|
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. BROWNING: A. Yes. Q. In other words, you late
learned, did you not, that it had been broadcast on the same day that
it was received, and I believe that was April 24, 1974, and I take it
your recollection is that you had recorded that message a day or two
prior to that time, April 22 or 23, a day along in there? A. I don’t know when it was
received. Q. All right, but you do
recall, do you not, that it was recorded in an apartment on A. Not the address but it
was on Q. Were you familiar with
the apartment complex, Apartment No. 6? A. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Miss Hearst, I will show
you two photographs which your attorney has handed to me and ask
whether this appears to be the closet in which the tape recorded
message was made? A. Yes. Q. Now, could we have these
two photographs marked for identification. THE
CLERK: Plaintiffs 88 and 89 marked for identification. THE
COURT: Plaintiff’s Exhibit 88 and 89 for identification, photographs of
the closet. MR. BROWING: Thank you, Your
Honor. Q. Now, was the closet door
closed when hyou made the recording, Miss Hearst? A. Yes. Q. And you testified, I
believe, that DeFreeze was in the closet with you at the time you made
the recording? A. Yes. Q. Was there anyone else in
the closet at that time? A. Me. Q. Pardon me? A. Me. Q. You and Mr. DeFreeze? A. Yes. Q. Now, approximately how
long had you been at the apartment on A. A month, a month and a
half. Q. A month, a month and a
half? A. Yes. Q. So this was April, around
April 21st, 22nd, so you had been there about
March, late March? A. No. Q. Pardon me? A. No, I think the middle of
March. Q. The middle of March, Okay. As a matter of fact, when you got to 1827
Golden Gate, or this apartment on Golden Gate, you were not being held
in that closet all the time, were you? A. Yes, I was. Q. You were? Q. Was there a previous
closet in which you were held? A. Yes. Q. Did you later ascertain
that that closet was the 37 Northridge in A. Yes. Q. A place in A. Yes. Q. And you were kidnapped,
were you not, on April 4, 1974? MR.
BAILEY: February. THE
COURT: Better get the month right. MR.
BROWNING: Q. February 4, is that correct? A.Yes. Q. And you were held at A. Yes. Q. And you moved in a car, I
take it? A. Yes. Q. Were you blindfolded? A. Yes. Q. And whose car was it, do
you know? A. I don’t know. I was put into a garbage can that was tied up
and put in the trunk of the car. Q. And then, was the garbage
can taken into the apartment on A. Yes. Q. Were you in it? A. Yes. A. Yes. Q. Do you remember signing
an affidavit in this case earlier, Miss Hearst, in connection with your
motion for boil? A. Yes. Q. You state in this
affidavit, do you not: “She was then carried from the house,” that is
your house in A. Yes. Q. “She was then taken to
another house where she was placed in a closet on the floor; the closet
was approximately five to six feet in length and about three feet in
width. For several days she remained in
this closet with her hands bound, blindfolded, and with no lights. The closet was hot and extremely uncomfortable. She was given food but was unable to eat any
for a period of about ten days, and for all that period was unable to
dispose of her body wastes. During the
first week nobody talked to her except the man who called himself
Cinque, who brought a tape recording device to the closet and taped
into this device the early communiqués which were broadcast.” Now, is that true? A. Yes. Q. And again directing your
attention to the affidavit, the bottom of Page 2, you say: “After an
interminable length of time, which seemed to here to be weeks, she was
released from the closet and was then seated with the gang of captors,
who were discussing the robbery of a bank, and was instructed by them
that she must accompany them to the bank; that she must allow herself
to be photographed by the bank camera, and in addition, that she must
announce her name aloud so that everyone would know she was
participating in the holdup. About three
to four days after her release from the closet, she was put in an
automobile and taken to a site, which she now understands, was a branch
of the Hibernia Bank; she was given a gun and directed to stand about
in the center of the bank counter.” In truth and in fact, Miss Hearst,
that was the same closet that you were referring to there?
There were two closets, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And who wrote that
material for you, was it Angelo Atwood and William Wolfe? A. I don't know. Q. Did others write some of
the material for you on other tapes? A. They'd bring in a sheet
of paper, and I would read it. Q. In other words, it was
not always William Wolfe and Angelo Atwood who gave you the material
that you were to speak into the recorder, is that correct? A. I don't recall. Q. Were there others? A. Were others there, yes. Q. Yes. But I mean, was it
always Mr. Wolfe and Miss Atwood who -- THE COURT: She said she
doesn't know. MR. BROWNING: Q. You don't recall? A. No. Q. You also said, Miss
Hearst -- or I will ask you whether you said, quote, "I've become
conscious" -- pardon me -- I'm directing your attention to this same
earlier tape, and ask whether this will refresh your recollection: Did
you make an earlier tape around the early part of April in which you
said, "I've become conscious and can never go back to the life we had
before." Do you recall saying those words? A. I don't recall seeing the
transcript of that tape. Q. Do you recall, now that I
read those words, whether you said them or not on the tape? A. No. Q. You do not recall. You
also stated, I suggest, that you had been given a choice of release to
a safe area or joining the A. Sort of, yes. Q. Well, tell us what you
mean by, "sort of"? A. Well, a few weeks before,
DeFreeze told me that the war council had decided or was thinking about
killing me or me staying with them, and that I better start thinking
about that as a possibility. Then he came in later and said that I
could go home or stay with them. And I didn't believe them. Q. You didn't believe him
when he said you could go home or stay with them? A. That's right. Q. You thought he was not
sincere in what he said, you could be released if you wished? A. That's right. Q. Now, do you recall making
another tape recording on or about June 8th, 1974 in A. Can I see the transcript?
