is shot there 
is any difference in the zealousness of the investigation? 
A. There is a degree of violence in the perpetrator. You



3 8 1 a

must remember, sir, that an assailant who will shoot an 
armed officer wouldn’t hestitate if a general citizen is in 
his way, and you have a problem there.

You have a violent creature on your hands.
Q. Yes, but I ’m talking about the police. Is there any 

vengeance in their effort to apprehend the killer? A. No, 
sir.

Mr. Murphy: I don’t believe he can speak for all 
policemen.

Mr. Sause: He can speak for himself perhaps.
The Court: I think that’s true.
The Court is familiar with the Profili case. There 

were three white boys of pretty good families. One 
was the son of a very well-known doctor, and they 
were arraigned before me and sentenced to life for

—924—
a bank robbery in which someone was killed.

So I am fairly familiar with all of the Profili case 
except how many places they entered.

Mr. Hughes: Yes, that’s what I want to get at.
And he says that they turned-up a considerable 

number of homes. I don’t know whether you remem­
ber that the FBI was in it because it was a federal 
offense, the nature of the bank, a national bank.

The Witness: Yes, I accompanied the agents on 
several turn-ups.

By Mr. Hughes:

Q. Special agents? A. Several agents on the turn-ups.
Q. Have you any idea how many turn-ups there were?

Lieutenant James J. Caclden—for Defendant—Cross



I

A. No, sir, it’s been over a year. I don’t remember whether 
that was January ’62 or January ’63.

The Court: Well, the case was here in the middle 
of last year.

The Witness: Then it was—
The Court: Probably about a year ago that it hap­

pened.

By Mr. Hughes-.

Q. It was being investigated by the Baltimore City Police 
Department? A. Yes, sir, with the federal officers.

—925—
The Court: With the federal—

By Mr. Hughes:
Q. Did you have these surveillance squads then? A. 

Well, no, sir, when I was on the assignment we wore, we 
had the protective gear and machine guns, protective vests 
such as we are supplied by the FBI in that particular opera­
tion.

We didn’t have scouting, oh, no, and we went to the home, 
looked it over, of course, rode around it, rode around in the 
area.

*  *  # # *

—927—
# * # * #

The Witness: I didn’t know Mrs. Sheppard’s
identity. We had to go to the house lacking her 
identity. I didn’t know Mrs. Sheppard until she 
even told me who she was, sir.

This was fresh information.

382a

Lieutenant James J. Caclden—for Defendant—Cross

1



383a

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross 

By Mr. Hughes:

Q. Did you inquire from anyone in the neighborhood 
who lived in that house? A. No, sir.

The Court: I take it that the Court, if this is the 
last witness, that the Court is certainly prepared 
to make a finding right now that in no case that I 
have heard of did they make any inquiry as to who 
lived in the house before they approached the house.

Now, I have not heard any word that they ever 
inquired of who lived in the house before they en­
tered the house and rang the bell or knocked on the 
door unless perchance the informant had told them 
who it was, who lived there.

But that they made no independent effort to find
- 9 2 8 -

out, is the fact so far testified to in the case.
Now, you may be able to spoil it if you keep on 

cross-examining him about it.
# # * * #

—930—
# * # # #

Q. Did you make any distinction or differentiation in 
neighborhoods before you searched? A. Distinctions were 
made, sir. I didn’t, no, in my particular work, no, sir, but 
I understand they went to several white homes, four or 
five white homes in these turn-ups, sir.

I wasn’t given those addresses. I don’t know the cir­
cumstances. It would be hearsay to me when they re­
turned. I remember one address they stated they went 
out to Juneway, out off Belair Boad. I don’t know partic­
ularly where.

* * # * *



384a

—931—
*  *  #  #  *

By Mr. Hughes:

Q. Captain, let me ask you this— A. Yes, Lieutenant. 
Q. You’re still searching for the Veney boys, aren’t you? 

A. We are.
Q. Now, if you got these telephone calls as you did in 

the past, would you do the same thing, follow the same 
procedure? A. Yes, sir, it’s not my procedure, my con­
duct, the officers under me, to embarrass the Police De­
partment, to jeopardize any citizen, to insult, embarrass, 
or harass any citizen.

Q. Then if you got three to five hundred calls you would 
go on doing this?

Mr. Murphy: Your Honor, I object to this. It 
seems to me that Mr. Hughes—

The Court: I must say I ’m surprised at the an­
swer, but I think it’s perfectly proper cross-examina­
tion.

Mr. Murphy: Well, I just thought that he was 
going to concentrate on Monroe Street and that Mr. 
Nabrit was going to cross-examine generally.

The Court: After he swept so far I don’t think
—932—

I’m going to let Mr. Nabrit cross-examine him on it. 
I understood that Mr. Hughes was going to con­
centrate—

Mr. Hughes: Well, Your Honor, I’m going to 
stay away from the other then, the other questions, 
the other homes.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross

I



Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I ’m prepared to cross- 
examine the witness on the Allendale Street.

The Court: All right.
Well, on those other things then, but I don’t think 

he can be taken over the general ground twice.
Mr. Nabrit: The other particular point.
The Court: The other particular point, about the 

homes, of course, but I ’m not going to let two people 
cross-examine him on general matters.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, I ’ll make every effort 
not to avoid duplication.

The Court: Well, let me get this clear: The order 
which was, are you still in charge of the special 
unit!

The Witness: No, sir, the special unit has been 
dissolved, sir.

The Court: Well, you say that if similar informa­
tion came to you—

The Witness: Yes, sir, similar sound information, 
yes, sir.

The Court: You mean that if you got an anony-
—933—

mous tip of the nature that you had of these, a 
purely anonymous tip?

The Witness: Oh, no, sir.
The Court: That you would still do this?
The Witness: Oh, no, sir.
The Court: Because I understood that the Com­

missioner directed you, if there was some doubt, 
to get a search warrant?

The Witness: Yes, something from the State’s 
Attorney.

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Cross



The Court: And no search warrants were ob­
tained—

The Witness: No.
The Court: —before?
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: You mean you would pay no—
The Witness: Attention?
The Court: What, if any, regard would you pay 

to the Commissioner’s new order?
The Witness: Well, sir, if I had sound informa­

tion, sir, I would discuss it with the Inspector and 
my Captain and Inspector, sir, regarding this.

The Court: Well, you didn’t do that before?
The Witness: Oh, no, sir.
The Court: You were supposed to act on your 

own responsibility before?
—934—

The Witness: Yes, sir, we acted in accordance 
with our procedure for years in the Department 
since I have been there, in the Department, sir.

# *  *  *  *

—940—
Redirect Examination by Mr. Sause:

*  #  #  *  *

Q. Lieutenant, yesterday you indicated that you under­
stood that the procedure which you would follow in the 
future and the procedure that you would follow in the 
future would be much the same as that which was followed 
in these cases that you have testified about in Court and 
you heard the other witnesses testify about.

Now, you are familiar, are you not, with the order of 
the Police Commissioner? A. Yes, sir, before any future

Lieutenant James J. Cadden—for Defendant—Redirect



3 8 7 a

inspections are conducted you are to consult with your 
Captain and Inspector regarding same and be guided by 
their decisions in the matter.

Q. And would you—I don’t think this is anywhere else 
in the record—would you tell His Honor the effect of a 
general order such as that by the Commissioner! A. Sir,

—941—
as expressed to me by my Captain, no future inspections 
are to be conducted without consulting the Inspector.

Q. What is the effect of the general order by the Com­
missioner? Is that binding upon all members of the De­
partment? A. Yes, sir.

# #  *  #  #

—942—
*  *  #  #  #

E lizabeth T ompkins was called as a witness for and 
on behalf of the plaintiffs in rebuttal and, having been first 
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows.

The Clerk: State your full name.
The Witness: My name is Elizabeth Tompkins.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Miss Tompkins, where do you live? A. 2416 Eutaw 
Place.

Q. And are you one of the plaintiffs in this case? A. I 
am.

Q. Are you a minister? A. Yes, I am.
Q. Tell us about it?

Mr. Sause: Oh, if Your Honor please, I don’t 
think that’s necessary. I object to that.

Elisabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct



388a

Now, don’t wave your hand in my face.
I object to that.
Mr. Nabrit: I wanted to be heard.
The Court: You object to what!
Mr. Sause: I object to this extraneous material 

with regard to her professional background.
The Court: Overruled.

—943—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Are you a minister of a church? A. 1 am.
Q. What church? A. I ’m now associated with Gillis 

Memorial Trinity Church.
Q. Formerly a minister of another church? A. For­

merly a minister of Mount Olive Baptist Church, 1323 
Mount Avenue.

The Court: Mount Olive?
The Witness: Mount Olive.
The Court: Baptist Church?
The Witness: Spiritual Baptist Church, and pas­

tor for twenty years.
The Court: And now it’s Gillis Memorial Com­

munity Church.
The Witness: That’s right, it’s Gillis Memorial 

Community Church at Calhoun and Mulberry Street.
The Court: Is that an independent church or is it 

associated with any denomination?
The Witness: Well, it’s a community Christian 

church. It’s a conference. It’s called the Community 
Christian Church Conference. My pastor is Rever­
end Theodore Gasbv.

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct



389a

—944—
Q. You are associate minister? A. I am an associate 

minister.
Q. But at the previous church you were minister? A. 

Yes, I was.
Q. And have you received any licenses from the City of 

Baltimore? A. l res, I am registered at the Court House.
Q. You’re a foster mother? A. I am a foster mother, 

licensed foster mother for the Department of Public Wel­
fare. I have been for fifteen years.

*  *  *  #  #

—946—
* * # # #

Q. Now, do you remember the occasion when the police 
came to your house? A. I do.

Q. When was that? A. That was on December 27th at 
about one a.m. in the morning

Q. Now, I ’m going to show you a piece of paper with 
some drawings on it. Can you tell us, do you know what 
that is? A. This is a drawing that my son-in-law made of 
our first floor.

Q. And what’s the next page? A. And this is, this is the 
second floor.

Q. And— A. This is the third floor. This is his apart­
ment.

Q. And what’s his name? A. His name is Walter Sum­
mers.

Q. Is he related—what’s his wife’s name? A. His wife’s
—9 4 7 -

name is Regina Summers.
Q. Have you studied that, looked at it, this drawing? A. 

Yes, I have studied it. This—

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct



390a

Q. I mean, have you looked at it? A. Yes, yes, perfectly.
Q. Does it generally represent the arrangement of the 

rooms in your house? A. It does, yes.

Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, I move that 
this be introduced in evidence as a plaintiffs’ exhibit.

