James Browning THE
COURT: The record will show that all the members of the jury are
present and
seated in the box. This is the time for MR.
BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor. Ladies and gentlemen, there are two
remarks
Mr. Bailey made with which I agree. The first is that it is entirely
appropriate and very important in this case that you consider the type
of
person the defendant was at the time of her kidnapping. The second is
that he
doesn't like the revolutionary in the courtroom. And
I don't, either. But I think it's
important to consider what the defendant in this case would have been
had she
continued to be the person she was at the time of her arrest. That is
the real
question here, who was Patricia Hearst on April 15th, 1974, and
September 18th,
1975? She is a different person today than she was then, either because
she was
reprogrammed or because she was active. But I submit to you, ladies and
gentlemen, that the evidence you have heard, and some of it from the
defense
psychiatrists themselves, does not bear out the picture of Patricia
Hearst that
Mr. Bailey would have you believe. I have already mentioned some of the
findings of Dr. West with respect to her home life, the fact that she
was
strong-willed, poor relationship with her parents. MR.
BAILEY: I object to that, Your Honor, that is not what Dr. West
testified to.
That is what Mimi Swanton said to Margaret
Singer. MR.
BROWNING: Well, if Your Honor please, I think the evidence will speak
for
itself. I can quote counsel the pages. THE
COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, in this respect, it is the evidence that
has been
called, not what counsel says it is. MR.
BROWNING: Very well, Your Honor. THE
COURT: You will be more sure of your record. MR.
BROWNING: There is in evidence, ladies and gentlemen, a document which
has been
referred to in this trial as the Tania Interview. I suggest that you
read that
document. I suggest you read particularly the portions in that document
which
relate to the background of the defendant. And then I suggest you ask
yourselves whether the Harrises forced the defendant to write those
things that
appear in this Tania Interview. You will find such things in the Tania
Interview as that "The Hearst's children were not allowed to go to
public
schools. The reason given for this decision was straightforward. Kids
who went
to public schools were not the kind of people who we should have close
association with." Some of those statements in the Tania Interview when
you read them, ladies and gentlemen, with respect to what the
defendant's frame
of mind was at the time she was kidnapped, disillusioned with Steven
Weed,
dead-ended, or if you want to use the terms that the Government
consultants
gave you, a rebel in search of a cause. Mr. Bailey and I don't disagree
with
respect to whether it's important to look to see what type of person
she is,
only with respect to what the evidence shows as to the type of person
she was.
And I think you have to look to a lot of other evidence to determine
where she
was at, so to speak, on September 18th. You have to look at the Tobin
tape. You
have to look at her bail affidavit, and compare one with the other. You
have to look at her clenched fist salute in this very courthouse. Did
she do
all of those things, and can you really believe she did all of those
things
because of fear from the Harrises, or was it because she was
reprogrammed by
the psychiatrists, by the defense attorneys, with a view in mind to
painting
the very picture that has been painted of her here to you ladies and
gentlemen?
Because, you see, it's a pretty tough thing to explain all of the
statements
and writings and activities that the defense knew would be brought
before you,
ladies and gentlemen, with respect to the proof of these charges. So
how do you explain them? Some of them are very difficult to explain,
and they
know that. And so they say, "They made me do it." Time and time
again, "They made me do it. It was
the fear that made me do it." Mr. Bailey said that you have to either
accept her version, because she is the only one left alive, or you have
to
reject it. I believe, on the evidence, you should reject it. I believe
that,
because I do not believe the evidence is consistent with the version
she gave
you. And I say that with her credibility as a witness in mind, the fact
that
she signed a document containing untrue statements, for whatever
reason. Mr.
Bailey said that the defense had played the tapes for you and
introduced them
in evidence. I would merely comment in that regard -- these are the I
suggest to you that those factors point against her version that she
has given
you from this witness stand, and that you should reject her testimony.
And you
should reject the idea that she says on the tapes that she
expropriated, she
and her comrades, over ten thousand dollars, she said that because she
was in
fear. I
suggest you listen to the tone of voice. You are all reasonable people.
You are
expected to use your good sense, your common sense. How do we gauge
people's
motives, how do we gauge people's intent? Listen to what they say, how
they say
it, what they do. Those are the things I want you, ladies and
gentlemen, to
look at, those things that are in evidence which relate to what she did
and
what she said, and listen to how she said it. Listen to the tape of
June 7th of
1974, the eulogy to the fallen comrades in the Now,
counsel mentioned in his opening argument and again in his opening
statement --
and again in his closing argument, the matter of a portion of the sixth
SLA
tape containing the defendant's voice in which she says, "As for my
ex-fiancé, I'm amazed that he thinks that the first thing I
would want to do
once freed, would be to rush and see him. The fact is, I don't care if
I ever
see him." And counsel seems to perceive from that that because the word
"freed" was used, Angela Atwood, who is supposed to have written this
portion of the script for this tape, as we are told, slipped and
categorized
the defendant as a kidnap victim, rather than as a comrade. I submit to
you the
content of that sentence does not bear out that interpretation. Miss
Hearst, at
this point is referring the listener's attention to the understanding
of Mr.