Q. We'll get you a
transcript of that. I don't have one right at the moment. Do you
recall, just from my recounting of those words, whether you said them
or not? THE COURT: You can say no,
if you don't recall without looking at them. You have the right to look
at them first. THE WITNESS: No. MR. BROWNING: Q. It is a
fact, is it not, Miss Hearst, that Cujo was the A. Yes. Q. Were you in fact in love
with William Wolfe at that time? A. No. Q. Now, with respect to the
manuscript for the book that you testified about, many of those
pages bear your handwriting, do they not? A. Yes. Q. And it's your testimony,
as I understand it, that with respect to the recounting of events,
other than your early life and background, anything in your
handwriting and anything -- did you typewrite any of those chronicles,
by the way, yourself? A. Yes. Q. Anything that you
typewrote was false and forced, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you this, Miss
Hearst: Didn't you participate in other activities with Mr. Harris with
respect to banks? MR. BAILEY: I object. THE COURT: Mr. Browning, now
we're going into a new subject matter. MR. BROWNING: Not entirely,
Your Honor. MR. BAILEY: For beyond the
scope. MR. BROWNING: May I have
just a moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BROWNING: Perhaps I
could ask a few more questions. THE COURT: That's onto the
same subject matter? MR. BROWNING: Yes. THE COURT: All right, you
withdraw that question? MR, BROWNING: Yes, I
withdraw that question. Q. Miss Hearst, in addition
to the materials that you participated in writing with respect to the
manuscript for the book, did you also participate in writing certain
other documents which were held by the Harrises together with the
manuscript, do you recall? MR. BAILEY: What line,
please? MR. BROWNING: I'm referring
to a document entitled Bakery, which is a typewritten document. Q. Miss Hearst, I will show
you a copy of two typewritten pages entitled Bakery. Can you tell
me whether you recognize those -take all the time you need. A. No. Q. All right. Let me direct
your attention to a subsequent page which appears to be a diagram. And
at the top it's labeled B of A Marysville, and direct your attention to
some handwriting on the bottom of that page. Do you recognize that
handwriting? A. Yes. Q. Is that your handwriting?
A. Yes. Q. Do you recall writing
that? A. I mean I wrote it, it's
my handwriting. Q. All right. Do you recall
the circumstances under which you wrote that sentence? MR. BAILEY: I am going to
object to this, Your Honor, it's beyond the scope of this hearing. MR. BROWNING: If Your Honor
please, my offer of proof is yhat these pages were found together with
the manuscript and the documents. I think I am entitled to go into her
recollection of her own handwriting found together with the materials
that she testified about. THE COURT: I will have to
overrule the objection. I think here my duty is to find out what was
the intent and frame of mind of the defendant at the time she wrote the
documents. Now, this may tend to show that. MR. BROWNING: That's
certainly my intention. MR •. BAILEY: First of all,
Your Honor, there has been no showing they were written anywhere near
the same time. Second, before we go near these matters, it would
require a consultation with the defendant. THE COURT: Let him find it
out. Let him get to it. I will overrule the objection. Proceed. MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you
recall, Miss Hearst, when you wrote the sentence, "Saw seven employees,
five women, two men, one young and nervous, manager is fat and black."
Do you recall when you wrote that? A. I don't recall. Q. Wasn't it in fact after
you had returned from A. Yes. MR. BROWNING: Yes. MR. BAILEY: Your Honor, I
object. This is a completely different time and has nothing to do with
the writing of the document that's been testified to. I will
instruct the defendant not to answer. THE COURT: Well, you may
instruct her as you see fit. But I will overrule! the objection. MR. BAI LEY: All right. You
are instructed not to answer. MR. BROWNING: I beg your
pardon? You are instructing your witness not to answer? MR. BAILEY: That's right. THE COURT: All right. Now,
then, the abjection is overruled. I will instruct the defendant to
answer. MR. BROWNING: Thank you,
Your Honor. MR, BAILEY: All right. I
will advise the defendant to invoke her Constitutional rights.
This is turning into a fishing expedition and not a hearing. I am
sure Your Honor knows the problem. THE COURT: I am aware of the
problem. But I am also aware that the issue in this case involves the
subject of coercion. MR, BAILEY: That's right. THE COURT: And you are
seeking to prohibit certain testimony which the Government claims
goes to that issue. MR, BAILEY: That's right, THE COURT: You are seeking
to have me declare inadmissible on the grounds that it was
involuntarily taken. MR, BAILEY: Which has
nothing to do with anything in THE COURT: It may have --
that is where I tend to disagree with you. MR. BAILEY: Very well. THE COURT: Because there's a
whole course of conduct here that has to be evaluated, rather than a
single incident. Now, on that basis, I would overrule the objection. MR. BAILEY: All right. Miss
Hearst, you are instructed to refuse to answer on the grounds that it
might tend to incriminate. THE COURT: Miss Hearst, I
will instruct you to answer the question. MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you have
the question in mind? MR. BAILEY: I will ask for a
recess. Your Honor has no right to enforce her to incriminate herself. THE COURT: I am not going to
force her to incriminate herself. She doesn't have to -- MR. BAILEY: To tell the girl
to answer immediately after counsel advised her not to answer has this
tendency. MR. BROWNING: I think there
is an easy answer, if counsel would stipulate, that would be to
strike Miss Hearst's testimony -- MR. BAILEY: She is not -- THE COURT: I think I have to
hear this issue. I am not going to strike this testimony. Let's quit
this business about outdoing one another about whether certain
documents are admissible. Let's get down to the business here about the
issue at hand. And what I want to do is hear all of the relevant
testimony that goes to that. I don't want to limit that. I think I have
the duty and the right to do that. It's imperative upon me to go into
this whole question. And I do not see this as a segmented proposition;
I see it as a whole proposition. Now, you want to close the door here.