Mr. Murphy: No objection.
The Clerk: Marked in evidence.

(Diagrams above referred to were marked Plain­
tiffs’ Exhibit No. 4.)

The Court: Let me just take a cpuck look at it. 
How wide is it? How wide is the house?

The Witness: Oh, oh, oh, it’s about, oh, it’s almost 
as wide as, you know, a small house would be, the 
original house it would, that would be about the 
width, the original house-and-a-half. It’s a very wide 
house.

The Court: I didn’t know whether there was some 
stairway there. It’s certainly an unusually wide row 
house.

The Witness: Yes, it is.
—948—

The Court: All right.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, where were you that night when the police 
came? A. Well, I was in this back room.

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: On the first floor? 
The Witness : On the first floor.



391a

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct 

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. And who was in there with you? A. Well, may I ex­
plain ?

Q. Yes. A. Well, at this night, my husband worked 
sometime at night, and of course, I had my four little girls, 
and I go back into this room and lock this door and I don’t 
have to come out until morning, and being in such a large 
house by myself I had taken my little girls and we went into 
the back room and locked ourselves in for the night.

#  # *  *  #

—949—
# * # # #

Q. Go ahead and tell His Honor? A. Well, a knock came 
on my door at one a.m. after, I was in the room, and a 
knock came at the door, and I could hear more than one 
person knocking.

The Court: You say more than one person knock­
ing?

The Witness: You know, there are a lot of knocks,
—950—

you know, on the door.
The Court: All right.
The Witness: And then in awakening and answer­

ing I heard someone say, “Aunt Lizzie, the police 
wanted to see me,” and at the same time someone 
else said, “ Aunt Lizzie, this is the police.”

Now, I opened my door which opens on to the hall. 
The door doesn’t come in the room. It opens out into 
the hall, and I saw an officer which explained to me 
that they were there to search the house.



392a

The Court: Was that the Negro officer?
The Witness: No, it wasn’t, and he had on an over­

coat. As far as I could see it was a bulletproof vest 
over the top of it, and as he spoke to me, he told me 
they wanted to look around.

And of course as he looked around I was trying 
to get my gown down and make sure it was down 
at the same time, and he looked around, and he con­
versed with another officer, and they shined the 
searchlight around the room, and I told him there 
was nobody in the room but me and the children.

And one said to the other, “ It’s no need of going 
in there because as you can see it’s nobody in there 
but her and the children.”

Then they told me to go back to bed, which I didn’t 
go back to bed, but I closed my door and locked—they

—951—
told me that the killers that heard, that the killers 
had come that way, and after hearing that I locked 
myself back in the room; but I didn’t go back to bed.

By Mr. Nahrit:

Q. Did you ask them anything? A. No, I didn’t ask 
them anything because when they told me that the killers 
had came that way knowing, you know, that they were fugi­
tives out, I simply locked myself back in the room.

And then, as far as I could see there was officers one 
behind the other, and some had large shotguns, and some 
had regular police uniforms and long blue overcoats. I 
think they were the ones with the white hats on, as far as 
I could see were officers.

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct



Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct

The Court: Where did you see them?
The Witness: When I opened my door. See, this 

hall goes right back to the dining room, right straight 
back, you can see to the end of my dining room, and 
that’s as far as I could see because at the end of this 
hallway at the dining room is a wall.

I couldn’t see into the reception hall.
The Court: And how many officers did you see?
The Witness: Well, as far as I could see, I really 

didn’t, I really didn’t take the time, you know, to 
count them because I said to them when they tell me 
the killers had came that way, I asked them, “Are

—952—
you here to protect us ?” And they moved back into 
the kitchen and laughed, and they never explained 
anything.

The Court: Did you see Oliver Walker?
Mr. Sause: Walker?

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. A Negro? A. I don’t remember seeing him. Now, he 
could have been there.

The Court: It began with a “W ” didn’t it?
Mr. Nabrit: Walker.
The Court: Walker.
The Witness: He could have been there but 1 

didn’t see him because, see, the door opened, you 
know, back, and he could have been, stood behind the 
door. I wouldn’t say he wasn’t there.



I

By Mr. Nabrit: 4

Q. Did the officers say anything to you about the Veneys 
or men named Veney? A. No, he did not say any—. If ^
he had mentioned the name of a Samuel Veney I could have 
told him right away about the Samuel Veney that I know; 
but they didn’t say anything to me about anybody’s name.

They told me that the killers had came that way, and the 
house being so big I was so sure that they were there to

—953— <
protect me, that I went back in the room, and I didn’t come 
out, and I heard somebody come back on that floor.

Q. Now, did any officers ask you that if it was all right 
with you if they searched or anything like that! A. No, 1
they told me that they were going to look around while 
they were there, and of course, it was all right for me to 
say this if they knew the killers had come there, I, I just 
didn’t say anything either if they were going to look around 
while they were there.

Q. Where do Regina’s children ordinarily sleep? A.
Now, her children—

Q. What floor? A. —sleep on the third floor. Now, this t
is a very large room here (indicating).

Q. Where is that in the house? A. On the third floor 
front. Now, she has, all the children are small. The oldest 
one is five years old. She has four children.

Two of them are in little bunk beds, one on top of the 
other and the other is little twin beds sits on an angle with 
the table between them, and her and her husband sleep in 
this little room over on this side (indicating).

Q. That’s to the left of the front bedroom on the third 
floor? A. That’s right.

3 9 4 a

Elizabeth Tompkins—for Plaintiffs—Direct

4



3 9 5 a

Regina Summers—for Plaintiff—Direct

—954—
* • • • •

R egina Summers was called as a witness for and on be­
half of the plaintiffs in rebuttal and, having been previ­
ously duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

The Clerk: Resume the stand. You are still under 
oath.

State your name for the record.
The Witness: Regina Summers.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, Regina, in your previous testimony you testified 
to a number of things, and I’m not going to go over the 
things you testified about before except as it’s necessary 
to explain the sequence of events.

Directing to a time when you first came down to the first 
floor and ask you to first point out where you were when 
you first came downstairs? A. When I first came down to 
the first floor I was on this landing on the staircase.

—955—
When I was standing here there was officers in this re­

ception hall, and they had their guns pointed up towards 
this landing in here where I was standing, so I asked the 
question, what was wrong and why they were there.

I didn’t get a reply, so I walked down from here and 
stood on the second step from the bottom in the reception 
hall, and I still asked why they were there, and I didn’t get 
an answer.

So at this particular time—
Q. What were the officers doing? A. Well, they were 

just standing there with their guns and they was talking



1

amongst themselves at this time, and from here which is 
the door leading from the kitchen into the hallway I saw 
my cousin, Arthur Rayner, he was coming through the 
kitchen door with the police officers in the front of him and 
in the back of him, and an officer that was standing in the 
reception hall asked me who was upstairs, and I told him 
there was no one up there but my four children, and that 
they were asleep.

Q. Now, all right, go ahead. A. So, one, one of the 
officers said, said who was up there, and I told him who 
was up there.

So I was standing on the second step from the bottom, 
and a officer came over with a shotgun or rifle; I couldn’t

- 9 5 6 -
say what kind of a rifle it was, and he said, “Let’s go.”

Well, I turned around and went back up the steps, and I 
was followed by this officer with the shotgun and such other 
police officers that was walking in the back of him.

Q. Now, prior to that time during, before you went up 
the stairs, had any officer asked you for permission to go 
upstairs or if it was all right or anything like that? A. 
No one asked permission for anything because when 1 asked 
why they were there and what was wrong I never got an 
answer from none of them.

The only time one of the officers talked to me was when 
he asked who was upstairs, and I told him my four children.

Q. Now, you said—all right. Now, describe who went up 
those stairs first again? A. I went up the stairs first be­
cause the officer with the rifle he came over towards the 
steps and he was followed by other officers, and he said, 
“Let’s go.”

So I just turned around on the steps and went up.

3 9 6 a

Regina Summers—for Plaintiff—Direct

<



3 9 7 a

The Court: Did one of the officers pass you on the 
steps?

The Witness: No, sir.
—957—

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. All right. Now, when you got to the second floor what 
happened up there on the second floor? A. Well, when I 
got up to the second floor I stood in the middle of the hall. 
The officers that had come up behind me with the rifles, 
three went in towards this big bedroom.

Q. Which bedroom is that? A. The front bedroom on 
the second floor. The other officers went around this long 
hall.

It was two officers went into this small guest room on the 
first—I mean on the second floor. The third officer that 
went in there held the curtains back while the two officers 
was in this room.

So he called out and asked where was the lights. There 
was only a lamp light in the room, but I couldn’t turn the 
light on; so he hollered out to the officer with the hand light 
they were carrying to bring it into the front room.

So then the officer with the light was in the hall. He 
handed the light in to the gentleman that was holding this 
curtain back, and he gave it to the officer in the guest room, 
and he proceeded looking underneath the bed and into these 
large cupboards.

So he took this gentleman that they handed the light into 
the room—

—958—
# # # * #

Q. Now, Mrs. Summers, last time you said the officers 
took you by the hand, and pick up right there and go on?

Regina Summers—for Plaintiff—Direct



3 9 8 a

A. Well, he took me by the hand and pulled me from the 
front bedroom over into this middle room which is here 
(indicating) to turn on the light switch which was on this 
side of the wall.

—959—
Q. Now, can you describe that officer! A. This was a 

tall officer, and he was in uniform.
Well, after he had pulled me from here he took me and 

pushed me from out of this room, the middle room, around 
to the hall, and that’s where Officer Walker was and three 
other police officers, and they were standing at this back 
door.

Q. You’re not pointing at it! A. I mean the back door 
to this bedroom here. 1 was here into the hall. I dicln t go 
no further than here.

The Court: Well, if an officer put his hands on her 
when he shouldn’t have she has her remedy. That is 
not what this suit is about if it is one incidental case 
in which that happened, and I don’t see any use in 
elaborating on it.

Mr. Nabrit: Well, may it please the Court—
The Court: Any use in elaborating on it.
Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, a great num­

ber of police officials testified to facts contradicted 
to this witness’ testimony.

The Court: Well, maybe they’re telling the truth 
and maybe she’s telling the truth; but it doesn’t af­
fect the principal issues in this case, and go ahead, 
let her go.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



3 9 9 a

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct

—960—
By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, as best as you can tell in what summary fashion 
what did you do next ? A. Well, they asked why was this 
door locked.

Q. Did you go somewhere? A. Yeah, I went down to 
get the key.

Q. And what happened, what did you do? A. When I 
went down to get the key the officer had said, “Hurry back,” 
and when I got to the top of the second floor I was met at 
the steps by a white officer who took the key from me and 
went down to unlock the door in the second floor back.

