IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CRIMINAL TRIAL DIVISION

COMMONWEALTH

VS.

MUMIA ABU-JAMAL

aka

WESLEY COOK

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
January Term, 1982



No. 1357-1358

- - - - -

PCRA Hearing

- - - - -

Friday, August 11, 1995
Courtroom 653, City Hall
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

- - - - -

BEFORE:   THE HONORABLE ALBERT F. SABO, J.

- - - - -

APPEARANCES:
  • ARLENE FISK, ESQUIRE
  • HUGH BURNS, ESQUIRE
    Assistant District Attorneys
    For the Commonwealth

  • LEONARD I. WEINGLASS, ESQUIRE
  • RACHEL WOLKENSTEIN, ESQUIRE
  • DANIEL R. WILLIAMS, ESQUIRE
    Councel for the Defendant

- - - - -

TRANSCRIBED BY: CHARLES M. GORGOL
Official Court Reporter of the Court of Common Pleas



Page 2.

ALSO PRESENT:

  • GINA FURIA, ESQUIRE
    Law Clerk for the Honorable
    Albert F. Sabo



INDEX
COMMONWEALTH EVIDENCE
WITNESS DE CE RDE RCE
Officer Joseph Brown 61 87 -- --
Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. 117 139 170 --
Ian Hood, M.D. 188 197 -- --
Direct Examination on Voir Dire - 180
Cross Examination on Voir Dire - 184



COMMONWEALTH EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
18 PAB Logbook 72
19 Copy of transcript (Singletary) 308


DEFENSE EVIDENCE
WITNESS DE CE RDE RCE
William Singletary 204 225 298 307


DEFENSE EXHIBITS
NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE
29 Interview record (W. Singletary) 213


Page 3.

- - - - -

(At 10:15 a.m. the hearing was convened in the
presence of the Court and attorneys.)

- - - - -

THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.

For the record, I adjourned yesterday to today to give the Defendant an opportunity to consider whether or not he wishes to testify in this case.

Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal, will you please come up here to the front.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, on advice of Counsel, Mr. Jamal has no statements to make to the Court.

THE COURT: Well, he will have a few statements to make to me. I said, I know, you can advise him all you want.

MR. WEINGLASS: And he is acting pursuant to that advice. He is not going to make a statement to the Court.

THE COURT: Counselor, I will remove you from the case.

MR. WEINGLASS: Because I advise my client?

Page 4.

THE COURT: No, because you are interfering with the Court. I want to talk to him personally. I want to hear him say that he doesn't want to take the stand, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, he has verified the Petition. His position is clear in this Court.

THE COURT: Counselor, please. I don't know how you handle matters in New York, but in Pennsylvania we have a certain way of handling these matters. This is what I want to hear from your client.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think the right to Counsel covers both jurisdictions. And I think the Fifth Amendment covers both jurisdictions.

THE COURT: Counselor, we have an obligation to ascertain whether or not this is his decision. You can give him advice but he himself has to make that decision. That's what I want on the record.

So will you please get up here, please, Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal.

MR. WEINGLASS: Could I have a moment.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among defense Counsel.

Page 5.

THE COURT: If you wish, Counselor, you could stand next to him. Give him whatever advice you want to.

- - - - -

Mumia Abu-Jamal, having been duly
affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

THE COURT: Mr. Mumia Abu-Jamal, good morning.

THE DEFENDANT: Good morning.

THE COURT: Did you have a nice night's sleep?

THE DEFENDANT: I had a fair night's sleep. A fair night.

THE COURT: Yes. You had your breakfast?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I did, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay, good. You are feeling all right today?

THE DEFENDANT: I feel fair.

THE COURT: Good. Now I just want to ask you a few questions. I am required to do this.

Are you under the influence of any

Page 6.

drugs or alcohol today?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm under the influence of Motrin.

THE COURT: What is it?

THE DEFENDANT: Motrin.

THE COURT: And when did you take that?

THE DEFENDANT: 6:00 a.m.

THE COURT: 6:00 a.m. Even though you have taken that medication, do you feel that you understand everything that's going on here?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.

THE COURT: All right. You know that you have a right to take the stand if you wish. You also have a right not to take the stand. But that must be your decision. I know you've conferred with Counsel and Counsel tells you the benefits of taking the stand and the disadvantages of taking the stand. But ultimately you yourself have to make that decision.

Have you considered what your attorney has told you?

THE DEFENDANT: May I confer, Your Honor?

Page 7.

THE COURT: Confer, yes.

(Discussion was held off the record at this
time between the Defendant and Mr. Weinglass.)

THE DEFENDANT: I have, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And is it your position today that you do not wish to take the stand?

THE DEFENDANT: It is my position today to follow the advice of Counsel.

THE COURT: Okay. That's perfectly all right, but all I want to know is is it your decision and yours alone -- because you must make that, even though Counsel is giving you advice, you must make that decision yourself -- is it your decision that you do not wish to take the stand?

THE DEFENDANT: I understand your question, Your Honor. My response is that it is on the advice of Counsel not to take the stand.

THE COURT: Well, then I assume that by that you mean you do not wish to take the stand.

THE DEFENDANT: I think I've answered, Your Honor.

Page 8.

THE COURT: No, you haven't.

THE DEFENDANT: I am following the advice of Counsel.

THE COURT: I know that. But all I want to know is following the advice of Counsel, do you wish to the take the stand or do you not wish to take the stand? It is a simple question.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among defense Counsel.)

MR. WEINGLASS: Excuse me just a moment.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among defense Counsel.)

THE DEFENDANT: On the advice of Counsel my wish is not really relevant. I am following the advice of Counsel.

THE COURT: Well, then I take it that you are following the advice of Counsel and based on that advice you do not intend to take the stand?

THE DEFENDANT: On the advice of Counsel.

THE COURT: Yes. But you're making that decision yourself?

Page 9.

THE DEFENDANT: On the advice of Counsel.

THE COURT: Okay. Now you are mincing words with me. But I am not going to worry about that too much. Are there any other witnesses you want to call?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE DEFENDANT: That's Counsels' decision, if I may withdraw, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Are there any other questions you want to ask him?

MS. FISK: No, Your Honor. As I stated yesterday, at the time the defense is prepared to rest on this Petition, I will ask for a statement from Counsel that any witnesses whose subpoenas had not been quashed or had not been barred in testifying who nevertheless are not being called are not being called for a strategic or other reasonable basis. But at this time I have no further questions.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may, there is one additional witness who is referred to in the Petition which Counsel has had now for two months. And this is a witness who is a person whose recollection of what happened on the night

Page 10.

in question we believe to be not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection today is not entirely accurate. We believe his recollection which was given in a sworn statement in 1990 was not entirely accurate. However, this is a witness who advises us, and we have no reason to disbelieve this, that he was with Cynthia White on the night of the occurrence.

Your Honor will recall she testified that she was with a gentleman whose name she didn't remember, she described him I believe as being about five-foot-eight to five-ten, husky build, dark-skinned, male African American. She described that man but he was not produced at trial. She didn't know his name. And Officer, a highway patrolman named Vernon Jones filed a police report that night in which he said he came upon the scene sometime shortly after the shooting in response to a radio call and while he was there he met a gentleman who was also there who he had known. And he knew this man as Dales. And upon further investigation, he indicated that Dales was William Dale Singletary, a gentleman who he saw that night,

Page 11.

who he talked to, who had a tow truck which the Officer Vernon Jones frequently interacted with and therefore confirmed that he knew William Dale Singletary.

William Dale Singletary then went down to the police station that night and he was interviewed. And a statement exists in the record which the police took from William Dale Singletary that night. I am merely indicating that he is someone who Cynthia White I believe said she was with at the time of the occurrence, somebody which, who a highway patrolman said he saw on the night of the occurrence at the corner of 13th and Locust shortly after the shooting, and someone who was interviewed by the police a little later within the hour at the, at Homicide.

William Dale Singletary then came forward in 1990 and went to the office of Mr. Jamal's then Counsel who had completed the appeal but was apparently still Counsel for purposes of petition to the United States Supreme Court. And appellate Counsel met with him and appellate Counsel took a statement from him which is in a deposition format.

Page 12.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I am going to interrupt for one reason. And that is because, I know that Counsel would like everybody to know all about this witness and how it would change the result of this trial. The problem is that Mr. Singletary was a person known to the defense at the time of trial in 1982. A person who had given a statement to the police in 1981. He therefore cannot be considered an after-discovered witness. And my understanding is that Mr. Jackson was not questioned regarding his failure to call Mr. Singletary or any basis for having called or not having called Mr. Singletary. And unless and until such a foundation is established through Mr. Jackson, no information about Singletary becomes relevant.

MR. WEINGLASS: If Counsel will just please, please, I beg you to give me the courtesy of completing my statement. Because your assumption is utterly in error. Mr. Singletary is not a newly-discovered witness.

MS. FISK: Nor is he --

THE COURT: That's what she said.

MR. WEINGLASS: He is not.

Page 13.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: But the assumption that she had was that that's why we were calling him. That is not why we are calling him.

THE COURT: No, she said that you never asked Anthony Jackson who was the attorney at the time why he didn't call him.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right, right, right. Now let me --

THE COURT: That is the issue.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let me continue and I will explain why we didn't do that and why we are calling the witness.

THE COURT: Well, is he here?

MR. WEINGLASS: Ahh, he is, I have just been handed --

THE COURT: Is he here?

MR. WEINGLASS: He will be here momentarily. But please, will the Court let me complete?

THE COURT: Wait awhile. I don't have to worry about that.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, I have to state on the record why we are calling Mr. Singletary. You are not giving me a chance

Page 14.

to do that.

THE COURT: Well, you said he has something to add to this case.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, he has something very precisely to add. If the Court will please give me five minutes to state on the record why we are offering the witness. The witness gave a statement to the police that night.

THE COURT: I heard that.

MR. WEINGLASS: And that statement was turned over to Mr. Jackson.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINGLASS: That statement, according to what the witness tells us, is a completely false statement typed in by the police. He tells us that he gave the police an entirely different statement that night. As a matter of fact, he said he wrote out in his own hand several statements which the police then tore up in his presence and forced him to write this statement. Thereafter he, he says, he tells us that he was subject to -- and I won't go into the details -- a pattern of harassment and intimidation which ultimately caused him

Page 15.

great personal harm and disadvantage and disrupted his business. And ultimately had a very negative effect on his business and his personal life.

We contend this witness is a Brady witness. We do not offer him as a newly-discovered witness. And we contend he's Brady because the statements he gave the police that night about what he remembers which he no longer can recall with accuracy were tore up by the police and never turned over properly to the defense.

Now, if you look at our Petition, in our Petition we name Mr. Singletary and we put him in the category of a Brady witness.

THE COURT: Okay. I understand your position.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

THE COURT: What is your objection to that?

MS. FISK: Well, first, Your Honor, the Commonwealth has never received an affidavit from this witness. In Counsels' Petition they make reference to Mr. Singletary and claim in huge letters that because this person has been

Page 16.

so harassed by the police for so many years, unless and until the Court issues a protective order for him, we're not presenting his affidavit or any information about him. I am not aware that Counsel has ever come into this Court and requested the issuance of such a protective order, has never sought to take the necessary action so that the Commonwealth could receive an affidavit from this witness. With the exception of a statement which was signed by him given in 1981, we have received no affidavit regarding Mr. Singletary from Mr. Singletary or any other individual.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am now asking -- I am being interrupted and then I am being --

THE COURT: Well, that's all right.

MR. WEINGLASS: Criticized. I am asking for pro --

THE COURT: She said she never received an affidavit which you are required to submit.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is a deposition for him and I'm asking for a pro --

THE COURT: Deposition for him?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, I'm asking for a

Page 17.

protective order for this witness.

THE COURT: Protective order for what? I didn't issue a protective order for the last witness. You said his entire circumstances. I didn't give a protective order for anybody.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is my impression that this man is living in fear.

THE COURT: Well, that is your impression.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, we have tried to bring him to Court, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: And we have been unable to bring him until today. And my impression is, and it is my impression, that the man is utterly afraid to come here. Because of what he heard about what this Court has done and it's practices.

THE COURT: What have I done? I let them get on there and tell me anything they want to tell me.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah, you put a witness on the stand yesterday over our objection.

THE COURT: Counselor, when the whole

Page 18.

record is transcribed everybody will know the situation, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: I hope so.

THE COURT: I hope so too. Including our sidebar conference. Everybody will know.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well.

THE COURT: That was not sealed.

MR. WEINGLASS: The witness yesterday, without sleep, without adequate food --

THE COURT: Oh, yes, I know.

MR. WEINGLASS: Without seeing the photographs.

THE COURT: Well, he saw the photographs, I gave them to him.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is no way to conduct a hearing.

THE COURT: Yes, that's the way. That is the way.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is a certain way.

THE COURT: Right. When all the notes are transcribed it will be obvious to everybody, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I'm asking for a pro --

THE COURT: I will not issue a

Page 19.

protective order. He could come in here like everybody else. What is wrong with that?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would object to the granting of a protective order.

THE COURT: I am not granting any protective order.

MS. FISK: My basis for objecting, Your Honor, is because the Commonwealth has now concluded that we can no longer accept representations of Counsel that are made at the bar of the Court. And I point specifically to the fact that the witness who testified yesterday, Mr. Harmon, was a witness who after he was discovered and after we learned Miss Wolkenstein traveled to Pittsburgh to meet with him, Counsel advised us that they were unable to provide the Commonwealth with an affidavit as was requested by the Court because the witness was in Pittsburgh.

MR. WEINGLASS: And we didn't have an affidavit.

THE COURT: Just a minute, Counselor.

MS. FISK: Nevertheless, we learned yesterday from Mr. Harmon that the document which was handed to him by defense Counsel is a

Page 20.

document in the handwriting of Miss Wolkenstein, it is written as an affidavit, that that original was in Miss Wolkenstein's possession when she left.

MR. WEINGLASS: If Counsel doesn't know the difference between a statement and an affidavit she is going to have to learn. We were asked about an affidavit and there was no affidavit. We were never asked about a statement.

MS. FISK: I never remember hearing this Court demand that the affidavits that were submitted from any witnesses be notarized. That is an affidavit, it is simply not notarized. And as the Court would look, if you saw in the Petition, Miss Wolkenstein herself notarized some of the documents that are in this Petition and she very easily could have notarized that.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I am not a notary in this Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is absurd.

THE COURT: Well, she said you notarized --

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This is absurd. I am not qualified in the Commonwealth of

Page 21.

Pennsylvania as a notary.

THE COURT: Well, she said you notarized some other things.

MR. WEINGLASS: All in New York State. Your Honor keeps reminding us that there is a difference between the Commonwealth and New York, but in this instance, those differences are blurred.

THE COURT: All right.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, it is the impression of the Commonwealth that Miss Wolkenstein and the defense Counsel made material misrepresentations to the Court last Friday regarding their inability to present the Commonwealth and the Court with any affidavit of Mr. Harmon.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

MS. FISK: Based on our conclusion that Counsel has made material misrepresentations at the bar of the Court, we do not accept Counsel's representations made today at the bar of the Court regarding this witness and the fact that he needs a protective order. And for that reason we object to any granting of a protective order.

Page 22.

MR. WEINGLASS: The Court has already denied the protective order.

THE COURT: I am not granting any protective order.

MR. WEINGLASS: You see, there is no problem.

THE COURT: I am not granting a protective order.

MR. WEINGLASS: No.

THE COURT: I see no need for it. Now, the situation is he wants to put him on the stand.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, we have a right to review whatever documents, affidavits or depositions or unsworn statements they have.

THE COURT: Do you have any affidavits from this witness?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, we do.

THE COURT: Why don't you give it to her.

MR. WEINGLASS: We will provide it right now.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: In the meantime, there are other matters that Counsel will have an, if

Page 23.

Counsel will have --

THE COURT: What other matters?

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: What other matters?

MR. WEINGLASS: Just some housekeeping and some other evidential matters that we wanted to submit for the record.

(Discussion was held off the record at this
time between Commonwealth and Defense Counsel.)

MR. WEINGLASS: I did also want to state for the record that yesterday, August the --

THE COURT: 10th.

MR. WEINGLASS: 10th -- thank you -- I received a copy of the March 18th transcript, 1982. It's 80 pages in length.

THE COURT: You received those a week ago, didn't you?

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: You received that long ago.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I received a week ago December 2lst, April 1st and February 22nd. It wasn't until yesterday that I got March 18th.

Page 24.

And March 18th is a substantive hearing. It's 80 pages in length. It involves major issues of --

THE COURT: Well, read it. I will give you time to read it. Read it now.

MR. WEINGLASS: In the middle of a PCRA hearing?

THE COURT: Sure. You're a lawyer, you can read that in no time. Read it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor, this is no way to conduct a hearing.

THE COURT: We will take a short recess.

MR. BURNS: Could Counsel give us a copy so we could read it too?

MR. WEINGLASS: I only have one. Everyone is operating in the dark here. The Court, Counsel. This is no way --

THE COURT: The Court's not operating in the dark. Maybe you are but I'm not.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, maybe the Court enjoys the dark more than I.

MR. BURNS: The offer of proof is turning everything over at the last possible moment.

Page 25.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: Counselor, I warned you before: Anymore snide remarks about the Judge is going to cost you a thousand dollars. Now, no more of that nonsense.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have been the recipient of some snide remarks.

THE COURT: Well, that's all right, take it up with the Supreme Court. But you don't do that to this Court in this Courtroom. A thousand dollars it will cost you. Now cut it out. I will give you time to read it.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would note for the record that the Commonwealth did provide defense Counsel this morning with an amended list of witnesses for today's date listing three witnesses, all of whom are witnesses offered to rebut testimony we've heard on the last two days. And my query to the Court is whether we are going to reach that? I know we don't know that for the next 15 minutes, I am simply advising the Court of that.

THE COURT: Yes, well, if necessary we will work as long as necessary today to get it all over with.

Page 26.

MS. FISK: At least one of those witnesses today is no longer a police officer, is someone who is taking time away from his business to remain available to the Court.

THE COURT: Well, we will take him first as soon as we have the opportunity.

MS. FISK: He has to be taken second just as a matter of introducing documents.

MR. WEINGLASS: As I understand it, all the witnesses pertain to the witness Arnold Howard?

MS. FISK: No, not all of them, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, talk among yourselves. Read your transcript. And, Gina, do we have an extra copy of that?

MS. FURIA: The Court's never received a copy of it.

THE COURT: We never received it either?

MS. FURIA: No.

THE COURT: All right. If necessary we'll read it too. But go ahead. Read it. Take a short recess.

Page 27.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court will take a brief recess to the call of the Crier.

- - - - -

(Brief recess.)

- - - - -

THE COURT OFFICER: Court is back in session. Please take your seats.

THE COURT: Where is the... is he back there?

THE COURT OFFICER: She's right here.

THE COURT: You don't have to take the stand. Will you please just go down there at the front of the bar, please. Will you tell us who you are and your title.

MS. GARVIN: My name is Peggy Garvin. I'm a Court Administrative Officer for the Court of Common Pleas.

THE COURT: There is some question about some notes of testimony. Were you in charge of seeing that they were delivered?

MS. GARVIN: Yes, I was.

THE COURT: Do you have that information in front of you?

MS. GARVIN: Yes, I do.

Page 28.

THE COURT: And what was the date of that, March the...?

MR. WEINGLASS: 18th.

THE COURT: March the 18th.

MR. WEINGLASS: 1982.

MS. GARVIN: March the 18th, it was delivered last Wednesday.

THE COURT: By whom?

MS. GARVIN: I brought them to this Courtroom and I gave them to the Court Officer... I don't see him. It was a sort of stout, dark-brown-skinned gentleman. I came to the back and I was standing back there. And he said I could go and one of the Sheriffs called him over and I gave him the volume and he brought them up here to the front.

THE COURT: Whose volumes were they, do you know?

MS. GARVIN: Say that again.

THE COURT: Were they for me?

MS. GARVIN: No, sir, yours had been delivered that Monday and this was Wednesday when I brought over these.

THE COURT: Oh, you delivered mine to my chambers over there?

Page 29.

MS. GARVIN: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: On Monday. But the other two -- how many did you bring? Two? Three?

MS. GARVIN: One volume was delivered this past Wednesday and three volumes were delivered the Wednesday of August the 2nd.

THE COURT: Well, which ones were delivered? I mean what days were they for?

MS. GARVIN: This past Wednesday I delivered here to the Courtroom for attorney Weinglass a volume dated 3-18-82.

THE COURT: Okay. And how about the District Attorney?

MS. GARVIN: District Attorney's Office picks up the notes of testimony from our copy center and they've never been picked up.

THE COURT: Oh, they didn't pick them up?

MS. GARVIN: No, they didn't. I brought them with me.

MS. FISK: I was advised by a Court Officer that apparently a message was left on Mr. Grant's telephone that the notes were ready. As this Court is aware, Mr. Grant has been away this week. And I certainly haven't been

Page 30.

collecting his messages.

MS. GARVIN: The message was left on Mr. Grant's phone that the notes were ready on 7-31 and Mr. Grant was not on vacation at that time.

THE COURT: Okay, will you give her the notes, then.

MS. FISK: Thank you.

THE COURT: She is giving her copies of the notes.

MS. GARVIN: (Handing).

THE COURT: Does anybody else have any questions that they want to ask the Court administrator?

MS. FISK: Thanks (handing).

THE COURT: All right, thank you very much.

MS. GARVIN: Okay, I thank you.

THE COURT: Sorry to inconvenience you.

MS. GARVIN: No problem.

MR. WEINGLASS: I think when the witness indicated last Wednesday she was referring to August the 8th, two days ago. And I got my copy yesterday, August the 9th.

Page 31.

THE COURT: Well, I thought you said you got it today.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: I thought you said you got it today.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I got it yesterday. It was delivered to my hotel room after Court yesterday. And I found it this morning.

THE COURT: Who delivered it to you?

MR. WEINGLASS: I don't know. I actually don't know. But I found it in a pile of papers this morning... and I got it.

But I just read it, and in reading it I find matters of substance in this transcript. Mr. Jackson, Anthony Jackson on March 18th, 1982, about five, six weeks before the trial, accused the prosecution of impropriety in keeping witnesses from him. And that is something that we didn't have.

THE COURT: Wait awhile. That was in front of Judge Ribner.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE COURT: I'm sure Judge Ribner took care of that.

Page 32.

MR. WEINGLASS: Ahh, no, but --

THE COURT: What do you mean no? He did. If it was done in front of Judge Ribner he took care of it, whatever the problem was.

MR. WEINGLASS: Has Your Honor read the transcript?

THE COURT: Yes, I must have, it's delivered to me on Monday. I think I went through it and I put it in the box where I have all the other notes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, then Your Honor knows that it wasn't in fact dealt with.

THE COURT: Why wasn't it?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well... the Court said to him, you're getting very close to accusing someone of impropriety.

MR. BURNS: Could we have a page, Your Honor?

MR. WEINGLASS: Page 53.

MR. BURNS: Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Jackson said yes, sir, I understand I am.

The Court: And you think somebody from the District Attorney's Office is telling these witnesses not to talk to you.

Page 33.

Mr. Jackson: I don't know, Your Honor. You've asked me and I have said I don't know. I said someone, I don't know whether it's in the District Attorney's Office or --

And then he is cut off by the Court: Then you know of your own personal knowledge that someone has contacted these witnesses and said don't talk to Mr. Jackson.

I don't know personally.

The Court: Then all this is speculative on your part.

Mr. Jackson: Not totally, Your Honor.

The Court: In what way isn't it totally.

Mr. Jackson: I have reason to believe that these witnesses, or at least some of these witnesses, have been told not to talk to the defense.

Now, these are very important issues.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead, keep reading. The Judge must have said something.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay? based --

The Court: Okay, what's your reason.

Mr. Jackson: Based on some privileged investigation that has been provided to me, Your

Page 34.

Honor.

The Court: Specifically what.

Mr. Jackson: I'm not in a position to disclose that, Your Honor.

The Court: What's the big secret. You're asking the District Attorney's Office to reveal everything but the kitchen sink. What's the reason for not divulging that information?

Mr. Jackson... I think the rights and duties of the Commonwealth as opposed to the Defendant are different. Whether we agree or not, we are different.

The Court: What reason do you have to believe that someone in the District Attorney's Office told a witness not to say anything to you.

Mr. Jackson: I've never said anyone in the District Attorney's Office has done that.

The Court: If you are going to give the impression that somebody in this case is conspiring to keep information from you, let's get it out in the open. If not, you're going to have to back off. Because there is no conspiracy that I can see here.

Mr. Jackson: I can't go into that

Page 35.

right now, Your Honor.

And it goes on. So it was, the point I'm making, Your Honor: There was a record made of Mr. Jackson's complaints.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Which we didn't know about until I just read it this morning.

THE COURT: Counselor, it's been resolved already through the Court there. These are pre-trial matters. I am not going to get into any of that nonsense. It's already --

MR. WEINGLASS: It's not nonsense.

THE COURT: Counselor, take it up with the Supreme Court when the case gets there, all right.

MR. WEINGLASS: I would also say this transcript contains other matters, such as Mr. Jackson's attempting to get resources.

THE COURT: I know that. We went through all of that when he was there on the stand. And you could take it up with whomever you wish at the proper time. As far as I am concerned, that issue is over, period. Now let's go forward.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, with

Page 36.

respect to the witness Singletary, I wasn't able to complete my recitation on the witness. This morning I spoke to Mr. Singletary and I asked him if he would come to Court. He was in bed.

THE COURT: Just awhile ago you told me he was here.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, I said he was on his way.

THE COURT: When is he going to get here?

MR. WEINGLASS: I asked him to come to Court. If Your Honor will please bear with me.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. WEINGLASS: He said that he was too ill to come to Court. I know the man's medical record, I have gone over his medical history. He said he was too ill, he could not testify. I said what do you mean. He said if I get on the stand today, I probably wouldn't even know your name. I said well, what's happening. He said I haven't slept in three days. He's a diabetic. He suffers from hypertension and he suffers from high blood pressure. He is on four different medications.

THE COURT: How long am I supposed to

Page 37.

wait for him?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: How long am I supposed to wait for him? Do you have a doctor to come in here and tell me when he is going to be available to testify?

MR. WEINGLASS: I do not have a doctor.

THE COURT: Well, then you better get one, because as far as I am concerned I am not going to sit around and wait. This Court has other matters to take care of. This case is not the only case, you know. I have other cases, all right.

So is he the only other witness you are going to call?

MR. WEINGLASS: Umm... well, there are other issues around other witnesses.

THE COURT: No, don't give me other issues. Who do you want to call? Don't hesitate. Don't give me that stuff I have to decide. I am under a duty too.

MR. WEINGLASS: There are additional matters we would like to introduce into evidence which we will do right now.

Page 38.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, a couple of days ago a statement of authentication from the FBI was presented and marked for identification with the Court. They concern these six volumes of FBI files which indicate Philadelphia Police Department surveillance of Mr. Jamal in the period of 1968 through, heavily, through 1974 with other additions going up as far as 1986 and '87. These records we believe are relevant.

THE COURT: '86 and '87?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Yes.

THE COURT: He was in jail.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Yes, he was. But nonetheless, activities of his defense, of people who visited him in prison, they are contained in here.

So I would like these to be admitted into evidence as part of the record, as one of our claims in our Petition dealing with the question of both bias as well as mitigation, and Brady violations. And I would submit these into evidence at this time based upon the authentication document which has already been delivered to the prosecution as well as to the

Page 39.

Court, as well as into the Exhibits file.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, my understanding is that this was sought and ruled on by this Court sometime within the past week. This Court ruled that these records are not relevant to these proceedings, that there has been no foundation established. The fact that the FBI has records, and whether or not, frankly, these are the records is unknown to me. And the fact that there is a letter presented saying that something is authentic does not tell me or the Court whether what Miss Wolkenstein is now contending is authentic. Or the affidavit she took from a witness last week.

THE COURT: What I am concerned about: What does that have to do with who killed Officer Faulkner?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, it was on the basis of that question and the fact that these were not, there has been no relevance shown with regard to these proceedings that this Court several days ago ruled that those records are not to be admitted. That was previously ruled.

My understanding is when the Court rules you accept that ruling. You may not like

Page 40.

it but you accept it. Your Honor has previously ruled that these records are not to be marked and not to be admitted into evidence.