Weed, whom she perceives as not having thought that she had been
kidnapped and
was still in a kidnap situation, and that's what she says. "As for my
ex-fiancé, I'm amazed that he thinks that the first thing I
would want to do,
once freed...", "That he thinks the first thing I would want to do
once freed would be to rush and see him." Mr. Bailey pointed out that
victims often do what they're told to do when they're told to do it,
and so
would I or he, he says. Well, would we, ladies and gentlemen? I think
most of
us want to protect our lives where threatened with death, but I also
think it's
very unlikely that we would pick up an automatic weapon and spray an
area with
machine gun fire which is peopled by innocent persons, and run the risk
of
killing or injuring them in order to protect ourselves. Again,
you have to look to the actions as they bear upon her intent. Was it a
matter
of her having to do everything they told her to do? Was she all alone
in that
van at the time she picked up those two carbines and shot in the
direction of
Mel's Sporting Goods? Was she doing those acts to free the Harrises or
because
of a fear for the Harrises? What is the reasonable interpretation of
that,
ladies and gentlemen? Consider that, and if you agree, as I trust you
will, say
so in your verdict. Mr.
Bailey also reminded you of the presumption of innocence, but I do wish
to
disagree with him to some extent when he says that she is wearing the
presumption of innocence now. She is entitled to a presumption of
innocence
until the contrary is proved. The burden is upon the Government to
prove the
case. The evidence is all in, each of you take to the jury room with
you
certain impressions, as well you should, based upon the evidence. And
you
should – THE
COURT: She still has the presumption of innocence, however. MR.
BROWNING: She does indeed, Your Honor, as the jurors sit down to
deliberate,
but what I'm suggesting is - THE
COURT: And I intend to tell the jury that tomorrow morning. MR.
BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor, I hope you do -- that they certainly
need not
block out of their mind the evidence we heard in this case. THE
COURT: I didn't say that, I don't say it now. MR.
BROWNING: The point is, ladies and gentlemen, if based upon the
evidence you
believe she is guilty, for heaven's sake, say so by your verdict. Mr.
Bailey
also spoke of the five witnesses who he claims changed their story to
somehow
accommodate the Government. He referred, I believe to Mr. Norton, Mr.
Berzins,
among others. I'm not going to rehash their testimony at this time,
ladies and
gentlemen. You heard it. But I leave you with this thought, if I may.
People in
a fast-moving panic situation - and I certainly don't doubt that the
events at
the Hibernia Bank of April 15th, 1974, were filled with panic and were
very
fast-moving -- are apt to make mistakes. If we brought in five
witnesses from
that bank and each of them told the same story, the same story they had
told in
the same way from the day they were first interviewed, you would say, I
think,
to yourselves, "Wait a minute, something is wrong here, it's too
pat." The fact is people do make mistakes and upon reflection they do
decide they were wrong in the first instance, or mistaken. But there
are
certain things that have never been changed, and one of the things I'd
like you
to bear in your mind is the fact that Mr. Berzins saw separate clips
when he
looked at that person down on one knee at the door. Now,
with respect to Dr. Fort. Counsel categorized him, I believe, as a
psychopath
and a habitual liar. Ladies and gentlemen, this sounds very similar to
character assassination to me of Dr. Fort. Where is the evidence that
Dr. Fort
is a habitual liar, that he is a psychopath? You heard Dr. Fort's
testimony. You
heard him recite the positions he has held, you heard him recite the
materials
he consulted, the books he read. All right, maybe Fort is not the
world's
foremost expert on mind control or brainwashing, but he did an awful
lot of
work-up for this case in acquainting himself with it, so that he could
give
you, the jury, the benefit of his work-up for whatever assistance it
might be.
You heard him testify to those things. You heard him testify to what
his
opinion was. You heard him testify why he reached that opinion. For
heaven's
sake, ladies and gentlemen, judge Dr. Fort on what he says about this
case and
not these collateral matters that are in dispute, and I assure you they
have
been disputed with respect to Dr. Fort's employment with the American
Psychiatric
-or his membership in the American Psychiatric Association, his
involvement in
the Lenny Bruce case. Here is a man, Dr. Fort who appeared as witness
for Lenny
Bruce -- who is not deceased as we all know -- in a case in which Bruce
was
found to be an ' addict and committed, which was later reversed, and
this is in
evidence by way of a stipulation -- reversed by the Supreme Court of
California
on the basis of testimony before the trial court, one of which, or a
portion of
which was the testimony of Dr. Joel Fort. But yet we are told as a
collateral
side issue that because certain people saw vials of medicine in Lenny
Bruce's
home that supposedly Dr. Fort prescribed narcotics or drugs, narcotic
drugs to
Lenny Bruce. Now, I don't know that much about Lenny Bruce. Perhaps
some of you
know more about him than I do. But I can assure you that if anyone
attempts to
say of me if I am a doctor, that because my name appears on a vial of
We know
not what, that appears to be medicine with a name on it I believe one
of them
was methedrine, and I called your attention -- this is in evidence,
too, methedrine
was not an illegal drug at the time in California. Does
that prove that I have prescribed that medicine for that individual?