Q. Did you subsequently go to the third floor? A. Yes, 
I went to the third floor.

Q. Now, will you describe how you happened to go to the 
third floor, who went first, who went second, and so forth? 
A. Officer on the second floor said that he thought I had 
said I said I live on the second floor.

I told him no. They said they were going to check the 
second floor. Se he said, “We’ll go up on the third floor.” 
Three officers went up to the third floor before me, and I 
was in the back of this gentleman, and I was followed by 
another gentleman in a long coat.

Q. This is going up to what floor? A. Prom the second 
to the third floor.

—961—
Q. All right. Now, when you got up to the third floor, 

what did you see? A. When I got to the third floor three 
officers was in the front bedroom where the children were 
sleeping.

Q. Were your children there that night? A. Yes, my 
children were there that night. They were asleep.



4 0 0 a

Q. Now, what happened in there? A. Well, the children 
were asleep in bed, and this police officer—

Q. Hold it up a minute.

The Witness: The police officer—
The Court: Oh, I understand it.
Mr. Nabrit: All right.
The Court: I ’ve seen the sketch.
Mr. Nabrit: All right.
The Witness: The police officer with the search­

light went towards the bed where my oldest two chil­
dren were, and he put the lights in there first, in 
their face first, and I asked him did he have to do 
this ?

And he said yes because he wanted to make sure 
they were children and no one else.

* * * * *
—962—

* * * * *
Q. Did you subsequently, did you subsequently go into 

another room? A. Yes, I went into the living room.
Q. Point out where that is? A. This is the living room 

here (indicating).
Q. Does it have a window? A. Yes, it has a large pic­

ture window.
—963—

Q. Point out where that window is? A. Here’s the win­
dow here (indicating).

Q. What is outside that window? A. Outside that win­
dow is a fire escape.

Q. Describe what, if anything, you saw at that time? 
A. At that time I saw a light at the back on the window 
and I saw four police officers on the fire escape.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 1 a

Q. How far were you from them when you saw them? 
A. I was right at the window. There was nothing in be­
tween me but the windows, and the Venetian blinds were 
open.

Q. Now, can you give us just an indication of how far 
you were from these officers compared to something in the 
room here? A. Well, there’s a radiator in between where 
the step is, and then the window coming up, I was just 
that close to see out of the Venetian blinds.

Q. Now, what did you see? A. Well, I saw four officers, 
one going down the long steps. There were about two on 
the landing waiting their turn to go down the steps, and 
these other officers was coming down a long narrow flight 
of steps leading off from the roof.

Q. What was the light out there? A. The light that 
was out there I ’m sure was from a police car or, I don’t

—9 6 4 -
know, a truck or something.

Q. Was it light or dark on that fire escape? A. It was 
very light on that fire escape.

Q. How do you know they were police? A. Because 
they all had guns, and they had, I couldn’t say whether 
they had—

The Court: Was there testimony that there may 
have been someone on the roof?

Mr. Nabrit: The testimony, Your Honor, was an 
unequivocal denial there was anybody on the fire 
escape or a roof.

The Court: I thought somebody said there might 
have been somebody that had gone on the roof.

Was it this house? There was some question about 
it.

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 2 a

Mr. Murphy: I thought it was Rosedale that they 
talked about it.

The Court: It was Rosedale that they were on 
the roof?

Mr. Murphy: Yes, sir.
The Court: I remember that there was one house 

that they said that they had been on the roof, and 
I have forgotten whether this was it or not.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor will recall this was the 
house where there was testimony that the policeman

—965—
was in the back alley, and he said he watched the 
roof and saw nobody in the back.

The Court: Well, I wanted to be sure. I wanted 
to be sure which it was.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Mrs. Summers, was there any time when the police 
officers asked your permission to go in the house or to 
search the house?

The Court: What was that?
Mr. Nabrit: I asked if there was any time when 

the police asked her permission to search the house?
The Witness: No.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Was there any time when you told them it was all 
right if they searched the house or agreed to them to 
search the house or say something to them? A. No. When 
I was on the third floor, in the living room there was this 
other officer had stopped me in the living room to talk, and

Regina Summers—for Plaintiffs-—Direct



4 0 3 a

the other officer was proceeding toward the back kitchen, 
the kitchenette, and I just told him the light switch was 
on the right side of the wall when you open the door.

Q. At any time in the house were you laughing? A. No, 
never at all.

Q. Was there anything funny to you that happened?
—966—

A. No, there was nothing funny there that I saw at all.
Q. Did you wish any officers a Happy New Year or 

Merry Christmas? A. No, I did not.
* # # # #

—987—
* * * * *

S h a r o n  L a v e r n e  W a l l a c e  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: Sharon Laverne Wallace.

Direct Examination by Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Where do you live? A. 2408 Huron Street.
Q. And how old are you? A. Sixteen.
Q. Do you go to school? A. Yes.
Q. Where and what grade? A. Western High School, 

the eleventh grade.
Q. And do you live with your parents? A. Yes.

—988—
Q. What are their names? A. Mrs. Elizabeth Wallace 

and Mr. Harry Wallace.
Q. Who else lives in the house and name them and their 

approximate age? A. My sister Lucinda Wallace, Har-

Sharon Laverne Wallace—for Plaintiffs— Direct



4 0 4 a

rietta—Lucinda is twenty-nine; Harrietta is twenty-one; 
my brother Troy, he’s three-and-a-half; my aunt, she’s 
about sixty-some. Mrs. Harry Burley, and her husband 
Mr. Clarence Burley. He’s in his sixties, and my father 
and mother.

Q. Now, were you in court yesterday and part of today? 
A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear Sergeant Brandt testify yesterday about 
your house? A. Yes.

Q. Did you hear another officer testify about your house 
yesterday? A. No.

Q. Now, tell the Judge what happened, what happened 
on the evening the police came to your house? A. Well, 
at the—

Q. At the beginning, how it happened? A. Well, I was 
sitting in the sitting room watching slides, and we saw a 
light moving across this dining room.

So Lucinda jumped up and she went and pulled the
- 9 8 9 -

curtains up and looked out, and I was behind her and 
saw some policemens and, “My goodness what’s happen­
ing?” And she ran to the side door, and I was behind her, 
and Harrietta was behind me.

I stood up upon the steps, and Lucinda opened the door, 
and a policeman, when we, when she opened the inside 
door another policeman opened the storm door, and he 
said, “ Go back.”

He said, “How many men live here? Who are the men 
and what are their names?”

And she, as she was telling him the names, she was 
asking him questions, and still, they were still, they were 
still coming in.

Sharon Laverne Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 5 a

So someone was knocking at the front door; so one of 
the other officers went to the front door and opened the 
front door, and some more policemen came in, and so, 
they started, they said they had a call, they would have 
to search the house, and they started up, they started up­
stairs, and then two of the policemen started down the 
stairs, so—

Q. Now, go ahead. A. And Mrs. Barrick, she was a 
guest in the house, and she says, “Well, wait a minute, I 
think the dog is downstairs.”

And so one of the policemen said, “He won’t bite me.”
—990—

And so she said, “Well, we don’t know about that.”
So he said, “Well, I know he won’t bite me.”
So she said, “Well, you won’t shoot him either.”
So he said, “You want to bet I won’t?”
So I went downstairs to see if the dog was down there, 

and two of the policemen were behind me and—
Q. All right. Up until that point had any officer talked 

to you, just to you personally? A. No.
Q. Had any officer asked you your name? A. No, they 

hadn’t.
Q. Had you talked to any of the officers? A. No.
Q. You hadn’t said anything to any of the police? A. 

No.
Q. Now, can you remember the two officers that went 

down the basement in the cellar? A. You mean describe 
them?

Q. Yes. A. Well, I remember one, he was tall, and he 
had a sort of white-gray hair. I couldn’t see the back of his 
head because he had his cap on and he didn’t take it off; 
and the other one was shorter, and I don’t remember ex­
actly how he looked.

Sharon Laverne Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 6 a

And the tall one had a black leather jacket on. He had
—991—

on black boots, and he had on a long gun.
Q. Now, did you have any conversation with them, with 

the two men that were searching in the cellar? A. While 
I was in the cellar?

Q. Yes. A. One of them asked me, one of them asked 
me, “What is this? Is this a freezer?” And I said, “Yes.”

The Court: What? A what?
The Witness: A freezer.
The Court: Oh.
The Witness: And so he opened it and looked in; 

and then there’s a door that leads out of the base­
ment. So he said, “Where does this lead? Outside?” 
And I said, “Yes.” So they searched all the rooms.

By Mr. Nabrit:

Q. Now, do you recall any other conversation in the base­
ment? A. No.

Q. Did you subsequently go back up to the first floor? 
A. Yes.

Q. Now, was there any time during the evening that 
any of the officers asked you or tell you why they were 
there? A. No, they didn’t.

Q. Later on did they? A. To me?
—992—

Q. Yes. A. No.
Q. Did you overhear them telling other people? A. 

Why, I heard them say that they had an anonymous call 
after they came upstairs, they said they had an anonymous 
call that the Veney brothers were there and they had to 
search.

Sharon Lav erne Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 7 a

Q. Now, when was that? A. This was after they had 
finished searching for anyone and gone upstairs and come 
down and went in the basement and come up.

Q. Now, you said some officers came in the front door? 
Some officers came in the front door; is that your testi­
mony? A. Yes.

Q. Of those officers that came in the front door, did any 
of them talk with you? A. No, they didn’t.

Q. Where were you? A. I was standing on the steps.
Q. During the whole time that you were there did you tell 

any officers what your name was? A. No.
Q. How old you were? A. No.

—993—
Q. Did you ever give any officer permission to search the 

house? A. No.
Q. Did anybody ever ask you for permission? A. Me?
Q. Yes. A. No.

*  *  *  *  *

—997—
* * * * *

Mr. Nabrit: May it please the Court, that’s the 
last witness we intended to call.

There were two other matters I wanted to mention. 
One is the matter of the Masters’ work sheets which I 
believe the Masters’ report was filed. I don’t know 
if the work sheets are considered filed and any for­
malities being taken care of in connection with them.

The Court: Well, I think that the eight of them 
with the addresses on the top and the others I believe 
have been copied.

Mr. Nabrit: I have copies of all of them but I 
don’t know whether they are officially a part of the 
record.

Sharon Laverne Wallace—for Plaintiffs—Direct



4 0 8 a

Colloquy

The Court: Well, I think they should be consid­
ered a part of the record. I will not cut the tops off 
because we may need them for some purpose. You 
can use the copies you have.