I want to get into this in more detail. Now, what is the claim of
self-incrimination, what is the nature of it, that she faces charges? MR. BAILEY: Your Honor is
well aware of the claim of self- incrimination, well aware. THE COURT: I know she might
be subject to charges, but it seems to me what you're saying is that
she's putting under charges -- herself in violation of charges of
Federal and State law. Is that what you're telling me, if she answers
this question? MR. BAILEY: She has been
under suspicion, as you know. It's been published. And I do not propose
to have her sit there – THE COURT: That is not
evidence in this case. I want you to tell me what you think, what your
point is, Mr. Bailey. And if you have one, state it. MR. BAILEY: Yes. My point is
that you're forcing her to answer these questions which could expose
her to further charges, and I will not permit her to do it. THE COURT: I want you to
tell me what charges they are. MR. BAILEY: I will not tell
you what charges they are, nor do I have any obligation to. That would
feed the Government, I would have to violate the attorney-client
privilege. , THE COURT: I didn't say that
-- : MR. BAILEY: If I have the
information, and you don't, it must be because I got it in a privileged
way. THE COURT: Mr. Browning, Mr.
Bailey, I am not asking you to disclose the information. MR. BAILEY: You are asking
me for it. THE COURT: You are not -- MR. BAILEY: How can I
describe possible charges? THE COURT: I am not asking
you to describe it. Tell me the nature of the charge so I can rule on
it. I don't rule on these things en banc. MR. BAILEY: You are
requiring the defendant to answer questions on the subject matter now
sought, fished out by the prosecution, which would expose her, or
might, to charges, State and Federal, for felonious crimes, which I
will not further allow. THE COURT: You said what I
asked you, if that's what you are talking -- MR.
BROWNING: My position on that, Mr. Bailey has waived any privilege
against self-incrimination by putting the defendant on the stand. THE
COURT: Now, Mr. Browning, I would have to disagree with you on that. I
don't think the defendant ever waives her right of self-incrimination
by taking the witness stand, and she has the right -- or she has the
right to assert that privilege in any proceeding at any time in any
place under the Constitution of the MR. BROWNING: Very well,
Your Honor. I take it the objection to the question is upheld then? THE COURT: Yes. MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss
Hearst, with respect to the two pages that I first directed your
attention to entitled Bakeries or Bakery,
B-a-k-e-r-y, do you know of any reason why your fingerprints would have
been found on those pages? MR. BAILEY: Object. THE COURT: What was that,
Mr. Bailey'? What did you object to? MR. BAILEY: I object, it's
the same subject matter, subject of the same set of conditions. Mr.
Browning knows it. THE COURT: Mr. Browning, if
you are probing the same subject matter, then I would -- MR. BROWNING: I don't know
whether it is or not, Your Honor. All I know, I have a paper entitled
Bakery here, that is a typewritten sheet found at the same time and
place as the other manuscripts with Miss Hearst's fingerprints on it.
I'm simply asking -- she says, as I recall, she doesn't know that
she'd ever seen those. I'm asking her whether there's any reason she
knows of why those fingerprints should be on those pages. She doesn't
recall -- MR. BAILEY: Questions as to
those documents have already been excluded. THE COURT: No, not all
questions. And I will overrule the questions as to the document. MR. BAILEY: All right. Miss
Hearst, you are instructed not to answer the question on the grounds it
might tend to incriminate you. THE COURT: All right. On the
same basis? MR. BAI LEY I Right. THE COURT: All right. I will
sustain that objection. MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss
Hearst, you told your attorney that -- with respect to the manuscript
for the book, that, if I recall -- you correct me if I am wrong --
you were asked certain questions, and gave an outline of the answer you
were supposed to give by Emily Harris, is that correct? A. And Bill Harris. Q. And Bill Harris. And that
you wrote out the answer based on the outline that you received. And
then did you participate in either typing or writing longhand those --
that full answer? A. Yes. Q. All right. I direct your
attention to a page, which I will show you a copy of, if you like. Let
me read it to you first: "Question: The media has at
times put across the theory that you were being brainwashed during this
period. How do you feel about that '? "Answer: I think that that
kind of cheap sensationalism is all you can expect from the media. From
the moment I was kidnapped, they consistently attempted to
discredit the revolutionaries. After the first communique was
received, the pigs reacted by hauling out stress machines. The machines
indicated I was being tortured and kept awake 24 hours a day, and Randy
announced I was obviously drugged. I couldn't believe that anyone would
come up with such bullshit. I guess that all the pigs expected me to
keep my mouth shut, but I was furious. I refuted their lies in the next
communique, and they put away their trickology for a while, at least
until I announced I was going to stay with the Now,
do you recall, Miss Hearst, writing those words? I direct your
attention to this part down there. A. Yes. Q. Just to the top of this
page (indicating). A. Yes. Q. All right, you wrote
those words. And weren't those words truthful when you wrote them? A. No. Q. Let me ask you this, on
Page 2 of the manuscript, we find these words:
"None of us were allowed to go to public schools." The reason given for
this decision was straightforward: 'That kids who went to public
schools were not the kind of people we should have close associations
with. As a result, I spent twelve years almost totally surrounded
by young people who were busily developing ruling class
aspirations. Looking back, the schools were, in fact, training grounds
for future fascists, capitalistic values, and individualism,
competition, c1assism and racism. I never got along too well with the
faculty or students at these schools, because I was always
considered a 'rebel'." Miss Hearst, did you write
those words? A. Yes. Q. Were those words true or
were you forced to say those words? A. It is true I did not go
to public school but the rest of it is not true. Q. In other words, you were
forced, I take it, to write that "Looking bock, the schools were,
in fact, training grounds for future fascists." Is that false or true