THE COURT: If I previously ruled, that ruling still stands.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, your ruling was --

THE COURT: What I have already ruled, what I have said I have said. Take it up with the appellate Court.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor is even refusing to mark it so it could go up on appeal to make a determination whether or not this Court was in error or not?

THE COURT: Hold on to them. If the Supreme Court wants them they will ask for it. But that is my ruling, it wasn't to be admitted. That's it. What else do you have?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, next issue: We had a ballistics expert -- what?

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay, I just want to, Counsel is reminding me that I wanted to make clear for the record that this was the

Page 41.

product of three years of attempt to be able to get information from the FBI that we believed was absolutely relevant and crucial to our defense of Mr. Jamal and for this hearing.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And I wanted to indicate to you we only got these documents in April of 1995.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: After three years of attempts. The last volume we got was while the hearing was taking place here.

THE COURT: Okay, you made your point.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Could these be marked for identification only?

THE COURT: No, they will not. If the Supreme Court wants them they'll ask for them.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right. Your Honor, the next issue is the following. About a week ago, a week ago Wednesday, we had Ph.D students of Dr. Peter Deforest, who is a ballistics expert, take photographs of the

Page 42.

bullet that was taken from Officer Faulkner's head and the other bullets and fragments that were with the evidence as well as the weapons. The purpose of this was to try and get at least a preliminary opinion as to whether or not it would be possible to measure the lands and grooves on these, on the bullet in question. The key bullet which is the one taken from Officer Faulkner's brain.

The examination of these photos, which are one-to-one photos by Dr. Deforest, indicated according to him the following, that the land impressions --

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would object to what it indicated to Dr. Deforest. My understanding was there was going to be representation to whether or not any additional witnesses are being called.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I am pursuing that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, are you calling him?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, I have --

THE COURT: Are you calling him?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: There is a

Page 43.

preliminary question.

THE COURT: I don't need your preliminary question. I don't want to hear about all of this.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The point, Your Honor, is that the land impressions are wider than the groove impressions on this bullet.

THE COURT: All I want to know, Counselor, please, all I want to know is are you going to call him?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Are you going to call him?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Your Honor, the point, Your Honor --

THE COURT: No, the point is are you going to call him?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: At this point we can not call him, Your Honor, for the following reason.

THE COURT: Well, I don't want to hear anything more. I don't want to hear anything more.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: The impression --

THE COURT: Counselor, I don't want to hear anymore argument from you on this issue.

Page 44.

If you are going to call him call him. If you are not going to call him don't give me any story about what he is going to do. You want to do that out on the street when you have people out there, do that out there, not in this Courtroom. You either call that witness or you don't.

Now, what else?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay, Your Honor, there is another issue here which was the question of the, the question of these photographs. Various representations were made on the witness stand, sworn testimony by Your Honor's clerk. And I wanted it to be clear for the record -- and Miss West is here, she can state for the record -- that on July 18th she visited the PCRA unit and requested these photos. And she was told at that time, in the PCRA unit, on July 18th, that all exhibits, including the photos, were in the Police Evidence Room. And then the Police Evidence Room said that we needed a Court order or the D.A.' s presence to get these.

THE COURT: Well, that's what you are saying.

Page 45.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And that is what led -- well, your clerk testifies --

THE COURT: You got the photos.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: That led, Your Honor, to the order, the order of this Court, dated July 2Oth, 1995, allowing us to see those photos and to do this.

THE COURT: I know that.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: And putting all the evidence in the custody of Detective Walsh.

THE COURT: I know that. We have gone through all of that.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Following my review of the physical evidence, and when the photos were not there, I already made representations as to what Detective Walsh told me, I submitted a letter to the District Attorney's Office and to the Court on July 25th, 1995 indicating that those photos were not available. I just want --

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I just wanted the record to be clear, since there has already been sworn testimony on this, that in fact we did go to the PCRA unit, we did check to see if they were there. And we were told they were not. I

Page 46.

want that record to be clear.

THE COURT: All right. Okay I and I ordered them to recoup them and we gave them to the officer to have copies made for you. So what. Let's go forward. Do you have anymore witnesses?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: All right, I had had one other matter, and then there is a couple...

My matter, Your Honor, additional one, is after Court yesterday I attempted to see Mr. William Harmon to say thank you for him being willing to come in. He had already testified. And I was told by the officers up there that I was not allowed to see him because he was still under a sequestration order.

THE COURT: So write him a letter.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: I want to object to that.

THE COURT: No, write him a letter and thank him for testifying, Counselor. I am not going to get into this nonsense. I am only here now on a PCRA matter and all you are doing is stalling me.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: No, I am making a record.

Page 47.

THE COURT: No, don't make any record. Because it doesn't mean anything. If you want to thank him write him a letter and thank him.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: In point of fact for no good reason he was under a sequestration order.

THE COURT: Yes, okay.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: After he testified.

THE COURT: Yes, okay.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Okay, these are the FBI files, I am serving this copy on the District Attorney (handing).

MS. FISK: I am not accepting service for anything from Miss Wolkenstein, Your Honor (handing). Or Defense Counsel. They can have them. I don't know what they are. I have already made a personal determination as to Miss Wolkenstein's credibility at the bar of the Court and I am not accepting anything.

MR. BURNS: Could we put an end to this childishness and begin presenting evidence and get on with this case?

THE COURT: I am hoping they are going to get to that point. I would like to get to that point.

Page 48.

MR. BURNS: This is puerile, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I know. Write a letter to Mr. Harmon. He will be glad to get your letter.

MR. WEINGLASS: There have been previously filed with the Court an Amended Petition which I ask that that be moved into evidence.

THE COURT: Amended Petition?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, we filed a --

THE COURT: Well, did you file it with the Court?

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes.

THE COURT: Then it is in there, it is in the Court records.

MR. WEINGLASS: We filed it with an order asking the Court to grant the Petitioner leave to file the Amended Petition. Has the Court --

THE COURT: Well, it's in there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Has the Court signed the order?

THE COURT: I haven't signed any order

Page 49.

but it's in there. All I want to know: Do you have anymore witnesses? That's all I am asking you now.

MR. WEINGLASS: The next point depends on whether or not the Court will sign the order for the Amended Petition. We have to Petition the Court for leave. And I am now asking --

THE COURT: You don't have to. All I have been asking you all along is do you have anymore witnesses.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, but.

THE COURT: Who do you have?

MR. WEINGLASS: The next point, Your Honor, that I am going to go into is contained in the Amended Petition.

THE COURT: All right, don't worry about it. Who do you want to call?

MR. WEINGLASS: Will the Court grant us leave to file the Amended --

THE COURT: Who do you want to call?

MR. WEINGLASS: I want to put into evidence two affidavits.

THE COURT: Who do you want to call as your next witness?

MR. WEINGLASS: I am submitting

Page 50.

affidavits at this point.

THE COURT: All right. Well, who are they?

MR. WEINGLASS: Two affidavits. The affidavits of Alma Lee Austin, who now goes by the name Alma Cranshaw. And the affidavit of Darlene Sampson, who now goes by the name of Darlene Campbell. Those two affidavits are appended to our Amended Petition. That's why I wanted the Court to enter an order permitting us --

THE COURT: Don't worry about it. Did you get copy of these?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, these are two persons who were, two of three persons who were the subject of a stipulation between Counsel.

THE COURT: Oh, you mean that stipulation Grant entered into?

MS. FISK: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Well, that is on the record already.

MS. FISK: There is a stipulation. The Commonwealth objects to any affidavit being accepted as a matter of evidence.

THE COURT: No, it's stipulated and

Page 51.

it's in the record, that's it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the stipulation wasn't to our satisfaction.

THE COURT: Well, I'm sorry about that. But a stipulation was entered into and it's part of the record and that's it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

THE COURT: Period. That's why I am not going to sign any further orders. Do you have anybody else brought in?

MR. WEINGLASS: There is an additional affidavit, I would like to have it marked as the next defense exhibit. I am providing a copy to Counsel.

MS. FISK: Your Honor --

MR. WEINGLASS: I am submitting this into evidence.

THE COURT: Well, Counselor, submit it to the Supreme Court, I am not going to take it here. There's already a stipulation, it's there for what it's worth, and I am not going to take it.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is the affidavit of Beverly Greene.

THE COURT: I don't care who it is an

Page 52.

affidavit of.

MR. WEINGLASS: We use it as a basis for withdrawing our portion of the stipulation.

THE COURT: No. Take it up with the Supreme Court. You entered into a stipulation, that's it, period.

MR. WEINGLASS: We feel the stipulation is no longer accurate and we want to correct the stipulation.

THE COURT: Okay, fine, correct it up at the Supreme Court. Let's go forward. Do you have anybody else?

MR. BURNS: Could we have a moment, Your Honor?

MR. WEINGLASS: I want the record to show that I attempted to put in the affidavit of Beverly Greene.

THE COURT: Okay.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between Counsel for the Commonwealth.)

MR. BURNS: Your Honor, this document states in the second page, there is a handwritten notation on whatever I was handed, it says I am not the Beverly Greene described in this paper, 8-7-95, and it's signed Beverly

Page 53.

Greene.

THE COURT: Not the person.

MR. BURNS: What kind of affidavit is this?

MS. FISK: It is not an affidavit.

THE COURT: Maybe you ought to let him put it in.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is an attempt on the part of the defense to correct the stipulation.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. I have ruled already, let's go. Anything else?

(Discussion was held off the record at this
time between Defense and Commonwealth Counsel.)

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I do object to a document which is, frankly, not signed by anyone being marked even for identification.

THE COURT: Counselor, if he wants to take it up with the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court wants to look at it, that's fine.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fine, fine.

THE COURT: I don't want it here, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Just for the record:

Page 54.

It is a signed document.

MS. FISK: Well, it is signed by someone other than about whom it is written.

MR. BURNS: What is signed is a statement that that is not an affidavit of the witness.

THE COURT: If it is important enough they will send it back down to me, I'm sure. Are there any other witnesses you want to call? How about the Defendant's brother, are you going to call him?

Are you going to call the Defendant's brother?

MR. WEINGLASS: Ahh, we are not.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is one other matter which is part of the Amended Petition. And it is an August 19th, 1979 news report.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Of a United States government lawsuit against the Philadelphia Police alleging, among others, abuse and intimidation of witnesses.

THE COURT: Counselor, it is not a proper thing before this Court at this time. If

Page 55.

you want to give it to the Supreme Court, if they are willing to consider it, fine.

MR. WEINGLASS: I would --

THE COURT: To me it is not relevant at this time. I will not accept anything about any article in the newspaper and that's it, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: Okay. Then --

THE COURT: I said that's it, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: There is another item which I would like to have marked, which is a Philadelphia Daily News piece of August 7th, 1995 entitled Fraternal Order of Protest.

THE COURT: Fine.

MR. WEINGLASS: Which indicates that the police were --

THE COURT: That is another newspaper article, I will not except that.

MR. BURNS: If it please the Court, Your Honor: I had something from the Daily News I was planning to put on the record so perhaps we should let these things in.

THE COURT: No, no, no, if the Supreme Court is interested in reading any news article

Page 56.

they will say so. If not --

MR. BURNS: It goes to the defense motion to seek reconsideration of the recusal motion. This was a notation in the August 9th Daily News saying that, saying that the defense encouraged the March on the Judge's house back in July.

THE COURT: I know, okay.

MR. BURNS: I thought that was an interesting statement.

THE COURT: Let him present it to the Supreme Court. If they think it is important they will put it in the record.

MR. BURNS: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: I just thought I wanted it to be marked for identification only.

THE COURT: No, I am not marking any newspaper article for identification.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right. This goes to the current attitudes of police activity around this case.

THE COURT: I know, I know. All right, Counselor, take it up with the Supreme Court. Any other witnesses that you want to call?

Page 57.

THE COURT: Any other witnesses? I asked you a question, Counselor, I am expecting an answer. Are there any other witnesses that you intend to call?

MR. WEINGLASS: As I indicated to the Court: I am awaiting the arrival of Mr. Singletary but I'm very concerned about his condition.

THE COURT: I know that, you told me he's sick. If he doesn't come here today, that's it.

Anything else?

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

MS. FISK: The record should reflect with regard to Mr. Singletary, Your Honor, that according to this document which has been handed to us about 20 minutes ago, that they have been aware of his relevance to a PCRA proceeding since August the 3lst, 1990, when he allegedly made a statement to Ms. Wolkenstein in Philadelphia.

THE COURT: Okay. All right.

MS. FISK: And that today was the first time that --

Page 58.

MR. WEINGLASS: No other witnesses.

THE COURT: Then you are resting?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he is not available.

THE COURT: Okay. Then you are resting?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he is not available to us.

THE COURT: Well, then you are resting?

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he is not here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Then you are resting?

MR. WEINGLASS: It is up to the Court.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to present any evidence?

MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did you give him copies of whatever you want to do?

MS. FISK: I handed an amended list of witnesses to Counsel this morning, yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

Have you had a chance to look it over?

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry, I just didn't hear that.

Page 59.

THE COURT: She said she gave you a list of --

MR. WEINGLASS: Oh, yes, we have the list.

THE COURT: And --

MR. WEINGLASS: We got it this morning.

THE COURT: I know that. Well, that's when I got it too. She didn't know when you were going to finish up.

All right, do you want to call your witnesses then?

MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor. Just as a matter of scheduling purposes, Dr. Hood is one of the witnesses on the list. In light of the hour, may I presume that Dr. Hood will not testify until after lunch? Or I could have him come and we could go straight through?

THE COURT: No, why don't you tell me when. What time is he available?

MS. FISK: I can call him and have him here in 20 minutes. I could have him come while the first two witnesses testify, as long as we then go forward I have no problem with that.

THE COURT: Don't you want to have

Page 60.

lunch? Why don't you call him after lunch, then.

MS. FISK: All right, I will.

THE COURT: Because it's 11:30 now and we haven't done a thing all morning and I would like to get moving.

MS. FISK: Right.

THE COURT: If we tried all our cases like this we'd never get rid of any backlog. So whoever you have put him on and we'll take him up after lunch.

MS. FISK: Fine, that's just what I wanted to find out: Whether you wanted me to bring him here now. I will not.

I first call Officer Joseph Brown, Your Honor.

- - - - -

Philadelphia Police Officer Joseph E. Brown,
Badge number 1247, Police Security,
Police Administration Building, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

MS. FISK: May I proceed, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sure.

MS. FISK: Thank you.

Page 61.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Officer Brown, how long have you been a member of the Philadelphia Police Department?

A. Since August 15th of 1966. Approximately 29 years.

Q. And you are still an active, uniformed police officer, sir?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, what is your current assignment in the Police Department?

A. I am assigned to the Police Administration Building Security Unit.

Q. What does that mean?

A. That's to secure, make sure that the security is up to par. Checking people that come in and out of the building. Checking the parking lots and so forth and so forth.

Q. Now, when you say the Police Administration Building, is that the building also sometimes known as the Roundhouse located at 8th and Race Streets in Philadelphia?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Page 62.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. Now, how long have you been a member of the Police Administration Building Security Unit?

A. Approximately a year and two months.

Q. Now, when you talk about making sure that the security in the building is maintained appropriately, does your position at the Police Administration Building Security Unit include monitoring the front door?

A. Periodically, yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, when I say the front door, could you explain to the Court what the front door for the public is of the Police Administration Building?

A. There's two entrance doors.

Q. Could you move that microphone closer to your mouth, perhaps. Thank you.

A. There is two entrance doors. Right when you, right when you come through the two entrance doors there is a secured area where a police officer is stationed at. Anyone who enters, anyone who enters the doors will stop and talk to the police officer who is there and state their business. And whatever businesses it is, then the police officer tries to help them out with it.

Q. Now, those two doors that you enter into before coming into that secure area, do those two

Page 63.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

doors then when you exit open to the parking lot?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Which is behind the PAB?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, is that the only public door to the PAB?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, if an individual is to enter through those public doors and go to the right, would they then go to the arraignment Court?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And is that a public area?

A. They would go through either the arraignment Court area or if they were going down to post bail or someone they would go to the bail, ahh, area. And that is a public area.

Q. So anyone can enter the public doors of the PAB and turn to the right?

A. Turn to the right, right.

Q. Now, if an individual wants to, if an individual enters those public doors for the purpose of turning to the left, where would they go if they turn to the left?

A. They wouldn't go anywhere: They would be stopped, they would be stopped right at the desk by the officer that's standing right there at the desk.

Page 64.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. If the person was able to satisfy the officer at the desk that they had legitimate business going to the left, if an individual were to be permitted through to the left, where would they find themselves?

A. Where would they find -- they would find themselves in the lobby of the PAB.

Q. And then have access to the building via use of elevators?

A. No, ma'am, not unless they would have an identification card with them, or whether they were being escorted into the building by someone for whatever pertinent business. Or if they were coming in to do some type of maintenance. But they then, they are just not allowed to walk through, they have to come over, they have to sign into a book and state whatever room they're going to.

Q. Now, if an individual comes to the public doors of the PAB, into that secured foyer, and they are accompanied by police officers or police detectives for the purpose of going someplace in the building to give a statement or the like, do they still have to stop and check in and state their purpose with you or the other security officers at that front door?

Page 65.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

A. As long as the officers are in uniform, they can come through the front, they can come through the left-hand side doors. But they must stop at the front desk and sign whoever they are bringing into the building into the book and what unit they are taking them to.

Q. Now, would that signing in be done by the individual civilian or by the officers who were escorting that individual?

A. It would depend on the circumstances. Sometimes, sometimes the individual civilians will sign their names, sometimes the officers will sign their names.

Q. Based upon police directives which are in effect, is there ever a situation where the civilians could come in through those front doors with a police officer and not sign in or have their name recorded in the book?

A. No, ma'am. Under Police Commissioner's orders, if a person is being escorted into a building to go to a specific unit for an investigation or interrogation or polygraph, he has to be accompanied, the book has to be signed.

Q. Now, if the officers were to come to that front door with an individual for the purpose of

Page 66.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

taking them someplace for investigation and that individual was handcuffed, would they be permitted access through those front doors?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Why is that, Officer?

A. The Commissioner's orders that no one will be permitted to come through those front doors in handcuffs.

Q. Now, those orders, you have been at the Security Unit you have told us for one year and two months. You have been a police officer for 29 years. Based upon your knowledge as a police officer, how long has that been the Police Directive and the Police Commissioner's orders?

A. Well, I also, before I came up to security I also worked the cell room for 19 years, which is part of, almost, security.

Q. Right?

A. And that's been in effect ever since I could remember.

Q. So for even 19 years before the year and two months you have been in the Security Unit --

A. Well, for the 29 years that I have been on the police force, no one has ever been allowed to take a prisoner or a person into the Police Administration

Page 67.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Building through the front door.

Q. Well, now, you just told us prior to your assignment at the Security Unit you were assigned to the --

A. Police Detention Unit, which is called the cell room, if you want.

Q. All right. And the Police Detention Unit is the cell room also located in the Police Administration Building?

A. In the basement of the Police Administration Building building.

Q. And what was the period that you were a member of the Police Detention Unit?

A. Approximately 19 years.

Q. And were those the 19 years immediately preceding your one year and two months at the Security Unit?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. So would it be fair to say that in 1981 you were a police officer assigned to the Detention Unit?

A. I was assigned to the Detention Unit June 12th of 1975.

Q. Until sometime in 1994; would that be accurate?

A. Until 4-4-94.

Page 68.

Page 68 is missing. Attempts will be made to locate it.

Page 69.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Administration Building Security Unit the custodian, the person responsible for keeping custody of all past, completed logbooks which are maintained or have been used at the front lobby of the Police Administration Building?

A. Technically, yes, because where the logbook is, there is only one key. And that's usually locked up with the sergeant's keys. And whenever anyone requests a logbook that has already been filled up, we have to get the key, have to open the cabinet up, and then get that logbook out.

Q. Was there a situation in the last several days when there was such a request for an old logbook to be, to be obtained?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Do you recall when that request was received?

(Pause.)

A. Well, this request was received on 8-9 of '95. It was a subpoena for the book.

Q. And that would have been, then, this past Wednesday?

A. It would have been two days ago, yes, ma'am. For the appearance of this book to be here for yesterday, for the 10th.

Q. And based upon that request received on 8-9,

Page 70.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

was on 8-9 this book, or a book obtained by you from the locked facility where these old books are maintained?

A. No, ma'am, it was obtained by the sergeant.

Q. And was a photo copy of any page from that book made on Wednesday, August the 9th?

A. Not to my knowledge. I wasn't, I wasn't aware of any.

Q. All right. Do you have before you, Officer Brown, the original police logbook which covers the date of December 9th, 1981, which was maintained in the lobby of the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And can you certify to the Court that this is indeed the authentic logbook which covers persons being signed in to the Police Administration Building on the date December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, ma'am, this book covers from May 1st of '81 to October 1st of '82.

Q. So within that period is the date December 9th?

A. Right.

Q. And have you had an opportunity to look at that book and satisfy yourself that that is in fact the authentic book for that period May 1981 to

Page 71.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

October 1982.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And is it the authentic book?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Would you turn, please --

MS. FISK: Or, Your Honor, may I ask that the book be marked as a Commonwealth exhibit?

THE COURT: Well, we can't keep the book.

MS. FISK: That is true but I believe Counsel will, should have an opportunity to review the entire book.

THE COURT: Okay. We will mark it.

MS. FISK: I would agree that it can't be kept and it will have to be returned to police custody in the police unit at the completion of the officer's testimony.

MR. WEINGLASS: We have no objection so long as we could examine it.

MS. FISK: And I have no objection if Counsel wishes to examine it now before I ask any additional questions. I have no objection.

THE WITNESS: It's right there (handing).

Page 72.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

(PAB entrance logbook was marked
Commonwealth Exhibit C-l8 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: C-18.

THE COURT: Let the record show that Counsel is looking over the logbook.

(Pause.)

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor, in order not to detain the proceedings, so we can proceed, we have examined it. The photocopy matches the original, but we may want to look further into this logbook at a time that won't interrupt the questioning. So with that...

MS. FISK: Okay.

THE COURT OFFICER: C-18, sir (handing).

MS. FISK: Can Officer Brown please be shown what has previously been marked as --

THE COURT OFFICER: C-17?

MS. FISK: Thank you.

THE COURT OFFICER: C-17, sir (handing).

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Officer Brown, you are being shown what has previously been marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 17. Could you tell us, please, whether or not you

Page 73.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

recognize this document?

A. It's a Xerox copy of the page that I have in this book here (indicating).

Q. And does this photocopy accurately and fully reflect page 108 in this logbook?

(Pause.)

A. Yes, ma'am.

MS. FISK: May I see the log book for a moment, please.

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.)

MS. FISK: Thank you. I couldn't tell from the photocopy. Thank you.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Now, does the notation, Officer, 108 on the upper, left-hand corner reflect that this is indeed the 108th page of this logbook?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. There are 107 pages before it dating from May 1981 up to December the 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And what is the final page on this logbook? Just so the record is clear as to it's total size.

A. The final page is page 247. That is the signing in. There are other, blank pages, but the

Page 74.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

final signing-in page is 247.

Q. And these are persons signing in in October 1982?

A. They are... the last, the last signing in in this here is September the, September the 30th of 1982.

Q. Fine. All right, now returning to page 108. About, just a little short of halfway down, is there a notation for an individual being brought into the Police Administration Building by the name of Arnold Howard?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And does it reflect that Mr. Howard was being taken up to the Homicide Unit?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Does the logbook reflect the time that Mr. Howard was signed in?

A. 12:30.

Q. Does the logbook reflect what time Mr. Howard was signed out?

A. 2:30.

Q. Now, is there a notation or a signature in the column marked escort?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Are you able to read that?

Page 75.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Now explain to us, please, sir, well, first tell us: When Mr. Howard was signed into the Police Administration Building at 12:30 on December 9th, 1981, could Mr. Howard have been in handcuffs?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. And why is that?

A. As I stated earlier, it is the Police Commissioner's orders that no one will be permitted through the lobby in handcuffs.

Q. Now, is there a place to bring persons into the Police Administration Building if they're in handcuffs?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And that would be through the Detention Unit?

A. That would be through the Detention Unit, commonly called the cell unit, yes.

Q. Just so the record is clear: The person who was signed into the Police Administration Building immediately before Mr. Howard appears to be someone named Jean Broadley?

A. Bradley, Broadley or Broodley, yes.

Q. Being taken to something called SD, whatever that is; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Page 76.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. And does it reflect that that person Jean Bradley was signed into the Police Administration Building at twelve o'clock?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And the line directly below Mr. Howard on that same date, 12-9, a J. Jodes, being signed into the unit N-A-R-C -- Narcotics -- does the record reflect, or the sheet reflect that that person was being signed into the Police Administration Building at 1:00 p.m?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, when an individual is signed in through the lobby, you have told us that that individual could not be in handcuffs?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Are there occasions when individuals who are signed in, at some point after getting into the Police Administration Building, are placed under arrest and therefore are taken out of the building in handcuffs, or under arrest?

A. Not through, not through the police -- not through the lobby or not through the open areas or the public area.

Q. That is my question.

A. No, ma'am.

Page 77.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. My question is does it occur when individuals come into the building uncharged, not under arrest, that once entering the building they are placed under arrest?

A. Okay.

Q. Could a person who once entering the building who is placed under arrest inside the building be signed out of the building through the public door?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. And why is that, sir?

A. If he was taken up to either the Homicide Unit or the Narcotics Unit, and he was placed under arrest at that time, the detectives in the Homicide Unit or at the time the Narcotics Unit would make up all their paperwork, would handcuff him, would take him from their unit to a back elevator, down into the basement and into the cell room.

Q. Now, as a member of the Detention Unit back in 1981, was that the procedure that was used back then: If an individual was arrested up at Homicide they would be taken directly down to the Detention Unit?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And would such a person be able to have their name reflected as being signed out?

A. No, ma'am.

Page 78.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. On this front logbook?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Would there simply be no notation next to the out time on the logbook?

A. Probably not. If I'm following you right, a person comes in un-handcuffed but upon investigation upstairs they -- there shouldn't be any notation, no notation of him signing himself out.

Q. Would they be able to be signed out?

A. No, ma'am, that's what I'm saying.

Q. Okay. What, therefore, does it tell you with respect to Mr. Howard's status on December 9th, 1981 as to whether or not he was in custody of police in handcuffs at 2:30 p.m?

A. No, ma'am. It tells me that he left the Police Administration Building at 2:30 p.m.

Q. And that he was not in custody?

A. I don't think we would have let him out of the building if he was in custody, no, ma'am.

Q. Now --

MR. WEINGLASS: I'm sorry, did we just indicate p.m.? Because the document doesn't state.

MS. FISK: No, it doesn't.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

Page 79.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

MS. FISK: No, it doesn't.

MR. WEINGLASS: How could the witness say that?

THE WITNESS: The witness did not say 5 p.m. It was brought up from the table out there.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, so you don't know, Officer?

THE WITNESS: I don't know p.m. or not. I know what time it's got in the book: 2:30.

MR. WEINGLASS: It could be a.m?

THE WITNESS: I don't know that.

MR. WEINGLASS: It could be either one.

THE WITNESS: I just said I didn't know that, Counselor.

THE COURT: Why don't you wait for cross-examination instead of interrupting the proceedings.

MR. WEINGLASS: Counselor recited something that is not in the record.

THE COURT: Counselor, you have a chance to cross-examine. Bring it up then.

BY MS. FISK:

Page 80.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. Now, Officer Brown, I now want to talk about the Detention Unit at the Police Administration Building.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. To which you were in fact personally assigned from the period of 1975 until 1994, which included the period of 1981. Is that the portion of the Police Administration Building building into which an individual can be brought who is in custody?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. If an individual is brought into the Detention Unit who is in custody, but is being brought into the building just to be taken up to a detective division to be spoken to, do they still come through that Detention Unit or do they go through the front door?

A. No, ma'am, they are coming in as a potential defendant or something in handcuffs, they come in through the cell room bay area. They go through the cell room, they pass by two metal doors, they go to a back elevator. And whichever floor the unit is on that they are going to be going to, that's what floor they go to.

Q. Does the person enter their name in a logbook down in that rear area?

A. No, ma'am.

Page 81.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

Q. There is no logbook down there?

A. Oh, yes? there is. But the only people that are entered in the logbook in the cell room area are the people that have been arrested.

Q. So people --

A. Charged, whoever has been charged with something. If someone is just bringing someone in in handcuffs to take them to Homicide or Narcotics or whatever special unit that may be up there, they just, they just walk him right on through the doors and up to the unit. Well, to the elevator and then up to the unit.