—998—
Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
The Court: And I will keep the originals in my 

safe, and additional copies can be made whenever 
necessary.

Mr. Nabrit: And the other matter was one we dis­
cussed at the bench and in chambers, and this was 
the whole question as to whether or not this case 
involves in any way the issue of legality of arrest 
for investigation are sufficient, and I indicated to 
the Court that I wanted to state our view of it for, 
l guess, three reasons we think this is a part of the 
case.

We think that first it relates to the second prayer 
for relief in our complaint which asks for an injunc­
tion against interfering with people because they 
protest and non-co-operate and it goes to the en­
forceability of the order.

The Court: Yes, I understand it’s a special prayer 
of interfering because they resist and don’t co­
operate.

Mr. Nabrit: Coupled with that—
The Court: Yes.
Mr. Nabrit: And it’s related to that and also ex­

pressed in the similar vein it relates to the fact that 
if the police can arrest on suspicion then they would 
be able to make, if they can also arrest on suspicion 
then they would have a lawful right to make searches



4 0 9 a

incident to such an arrest and that would bring us 
into a full circle in terms of this case.

—999—
Finally with reference particularly to the Sheppard 

household, I would say that if that arrest was lawful 
then perhaps the search of the house was lawful.

So that in three ways there is some sort of a ques­
tion pertaining to legality of arrest for investigation 
and suspicion, and that is involved.

Mr. Sause: Your Honor—
Mr. Nabrit: Excuse me.
Mr. Sause: Go ahead.
Mr. Nabrit: As I think I indicated at the bench, 

Your Honor, my purpose of making a statement was 
that because we have been discussing this, that it 
would be clear that this was not something I was 
raising after but during the trial and not waiting 
until it was over, I mean until any opportunity to 
continue the trial is over.

The Court: I think that the question with respect 
to your two and three, particularly with respect to 
three is of course in as tangentially as a particular 
incident. The question of whether it should come in 
on the first point as a major look at the whole ques­
tion as arresting for interrogation or an arrest for 
interrogation, which is a different matter from ar­
resting on suspicion. They are two entirely different 
points, it seems to me.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, sir.
The Court: Because I don’t think you can arrest

— 1000—

on suspicion; you have got to have probable cause 
for an arrest. Now, even where there is probable

Colloquy



410a

cause for arrest, people are sometimes booked for 
investigation rather than as charged with the crime, 
and the reasons for doing that and the reasons for 
not doing that are very many and something that 
requires a very full development, but I don’t think 
that is directed in this case.

Mr. Nabrit: Maybe my problem is something in 
the discussion that I don’t understand the differences 
in the police practice.

The Court: I have heard enough about it. The 
police in Baltimore do frequently book people for 
investigation without formally charging them with a 
crime. Now, I don’t believe that they contend that 
they have a right to arrest a man and hold him 
against his will unless they have grounds to arrest 
him for something else, for a crime, that they have 
probable cause to arrest him.

That question comes up, is raised by defendants 
who have been arrested, of course, in connection usu­
ally with searches or in connection with confessions 
made afterward, and it’s in the course of being 
worked out in a series of regular criminal cases and 
postconviction cases in the Maryland courts and in 
habeas corpus cases in this court and the Fourth 
Circuit and going up to the Supreme Court, and it’s 
a matter that is being built up bit by bit on case law,

— 1001—

and it is not something that somebody can just sit 
down and lay down a broad rule or a series of guide 
lines on.

In one of the recent cases—wasn’t it Ker? One 
of the recent Supreme Court cases.

Mr. Murphy: Haynes.

Colloquy



411a

The Court: That they could not lay down certain 
guide lines but that they had to work some of these 
problems out on a case-by-case basis.

We are in some very difficult fields here when you 
get into that but certainly so far as it is related to 
that, your third point has got to be decided if it is 
reached, and it may be by reason of a decision for 
you on one point or a decision for the defendant on 
another point, you might not reach the point; but if 
it is reached the Court is going to face it. I am not 
going to duck any points, but I am not going to reach 
out to decide all the points in the case that don’t 
have to be decided.

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
Mr. Sause: For the record, it was never our un­

derstanding, Your Honor, that the Sheppard case 
and the Monroe Street case came into this case or 
came indeed within the allegations or within the 
prayer of the complaint for any sort of special or 
independent relief other than what was generally 
asked for here.

The Court: No, it’s not independent relief for that.
Mr. Sause: And it stretches my credulity to—well, 

strike that—but it eludes me how Mr. Nabrit can say 
that it comes either within the allegations or either 

the prayers for the relief in the complaint; but never­
theless we think that on the basis that he is asking 
that it be considered here, we think it does not come 
within them.

The Court: Well, 1 am not ruling that it does or 
that it doesn’t come within the prayer, but there is a 
second prayer of the complaint which “Seeks an in­
junction from harassing, threatening, intimidating,

Colloquy



412a

or otherwise interfering with plaintiffs or any per­
sons because they protest, object to or resist such 
unlawful entries and searches.”

It’s an extremely broad prayer.
Mr. Sause: Well, if I may say—
The Court: As to what would constitute a viola­

tion of that would present certain problems and 
which conceivably could be a reason for not granting 
an injunction, but it does not mean that evidence 
tending to prove a single incident of that is not ad­
missible on the question of whether the Court should 
grant an injunction.

Mr. Sause: The only thing is, the face of La Gio- 
conda that Mr. Nabrit is presenting today is a face 
that nobody ever dreamed of much before yesterday 
afternoon in this case, and that interpretation of that 
second prayer is one that is of most recent vintage,

—1003—
and it is certainly one that does not fit as well within 
the context or the complete reading of the bill.

The Court: Well, do you think there is any other 
evidence with respect to two or besides two except 
this?

Mr. Sause: It occurred to me in reading it and in 
rereading it that two was framed in such a way, and 
if Your Honor please, the Sheppard case arose after 
these papers had been shipped up to New York for 
mimeographing and had been shipped back again.

You will remember that when we first saw this 
case, when we first saw the complaint the Sheppard 
affidavit wasn’t even attached to it. This was some­
thing that Mrs. Mitchell raced in with at the last

Colloquy



4 1 3 a

minute and even collated right in front of us in the 
office back there, after the complaint had been filed.

So that it’s an afterthought from the word “go” ; 
but in any event—and may I finish?

Mr. Nabrit: Yes.
Mr. Sause: But in any event the second, it seems 

to me, or the first prayer was the one that was the 
primary one, and the second was simply auxiliary to 
it. That is, that not only must the police desist these 
acts which are complained of but also that they would 
not seek retribution or anything else against the 
people who did resist these arrests. That is, that

—1004—
they would not try to circumvent the direct and posi­
tive rulings of the Court under No. 1.

The Court: Well, I think that is what it deals 
with, and you may argue that the incident by which 
or as a result of which Mrs. Sheppard was booked 
does not come within the question of resisting the 
search, that she was not booked because she had 
resisted a search but she was booked because, as I 
gather, because she had made certain conflicting- 
statements and had refused to give certain other 
information according to the officers’ testimony.

I am not finding the fact; but I gather that that 
is what it is, that she wouldn’t answer their ques­
tions about the conversations in the taxicab.

Now, it didn’t deal with searching the house or 
searching the person because she did not make any 
real effort to prevent their searching the house. She 
either consented to it, as the officers testified to, 
or she didn’t consent to it as she testified, and she 
certainly did not protest, object to, or resist the

Colloquy



414a

search at the time, whatever protests that she made 
afterwords when she had already been booked be­
fore she protested to City Hall. So that I think 
you just have to see how it goes.

Mr. Sause: If Your Honor please, for the record, 
in so far as that testimony with regard to Monroe

— 1005-

Street was offered and presented for the purpose 
of supporting this latter day theory of Mr. Nabrit’s, 
we object to it and we at this time move that it be 
stricken as being completely outside of any reason­
able reading of that complaint, of the bill of com­
plaint.

The Court: Well, I am not going to strike it, 
which is in effect a directed verdict on it. I think 
he has his problems to get relief on it for various 
reasons; but I am not going to strike it out of hand 
here. I want to see the argument on it, and I think 
there are a number of hurdles to jump in connection 
with it.

Mr. Sause: We don’t want to be contentious about 
it, but we are simply preserving our objections for 
argument.

The Court: Certainly you are entitled to make 
that objection, and I have ruled against you at this 
time without prejudice to your right to raise it as 
a matter of fact and law in your brief.

Mr. Sause: Yes, sir.
The Court: I just refuse to dismiss it out of 

hand now on a kind of directed verdict point. I want 
to hear full argument on it.

Mr. Sause: Thank you, sir.

Colloquy



415a

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, we have no more re­
buttal evidence to offer, and we rest.

—1006—
The Court: There was only one other thing that 

I don’t believe any body has put in the record, that 
there was in fact no letter from the State’s Attorney 
Moylan to the FBI agent who obtained the warrant.

Mr. Sause: Judge, Your Honor, for the record, 
I was informed this morning by Lieutenant Glover 
who was asked to get such a letter that there was 
no such letter in existence.

I might add for the benefit of the Court that it 
is nothing unusual in this type of case, that the 
State’s Attorney is only involved because he con­
trols the purse strings in anything.

The Court: No one is criticizing anyone for the 
obtaining of the warrant, for the fugitive warrant; 
it just was a matter of clearing up matters that 
were not clear on the record.

Mr. Nabrit: Your Honor, Mr. Hearing reminds 
me that earlier in the hearing we entered into a 
stipulation that no warrants had been applied for 
in the Municipal Court, with the understanding that 
there would be a check as to other courts.

Is that point clear that there were no search war­
rants? I was just wondering about any testimony 
on it.

The Court: Yes, there was a stipulation, believe, 
that no search warrants were obtained in the Munic-

—1007—
ipal Court.

Mr. Nabrit: The Municipal Court.

Colloquy



Colloquy

The Court: But I don’t believe—is it agreed that 
there were no search warrants obtained?

Mr. Sause: We have not made any investigation 
of the sixteen Judges of the Supreme Bench; but 
Mr. Murphy and I would concede that there were 
no search warrants in this case.

The Court: All right.
Now, there was some question to be sure about 

it that the stipulation that the Samuel Veney whose 
name appeared on the card in the liquor store, 
the check cashing establishment, was a different 
Samuel Veney, and I understand the State is willing 
to stipulate that he was a different Samuel Veney.

Mr. Murphy: We already have, Your Honor.
Mr. Nabrit: Samuel E. Veney.
The Court: Now, is it agreed that for the pur­

poses of this case the State does not dispute the 
uncontradicted evidence that he enlisted in the Navy 
around Christmas 1963 or January 1964?