in your mind? A. It is false. Q. I see. When was this
manuscript written? Was it written during the
A. It was started during the
Q. All right. The Harrises
were still working on it at the time of
the arrest, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And I take it that in
none of the pages contained in this particular affidavit, which is
referred to, I believe, as the Tania
Interview -- are you familiar with that? A. With the what? Q. The Tania Interview. Was
there a portion of what the book was to consist of known as the Tania
Interview? A. I guess so. I mean - Q. Or Tania file? With
respect to those pages, I take it they were all written subsequent to
May 17 of 1974, the shoot-out and fire in A. Yes. Q. So anyone who was forcing
you to write these words or speak those words had to be the Harrises,
is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Was anybody else forcing
you to write words at that period of time, Wendy Yoshimura? A. No, no. Q. Or J. Weiner (phonetic)? A. No. Q. Mr. Houck? A. No. Q. Jock Scott? A. No. Q. And is it your testimony,
Miss Hearst, that for a period commencing with April 22, that is the
date that you read the tape or spoke the words into the tape recorder
in the apartment on Golden Gate in 1974, until September 18, 1975,
the date of your arrest, that for that entire period of
approximately a year and a half any reference you made in public or in
private as to the SLA and your having joined with the SLA and having
joined in their activities was a forced statement? A. I think it lasted until
the time I got to San Mateo County Jail. Q. And the forcing of you to
say these things was done presumably after May 17th by the Harrises, is
that correct? A. Yes. Q. And they forced you, did
they, by threatening you with your life unless you went along by saying
these things? A. That, and sometimes they
would use other physical duress. Q. Such as what? A. I had a black eye. Q. They would give you a
black eye? A. Yes. Q. Hit you in the eye? A. Yes. Q. Who hit you in the eye?
William or Emily Harris? A. Bill Harris. Q. How often did this occur?
A. Oh, maybe four times. Q. Four times? A. Yes. Q. During the year and a
half? A. Yes. During the year and
a half. Q. The approximately year
and a half between the time you recorded your tape recorded message and
the time of your arrest, the tape recorded message of April 22 or
thereabouts of 1974 until the time of your arrest, the Harrises were
part of the SLA, were they not, at the time you tape recorded the
message? A. Yes. Q. Now, at the time of your
arrest, the Harrises were not in the area, were they? A. No. Q. Were they? A. No. Q. Can you tell us whether
you were in fear of the Harrises at that time? A. Yes. Q. And your fear was based
upon what they might do to you? A. I thought they might kill
me, and I had finally gotten to a point where I moved into a separate
house. Q. Yes. The Harrises
permitted you to do that, did they? A. Yes. Q. They did not tell you it
was dangerous for you to move into a separate house, you might do
something stupid like go to the authorities and turn yourself in? A. Yes, but they always knew
where I was. Q. And as a matter of fact,
you knew where they were, too, did you not, their place on Precita, in A. Yes. Q • And you had been to that
place, had you not? A. I had been there once. Q. Yes. You knew it was
quite a distance between the place you were residing and Wendy
Yoshimura, and the place the Harrises were residing, did you not? A. Yes. Q. You knew that you would
have time to go to any police station or substation or any office of
anyone in authority and say, "I am Patricia Hearst. Protect me from the
Harrises." You could have done it, could you not? A. No. Q. Why not? A. I don't feel it was
possible to do that. Q. You thought
notwithstanding that the Harrises were perhaps a mile away from you
that you could not do that, that they would somehow kill you if
you did that? A. They would or that the
FBI would. Q. That the FBI would. And
was this your frame of mind far the entire time since the time you
began to read the tape recordings into the microphone until the
day of your arrest? A. I’m sorry, I don't
understand. Q. Well, you stated, Miss
Hearst, that you were afraid of either the Harrises and I presume
before the shoot-out and fire in A. Yes. Q. For the full period of
time? A. From when to when? Q. From the time you first
started recording messages into a tape recorder, saying that you
had joined the A. Yes. Q. Now, there came a time,
did there, Miss Hearst, when you were present in Los Angeles in
Inglewood to be precise, parked across the street from Met's Sporting
Goods Store, when the Harrises had gone in to do some shopping, isn't
that correct? A. Yes. Q. And you were in a van,
parked across a rather wide boulevard from the store, isn't that true,
in a parking lot? A. I am not sure exactly
where it was but it was across the street. Q. It was across the street?
A. Right. Q. And you were reading a
paper, were you not, when they were in the store? A. Yes. Q. And you looked up from
that paper, did you not, and you saw that William Harris was being held
on the ground by someone and being detained, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. And you picked up an
automatic weapon and shot in the direction of Mel's Sporting Goods
Store? MR. BAILEY: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BROWNING: Thank you,
Your Honor. Q. Will you answer that
question, please? A. That I picked up a
machine gun? Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. And you fired numerous
shots in the area of Mel's Sporting Goods Store, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And your purpose was to
permit the Harrises to get back across the street, to get back into the
van, was it not? A. I guess, yes. Q. Miss Hearst, does it not
seem strange to you that if you had wanted to get away from the
Harrises and get out from under their threats to kill you, that you
rescued them when they were being held down, when you are in an
automobile and could have left, there was not anybody else in that van,
was there? MR. BAILEY: Objection, two
questions, first of all, argumentative. THE COURT: Mr. Browning, the
question you are putting is argumentative, and don't argue with the
witness, argue to me. MR. BROWNING: Very well. Q. Was there anybody else in
the van, Miss Hearst? A. No. Q. And did you have the keys
with you to the van at that time? A. I don't recall. Q. In any event, could you
have gotten out of the van and gotten away from the Harrises at that
point? A. Where would I have gone?