Q. Now, do those persons' names ever get transferred to the logbook at the front door?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. Now, isn't it correct that there are also situations where persons who are not in custody are also brought into the building through the Detention Unit if they are being brought to the building from the scene of a crime, say, via police wagon or other police vehicle?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Would you explain to us how that occurs?

A. Well, if there's a, if there's a multitude of, say, witnesses and a police wagon would have, would

Page 82.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

happen to bring them through, they are escorted the same way as a handcuffed prisoner, but of course they are not handcuffed. They go right through the cell room, through the two doors to the back elevator and up to whatever floor that they are going to.

Q. And is that because the vehicle that brought them into the building was an official police vehicle?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. If there is a situation where there are many witnesses but some of them use their own vehicles to get to the Police Administration Building, would a person who has arrived in his own vehicle be permitted to enter with that other multitude of witnesses through the Detention center?

A. No, ma'am, the person who came in their own private vehicle would have to come in through the lobby area, stop at the front desk, notify the officer that's on duty who he wants to contact. The officer on duty would contact the person, the person would come downstairs and escort this individual up to wherever they were going after signing him into the book.

Q. So that person' s name would appear in the book?

Page 83.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And these procedures that you are describing, are these all procedures that were in effect in December 1981?

A. They go back as far as since 1966, as far as I could remember.

Q. So as long as --

A. They have never been changed as far as I know.

Q. And in particular, in 1981 they were certainly the procedures in effect?

A. They were certainly the procedures, just as they are today.

Q. And that was my next question. As a Security Unit officer you are aware that those are still the procedures in effect with regard to the entrance into the building through the Detention Unit and through the front door?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, as a police officer since 1966, a police officer assigned to the Police Administration Building for 19 years, and the Detention Unit, and a police officer who has remained at the Police Administration Building in the Security Unit for the last year and two months, are you familiar with the layout of the Police Administration Building in

Page 84.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

total?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And have you had an opportunity in your 29 years as a police officer, more than 20 of them assigned to the Police Administration Building, to be familiar specifically with the layout of the Homicide Unit at the Police Administration Building?

A. Roughly.

Q. And have you been to that Homicide Unit?

A. Several times.

Q. And was that for the purpose of bringing witnesses up or prisoners up?

A. When I was working the street, yes, it was.

Q. So that was in the period before you were sent to the Detention Unit?

A. Right, before '75.

Q. And when you began working at the Detention Unit did you also have occasion throughout your 19 years to be up in the Homicide Unit?

A. Yes, ma'am, I had many occasions to go up to the Homicide Unit.

Q. And would your opportunities to go to the Homicide Unit have included the period of December 1981?

A. It's quite possible. I mean I'm not sure --

Page 85.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

in 1981 as I was working the cell room it's quite possible I might have had to go upstairs and deliver a message or drop something off.

Q. All right, let me ask you this, Officer Brown. To your personal knowledge, based on your more than 20 years of working at the Police Administration Building and the preceding 9 years working on the street and bringing witnesses in, has there ever been any facility at the Homicide Unit or adjacent to the Homicide Unit created for the conducting of lineups?

A. No, ma'am, not to my knowledge.

Q. Has there ever been in the Homicide Unit or at a facility adjacent to the Homicide Unit a room which has a stage and a huge piece of glass in front of it?

A. No, ma'am, not to my knowledge.

Q. Is there a stage in the Police Administration Building?

A. There is a stage in the Police Administration Building.

Q. And where is that, sir?

A. That's in the lobby.

Q. And is that as part of an auditorium?

A. That is an auditorium.

Q. And is that the only stage in the Police Administration Building?

Page 86.

Officer Joseph Brown - Direct

A. That is the only stage in the Police Administration Building.

Q. Are you aware of any facility in the Homicide Unit or adjacent to the Homicide Unit which is, has been created or established for the conducting of lineup examinations?

A. No, ma'am.

Q. With the exception of four interrogation rooms in Homicide -- I'm sorry -- are you familiar with the four interrogation rooms in Homicide?

A. I never knew how many there were, I knew there was rooms in there.

Q. And have you ever seen the inside of one of those?

A. Yes.

Q. And what are the dimensions of the interrogation rooms, approximately?

A. I guess 6-by-8, something like that.

Q. Now, do those interrogation rooms have within them a small mirror which acts as a two-way glass?

A. No, ma'am, not to my knowledge.

Q. Incidentally, how many floors is the Police Administration Building?

A. Well, counting the basement you would say four floors, but actually it's only the three floors: The

Page 87.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

lobby, first floor, second floor -- you don't even count the lobby as a floor -- the first floor, second floor and third floor.

Q. Okay. But am I correct that the lobby is not called the first floor, the first floor is what?

A. The lobby is the lobby. The first floor you get on an elevator or you walk a flight of steps.

Q. To go up to?

A. Right, yes, ma'am.

Q. But it is a total of four stories above street level?

A. Four stories above street level.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. I have nothing further, Your Honor.

MR. WILLIAMS: May I have the logbook, C-18.

THE WITNESS: (Handing).

(Pause.)

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Good afternoon, Officer Brown -- is that right?

A. Good afternoon.

Page 88.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Q. Now, do you know a man by the name -- if you could -- I appreciate it -- are those prescription glasses?

A. Yes, they are.

Q. I appreciate it. Thank you. Do you know of your own personal knowledge an individual by the name of Arnold Howard?

A. No, sir, I do not.

Q. If he were to walk into this Courtroom would you know what he looked like?

A. If I don't know him I wouldn't know what he looked like, sir, no.

Q. You have never been shown a photograph of Mr. Howard?

A. No, sir, I have not.

Q. So as you sit here today, of your own personal knowledge you don't know when Mr. Howard was brought into the Roundhouse?

A. I don't know whether it was -- oh, you're right, of my own personal knowledge, right.

Q. You are relying on recordings in this logbook C-18?

A. Not recordings. I am of the signing-ins, yes.

Q. Right. Now, does it indicate in C-l8 --

MR. WILLIAMS: And I will give it back

Page 89.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

to you so you can refer to it (handing).

THE WITNESS: I will be able to put my glasses back on to see?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, certainly for that.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Is there a recording on that logbook for December 9th, 1981 at 5:35 a.m., the fact that a person by the name of Albert Magilton was brought into the Roundhouse?

A. 5:35 a.m. on the...

Q. On 12-9-81.

(Pause.)

A. 5:30 in the a.m?

Q. Yes.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I would agree there is no such indication.

THE WITNESS: This, this, I can --

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. The answer is --

A. The answer is the first a.m. was 10:30 a.m., it wasn't the gentleman that you just --

Q. The answer is that there is no one signed in for 5:35 a.m?

A. A.M.

Page 90.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Q. And is there anywhere on that page that you are referring to, 108, where it indicates that an individual by the name of Albert Magilton was brought into the Roundhouse?

MS. FISK: Well, objection, Your Honor, to the form of the question. It would only relate to whether Albert Magilton came into the Roundhouse through the public door.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, and if it is not listed here then that's what it would reflect.

MS. FISK: That is correct, but let the question be limited to through the public door, not through any other.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am only asking if it is recorded here.

THE COURT: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Not that I could see.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. You certainly couldn't answer that question from your own personal knowledge; isn't that true?

A. That's true.

Q. You would have to rely on page 108 of your logbook?

A. I would, yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know a law enforcement officer

Page 91.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

by the name of Culbreth: C-U-L-B-R-E-T-H?

A. How do you spell --

Q. Culbreth: C-U-L-B-R-E-T-H.

A. I believe I know him, yes. Know the detective, yes.

Q. Is there an indication that an individual by the name of Culbreth brought in a civilian to be interviewed at the Roundhouse?

A. On what date?

Q. On 12-9.

A. No, sir.

Q. Okay. Now, is there an indication -- again, for the sake of brevity I am going to direct your attention to 12-9-81 -- is there a notation for 12-9-81 as to whether an individual by the name of Michael Mark Scanlan was brought into the Roundhouse?

(Pause.)

A. No, sir.

Q. But you will notice down below on December 10th that an individual by the name of Mr. Scanlan was brought into the Roundhouse; isn't that true?

A. On December the l0th?

Q. On December 10th. Four lines up.

A. Four lines up from the bottom?

Q. From the bottom, yes.

Page 92.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

A. Well, if you say that last name is Scanlan.

Q. Scanlan?

A. I would have to take your word because I can not make out what the last name is. The first name is Michael but I can't make out what the last name is.

Q. Okay, it appears to be an S and then a C and then a --

A. It could be an S-E-A.

Q. Okay. Is there a notation there for 12-9 as to whether an individual by the name of Cynthia White was brought into the Roundhouse?

A. This is 12-9 now?

Q. 12-9.

A. No, sir.

Q. And what about an individual by the name of Robert Chobert?

(Pause.)

A. Not that I see in the book.

Q. And what about an individual by the name of Dessie Hightower?

A. No, sir.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Page 93.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Q. What about an individual by the name of Robert Pigford?

A. No, sir.

Q. What about an individual by the name of William Singletary?

A. No, sir.

Q. What is the first, on December 9th, what time is the first sign in?

A. On December 9th, the time of the first sign in is 10:30 am.

Q. Were you open for business before that?

A. I don't quite get the question when you say open for business.

Q. Was the building open?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were there officers at the entrance door?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And if people were brought into that front door they would be signed in here; is that your testimony?

A. If people were brought in through that entrance door to go anywhere other than to the arraignment Court or the bail clerk, and came in through the left, if they were escorted by police officers or detectives, they would be signed into

Page 94.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

this book.

Q. So people who, if people were brought in earlier in the morning on December 9th, say between the times of 4:00 and 6:00 a.m., and they're not reflected in this logbook, how would they enter the building?

A. They could have entered the building if they came in in police -- if it was a multitude of people and they came in in a police van through the police Detention Unit. Which then they would walk through the police Detention Unit, walk through two metal doors after they are opened by the officer, go to an elevator and take the elevator or the stairs to whichever floor the unit that they were going to was on.

Q. And as you testified here today, you can't tell us if Mr. Howard, Arnold Howard was transported in a police van and taken in in the manner that you have just described?

A. Arnold Howard's name is in this book.

Q. I'm asking you: Can you sit here and testify today that sometime earlier on December 9th, 1981, perhaps between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 a.m., whether Mr. Howard was brought in in the manner that you just described, can you tell us that?

Page 95.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

A. Not if his name's in this book. In the manner that I just described, anyone coming in through the cell room in a multiple as witnesses of something are taken upstairs, their names are not entered into this book.

Q. I understand that. Can you tell us as you sit here today, whether among those multitude, or apart from that multitude, whether Mr. Howard was brought to the Roundhouse between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 a.m. in the manner that you just described?

A. Not if his name is in this book, sir.

Q. Of your own personal knowledge, Officer Brown, that's what I am asking.

A. If his name is in this book he had to be either brought in through the lobby area by a uniformed officer or by a detective.

Q. Okay. Let's explore that. What you are saying is that at 12:30 or thereabouts, Mr. Howard was brought in through the front door. Right?

A. Excuse me? I'm sorry.

Q. On December 9th, 1981, you're saying that Mr. Howard was brought in through the front door at approximately 12:30 or thereabouts?

A. Yes, sir. According to this logbook.

Q. But you can't tell us as you sit here today

Page 96.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

whether Mr. Howard was there beforehand, taken out of the Roundhouse and then brought back, can you?

A. Whether he was brought into the building in which manner?

Q. Well, in the manner that you described where they are not recorded, perhaps in the same manner that all of these other individuals were brought in (displaying)?

A. In other words, what you are trying to say is that Mr. Howard may have been brought in with all these other individuals?

Q. I'm asking you, I mean.

A. I can not give you that of my own personal knowledge, I was not there.

Q. That is precisely what I am asking. So you can't tell us if Mr. Howard was there earlier, taken out of the building, and then brought in through the front entrance door at 12:30, can you?

A. No, sir, I can not.

Q. Precisely. Now...

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now, as you indicated earlier, the individual by the name of Mr. Scanlan was not recorded as

Page 97.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

entering on 12-9-81, right?

A. If that's what I said, sir, that must have been what I meant.

Q. But it does indicate that sometime thereafter, on the following day there appears to be a signature by a man named M. Mark and then a last name beginning with an S, it could be an E or a C, and then an A and then a N? Four lines up?

A. I see it.

Q. Okay. Now, you testified that in addition to individuals who were brought in en mass, and they are not recorded in this logbook, that people who are handcuffed are also not recorded in this logbook; isn't that right?

A. It's true.

Q. So you can't testify of your own personal knowledge as to whether Mr. Howard was ever in handcuffs on December 9th, 1981 before 12:30?

A. Before he was signed into this logbook?

Q. Yes. Of your own personal knowledge?

A. Of my own personal knowledge I could tell you this: If he was in handcuffs he would not have been signed into this logbook. That, that is my personal knowledge.

Q. Can you tell us of your own personal knowledge

Page 98.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

whether Mr. Howard was brought in in handcuffs at some time on December 9th, 1981, before 12:30?

MS. FISK: Objection.

THE COURT: I think he's already said that, Counselor. You are going over it a million times. He says only looking at this book can he tell whether he came in the front door.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE COURT: He couldn't come in the front door in handcuffs, period.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now, there is a logbook for those individuals who are brought into the -- I think you called it the Detention Unit?

A. If they're incarcerated.

Q. If they are in handcuffs, you mean?

A. No, if they are incarcerated.

Q. What about people who are in custody that is in handcuffs?

A. If they are to be incarcerated in the cell room.

Q. Yes?

A. Then their names will go in the logbook. But if they are going to a special unit in handcuffs,

Page 99.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

just like I explained earlier, walking through, they go to the unit where they are going to go to and then that's where the processing starts.

Q. And processing starts. Tell me what, tell me about that processing?

A. Which, whatever they may have been arrested for, the investigation starts on that charge.

Q. Is there a logbook in the Homicide Unit?

A. I would imagine so, I don't know. I don't go snooping around in the Homicide Unit.

Q. So you can't tell us if people brought up to the Homicide Unit for questioning were signed in in some fashion?

A. In the Homicide Unit per se?

Q. In the Homicide Unit?

A. No, sir, I could not.

Q. Can you tell us... by the way, you said the people who were going to be incarcerated and brought in through the Detention Unit are recorded in a logbook?

A. No, sir, I -- you said people are brought into the cell room in handcuffs.

Q. Yes.

A. My statement was once they have been incarcerated already. Which means have been

Page 100.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

arrested, not being investigated. Which have been arrested and charged with a charge.

Q. Okay. Those individuals who are arrested and brought into the Detention Unit, is there a logbook to record their entry into the Roundhouse?

A. The ones that have been arrested and come down into the cell room there is a logbook from the time that they enter to the time that they leave.

Q. Do you have access to that logbook?

A. For 19 years I did.

Q. Okay. Has anyone asked you to produce that logbook?

A. No one asked me to produce a logbook.

Q. Has anyone asked you to look into whether there is a logbook for the Homicide Unit?

A. The Homicide Unit does not fall under my jurisdiction, sir. So no one would ask me -- it would be...

Q. So you were only asked to bring in C-18, the logbook for the front door that doesn't contain the names of numerous witnesses involved in this case? Is that your testimony?

A. I brought in the book that I was subpoenaed to bring in.

Q. Okay. Now, on the entry for Mr. Howard for

Page 101.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

December 9th, it indicates a time out as 2:30, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Does it indicate the date at which he is released?

A. It would be the same date, I would imagine, being it's on the same line.

Q. You would imagine. What about whether it's a.m. or p.m?

A. It doesn't have that on here, sir.

Q. Look at the line above that for Jean Bradley. Does it indicate whether she was released in p.m. or a.m?

A. Released, that she was released at 1:00 p.m.

Q. And what about the person afterwards, after Mr. Howard: Does it indicate whether that person was signed out in the a.m. or p.m?

A. 1:15 p.m.

Q. And the individual after that, the individual by the name of Mr. Love or Miss Love, does it indicate when that person was signed out?

A. No, sir, it doesn't.

Q. No sign out time?

A. No, sir.

Q. And can you explain that?

A. Yes, sir. Well, maybe I can and maybe I

Page 102.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

can't. Maybe the reason --

Q. I don't want you to speculate, sir.

A. The reason that with Love it looks like she was taken to Narcotics, right. She may have been charged with a narcotics charge up at Narcotics. If she was charged with a narcotics charge up at Narcotics, she would not have signed out in the logbook, she would have been taken down to the cell room and put into the cell room's log. That's the only explanation I could give you on that.

Q. Okay. So of your own personal knowledge, you can not tell us whether Mr. Howard was released at 2:30 a.m. or 2:30 p.m. because, unlike the other individuals listed here, it doesn't specify a.m. or p.m?

A. No, sir, it doesn't specify a.m. or p.m. I am not going to speculate.

Q. Now, you said that some individuals are brought in en mass and therefore they are not signed in, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, he testified that people who come in through the Detention Unit --

Page 103.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

THE WITNESS: Detention unit.

MS. FISK: -- are not signed in, whether they are brought in individually or en mass. That's what he said.

THE COURT: He doesn't understand how the system works, so.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Through the Detention Unit they are not signed in?

A. Right.

Q. Okay, terrific.

A. They are not signed in through the logbook.

Q. Right. So for individuals brought in through the Detention Unit, referring to this logbook is of absolutely no assistance to us as to when a person is brought into the Roundhouse; isn't that right?

A. If they are brought in en mass as you are saying in a wagon through the cell room that go up to a special unit, no.

Q. Or if they are just brought in through the Detention Unit, this doesn't help us to determine if they were brought in through the Detention Unit, does it?

A. No, it would not.

Q. Now, on December 15th, 1981, can you refer to

Page 104.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

your logbook for 9:45 p.m.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: It goes beyond the scope of direct examination.

MR. WILLIAMS: It goes to the reliability of what he is testifying to. They are relying on the logbook and I am entitled to impeach that.

THE COURT: Well, only impeach it as far --

MR. WILLIAMS: It goes to the weight of this evidence.

THE COURT: As far as this case is concerned.

MR. WILLIAMS: And I am asking about a particular witness in this case.

THE COURT: Well, who is on December 15th?

MR. WILLIAMS: Veronica Jones.

THE COURT: Oh, she signed in?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, let's find out.

THE COURT: Well, he wants to know if on December 15th Veronica Jones signed in.

(Pause.)

THE WITNESS: Not that I can see in this book. I could have overlooked it.

Page 105.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. What about for 9:45 p.m?

MS. FISK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about for 9:45 p.m.

THE WITNESS: The 15th?

THE COURT: He said the 15th.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, December 15th.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, if Counsel would look at an interview of Veronica Jones which was taken on December 15th, '81, it makes it very clear that the place of interview was 1056 Everett Street, which so far as I know is not the Police Administration Building.

THE COURT: Is that an answer for you?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am asking if it is recorded in that logbook.

THE WITNESS: I said I do not see it in this book.

MR. WILLIAMS: All right.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now, in your extensive experience at the

Page 106.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Roundhouse, are there ever occasions where an individual is brought in through the Detention Unit either in handcuffs or not in handcuffs and then permitted to leave the Roundhouse?

A. From the Detention Unit?

Q. Yes.

A. No.

Q. Are they ever permitted to leave the Roundhouse through any doors?

A. Are you saying a person that is brought into the Detention Unit proper to stay in the Detention Unit?

Q. No, what I am asking you: Are there ever occasions where an individual is brought in through the Detention Unit -- okay?

A. Right.

Q. -- and therefore is in the Roundhouse, and then permitted to leave at some point?

A. An individual that comes into the Detention Unit?

Q. Yes?

A. And is going to another unit in the building?

Q. I am just saying that they are -- by virtue of being in the Detention Unit they are in the Roundhouse; am I right?

Page 107.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

THE COURT: Counselor, please. What he is saying is they come in through the Detention Unit, they go to, say, Homicide, now they are going to be released, which way do they go out? Which way, that's what he wants to know.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: If you would ask me I would have told you that.

THE WITNESS: They go out through the way that the Homicide detective will escort them, down out through the front door. They will not come back through the Detention Unit.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Nonetheless, there are occasions where someone is brought in through the Detention Unit and then permitted to leave the Roundhouse? That's all I'm asking.

MS. FISK: Just answer that.

THE WITNESS: I would imagine, I would imagine there are several occasions where a person is brought in through the Detention Unit and upstairs and then permitted to leave the Roundhouse.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Page 108.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Q. And a person who leaves the Roundhouse could very well be brought back into the Roundhouse; isn't that true?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that person brought back into the Roundhouse could be brought in through the entrance that's reflected in C-18?

MS. FISK: And that would be great if that's what this witness testified to three days ago. But his testimony was that he was brought in via police wagon in handcuffs, remained there for 24 hours, was taken out of the building via police wagon in handcuffs to another police station, taken to another police station, taken back to the Police Administration Building in handcuffs, taken upstairs and then released 72 hours later.

If, on the other hand, he had testified that he was brought into the Roundhouse in handcuffs, taken upstairs, taken downstairs, had his handcuffs taken off, was taken through the front door, taken upstairs and then held for 72 hours, that question would make some sense. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

MR. WILLIAMS: What Ms. Fisk's

Page 109.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

impassioned speech indicates is that this individual testified to an experience 13 years ago where he was rousted out of bed.

THE COURT: I understand that, but, Counselor. I understand --

MR. WILLIAMS: Your Honor permitted her to speak and then you are now cutting me off.

THE COURT: I just want to explain what he has been saying all along. If he comes in in handcuffs --

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

THE COURT: -- he does not come through the front door, period.

MR. WILLIAMS: Precisely.

THE COURT: He has to go through the back door through the Detention Unit.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE COURT: Now, if he is going to be released he could go out either the front door or he can go out the back door, either way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE COURT: And that's all he could tell you because he wasn't there. He is not the officer that brought him in.

Page 110.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

MR. WILLIAMS: That's precisely correct.

THE COURT: He's already said that so what are we --

MR. WILLIAMS: And the point of my question is if we have a witness who is testifying to an event some 14 years ago who testified to being brought in, hustled out, brought back in, and it's a very disorienting experience when you are rousted out of bed.

THE COURT: Okay, Counselor, that is fine for argument to the Court later on, but as far as this witness is concerned, he doesn't go out in handcuffs through the front. If he is still in handcuffs you are still going to go out the Detention Unit.

MR. WILLIAMS: That is precisely my point. So I am in a quandary as to the weight of this witness. Why would they bring in a witness who could not testify as to who is brought into the Detention Unit?

THE COURT: She just wants to show how that book works.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh.

THE COURT: And evidently, somebody by

Page 111.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

the name of Arnold whatever his name is came in that morning not in handcuffs. Whether he left in handcuffs, whether he was ultimately charged, he didn't go out, he wouldn't have gone out that way if he's charged. Because then they would have taken him right downstairs. They would have signed him in that book, put him right in the cell room and that's where he would stay.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right.

THE COURT: That's all. You could have asked me, I could have told you that.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the education on Philadelphia Police procedure.

THE COURT: Well, ask somebody who knows something about Philadelphia Police procedure and you would know this.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am learning it right now.

THE COURT: We are not here for educational purposes, do that on your own time. It is 12:30 already.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't call this witness, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I know that. But go ahead.

Page 112.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now, do you know a detective by the name of D'Amato?

A. No, sir, not offhand.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. And what about Detective Williams, do you know a Detective Williams?

A. Several Detective Williams. Where does he work at?

Q. I'm sorry?

A. There are several Detective Williams I would imagine in the Police Department. Do you know --

Q. What about a Detective Williams who was on duty December 9th, 1981?

A. You would still have to tell me what Williams you're talking about.

Q. Now, you indicated that there is a stage in the Roundhouse?

A. Sir, I indicated that there is a stage in the auditorium.

Q. Is that in the Roundhouse?

A. It is, yes, sir, in the lobby of the Roundhouse. In the auditorium.

Page 113.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

Q. Okay. And are there one-way glass mirrors? I think you might have testified to that on direct.

A. I did. There is none.

Q. That there is none. Okay. And is it your testimony that no lineups are conducted in the Roundhouse ever?

A. As far as my knowledge is there's no lineups conducted in the Roundhouse ever.

Q. Okay. Can you testify of your own personal knowledge as to whether any identification procedures are used up in the Homicide Unit?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. The officer was called to discuss the physical layout at Homicide, not the procedures.

MR. WILLIAMS: He was asked on direct about --

THE COURT: He was asked where they conduct the lineups. And it's not in the Roundhouse, Counselor.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether any identification procedures are ever used up in the Homicide Unit?

MS. FISK: He is not a Homicide detective.

Page 114.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

THE WITNESS: Pertaining to lineups, no.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Of your own personal --

A. As far as I know there's never been a lineup up in Homicide.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Now, so let me understand this. Your understanding is that there are no lineup facilities in the Roundhouse, right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it is your understanding that no lineups are conducted in the Roundhouse?

MS. FISK: I object to that question, Your Honor. The witness was offered to discuss the physical plant, that there is no physical facility.

THE COURT: I know that.

MS. FISK: The officer is a member of the Detention Unit and the Security Unit and a 16th District Officer --

THE COURT: Just a minute. Where do they conduct the lineups; do

Page 115.

Officer Joseph Brown - Cross

you know?

THE WITNESS: As far as I'm concerned -- as far as I know they conduct the lineups up at the prisons.

THE COURT: Up at the prisons?

THE WITNESS: That's as far as I know.

THE COURT: That's my knowledge too.

BY MR. WILLIAMS:

Q. Are there any station houses where lineups are conducted?

A. As far as my knowledge is they conduct the lineups up at the prison.

Q. So let me be clear, then. If somebody were to be placed in a lineup who was first taken to the Roundhouse, that person as far as you know would have to be taken out of the Roundhouse and transported to another location; isn't that true?

A. For, for a lineup?

Q. For a lineup.

A. I would imagine it would have to be true, if it was for a lineup before a charge was placed against them.

Q. Precisely.

MR. WILLIAMS: You have been very helpful, Officer Brown. Thank you.

Page 116.

THE COURT: Do you have any further questions?

MS. FISK: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, we will take a luncheon until --

MS. FISK: I had another officer present.

THE COURT: Oh. Will he be long?

MS. FISK: We could break, Judge. Could I just check with him and make sure that he is available this afternoon?

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Where is he?

MS. FISK: Well, he is he probably outside.

(Pause.)

MS. FISK: Your Honor, this is somebody taking time from his business. He would prefer getting on this morning.

THE COURT: All right, we will put him on.

MS. FISK: Thank you, Your Honor. The Commonwealth would call Edward D'Amato, please, Your Honor.

(Pause.)

Page 117.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

THE COURT: All right, I'm here, let's go.

MS. FISK: Thank you, Your Honor.

Philadelphia Police Captain Edward D'Amato,
Retired, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Good afternoon, Captain D'Amato. How many years ago did you retire from the Philadelphia Police Department?

A. About three years and two months.

Q. And how many years of service had you had on the Philadelphia Police Department at the time of your retirement?

A. 23 years.

Q. Now, we know that you were a captain at your retirement. What was your assignment in the Philadelphia Police Department on December 9th, 1981?

A. I held the rank of Detective assigned to 3 squad, West Detective Division, 55th and Pine Street.

Q. Now, Captain D'Amato, did you have occasion on

Page 118.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

December 9th of 1981 to be sent to the Homicide Division to assist in any investigation?

A. Yes, ma'am, I did.

Q. Could you tell us how that came about?

A. I was working the midnight-to-8:00 a.m. tour of duty at West Detectives. And we received a phone call that a police officer had been shot and killed in the 1200 block of Locust Street. And that Homicide was requesting one detective from each of the seven Detective divisions to come to Homicide and give them a hand.

Q. And you were the person from West Detectives assigned?

A. Supervisor, yeah, assigned me to go to Homicide.

Q. Now, do you recall what time it was that you arrived at the Homicide Division?

A. Mid-morning somewhere, maybe 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., I don't recall.

Q. And did you receive any, did you receive any assignment with regard to an individual named Arnold Howard?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And what was the assignment which you received?

Page 119.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. Myself and Detective Williams from Central Detectives, he was I believe detailed then from Central Detectives, we were assigned to go out to Richard Allen Homes to pick up a witness and bring him to Homicide and then interview him.

Q. Now, were you given instructions as to how to pick up that witness?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And what were those instructions?