Mr. Murphy: We have no evidence to the con­
trary, Your Honor.

The Court: The Court then will consider that 
that is an uncontradicted fact which the Court should

-1 0 0 8 -
find to be true for the purposes of this case.

Now, that covers what you need, doesn’t it, Mr. 
Nabrit?

Mr. Nabrit: Yes, Your Honor.



4 1 7 a

Special Masters’ Report

Baltimore, Maryland 
January 20, 1965

The Honorable Roszel C. Thomsen 
Chief Judge, United States District Court 
Post Office Building 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Re: Samuel James Lankford, et al. v. Bernard 
C. Schmidt, Commissioner—Civil No. 16080

Dear Judge Thomsen:

Pursuant to your order dated January 19, 1965, we have 
examined a mass of written materials supplied by the de­
fendant. On the basis of these materials, we have prepared 
and submit with this letter a report on each search or other 
investigation disclosed by the materials.

Reports numbered from one upward are keyed to the 
defendant’s reports. In this category we found materials 
relating to 187 incidents and found no materials as to 45 
listed by the defendant.

Reports numbered from 300 upward cover 139 incidents 
not contained in the defendant’s reports; a substantial 
portion of these incidents were “turn ups” in which only 
a few patrolmen participated.

In a majority of the incidents the materials furnished 
to us did not disclose the reason for police action, but 
many simply indicated that it was in response to a radio 
call. Although there may have been information available 
to the police which prompted the radio call, it is not dis­
closed in these materials.



4 1 8 a

The materials contained a number of statements of per­
sons implicated in the crime then being investigated or 
who were associated with the suspected criminals. Because 
of the form of these statements, we were unable to cor­
relate them to the various investigation incidents.

The reports which we submit herewith were prepared 
by four individuals with a resulting variation in evalua­
tion and reporting style, and any statistical analysis is 
subject to this underlying weakness. With this caveat, we 
attach a statistical summary of our reports.

Respectfully submitted,

Lowell R. Bowen

William J. McCarthy

Theodore S. Miller

Walter 1. Seif, Jr.
Special Masters

Special Masters’ Report



4 1 9 a
i

SUMMARY OF REPORTS OF SPECIAL MASTERS

1. Incidents not involving a search: 6
2. Tip, but no search 9

Reason given why search not made 3

Special Masters’ Report

3. Date Searches Date Searches Date Searches
12/24 0 1/1 26 1/9 4
12/25 4 1/2 23 1/10 2
12/26 39 1/3 7 1/11 1
12/27 16 1/4 18 1/12 1
12/28 16 1/5 5
12/29 28 1/6 10
12/30 35 1/7 4
12/31 54 1/8 7

4. Date not shown: 15
5. Hour of Search:

Midnight to 7:00 A.M. 64
7:00 A.M. to Noon 12
Noon to 6:00 P.M. 25
6:00 P.M. to Midnight 39

6. Time not Shown: 162

7. Nature of Tip: Anonymous—20 Known—42

8. Consent to search affirmatively shown: 6*

9. Results: Arrests—2 Seizures of Property—2

* At the beginning o f the examination, the Special Masters did not 
understand that this item was to be reported, and only began to note 
it towards the end. The recollection of the Special Masters is that the 
materials reveal a number of additional consents to search, but that the 

I number is not substantial in relation to the total number o f incidents.

1



420a

Joint Exhibit 3

(See Opposite)



P O L I C E  D E P A R T M E N T  
C I T Y  O F  B A L T I M O R E

ejl
C E L L  N o ___________________

OAi IX

\'jATTEST REGISTER
TYP2 ALL INFORMATION EXCEPT SIGNATURES

1/6/65

ff

V
■ c ; . ,  ^

12:55 ...
TIME R E C O R D E D

S U R N A M E G I V E N  N A M E M I D D L E  N A M E  O R  I N I T I A L A R R E S T  N U M B E R

SH&rPAliD MAGGIE LENA N W 108360
A L I A S A G E S E X R A C E MARITAL STATUS C O M P L A I N T  N U M B E R

70 F C Widow
H E I G H T W E I G H T E Y E S H A I R O C C U P A T I O N D A T E  O F  B I R T H P L A C E  O F  B I R T H  ( CITY AND STATC)

5/5 145 Brn B lk Housewife 1/23/ Frederick lid.
A D D K l S S  ( N u m b e r  a n d  S t r e e t ) C I T Y  A N D  S T A T E  IF N O T  B A L T I M O R E S C A R S  A N D  M A R K S

2005 II. Monroe St.
F A T H E R ’ S  N A M E

Cade
M O T H E R ’ S  M A I D E N  N A M E

Josephine Unknown
C O M P L A I N A N T ’ S  N A M E C O M P L A I N A N T ’ S  A D D R E S S

W H E R E  A R R E S T E D B A I L I W I C K P O S T T I M E  O F  A R R E S T D A T E  O F  A R R E S T

2003 II. Monroe St. 1 5 1 2 : 3 0 p . . M. 1/6/65
A R R E S T I N G  O F F I C E R  ( S ) D I S T R I C T SUMMONS W A R R A N T

St. Janes Cudden - Homicide; Sgt. Wa. Rehnann -  ITWD 
Offs. Janes Griffin, John Hess & Ronald Larmore HUB

C H A R G E J U D G E ' S  D I S P O S I T I O N F I N E C O S T S
Investigation, suspected o f A ssault & Shooting S E S S I O N :  

P L E A : ______

Invest. & Rel. 1/6/65
-2.L5Q pm

C O N T I N U A T I O N  S H E E T  U S E D : Y E S  □  N O  □  D A T E

R E M A R K S :  P O S T P O N E M E N T S .  E T C . . In vestiga tion  o f A ssault £  Shooting

1/6/65
D A T E  R E L E A S E D

R E L E A S E D  BY. L t .

2:30 p
TI ME R E L E A S E

Maruice Klunk
P h o t o g r a p h e d  a n d  F i n g e r p r i n t e d  Y e s  □  NO  □

signature___S g t. Walter P. Barron

W ITN ESSES

D IS TR IC T  C O P Y



421a



4 2 2 a

Joint Exhibit 4

(See Opposite)!®"'



P O L I C E  D E P A R T M E N T  
C I T Y  O F  B A L T I M O R E

ejl
C E L L  N o . . A 2

arrest register
TYPE ALL INFORMATION EXCEPT SIGNATURES

1 /6 /6 5

LL

12 :50  p .
TIME R E C O R D E D

H E I G H T W E I G H T E Y E S H A I R O C C U P A T I O N D A T E  O F  B I R T H P L A C E  O F  B I R T H  ( CITY AND S TATE)

5/9 190 Brn Elk Unemployed 1/15/19 Frederick Md.

S U R N A M E G I V E N  N A M E M I D D L E  N A M E  O R  I N I T I A L A R R E S T  N U M B E R

COOPER ROSCOiii REGXiMiiiB N W 108359
46 II

MARITAL STATUS

S
C O M P L A I N T  N U M B E R

A D D R E S S  ( N u m b e r  a n d  S t r e e t ) C I T Y  A N D  S T A T E  IF N O T  B A L T I M O R E S C A R S  A N D  M A R K S

2005 N. Monroe St.
F A T H E R ' S  N A M E M O T H E R ' S  M A I D E N  N A M E

John Marie Morgan
C O M P L A I N A N T ' S  N A M E C O M P L A I N A N T ' S  A D D R E S S

W H E R E  A R R E S T E D

2003 N. Monroe St.
B A I L I W I C K T I M E  O F  A R R E S T

12:50 PnV
D A T E  O F  A R R E S T

1/6/65
A R R E S T I N G  O F F I C E R  ( S ) D I S T R I C T S U M M O N S W A R R A N T

Sgt. Urn. Rehnann, Lieut. Janes Cadden-IIomicidc Sqd. 
Junes Griffin, John Hess & Ronald Lermore In/D

C H A R G E J U D G E ’ S  D I S P O S I T I O N F I N E C O S T S

Investigation, suspected of Assault <x Shooting S E S S I O N : 1
P L E A : 1

_JLnv.ent.  & .  rel. 1/6/65______
2:50 pm

C O N T I N U A T I O N  S H E E T  U S E D :  Y E S  Q  N O  L3 D A T E  J U D G E

R E M A R K S :  P O S T P O N E M E N T S .  E T C . -

1/6/65
D A T E  R E L E A S E D

R E L E A S E D  BY. L t .

______ 2:50 pm M.
TI ME R E L E A S E D

Maurice Klunk______
P h o t o g r a p h e d  a n o  F i n g e r p r i n t e d Y e s  □  N o  d ]

signature Sgtt  Wa l t er fft Barron

W ITN ESSES

D ISTR IC T  C O P Y



4 2 3 a

\

l

i

I

,

I



In the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
For the District of Maryland 

Civil No. 16080

Opinion of April 14, 1965

[same title]

Filed: April 14, 1965.

Juanita Jackson Mitchell, Tucker R. Rearing and W. A. C. 
Hughes, Jr., of Baltimore, Maryland, James M. Nabrit, 
HI, Melvin Zarr and Jack Greenberg, of New York, New 
York, for plaintiffs.

Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General of Maryland, Robert 
C. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, and John W. 
Sause, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, of Baltimore, 
Maryland, for defendant.

Robert E. Coug'hlan, Jr., H. Vernon Eney and William L. 
Mar bury, of Baltimore, Maryland, amici curiae.

Thomsen, Chief Judge

In this action brought under 28 U. S. C. A. 1343 and 42 
U. S. C. A. 1983, plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining 
the Police Commissioner and the police officers of Balti­
more City from continuing or resuming certain alleged 
practices which are claimed to be in violation of (A) the 
rights of plaintiffs and other residents of Baltimore under 
the Fourth Amendment, enforceable against the States



4 2 5 a

through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amend­
ment, and (B) the rights of plaintiffs and other Negro 
residents of Baltimore under the Equal Protection Clause 
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiffs make the novel 
contention that police officers, having obtained a warrant 
for the arrest of X  and Y, charged with armed robbery 
and/or murder, may not enter the dwelling of Z to search 
for and arrest X  and Y without a search warrant, consent 
or exceptional circumstances, even though the officers have 
reasonable grounds to believe that X and Y are in the 
house. If they should fail to obtain an injunction based 
upon that contention, plaintiffs seek an injunction restrain­
ing any such entries which are based upon anonymous tips 
or which otherwise do not meet constitutional standards.

Defendant, represented by the Attorney General of the 
State, challenges not only plaintiffs’ interpretation of the 
Fourth Amendment and their claim of discrimination, but 
also their standing to seek the relief prayed and the pro­
priety of such relief under the circumstances shown by the 
evidence.