1 guess I could have gotten out of the van but -- Q. But you did not do that,
in any event? A. No. Q. And what you did do was
to rescue the Harrises by firing a weapon at the people who were
holding them, or in the direction of the people who were holding the
Harrises. MR. BAILEY: That is two
different questions: One is at the people and the other is the
direction of -- THE COURT: Will you ask one
question. MR. BROWNING: Q. You did, in
fact, fire the weapon in the direction of the people who were detaining
the Harrises, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Now, can you explain to
me, Miss Hearst, why you did that? A. From the time I took the
blindfold off until that happened, there were classes every day, and
this was one of the particular ones what to do if something like that
had happened, and when it happened I didn't even think. I just did
it, and if I had not done it and if they had been able to get away they
would have killed me. Q. Did you prefer staying
with the Harrises, who had threatened to kill you, to simply walking
away from the Harrises when you had an opportunity to do that? A. Did I what? a. You rescued the Harrises,
did you not, when you could have walked away? A. I couldn't have walked
away. Q. Why not? A. Because if I walked away,
the other members of the Q. I see. Now, following
that shooting incident, I believe you testified that you were
present in the van of a young man whose name was Thomas Mathews that
evening, do you recoil that? A. Yes. a. And I believe your
testimony was that when Mr. Mathews and you were in the van together,
that William Harris had a weapon, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that Emily Harris had
a weapon, too? A. Yes. Q. And that you did not have
your weapon at that time. A. It was there but I didn't
have it in my hands. Q. Right. And soon after
Thomas Mathews -- strike that, if you please. Soon after you entered
that van, Thomas Mathews was already in the van when you entered it,
was he not? A. Yes. Q. Is it not true that you
ejected from your automatic weapon a live round and placed it in a dip
of that weapon and placed it in the clip? A. I did not have an
automatic weapon. Q. You did not? A. No. Q. What type of weapon did
you have? A. It was an M-I carbine. Q. Was that the same M-I you
had used at Mel's earlier that day? A. That one and Bill
Harris', which was automatic. Q. Okay. And is it true,
Miss Hearst, that you in the presence of Thomas Mathews ejected a live
round from the M-I that you had near you and inserted that in the clip,
and put the clip back in the weapon? A. I
don't recall, it is possible. Q. It is possible you may
have. And did you, in fact, also at that time load a couple of live
rounds into the chamber of a revolver, a pistol? A. I don't recall. Q. Did you give Bill Harris
a pistol in the presence a Tomas Mathews? A. I don't recall. Q. You don't recall? A. No. Q. I believe you testified
that— THE COURT: Mr. Browning,
when you come to a point that is convenient, we will take a recess. MR. BROWNING: That is fine. THE COURT: We will be at
recess for ten minutes. (Recess.) (Following proceedings were
had out of the presence and hearing of the jury.) THE COURT: The record will
show the defendant is on the stand. Will you proceed with your
examination, Mr. Browning. MR. BROWNING: Thank you,
Your Honor. Q. Miss Hearst, you recall
that I earlier directed your attention to a tape recording that had
been received in early April of 1974, and I told you I will show you a
transcript of the voice on that tape recording and ask if you can
identify the words. I will show you that transcript at this time and
ask whether you spoke those words into a tape recording while you were
on either Golden Gate or Northridge in A. No, I didn't. Q. You do not recall
speaking any of those words, is that correct? A. No, I didn't say, not on Q. Let me ask you this: How
many tape recordings did you make prior to the tape recording of April
22nd or 23rd? MR. BAILEY: If it please the
Court, April 18th tape has the note on it. And I don't know why Mr.
Browning keeps insisting there's another tape. MR. BROWNING: Well, my
records show it was received the 23rd, Your Honor. THE WITNESS: This tape? MR. BAILEY: The one that was
found by the Government. THE WITNESS: This tape? This
was talking about people being killed. MR. BAILEY: May the document
be marked for identification, some foundation laid? THE COURT: Yes, so we will
know what we are talking about. MR. BROWNING: You're right. THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 90
for identification. THE COURT: Mr. Clerk, Mr.
Browning apparently has agreed this is not the proper document. THE CLERK: Okay. We will
withdraw that, Your Honor. MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss Hearst, would you
toke a look at this transcript I now hand you, and ask – THE COURT: Let's have
this marked. THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 90
marked for identification. THE COURT: That's the one
he's already marked. MR. BAILEY: Thank you. THE COURT: It will then be
formally more completely marked as soon as the witness finishes reading
it. It is Plaintiff's Exhibit 90. (Plaintiff's exhibit No. 90
marked for Identification. Transcript of tape.) THE COURT: Have you finished
reading, Miss Hearst? THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: All right, now,
Mr. Browning. MR. BROWNING: Q. Do you
recall, Miss Hearst, whether you spoke those words i hto a tope
recorder? A. Yes. Q. All right, And those
words were recorded prior to the time of the April recording Mr. Bailey
directed your attention to, were they not? A. Yes. Q. And in those words, you
state that you have been given a choice between joining the A. Yes. Q. Now, were you -- were you
forced to write those words? A. I didn't write those. Q. Pardon
me? A. I didn't write this. Q. You did not write. Okay.
And were you given a script to read? A. Yes. Q. Who gave you that script?