A. The best I could recall it we were told not to go to his apartment, that he didn't want the police to be seen at his apartment. And that we were to pick him up on the street, there was a designated spot out there somewhere, I can't recall the exact location, where we would park and he would get in the car.

Q. Had you made those prior arrangements with Mr. Howard or had, to the best of your knowledge, someone else made those arrangements?

A. Someone else made it and it was just forwarded to me and Williams.

Q. Now, having picked up Mr. Howard -- well, let me ask you this. On the day that you had contact with Mr. Howard, did you have occasion to make a writing regarding your contact with Mr. Howard?

Page 120.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. If you're referring to the interview I took of him at 8th and Race, yes, ma'am.

Q. Was that interview with Mr. Howard recorded on the date that you came in contact with Mr. Howard?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And on the date that you recorded the information regarding your contact with Mr. Howard, was that information accurate when you recorded it?

A. Yes, ma'am.

MS. FISK: May I ask, please, that the captain be shown what has previously been marked Commonwealth Exhibit 16 (handing).

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Recognizing that it has been some 14 years, Captain D'Amato, if you need to utilize that to answer my precise questions as to time please do so.

Utilizing what has been marked as Commonwealth Exhibit 16, first let me ask you: Is that the statement you took from Mr. Howard on December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, ma'am, it appears to be a photostatic copy of the five-page statement I recorded.

Q. And you say you recorded it: Are you the person who typed it?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Page 121.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

Q. Utilizing that statement, can you tell us, please, the time that you first came in contact with Mr. Howard when you and Detective Williams went to pick him up at this prearranged location near the Richard Allen Homes?

A. I don't believe this interview record reflects the time we met him on the street. But it does reflect the time that I brought him, me and Williams brought him to 8th and Race.

Q. And what time was it that you brought him to 8th and Race?

A. Ahh, according to my interview sheet it was 12:35 p.m., December the 9th, 1981.

Q. Would you look at the date, the time listed directly below that?

A. Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. Brought in by. I stand corrected: It's 12:25 p.m., December the 9th, '81.

Q. To the best of your recollection, after picking up Mr. Howard near the Richard Allen Homes, did you go, did you and Detective Williams and Mr. Howard go directly to the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes, ma'am, it was a very short ride.

Q. About how long?

Page 122.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. Ahh, 15 minutes, I would say, maybe 20, tops.

Q. So would it be fair to say that you picked up Mr. Howard at some moments after noon on December 9th, 1981?

A. I would guess that sometime after 12:00 noon we picked him up.

Q. Now, your statement reflects that he was brought into the Roundhouse by yourself and Detective Williams at 12:25 p.m?

A. Yes, ma'am.

MS. FISK: Can Captain D'Amato please be shown the logbook which was marked and has been retained here temporarily. And specifically turn to page 108 for the Captain.

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing).

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Captain, if you turn to page 108.

A. 108?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. I call your attention to about halfway down on page 108 of this logbook which has previously been marked and identified.

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Do you see on 12-9, under the column name, the

Page 123.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

name Arnold Howard written in?

A. Yes, ma'am, I do.

Q. And whose handwriting is that, sir?

A. That's my handwriting.

Q. And did you record Mr. Howard's name there when you and Detective Williams were bringing him into the Police Administration Building?

A. I'm sorry, ma'am, I didn't hear you.

Q. Did you record Mr. Howard's name on that line on page 108 of the logbook when you and Detective Williams were bringing Mr. Howard into the Police Administration Building on December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you write next to his name the unit where you were taking him?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And what did you write?

A. H-O-M: Abbreviation for Homicide.

Q. And did you record in the time in column the time that you were taking Mr. Howard into the Roundhouse?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And what time did you record?

A. 12:30.

Q. And was that 12:30 p.m., as reflected when you

Page 124.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

compare it to Commonwealth Exhibit 16, was that 12:30 p.m?

A. Which was the same, yes, ma'am.

Q. Okay. Now, the last column, which is the escort column, could you tell us what that says?

A. That's my signature, my last name.

Q. It says D'Amato?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. All right, now the out column, if you would look at that for a moment. What does that say?

A. 2:30.

Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether or not that is a 2:30 p.m., 2:30 a.m., whether or not that's 2:30 on December 9th, 1981?

A. Best recollection I have of that entire incident was that that was 2:30 p.m., two hours later.

Q. How is it is that you recall that?

A. I've been trying to remember two days to recall everything I did that day. And that is my recollection. I do have a clearer recollection of picking him up and interviewing him. The only thing I could tell you is that if that would have been the next 2:30, which would have been 14 hours later, I would have noted it. And at 2:30 a.m. that day, I

Page 125.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

was either home in bed sleeping or back at West Detectives.

Q. With the exception of that one date -- December 9th, 1981 -- that you were sent to the Homicide Division to assist in the investigation of Officer Faulkner's murder, did you return to the Homicide Division in the subsequent days: On the l0th, the llth, the 12th?

A. No.

Q. You only worked in Homicide that one day to assist the detectives?

A. I believe it was that one day, that's it. We usually go down just as help, basically, go-fors to do a lot of the leg work that might not or may be important while Homicide detectives are doing the actual field work. Or just assist them. And it's, especially since it is something that didn't happen in my division, I would have been back to West Detectives.

Q. When you say unusual, you are talking about whenever a police officer is shot and killed?

A. Or even a homicide from your division you'll go down and work with Homicide. But that's usually ones in your division. A major case like this with a police officer being killed, it just so happened that

Page 126.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

they wanted seven detectives and got them from each division.

Q. Now, when you picked up Mr. Howard and brought him into the Police Administration Building and up to the Homicide Division, was he at any time placed in handcuffs?

A. Placed in handcuffs?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. No.

Q. Now, after you went up to the Homicide Division with Mr. Howard, do you recall how it came to be that you recorded a statement of Mr. Howard's?

A. The best I could recall was that we had told somebody in Homicide that we had Arnold Howard and we brought him in and somebody told us to interview him. Whether it was a supervisor, the assigned detective, I don't recall.

Q. Now, had you been provided any information regarding Mr. Howard so you knew what questions to ask?

A. Yes. Some.

Q. Now, did you conduct that interview of Mr. Howard, if you recall, in a separate interrogation room or out in the open area?

A. I can't recall that.

Page 127.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

Q. Let me ask you this, Captain. As a matter of your practice, in the 23 years that you were a member of the Philadelphia Police Department, on how many occasions did you have occasion to record a statement of a person you were interviewing?

A. An estimate? I guess 500 to a thousand maybe.

Q. And is it your custom --

A. Or more -- I'm sorry -- probably more. Just four years in West Detectives I probably did more than that, yeah.

Q. And as a matter of your custom and practice as a police officer, Detective -- I assume you went through sergeant, lieutenant before you got to captain -- was it your practice to record verbatim the questions you are asking the person you were interviewing and to record verbatim the answers that individual gave you?

A. Yes, ma'am, I do the best I can. I always had a policy, I'm not the greatest typer in the world, but I would type my question, read it to whoever I was interviewing, and instructing him to go slow because I'm not the best typer and do my best to get it word-for-word.

Q. And did you do this to Mr. Howard on December the 9th, 1981?

Page 128.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. Definitely.

Q. Could you then, beginning with the first -- I'm sorry. As a matter of your custom and practice, after you completed recording an interview with someone, did there sometimes come an occasion where you would -- strike that. After you completed recording an interview with a person that you were interviewing, what was your custom and practice with regard to giving that individual an opportunity to review it and asking that individual to fix their signature onto the pages of that interview?

A. Well, first off, I would always ask the person whether they could read and write the English language, how far they went in school. But it was my experience that some people were naturally embarrassed to tell you if they could not read and write the English language and would answer affirmatively to say yes. So I would tell them to read back the statement. I would tell them that if it's everything you said I would like you ta sign the bottom of each page. If there is any changes you want to make we'll make them. You make the change yourself in your handwriting and initial it. And then I would usually tell them -- not usually -- always tell them to read out loud at least the first

Page 129.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

few lines of the interview so I knew myself that whoever was reading the statement could read and write the English language and could comprehend exactly what I had put on paper.

Q. And was that what you did with Mr. Howard?

A. Pardon me, ma'am?

Q. Is that what you did with Mr. Howard?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, was it your practice to ask the individual, after giving, after having him read a portion of it out loud and address it themselves, to ask the individual whom you had interviewed to place their signature on the bottom of each page of the interview that you took?

A. Yes. And I would always tell them -- not actually the bottom of the page -- I always wanted them to sign it at the last typed line, whether that be a question or an answer. So that there would never be a question whether anything was added between the last line of the typing and someone's signature.

Q. Now, in Commonwealth Exhibit C-16, the interview of Mr. Howard, is that Mr. Howard's signature on the bottom of page l?

A. Yes, ma'am, I remember him signing it, I could

Page 130.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

tell you that.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I remember him signing it.

Q. And did Mr. Howard place his signature on the bottom of all of these pages?

A. Ahh, yes, ma'am, he did. And twice on page 5.

Q. And can you explain to us why his signature appears twice on page 5?

A. The best I could recall, we had our interview reviewed by someone in Homicide, it's usually a supervisor. And a question had come up about him possibly being involved in, I think it was an auto accident. Yeah, it would be involved in an auto accident and it was kind of a loose end that we wanted covered. Brought him back and told him that we just wanted to cover one loose end and asked him a few questions about this auto accident. We were trying to get some kind of reasonable explanation why paperwork in his name was found in Danny's -- excuse me -- Officer Faulkner's clothing.

Q. Okay. Well, what I would like you to do, please, with respect to the first three pages, please, of this document, Captain, is to read to us the questions that you asked of Mr. Howard and the answers that he gave you.

Page 131.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Starting with the first question, please.

A. Question: Arnold, last night a police officer was shot and killed at 1200 Locust Street. What can you tell me about the shooting.

Answer: Nothing.

Question: Arnold, I am going to show you a photostatic copy of an application for a duplicate driver's license. What can you tell me about this application. In parentheses, Howard was then shown by Detective D'Amato a copy of Bassett's application for duplicate operator's license made out in his name.

Answer: It's mine.

Question: When and where did you get it.

Answer: I got it from Bassett's at Broad and Poplar on the 27th of November.

Question: When was the last time you saw this Bassett's application.

Answer: The Monday before last. In parentheses: Howard was then shown a calendar by Detective Williams and stated the 30th of November.

Question --

Q. Before you go forward: Are these

Page 132.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

parentheticals reflecting something that occurred other than what was said while you were taking the statement?

A. These are reflecting any actions that myself or Detective Williams or anybody else who might have been in the room would do or say or just as to explain what we were doing.

Q. And at the time, do you type those parentheticals in?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Were they accurately reflecting what was being done in the course of this interview?

A. Yes, ma'am, they were.

Q. Please continue with the next question.

A. Question: Where were you when you saw this application on November the 30th.

Answer: At 18th and Chestnut at the Chuckwagon. I was eating inside there.

Question: What did you do with this Bassett's application at the Chuckwagon.

Answer: I had it in my pocket then. I didn't discover it missing until this past Saturday. The 5th of December. In parentheses: Howard referring to calendar.

Question: Do you know how you lost

Page 133.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

it.

Answer: I believe I had lost it in the back of that Volkswagen.

Page 2. Question: What Volkswagen would that be.

Answer: William Cook's Volkswagen.

Question: When were you in William Cook's Volkswagen.

Answer: The Monday I was in the Volkswagen. William is a vendor in Center City. I ran, I ran into him when I left the Chuckwagon in front of the Duke and Duchess movie. He gave me a ride to 8th and Spring Garden.

Question: Who was in William Cook's auto besides you and him when he gave you the ride on that Monday.

Answer: Just him. He had a lot of stock in the car, incense and gloves and umbrellas.

Question: Where did you sit in the Volkswagen when he gave you the ride.

Answer: I sat in the back, the front seat was full of stuff.

Question: When was the last time you saw William Cook.

Answer: That was the last time, that

Page 134.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

Monday about five o'clock in the afternoon.

Question: Do you know Wesley Cook.

Answer: Yes, I knew them both.

Question: How do you know Wesley.

Answer: We all grew up together in the Spring Garden projects.

Question: When was the last time you saw Wesley Cook.

Answer: I ain't seen Wesley in almost a month.

Question: Did you know where your driver's application was before today.

Answer: No. I thought I had lost it on the street because I lost the phone book with it. I thought my wife had it because I had a lot of girls' phone numbers in it.

Question: Do you know where Wesley Cook lives.

Answer: He was living with his mother at 7th and Wallace, I think 704 Wallace.

Question: Do you know where William Cook lives.

Answer: In the same place with his mother.

Page 3. Question: When did you hear

Page 135.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

about the officer being shot last night.

Answer: This morning on the radio.

Question: Did you know then that Wesley and William Cook had been arrested.

Answer: No. But I heard on Mary Mason that Mumia had been arrested and I know Mumia to be Wesley Cook. That's his Muslim name.

Question: When did you know that your driver's license application was found.

Answer: After I got your message to call the Roundhouse and I spoke to a Detective Thomas. He had asked me my phone number.

Question: Do you know where we found your Bassett's application.

Answer: No.

Question: When I first asked you if you knew how you lost your application you answered I believe I had lost it in the back of that Volkswagen. What made you say that.

Answer: Because of what the officer had said to me on the phone. He said you found a duplicate license with my name on it.

Question: Did he say where we found it.

Answer: No. All he said is that you

Page 136.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

found it.

Question: How did you know about a Volkswagen.

Answer: I read it in the Daily News and I know the Volkswagen was William's.

Question: What can you tell me about Wesley Cook.

Answer: All we did was grow up together, gang warred together. We were in the Black Panther Party together around '69 or '70.

Question: Is there anything else you can think of that would help us in our investigation of the shooting of Police Officer Faulkner.

Answer: That's all I know. What I read in the paper.

Question: Do you know Officer Faulkner.

Answer: I may know him. I'm the secretary of the Town Watch in Spring Garden and I know Officer Redden at 11th and Winter.

Q. Now, Captain, these are the first three pages of the total five-page statement?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And is what you have just read the as best you were able to type it verbatim account of the

Page 137.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

questions that you asked Mr. Howard and the answers that he gave you?

A. Yes, ma'am, they are.

Q. And are these three pages among the five pages that were signed by Mr. Howard after your total interview with him was completed?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, how long did your interview with Mr. Howard take place?

A. How long did it last, did you say, ma'am?

Q. Yes, if you know.

A. I don't know.

Q. Utilizing the time out sheet, or the time out column in the logbook which is Commonwealth Exhibit 19, which reflect, which reflects the numbers 2:30?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Are you able to tell us based on the statement which you have now refreshed yourself with -- Arnold Howard -- whether that was 2:30 p.m. on December the 9th?

A. To the best of my recollection, that was 2:30 p.m., yes, ma'am.

Q. Incidentally, what kind of vehicle were you and Detective Williams using when you picked up Mr. Howard at the Richard Allen Homes?

Page 138.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Direct

A. An unmarked detective squad car.

Q. Was it a police wagon?

A. No.

Q. Did it look at all like a police wagon?

A. No. It is an unmarked four-door, I believe in those days we were driving Plymouths.

Q. After you completed the taking of the statement of Mr. Howard, Mr. Howard signed the statement, did you escort Mr. Howard out of the Police Administration Building?

A. At sometime what I believe happened, the best I could remember is we gave the interview to someone at detective -- ahh, Homicide. Most likely a supervisor, I believe. And waited for him to review the statement and then he would just get the word okay to come back. That's how it would work. And to the best I could recall, ma'am, that's what happened that afternoon.

Q. Well, after the completion of the interview Mr. Howard left the Police Administration Building, and that was at 2:30 p.m?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall whether Mr. Howard then took himself home or whether you provided him with a ride home?

Page 139.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

A. I'm sorry, I can't recall.

MS. FISK: Thank you. I have no further questions of the captain, Your Honor.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good afternoon, Detective D'Amato.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Did Mr. Howard in the course of that interview 13 years ago indicate to you at any time that what was found with Officer Faulkner was actually a duplicate license and not an application for a license?

A. Can I refer to my notes if that's --

Q. Well, let me ask you this. Without referring to your notes you have no independent recollection, do you?

A. Yeah, the way I remember it, it was an application from a place called Bassett's Auto Tags Service that had his name on it. And, I believe, again to the best of my recollection, that it was checked application for duplicate driver's license.

Q. My question remains, did Mr. Howard indicate

Page 140.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

to you at any time in that interview that what was found was an actual duplicate license and not an application?

A. No, I don't believe he did.

Q. Is it, then, you have a recollection and your recollection is he never said it, or is it that you can't recall today?

A. If you would let me look at these, if he said it it would be on here. If he didn't, if it's not on here he didn't say it.

Q. I will let you look at it in a minute. But my question to you at this point is without looking at it, you can't say one way or the other; isn't that true?

A. If he told me that what was found was an actual duplicate driver's license, I don't believe he said that. I don't recall him saying that.

Q. You don't recall because so much time has passed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you have no recall without referring to the interview?

A. Oh, I have some recall without referring to the interview, but that particular case, I know I asked some question and phrased it using the word

Page 141.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

duplicate something on there. And that's all I wanted to clear up. But I, if he would have said that he had given, that he had a duplicate driver's license, that would have been recorded on here, that's what I can tell you for sure.

Q. But you can't tell us today if he said that?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, I have to sustain that. Now you are arguing with him. He already answered that question.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. You have no recall of whether or not he said that?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. He has answered that question. He has answered that he does not remember hearing him say that. He said that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Is that your testimony: You don't remember him saying that?

THE COURT: Counselor, the testimony is what is in the Court record.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Counsel just tried to clarify it.

Page 142.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

THE COURT: I am not worrying about what Counsel is trying to do. As I recollect, he has already answered that question.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. My question to you, Detective, is to your present recollection, did Mr. Howard say to you, at any time, that there was a duplicate license involved?

A. Okay. I believe the word recall --

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: Asked and answer.

THE COURT: Go ahead, one more time.

THE WITNESS: I believe the word recall and recollection come from the same root and I am going to tell you that I can not recall him saying that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Okay. And my last question on that point is, are you saying that he might have said it and you don't remember, or are you saying you have a recollection and he didn't say it?

A. I'm saying that to the best of my recollection he did not say it.

Q. Okay. Now will you turn to page 3 of the interview. And I direct your attention to a question

Page 143.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

you asked which reads this way. Midway on the page. My first, when I first asked you if you knew how you lost your application you answered, quote, I believe I had lost it in the back of the Volkswagen. What made you say that.

Then the answer that you recorded that Mr. Howard gave you is because of what the officer had said to me on the phone. He said you found a duplicate license with my name on it. Does that refresh your recollection that Mr. Howard referred to a duplicate license?

A. Yeah, that refreshes my recollection. Mr. Howard's quoting what a detective told him on the phone. That's not Mr. Howard saying that it was. He's quoting that a detective told him that.

Q. Right. But he is referring there not to an application but to a duplicate license; isn't that right?

A. To a duplicate -- yes, that's right, sir.

Q. Having read that, do you now recall that Mr. Howard on more than one occasion said to you that what was involved here -- please don't read the statement -- if you have problems recalling just tell me and you can refer to the statement.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

Page 144.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

Objection.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Do you now recall --

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is a rule: A witness can not refer to a statement unless a witness first acknowledges that he has no recollection, then he may refer to the statement.

THE COURT: All right. Repeat that question again.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Right. My having read this to you and you now having seen it in print, does that bring to mind the fact that Mr. Howard on more than one occasion indicated to you that what was involved here was a duplicate license and not an application?

A. No.

Q. It doesn't help you with that recall?

A. I don't remember us going over that a multitude of times. And again, like I told you, Howard was then quoting what a detective told him on the phone. That wasn't, he wasn't saying I lost a duplicate license. He said something to the effect of you told me. And he might have thought he was

Page 145.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

talking to me, which he wasn't, but he said something you told me they found a duplicate license. He is quoting someone else. He didn't say I lost a duplicate license. He is quoting what the detective told him on the phone.

Q. You don't know who the detective who spoke to him on the phone was, do you?

A. I don't know for sure, no, I don't.

Q. And you weren't even privy to that conversation, were you?

A. Ahh, no, I wasn't.

Q. So he might have had a conversation with a detective about the duplicate license that was found at the scene?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, as to what he might have.

THE COURT: I will sustain that. How is he going to know that?

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, as I understand it, you were working the midnight-to-8:00 shift?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And your shift ended at 8:00 a.m?

A. Scheduled to end at 8:00 a.m.

Q. Pardon?

Page 146.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

A. Scheduled to end at 8:00 a.m.

Q. In this instance you were asked to stay over?

A. Yes.

Q. The morning of December 9th?

A. Yes.

Q. And as I understand it, you were one detective from a division that was brought into Homicide to work this case?

A. Yes, sir, there were seven Detective division at that time and I believe Homicide called for one detective from each division.

Q. So to your understanding, there were seven detectives working this case that morning?

A. No, I have no idea how many detectives were working that case that morning.

Q. Well, did you see detectives from other divisions in Homicide that morning?

A. I probably wouldn't recognize everybody there and be able to tell you whether they were Northeast Division, East Division or Homicide. But I couldn't tell you today that I recall who I saw that night, I don't.

Q. No, but you were telling us that one detective from each division was called in, to your knowledge?

A. To my knowledge.

Page 147.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

Q. And that's what brought you there?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And so, presumably, there were seven other detectives, or six others?

A. Theoretically that would be about right.

Q. So your recall of that morning was that there were a number of detectives in Homicide working?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they were questioning witnesses about the shooting of Officer Faulkner?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. This goes beyond the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. He is here for one purpose only: What he did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

THE COURT: Let's not try to inquire about what everybody else did, okay.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, that day when you questioned Mr. Howard up in Homicide, do you know if there were three or four little interrogation rooms?

A. The way I remember Homicide, I think there was two interrogation rooms on one side of the room; and

Page 148.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

there might have been one or two on the other side of the room, but I think they were mostly used for files and things. That's the best I remember how Homicide was laid out.

Q. But what you saw were a number of detectives questioning a number of people while you were there with Mr. Howard?

A. Counsel, I will tell you the truth: I can't remember exactly what I saw. I can only from my experience, especially with a dead police officer, tell you that I can be certain that there was a lot of activity in Homicide at that time. And I'm sure that people were being interviewed. To tell you today that I could remember people sitting here and there, I can't.

Q. Right. But you were there 12:30 or thereabouts?

A. Yes.

Q. Right. It's about seven hours after the shooting.

A. Okay.

Q. And detectives were up there and they were questioning an unspecified number of people about the shooting?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor:

Page 149.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

It's been asked and answered.

THE COURT: I will have sustain that, Counselor. He is not here as to what everybody else was doing. Just what he did in this instance, in this case. Let's stick to that. Otherwise, we could stay here for hours.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, Your Honor, one of the things that we do when a witness comes in to testify who has interviewed over a thousand people over a period of more than 20 years is we test his recollection as to the event in question.

THE COURT: Well, test it as to this.

MR. WEINGLASS: To try to see what Detective D'Amato remembers of that time on December 9th, 1981. The detective's been retired for a number of years. And he's been very busy during the course of a quarter of a century of work. I want to see how he can remember December 9th, 1981.

MS. FISK: First of all, it is the captain who has been retired for a number of years. He was a detective in 1981. And second, Your Honor, he has testified that he knows there was a lot of activity in Homicide, beyond that

Page 150.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

he does not have, as I understood his answer, specific recollection of who was doing what with whom.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, he remembers a detective from seven different divisions, keeping one of them, and he remembers the room and he remembers activity --

THE COURT: I don't remember him saying that he remembers seven detectives.

MR. WEINGLASS: One from each of seven divisions.

THE COURT: He said they had that many divisions and they were calling for help and they asked somebody to send one detective from each division.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

THE COURT: Well, who they are, I don't know that he knows that. He knows that he was called from his division. That's all he knows.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right, and that there were six other detectives.

THE COURT: So what? He doesn't necessarily know who they are.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

Page 151.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

THE COURT: And what difference does it make who they were? He is here to tell you what he did that day.

MR. WEINGLASS: It goes to his recollection.

THE COURT: His recollection as to what he did that day. Now let's stick to that. Not about everybody else.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. So you interviewed Mr. Howard, you said, on this day in question; is that right?

A. I interviewed Mr. Howard, yes, sir.

Q. Did you interview others?

A. Truthfully, I can't remember. I don't know if I did.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, when were you first contacted to come here --

A. To come to this Courtroom?

Q. Yeah.

A. Today being Friday. Ahh, Wednesday in the a.m., Wednesday morning.

Q. And you are retired --

Page 152.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. -- as I understand it. And you have been retired for how long?

A. Three years and two months. Not that I'm counting, but. Three years and two months.

Q. And before that you were with the Police Department for how long?

A. About 23 years.

Q. 23 years. And you were contacted, did you say in the late afternoon on Wednesday?

A. No, I'm going to guess it was around maybe eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock in the morning. 1l:00 a.m., 12:00 noon.

Q. And who contacted you?

A. Actually, I got home and my daughter told me to call a friend of mine who's still in the Police Department, that it was important. I called him, he told me that they needed me on this case. He gave me Detective Williams and his beeper. I beeped Detective Williams. He called me at home. He gave me Miss Fisk's phone number at the District Attorney's Office. I called Miss Fisk's office. She wasn't available. I left a message and my home phone number and approximately 20 minutes later Ms. Fisk called me.

Page 153.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

Q. And it happened just as you described?

A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. Right. So even as a retired captain the District Attorney's Office is able to make you available as a witness in just a matter of a few hours?

A. Well, I guess that depends on where you retire to, Counselor. My mistake was retiring close by.

Q. Right. So you were in or near the City of Philadelphia?

THE COURT: You should have gone to Key West.

THE WITNESS: I'm headed there, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. So you're testifying about the extraordinary capability of the District Attorney's Office to reach out for a witness, even a retired one, and bring him to Court when they need him?

A. It's actually --

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, to the form of that question.

THE WITNESS: I thought it was my extraordinary reputation.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Page 154.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

Q. Right. Do you know, by the way, a police officer named, an ex-police officer named Gary Wakshul?

A. Wakshul?

Q. Yes.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: It goes beyond the scope of direct examination.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, so when you were contacted did there come a point in time where you met with representatives of the District Attorney's Office?

A. Very shortly. Yes.

Q. Very shortly after that?

A. No, very shortly yesterday morning.

Q. I see. And you came here to the building or people went to you?

A. I'm sorry, sir. To meet --

Q. Was the meeting here in the building or outside?

A. Well, actually the meeting was in the lobby of the District Attorney's Office. Because I explained to Ms. Fisk that I'm claustrophobic and do not like to take elevators, so she was kind enough to meet me

Page 155.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

in the lobby.

Q. And you, were you shown anything?

A. Ahh, a copy of my statement.

Q. When you say my statement, what are you referring to?

A. The statement I typed, the statement I took from Mr. Howard.

Q. You were shown that one statement?

A. And I believe she showed me a Court record of Mr. Howard's affidavit or something, whatever. I don't know exactly the legal term of it.

Q. And it was on the basis of your reading those that you testified today?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. It would be fair to say, would it not, Captain, that without reading that statement you would have no independent recollection of Mr. Howard?

A. I could tell you that I, I would have remembered. This was a murder of a police officer, so naturally it's not something that you would forget being a police officer. I would remember some of the things that I did that night. And I can honestly tell you that I do remember interviewing Mr. Howard.

Now, to tell you today that I could remember what we said or maybe even the subject, I

Page 156.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

might not have remembered. But I do remember doing a few things that night and that's one of the things I do remember.

Q. Could you describe Mr. Howard for us?

A. No, other than the -- excuse me -- the fact that he was a black male, I have no recollection of him.

Q. None?

A. No, I wouldn't know him if he was here today.

Q. Would you know him if he was here in the Courtroom?

A. No, sir, no way.

Q. Now, so you remember interviewing, you're telling us, Mr. Howard?

A. Yeah, I remember, I remember going out with Williams, picking him up and interviewing him.

Q. But you don't remember interviewing anyone else?

A. No. I, I was a detective for about four years and I had been assigned to Homicide on occasion to homicides and sometimes those things kind of run together. Maybe I interviewed a peripheral police officer from somewhere but I really couldn't honestly tell you today whether I interviewed anybody else that night or not. I had been there a couple of

Page 157.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

hours prior to interviewing Mr. Howard, so there is a good possibility I wasn't just standing around, there is a possibility I interviewed somebody else.