The case is now before the Court on an application for 
a preliminary injunction. Forty-two witnesses have testi­
fied, and the records of the police were reviewed during 
the hearing and summarized in a report by a team of spe­
cial masters chosen from the Junior Bar Association. 
There is little dispute about the facts.

Facts

On December 24, 1964, at about 9:45 p.m., several per­
sons committed an armed robbery of a liquor store at 
2002 Greenmount Avenue in Baltimore, during which Police 
Lieutenant James Maskell was shot and seriously wounded.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 2 6 a

A suspect was apprehended at or near the scene of the 
crime and was questioned. Immediately thereafter several 
officers visited homes in the area in search of other persons 
believed to be involved. At about 4 :50 a.m., on December 
25, Police Sergeant Jack Cooper, a uniformed officer in a 
cruiser, who was participating in the search, was found 
fatally shot near his car. The police believed that Samuel 
Veney was involved in the robbery and in the shooting of 
Sergeant Cooper.

Early on the morning of December 25, a Municipal Court 
Judge issued warrants for the arrest of Samuel Veney and 
his brother Earl, charging them with robbery of the liquor 
store and with assaulting and shooting Lieutenant Maskell.1 
The police had information justifying their belief that the 
Veney brothers were armed and extremely dangerous.

On December 25, the Police Commissioner decided to 
form a special squad to investigate the crimes, composed 
of officers from the Homicide Bureau, the Robbery Squad, 
the Northeastern District and other units under the com­
mand of Captain Mahrer of the Northeastern District. 
About 50 or 60 men were members of the squad at one 
time or another. The police began promptly to investigate 
various premises, searching for the Veneys and other sus­
pects. All except the Veneys were in custody before De­
cember 28.

Between December 25 and January 12 the police made 
more than 300 turn-ups m an effort to locate and arrest 
the Veneys. The phrase “turn-up” as used by the police

Opinion of April 14, 1965

1 No question with respect to the validity o f the warrants is raised in 
this case. On December 28 the Criminal Court o f Baltimore issued 
capiases for the arrest of the Veneys after grand jury presentments had 
charged them and three other men with the liquor store robbery and 
shooting, and had charged Samuel Veney with murdering Sergeant Cooper.



4 2 7 a

means an investigation of a particular location, and usu­
ally but not always includes a search of the premises. Most 
of the premises searched were private residences, but there 
were a few turn-ups at schools, taverns, pool halls, vacant 
houses, vacant lots, etc. The Vencys are Negroes, and most 
of the dwellings searched were occupied by Negroes. After 
the first nine days the number of turn-ups decreased to an 
average of seven or eight a day.

At 6 :44 a.m. on December 25, Inspector German had sent 
out a teletyped order to all districts directing that all of­
ficers turning-up a house in connection with the investiga­
tion should arrange to have one of the two emergency ve­
hicles accompany them. Each emergency vehicle carries 
shotguns, submachine guns, tear gas and bullet-proof vests, 
as well as a variety of equipment used in rescue work. 
Each is manned by a crew of four men specially trained 
in handling the weapons and other equipment. The emer­
gency unit was organized in June 1963, and assists in nine 
or ten arrests monthly in addition to its rescue work. It 
was used in connection with these turn-ups to protect the 
police, to protect the public, and to insure that the persons 
named in the warrants would be captured if they were dis­
covered. During the first two days the police conducted 
the investigation primarily on the basis of leads developed 
from questioning the persons in custody and the family and 
acquaintances of the Veneys. Thereafter most of the turn­
ups were made as the result of tips, many of them anony­
mous, as to the whereabouts of the Veneys, whose pictures 
and descriptions were widely circulated in the press. Some 
tips were received through a newspaper which offered a 
reward for information leading to the arrest of the Veneys 
and promised not to disclose the names of callers. All tips,

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 2 8 a

except those which were patently frivolous, were investi­
gated, and in most cases resulted in searches of the build­
ings.

The police records with respect to many of the searches 
are sketchy and incomplete. Frequently all that is shown 
is that a particular address was turned-up on a particular 
day.

The police did not apply for or obtain search warrants 
for the search of any of the more than 300 premises they 
entered. The decision to enter a house was usually made 
by the lieutenant or sergeant in charge when the tip was 
received. The entries were made at all hours of the day 
and night, usually within 30 or 45 minutes after receiving 
the tip. There was no seai’ch for or seizure of property or 
evidence in any of the dwellings or other buildings which 
were entered.

The squads which turned-up the eight dwellings with 
respect to which testimony was taken numbered between 
ten and twenty officers and detectives, and it appears that 
most turn-ups were made by at least ten officers. Men from 
the special squad and from the emergency unit would some­
times be joined by radio cars with additional men from 
the local district. The Commissioner gave Captain Mahrer 
authority to call as many men or cars as he needed for 
this investigation. Ordinarily such authority is not given 
to a captain, but this was an unusual investigation in terms 
of its size and because two officers were believed to have 
been shot in one day by the same person or persons.

Immediately after the decision to investigate a tip was 
made, a surveillance group of plain-clothes officers would 
drive past the building to locate entrances, exits, alleyways, 
etc. The surveillance team did not make inquiries in the

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 2 9 a

neighborhood about the occupants or conduct any other in­
vestigation of the tips, except to observe the character of 
the neighborhood. Turn-ups were occasionally called off 
on their recommendation. The surveillance team would 
meet the main group, including the crew of the emergency 
vehicle, at a nearby point. Bullet-proof vests would be 
issued to four men. Officers specially trained in handling 
submachine guns and shotguns would be issued weapons. 
Usually, the houses were surrounded and some of the of­
ficers were directed to train their weapons on windows 
and doors. Four men wearing bullet-proof vests and carry­
ing heavy weapons would go to the front door and knock. 
They would be followed or accompanied by the supervising 
officer, a sergeant or lieutenant. As soon as an occupant 
opened the door, the first man would enter the house to 
look for any immediate danger, and the supervising officer 
would then talk to the person who had answered the door. 
Few stated any objection to the entry; some were quite 
willing to have the premises searched for the Yeneys, while 
others acquiesced because of the show of force.

The officers involved worked exceptionally long hours. 
Some were polite and considerate of the occupants. Others 
were abrupt, and without adequate explanation of their 
purpose, flashed lights on beds where children were sleep­
ing and otherwise upset the occupants of the home being 
searched.

A disabled veteran was patted-down, i.e. checked for a 
weapon, after the police had entered his grandmother’s 
dwelling, about a block from the corner where a policeman 
had been shot at and the badge on his cap struck by a 
bullet a few days before. Another man claimed that he had 
been patted-down after another entry, but since he was

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 0 a

clad only in his pajama bottoms, the denial of the officers 
is more credible than his claim. When the police raided 
a pool hall on Walbrook Avenue in response to a call from 
a man who falsely represented himself as the proprietor 
and said that the Veneys were there, the police searched 
all patrons of the pool hall for weapons. Xo other patting- 
down is shown by the evidence.

On Friday, January 8, 1965, at 9:00 a.m., plaintiffs’ at­
torneys brought their complaint to my chambers and asked 
for a temporary restraining order. In accordance with 
uniform practice, the Court called counsel for the defen­
dant, in this case the Deputy Attorney General, who came 
to the Court’s chambers promptly and agreed to a hearing 
that afternoon. At that hearing the Deputy Attorney Gen­
eral moved orally to dismiss the complaint for lack of 
jurisdiction and lack of standing, but stated that the Police 
Commissioner would promptly issue a general order deal­
ing with the problems raised by the complaint. The Court 
denied the oral motion without prejudice to defendant’s 
right to raise the point later, denied plaintiffs’ request for 
a temporary restraining order in view of the promised issu­
ance of a general order by the Commissioner, and set the 
case for hearing on the following Thursday on plaintiffs’ 
application for a preliminary injunction.

On Monday, January 11, defendant Police Commissioner 
issued General Order Xo. 10388, set out in note 2 below. 2

2 “ General Order: No. 10388 January 11, 1965.
“ Subject: Service o f Arrest Warrants

“ The question has recently arisen as to the precise scope o f the au­
thority conferred upon police officers by arrest warrants, and specifically 
whether such warrants authorize entry upon private property for the 
purpose of locating and arresting the defendant named in the warrant.

“ A police officer may make a peaceable or a forcible entry to search 
any premises for the purpose of arresting a person for whom an arrest

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 1 a

Between January 9 and January 11, there were seven turn­
ups. On January 12, there was one. Thereafter there were 
only two, for each of which the police obtained search 
warrants.

On January 14 the Court denied defendant’s motion for 
judgment on the pleadings, and the taking of testimony 
began. It was completed on January 27. Briefs have been 
filed and the case has been argued orally by counsel for 
the respective parties and by amici curiae appointed by 
the Court.3

On December 29, a United States Commissioner had is­
sued a fugitive felon arrest warrant for the Veneys. They

Opinion of April 14, 1965

warrant has been issued, if, but only if, the officer has probable cause 
to believe the accused person to be on the premises to be searched.

“ In this context, ‘probable cause’ is said to exist where the facts and 
circumstances within the officer’s knowledge and of which he has reason­
ably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a 
man of reasonable caution to believe that the accused person is on the 
premises to be searched.

“ The officer should, where practicable, seek admission to the suspected 
premises by announcing his identity, the existence of the arrest warrant, 
and his desire to search for and arrest the accused person. I f  the officer 
has any doubt as to the existence of ‘probable cause’, he should imme­
diately either seek the issuance of a search warrant, or consult with the 
office of the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City or o f the Attorney Gen­
eral of the State of Maryland before attempting entry upon private 
premises in search o f the accused person.

“ In all instances, consideration should be given to the convenience of 
the persons whose premises are to be searched and the other residents 
of the neighborhood. In this connection, it may at times be necessary, 
and in the public interest, to make such searches in the nighttime when 
most o f the residents would not he on the street, when the possibility of 
warning and escape would be less, and when greater safety would he 
afforded the arresting officer.

“ Copies: Inspectors, All Districts, Divisions, Units”
3 Three Baltimore lawyers— the immediate past President o f the Mary­

land State Bar Association, the President-elect of that Association, and 
the President of the Bar Association of Baltimore City.



4 3 2 a

were arrested in New York on March 11, by a sqnad of 
twenty-five agents of the FBI.

Discussion

I.

The Court has jurisdiction of the case under 28 U. S. C. A. 
1343 and 42 U. S. C. A. 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 
167 (1961); McNeese v. Board of Education, 337 U. S. 668 
(1963); Jordan v. Hutcheson, 4 Cir., 323 F. 2d 597 (1963); 
Cohen v. Norris, 9 Cir., 300 F. 2d 24 (1962).