Oh, you
might say there is some evidence of it, but it is not very good proof.
And the
whole point that I am trying to make is that it is a completely
collateral
issue to this trial. We would have preferred that Mr. Bailey closely
questioned
Dr. Fort with respect to the substance of his testimony. The
conclusions he
reached and why he reached those conclusions. And I think it was
grossly
apparent to the jury that the substance of Dr. Fort's 'testimony on
direct
examination related just to that, what his conclusion was and why he
got to
that conclusion. And yet we are told about his dues in the American
Psychiatric
Association. We are told about Lenny Bruce. And incidentally, we are
told about
Lenny Bruce by one witness who himself, four years later, had his
license
suspended by the State of MR.
BAILEY: I object to that. Four years earlier, Mr. Browning. MR.
BROWNING: All right. Four years earlier. We heard from a doctor who
testified
that in his opinion Dr. Fort's reputation in the community, the medical
community,
was not good for truth and veracity. We also heard from Dr. Fort, I
believe,
that the same doctor was one with whom Dr. Fort was involved in an
administrative controversy in the City and Counsel
'also told you at one point that if any doubts remain after you have
heard the
evidence, they ought to be resolved in the defendant's favor. I just
merely
want to remind you that we are not talking about any doubts at all, any
possible or imaginary doubts. We are talking about the burden on the Mr.
Bailey in responding to my comments, I suppose, concerning the
defendant's
failure to answer certain questions, reminded you that she had the
power, if
not the legal right, to refuse to testify, and obviously she exercised
that
power by not answering questions. But you, ladies and gentlemen, took
an oath,
and I know it means something to you, to follow the law in this case.
And the
law says that you may consider her failure to answer proper questions
on order
of the Court as it affects your credibility. That
is the law, and I urge you to do that. Mr.
Bailey told you that nobody with personal knowledge told you that the
defendant
prior to her kidnapping was the type of person that the Government
consultants
described to you. And yet, much of that, as I have already indicated,
came out
of Dr.
West's collateral materials. There was at least one person who knew
her, who
was interviewed by Dr. West, and there is a great
deal of testimony on the record in this regard, and that is Mimi
Swanton, and
you will recall Mimi Swanton told Dr. West and Dr. Singer, they were
working
together, "When we heard her angry voice on the MR.
BAILEY: I am going to correct this, Mimi Swanton has called Mr.
Browning to
correct some of that, and this is improper. MR.
BROWNING: The only thing I have, and I can represent to the Court I got
a
message that Mimi Swanton called, I don't have the message in front of
me, I
have never spoken to Mimi Swanton. THE
COURT: Both of you gentlemen, you are talking about something that
occurred
outside of court, and this discussion is therefore is not germane, and
I am
going to instruct the jury to disregard it. I don't care what Mimi
Swanton sent
a message in, and that is not evidence in this case, Mr. Bailey, and I
won't
permit the jury to hear it. MR.
BAILEY: Note my objection, because it is an ethical binder on counsel. THE
COURT: I don't care what it is, and I won't permit the jury to consider
it. And
I will consider your objection, and it stands in the record. But you
are not to
consider it, because it is not a matter that is involved here and I
don't know
and you don't know that Mimi Swanton did object to what she did do. Mr. Bailey thinks she did, and she may have
-- but I instruct you that is not the issue in this case and she can
give
testimony one way or another, if she wanted to be a witness, she had
every
right to be. MR.
BAILEY: I object to that statement. She had not a right to be a witness
unless
somebody called her. THE
COURT: All right. I will accept that amendment. MR.
BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor. Then, Mr. Bailey mentioned Ulysses
Hall, who
was called as a witness for the defendant, and who you will recall
testified
concerning the telephone conversation he had with Mr. DeFreeze. And he
asked
you to believe, I suppose, Mr. Hall -- an ex-felon, who sat up on that
stand
and told you that he had not used narcotics since 1959 or 1960. You
heard in
subsequent testimony the number of times that Mr. Hall had had an
association
with narcotics. He sat up on that stand and he told you that he got
that
telephone call in 19 -- whenever, in Finally,
ladies and gentlemen, I urge you to decide this case on the evidence,
considering the type of person - MR.
BAILEY: Your Honor, I am going to note my objection because the
defendant
testified precisely to that, and I think it improper for Mr. Browning
to assert
otherwise. THE
COURT: The defendant did testify, ladies and gentlemen. You are the
jurors, you
have heard the testimony and it is your memory that counts, and you
consider
the testimony as you understand it, not as counsel are saying it. MR.
BROWNING: If I am incorrect, I apologize. THE
COURT: Proceed, Mr. Browning. MR.
BROWNING: Thank you, Your Honor. The bottom line here, ladies and
gentlemen, is
to use your good sense in arriving at a verdict in determining whether
the
person inside the Hibernia Bank on April 15, 1974, was a person who
fired the
guns down at Mel's in |