Q. Those are all possibilities?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Your recollection is no better than possibilities?

A. On some points.

Q. And as a matter of fact, until you saw the statement which the Assistant District Attorney gave you your recollection of Mr. Howard was no better than possibilities? Isn't that true?

A. Well, if you are talking about his physical appearance or anything like that, yes, you are correct. But I do remember interviewing a person that night on the Officer Faulkner case. I can honestly tell you I remember that. And I remember going out and picking him up. But, I'm sorry, but if you called me up three days ago and said who did you interview when Danny Faulkner was killed I couldn't tell you.

Q. As a matter of fact, you couldn't even give us the name, could you?

A. No.

Q. The name Arnold Howard meant nothing to you

Page 158.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

two days ago?

A. Until about before eleven o'clock it didn't, right.

Q. It didn't meaning anything to you. It was only after you were shown a statement with his name on it that you even knew the name?

A. That's right.

Q. And even today you can't even place the face?

A. No, sir, I can't.

Q. Or whether he is tall or short or heavy?

A. I don't think he was heavy. I think he was kind of a slim guy, if I remember. But I don't think he was heavy. But was that's about the best I could do for you today.

Q. But isn't it true that your whole testimony here today is nothing more than your reciting what you read on the document?

A. No, I wouldn't say that.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. His testimony speaks for itself. He has been asked extensively as to his recollections independent of what's recorded. It is unfair for Counsel to characterize it in that way.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did you ask Mr. Arnold Howard to take a

Page 159.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

polygraph test that night?

A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Did he agree to take one?

A. I believe he did answer affirmatively.

Q. To your knowledge was one administered?

A. Ahh, I didn't administer one and to my knowledge --

Q. Pardon?

A. I did not administer a polygraph and to my knowledge it was not, but I couldn't tell you for sure.

Q. So you don't even know if they did a polygraph that night?

A. That's correct, that wasn't my decision.

Q. Do you know if there was any test done on his hand?

A. I did no test on his hands. And to the best of my knowledge, I have no knowledge of any test being done to his hands.

Q. So it might have been done, you have no recollection of that either?

A. I could tell you I didn't do it.

Q. That's all?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember another gentleman being there

Page 160.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

at the same time in the Homicide by the name of Kenneth Freeman?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, just one and let's cut it out, all right.

THE WITNESS: Kenneth Freeman, sir?

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Yeah.

A. That name doesn't ring a bell to me, I don't remember that.

Q. Doesn't ring a bell?

A. No, sir.

Q. But there were other gentlemen there, some of them were African American?

MS. FISK: Objection.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Isn't that correct?

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. He said there were a lot of people there. Now, come on, Counselor.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time among Defense Counsel.)

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Incidentally, do you have any recollection of whether or not you physically possessed the document

Page 161.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

of Arnold Howard that was found at the crime scene that night? I'm sorry, that afternoon. Or morning.

A. I believe I was shown it. I believe I was shown it. That's the best -- again, Counselor, I am doing the best I can. To the best of my recollection somebody showed it to me.

Q. Well, did you then take whatever it was, a piece of paper, and put it in front of Mr. Howard and say Mr. Howard, this is what we are talking about?

A. I don't recall doing that and I believe if I did that I would have probably noted it on the interview.

Q. Well, why wouldn't you do that if you remember questioning him about a piece of paper, why would you show it to the gentleman?

A. Counselor, keep in mind that I wasn't a Homicide detective. I was a detective. What we did was on the instructions of a supervisor from Homicide. That was reviewed; and when they wanted you to do something else you did something else. We kind of stayed out of the way and did what we were told. We weren't running the investigation. If they had things to do, and their detectives were tied up doing something which was probably more important, we did it. I have no problem saying that we were more

Page 162.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

like go-fors, I guess.

Q. You were just doing what you were told?

A. Doing what I was told, and having things reviewed. And if they wanted something re-covered I did it. I really didn't have that much knowledge of the entire case at that point other than what I was being told.

Q. So, for instance, you didn't know, Captain D'Amato, you didn't know how many suspects there were, you didn't know the circumstances of the shooting, you didn't know any of those things because you didn't have to know them for the work you were being asked to do?

A. At the time of that interview --

Q. Yeah.

A. -- I had a rundown. I knew that there was at least one suspect in custody, and I had known the location and some of the particulars of the murder of Officer Faulkner.

Q. Did you say you went to the location before?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. Did you say you went to the location?

A. No, I am aware of the location where Officer Faulkner was murdered and some of the details. But that's the best I could tell you. Naturally they are

Page 163.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

going to run the job down to you when you got there, you are not going to walk in blind. But I am sure that I didn't know as much of the particulars as, let's say, the assigned from Homicide.

Q. Do you know if the driver's license belonging to Arnold Howard was found at the scene?

A. I have no knowledge of that, sir.

Q. You have no knowledge. Now, do you remember, Captain D'Amato, interviewing a patrolman by the name of Joseph Schuck?

A. Patrolman Shot?

Q. Schuck: S-C-H-U-C-K?

A. No.

Q. You don't remember interviewing him?

A. I may have interviewed some police officers that day, like I told you, but to say I could tell you yeah, I remember interviewing Officer Schuck, no, I don't.

Q. Do you remember interviewing Patrolman Robert Shoemaker that day?

A. Same answer, sir: Maybe I did, but to tell you today I have an independent recollection of that, I don't.

Q. Do you remember interviewing Patrolman William Maas that day, M-A-A-S?

Page 164.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

A. Same answer, sir: No.

Q. So you don't remember Patrolman Schuck, Patrolman Shoemaker, Patrolman Maas, all of whom you interviewed that day, all of whose interviews you recorded, all of whose interviews you typed up and had signed, but you remember Arnold Howard; is that your testimony?

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I object to the form of that question.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that. Save that for argument for the Court later on.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Were you shown any other interviews that you conducted that day?

A. No, sir, I wasn't.

Q. The District Attorney didn't show those to you?

A. No, sir, she did not.

Q. Incidentally, you were on duty that morning at 6:00 a.m., were you not?

A. 6:00 a.m. on the 9th, sir?

Q. Yeah.

A. Yes.

Q. And you were already working on this case at

Page 165.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

6:00 a.m., were you not?

A. I would guess. I really don't know what time I arrived at Homicide.

Q. Well, would it refresh your recollection if I told you that you had conducted an interview of Officer Shoemaker at 5:15 a.m?

A. If that's what it says then I was there by 5:15.

Q. And that you had conducted another interview... of another police officer named Schuck at 6:30 am; is that right?

A. Yes, sir, I testified that I think I may have interviewed some police officers but I just don't remember if I had some jobs running into each other there.

Q. But you were interviewing officers even before the sun came up?

A. Okay.

Q. Is that true?

A. What time does the sun come up on December 9th? I'm not exactly sure.

Q. It's probably still dark at five o'clock, isn't it?

A. Then I was interviewing them before the sun came up.

Page 166.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

Q. So you were working on this case before dawn?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, when you interviewed Mr. Howard, to your understanding the purpose of that interview is that Mr. Howard might have been a person who was at the scene of the crime because a document was found there with his name on it?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. I'm getting confused as to which of the two parties here is testifying. I object to that question.

MR. WEINGLASS: Cross-examination.

MS. FISK: There is no basis for that question.

MR. WEINGLASS: There were some leading questions on direct we allowed.

MS. FISK: Well, I was taking great instruction from Counsel who has been doing that for the last two-and-a-half weeks.

MR. WEINGLASS: Good, we're learning something.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, Captain D'Amato, you were questioning this person because he might have been involved in the murder of a police officer since a document with his name on it was found at the scene?

Page 167.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No, I will let him answer it, because we'll be here forever. It is 1:30 and I would like to get my lunch. So let's go.

THE WITNESS: I was questioning this man because of the document with his name on it was found on Police Officer Faulkner. Now, that interview and his answers to my questions will take me whether he was at the scene or whether there was a reasonable explanation. That's what it was. I didn't -- if you go into an investigation thinking you know the answers already, you're going to screw it up. I was interviewing that fellow because something was found with his name on it, and where my questions and his answers took me, that's where we were going. Whether it made him a suspect, a witness, or some guy who just lost a piece of paper that Danny happened to pick up that night.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. That is the methodology, but what I am asking about is in your thinking as you are interviewing this person, your thinking was this person, since a document was found with his name on it at the scene, might have been at the scene of the murder?

Page 168.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. He already answered that question, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Incidentally, and I mean no disrespect --

A. None taken.

Q. -- on this question: You referred to the deceased officer as Danny. Did you know Officer Faulkner?

A. I didn't personally know Officer Faulkner but I've been a police officer long enough that I feel a relationship to everybody who wears a badge.

Q. Okay. And you feel that strongly?

A. Very strong.

Q. Right. And your testimony here today is also, it would be fair to say, is also an effort to assist the District Attorney's Office?

A. My testimony today is the truth, Counselor, as I remember it. That was my job and I was a professional police officer, I tell you the truth.

Q. Right. But you didn't remember these other four interviews that you conducted on the same day?

A. If you review my testimony, I didn't tell you I didn't remember. I said I may have interviewed some police officers that night. Did I have an

Page 169.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Cross

independent recollection? No. You threw four names at me. I didn't even know Arnold Howard's name until Miss Fisk told me what it was.

Q. Okay.

A. That's what I told you. I am not telling you I don't remember interviewing police. I said I may have interviewed some police officers at that time, I don't remember everything I did.

But I do remember interviewing Mr. Howard, I could tell you that.

Q. And before you were shown the document that you typed up that night, you didn't have any independent recollection?

A. I couldn't --

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor, to that question. That has been asked and answered more than once.

THE COURT: I know that. Time and time again.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Let me just ask you a few last questions. Is there a tape recorder in the Homicide Unit at that time to your knowledge?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Did you in your work use tape recorders?

Page 170.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Redirect

A. Never used a tape recorder.

Q. Why is that?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained. He never used it.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. And did you ask at any time Mr. Howard to write out in his own hand what was involved with this duplicate license?

A. No, I don't believe I -- no, I never asked him that.

Q. As a matter of fact, you were the one who was typing, right?

A. Yes.

Q. You controlled what you typed; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you controlled what you typed as his answers; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right. I have nothing further.

- - - - -

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

Page 171.

Cap. Edward D'Amato, Ret. - Redirect

BY MS. FISK:

Q. So I understand it: After you typed his answers, that's why you give the document to Mr. Howard for his review before he places his signature on the pages; is that right?

A. I let him review it and tell him if that's what he said to sign it, and if there is any changes, go ahead and make them.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: Okay. We will recess for lunch until 2:45.

- - - - -

(Luncheon recess was held until 3:00 p.m.)

- - - - -

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everybody.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, if I could just raise one matter before calling the next witness, and it is with regard to the defense proffered witness William Singletary.

THE COURT OFFICER: Quiet in the Courtroom, please.

MS. FISK: Who was discussed this morning. As the Court is aware, throughout the course of these proceedings there were numerous

Page 172.

witnesses sought by the defense whom defense was unable to locate and obtain and the Commonwealth provided assistance in locating, serving and transporting witnesses to the Courtroom on behalf of defense. And that was done with a large number of the defense witnesses called in this proceeding. We, of course, were not given any notification with regard to the defense intent to call Mr. Singletary, but having been given that notification, we offer to the defense immediately, at this moment, police officers, detectives, cars, persons who could go to whatever address defense Counsel would like, any member of defense team can accompany those officers, so that Mr. Singletary can be brought into the Courtroom, placed on the witness stand and offer whatever testimony the defense chooses to have that witness offer today. I make that offer to the Court so that there can be no question about the ability of defense Counsel to produce the witness in this Courtroom.

THE COURT: Mr. Weinglass?

MR. WEINGLASS: No response is necessary to that.

THE COURT: Oh, you don't want them to

Page 173.

bring him in for you?

MR. WEINGLASS: There is no response that is necessary to that.

MS. FISK: Well, I disagree.

THE COURT: I will assume that they don't want him in, then.

MS. FISK: Very well, Your Honor.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, there is just no response to that offer. Counsel is making an offer on the record. My position is there is no need for it. There is no response necessary.

THE COURT: Well, then you won't be able to bring him in at any other time. It is either today or not at all. Now make up your mind. It is either today or not at all.

MR. WEINGLASS: As I understand it, there is another witness ready to testify.

THE COURT: I know, but in the meantime we have to have somebody go out there with one of your, I don't know whether he wants your investigator to go or one of the attorneys to go along with them to bring him in.

MS. FISK: And I would note, Your Honor, that we don't know where to go since --

THE COURT: They would have to tell

Page 174.

us.

MS. FISK: That is correct.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. WEINGLASS: I understand the Court's position: Either today or not at all.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BURNS: Your Honor, I think we should be clear as to why the defense is not calling the witness today. I think that mention was made of the notion that he was sick in some way. I would like the defense to represent on the record why this is preventing them from calling the witness. Is the witness incapacitated in some way? Is he in a wheelchair? Does he need assistance of some kind? Is he in an iron lung? Why can't he come in? We are waiting.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: I don't hear anything from defense Counsel. I assume that they are not interested. If they are not interested, I'm not interested. I can't beg them to go out there with you and bring them in.

MS. FISK: So long as it is clear that it is their choice, Your Honor, that the

Page 175.

witness --

THE COURT: I understand it is their choice. You made the offer, they don't want to accept it it is their choice.

MS. FISK: Very well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Abu-Jamal, are you satisfied with the representation you are getting here from these attorneys?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, that question has no relevancy to these proceedings.

THE COURT: Yes, it does.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to it.

THE COURT: Well, you can object but I asked the question.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am instructing Mr. Jamal not to answer the Court, respectfully. That has no relevance to the proceedings.

THE COURT: Oh, yes it does. I don't want another PCRA if I could help it.

MR. BURNS: Your Honor, the Defendant has an absolute right to compulsory process to the witness he wants to call. Mr. Weinglass is saying that he can make a statement on the record and we are not entitled to know whether or not he is making a knowing and intelligent

Page 176.

waiver for this witness. I think the Court is entitled to inquire on that point.

THE COURT: Mr. Abu-Jamal, do you want us to bring this witness in for you?

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I am conducting this proceeding.

THE COURT: I know you are, just like Anthony Jackson was conducting it. And then we get all these PCRAs. I want to prevent that. I don't want him to accuse you of being ineffective, Counselor. I want to hear from him that he is satisfied with you and he doesn't want this witness in.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, the representation was made to the Court this morning that I had a conversation with Mr. Singletary before Court, which I did.

THE COURT: I know that. I know all about that, Counselor. They made an offer to help you out. Either you accept it or you don't. If you don't want to bring him in, fine, then say you don't want to bring him in.

MR. WEINGLASS: As I indicated this morning, Mr. Singletary is a witness for the defense.

Page 177.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: Will be a limited witness, limited solely to the method and manner that the police used in interrogating him on the night in question.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, then let's bring him in and let him tell us that.

MR. WEINGLASS: For that limited purpose we will call him.

THE COURT: Where is he? Well, now you are going to call him, he is going to come in?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yeah.

THE COURT: All right. Do you want to put on your witness first and we will take that matter up later?

MR. BURNS: Right after Counsel puts on the record why the witness has now miraculously recovered from the illness he had this morning when he couldn't be brought in.

THE COURT: I understand that, Counselor.

MS. FISK: Do I understand that the witness is here and they don't need assistance of an officer? I am not clear. Because if he

Page 178.

is not here, before we call the next witness we have to start the process so they can go out and get him.

THE COURT: Is he here?

MR. WEINGLASS: We are calling the witness now.

THE COURT: You will call him at home?

MR. WEINGLASS: No.

THE COURT: You are going to call him to the stand now?

MR. WEINGLASS: That's right.

THE COURT: Oh, okay. All right. You know, if you speak English, Counselor, even I'll understand you.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I thought calling the witness has a certain connotation.

THE COURT: No.

MR. WEINGLASS: Usually when an attorney --

THE COURT: I asked you.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- puts a witness on --

THE COURT: Then he is here. And that's what I was asking you: Is he here. And you are not saying a word. You are giving me

Page 179.

impression that he's home sick somewhere.

MR. WEINGLASS: He was this morning.

THE COURT: Oh, he was this morning. Okay.

The only thing I want to know: Do you want to hold up that doctor? Could we take -- I don't care but I hate to...

MR. WEINGLASS: Dr. Hood is here, I would be happy to call Dr. Hood first.

THE COURT: Well, I hate to have the doctor sit around here.

MR. WEINGLASS: Fine, Judge, no problem.

THE COURT: If he has something more important to do. Since you already listed him for --

MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor, Dr. Hood is here.

THE COURT: All right, then let's put him on.

MS. FISK: Fine, Your Honor.

Ian Hood, M.D., Deputy Medical
Examiner for the City and County of
Philadelphia, having been duly sworn, was
examined and testified as follows:

Page 180.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct on Voir Dire

- - - - -

THE WITNESS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon.

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION ON VOIR DIRE

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Dr. Hood, you have identified yourself as a Deputy Medical Examiner. Is that in the City of Philadelphia?

A. That is correct.

Q. Would you please tell us what your training and qualifications are that enable you to hold that position?

A. I'm a forensic pathologist. I graduated from medical school in my homeland, where my accent comes from, New Zealand. In 1979, having left medical school after doing two years of internship there in New Zealand I came to Canada and did a five-year residency in the general field of pathology, at the end of which time I was Board certified in that specialty, both there in Canada and here in the United States.

Page 181.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct on Voir Dire

And in 1984 I came to the United States. I trained in forensic pathology in the Detroit medical examiner's office, which is a very busy one. And became Board certified in the sub-specialty area of forensic pathology in 1986. And have practiced basically in that area ever since. And for the last five-and-a-half of those years, that's been here in Philadelphia.

Q. In your capacity as a medical examiner both in Philadelphia and Detroit, have you performed post-mortem examinations?

A. Many of them, yes.

Q. How many?

A. Well, probably in Philadelphia it would probably be close to 3,000 by now, I would think.

Q. Have you offered publications or articles in the field of forensic pathology?

A. A few, yes.

Q. On how many occasions have you been published in the field?

A. I think I have about 20 or thereabouts publications now.

Q. Dr. Hood, have you presented yourself as an expert in the field of forensic pathology in this jurisdiction: Philadelphia?

Page 182.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct on Voir Dire

A. Yes.

Q. On how many occasions?

A. Several hundred.

Q. Has there ever been an occasion where you have not been accepted as an expert in the field of forensic pathology in the County of Philadelphia?

A. No.

Q. Have there been other counties in which you have been accepted, or other locations in which you have been accepted as an expert in the field of forensic pathology --

A. Yes.

Q. -- for purposes of testimony? What other locations is that?

A. Predominantly within Michigan and the area in and around Detroit where I was assistant medical examiner. A couple of occasions in Los Angeles, and most of the other times since then here.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I offer Dr. Hood to the Court as an expert in the field of forensic pathology for the purposes of his testimony.

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, may we have what we haven't been given up to now? Offer of proof.

Page 183.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct on Voir Dire

MS. FISK: Certainly. I'm sorry, that was this morning.

Dr. Hood is being called for the sole purpose of giving his opinion regarding the second mark on the neck of Officer Faulkner that has been made reference to by Dr. Hayes in the defense case.

MR. WEINGLASS: Is that his current opinion or an opinion back then?

MS. FISK: It is going to be his opinion based upon review of records and photographs.

MR. WEINGLASS: Currently.

MS. FISK: Well, I think that the only opinion he has is the opinion that he has as he sits here.

MR. WEINGLASS: That's what I wanted to know.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Doctor --

THE COURT: Well, for qualifications do you have any questions?

MR. WEINGLASS: Yes, I wanted to know whether I am questioning him on his qualifications in '81 or whether I'm questioning

Page 184.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross on Voir Dire

him on his qualifications in '95.

THE COURT: Well, I would assume in '95.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is an assumption I make. I want to be sure of that.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Doctor --

THE COURT: That's what he is testifying today, right?

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION ON VOIR DIRE

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Doctor, you had nothing to do with the autopsy of Officer Faulkner in December of 1981; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So you are presently Board certified?

A. That is correct.

Q. In 1981 you were not?

A. Not in forensic pathology.

Q. Yes?

A. In fact, not even in anatomic pathology. At that time I would still have been doing my residency

Page 185.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross on Voir Dire

in Canada.

Q. You were still doing what?

A. My residency in Canada.

Q. You were just a resident at that time?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay. Now, have you, Doctor, ever been published with respect to gunshot wounds?

A. Yes, I've published I can recall a couple of articles concerning gunshot wounds, one in which you got multiple exits from single entrances, that kind of thing.

Q. I'm sorry, what was the title?

A. I can think of one from Detroit where I published a couple of cases who happened to have more than one exit wound for one entrance.

Q. Yes. And could you refresh me as to where that publication appears in your vitae? Is it number 13.

(Pause.)

A. Yes.

Q. And could you read into the record the title of that particular publication?

A. Single Gunshots With Multiple Entrances.

Q. So that article dealt with multiple entrances?

A. Yes, you are correct.

Page 186.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross on Voir Dire

Q. Have you ever published about multiple exits?

A. No, it is a common phenomenon so I don't know that one would even bother publishing that.

Q. Right. But my question to you is have you published about multiple exits?

A. I mentioned it in that paper, mostly just to say that it's a well-known phenomenon, it occurs, and occasionally the opposite happens.

Q. Did you bring that paper with you today?

A. No.

Q. You indicated in your expert opinion it's a well-known phenomenon: Exit wounds?

A. Well, having a missile split up and gives rise to more than one exit wound from a single entrance is quite common, yes.

Q. Quite common. Right. And by whom are you now employed?

A. The City of Philadelphia.

Q. I see. And how long have you been employed by the City of Philadelphia?

A. For five-and-a-half years, since the end of 1989.

Q. And you told us you've testified as an expert on a number of occasions?

A. Yes.

Page 187.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross on Voir Dire

Q. Have those occasions always been for the prosecution?

A. I don't know who calls me. Most of the time I get called by the Assistant District Attorney. They don't actually subpoena me, they just tell me that the case is coming up, that they would like to call me. I would guess that most of the time I am called predominantly by the, called to the stand by the District Attorney's Office, yes.

Q. Right. To refine the answer most of the time a little more: Was there ever an occasion in your illustrious career where you were retained by a defense attorney?

A. I've never been retained as a, as an expert being paid a fee. On one or two occasions I've been called by the defense to the stand just in my employment as a deputy medical examiner. On one occasion I can think of I had been called by the District Attorney first and the defense attorney wanted some clarification and called me back. But I've also been called primarily by the defense attorney on one particular case I can think of.

Q. On one case?

A. Yes.

Q. But so I make myself clear: Has a defense

Page 188.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

attorney ever retained you in advance of trial for assisting the defense in the field of forensic pathology?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor: This doesn't go to his qualifications.

THE COURT: I know that. I was waiting for somebody to say something. The objection is sustained. We are only here for qualifications.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: All right. The Court accepts him as an expert in his field. Let's go. Come on.

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Dr. Hood, have you had the opportunity to review the photographs taken of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner at the time of his autopsy?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you also had an opportunity to review the medical records, that is the hospital records from Jefferson Hospital reflecting the treatment that

Page 189.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

Police Officer Faulkner received at the hospital prior to the transfer of his remains to the Office of the Medical Examiner?

A. Yes.

Q. Based upon those two items, Dr. Hood, are you able to give an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what it is you see in the photographs on Officer Faulkner's neck, specifically whether, how many or whether we are seeing any gunshot wounds, whether we are seeing anything else in any of the neck photographs or the photographs of Officer Faulkner?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection. The witness has indicated he has seen photographs. We do not know what photographs. Photographs were marked for identification.

THE COURT: Save it for your cross-examination.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, it's contained in the question. Ordinarily --

THE COURT: The objection is overruled. Save it for your cross.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, it was my understanding -- I'm sorry -- that the slides which Dr. Hayes had were returned to Counsel.

Page 190.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

If Counsel still has them or they are here in the record I would be very happy to have those slides shown to Counsel. I understood they were no longer in the Court record and those slides were returned to Defense Counsel several days ago so that they could have them duplicated. It was for that reason that I was making reference to photographs. I believe that Dr. Hood has some copies he made. If Counsel would like to look at them to assure himself that they are indeed copies of slides which are no longer in the possession of the Court, because they have been returned to Defense Counsel, he can do that.

MR. WEINGLASS: Precisely. As a matter of courtesy to the Court and Counsel, when an expert is asked to give an opinion based on photographs, those photographs which he bases his opinion on in part are given to the Court and to Counsel.

THE COURT: All right, Counselor.

MS. FISK: As a matter --

THE COURT: Counselor, give it back to the Court. You have the photos. Give them back to the Court.

Page 191.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

MR. WEINGLASS: These aren't the photos he saw.

THE COURT: How do you know what he saw? Give me back the photos.

MR. WEINGLASS: These are not the photos he saw.

THE COURT: Give me back the photos.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor --

THE COURT: Will you please?

MR. WEINGLASS: I am asking for the photos he bases his testimony on.

THE COURT: Give me back the photos. They are not your photos.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record show that the Court is raising his voice.

THE COURT: And let the record show that Counsel is not doing what I tell him to do. Counselor... You are in contempt of Court. I am fining you a thousand dollars because you wouldn't do what I wanted you to do.

MR. WEINGLASS: I was walking up to the bar.

THE COURT: No, you weren't walking up. You were standing over there arguing with

Page 192.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

me. One thousand dollars, okay. Where is the Clerk? Make out an order for that and I will sign it.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record show that the Court was shouting and pointing its finger --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- in a threatening manner to defense Counsel.

THE COURT: Not a threatening manner, a promising manner.

MR. WEINGLASS: Threatening.

THE COURT: Promising. One thousand dollars, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: I heard the Court the first time.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, I think I am entitled to --

THE COURT: Just a minute, Counselor.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am entitled to counsel on the issue of contempt. I am entitled to counsel on the issue of a fine.

THE COURT: You have a lot of Counsel over there. There are two of them sitting right

Page 193.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

there.

MR. WEINGLASS: I demand my right to an independent counsel.

THE COURT: Well, take it up with the Supreme Court.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well. Your Honor --

THE COURT: Or whatever appellate court you want to go to. I have already, I have already held you in contempt and fined you. If you want some other kind of hearing, fine. You did this in front of the Court. I don't have to give you any special hearing.

MR. WEINGLASS: I do ask for an independent hearing.

THE COURT: Well, fine, go to the appellate Court and get it.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, it is my understanding that during the testimony of Dr. Hayes, that there were a series of slides marked as a defense exhibit.

THE COURT OFFICER: 23.

MS. FISK: 23. It is my understanding that those slides which have now been handed back up to the Court personnel are indeed those slides. Although they have been in the custody

Page 194.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

of defense, I would ask that Dr. Hood have an opportunity to review them.

THE COURT: Let him see them and see if they are the ones he looked at.

MR. WEINGLASS: Let the record show these are not the same slides that the witness has looked at.

THE COURT: Counselor, are you up here testifying?

MR. WEINGLASS: Because we had the slides. And he never saw those.

THE COURT: He said he had copies.

MR. WEINGLASS: Copies, yes.

THE COURT: Counselor, please. Let him look at it. He is testifying, not you. If you want to take the stand, you could take the stand too and have one of the other attorneys ask you questions.

(Pause.)

MS. FISK: It was apparent from the record, Your Honor, that the slides which were utilized by Dr. Hayes were duplicates of slides that were taken from the files of the Office of the Medical Examiner.

THE COURT: He is looking at them, he

Page 195.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

will tell us what it is.

THE WITNESS: I have a series in that Defense Exhibit number, whatever it was, 23, of eight, nine Kodachromes. Two of which show the wound in the back; three of which are our standard picture of the whole bust, the body, bust shot, top half and bottom half of the area; and four which show the area of the face and neck.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. The question is -- maybe I missed the beginning of your answer: Are the slides which you looked at, Defense Exhibit 23, are those duplicates of the photographs or slides that you have personally looked at in order to testify today?

A. They do appear to be, yes.

Q. No, Dr. Hood --

THE COURT: Just a minute. He is looking at some photos.

THE WITNESS: I just wanted to make sure that the number of originals correspond to the numbers of these Kodachromes. And the originals consist of... nine slides also. So therefore I think you do have a complete list.

MS. FISK: Thank you.