It is a spurious class action, whether the class be con­
sidered to be (A) all residents of Baltimore, whose rights 
under the Fourth Amendment, enforceable against the 
states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, are alleged to be threatened; or (B) all 
Negro residents, whose rights to equal protection under 
the Fourteenth Amendment, are alleged to be threatened. 
It has been argued that, with respect to the claims asserted 
on behalf of each class, plaintiffs may maintain this suit 
only if each member of the class would have the right to 
assert the alleged claim and to file and prosecute such 
an action, since plaintiffs do not allege that their homes 
are more likely to be searched in the future than the 
homes of other members of the class. Granted, but that 
does not mean that this action cannot be maintained.

The complaint alleges that the police have deprived 
many citizens of their Fourth Amendment rights, by en­
tering their homes to search for the Yeneys without rea­
sonable grounds to believe that the Veneys were in their 
respective homes, and that such deprivations are likely 
to continue in the future. Based on those allegations, any 
householder or other resident of Baltimore who alleges 
that he is so threatened might file and prosecute such an

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 3 a

action. Jordan v. Hutcheson, supra; Jeffries v. Whitley, 
4 Cir., 309 F. 2d 621 (1962); Potts v. Flax, 5 Cir., 313 F. 2d 
284 (1963).

Whether the relief prayed should be granted is another 
matter, depending upon the facts proved, the proper con­
struction of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and 
other applicable legal principles, including the need to 
consider and weigh the various public and private interests 
involved before issuing such an injunction as is sought 
in this case.

With respect to the claimed denial of equal protection, 
the complaint alleges: “Plaintiffs are informed and be­
lieve 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 protec­
tion of the laws as protected by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States by sys­
tematically depriving them of the equal right to privacy 
and to be secure in their persons and homes against un­
lawful and arbitrary intrusions by police officials, on the 
basis of race or color.” Based on those allegations, any 
Negro resident of Baltimore who alleges that he is so 
threatened might file and prosecute such an action.

The evidence in this case fails to show a denial of equal 
protection to any person because of his race or color.4 Most

4 The evidence does show what has become common knowledge in Balti­
more— that the relations between the Negro community and the police 
have deteriorated seriously. The Court is grateful to the amici curiae, 
who with the approval and cooperation of counsel for both sides were 
instrumental in the organization of a bi-raeial committee which has begun 
its efforts to establish better communications between the Negro com­
munity and the police, and thereby to improve the relations between them.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



434a

but not all of the premises searched were occupied by 
Negroes, but that was because the Veneys are Negroes 
and most of the information received related to their 
presence or possible presence in Negro homes or places 
where Negroes customarily congregate. The remainder of 
this opinion will deal with the rights of all residents of 
Baltimore, whatever their race or color.

II.

The Fourth Amendment, which was made applicable to 
the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 
Amendment, provides: “ The right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 
and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describ­
ing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to 
be seized.”

The decisions of the Supreme Court have repeatedly 
emphasized that an essential purpose of the Fourth Amend­
ment is to shield the citizen from unwarranted intrusions 
into his privacy. Boyd v. United States, 116 IT. S. 616 
(1886); Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 498 (1958); 
Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476 (1965). It prohibits “un­
reasonable” searches. The parties agree that even though 
the police hold a warrant for the arrest of a person 
charged with crime, they may not enter a dwelling or 
other private building to arrest such person without rea­
sonable grounds to believe that such person is in the 
building, unless there is consent to such entry.

There is no fixed formula for the determination of rea­
sonableness. The phrase “ reasonable grounds” , like “prob­

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 5 a

able cause” , means more than bare suspicion. Reasonable 
grounds exist where facts and circumstances within the 
officers’ personal knowledge or facts and circumstances of 
which they have reasonably trustworthy information are 
sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to be­
lieve that the person wanted is on the premises. See 
Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 162 (1925); 
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 175 (1949); 
Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307, 313 (1959); Henry 
v. United States, 361 U. S. 98, 102 (1959), which dealt 
with “probable cause” to believe that a criminal offense 
had been or was being committed. As the Supreme Court 
said in Brinegar v. United States-.

“These long-prevailing standards seek to safeguard 
citizens from rash and unreasonable interferences with 
privacy and from unfounded charges of crime. They 
also seek to give fair leeway for forcing the law in 
the community’s protection. Because many situations 
which confront officers in the course of executing their 
duties are more or less ambiguous, room must be al­
lowed for some mistakes on their part. But the mis­
takes must be those of reasonable men, acting on 
facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of prob­
ability.” 338 U. S. at 176.

Anonymous tips, without something more to support or 
corroborate them, do not constitute reasonable grounds. 
Costello v. United States, 9 Cir., 298 F. 2d 99 (1962), 
cert, den. 376 U. S. 930 (1964); Contee v. United States, 
D. C. Cir., 215 F. 2d 324 (1954); United States v. Buffner, 
D. Md., 51 F. 2d 579 (1931). See also Aguilar v. United 
States, 378 U. S. 108 (1964).

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 6 a

Most of the eight turn-ups as to which witnesses testi­
fied and most of the other turn-ups involved in this case 
were made without reasonable grounds to believe that the 
Yeneys were on the premises. Most were made on anony­
mous tips alone, without any investigation to determine 
who the occupants of the house were, or anything else 
to corroborate them. As a result the homes of many 
respectable citizens were subjected to entry by force under 
circumstances which were disturbing to children and others 
in the house.

Defendant concedes that many entries were made with­
out probable cause, but contends that the occupants con­
sented in all or substantially all of the cases. In some 
instances there was no one there to consent. In others 
there was merely acquiescence after at least one officer 
armed with a shotgun or submachine gun had already en­
tered the door. Acquiescence under those circumstances 
does not constitute consent. Amos v. United States, 255 
U. S. 313 (1921).

Entry into a dwelling without probable cause and with­
out consent must be severely condemned, whether the home 
be in the poorest part of the city or in an impressive 
suburban development. All residents of Baltimore are 
equally entitled to the constitutional right of privacy.

III.

Plaintiffs go further and argue that even though the 
officers have reasonable grounds to believe that a man for 
whom they hold an arrest warrant is in a particular house, 
not his own, the officers must obtain a search warrant 
before entering the house, in the absence of consent or 
exceptional circumstances, such as hot pursuit. Plaintiffs 
concede that no court has so held.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 7 a

In Love v. United States, 4 Cir., 170 F. 2d 32 (1948), 
cert. den. 336 U. S. 912 (1949), revenue officers went to 
appellant’s home, which they entered to search for Foster, 
a person for whom they had an arrest warrant. In the 
course of the search, the officers discovered a distillery 
in operation. On appellant’s motion to suppress evidence 
of the distillery, the trial court found that the officers 
did not enter the house for the purpose of searching for 
or finding evidence of the commission of a crime, but en­
tered in the bona fide belief that Foster was taking refuge 
in the house and discovered the violation while making 
search for Foster’s whereabouts. The trial court’s denial 
of the motion to suppress the evidence was affirmed on 
appeal. The Fourth Circuit said: “ The officers were right­
fully in the house (State v. Mooring, 115 N. C. 709, 20 
S. E. 182) and the discovery of the unlawful still was 
incidental to the lawful search for Foster.” 170 F. 2d at 33.

In the North Carolina case relied on by the Fourth Cir­
cuit, the Court said:

“It seems to be well settled by the courts, both in 
this country and in England, that where an officer 
‘comes armed with process founded on a breach of 
the peace, he may, after demand of admittance for 
the purpose of making the arrest and refusal of the 
occupant to open the doors of the house, lawfully 
break them, in order to effect an entrance and if he 
act in good faith in doing so, both he and his posse 
comitatus will be protected’.” State v. Mooring, 115 
N. C. at 710-711, 20 S. E. at 182 (1894).

That case, in turn, relied on Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 
120 Mass. 190 (1876), the leading case in this country. 
The doctrine of these and other cases is embodied in the

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 8 a

American Law Institute Restatement of the Law of Torts, 
which states in section 204:

“The privilege to make an arrest for a criminal 
offense carries with it the privilege to enter land in 
the possession of another for the purpose of making 
such an arrest, if the person sought to be arrested 
is on the land or if the actor reasonably believes him 
to be there.” 5

Section 20G of the Restatement reads:
“One is privileged, after explanation of his errand 

and demand for admittance, or without such explana­
tion and demand if he reasonably believes such to be 
impractical or useless, to break and enter a dwelling 
or use force to the person to enter the dwelling *

“ (b) although the person sought is not in the dwell­
ing, if the actor reasonably believes him to be 
there, and the entry is made in the exercise of 
a privilege
“ (i) to make a criminal arrest under a warrant 

valid or fair on its face, * * * ”

The Restatement rules find support in the law of Mary­
land. In Warner v. State, 202 Md. 601 (1953), at 609, 
Chief Judge Sobeloff said: “Entry on private premises 
to execute an arrest warrant is legal.” See also Benson

5 Comment e to section 204 states:
“ It is immaterial that the person sought to be arrested is neither 

the possessor nor an occupant of the land. It is sufficient that he 
is actually on the land or that the actor reasonably believes him to 
be there. The fact that he is the possessor or the occupant may, how­
ever, be of importance, in the event that he is not on the land, in 
determining whether the actor’s belief of his presence is reasonable.”

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 3 9 a

v. State, 236 Md. 518 (1964); Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 
23 (1963); Martin v. United States, 4 Cir., 183 F. 2d 436 
(1950).

Plaintiffs contend that the Restatement rule was an­
nounced before the Supreme Court held that the Fourth 
Amendment was enforceable against the States under the 
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and 
that the cases which support the Restatement rule did not, 
therefore, consider Fourth Amendment rights. It is true 
that the state decisions cited did not consider the Fourth 
Amendment, but that Amendment was binding on the 
Fourth Circuit when it decided Love v. United States, 170 
F. 2d 32 (1948), and many of the States have similar 
provisions in their constitutions.6 See Mason v. Wrightson, 
205 Md. at 481, 486 (1954).

Plaintiffs cited Morrison v. United States, D. C. Cir., 
262 F. 2d 449 (1958), in support of their argument that 
no distinction should be made between searches for per­
sons and searches for things, insofar as the Fourth Amend­
ment protection of the right of privacy is concerned. That 
case, however, does not conflict with the decision of the 
Fourth Circuit in Love v. United States, supra, or with 
the Restatement rules noted above. In the Morrison case 
the Court held that where officers, without any warrant, 
entered defendant’s house primarily to search for him,

Opinion of April 14, 1965

6 In 1776, the State of Maryland incorporated, as part of its Declara­
tion of Rights, the principle: “ That all warrants, without oath or affirma­
tion, to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are, 
grievous and oppressive; and all general warrants— to search suspected 
places, or to apprehend suspected persons, without naming or describing 
the place, or the person in special— are illegal, and ought not to be 
granted.”  That provision remains in the Maryland Constitution to this 
day. Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 26.