A. I believe it was Cinque. Q. And was that recording
made in the closet? A. Yes. Q. Do you recall which
closet, whether it was the closet on A. The closet on Q. All right. And, at that
time, did someone tell you what would happen to you if you didn't read
those words? A. Yes. Q. And who was that? A. Donald DeFreeze. Q. Pardon me? A. DeFreeze. Q. DeFreeze. And what did he
say that would happen to you if you didn't read them? A. He said that I'd be
killed. Q. Now, I will hand you next
a transcript which begins, "Reading to the People." And I will ask that
that be marked for identification at this time, Your Honor. THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 91
marked for identification. THE COURT: It may be marked.
MR. BAILEY: May we have a
representation, Your Honor, as to where these came from? Nobody ever
released transcripts, they rleased tapes. MR. BROWNING: If Your Honor
please, I would be happy to ask the witness that question. That's what
I'm getting at, whether these are her factual recordings or not. MR. BAILEY: We know how the
transcript was made. No transcript was ever released, nor does the
Government claim it -if the Government made this transcript, I
would like the record so reflect. The witness has never seen it. MR. BROWNING: This
transcript -- I will make this by on offer of proof -- was made from a
tape which was received on or about June 7th of 1974. If the Court
wishes, I will consult my records and ascertain precise circumstances
under which the tape came in. MR. BAILEY: This is the
Government's version of what the tape said, in other words? MR. BROWNING: Yes. MR, BAILEY: We have never
been furnished these documents, Your Honor. THE COURT: Have you been
given the transcripts? MR. BROWNING: They have been
given the tapes themselves of everyone of these transcripts. THE COURT: All right. Well,
since the transcripts are going to be used, would you have transcripts
made available. MR. BROWNING: Very well. THE COURT: Exhibit 91 for
identification. (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 91
marked for identification. Transcript of tape.) : MR, BROWNING: This is 90,
Your Honor, that I'm directing the witness's attention to. THE COURT: What is the other
one? MR, BROWNING: The other one
has been marked 91. THE COURT: Which one, the
earlier one? MR. BROWNING: I think it is
the other way around. I believe it should be -- this one ought to
be 91, I believe that one should be 90, Your Honor. THE COURT: Let's clarify
this. THE CLERK: We will change
them, Your Honor. MR. BROWNING: Thank you. Q. All right. I hand you
Plaintiff's Exhibit 91 for identification, Miss Hearst, and ask if you
will read the words on that piece of paper, and tell me whether you
spoke those words into a microphone? MR. BAILEY: For the record,
Your Honor, the defendant has never seen this document before. It was
not offered during the recess, and she has not heard the tapes that
were made a year and a half ago, almost two. I suggest the transcript
is no answer. THE COURT: Do you have a
copy of the transcript, Mr. Browning? MR, BROWNING: Pardon me,
Your Honor? THE COURT: Do you have a
copy of the transcript for Mr. Bailey? MR. BROWNING: I don't have
one right at the moment. He has the tapes from which
the transcript was made. THE COURT: I know he has.
There are innumerable tapes, he hasn't had them all transcribed. MR. BAILEY: I don't have the
Government's version of what the tapes says, Your Honor, maybe it
varies. THE COURT: I understand
that. This is what I'm suggesting to Mr. Browning, and I'm ordering him
to produce copies for you. MR. BROWNING: I will hand
counsel a copy at this time of the portion of that transcript to which
I am directing Miss Hearst's attention.
This is not the entire tape recording--that is -- MR. BAILEY: Is that what she
has? MR. BROWNING: Yes.
Everything she has, she has more than what's there. MR. BAILEY: This is not
everything she has. MR. BROWNING: This is a
transcript of Miss Hearst's voice on the tape on that date. Now, it's
not the voice of William and Emily Harris, whoever else it may be
on that tape. This is the best I can do right at the moment, Your
Honor. MR. BAILEY: Very well. THE COURT: A full copy will
be supplied later. MR. BAILEY: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Now,
proceed. Miss Hearst, do you remember -- Mr. Browning, would you ask
the question. MR. BROWNING: Yes, Your
Honor. Q. Miss Hearst, do you
recall speaking those words into a microphone? A. Yes.
Q. When you spoke those
words, that was at a time after the Mr. DeFreeze had been
killed, is that true? A. Yes.
Q. And Mr. Wolfe had been
killed, Angela Atwood had been killed, and
as a matter of fact, everybody that you knew connected with the A. Yes. Q. And is it your testimony
that you were forced to read those words? A. Yes. Q. By whom?
A. The Harrises. Q. And where were you when
you recorded that message? A. In an apartment in Q. In A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. Was that prior to the
time you went to A. Yes. Q. Do I understand that
after you left the A. No, back to the Bay Area.
Q. Back to the Bay Area.
Then you went to A. Yes. Q. And you went with the
Scotts, did you not? A. Yes. Q. And, as I recall your
testimony, you were in an automobile, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. With Jack Scott, right? A. Yes. Q. And his parents? A. Yes. Q. And his wife? A. No. Q. Just the four of you, his
parents, his mother and father, himself and
you, is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Neither of the Harrises
were along on that trip? A. No. Q. You went all the way from
the Bay Area to A. Yes. Q. Were the Scotts armed? A. No. Q. They had no weapons, did
they? A. (Negative shake of head.)