Page 196.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Direct

BY MS. FISK:

Q. All right, Doctor, based upon your review of the slides which are duplicated in Defense Exhibit 23, and your review of Officer Faulkner's hospital records from Jefferson Hospital from December 9th, 1981, do you have an opinion as to what is shown on Officer Faulkner's neck?

A. Given that I'm looking at a photograph, the best I can say is that I am looking at a small mark which appears to be a small wound, which is the upper wound just to the left of the tracheostomy incision. Below that is a more obvious exit gunshot wound. And right below the center of the tracheostomy incision is another very tiny puncture wound (indicating).

Q. Now, the small wound that you referred to as being above the exit gunshot wound: Based upon your review of Officer Faulkner's hospital records, are you able to give us an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what caused that wound?

A. The hospital records in several places refer to him having larger bore intravenous lines, two peripheral lines, and variously he is described as having an internal jugular line, a left CVP line. He is also described as having a right, internal jugular on one place and a central venous line with outside

Page 197.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

stated in another. As well as a right femoral line cut down and a right saphenous vein, which is I think really the same thing. And certainly one can see and it is described in the autopsy report the right groin lines, the antecubital fossa lines, which basically are the ones put in front of the elbows.

Around the neck area, that small wound would certainly be consistent with a large-bore intravenous line. And he is described as having, in several places in the hospital records as having central venous pressure lines. In which they actually ran a lot of lactated ringers. And therefore, since he doesn't have a similar mark on the right side of his neck, it seems logical that that wound, small wound is indeed an intravenous line puncture.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir. I have no further questions, Your Honor.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Do you have the Medical Examiner's report before you?

Page 198.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

A. Yes, or I have a copy of it.

Q. How many wounds are noted on the neck in the Medical Examiner's report?

A. Just the one gunshot wound of exit.

Q. Just one wound?

A. Well, the tracheostomy incision is described and so is the exit gunshot wound and those are the only wounds of the neck described.

Q. And so there is only one exit wound for a gunshot described in the Medical Examiner's report?

A. That is correct.

Q. And based upon your examination of the photographs, what in your expert opinion is the number of exit wounds on the neck of the officer?

A. The only definitive exit wound I can see is the larger, lower one. The smaller wound, I can not say what that is. It is a small wound and it is consistent with an intravenous line which he is described as having.

Q. So you can't say that there are two exit wounds?

A. Not from just looking at photographs. I did not see the body, as you have already pointed out. I could only look at this picture, just as you do.

Q. Might there be two exit wounds on that neck?

Page 199.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

A. I can't a hundred percent exclude it.

Q. You can't exclude it. Now, in the Medical Examiner's report is there any indication of a wound caused by the tracheostomy?

A. He is described as having a tracheostomy. And that's. . .

Q. But does he describe that second wound that you see?

A. The smaller one that's just to the left of it, no. Nor does he describe what in fact is mentioned in the hospital records and is seen in the photographs, which is a needle puncture just below the tracheostomy excision.

Q. Right. Now, Dr. Hood, in your expert opinion as a medical examiner, was the report deficient in not describing all of the wounds that you see on the photograph?

A. Depends for what purposes one wants the report. One tries to describe all of the relevant wounds on a body. Sometimes small-bore needle punctures are easily missed at examination. You may in fact pick them up on photographs later. It's then up to the individual examiner whether he wishes to append that to the report. You don't know the significance of those until later.

Page 200.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

Q. Having looked at the photographs, Dr. Hood: If you had written the Medical Examiner's report, you would have indicated that second wound, would you have not?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that: What he would have done.

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: I said I would have to sustain what he would have done.

MR. WEINGLASS: Right.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Based on your view of the photograph, would you have acknowledged that second wound in a Medical Examiner's report?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, you just twisted that question around and I already sustained the objection.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Having looked at the photographs, was there any way in which you as a doctor at that time could have determined what was the cause of the second wound?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

Page 201.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

THE COURT: Basis of the objection?

MS. FISK: Because he is asking him to speculate.

THE COURT: Has said he only has had the opportunity to look at the photos. He did not examine the body, he said.

MR. WEINGLASS: Correct.

THE COURT: Okay. So the objection --

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. The question was: Based on your review of the photos, could you give us an opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to what that second wound is?

A. Not by just looking at photos, no. I've already given my explanation of that. It is a small wound. It's consistent with an intravenous line he is described as having, one in an internal jugular vein and a left central venous pressure line, both of which would be perfectly acceptable right in that area. If you are getting at the fact can I exclude this being another small exit wound there, just from a photograph, no. You can't tell the difference on a photograph between a small exiting particle and an intravenous line puncture.

Q. So in your expert opinion you can not include

Page 202.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

it or you can not exclude it as a gunshot wound?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Is that correct?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. His testimony was that he could not exclude or include based solely on the photograph. And then the doctor said he was, however, considering other documents as well.

THE COURT: Well taken.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. You can not include or exclude based on the photographs?

A. If all I had to do, had before me was the photograph I could not, no.

Q. And is that why that second wound should have been described in the Medical Examiner's report, so that someone looking at the report would have a basis for forming an opinion on the second wound?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I will have to sustain that.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is sustained?

THE COURT: Yes, sir.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Page 203.

Ian Hood, M.D. - Cross

Q. In any event, Dr. Hood, that second wound is not identified in the Medical Examiner's report; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have nothing further.

MS. FISK: I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, you are excused, Doctor.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

MS. FISK: If I could have a moment, Your Honor.

(Pause.)

THE COURT: Are you finished?

MS. FISK: Oh, I'm sorry, Your Honor. I understood that I was to call Dr. Hood first.

THE COURT: Okay. I just want to know: Is Mr. Singletary here? Is he here?

MR. WEINGLASS: He's here.

THE COURT: Okay, put him on the stand.

(Pause.)

- - - - -

William Singletary, having been duly
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Page 204.

William Singletary - Direct

- - - - -

DIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Singletary.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Mr. Singletary, when did you and I first meet?

A. About the middle of June of this year.

Q. The middle of...?

A. June.

Q. Of June?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. 1995?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And do you recall what occasioned our meeting? What brought about our meeting?

A. Umm, I was introduced to you through a friend, or a friend of mine.

Q. And since June of 1995, about two months ago, have we had occasion to talk since?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And as a matter of fact, did we talk this morning on the telephone?

A. Yes, sir.

Page 205.

William Singletary - Direct

Q. And did I inquire as to how you felt?

A. You did.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Could you tell us if you suffer from any condition known as diabetes?

A. I do.

Q. Do you suffer from a condition known as hypertension?

A. I do.

Q. Do you suffer from a condition known as high blood pressure?

A. I do.

Q. Are you taking medications for those conditions?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you, do you have presently any injury that you are also suffering from?

A. Back, neck, left leg.

Q. Back, neck and...?

A. Left leg.

Q. Left leg. And are you taking medications for that injury?

A. I am.

Page 206.

William Singletary - Direct

Q. Are you taking painkillers?

A. I am.

Q. Was that injury occasioned by an auto or a truck accident?

A. Truck.

Q. Did you have a night's sleep last night?

MS. FISK: Judge, I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. I object.

THE COURT: Yes, come on, let's get right to the issue here, why you brought him here.

MR. WEINGLASS: Talking about the condition of a witness.

THE COURT: I know that. But we don't need that to tell us why you brought him here.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, I would assume the Court as fact-finder wants to know the condition of any witness that the Court is looking at.

MS. FISK: And I would assume, Your Honor, that if it was evident to the Court that a witness was in no physical condition to testify, the Court would make that clear and would stop the proceedings. Unless and until that happens, may I suggest we go to the heart

Page 207.

William Singletary - Direct

of the matter for what the witness has been called for.

THE COURT: Let's get to the heart of the matter, please.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Mr. Singletary, what is your current age?

A. 45.

Q. And your marital status?

A. I'm married.

Q. And your family --

MS. FISK: Judge, I object. We are not here to help find friends for this man. We are here in the pursuit of justice. Could we please get right to the matter.

THE COURT: Let's get right to the heart of the question, please, Counselor. I can't be here settling all the social problems of the world. Let's get to the issue, come on.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now directing your attention back to 1981: What was your age at that time?

A. 31.

Q. And what was your height at that time?

A. Five-ten.

Q. And how would you describe your build at that

Page 208.

William Singletary - Direct

time?

A. Medium, stocky.

Q. Did you have occasion on the night of December, or the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, to come upon a young woman on the corner of 13th and Locust whose name you later learned was Cynthia White?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. I understood that the offer of proof with regard to Mr. Singletary was the manner in which police took statements.

THE COURT: That's what I thought too.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is precisely what we are getting to.

THE COURT: Well, let's get to it.

MR. WEINGLASS: That's precisely --

THE COURT: Because if you are going to go into other areas you should have told the D.A.

MR. WEINGLASS: That is the only area, and I am glad the Court is limiting the area. Consistent with the Court's ruling, I will ask questions in the limited area of whether or not Mr. Singletary was with the police.

THE COURT: Counselor.

Page 209.

William Singletary - Direct

MR. WEINGLASS: On the morning of December 9th, 1981.

THE COURT: Counselor. Counselor, before you proceed any further, if you want to expand it, tell the D.A. And if she has no objection to it, you could expand it.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not expanding it.

THE COURT: Well, then stick to what you said you are going to do, then.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. On the morning hours, early morning hours of December 9th, 1981, did you have occasion to be in the Police Department, specifically the Roundhouse?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And do you recall what time you went there?

A. Shortly after 4:00 a.m.

Q. And when you were there, did you meet with anyone?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall the name of the detective you met with?

A. Green.

Q. And would you describe Detective Green?

A. Five-seven, five-eight, 170 pounds.

Q. And his race?

Page 210.

William Singletary - Direct

A. Black.

Q. And while you were there, did you see anyone else who you had seen earlier in the morning?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did you see?

A. Cynthia White.

Q. And who did you know her to be? What did you know her to be?

A. Streetwalker.

Q. Streetwalker. And she was in the police station when you were there?

A. Yes.

Q. And did Detective White ask you any questions? I'm sorry. Detective Green ask you any questions?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. And do you recall what he asked you?

A. I don't remember all the questions, no.

Q. As a result of him asking you questions, did you write anything down?

A. I did.

Q. And did you write it in your own hand?

A. I did.

Q. And do you recall, after you wrote it what did you do with it?

A. What did he do with it?

Page 211.

William Singletary - Direct

Q. What did you do with what you wrote?

A. I gave it to Detective Green.

Q. Detective Green?

A. Hmm-hmm.

Q. And what did Detective Green do with it?

A. He read it.

Q. And then what did he do?

A. He ripped it up and threw it in the trash.

Q. He ripped it up?

A. That's right.

Q. And threw it in the trash?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you then have occasion to write a second time?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what happened to your second writing?

A. He glanced at it, balled it up and threw it in the trash.

Q. And just referring to the general subject matter: What did you write on both those occasions? Just generally.

A. About the incident at 13th and Locust.

Q. That happened a little earlier that morning?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after it was thrown away again, what did

Page 212.

William Singletary - Direct

you do? Did you have occasion to write again?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what happened to that writing?

A. Ahh, he told me to write what he wanted me to write, that's what I wrote.

Q. Did Detective Green threaten you in any way?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. What did he say to you?

A. He told me I wouldn't leave, that they would take me to the elevator and beat me up and that my business would be destroyed.

Q. At the time were you in business with your family?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. How long did you remain in the police station?

A. To around nine o'clock.

Q. And what time did you arrive?

A. Shortly after 4:00.

Q. You were there about five hours?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did there come a time where you were asked to sign a statement?

A. Yes, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: May I have this marked?

Page 213.

William Singletary - Direct

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes. That's 29.

(Investigation interview record was
marked Defense Exhibit D-29 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: D-29 (handing).

(Pause.)

MS. FISK: Thank you (handing).

THE COURT OFFICER: D-29, Your Honor. D-29, sir (handing).

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. I want to show you what's been marked D-29. Have you seen that document before?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. What is that document?

A. It's an investigation report. Police report.

Q. Does your signature appear on it?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And is it typed on it? Is there typing on the page?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Have I shown you that document before?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. Is that document an accurate account?

A. No, it's not.

(Pause.)

Page 214.

William Singletary - Direct

Q. After you signed that statement, do you recall whether or not you left the Roundhouse?

A. Yeah, I was escorted out.

Q. You were escorted by a police officer out?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And, Mr. Singletary, how did you feel at that time?

A. I felt badly.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. Because I had written something or I was forced to writing something I didn't want to write.

Q. After that event did you have occasion to talk to anyone who occupies an official position with respect to what happened to you that night in the Roundhouse?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who did you talk to?

A. State Representative Alphonse Deal.

Q. And what was your purpose in meeting with State Representative Deal?

A. For him to inquire why I was so badly treated.

Q. And did you hear from State Representative Deal again?

A. Yes, we talked back and forth.

Q. And did he indicate to you what would happen

Page 215.

William Singletary - Direct

to you with respect to the trial proceedings?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did you ever hear from an attorney named Anthony Jackson?

A. No, I didn't.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. Move to strike. This witness, A, was not offered for purposes of testifying he should have been called at trial. Mr. Jackson was not questioned whether or not or why he did not call this witness at trial.

MR. WEINGLASS: For the simple reason --

THE COURT: That question and answer is stricken.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, our position is Mr. Jackson was misled because of the false statement that was given to him.

THE COURT: Well, you should have asked him.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is not the witness' statement.

THE COURT: You should have asked him.

Page 216.

William Singletary - Direct

When Jackson was on stand you didn't ask him about it.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is not necessary. The statement is now of record and the witness has identified the statement as being false.

MS. FISK: And they have had --

MR. WEINGLASS: So Mr. Jackson received a false statement. There was no need to ask Mr. Jackson any questions about it.

MS. FISK: And they have had a deposition of this witness since 1990 and were clearly on notice of this proffered testimony and had every right and opportunity to ask those questions of Mr. Jackson.

MR. WEINGLASS: It was unnecessary.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, after that evening, did anyone from law enforcement contact you shortly thereafter?

A. Ahh, later on that day or the next day.

Q. And do you recall who they were and what they said?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did they indicate where they were from?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. What did they say?

Page 217.

William Singletary - Direct

A. They said they were from the D.A.'s Office investigating a homicide.

Q. Did they refer to your being a witness?

A. Yes, they did.

Q. Were you after that visited by the police?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And could you describe that visit?

A. That was a couple days later, four guys came and said it was a burglary detail and told us to get on the floor.

Q. Told you to get on the floor?

A. Myself and my employees and my customers.

Q. And where was this?

A. At a gas station.

Q. And what relationship did you have to the gas station?

A. I was the manager.

Q. You were the manager?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they asked you to get on the floor?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were there weapons shown?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And were others who were there asked to get on the floor?

Page 218.

William Singletary - Direct

A. Yes.

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. If four officers who said they were the burglary detail came and he wants to make a complaint about it, that's fine. But there has been no showing that that is related to this incident.

MR. WEINGLASS: It is the intimidation and harassment of this witness because --

MS. FISK: There is absolutely no evidence of that. Well, first of all, oddly enough, Counsel is not putting in the facts that this witness has told them in 1990 about what the truth is. That is awfully interesting. First. Second, the fact that burglary detail officers came to his gas station four days after he gave or didn't give a statement at Homicide has nothing to do with this case.

MR. WEINGLASS: Oh, it has everything to do with it. It has everything to do with it. And we will tie that up now. This witness, I might point out, is for a limited purpose as to what happened to him. And that's what we are proceeding on.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did officers who came to your gas station say

Page 219.

William Singletary - Direct

anything with respect to your having been in the Police Department several nights earlier?

A. They just said this will give you something to remember.

Q. This will give you something to remember?

A. Yes.

Q. The officer saying that have a gun?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Did he have it out?

A. Yes, he did.

Q. Incidentally, was any damage sustained to your gas station?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. After that?

A. Yes.

Q. What happened?

A. Door was busted, plate glass was busted.

Q. Did anything happen on Christmas Eve 1982? '81, I'm sorry.

A. The glass was busted.

Q. Did your, did the gas station have insurance at that time?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

THE WITNESS: Not for glass.

Page 220.

William Singletary - Direct

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Did anything happen to your insurance?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: I said sustained, Counselor.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, did that gas station, did you continue to manage that gas station?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor. My understanding was that the witness was being called with regard to the practices of the Philadelphia police in taking statements on December 9th, 1981.

MR. WEINGLASS: And the consequent harassment and intimidation of the witness because he didn't tell them what he says they wanted to hear.

MS. FISK: Which of course Counsel has not explored.

MR. WEINGLASS: This is the course of the intimidation that we are now going into.

THE COURT: I will let you go into anything you need on cross-examination, then.

MS. FISK: Fine.

MR. WEINGLASS: No, Your Honor, the

Page 221.

William Singletary - Direct

Court has indicated --

THE COURT: Don't, don't --

MR. WEINGLASS: A limited purpose.

THE COURT: Don't tell me, Counselor. You want to go into areas beyond what you said, I will give them a chance to cross-examine.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am only going into the intimidation and harassment.

THE COURT: Well, I will let her go into whatever I think is proper.

MR. WEINGLASS: Well, the Court restricted me on the direct.

THE COURT: I didn't restrict you.

MR. WEINGLASS: Because the proffer of the witness was for a limited purpose.

THE COURT: I said you could bring him in for anything you wanted, if you want to expand it just tell the D.A. so she knows in advance.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not expanding it.

THE COURT: Well, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: I said it is what happened to him that night.

THE COURT: Counselor, I am not going to tell you again. You already got one

Page 222.

William Singletary - Direct

thousand. Do you want to try for another one?

MR. WEINGLASS: If I am limited I have no --

THE COURT: I am not limiting you.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I am limited I have no further direct. Let the record show --

THE COURT: Let the record show I make rulings based on what I think is the proper ruling. I am not telling you where you could go. Go wherever you want. And if she doesn't object you could do anything you want. I am not going to make a ruling unless I have to make a ruling. When she objects I will make a ruling. If she doesn't object, it's all right with me.

MS. FISK: I will withdraw my objection.

THE COURT: Okay. She is withdrawing her objection. Go ahead.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. I am only talking about events that happened to you after, after you visited the police on the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981.

Now directing your attention to February of 1982: What became of your business in February of 1982?

Page 223.

William Singletary - Direct

A. I closed it.

Q. And why did you close it?

A. I couldn't afford the glass and stuff, kept getting broke.

Q. Pardon?

A. I couldn't afford the glass that kept getting broke.

Q. Were you present in Philadelphia in June of 1982?

A. I was.

Q. And do you recall if in 1982 you took a vacation at all?

A. June 26th.

Q. June 26th?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you go?

A. North Carolina.

Q. And how long did you remain?

A. To July 9th.

Q. Up to that time had you been contacted by anyone representing Mr. Jamal?

A. No, I hadn't.

Q. Did there come a time when you moved out of the City of Philadelphia?

A. Yes.

Page 224.

William Singletary - Direct

Q. When was that?

A. Late August of '82.

Q. And what caused you to move?

A. There was nothing here, I couldn't do no business.

Q. Why not?

A. Because my tow truck was being stopped, drivers being harassed.

Q. Who was stopping the tow trucks?

A. The police.

Q. And who was harassing your drivers?

A. The police.

Q. Prior to December 9th, 1981, did you have any problems with the police?

A. No.

Q. Did you work in conjunction with the police?

A. I did, yeah.

Q. Did you know an officer named Vernon Jones?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was he a friend?

A. I knew him.

Q. And he knew you?

A. Yes.

Q. He was a highway patrolman; is that right?

A. Yes.

Page 225.

William Singletary - Cross

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have a moment.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between Defense Counsel.)

MR. WEINGLASS: I have no further questions on direct.

MS. FISK: May I inquire, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, sure.

MS. FISK: Thank you, Sir.

- - - - -

CROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Mr. Singletary, you told us that you were under the care of a number of doctors for your back, for your diabetes and for other physical conditions; is that right?

A. It's true.

Q. Are you also under the care of any other kinds of doctors?

A. Just for my back and my diabetes and blood pressure.

Q. How about psychiatrists or psychologists or therapists, sir?

A. No.

Page 226.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. You are not for any mental conditions?

A. No.

Q. Now, Mr. Singletary, you told us that on December 9th of 1981 you ended up at the Police Administration Building?

A. True.

Q. How is it that you got there?

A. I drove my car.

Q. You drove your car, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You drove it from where?

A. 13th and Locust, 10th and Race.

Q. Had you been at 13th and Locust at around the time that Officer Faulkner was shot and killed?

MR. WEINGLASS: Objection: Outside the scope of the direct. This witness is a limited witness and the Court has indicated it was limiting the direct examination. I object to this line of cross-examination.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, the witness and Counsel, both on several occasions during the direct examination made reference to the fact that this witness was not telling the police what they wanted to hear. It is clearly permissible to find out what it is that the

Page 227.

William Singletary - Cross

police heard and why they didn't want it.

THE COURT: Okay, go ahead.

MR. WEINGLASS: I object to it. It is not the purpose for which the witness was called.

THE COURT: Objection is overruled. Go ahead.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Were you, sir, in the vicinity of where Officer Faulkner was shot and killed?

A. Yes, I was.

Q. And as a result of your being there, did the police ask you if you would give a statement with regard to what you saw?

A. They did.

Q. But my understanding is the police did not then transport you from 13th and Locust to the Police Administration Building; is that right?

A. They did not.

Q. You chose to drive your own vehicle?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was what kind of vehicle, sir?

A. 1982 Cadillac.

Q. When you drove the vehicle from the area of 13th and Locust to the Police Administration

Page 228.

William Singletary - Cross

Building, did you park your vehicle in the parking lot of the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And having done so -- had you driven, incidentally, alone or was the police officer with you in your vehicle?

A. He was behind me, one was behind me, one was in front.

Q. Oh. Did you park your car in the parking lot of the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And having done that did you then enter the Police Administration Building by that door which is by the parking lot of the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And this, sir, was in the moments, minutes, hours after the shooting of Officer Faulkner in the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981?

A. Minutes.

Q. Yes, sir?

A. Minutes, yes.

Q. Minutes, all right. At the time that you entered the Police Administration Building having parked your car in the parking lot, when you entered

Page 229.

William Singletary - Cross

through those doors into a general foyer, do you recall that there was a police officer behind sort of like bullet proof glass that had a logbook that stopped you until you entered in?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Do you recall being shown a logbook and being asked to sign it, sir, or the officer who was with you signing it to indicate you were entering the building?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you use any name other than William Singletary?

A. No.

Q. On that date?

A. No.

Q. But you are certain that you entered the Police Administration Building through that door?

A. Yes.

Q. That came off the parking lot of the Police Administration Building?

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, Mr. Singletary, you just told us that you met Mr. Weinglass sometime in June, I think he was introduced to you?

A. Yes.

Page 230.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. How was it that he came to be introduced to you, sir?

A. Some investigators were at my mother's and I wanted to know who was looking for me.

Q. Now, I understand, sir, that you had an opportunity to meet Miss Wolkenstein five years ago; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Would you tell us how that came about, please?

A. Through a friend of a friend.

Q. Pardon?

A. Through a friend of a friend.

Q. Could you explain expand on that, please?

A. Well, I told one friend and then another friend introduced me to a reporter who introduced me to her.

Q. I'm sorry, you told one friend what?

A. That I was a witness. And I had seen an incident.

Q. So that friend told someone else?

A. Yes.

Q. And at some point, then, you found yourself in the company of Miss Wolkenstein in 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. And between 1990 and last month, did you

Page 231.

William Singletary - Cross

continue to have contact with Miss Wolkenstein or Mr. Weinglass or other persons working on behalf of Mr. Abu-Jamal?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You had no contact with them at all in that intervening period?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Now, sir, when you arrived in Homicide -- now let me understand -- after you entered through that door at the Police Administration Building, do you remember going into the large lobby and then having to go to the Homicide Division?

A. I just remember an elevator. I don't remember exactly how.

Q. Well, do you remember what floor it was on?

A. Fifth.

Q. And that, again, is based on what you recall from that morning December 9th, 1981; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, after you went up to the fifth floor did you go into the Homicide Division?

A. Yes.

Q. And it is there that you met Detective Green, as I understand it?

A. Yes.

Page 232.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. And you have told us that Detective Green is a black man?

A. Yes.

Q. What else can you tell us about him by way of description?

A. Five-seven, five-eight, maybe 160 or 170 pounds.

Q. How about his age?

A. I couldn't tell his age.

Q. And was that the only detective that you spoke with while you were at Homicide that morning?

A. No.

Q. Who else did you speak with?

A. I met another detective had a button on that said Kiss Me I'm Irish on it.

Q. Was that a black man or white man?

A. No, that was a tall white guy.

Q. Well, incidentally, Detective Green, how is it that you know his name to be Detective Green?

A. He kept repeating it all night, all morning.

Q. What did he keep repeating?

A. My name is Detective Green and you will stay here until you say what I want you to say or you won't leave.

Q. Now, had you gone into a small room with

Page 233.

William Singletary - Cross

Detective Green or were you sitting out in an open area?

A. It was a cubicle. Wasn't a room, a small cube.

Q. So you had like these walls that went sort of halfway up and then it was open?

A. Yes.

Q. So you were not in a room that was fully enclosed with just the two of you?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. And while you and Detective Green were in this cubicle, I take it there was a great deal of activity going on around you?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was in this open cubicle that you could hear sounds coming from throughout the Homicide Division; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Hear the sounds of other people speaking, the activity of other people?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now, as I understand your testimony, you and Detective Green sat down and you hand wrote an account?

A. Yes.

Page 234.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. What did you write it on?

A. Yellow legal paper.

Q. And had Detective Green given that to you?

A. Yes.

Q. And had he directed you to write an account of what had happened?

A. Yes.

Q. Tell us what you wrote?

A. I wrote down just what I said: When I was at 13th and Locust --

Q. Go ahead.

A. Word-for-word?

Q. Word-for-word tell us what you wrote?

A. Well, I brought my car, parked my car at the southwest corner of 13th and Locust. I got out to go over to the club Whispers. The doors were locked. I came back across the street. There was a Volkswagen that was going south on 13th Street. He made a left turn onto Locust. Pulled to the curb immediately. There was a police car behind it. The police car pulled behind the Volkswagen. The driver of the Volkswagen got out. The police officer got out and immediately started to walk to the wall. And immediately at that point the police officer was frisking the driver of the Volkswagen.

Page 235.

William Singletary - Cross

There was an occupant in the Volkswagen on the passenger side started yelling and screaming, saying a lot of things. He had a long Army, umm, overcoat on. He came from the car, stuck his hand in his right pocket, pulled a gun.

I immediately moved over to the highspeed line, the barrier there, and I ducked. I heard a pop. I ducked, I looked.

Q. I'm sorry, when you say the highspeed line, was that on the same --

A. It's like a subway.

Q. I understand, but was that on the same actual sidewalk that this event was that you were witnessing?

A. Yes.

Q. All right, go ahead?

A. And the, uhh, when I looked over I saw the guy again point the gun in the direction of the police officer, firing into his face.

Q. I'm sorry, where had the first shot gone?

A. I don't know where it went. I didn't see the first shot. I only saw the second shot.

Q. I see. All right. Go ahead?

A. And as I saw the second shot the police officer fell backwards. This tall guy with

Page 236.

William Singletary - Cross

dreadlocks looked at his right, looked to his left, placed the gun in the Volkswagen, started running. The guy who was driving the Volkswagen then started yelling a name or something and started chasing this guy.

I peeped over to see, I peeped over to see if there was anything I could do for the officer. And I started backing up. There was a, the guy there said he was a cab driver and asked me what was that sound he heard. And I said the police officer was just shot, we need to get him help right away. And as I was talking to him he went towards the police car to make a call. Just to tell them the police officer was down and we would need help right away.

And I went to back, started back towards to see the officer, then another gentleman came across the street. He wasn't as tall as the first guy. He had dreadlocks and he had said this is by brother's car, where is my brother. I said I don't know. I said there was two guys that took off running. I said the tall guy shot the police officer, took off running.

And he said oh, my God, we don't need this, and he started to went over to the cop, is there anything I could do, anything I could do to

Page 237.

William Singletary - Cross

help you. And he was laying forward, bending forward. And the police officer's gun, which was in his lap, discharged, striking him in the chest or someplace. And he screamed I'm shot, I'm shot. He staggered against the back of the Volkswagen.

And then there was sirens and everything was becoming chaotic then. It was just like, you know. That's what I wrote down in the report.