4 4 0 a

property seized during the search should not have been 
admitted in evidence at the trial. The Court said:

“We think that under the authorities officers with­
out a warrant cannot enter, even without actually 
breaking, a private dwelling to search for a suspected 
felon, no permission being given and no circumstances 
of necessitous haste being present.” 262 F. 2d at 454.

The Court distinguished the Love case, in which the revenue 
officers had an arrest warrant.7

The precise question raised by plaintiffs’ argument has 
never been presented to the Supreme Court. But the gen­
eral principles announced by the Court in cases dealing 
with searches made in connection with an arrest and other 
searches made without a search warrant, indicate what 
the answer should be.

In Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 (1925), 
the Court said:

“ The Fourth Amendment is to be construed in the 
light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and 
seizure when it was adopted, and in a manner which 
will conserve public interests as well as the interests 
and rights of individual citizens.”

It is not necessary to repeat the history reviewed in 
Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), Frank v. 
Maryland, both majority and dissenting opinions, 359 U. S.

Opinion of April 14, 1965

7 The Court also distinguished its earlier case of Gibson v. United 
States, D. C. Cir., 149 F. 2d 381 (1945), where it had cautioned: -‘We. 
do not mean to say that an officer who has a warrant for the arrest of A, 
and who reasonably believes that A is in the house of B, may not, after 
demanding admittance and giving due notice of his warrant, force en­
trance in order to search for and arrest A .”  149 F. 2d at 383, fn. 5.



4 4 1 a

360 and 374 (1959), Marcus v. Search Warrants, 367 U. S. 
717 (1961), and most recently Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 
476 (1965). The history supports the conclusion that the 
principal attack of the Fourth Amendment was against 
general warrants, which gave officers of the Crown blanket 
authority to search where they pleased for evidence of 
crime or for goods subject to forfeiture, or to search 
for and arrest unnamed persons.

The right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amend­
ment is not restricted within those historic bounds; but 
neither the history nor the decisions of the State and 
Federal Courts suggest that the Fourth Amendment re­
quires a search warrant to enter a house to arrest a 
person specifically named in an arrest warrant, where 
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person 
named in the warrant is in the house.

Plaintiffs call attention to such cases as Johnson v. 
United States, 333 U. S. 10 (1948), which emphasize the 
desirability of obtaining a search warrant based upon the 
independent judgment of a magistrate, where practicable, 
before the police embark upon a search for evidence of a 
crime or for goods subject to forfeiture. Plaintiffs argue 
that the same principle applies to an entry by the police 
to search for and arrest a suspected felon. The privacy 
of the occupants of the house is, of course, an important 
consideration. But it must be weighed against the interest 
of all the people that criminals be arrested and brought 
to trial, especially where, as in this case, a warrant has 
been issued, based upon the independent judgment of a 
magistrate, authorizing the officers to arrest a particular 
individual.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



442a

In United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 IT. S. 56, 65-66 (1950), 
dealing with a motion to suppress evidence seized without 
a search warrant but after an arrest, the Court said:

“A  rule of thumb requiring that a search warrant 
always be procured whenever practicable may be ap­
pealing from the vantage point of easy administra­
tion. But we cannot agree that this requirement 
shoirld be crystallized into a sine qua non to the rea­
sonableness of a search. * * * Some flexibility will be 
accorded law officers engaged in daily battle with 
criminals for whose restraint criminal laws are es­
sential.

“It is appropriate to note that the Constitution does 
not say that the right of the people to be secure in 
their persons should not be violated without a search 
warrant if it is practicable for the officers to procure 
one. The mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that 
the people shall be secure against unreasonable 
searches. * * * The relevant test is not whether it 
is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether 
the search was reasonable. That criterion in turn 
depends upon the facts and circumstances—the total 
atmosphere of the case. It is a sufficient precaution 
that law officers must justify their conduct before 
courts which have always been, and must be, jealous 

of the individual’s right of privacy within the broad 
sweep of the Fourth Amendment.”

In Brinegar v. United States, 338 U. S. 160, 176, which 
also dealt with a seizure of evidence without a search 
warrant, the Court said:

“The rule of probable cause is a practical, non-technical 
conception affording the best compromise that has

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 4 3 a

been found for accommodating these often opposing 
interests. Requiring more would unduly hamper law 
enforcement. To allow less would be to leave law- 
abiding citizens at the mercy of the officers’ whim 
or caprice.”

This Court concludes that where the police hold a war­
rant for the arrest of a person charged with crime, they 
may enter a dwelling or other private building to arrest 
such person if they have reasonable grounds to believe 
that the person is in the building. It is not necessary to 
decide in this case whether the same rule applies to an 
entry made without an arrest warrant but with reasonable 
cause to believe that a felony had been committed and with 
reasonable grounds to believe that the felon is on the 
premises. See Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, at 
499-500 (1958).

IV.

We come finally to the question whether under all the 
circumstances a preliminary injunction should issue.

Such an injunction would be difficult to frame in view 
of the discretion which must be allowed to the police under 
the Supreme Court decisions quoted above. It would also 
be difficult to enforce, and its enforcement would place 
severe burdens on the police and on this Court. Those 
difficulties, however, should not bar the issuance of an 
injunction, if an injunction is necessary to protect the 
important rights of all citizens and residents of Baltimore 
which are involved in this case.

The Court said on the opening day of the hearing that 
everyone in the courtroom was on both sides of this case. 
Every resident of the City should be interested in pro­

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 4 4 a

tecting the privacy of his home granted by the Fourth 
and Fourteenth Amendments. On the other hand, every 
resident of the City should be interested in seeing that 
the police are not unduly hampered in their efforts to 
arrest persons who have been charged with crime or whom 
the police reasonably believe to have been guilty of felonies. 
Striking a proper balance between those important in­
terests is not always easy.

One or two of the officers who testified in this case indi­
cated that they would probably act in the future on anony­
mous tips if they felt the circumstances required it. But 
this Court has now stated the basic principles which must 
be observed by the police in determining whether there are 
reasonable grounds for a contemplated entry. The Court 
is satisfied that the Police Commissioner and other police 
officers will make a bona fide effort to observe those rules. 
They did observe them during the remainder of the search 
for the Veneys after the Commissioner issued General 
Order No. 10388 on January 11.

Where constitutional rights have been violated as the 
result of discriminatory action by state officials, and it is 
likely that such discriminatory action will be continued in 
the future, a court has little or no discretion to refuse an 
injunction. Henry v. Greenville Airport Commission, 4 Cir., 
284 F. 2d 631 (1960). In this case, however, there has been 
no proof of discriminatory action. The rights and inter­
ests of all residents of Baltimore are involved in this case. 
The constitutional rights of some of the plaintiffs, of other 
witnesses and of other citizens have been violated by the 
police on separate though related occasions. The Court 
has found that the violations are not likely to be resumed, 
although some officers will no doubt make mistakes in indi­
vidual instances in the future.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 4 5 a

Under these circumstances, standards of the public in­
terest measure the propriety and need for injunctive relief. 
Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 331 (1944). “ Courts of 
equity may, and frequently do, go much farther both to 
give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public inter­
est than they are accustomed to go when only private in­
terests are involved.” Virginian Ry. Co. v. System Federa­
tion No. 40, 300 U. S. 515, 552 (1937), quoted repeatedly 
since, most recently in United States v. First National City 
Bank, 379 U. S. 383 (1965). And as Mr. Justice Cardozo 
said in Hawks v. Hamill, 288 U. S. 52 (1933), at p. 60: 
“ Caution and reluctance there must be in special measure 
where relief, if granted, is an interference by the process 
of injunction with the activities of state officers discharg­
ing in good faith their supposed official duties.”

The Veneys have now been arrested. Other frustrating 
cases will, however, arise in the future, and will tempt the 
police to engage in searches, raids or other activities which 
pass the line of reasonableness. The police must remem­
ber that although the killing of a police officer in the course 
of his duty is a most serious crime, which shocks the whole 
community, it is not an excuse for violating anyone’s con­
stitutional rights. Any policemen who have in the past 
been contemptuous of the rights and feelings of Negroes 
must recognize that all persons have equal constitutional 
rights and are equally entitled to courtesy and considera­
tion, whatever their race or station in life. And any mem­
bers of the Negro community who have considered all 
policemen their enemies must recognize the responsibili­
ties borne by the police in the difficult and dangerous duty 
of protecting the public, and must realize their own re­
sponsibility to support rather than hinder the officers.

Opinion of April 14, 1965



4 4 6 a

Opinion of April 14, 1965

Since the Court believes that the police will make an 
honest effort to observe their constitutional responsibili­
ties, no preliminary injunction will be issued. The case 
will not be dismissed, but may be called for trial if it 
appears necessary.

(Signed) B oszel C. T homsen 
Chief .Judge, U. 8. District Court



4 4 7 a

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

For the District of Maryland 

Civil No. 16080

Order of May 7, 1965

[same title]

Order

For the reasons stated in this Court’s Opinion of April 
14, 1965, it is hereby Ordered, that plaintiff’s Motion for 
Preliminary Injunction be, and the same hereby is, Denied.

/ s /  R oszel C. Thomsen 
Chief Judge, United States District Court

True Copy 
Attest:

W ilfred W . Butschky 
Clerk

By / s /  Mary A. H einzerbtjg 
Deputy Clerk

This 7th day of 
May, 1965.



4 4 8 a

Notice of Appeal

I n the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
F or the D istrict of Maryland 

Civil No. 16080

Samuel James L ankford, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

—v.—

Bernard J. Schmidt, etc.,
Defendant.

Notice is hereby given that plaintiffs Samuel James 
Lankford and Corinthia Julia Lankford, his wife, Claude 
Tompkins and Rev. Elizabeth Tompkins, his wife, Walter 
Summers and Regina Summers, his wife, and Arthur Rav- 
ner hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fourth Circuit from the denial of a preliminary 
injunction on May 7, 1965.

James M. Nabrit, III
Melvyn Zarr

Jack Greenberg

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Juanita Jackson M itchell 
1239 Druid Hill Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland

Tucker R. Dearing 
627 Aisquith Street 
Baltimore, Maryland

W. A. C. H ughes, Jr.
1803 Pennsylvania Avenue 
Baltimore, Maryland

Attorneys for Appellants