Q. Were you armed at the
time? A. No. Q. Was there some reason why
you were unable to -- well, strike that. Let me ask you this, Miss
Hearst: When you left A. Yes. Q. And who was present at
that time, Jack Scott, on the trip? A. Jack Scott. Q. Anyone else? A. No. Q. Just you and Jack Scott. A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. Did you drive straight
through or did you stay at motels along the way? A. Stopped. Q. How many stops did you
make? A. I don't recall. Q. All right. Was Jack Scott
armed at that time? A. No. Q. Isn't it a fact that when
you got back to the Bay Area, or near the Bay Area, that Jack Scott
offered you -- offered to take you back to your parents? A. No. Q. That's not true? A. No. MR. BAILEY: Does the
Government intend to produce Mr. Scott to testify to that? MR. BROWNING: I don't know I
have to respond to that. THE COURT: No. MR. BAILEY: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. MR. BROWNING: Q. Miss
Hearst, where did you last see Jack Scott after you arrived back at the
Bay Area? Jack Scott took you back to the Bay Area from A. He took me to Q. He took you to A. Yes. Q. And is that the last time
you saw Jack Scott? A. Yes. Q. Now, you told me that he
did not offer to take you home to your parents when he dropped you off
in A. No, he didn't. a. All right, now, can you
tell the Court how you again came into the company of the Harrises
after Jack Scott left you in A. I was met. Q. Pardon me? A. I was met. Q. You were met by the
Harrises? A. Yes. Q. And where did they meet
you? A. I don't recall, it was a
motel someplace. Q. All right. It is your
testimony that Jack Scott prevented you during these two trips,
one to the East and one back from the East to the West from getting out
of the Harrises' control? A. He was very anxious about
writing a book, and that is what his main concern was. Q. But he wasn't forcing you
to go any particular place, was he? A. He was taking me back and
forth for the Harrises. Q. Yes. But could you have
left, say, from one of the motels that you stopped at on the way
cross-country and gone somewhere else without him? A. Where would I have gone? Q. I don't know. Q. I say could you have? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because I did not feel I
would be able to go any place. Q. Was Jack Scott physically
preventing you from leaving during that period of time? A. I don't know what you
mean. Q. Did he keep you locked up
with him in a room? A. He was with me the whole
time. Q. Yes. And was there ever a
time during that trip that you were out of his sight? A. I am sure there were
moments. Q. In other words, you were
in a room by yourself and Scott had gone out for cigarettes, or food,
or whatever? A. No, he never went out for
food. Q. He never did; but were
there opportunities, Miss Hearst, that you had during this period of
time when you could have left and gone somewhere else without Jack
Scott? A. No. Q. There were not. Is it
your testimony that Jack Scott was keeping you there, was preventing
you from leaving? A. No. Q. In other words, you know,
don't you, that you could have left if you had wanted to, say if you
had a place to go, you could have gone to? MR. BAILEY: Objected to as
argumentative. THE COURT: I will overrule
that objection. I don't believe it is argumentative. Proceed. THE WITNESS: Would you ask
the question again. MR. BROWNING: Q. The
question is, you knew, didn't you, at the time, Miss Hearst, if you had
a place to go you would have gone there and Jack Scott would not have
stopped you from I leaving, isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. Let me ask you this, Miss
Hearst, did Jack Scott at any time during that trip back to the
West Coast offer to take you anywhere you wanted to go? A. No. Q. He did not? A. No. Q. Again, directing your
attention, Miss Hearst, to the manuscript known as the Tania File, the
Tania Interview. MR. BAILEY: This has not
been marked. MR. BROWNING: Will be
marked, Your Honor. THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 92
marked for identification. MR. BAI LEY: Has the defense
been furnished a copy of the document? MR. BROWNING: We will have
it for you shortly. THE COURT: What is this now,
92? THE CLERK: 92, Your Honor. THE CLERK: Plaintiff's 92
for identification. (Plaintiff's
Exhibit 92 marked for identification. "Tania Interview".)
THE COURT: Fairly soon, Mr.
Browning, we will have to take a recess. MR. BROWNING: Very well,
Your Honor. THE COURT: You may proceed,
however, briefly. MR. BROWNING: Q. Let me read
you a question and answer which appears at Page 8, Miss Hearst,
and ask you whether you wrote this language: "Q. Where did you finally
end up, what type of a living situation? "A. I ended up in a closet
for about six weeks." Is that correct, are those
your words? A. That is it. May I see it?
Q. Yes. A. Yes, this is from the
manuscript. Q. Now, in fact, were you in
a closet for six weeks? A. No. Q. It was a period of time
less than that, was it not? A. There were two closets,
and I believe it was a period of time longer than that. Q. Directing your attention
to Page 5, I will read you the question and ask if these were your
words, and I will also show you this thereafter. The question was: "Q.
What sort of model did your mother provide for you in terms of a
pattern for you to follow?" And a portion of your answer is: "Now, my
mother, when we were in A. Just this? Q. Just this. . A. Yes. Q. Okay. In fact, were you
in A. Yes. Q. And is this one of those
portions of this document which is correct, then? A. That line is, yes. Q Yes. Now, had you told the
other members, the members of the SLA about that incident, being in A. I must have. Q. Why did you do that? A. During writing of the
book. Q. Pardon me? A. It was part of the
writing of the book. Q. In other words, you would
volunteer accurate information for the writing of the book? A. Yes. Q. And why did you do that,
Miss Hearst? A. I don't know. THE COURT: Mr. Browning,
when we have come to a convenient place, we will take a recess. We
will be at recess. (Luncheon recess at 11:35 a.m.) |
| AFTERNOON SESSION - 1:30
P.M. (The following proceedings
were had in the presence of the jury.) THE COURT: The record will
show that all members of the jury are present and seated in the box.