Q. Well, there was more, wasn't there? Didn't you also write down on the paper about the treatment that you witnessed of this man who ended up being shot?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Well, please tell us what you wrote about that?

A. Okay, it was at that point there were some police officers came across the parking lot. They wanted to know if there was any eyewitnesses or this or whatever. And they took me as an eyewitness, took me around the corner. Got my name, address and telephone number. Where I could be reached. And wanted to know if I would be willing to give a statement.

At that point they, umm, told me to go

Page 238.

William Singletary - Cross

back and stand around and wait for this detective to come. I went back around the corner and at that point they had a lot of police officers around the person that was beating him, kicking him, stomping him, sticking sticks in his wound, and just cursing, cursing, saying a lot of bad things. They drugged him on the street to the back of a van, threw him in the van.

Q. Did they just throw him in the van?

A. No, they didn't just throw him in the van, they used his body and used him as a battering ram. And used him as a battering ram against the van.

Q. Which part of his body?

A. Top of his head.

Q. How many times?

A. Several times, I didn't count.

Q. With what kind of force?

A. With four men, a lot of force.

Q. Tremendous force? Looked like enough to fracture the skull, that kind of force?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay, go ahead? And then they put him in the van?

A. Then they opened the door and threw him in the van, yes.

Page 239.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. And was it at that point that you got into your car and drove to the Police Administration Building?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. Okay. Go --

A. I recognized an officer known as Vernon Jones. And the detective came to me because the captain pointed him out. And asked me did I have transport or whatever. I told him I was driving a car. Then I went to 8th and Race.

Q. In addition to additional police arriving, did you report to Detective Green that there were other police vehicles at the scene before you left?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what other kinds of vehicles were there? And I am not limiting myself to vehicles that were on the ground.

A. There was all kinds of vehicles: Plain cars, vans. There was a helicopter. There was all kinds of stuff.

Q. What kind of helicopter? Was the helicopter using a search light in the area?

A. I didn't look, it was just a helicopter, all I know I saw the light.

Q. So it was shining a light down in the area?

Page 240.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Exactly, yes.

Q. And you wrote this all for Detective Green?

A. Yes.

Q. How long did it take you to make this writing?

A. I didn't count, I don't know.

Q. How long was this writing?

A. Two pages.

Q. Single space? Double space?

A. Single space.

Q. Both sides or just one side?

A. It was just one, single sided. One side, two pages.

Q. Okay. And it is that writing which you gave to Detective Green and which he balled up and threw away and told you he didn't want to see that, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he then give you the pad again and tell you to write it down again?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you write something a second time?

A. Something, yes.

Q. Was what you wrote the second time exactly like what you wrote the first time?

A. Close.

Q. What differences were there?

Page 241.

William Singletary - Cross

A. I believe it was the same.

Q. Oh, all right. So you wrote again what you have just described for us?

A. Yes.

Q. And Detective Green took that and balled it up and threw it down?

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, this man who was the passenger in the Volkswagen, when you heard the first shot, where was he in relation to the police officer?

A. He was, he was standing behind him. On his left side.

Q. And when you heard the second shot where was he in relationship to the police officer?

A. Facing him.

Q. And how far from him was he?

A. A couple feet.

Q. What's a couple?

A. 3, maybe 5.

Q. Okay. And this is all what you told Detective Green?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after Detective Green bunched up that second statement and threw it away, did you write it a third time?

Page 242.

William Singletary - Cross

A. I did.

Q. And a fourth?

A. Yes, fourth -- no, the fourth time I wrote what he wanted me to write so I could leave.

Q. The fourth time you wrote what he wanted you to write?

A. Yes.

Q. Did he dictate it to you?

A. Yes.

Q. What was it that you wrote this fourth time that he dictated to you?

A. I don't remember words but it wasn't what I saw.

Q. And what happened to what it was that you wrote this fourth time, did you sign that or did he take it?

A. I took it, signed it and left.

Q. Now, you're indicating something --

A. Yes, I signed it.

Q. All right no, no, you are picking up a document in front of you. That's the Exhibit that the defense has marked.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that what you are referring to as the document --

Page 243.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. -- you wrote?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Maybe I'm a little confused, Mr. Singletary, but the document which you have in front of you, would you agree with me that that is a type-written document?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Is that the document, the fourth document which you wrote on yellow paper?

A. I wrote on the yellow paper. He typed it.

Q. Oh. I see. After you wrote what he dictated to you to write, he then took what you had written and typewrote it onto a piece of paper?

A. Yes.

Q. I see. And after he typed it on the piece of paper he had you sign the bottom of that piece of paper?

A. Yes.

Q. But all the information on the document which he typed was information which he had dictated to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Just so the record is clear, Mr. Singletary, I just want to go through that document and read to you

Page 244.

William Singletary - Cross

what it says. And you can tell us whether any of those items are things which you told the detective as opposed to things that he told to you. All right?

A. Okay.

Q. Now, it does give your name on the top. And you see where it says interviewer?

A. Yes.

Q. You see the name it says there?

A. Yes.

Q. It says E. Quinn.

A. Yes.

Q. Is that the name of the person that he repeated to you, he said Quinn?

A. He said Green.

Q. He said Green. But the person who said to you he was Green was the person who typed this; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And who typed the words E. Quinn up there?

A. He was typing off the paper I gave him.

Q. That he had dictated to you?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Now, it has an address here. Is that your correct address, or was it your correct address back then?

Page 245.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And it has your phone number. Was that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. It shows you're the owner of a Sunoco Gas Station. Was that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You were the manager, were you not?

A. Owner-manager, yes.

Q. And it has the address of your gas station and a phone number. That's also accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. Now I am going down to where the first Q is. Question: Can you tell me what you saw this morning at 13th and Locust. And it is a long narrative, I will stop occasionally and ask you if any this is what you told the detective.

The answer is recorded: I was coming from my parents' bar at 15th and Catherine Streets -- I am assuming it is a typo: It says in was driving -- I assume it means I was driving north on 13th Street. When I got to Locust Street the light had just turned red for 13th Street. I stopped my car.

Did you say that to the detective?

Page 246.

William Singletary - Cross

A. No, I didn't.

Q. I was sitting at the light for about 15, 20 seconds when I heard what I thought to be firecrackers. I heard about three or four pops. When I heard the second pop I knew it wasn't firecrackers because they were going too fast. Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. After the pops stopped I leaned forward in the car and looked east on Locust. I saw a police car parked at the curb. I think the number on the car was 610. Did you say that to the detective?

A. No.

Q. At this time I backed the car up into a parking space on the corner of 13th and Locust. I got out of the car and went to the southwest corner of 13th and Locust. Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. I looked east on Locust and saw two figures about 25 to 30 feet away from me. One was standing facing the wall. The other was standing with his back to the wall. The one with his back to the wall was bent over at the waist.

Page 247.

William Singletary - Cross

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I did not.

Q. You agree I am reading this accurately, though, right?

A. Yes, you are.

Q. One hand was down by his waist, the other was up by his head. I started to walk towards the two figures. As I was walking somebody yelled to me from my left. The male who yelled told me that a policeman was shot. I said where. I then looked around and saw -- and I have completed the first page.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. The second page: -- a policeman sitting on the ground with his back against the wall. He had his right hand up to his face, he had blood on his hand.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. The other person was sitting on the curb facing a dark blue Volkswagen. His left leg was stretched out in front of him. He was holding his leg.

Did you say that to the detective?

Page 248.

William Singletary - Cross

A. No, I did not.

Q. At this time a bunch of people showed up. The policemen who arrived picked up the policeman from the ground and put him into a police car and went up 13th Street.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I did not.

Q. Now, the next question then is what did you do after the policeman left in the police car. And the answer recorded is while I was standing there I saw X-12, a police car. It was Officer Vernon Jones from the Highway unit. I knew Officer Jones.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. I said that.

Q. I told him what I saw.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. We didn't have a conversation, I just spoke to him. We didn't have a conversation.

Q. He told me to come downtown and tell what I saw.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. He didn't tell me that, no.

Q. I then went up to my gas station and gave the keys to one of the guys that works there. When I got

Page 249.

William Singletary - Cross

there nobody was there so I came back downtown to 8th and Race.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Question: Besides the policeman, can you describe the other person who was lying on the ground on Locust street.

Your answer: He was black with long hair, the hair style is called dreadlocks. He was wearing green pants, that's the only thing I could remember.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Next question: Did you see any weapons.

Your answer is no, I didn't see any.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Next question: Did you see anyone else on the street besides the policeman and the other guy with the dray locks.

Did you say that to the -- I'm sorry -- your answer was it was just the two of them.

Did you say that to the --

A. No.

Q. Do you see the next question? Did you see

Page 250.

William Singletary - Cross

anyone in the VW -- Volkswagen -- and the answer is no sir.

Did you say that to the detective?

A. No.

Q. Now, you would agree I read that correctly?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, am I also correct, Mr. Singletary, that that is your signature which appears on the bottom right-hand corner of the first page and below the last line of the second page?

A. It is.

Q. And my understanding from you is that you placed your signature there after the detective told you that you had to; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that none of that was truthful or accurate but he had thrown away your other handwritten statements and you figured you had no choice; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you left the police station did you immediately make any complaint to any persons regarding this treatment that you had received?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You didn't. But you did contact, you told us,

Page 251.

William Singletary - Cross

State Representative Alphonso Deal to speak to him about this treatment?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that in the form of letters or telephone calls?

A. In person.

Q. In person. And when in relation to when this statement was recorded was it that you made that complaint to State Representative Alphonso Deal?

A. That Saturday.

Q. The Saturday after you gave the statement?

A. Yes.

Q. And did State Representative Deal cause any investigation to be done of the police practices that you are aware of as a result of your complaint to him?

A. No, he didn't, not that I am aware of.

Q. Not that you are aware of?

A. No.

Q. Now, you told us that there came a time thereafter that the windows in your gas station were broken and that you were being harassed, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Where is your gas station, where was your gas station located?

Page 252.

William Singletary - Cross

A. 1300 North Broad.

Q. Say it again?

A. 1300 North Broad.

Q. And that is Broad and where, please?

A. Broad and Thompson.

Q. And had the windows of your gas station ever been broken prior to December 9th, 1981?

A. Never.

Q. You had never had any difficulty with vandalism at that location, sir?

A. Never.

Q. And did you see persons break your windows after this event?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Your windows just were broken?

A. Yes.

Q. Am I correct that you have no personal knowledge as to who broke your windows?

A. No.

Q. I am not correct?

A. I said I don't have any personal knowledge, nor I don't.

Q. I asked whether I was correct. I am correct you have no personal knowledge as to who was breaking your windows, right?

Page 253.

William Singletary - Cross

A. No, I don't, no.

Q. Now, other than making this complaint to State Representative Alphonse Deal, Mr. Singletary, I understand that you did not report any of this to any other person for many years; is that right?

A. I didn't.

Q. Pardon?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And you told us that in February 1982, a few months after giving this statement, you closed your business?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Because the glass kept getting broken by person or persons unknown; is that right?

A. True.

Q. All right. And that on June 26th -- I'm sorry -- but that you remained in Philadelphia, I take it; is that right?

A. Yeah, yeah, I closed the gas station in February.

Q. Yes. And you remained in Philadelphia?

A. Yes.

Q. You were at that time living with your parents; is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Page 254.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. And that there came a time in June when you left on vacation?

A. Yes.

Q. And where was it that you went, sir?

A. To North Carolina.

Q. On vacation?

A. Yes.

Q. And the precise dates of your vacation are June 26th through July 9th, 1982?

A. Yes.

Q. How is it, sir, that you are able to remember the precise dates of that vacation?

A. July 26th, I mean July 9th is my mother's birthday.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. June the 26th is my aunt's birthday.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. So that's how I remember.

Q. So you remember today when you are asked when you went on vacation in 1982 that you left on your aunt's birthday and came home on your mother's birthday?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And after arriving home on July 9th, 1982 you remained in Philadelphia for about

Page 255.

William Singletary - Cross

another month-and-a-half and then you moved out of town in August 1982; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you know the precise date that you moved out of town?

A. No, I don't, not exact date.

Q. Okay. Now, how long did you stay out of Philadelphia after moving in August of 1982?

A. Until Mother's Day of the following year.

Q. And what was the date, if you know?

A. Mother's Day.

Q. Mother's Day of 1983?

A. I don't know the date.

Q. And that's when you returned to Philadelphia: mother's Day 1983?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it, sir, there then came a time on August the 31st of 1990 where you were in the company of Miss Wolkenstein and Marilyn Gelb and gave a statement; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Regarding these incidents about which you are testifying?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I take it, sir, that the events about

Page 256.

William Singletary - Cross

which you are testifying today were so troubling to you that they are things that are very, very clear to you and you remember very well; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Certainly no one has suggested to you things which you have said before which might not be correct which has caused you to say anything different today, did they?

A. No, they have not.

Q. And that everything that you are saying here is what you have always said consistently, both to Detective Green in those first three statements and to Miss Wolkenstein in 1990, and is what you observed; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And when you made a statement in, on August 3lst, 1990, were you on that day in any physical distress?

A. Ahh, not real distress, no.

Q. Was there anything interfering with your ability on that day to fully and accurately convey your thoughts?

A. No.

Q. Now, have you had an opportunity, Mr. Singletary, to read the transcript from that

Page 257.

William Singletary - Cross

statement which you gave on August 3lst, 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. And when did you have the opportunity to read that?

A. About three weeks ago.

Q. And how was it that you were given that opportunity?

A. By one of the attorneys.

Q. Pardon?

A. By one of the attorneys.

Q. Well, did the attorney mail it to you? Did the attorney hand it to you?

A. Handed it to me.

Q. And where did that take place?

A. Ahh, at a pal's.

Q. And you had an opportunity to read the entire transcript?

A. Yes.

Q. Were there any corrections that you needed to make to it?

A. Quite a few, yes.

Q. Ahh. And is that because your memory of the events between 1990 and today have changed?

A. Some of the things, yes.

Q. I see. Well, let's go through that, sir, and

Page 258.

William Singletary - Cross

you could make those corrections for us.

A. Okay.

Q. Do you have a copy of those notes?

A. No, I don't, not with me.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I was given a copy this morning. I would hope that Counsel would have an extra copy so the witness could read along.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: (Handing.)

MS. FISK: Thank you, Miss Wolkenstein.

THE COURT OFFICER: (Handing.)

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Now, Mr. Singletary, as I understand it, the first page of this document which you now have a copy of reads Statement under Oath; do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. So you were placed under oath by the stenographer?

A. Yes.

Q. And so I'm clear: Was there a person present like the gentleman who is sitting in front of you with one of these incredible machines who was creating some kind of tape with gibberish on it as you were speaking on August 3lst, 1990?

Page 259.

William Singletary - Cross

A. There was.

Q. And was it your understanding that that individual was taking a verbatim account of everything that you were saying?

A. Yes.

Q. And as you read this document which is now in your hand, is that the verbatim account of everything which you said on August 3lst, 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Now let me just start with page 47, Mr. Singletary.

Do you see the first question there?

A. 47?

Q. On page 47. Do you have page 47?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Do you see the first question there where it says in 1982, in June of 1982 you were still living in Philadelphia?

And your answer was June of '82.

And the question was June of '82.

And your answer was no, I wasn't. Let's see, June of '82, I left here in, no, I left here February of '82.

Question: February of '82.

Answer: Hmm-hmm.

Page 260.

William Singletary - Cross

Question: So you were not residing in Philadelphia in June of '82.

Answer: No.

Did I correctly read that series of questions?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. And were those answers correct when you gave them under oath?

A. No, not for June of '82.

Q. Oh, were you lying under oath when you gave those answers, Mr. Singletary?

A. No, I couldn't remember all the, I couldn't remember the dates at that particular time. I couldn't, hadn't thought about what I said.

Q. Well, has your mother's birthday changed since 1990 and today?

A. No, it hasn't.

Q. Has your aunt's birthday changed since 1990 and today?

A. No, it hasn't.

Q. Yet today you were able to recall precisely that you took a vacation from June 26th, 1982 until July 9th, 1982 while you were still residing in Philadelphia; is that right?

A. Yes, it is.

Page 261.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. Yet in 1990 your recollection was that you had not been living in Philadelphia since February of 1982; isn't that right?

A. That's right.

Q. Which is correct?

A. June of eighty -- June 26th of '82, to July 9th, I was on vacation. I was still living here.

Q. How can you explain, sir, making the error back in 1990 that you moved from the City in February 1982?

A. I got confused. I moved my base and we didn't go back over the question.

Q. What confused you?

A. She asked me the question where I was residing at.

Q. Well, what in the question in 1982, in June of 1982 you were still living in Philadelphia, you answered June of '82, and the question was June of '82, what of that question confused you, Mr. Singletary?

A. Because I lived in Yeadon and I lived in Willingboro. I lived two other different places. But my main address was my mother's house.

Q. Correct. And if that was clear to you, and you knew that your main address was your mother's

Page 262.

William Singletary - Cross

house, why was your response that no, I wasn't, let's see, June of '82, I left here in, no, I left here February of '82? Why did you give that response?

A. Because I moved two or three places.

Q. You moved two or three places?

A. I moved two or three different places. Between February and June.

Q. Were they in Philadelphia?

A. One was in Willingboro, New Jersey, one was in Yeadon, Pennsylvania.

Q. I see. So you were not in Philadelphia but you were in the area?

A. Well, my mother lived there, so I keep that as my address.

Q. I see. Now, you have told us today, sir -- bear with me, please.

All right, you have told us today, sir, that there came a time when you were on the corner of 13th and Locust Street -- I'm sorry -- that you told Detective Green that there was a time when you were on the corner of 13th and Locust Street when you saw a Volkswagen pull up with two men in it; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw a police officer get involved in

Page 263.

William Singletary - Cross

an argument with the driver of that Volkswagen; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And there came a time when another person from that Volkswagen, another person emerged from that Volkswagen?

A. Yes.

Q. The person who had been a passenger?

A. The passenger.

Q. And that you saw that passenger do something to the police officer?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, as I understand it, what you told us today is that you saw that passenger stand behind the police officer when you heard a pop?

A. Yes.

Q. And then you saw him in front of that passenger some two -- in front of that officer some 2 to 5 feet away and you saw him shoot the officer?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was he using to shoot the officer?

A. A small-caliber handgun.

Q. When you say small caliber what do you mean?

A. I don't know the exact caliber, but it was a small handgun.

Page 264.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. Well, did you in fact estimate it to be -- on page 9 -- a small .22, .22 or .25 small handgun?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that what it appeared to you to be?

A. I saw the barrel and that's what I thought it was.

Q. You saw the what?

A. The barrel of the gun.

Q. I'm sorry?

A. I saw the barrel.

Q. You saw the barrel of the gun?

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you, sir. And how close was this tall -- I'm sorry -- how close was this passenger when you heard that first pop?

A. How close was he to me or to the officer?

Q. To the officer.

A. He was near the Volkswagen and the officer was near the wall.

Q. Yes?

A. 10. 10, 12 feet.

Q. And that was the first pop?

A. Yes.

Q. But you then saw a second shot as well; is that right?

Page 265.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. Now, am I correct, Mr. Singletary -- and you could correct me if I am wrong -- you had an opportunity to read this document some three weeks ago -- am I correct that when you gave this statement under oath on August 3lst, 1990, that you made reference to only a single shot fired by the passenger of the Volkswagen?

A. I only saw one shot. I heard two, I only saw one.

Q. Am I correct, sir, that you never made reference in this statement which you gave on August 3lst, 1990 to having heard any shot other than one?

A. I don't recall. I...

Q. Well, I welcome you, sir, to read through it and tell me whether you see any reference. Because I have read it and I see no reference to your hearing any shot other than one single shot, and that's my question?

A. I heard a pop. I ducked for cover. Then I saw the second shot.

Q. Yes, sir.

A. I didn't identify the first pop as being a shot.

Q. Well, let me ask you this, sir, let me ask you

Page 266.

William Singletary - Cross

if you remember saying this. I'll start, sir, just so we have some context, towards, well, about two-thirds of the way down on page 7, where the answer starts. The police officer made the driver get up against the wall, spread eagle, and they had a verbal confrontation between the two of them. Do you see that answer?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are talking about between the driver of the Volkswagen and the police officer there?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the next question was, could you hear what was being said.

And you said yeah -- I'm sorry -- you said most of it, yeah.

The question was can you tell us, and you said, your answer was a lot of obscenities being hollered back and forth between the two of them. The driver of the car, he didn't say a lot, but the police officer used a lot of obscenities. After about maybe two minutes the tall guy emerged from the Volkswagen and said Billy, we don't have to take this. He said we are tired of these FBI dot dot racists and so forth and so on. And he said they burned a newsstand last night and we just finished

Page 267.

William Singletary - Cross

fixing it and we turned it back over. He said we don't have to take this. So the police officer said get back in the car.

Is that what you said when you were interviewed on August 3lst, 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Then the question is, you said that to who.

And your answer was the tall guy.

Question: Okay, what happened then.

Your answer was, the guy reached in his right pocket and pulled out a small handgun and shot the cop in the eye.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And is that how it happened?

A. Well, he shot him in the eye but I'm saying they didn't go into any details, I just told them that they came from that bullet. I didn't see him get shot in the back. I saw him shoot him in the eye.

Page 268.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. Well, is there any reference in what I have just read to the fact that before the tall -- what I just read is that the guy reached in his right pocket and pulled out a small handgun and shot the cop in the eye. Did you say anything about before he did that he was standing behind the officer and I heard a pop and then he came around and he pulled out a handgun and shot him in the eye?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You didn't say that?

A. No.

Q. And there is no reference to that?

A. No.

Q. And in fact, after you gave this statement did someone tell you hey, this guy was shot twice, you're going to have to account for that?

A. I didn't see the shot entering the back, I saw the shot in the face.

Q. Now, the person who shot him in the face, or in the eye, as you said, was this tall guy who had been the passenger in the Volkswagen, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after the officer was shot in the eye, did you hear him say anything?

A. I don't recall.

Page 269.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. Well, do you remember back on August 3lst, 1990 in this statement saying that after the officer was shot in the eye you heard him say some things? Do you remember that?

A. I remember some things that were said but I don't remember what he said.

Q. Well, let me see if I could find it for you, sir. And it becomes a little confusing and apparently you became confused, but let me try to work it out with you.

On page 18 towards the bottom there is a question: Did Mumia say anything to the officer.

And your answer was, before he shot him.

And the question was yes. Before who shot him.

And your answer was, before the officer shot Mumia, he asked him was there anything he could do for him, was there anything he could help you with, you know. The officer was saying something, telling me he wanted me to get Maureen or get the children or something like that. I couldn't make out what he was saying because I don't know Maureen and I don't know nothing about kids.

Does that refresh your recollection?

Page 270.

William Singletary - Cross

A. As to what was said, yes.

Q. Yes. So having read that to you, what was it that you remember hearing the officer say after he was shot in the eye?

A. He was sitting on the ground and he was saying, the guy was asking could I get you some help, could I do anything for you. And he said get Maureen and he mumbled something else and I couldn't make out what it was. I thought it was something about some children or something, I don't know.

Q. What you testified to on August 3lst, 1990 was he said get Maureen or get the children; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, you are certain that this is what he said after he was shot in the eye by this man who was the passenger in the Volkswagen?

A. Yes.

Q. And are you equally certain that this is what the officer said to Mr. Abu-Jamal before Mr. Abu-Jamal was shot?

A. Yes.

Q. So as I understand your testimony, when Mr. Abu-Jamal went up to the officer after the officer was shot by this man in the Volkswagen,

Page 271.

William Singletary - Cross

Mr. Abu-Jamal asked the officer if there was something he could do for him? Yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And the officer who was now shot in the eye, who was on the floor with his back up against the building, asked Mr. Jamal to get Maureen or get the children; is that right?

A. He mumbled something about Maureen and something, I thought like it sounded like kids or children something.

Q. Okay. What I am trying to determine, Mr. Singletary, is these are statements that you heard the officer say to Mr. Jamal; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, do you remember in that same interview... in fact, after that exact answer that I just read to you regarding what the officer said to Mr. Jamal after he was shot in the eye, being asked okay, did the officer say anything to Mumia.

And your answer was after he shot him no.

The question was yes.

No, he didn't. Your answer was no, he didn't, he kind of went back and kind of like dazed off.

Page 272.

William Singletary - Cross

Is that correct?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. And then further down, the question on line 18: So what you meant before was that after the tall man shot the officer, then the officer didn't say anything to Mumia.

Do you see that question there?

A. After the tall guy shot him?

Q. Yes. Line -- I just noticed these lines are numbered. On line 18, the question that begins there.

A. Okay.

Q. So what you meant before was that after the tall man shot the officer, then the officer didn't say anything to Mumia.

And your answer was, Mumia wasn't there then.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. And then the next question: Okay, but afterwards, here is, and I will ask a question, ask a different question because I was obviously confusing you. After the officer was shot did the officer say anything to Mumia.

And the answer is no, he didn't.

Page 273.

William Singletary - Cross

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, which is true, Mr. Singletary, did he say something to Mumia or didn't he say something to Mumia?

A. He did.

Q. He did?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you explain for us, then, why you said in this statement that he didn't?

A. Because I got confused and I told her I was confused asking the same question over and over.

Q. What about the question after the officer was shot did the officer say anything to Mumia confused you?

A. Because the person, Mumia wasn't there. When the officer was shot.

Q. What about the question after the officer was shot did the officer say anything to Mumia did you find confusing?

A. Because he wasn't there.

Q. But you have told us that after the officer was shot the officer did say something to Mumia?

A. This is seconds later.

Q. But you said that he didn't; is that right?

Page 274.

William Singletary - Cross

A. This was seconds later.

Q. Yes, sir. That's not what you said, though, when you were giving this statement under oath on August 3lst, 1990, is it, sir?

A. Well, I don't remember the question exactly. The way she was asking, I got confused during the process.

Q. You got confused about it?

A. As I explained, I couldn't -- I got confused.

(Pause.)

Q. Okay, so as I understand your testimony: You are as certain as you are of everything else that the officer, said these words to Mumia about getting Maureen or getting the children; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are not confused today when you are telling us that?

A. No, I am not.

Q. You are very clear and certain about what you are telling us, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, after the officer said get Maureen or get the children, I understand from your testimony today that the gun on the officer's lap then discharged; is that right?

Page 275.

William Singletary - Cross

A. It was at his lap, yes.

Q. Pardon?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the officer fire the gun?

A. I wasn't standing exactly. I saw the fire coming. I saw the gun leaning on his lap, I saw it had fired going into that direction.

Q. Well, when you say the gun was laying on his lap, was it laying flat on his lap?

A. It was laying like an erection.

Q. It was sort of laying and pointed up?

A. Sort of like.

Q. I see. And the officer, as I understand it, was sitting on the ground?

A. With his back against the wall.

Q. Back up against the wall and his feet, I take it, then were somewhere in front of him?

A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Jamal was at that point standing in front of and over the officer?

A. He was coming towards him.

Q. Right. Now, on page 23, Mr. Singletary, line 18 again. And if you would just take a minute to look at the preceding questions. You're talking about Mumia -- and I assume you were talking about

Page 276.

William Singletary - Cross

Mr. Abu-Jamal when you refer to Mumia; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You are talking about Mumia approaching the police officer after the officer was shot; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And on line 18 you are giving an answer: He said can I help you, and the guy, he didn't say anything. He just laid back, grabbed his gun and fired.

Do you see that, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Is that what you said?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was that correct?

A. As I can remember.

Q. That is correct?

A. As I can remember.

Q. Well, Mr. Singletary, is there anything different about the memory you've got now as opposed to the memory that you had three-and-a-half minutes ago when you told us that when Mumia said to him can I do anything for you he said something about get Maureen or get the children?

A. Yeah.

Page 277.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. There is something?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes?

A. Yes, yes.

Q. What has happened in the last three-and-a-half minutes that has enabled you to remember?

A. The second question she asked me, I'm, when she said did he say anything to him. And he was directed the questioning, I didn't know if he was talking to me because I was peeping over the thing, I didn't know if he was talking to me or the other person.

Q. Which question did you think that she was asking you?

A. She said did he say anything. When she said did he say anything.

Q. What page are you on, sir, that you are referring to?

A. Number 23. 23?

Q. Yes, sir.

A. Yes.

Q. There is no question about him saying anything on that page; that is your answer, Mr. Singletary. There is a question before it: Palms open. And your answer is he said -- referring to Mumia -- can I help

Page 278.