This is now the time for the defense argument. For this defense
argument the same rules apply to Mr. Bailey's argument as applied to
Mr. Browning's argument. You may proceed, Mr. Bailey. MR. BAILEY: If I may be
permitted to hold the mike, Your Honor, I can't quite stretch myself
across the podium. THE COURT: You may. MR. BAILEY: Ladies and
gentlemen, those of us who do this for a living have a lot of questions
about what our function really is when it comes to summing up. It is
often called an argument, but I think it is inappropriate, because when
you argue with someone, you exchange ideas in an effort to find out who
is more persuasive. But in the setting of any trial the final remarks
of counsel are not answered by the jury, and what the jury does is not
recorded for the first time in this entire proceedings. You will see
this gentleman and those who work with him disappear, as you talk
together about what you believe you have heard and what you believe of
what you heard. There are many concepts in the law. The A novelist once wrote a most
disturbing book -- you may have heard about it. It was a best seller
and a movie. A man who was condemned to hang for killing his wife
killed his executioner to survive, and then it was determined that
he had not killed his wife. And a judge had to decide whether or not he
could be tried for that second killing. Does one have an
obligation at some point to die? It was called A Covenant with
Death, and we all have covenant with death. We're all going to die and
we know it. And we're all going to
postpone that date as long as we can. And Patty Hearst did that, and
that is why she is here and you are here. And the manner in which she
did it is the subject of this trial, and one of the incidents that
arose during that survival, which is the focus of the indictment. There
has' been so much contradictory evidence of peripheral matters that I
could occupy your time, I suppose, to the full limit that I am allowed
by this trial Judge to address you. I don't propose to do that. I don't
agree with Mr. Browning that we are in no better position to judge the
truth than you are. We are skilled at this sort of thing. We have
practiced it for a long time. There are specialists in deception and
simulation, and you were privileged to hear from one of the very best,
alive today, whose opinion you may accept or reject because, in the
end, we come back to a non-person. The reason we don't try these
cases, ladies and gentlemen, before one of you is because we don't
and have not for hundreds of years trusted a single human being to
be that kind of balance that can make this awesome judgment. But
we do trust the collective. And we figure despite the fact that we have
a transcript of everything that was uttered, and you don't know,
and we knew all about this case before you were ever impaneled, that
between you you will remember what is
important. That is the bet of the law now. What happened in this case?
We all know what happened and we watched it happen. The news media kept
us informed of every detail. The interest of the news media in this
case has been so intense that it was necessary to protect you from it
so that you might be able always to bear in mind what you heard in this
courtroom and not the comments of someone else. When you return to
your homes you may be very surprised as to what your neighbors thought
this trial was all about. But at least you know, that the law provides.
A young girl, who absolutely had no political motivations or
history of activity of any kind, was rudely snatched from her home,
clouted on the side of the face with a gun butt, and taken as a
political prisoner. Now in many segments of this whole saga, you
are either going to have to take what Patty Hearst says as the truth,
or if you buy Mr. Browning's suggestion, you are going to have to
disregard it, in which case you have no access to what happened,
because she is the only person surviving who is willing to talk about
it. But I suggest to you that as to the initial parts of her story the
corroboration is overwhelming, and I want you to remember, please,
something Dr. Kozol and this morning even Mr. Browning, I think,
forgot: We played those tapes for
you in the defense case. The prosecutor offered only the statement
of Patricia Hearst, admitting that she had robbed the bank -- and she
did rob the bank. You are not here to answer that question, we could
answer that without you. The question you are here to answer is why?
And would you have done the same thing to survive? Or was it her duty
to die, to avoid committing a felony? That is all this case is about
and all the muddling and stamping of exhibits and the little
monkeys and everything else that has been thrown into morass don't
answer that question. There are some indicators of
reliability that I think you are very privileged to have as a jury because juries are by definition a group of
citizens with no knowledge -- and you are an exception, you know a
lot about this case, as the record shows -- and no interest in the
outcome, assembled to listen to people tell different stories and
decide which one of them, if any, has told the truth. The regimen under
which that function is cost protects against the one thing we don't
want and can't stand, and that is a mistake by you that lands on her.
The Government can well afford it. Somewhere when the only really
important talk is. given to you, and that will come from the bench and
not the lawyers, you are going to hear that the Government, and this is
a judgment of the Court, that the Government always wins when
justice is done. And it would be nice to say we impaneled you to do
justice, but please don't get those kinds of grandiose ideas. We know
that it is normally beyond the capability of human function. We
impaneled you for a very different reason: Patty Hearst has a lot going
against her. The escape that Mr. Browning and Dr. Kozol think she
should have welcomed, she said, "I had nowhere to do,
as resulted in only a change of captors. But at least now,
as long as society is her captor, she does not have to worry about
being killed. Freedom may be a more awesome alternative -- you are
not here to decide that. We have a framework, the Mr. Browning has asked you
to convict this young girl. I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen,
that in order to bring yourselves to the state of mind where you could
have what the Court is going to require you to have, on abiding
satisfaction to a moral certainty that she is really guilty, before you
are allowed to use that word, you have to resort to something besides
the evidence in this case, it's riddled with doubt, and always will be.
Perry Mason brings solutions to all of his cases, in open court usually
from the ranks of his opponents' witnesses. Real life doesn't work that
way. We can't bring home the bacon. We have given you all we have got.
No one is every going to be sure. They will be talking about the case
for longer than I think I am going to have to talk about it, whether it
occurs to me, or probably the only people in the courtroom I
haven't had to talk about it so for with. But simple application
of the rules, I think, will yield one decent result, and, that is,
there is not anything close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that
Patty Hearst wanted to be a bank robber. What you know, and you know in
your hearts to be true is beyond dispute. There was talk about her
dying, and she wanted to survive. Thank God so far she has.
Thank you very much. THE COURT: Well, ladies and
gentlemen, that concludes the defense argument.... |