William Singletary - Cross

you. And the guy, he didn't say anything.

Were those your words?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that true?

A. No, it's not true.

Q. Oh, so you were mistaken when you said that?

A. Yes. I told you I was confused when she asked me this question a second time.

Q. She didn't ask you the question, Mr. Singletary. She asked you whether his palms were open; do you see that, sir?

A. Yeah, I do.

Q. But you were confused anyway about whether or not he had said something, is that it?

A. There kind of.

Q. Because she asked you the question more than once? Is that -- beg your pardon. Is that what confused you?

A. The way she was asking it.

Q. Do you tend to get confused if the same question is asked of you more than once?

A. Sometime I do, yes.

Q. Is there anything confusing about the way I am posing questions to you this afternoon?

A. Not yet.

Page 279.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. If at any time you become confused, please let us know, all right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Now, Mumia -- who you described as approaching the officer after the officer was shot in the eye -- do you recall what he was wearing?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And what was he wearing?

A. Safari outfit with canvas shoes.

Q. What do you mean by a safari outfit?

A. It's like the Arabs wear. It's like the Arab people wear.

Q. With the kind of harem pants that are sort of very elastic in the ankle?

A. Yes.

Q. And was it greenish in color, long and flowing?

A. Green and khaki.

Q. And that's what Mr. Jamal was wearing; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Incidentally, the shot that was fired -- I'm sorry -- the shot that was, the discharge of the gun that was on the officer's lap, do I understand you today to tell us that you did not see that?

Page 280.

William Singletary - Cross

A. I saw the flame from the barrel of the gun.

Q. But you didn't see the gun itself fired; is that correct?

A. I saw the flame from the gun.

Q. Okay. But you didn't see the gun itself fired; is that correct?

A. I saw the flame, I just saw the blue flame.

Q. Well, let me ask you this. On page 16, line 12, question: How many shots did the officer fire.

Answer: Only one. Because when he fired the one his hand went down because he didn't have no strength. The cop didn't have no strength left because he had lost blood. So when he fired the one shot, he dropped his hand.

Do you see that, sir?

A. I do, yes.

Q. Did I read that correctly?

A. Yes, you did.

Q. Is that what you said?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Well, does that suggest to you that you saw the hand that fired the shot?

A. I didn't see the gun. I saw the fire from the

Page 281.

William Singletary - Cross

gun.

Q. Well, did you see the cop's hand fall after that shot was fired?

A. I looked, I saw his hand fall down, yes.

Q. And this was after he had gotten the gunshot wound to his eye?

A. Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: The witness is indicating -- does the witness need a break to get up and walk?

THE WITNESS: No, I'm all right. That's all right.

(Pause.)

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Now, after the police officer used all his remaining strength to fire that shot, what happened to the police officer?

A. He was already slumped over, his hand fell, his hand just fell down.

Q. Where were you, sir -- strike that. And what happened to Mumia after that shot was fired?

A. He stumbled backwards, fell against the Volkswagen, against the right rear wheel of the Volkswagen.

Q. And during this period of time, sir, where

Page 282.

William Singletary - Cross

were you?

A. At that point I was standing about by the highspeed line, by the barrier there.

Q. When you say you were standing by the highspeed line, were you on the sidewalk or were you below the level of the sidewalk?

A. I was on the sidewalk; it's like catty-corner from where the officer was lying.

Q. Oh, you were not on the same street?

A. Yes, we were right, I was right there. But it was, I was catty-corner.

Q. Well, how many feet was the officer from you?

A. Uhh... I don't recall.

Q. No?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Well, was it closer than the distance you and I are?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. And was there anything blocking your view of the officer?

A. The barrier from the highspeed line.

Q. Which comes to about waist level?

A. Yes.

Q. So you could -- you were standing, I take it?

A. Yes.

Page 283.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. So you as you were standing could look out all around you in all directions, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you could look out to the parking lot which was diagonally, or which was directly across the street from you?

A. Yes.

Q. And there was no one standing around it, was there?

A. In the parking lot?

Q. Yes.

A. One time there was two guys but they disappeared, I don't know where they went.

Q. Were either of those two guys Mr. Jamal?

A. No.

Q. And obviously if anyone was on any of those corners they would certainly have been able to see you standing where you were because nothing was blocking your body; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. Singletary, as I understand it, you were in the City of Philadelphia or in it's area up until June the 26th, 1982, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you aware at that time that the trial

Page 284.

William Singletary - Cross

against Mr. Abu-Jamal for the murder of Officer Faulkner was taking place?

A. I was.

Q. And I take it it was clear to you that this was a great injustice; isn't that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you certainly did not want to have on your conscience the fact that a grave injustice was being done which you could prevent; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was it, sir, during the trial that you contacted to notify that you could provide this information about this grave injustice?

A. There was no one to contact.

Q. There was no one to contact?

A. No one. I was waiting for a subpoena, they weren't contacting me.

Q. Did you know that the trial was being conducted in City Hall?

A. I had read something.

Q. Did you make an effort to come to City Hall, to walk into the trial?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. And were you aware that Mr. Jamal had an attorney who was also working on his behalf?

Page 285.

William Singletary - Cross

A. No, not at that time.

Q. Did you make any phone calls to find out who the attorney was representing Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes, I talked to several people.

Q. Who did you speak to?

A. Ahh, several people in the political field, I don't recall exactly who it was.

Q. Well, who precisely?

A. Well, Alphonse Deal was one.

Q. I thought you spoke to Mr. Deal the day after you were at the police station?

A. Right, I called Mr. Alphonso after I came back in and I asked why I wasn't subpoenaed.

Q. Alphonso Deal?

A. Yes.

Q. Representative Deal?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you tell Representative Deal that you were an eyewitness and that you knew that Mr. Jamal was innocent?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you tell him that you needed to contact someone so you could let them know that you had this testimony to offer?

A. I did, yes, I did.

Page 286.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. And did he tell you who you could contact?

A. No, he said he would contact someone and get back with me.

Q. Oh. And how long before you left on vacation was it that you told Mr. Deal that?

A. About two weeks.

Q. And did you hear back from him?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. So did you call him again before you left for vacation?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you again tell him I'm preparing to leave but I can provide helpful information in this case?

A. Yes, I did. And I also left a phone number in North Carolina where I could be reached.

Q. And you gave that to Mr. Deal?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you never heard back from him?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Who else did you contact?

A. He was the only one.

Q. Oh, he was the only person?

A. Yes.

Q. All right, but you did not yourself come into

Page 287.

William Singletary - Cross

City Hall to see if you could find the trial yourself?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. You relied upon Mr. Deal to attempt to make those contacts for you?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. How was it you knew Mr. Deal?

A. I knew him as a police officer and I knew him as a State Representative. I knew him as the president of the North Philadelphia branch of the NAACP. And I've known him throughout the years.

Q. And through those organizations, did you try to contact those organizations?

A. I did not.

Q. And say who was representing Mr. Jamal, I must speak to those persons?

A. I relied on him.

Q. Pardon?

A. I relied strictly on him.

Q. You relied on Mr. Deal?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. So as I understand it, sir, you were willing to testify at this trial as to all of the things you have told us today?

A. Yes, I was.

Page 288.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. When you returned from vacation on July the 9th, did you learn that the trial was over?

A. I did.

Q. And I take it you were more than a little disturbed, were you not?

A. I was, yes.

Q. And, well, what did you do then?

A. I talked to some people that I know that was into the Court and different things.

Q. Who?

A. I don't know their names, I don't recall who it was. But a couple people like reporters from the small papers. And they said they would get back with me.

Q. Well, did you write a letter to anybody?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you attempt at that time to contact Mr. Jamal or an attorney on behalf of Mr. Jamal to let them know that you should have been called to trial?

A. I didn't contact anyone. Mr. Deal, Alphonso Deal is the only person I talked to.

Q. Well, did you call Mr. Deal again when you came back from vacation?

A. I went to see him, yes, I did.

Q. And to tell him gee, I never heard from you?

Page 289.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And did he give you the impression that he had told Mr. Jamal's attorney about your availability?

A. He say he didn't have contact, he didn't have time to make contact with anyone.

Q. He didn't have the time?

A. He didn't have any time to make contact.

Q. Did you when you went to see him personally say well give me that attorney's name and number so I could call him and tell him about this horrible injustice that has happened, did you do that?

A. No, I didn't.

Q. Did you in any of your phone conversations with Mr. Deal ask him to give to you the name and the phone number of any attorney or some person who was representing Mr. Jamal?

A. No, I did not.

Q. How is it, sir, that you were located in 1990 for the purpose of giving this statement?

A. From the same people that I contacted in 1981.

Q. Which same people?

A. Reporter for the small paper. Jones, Dale Jones his name is.

Q. And you had continued telling these people?

A. Yes, I did.

Page 290.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. Regularly through the years from 1982?

A. Every chance I got to speak with them, yes.

Q. And how often was that?

A. Every two or three months. Every six months or so.

Q. And did you notify these people by way of any written letters?

A. No.

Q. Only by telephone?

A. Personally, by person.

Q. By person?

A. Yes.

Q. And who are these persons that you notified in person?

A. Ahh, Dale Jones.

Q. Yeah, who is Dale Jones?

A. He is a reporter for a small paper.

Q. Where?

A. In Philadelphia.

Q. Which small paper?

A. Ahh, Scoop Magazine, or Scoop. It is a paper that's circulates, it's bars and stuff.

Q. Okay, who else?

A. And Mr. Deal.

Q. So you continued to contact Mr. Deal?

Page 291.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Every couple of months, whenever you saw him in person?

A. Yes.

Q. So for every couple of months following July 1982, through August 1990, you continued to tell Dale Jones and Mr. Deal that you were an eyewitness to this incident, yes?

A. Well, Mr. Deal passed away so I was still in contact with Mr. Jones.

Q. Oh, I see. When did Mr. Deal pass away?

A. Oh, I don't know. Around '84, '85, I guess.

Q. All right. So since '84 -'85 the only person that you were contacting was Mr. Jones; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you didn't add anybody else to that list of people to contact?

A. No, he kept getting different people for me to talk to but no one would ever -- I never got to speak to anyone. And he would get someone else and then someone else and it kept going on and on.

Q. Did you speak to these persons?

A. No, the only one I spoke to was Miss Wolkenstein.

Page 292.

William Singletary - Cross

Q. And that was on August 3lst, 1990?

A. Exactly.

Q. And during that entire period you never communicated with any person by letter or any other means?

A. No, no.

Q. Now, after Mr. Jamal was shot by Officer Faulkner, my understanding is that's when police cars started arriving; is that right?

A. No.

Q. That's not right? How long did it take police cars to arrive?

A. The cars, it took a few seconds. But there were other officers on the scene.

Q. How did they get there?

A. They came from across the parking lot.

Q. On foot?

A. Yes, captains, lieutenants.

Q. The captains and lieutenants got there before the cars got there?

A. Yes.

Q. And how many captains and lieutenants arrived at the scene before the police cars arrived?

A. I don't recall their number but it was more than, it was more than three. I don't recall an

Page 293.

William Singletary - Cross

exact number.

Q. And from where across the parking lot had they come?

A. I don't know where they came from. They came from across the parking lot, I'm not sure where they came in from.

Q. And they appeared to you to be on foot?

A. Yes, they were on foot.

Q. And after the arrival of approximately three, at least, captains and lieutenants, that was when the first police car arrived; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Oh. And after the first police car arrived there were many others that arrived?

A. Yes.

Q. My understanding from you is that there was also, shortly thereafter there was a helicopter; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. How long after Mr. Jamal was shot was it that the helicopter arrived?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Well, was it within 10 minutes?

A. The whole thing didn't take 10 minutes. It wasn't even 10 minutes, the whole thing wasn't 10

Page 294.

William Singletary - Cross

minutes.

Q. So it was within 10 minutes; is that right? So it was certainly not more than 10 minutes after Mr. Jamal was shot; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Am I correct that the helicopter was hovering overhead directly above this scene where this occurred; is that right?

A. It was circling, it was circling, yes.

Q. Well, it was circling, it was staying right in the area of 13th and Locust?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was shining a floodlight down on that intersection?

A. It was moving, it was moving about.

Q. In the area of the intersection?

A. Yes.

Q. And you looked at the helicopter?

A. I heard the rotors, looked up.

Q. Was it a police helicopter that said Police on it?

A. I didn't look at it to notice.

Q. You didn't notice?

A. I just saw a helicopter.

Q. You saw it and you heard it, I see. Now, as I

Page 295.

William Singletary - Cross

understand it, you then saw police officers take Mr. Jamal and use his body, as you described it, like a battering room; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Were these the lieutenants and captains who did this or were these uniformed police officers?

A. No, uniform, captains and lieutenants, I didn't see them. After they told me detectives was coming they disappeared, I didn't see them anymore.

Q. So they came across the parking lot before the uniformed officers arrived?

A. Yes.

Q. Once the uniformed officers arrived they disappeared?

A. There was a crowd by that time 25, 35 people, so I didn't see them.

Q. All right. While that crowd of 25, 35 people remained there is when Mr. Jamal was picked up and used like a battering room against the back of the police van; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And his body, as you understand it, was propelled into the door of the police van while the door was closed; is that right?

Page 296.

William Singletary - Cross

A. Yes.

Q. And this is a metal vehicle, yes?

A. Yes.

Q. And they were doing it with tremendous force on the body of Mr. Jamal?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes? And as you have already expressed, it was evident to you that it was with sufficient force to crack his skull; is that right?

A. Depending on how hard his head was.

Q. Pardon?

A. It depends on how hard his head was.

Q. Perhaps not crack his skull but certainly cause bruising in that area, would you agree?

A. It's possible, yes.

Q. Well, is it possible that it would not have caused bruising based on the force of the hit that you saw (indicating)?

A. Well, it would have to leave something.

Q. Okay. Now, am I correct, Mr. Singletary, that in addition to the officers using Mr. Jamal like a battering ram, they were also kicking him and beating him?

A. They were kicking him and beating him prior. That's when he was sitting on the ground next to the

Page 297.

William Singletary - Cross

Volkswagen.

Q. Oh, this is before they used him like a battering ram?

A. Yes.

Q. And how were they beating him, sir?

A. With their sticks.

Q. What part of his body were they kicking?

A. His testicles.

Q. How many times did you see him kicked in his testicles?

A. More than three.

Q. And what kind of force were those kicks done with?

A. I didn't measure the force but he was, he was kicked pretty hard.

Q. At least three times?

A. More than three.

Q. More than three.

(Pause.)

Q. And is it my understanding, Mr. Singletary, that after you observed this you went to the Roundhouse, went up to the fifth floor, and hand wrote this event on three occasions for Detective Green?

A. Yes.

Page 298.

William Singletary - Redirect

Q. And you are as sure of that as you are of everything else that you have told us today; is that right?

A. Yes, I am.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

- - - - -

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

- - - - -

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Mr. Singletary, can you endure this for a little while longer?

A. How much longer?

Q. Pardon?

A. How much longer?

Q. Another 10, 15 minutes. Do you want to take a break at this point?

A. No, let's do it.

Q. As I understand your testimony on cross-examination, you told the police that night that you had witnessed two shootings: The shooting of Officer Faulkner and the shooting of Mr. Jamal. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jamal shoot Officer Faulkner?

Page 299.

William Singletary - Redirect

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you see Mr. Jamal with a gun that night?

A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Did you see Officer Faulkner shoot Mr. Jamal?

A. I saw his gun discharge.

Q. Now, on August 3lst, 1990, when you gave the deposition or sworn statement in Marilyn Gelb's office, were you interviewed by Marilyn Gelb before you gave that statement?

A. No.

Q. Did anyone tell you what to say?

A. No.

Q. Before your testimony today did anyone tell you what to say?

A. No, sir.

Q. Going back to December 9th, 1981, when you arrived at the intersection of Locust and 13th, were you driving your Cadillac?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you park at or near the intersection?

A. I parked on the southwest, southwest corner right by the fireplug.

Q. And when you parked your car, did you meet anyone at that time?

A. Young lady dressed with a white fur coat and

Page 300.

William Singletary - Redirect

green slacks.

Q. And did you later find out who that young lady was?

A. I did.

Q. What was her name?

A. Cynthia White.

Q. Did you have a conversation with Cynthia White?

A. I spoke to her.

Q. And how long was that conversation in duration?

A. A couple seconds.

Q. Did you then see, did you then leave that area and go across Locust Street?

A. I did.

Q. And is that when you went to Whispers?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And after you left Whispers did you return to your car?

A. In front of my car, and came back across the street, yes.

Q. When you came back across the street was Cynthia White still there?

A. No, sir, she was down the street, four or five cars.

Page 301.

William Singletary - Redirect

Q. Do you know which street?

A. South on 13th.

Q. And was she alone?

A. She was talking to a guy.

Q. And was it then that you crossed 13th Street to where the speed line is?

A. To, no, that's as the Volkswagen approached.

Q. I see. And as that happened did you see where Cynthia White was?

A. She was gone far down the street.

Q. Was she on that corner with you when you saw the shooting?

A. No, sir.

Q. Did you ever see Cynthia White again after that morning?

A. No, sir.

Q. Now, and you told us you saw Vernon Jones on that corner shortly after the shooting; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And he is a Highway patrolman; is that right?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see the person who shot Officer Faulkner?

A. Yes, I did.

Page 302.

William Singletary - Redirect

Q. Could you describe his hair style, if you can remember?

A. He had long dreadlocks. Extremely long, mixed with black and brown.

Q. Long dreadlocks?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you see what he did after he shot the officer?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. What did he do?

A. He tossed the gun on the right side of the Volkswagen.

Q. And what did he do?

A. He ran east on Locust.

Q. On which side of the street?

A. South side.

Q. And is it your recollection that Mr. Jamal was not present at the scene when the officer was shot?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. Now, was your recollection of the events you saw on the early morning hours on December 9th, 1981 better that morning when you wrote out, hand wrote out the statements than it is today?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And those handwritten statements that you

Page 303.

William Singletary - Redirect

wrote out were torn up?

A. At first it was torn, the rest of it was balled up and threw in the trash.

Q. Have you been able to look at these statements to refresh your recollection as to what you said that morning?

A. Not of what I wrote, no.

Q. So your memory of what you saw that morning, with the passage of 13 years, without being refreshed by what you wrote, is not as good now as it was that morning when you wrote out the statements; is that correct?

A. No, it's not.

Q. And it wasn't as good either on August 3lst, 1990 when you gave your sworn deposition?

A. No, it wasn't.

Q. When you spoke to an Alphonso Deal did he indicate that you should wait to be subpoenaed?

A. That's what he told me, I would be subpoenaed.

Q. And you were expecting to be subpoenaed?

A. I thought I would be, yes.

Q. And you were never subpoenaed?

A. No, I wasn't.

Q. You were subpoenaed you would have testified?

A. Yes, I would have.

Page 304.

William Singletary - Redirect

Q. Incidentally, the aunt, where does your aunt live, the one you referred to in cross-examination?

A. Where does she live now?

Q. No, where did she live in June of 1982?

A. In Logan, in North Philly -- North Philly in Logan.

Q. Here in Philadelphia?

A. Yes.

Q. And where did your mother live in June of 1982?

MS. FISK: Objection.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. I'm sorry, July of 1982?

A. Philadelphia.

MS. FISK: Objection to relevance.

THE COURT: Well, if you don't object fast enough we are going to get these answers in. So I will sustain the objection. I will strike the question, strike the answer.

Now, let's not be rambling all over, Counsel.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Was the reason why you could recall leaving the City on June 26th and returning on July 9th was because you had attended birthday parties both for

Page 305.

William Singletary - Redirect

your aunt and for your mother?

MS. FISK: Objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Objection sustained. Counselor. You testify well but that is not the way to do it. You take the stand like anybody else. Stop leading these witnesses. Please.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Q. Now, on that statement that's before you, the typewritten statement, is there a time indicated as to when that statement was given?

A. I don't see, I don't see a time here.

Q. That box is blank, is it not?

A. Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I may have just a moment.

(Discussion was held off the record at
this time between Defense Counsel.)

(Pause.)

MS. FISK: Your Honor, may I inquire as to whether the Court Officer was able to make the phone call?

(Discussion was held off the record at this time.)

MS. FISK: Thank you.

BY MR. WEINGLASS:

Page 306.

William Singletary - Redirect

Q. Mr. Singletary, irrespective of what door you went into, were you in the Roundhouse on Race Street in the early morning hours of December 9th, 1981?

A. Yes.

Q. And were you in the Roundhouse when you signed the police report which is before you and has been marked as an Exhibit?

A. Yes.

Q. There is no doubt in your mind that you were in the Roundhouse that morning?

A. No.

Q. There is no doubt in your mind that the police questioned you that morning?

A. There's no doubt.

Q. And there is no doubt in your mind that you were there for five hours?

A. There's no doubt.

Q. And there is no doubt in your mind that the statements that you hand wrote were torn up and thrown away?

A. There is no doubt about that.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have nothing further.

- - - - -

RECROSS-EXAMINATION

- - - - -

Page 307.

William Singletary - Recross

BY MS. FISK:

Q. And there is no doubt in your mind that that was the fifth floor that you were on; is that right?

A. I'm not sure which floor.

Q. Oh?

A. The detective pushed the elevator button, I didn't.

Q. Oh, I see. I take it, as I understand your answers to Counsel's questions, your memory about these events was better in 1990 than they are today; is that right?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Q. Because as time passes memories fade; is that right?

A. True.

Q. But would it be correct, then, sir, that on August the 3lst, 1990, your testimony with regard to the shooting of the officer on page 8 was, okay, what happened then, and your answer was the guy reached into his right pocket and pulled out a small handgun and shot the cop in the eye. And you then made reference to the fact that that shooter then fled. That was your best recollection of this incident?

A. That's the way she -- that was the way I

Page 308.

William Singletary - Recross

answered, yes.

MS. FISK: Your Honor, I neglected to have marked these notes of testimony and I would ask at this time that they be marked so that the Court record is complete.

BY MS. FISK:

Q. Because you would agree with me, Mr. Singletary, would you not, that you never under oath on August 3lst, 1990 make reference to any other shot being heard by you directed at the officer, did you, sir?

A. Not to my recollection.

(Copy of transcript was marked
Commonwealth's Exhibit C-l9 for identification.)

THE COURT OFFICER: C-19, Your Honor.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

I have nothing further, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right, I guess they are finished with you.

THE WITNESS: I guess. I hope so. Thank you, sir.

THE COURT: While we are waiting to find out where you are going to go next: This morning we had a representative from the Court Administrator's Office that she said that she

Page 309.

left some notes of testimony here on Wednesday. But she looked around and couldn't find the Officer. I think we do have the Officer.

Would you come up here, please.

THE COURT OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes. This representative from the Court Administrator's Office said she left some notes with you on Wednesday of this week.

THE COURT OFFICER: That is correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: For the record, give us your name so that we will know.

THE COURT OFFICER: Officer Billups.

THE COURT: And what did you do with those notes of testimony?

THE COURT OFFICER: Those notes of testimony, Your Honor, I handed to these two attorneys here at the end of the table (indicating).

THE COURT: And that was on Wednesday?

THE COURT OFFICER: And that was on Wednesday.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: What time of day?

Page 310.

THE COURT OFFICER: That was on Wednesday... about mid-afternoon. We had just gotten back, I believe we had just reconvened from lunch. And I passed them to both Counsel. And as a matter of fact, Counsel took the cover sheet off and opened it up and went through it and then handed it to the young lady there.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. WEINGLASS: The record should reflect that the witness is pointing to the end of the table where --

THE COURT OFFICER: To both Counsel, both Counsel right here.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- Valerie West is seated.

THE COURT: That includes Mr. Williams.

MR. WEINGLASS: Excuse me, Your Honor. On what was just marked, I don't believe that it has the certification page on it. It came right from my files.

THE COURT: Oh.

MS. WOLKENSTEIN: This, I will represent to you, is exactly the same of what you have in the original. Could we just switch

Page 311.

that, is that okay?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE COURT OFFICER: We are marking a new copy, Your Honor, C-15.

THE COURT: All right. Anymore witnesses?

MS. FISK: Yes, Your Honor, I will need to contact Detective Quinn and I will present him to the Court. I am hopeful that he will be available for Monday. I understand that Detective E. Quinn who took Mr. Singletary's statement is currently detailed to the FBI. And detectives while we've been here this afternoon have been making efforts to contact him. They understand that he is working and are not able to hear from him. And we will continue making those efforts over the weekend so we could present him for the Court.

THE COURT: All right, then we will adjourn until Monday morning.

MS. FISK: Thank you, sir.

MR. WEINGLASS: I have Counsel present and I have been given a copy of --

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. WEINGLASS: -- something that's

Page 312.

called Contempt of Court.

THE COURT: Right.

MR. WEINGLASS: And the Court has underlined three times the word forthwith with a --

THE COURT: I didn't underline forthwith.

THE COURT CLERK: I did.

MR. WEINGLASS: Someone did.

THE COURT CLERK: I did.

THE COURT: Forthwith. Will you tell him where he goes to pay the fine?

MR. WEINGLASS: Pardon?

THE COURT: I am asking the Court Clerk to tell you where to go to pay the fine. All right, we will put off until Monday to pay that fine.

MR. WEINGLASS: Mr. Rudovsky is here.

THE COURT: Mr. Rudovsky is here. I held you in contempt, it was right in the presence of the Court and that's it. 685 on Monday, pay the fine. If you want to appeal it you appeal it, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: If I don't pay the

Page 313.

fine?

THE COURT: Then I'll put you in jail, okay.

MR. WEINGLASS: As long as that's understood.

THE COURT: Oh, that's understood.

MR. WEINGLASS: Your Honor, my Counsel can not appear here today on my behalf.

THE COURT: He could appear wherever he wants. He wasn't here when you committed the contempt. It was in front of this Court.

MR. WEINGLASS: I am not calling him as a witness, I am calling him as a lawyer.

THE COURT: What is your problem, Counselor? He committed --

MR. RUDOVSKY: I don't have a problem.

THE COURT: He committed a contempt in the Court.

MR. RUDOVSKY: I am here to represent Mr. Weinglass. And I don't have a problem and I would ask the Court not assume that because I came to represent Mr. Weinglass that I have some kind of problem. I don't have a problem.

THE COURT: Well, I don't know, but let me say this to you: I held him in contempt

Page 314.

for what he did in front of the Court. I fined him $1,000, payable forthwith. They are closed, they will open up on Monday. He has to go in there and pay the fine of a thousand dollars.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Could I ask you to reconsider that, Your Honor?

THE COURT: No, I am not reconsidering it, Counselor, that's it. All right.

MR. RUDOVSKY: You will not let me be heard as to --

THE COURT: What do you want to do? Go ahead.

MR. RUDOVSKY: I would like a hearing before --

THE COURT: You don't get a hearing when you have a contempt in front of the Court. You have a right to appeal, now take an appeal.

MR. RUDOVSKY: We will do that if necessary, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It is going to be necessary. Because I held him in contempt, a thousand dollars. That's it, all right. See you on Monday.

MR. RUDOVSKY: Your Honor, if I can be heard on that, I would ask that the matter of

Page 315.

contempt be referred to another judge.

THE COURT: No, I am not referring it to another judge because it was contempt in my presence, period.

MR. RUDOVSKY: It was done, as I understand, during an argument over Exhibits.

THE COURT: No, it was done because I told him what -- the notes will tell you what it was all about. If you want to order the notes, order the notes and you'll have it.

MR. WEINGLASS: It was done after I indicated that I wished the Court --

THE COURT: Counselor, the notes will tell you what happened.

MR. WEINGLASS: I was indicating to the Court not to point a finger at me.

THE COURT: If you want to take an appeal you take an appeal. That's all for now. It's 5:30. Good night, gentlemen. See you on Monday.

MR. WEINGLASS: The Court is leaving the bench.

THE COURT: What do you think I am going to do. It's 5:30, I don't get paid overtime.

Page 316.

THE COURT OFFICER: This Court stands adjourned until Monday morning, the Call of the Crier.)

- - - - -

(The hearing was adjourned for the day at 5:30 p.m.)

- - - - -

I hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the notes taken by me on the trial of the above cause, and that this copy is a correct transcript of the same.

Official Stenographer

Date


The foregoing record of the proceedings upon the trial of the above cause is hereby approved and directed to be filed.

Judge